U.S. blocks Turkey's F-35 equipment over S-400 deal with Russia

[Fu Talk]

Once again, you have demonstrated absolutely no understanding of the actual nature of the Iraqi military and it's performance between 1980-2003.

Iraqi military forces were largely incompetent and failed to show any meaningful improvement in tactical capabilities despite 10 years of war.

Iraq was 1 nation. Nato was many nations.
1 Nation cannot win a war solo against NATO.
If the USA was fighting Iraq alone. That would be another story.
But it was NATO that fought Iraq. Not USA alone you understand.

And also there is big big misunderstanding regarding Lybia. First of all. The United States did not remove Ghadaffi. It was Norway under the order of USA that destroyed Lybia.
Norway Destroyed Libya: How the "Peaceful" Countries Wage War Too

This is Norway. While the Norwegian military are slaughtering Libyans. The Norwegians lives in peaces and celebrates their kingdom every year.




Let me give you a clear list.
USA + NATO destroyed Iraq.
Saudi Arabia + USA destroy Yemen.
Norway destroy Libya.
USA + Kurds destroy Syria.

Norway is small but powerful nation. And has destroyed many Muslim nations by the order of United States.

 

[Fledermaus]

Iraq was 1 nation. Nato was many nations.
1 Nation cannot win a war solo against NATO.
If the USA was fighting Iraq alone. That would be another story.
But it was NATO that fought Iraq. Not USA alone you understand.

And also there is big big misunderstanding regarding Lybia. First of all. The United States did not remove Ghadaffi. It was Norway under the order of USA that destroyed Lybia.
Norway Destroyed Libya: How the "Peaceful" Countries Wage War Too

This is Norway. While the Norwegian military are slaughtering Libyans. The Norwegians lives in peaces and celebrates their kingdom every year.




Let me give you a clear list.
USA + NATO destroyed Iraq.
Saudi Arabia + USA destroy Yemen.
Norway destroy Libya.
USA + Kurds destroy Syria.

Norway is small but powerful nation. And has destroyed many Muslim nations by the order of United States.

Wow.... All that WRONG in a single post.

19 nations contributed to the overthrow of Gaddafi to include 4 NON-NATO nations. Jordan, Qatar, Sweden and the UAE.

Norway hasn't "destroyed" any nation since the Vikings...

 

[Fu Talk]

Wow.... All that WRONG in a single post.

19 nations contributed to the overthrow of Gaddafi to include 4 NON-NATO nations. Jordan, Qatar, Sweden and the UAE.

Norway hasn't "destroyed" any nation since the Vikings...

Oh really because I am Nordic origin. I speak Danish, Swedish and Norwegian. Then can you please tell me why Norwegian media says Norway used 600 bombs on Lybia.

Norge slapp nesten 600 bomber over Libya i 2011 – na skal innsatsen granskes - Aftenposten


According to the Norwegian media. Norway killed about 90000 civilians in Libya.
You call yourself Libertarian. So far you have written ZERO ARGUMENTS.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

God you are practically incoherent.

Fixed-wing gunships are worthless free kills to anyone with the most rudimentary of anti-air weapons. AC-130s are strictly limited to night operations, and in the Gulf War one died ignominiously to a SA-7, a 1960s uncooled IR MANPADS that stopped being a threat to real combat aircraft in the mid-70s.

Against modern day air defense systems you either need to be fast or stealthy. That's why attack helos are being built by everyone but fixed wing gunships are largely legacy stuff from the 70s. The A-10 is old and the USAF realizes it would be gutted by modern IADS.

Low and slow is how you get shot down these days. Modern SAM systems have shown repeatedly the only reliable methods to avoid being shot down is extremely fast or stealth.

Attack choppers are neither fast nor stealthy. They fly close to the ground and risk getting hit from ground fire just as much as the A10 would

 

[Fledermaus]

Oh really because I am Nordic origin. I speak Danish, Swedish and Norwegian. Then can you please tell me why Norwegian media says Norway used 600 bombs on Lybia.

Norge slapp nesten 600 bomber over Libya i 2011 – na skal innsatsen granskes - Aftenposten


According to the Norwegian media. Norway killed about 90000 civilians in Libya.
You call yourself Libertarian. So far you have written ZERO ARGUMENTS.

WTF are you babbling about.

600 bombs were dropped.

Unless they were nukes 90,000 is a ridiculous number...

Please fail again.


EDITED TO ADD - I read the article. Where did you get "90,000"?

 

[Fu Talk]

Let me tell you something about Norway. Norway Prime minister Jens Stoltenberg made a deal with Barack Obama. If Norway removed Ghadaffi. Jens Stoltenberg would receive a promotion in NATO. And he received it. The Norwegian media discovered this deal in 2013.

This is Jens Stoltenberg. He is now head chief secretary of NATO.




Jens Stoltenberg was also the Norwegian prime minister that ordered the Norwegian attack on Libya.
The deal was. If Jens Stoltenberg attacked Libya. He would get a promotion by Barack Obama. And it all happened as discovered and uncovered by Norwegian media.

 

[Fu Talk]

WTF are you babbling about.

600 bombs were dropped.

Unless they were nukes 90,000 is a ridiculous number...

Please fail again.

I will now block you. Because I see that you are just trolling. You are not interested in any discussion and you have ZERO ARGUMENTS.

 

[Fledermaus]

I will now block you. Because I see that you are just trolling. You are not interested in any discussion and you have ZERO ARGUMENTS.

You are blocking me because I expose your lies.

 

[Fledermaus]

Let me tell you something about Norway. Norway Prime minister Jens Stoltenberg made a deal with Barack Obama. If Norway removed Ghadaffi. Jens Stoltenberg would receive a promotion in NATO. And he received it. The Norwegian media discovered this deal in 2013.

This is Jens Stoltenberg. He is now head chief secretary of NATO.




Jens Stoltenberg was also the Norwegian prime minister that ordered the Norwegian attack on Libya.
The deal was. If Jens Stoltenberg attacked Libya. He would get a promotion by Barack Obama. And it all happened as discovered and uncovered by Norwegian media.

How can a US President "promote" a Norwegian Prime Minister?

 

[Fu Talk]

You are blocking me because I expose your lies.

You say Norway did not attack Libya. I just proved you wrong. Now you are blocked.
And you are just trolling. ZERO ARGUMENTS.

 

[Fledermaus]

Attack choppers are neither fast nor stealthy. They fly close to the ground and risk getting hit from ground fire just as much as the A10 would

Slow and noisy...

 

[Fledermaus]

You say Norway did not attack Libya. I just proved you wrong. Now you are blocked.
And you are just trolling. ZERO ARGUMENTS.

Why lie?

You said Norway DESTROYED Libya.

Norway didn't DESTROY Libya.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Slow and noisy...

Actually, what most people are completely missing is that the desert is not the terrain that either Helicopters (like the Cobra or Apache), nor the A-10 were designed to operate in.

All of these aircraft were designed to operate in Central Europe. A terrain with trees and mountains, and these aircraft would operate using these kinds of terrain features in order to mask their approach and protect them from hostile fire.

In places like Afghanistan they can do that, because the terrain is much more mountainous than it is in Iraq. Where it is almost pool table flat in most places. In Afghanistan they can fly low through a ravine or behind a mountain, pop up and engage, then move out of sight again. Just as they were intended to do. In Iraq, they were seen from a long distance away which made them greater targets.

This is a problem I see all to often in the armchair generals. They only see things as if there is only one concern in the world. Neglecting that there are a large variety of terrain and conditions in which we may fight, and not all equipment works perfect in all locations.

In the Middle East, the A-10 is alright. In say West Germany and Poland (where it was designed to operate), it would have done exceptionally well. The same with the helicopters.

Hard to take a shot at an AH-64 APACHE when you can hear it hovering somewhere to the North-East, but have absolutely no idea where because it is hidden behind 75 meters of trees. And you can tell that many in here have never actually had to locate and track a helicopter from the ground. It can actually be rather tricky, especially if they are using the terrain to cover their approach. They don't come screaming in with their hazard lights flashing, a nice white to contrast with everything around them. They are a dirty tan-green, which makes it harder to pick them out from 500 meters away when you may only get a glimpse of them here and there.

 

[Fledermaus]

Actually, what most people are completely missing is that the desert is not the terrain that either Helicopters (like the Cobra or Apache), nor the A-10 were designed to operate in.

All of these aircraft were designed to operate in Central Europe. A terrain with trees and mountains, and these aircraft would operate using these kinds of terrain features in order to mask their approach and protect them from hostile fire.

In places like Afghanistan they can do that, because the terrain is much more mountainous than it is in Iraq. Where it is almost pool table flat in most places. In Afghanistan they can fly low through a ravine or behind a mountain, pop up and engage, then move out of sight again. Just as they were intended to do. In Iraq, they were seen from a long distance away which made them greater targets.

This is a problem I see all to often in the armchair generals. They only see things as if there is only one concern in the world. Neglecting that there are a large variety of terrain and conditions in which we may fight, and not all equipment works perfect in all locations.

In the Middle East, the A-10 is alright. In say West Germany and Poland (where it was designed to operate), it would have done exceptionally well. The same with the helicopters.

Hard to take a shot at an AH-64 APACHE when you can hear it hovering somewhere to the North-East, but have absolutely no idea where because it is hidden behind 75 meters of trees. And you can tell that many in here have never actually had to locate and track a helicopter from the ground. It can actually be rather tricky, especially if they are using the terrain to cover their approach. They don't come screaming in with their hazard lights flashing, a nice white to contrast with everything around them. They are a dirty tan-green, which makes it harder to pick them out from 500 meters away when you may only get a glimpse of them here and there.

I agree with the above. Most my time in helicopters was in desert. We would feel/hear the thhumping of blades long before visual. Once you had visual it was relatively easy to track. Even the most daring helo pilot has to remember... "Contact with the ground has a PK of 1.00"

An added bonus to desert Ops. Heat. There were times we aborted logistics runs due to Temps that would not allow us through certain passes. Our UH-1s were the worst. Having to skip bump down the runway to pick up speed.before lifting off.

 

[Oozlefinch]

I agree with the above. Most my time in helicopters was in desert. We would feel/hear the thhumping of blades long before visual. Once you had visual it was relatively easy to track. Even the most daring helo pilot has to remember... "Contact with the ground has a PK of 1.00"

An added bonus to desert Ops. Heat. There were times we aborted logistics runs due to Temps that would not allow us through certain passes. Our UH-1s were the worst. Having to skip bump down the runway to pick up speed.before lifting off.

That is the thing. With my time in the Marines, I operated in a great many different conditions.

In Panama or Okinawa? Oh hell no! Helicopter overhead, you run and hug the base of the nearest tree because that is the only shelter you got if you are on patrol. You will absolutely never see the thing, and you know he might be tracking you through IR or radio reception. Sure he will likely not get many of you if he starts throwing missiles in blindly, but it is still not anything you ever want to experience. And there are so many mountains that they can also hide behind those also, only popping up on occasion to pin down where you are.

Same at Camp Lejeune in North Carolina. On Patrol you hug the treelines, staying out of the open fields. If the helicopter appears on the other side of a half mile clearing you have a good chance if you got a MANPAD to hit him before he gets you. If you hear it coming from behind you, get back in the trees and hide. You ain't gonna see him, but he is likely tracking you.

Yuma and Camp Pendleton were both very similar. Scrub desert, absolutely nothing to hide behind. But goodness the terrain is mountainous and clear line of sight beyond 5 miles is rare. Can hear the things a long ways away, and you just KNOW he is hiding behind that ridgeline as 120 degrees. But you can not tell exactly where, and he could very well be moving in a completely different direction. And even more fun, they often "hunt" in teams, so while you are concentrating on one, and other is coming form a completely different direction. Even more fun when the echos play tricks, and the one you are tracking is much further away than it sounds, and you miss the one sneaking up from behind.

All 21 years of my time was on the ground. And as such we have a healthy respect, and even fear of helicopters. I still remember my time working with a Marine LAAD team, and the fear when an Mi-24 HIND appears and tears in a straight line for one of our PATRIOT batteries. Yes, it is only an exercise - but damn those things put the fear of the afterlife into you.

 

[Fledermaus]

That is the thing. With my time in the Marines, I operated in a great many different conditions.

In Panama or Okinawa? Oh hell no! Helicopter overhead, you run and hug the base of the nearest tree because that is the only shelter you got if you are on patrol. You will absolutely never see the thing, and you know he might be tracking you through IR or radio reception. Sure he will likely not get many of you if he starts throwing missiles in blindly, but it is still not anything you ever want to experience. And there are so many mountains that they can also hide behind those also, only popping up on occasion to pin down where you are.

Same at Camp Lejeune in North Carolina. On Patrol you hug the treelines, staying out of the open fields. If the helicopter appears on the other side of a half mile clearing you have a good chance if you got a MANPAD to hit him before he gets you. If you hear it coming from behind you, get back in the trees and hide. You ain't gonna see him, but he is likely tracking you.

Yuma and Camp Pendleton were both very similar. Scrub desert, absolutely nothing to hide behind. But goodness the terrain is mountainous and clear line of sight beyond 5 miles is rare. Can hear the things a long ways away, and you just KNOW he is hiding behind that ridgeline as 120 degrees. But you can not tell exactly where, and he could very well be moving in a completely different direction. And even more fun, they often "hunt" in teams, so while you are concentrating on one, and other is coming form a completely different direction. Even more fun when the echos play tricks, and the one you are tracking is much further away than it sounds, and you miss the one sneaking up from behind.

All 21 years of my time was on the ground. And as such we have a healthy respect, and even fear of helicopters. I still remember my time working with a Marine LAAD team, and the fear when an Mi-24 HIND appears and tears in a straight line for one of our PATRIOT batteries. Yes, it is only an exercise - but damn those things put the fear of the afterlife into you.

One of the scariest and most awesome moments was when we set up Smoky SAMs a bit out of the normal area. We fired one off at an approaching CH-53 who then broke left.... When he should have broke right. Almost took out his wingman. The combination of emotions all hitting in succession was awesome. Damn that's cool. We caught them napping. Oh **** they are going to hit. Thank God they didn't. Let's shoot more!

 

[Jredbaron96]

Attack choppers are neither fast nor stealthy. They fly close to the ground and risk getting hit from ground fire just as much as the A10 would

Stealth in this case doesn't mean radar absorbing material, I'm talking basically being sneaky; that is something an attack helicopter has a major advantage in, by flying at treetop heights and hiding behind hills and lofting their weapons over so that they can't be targeted directly, then they can mop up anything that's left that has no effective means of fighting back. Not only does an attack helicopter, like say the Apache, carry more weapons than the A-10, it's also a more flexible platform.

The A-10 was made with strafing in mind, when strafing proved to be poorly conceived strategy, the A-10 already in service which is why it's fitted with guided missile system.

It was an obsolete platform before it even rolled out. That's not saying the A-10 is useless or should be immediately gotten rid of with no questions asked, it clearly has found a nice niche role for COIN operations. But let's not pretend like it's the ultimate badass platform that will never be challenged.

 

[Jredbaron96]

Norway is small but powerful nation. And has destroyed many Muslim nations by the order of United States.

dude wtf are you talking about

 

[beerftw]

Low and slow is how you get shot down these days. Modern SAM systems have shown repeatedly the only reliable methods to avoid being shot down is extremely fast or stealth.

The problem is you say that but american systems have not really tangled with any sam systems worth noting since vietnam, and the last major enemy we fought with sam systems relied heavily on french sam systems which magically stopped working when us forces invaded(maybe this is why countries keep shifting from western gear, it bit saddam in the ass and many fear anything western can be remotely turned off). Even to this day israel brags about how they can defeat sam sites yet mostly operate in lebanon rather than actually flying over syria using missiles instead. They lost one f-16 to the ancient s-200 system, and they even created much speculation when syria claimed they hit an israeli jet during a raid with the s-200 and the same day israel said an f-35 was severely damaged by a stork in a training excercise but also claimed no syrian missiles hit any of their jets.

But the latter is speculation since no proof exists and likely never will unless someone had a camera recording it or israel somehow admits it happened. However on the sam subject the best ways to avoid them are to fly under the radar, avoid the sam site and it's range, or uncover the depth of the site and systematically take them out. The last viable option is simply to overwhelm it as sam sites can only target and retaliate against so much, and launching more missiles than they can stop can effectively destroy them without even using radiation guided missiles.

 

[beerftw]

Attack choppers are neither fast nor stealthy. They fly close to the ground and risk getting hit from ground fire just as much as the A10 would

Helicopters are actually very stealthy vs sam sites, they can fly below the radar by exploiting terrain unless the enemy has awacs or major ground based radars on high positions. Besides that they can pop up and attack very quickly and drop back below the radar.

Russian systems like the pantsir s-1 were made for attack helicopters and cruise missiles, and russia would not waste money on something they did not deem a credible threat. The s-1 is designed to protect the sam sites, as a helicopter could hide behind terrain, pop up attack and drop down again before the sam launcher could even target them, so they designed a system for fast moving low flying targets.

 

[beerftw]

Incompetent and poorly maintained Iraqi Air Defenses are hardly a qualifier when compared to actually competent trained crews manning modern air defense systems. The armor on the A-10 is designed to protect it against flak, not missiles. It was well established by the Air Force that in the event of a conflict with a peer opponent fielding modern SAMs that the A-10 would've suffered very heavy losses.

That doesn't mean the A-10 is useless or a ****ty plane. At the time it was built Soviet tactical air defenses consisted mainly of SPAAGs and it was therefore expected that it would be the most common ground based threat the A-10 would face. It just so happened that by the time the A-10 entered widespread service the Soviets had made the doctrinal and technological switch of supplying their tactical elements with SAMs.

The a-10 was not designed with fighting soviet ground forces in mind, it was built with cas in mind as a replacement for the a-1 skyraider which unleashed hell on vietnam and the a-7 which was short lived as cas due to costs. The a-10 was actually even designed to perform roles similar to the il-2 russian ww2 plane, as america never had a dedicated ground up cas, while russia had the famous il-2 in ww2 and germ`any had their own cas as well, the brits and the americans used modded planes for cas roles rater than dedicated ones.

Even the famous skyraider was a modded ww2 plane that was a piston pounder for ww2 but never saw action in ww2, and was modded for a cas role. It had the great ability though to carry a buttload of weapons, and have a high loiter time.


Fyi calling the a-10 outdated based off airforce standards is a bad call. The same airforce called dogfights and guns on planes obsolete in the 50's and 60's, and they proved themselves wrong then, they have a bad history of being wrong at every turn and designing aircraft and doctrine around the wars they want to fight rather than the wars they will fight. In vietnam they had to start the top gun program to train in dogfighting because they airforce blundered so bad in their judgement. They have tried to remove the a-10 since it's creation but in every conflict they have proven to be too great an asset to lose, so even on the a-10 the airforce has been wrong for decades, actual conditions for wars define what is needed, not what some bigwigs wish war should be.

 

[Jredbaron96]

The problem is you say that but american systems have not really tangled with any sam systems worth noting since vietnam

This isn't unique to America. Russia had the same problem in Georgia, and Ukraine had the same problem in Donbass.

 

[Jredbaron96]

Fyi calling the a-10 outdated based off airforce standards is a bad call. The same airforce called dogfights and guns on planes obsolete in the 50's and 60's,

The vulnerability of CAS aircraft and fixed wing gunships is not something that America alone has discovered.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

Helicopters are actually very stealthy vs sam sites, they can fly below the radar by exploiting terrain unless the enemy has awacs or major ground based radars on high positions. Besides that they can pop up and attack very quickly and drop back below the radar.

Russian systems like the pantsir s-1 were made for attack helicopters and cruise missiles, and russia would not waste money on something they did not deem a credible threat. The s-1 is designed to protect the sam sites, as a helicopter could hide behind terrain, pop up attack and drop down again before the sam launcher could even target them, so they designed a system for fast moving low flying targets.

Operationally they can be stealthy, flying low and close to the ground, using terrain as cover. The A10 generally would be doing something similar, but of course at a higher altitude. The S400 would I expect not be able to target the A10 flying in such a way.


So yes I agree with you. My main point was to point out the issue Jred has with the A10, generally applies to attack helicopters as well. Both the A10 an helicopters have to operate low and close to the ground to be effective, and gain benefits and some negatives from that. Neither are functionally stealth craft designed for the craft to evade radar, but to use the terrain to do so. The A10, is faster and more survivable than attack choppers, but fly higher and can not do pop up attacks

 

[Jredbaron96]

Operationally they can be stealthy, flying low and close to the ground, using terrain as cover. The A10 generally would be doing something similar, but of course at a higher altitude. The S400 would I expect not be able to target the A10 flying in such a way.


So yes I agree with you. My main point was to point out the issue Jred has with the A10, generally applies to attack helicopters as well. Both the A10 an helicopters have to operate low and close to the ground to be effective, and gain benefits and some negatives from that. Neither are functionally stealth craft designed for the craft to evade radar, but to use the terrain to do so. The A10, is faster and more survivable than attack choppers, but fly higher and can not do pop up attacks

Not really. The A10's problem, as with all fixed wing aircraft, comes down to thrust and power. An S-400 could destroy an A-10, just like a Buk or Kub could. The A-10 is not really more survivable than an attack helicopter given the proliferation of SAMs and MANPADs, of which the A-10s armor offers no real protection against. The A-10 may be faster than an attack helicopter, but it's no where near fast enough to avoid missiles.

Again, the A-10 isn't a useless piece of crap; but it was built for a different era with a different doctrine, one that was later proved to be invalid and infeasible. It found a role in COIN operations, but there's a very good reason the USAF wants to get rid of the A-10, and a very good reason why nearly every major power in the world pursues attack helicopters and not fixed wing gunships.