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

[beerftw]

Every single branch has their stupid moments, from the US Army and their cult of the rifleman, or not creating a squad centered on a machine gun, or the Navy and their transformative battlespace, and so on and so forth. Your points about Iraq and Afghanistan are null.

Why would the army need a squad centered around a machine gun? They have been crew serve in common use since ww2.

But on the airforce their stupid moments went nonstop since vietnam, they have proven to have no care for ground troops and considered fast moving high flying aircraft as their only priority putting their own preferences ahead of the needs of the military. Hell if the airforce was in charge of all attack helicopters they probably would have ended those as well, because they were not high and fast flying jets.

 

[Jredbaron96]

Why would the army need a squad centered around a machine gun? They have been crew serve in common use since ww2.

Not having American squads equipped with a machine gun left them heavily outgunned at the squad level against their German counterparts.

But on the airforce their stupid moments went nonstop since vietnam, they have proven to have no care for ground troops and considered fast moving high flying aircraft as their only priority putting their own preferences ahead of the needs of the military. Hell if the airforce was in charge of all attack helicopters they probably would have ended those as well, because they were not high and fast flying jets.

:roll:

Not a single branch of the United States military hasn't made massive **** ups.

 

[beerftw]

Tank hunters never even came close to achieving the success they claimed.



It's the air force who had their fixed wing gunships shot down and realized how vulnerable they are.

Tank hunters are not what cas is, you again put in something not cas as a requisite for cas. The anti tank roles were mostly pushed by the russians with their cas in ww2, which the cannon was too weak to do much, however their planes had enough fire to scare tank formations and cause them to scatter benefitting russian ground troops.


The airforce has lost plenty of many aircraft, the a-10 by combat history actually fairs better than most aircraft even though it is operating in the most hostile environments. The airforce is simply oblivious to ground troops, actually I should not say that they have admitted many times in the past the a-10 takes away funds from other programs like the f-35 as well as trained pilots, so they are just putting their own interests over the ground troops and the military as a whole which is why congress had to force them to keep the a-10 program.

 

[Jredbaron96]

Tank hunters are not what cas is, you again put in something not cas as a requisite for cas. The anti tank roles were mostly pushed by the russians with their cas in ww2, which the cannon was too weak to do much, however their planes had enough fire to scare tank formations and cause them to scatter benefitting russian ground troops.

Now you're just jumping from point to point. We're talking about Americans here.

The airforce has lost plenty of many aircraft, the a-10 by combat history actually fairs better than most aircraft even though it is operating in the most hostile environments. The airforce is simply oblivious to ground troops, actually I should not say that they have admitted many times in the past the a-10 takes away funds from other programs like the f-35 as well as trained pilots, so they are just putting their own interests over the ground troops and the military as a whole which is why congress had to force them to keep the a-10 program.

No it doesn't.

 

[beerftw]

Not having American squads equipped with a machine gun left them heavily outgunned at the squad level against their German counterparts.



:roll:

Not a single branch of the United States military hasn't made massive **** ups.

American squads were equipped with machine guns, this is different from a machine gun squad which focuses on them. Modern warfare has shown machine guns are more a waste of ammo than a benefit, which is why they moved to crew serve weapons and moved to semi auto for infantry as the main weapon vs an automatic rifle or simply issuing heavy machine guns to all.


All branches have, only the air force has done it non stop since vietnam.

 

[beerftw]

Now you're just jumping from point to point. We're talking about Americans here.



No it doesn't.

No I am demanding cas role be used for cas, you are the one who keeps shifting roles to attempt to counter my argument, tank killer forward assault forward ground assault etc are not roles of cas, yet you keep constantly using them as examples knowing full well they are outside the scope and design of cas as an argument against a cas aircraft.


The total number is around 7 a-10's lost in combat, other aircraft have suffered far more, apaches b-52 etc and I can name many, heck the f-4 got it'ss ass handed to it in vietnam using the same principles you want now for aircraft, it only reversed the trend when pilots were trained to dodge sams and dogfight vertically instead of horizontally and started putting cannons back in them.

 

[Jredbaron96]

American squads were equipped with machine guns, this is different from a machine gun squad which focuses on them. Modern warfare has shown machine guns are more a waste of ammo than a benefit, which is why they moved to crew serve weapons and moved to semi auto for infantry as the main weapon vs an automatic rifle or simply issuing heavy machine guns to all.

I was talking about WWII. Maybe pay attention next time.

All branches have, only the air force has done it non stop since vietnam.

Oh give me a break.

 

[Jredbaron96]

No I am demanding cas role be used for cas, you are the one who keeps shifting roles to attempt to counter my argument, tank killer forward assault forward ground assault etc are not roles of cas, yet you keep constantly using them as examples knowing full well they are outside the scope and design of cas as an argument against a cas aircraft.

You're just tossing out terms with no idea what they mean. This already incoherent argument has only gotten worse.

The total number is around 7 a-10's lost in combat, other aircraft have suffered far more, apaches b-52 etc and I can name many, heck the f-4 got it'ss ass handed to it in vietnam using the same principles you want now for aircraft, it only reversed the trend when pilots were trained to dodge sams and dogfight vertically instead of horizontally and started putting cannons back in them.

Did the A-10 face North Vietnamese air defenses? No? Then that's a pointless comparison.

 

[beerftw]

I was talking about WWII. Maybe pay attention next time.




Oh give me a break.

If only we could keep fighting ww2

 

[Jredbaron96]

If only we could keep fighting ww2

If only you actually paid attention.

 

[beerftw]

You're just tossing out terms with no idea what they mean. This already incoherent argument has only gotten worse.




Did the A-10 face North Vietnamese air defenses? No? Then that's a pointless comparison.

It is not an incoherant argument, it is pitting an aircraft against what it was designed to do which you refuse and instead want to pit it against roles it was never designed for.

The a-10 was only used as a prototype in vietnam, the final version was not made until that war was over, the a-1 however was used frequently in vietnam and even operating in such environments, it was nicknamed spad sandy etc and even won dogfights against superior aircraft like migs. Given the ww2 era a-1 was able to do it, it should be a given the post vietnam a-10 should be ahead of that so yes it is a very valid comparison unless you consider the fact the airforce was so wrong they had to resort to piston pounders from ww2 for cas to be invalid as well.

 

[beerftw]

If only you actually paid attention.

I pay attention quite well, however german machine guns in ww2 was only relevant in ww2, and even this superior firepower lost them the war, so maybe you should consider that the army considered more than simple firepower, such as mobility and maneuverability in an assault as well as logistics.

 

[Jredbaron96]

It is not an incoherant argument, it is pitting an aircraft against what it was designed to do which you refuse and instead want to pit it against roles it was never designed for.

The a-10 was only used as a prototype in vietnam, the final version was not made until that war was over, the a-1 however was used frequently in vietnam and even operating in such environments, it was nicknamed spad sandy etc and even won dogfights against superior aircraft like migs. Given the ww2 era a-1 was able to do it, it should be a given the post vietnam a-10 should be ahead of that so yes it is a very valid comparison unless you consider the fact the airforce was so wrong they had to resort to piston pounders from ww2 for cas to be invalid as well.

Your inability to recognize how the rise of SAMs have changed the nature of CAS is why you're consistently failing at this debate.

 

[Jredbaron96]

I pay attention quite well, however german machine guns in ww2 was only relevant in ww2, and even this superior firepower lost them the war, so maybe you should consider that the army considered more than simple firepower, such as mobility and maneuverability in an assault as well as logistics.

This wasn't an argument on whether the German Army was better, it was pointing out the fact that other branches make mistakes as well.

 

[Oozlefinch]

I am finding this conversation rather interesting, but as usual it tends to only cover a fraction of actual information available.

First of all, the A-10 is not the only "Attack Aircraft" in the US inventory, and the "USAF" is not the only air service in the US military. And a reasonable discussion of t6he needs of CAS can not be conducted in a vacuum while ignoring the other Attack Aircraft.

And yes, we have 2 others that the Air Force does not have.

First, the AV8B Harrier. This is exclusive to the Marine Corps, and it's primary role is that of CAS during hostile beach landings. The CAP role is a very distant secondary, and only because it really sucks as a fighter, but it is better than no fighter if some come in to attack the amphibs.

Then you have the F/A-18 Hornet (and variants). These also are often configured specifically for a ground attack role. And while the Navy does practice their use in a CAS role, the Marine pilots master it. That is why in actuality, the F-35B would probably be more accurate named the A-35B or F/A-35B. For the Marines it really is going to be handling the role of Attack aircraft.

I often find it funny that when people talk about combat aircraft, they always gravitate to the Air Force only. Completely forgetting that 2 other branches have combat fixed wing aircraft.

Oh, and machine guns have been a part of Infantry Squads for decades. That is why the Army and Marines adopted the M249 SAW, a belt fed 5.56mm fully automatic machine gun which fires from the open bolt. There are 1 of these per fire team, 2 per rifle squad.

So why is this silliness about "rifle squads with machine guns" even being discussed, as if it should be done and it is not being done. It has been the norm since the early 1980's.

 

[Jredbaron96]

And as usual, Oozlefinch arrives to dispense his "knowledge", which he bases on a glancing observation and not bothering to actually read the discussion.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

Fixed wing gunships are not a bad idea, experience from ww2 to now has shown them very valuable, from using fixed wing aircraft in ww2 to the ww2 era a-1 as cas in korea and vientam to the a-10 and the ac-130 have shown the fixed wing aircraft are quite good at cas, what you are backing is the airforces constantly proven wrong for decades idea that fast is the only way to go and putting ground troops as lowest priority.


The airforce thought as well as people like you are why the airforce needs to be stripped of the cas role as well as all funds devoted to it, and the army and marines should be dedicated those funds and recources.

I agree the CAS role should be removed from the air force. It clearly does not want the job, and instead could focus on air superiority and destroying SAMS

 

[Wayne Jr]

Distasteful as it is, if we're gong to continue to set up allies as franchises of the US military, we should make certain it remains exclusive.

Half the point of NATO is to support U.S. arms sales.

Whoops, I meant to support equipment standardization!

 

[beerftw]

I agree the CAS role should be removed from the air force. It clearly does not want the job, and instead could focus on air superiority and destroying SAMS

Since the army and the marines are the primary beneficiary of cas it only makes sense they be the ones to conduct it. The marines already do their own cas as does the navy which is geared towards amphibious style assaults, however the army is beholden to the airforce as are often various special forces in which the airforce does not go very far to meet the needs of ground troops.

Truth is the airforce has fought since ww2 to keep the role to keep the funds, they have even admitted they wanted cas funds for aircraft like the a-10 to be used for jets like the f-35 and f-16.

 

[beerftw]

I am finding this conversation rather interesting, but as usual it tends to only cover a fraction of actual information available.

First of all, the A-10 is not the only "Attack Aircraft" in the US inventory, and the "USAF" is not the only air service in the US military. And a reasonable discussion of t6he needs of CAS can not be conducted in a vacuum while ignoring the other Attack Aircraft.

And yes, we have 2 others that the Air Force does not have.

First, the AV8B Harrier. This is exclusive to the Marine Corps, and it's primary role is that of CAS during hostile beach landings. The CAP role is a very distant secondary, and only because it really sucks as a fighter, but it is better than no fighter if some come in to attack the amphibs.

Then you have the F/A-18 Hornet (and variants). These also are often configured specifically for a ground attack role. And while the Navy does practice their use in a CAS role, the Marine pilots master it. That is why in actuality, the F-35B would probably be more accurate named the A-35B or F/A-35B. For the Marines it really is going to be handling the role of Attack aircraft.

I often find it funny that when people talk about combat aircraft, they always gravitate to the Air Force only. Completely forgetting that 2 other branches have combat fixed wing aircraft.

Oh, and machine guns have been a part of Infantry Squads for decades. That is why the Army and Marines adopted the M249 SAW, a belt fed 5.56mm fully automatic machine gun which fires from the open bolt. There are 1 of these per fire team, 2 per rifle squad.

So why is this silliness about "rifle squads with machine guns" even being discussed, as if it should be done and it is not being done. It has been the norm since the early 1980's.

The one per team two per squad was entirely standard when I was in, they are crew serve but can be carried individually, and carried enough ammo to be usefull for suppressive fire and other tasks suited for full auto.

What he was talking about was the army making a mistake by not doing entire squads dedicated to machine guns like the germans during ww2. In my opinion though there is some logic behind the army decisions, like for example mobility is just as needed as firepower, and post 1942 squads were more standardized in the layout similar to modern squads minus the fact they had 3 teams instead of 2. Machine guns are extra weight, and having a full squad of them means limited mobility, especially for the germans who also issued standard rifles and handguns to their machine gun squads, meaning in an actual infantry battle they were at a heavy disadvantage unless they were ina fixed position.


So many fail to realize many military positions are indeed blunders, but many that look like blunders are simply genius, the military planned off a broader picture and put more than simple firepower into the mix and included things like mobility and logistics into the mix.

 

[beerftw]

This wasn't an argument on whether the German Army was better, it was pointing out the fact that other branches make mistakes as well.

Machine gun squads though would be a blunder in itself, there is a reason we did not do it then or now.

 

[beerftw]

Your inability to recognize how the rise of SAMs have changed the nature of CAS is why you're consistently failing at this debate.

Sams were in use since the 50's, even the invincible sr-71 managed to get hit by a 1950's era sam, though it did not take the aircraft out it cause a shutdown of ops for the aircraft until the military could evaluate the situation and change doctrine accordingly. They are not new, the military has been dealing with them on a regular basis since vietnam, they may be more sophisticated than they were then but so are our aircraft, and even then 1950's russian sams were not something to take lightly, they are still capable of taking down even modern jets quite well.

So the sams has changed things idea actually happened in the early 1960's, since then with the problems in vietnam to our highest flying aircraft the u-2 being shot down twice by antique systems it is very evident sams are old news and not something new to this gen. Hell even manpads are not new, the us stinger and the russian igla entered service around th early 80's. many decades behind us, time to realize what you are calling a new threat is an old one we have long dealt with.

 

[Oozlefinch]

The one per team two per squad was entirely standard when I was in, they are crew serve but can be carried individually, and carried enough ammo to be usefull for suppressive fire and other tasks suited for full auto.

What he was talking about was the army making a mistake by not doing entire squads dedicated to machine guns like the germans during ww2. In my opinion though there is some logic behind the army decisions, like for example mobility is just as needed as firepower, and post 1942 squads were more standardized in the layout similar to modern squads minus the fact they had 3 teams instead of 2.

But there is a Machine Gun Squad in an Infantry Company. In the Marine Corps there are 2 of them, each having 2 M240 machine guns for a total of 4 guns. Each gun has a 4 man team. One carries the gun, another the tripod, and the next the T&E, spare barrel and most of the ammunition. 2 teams per squad, 2 squads make up the Machine Gun section of the Weapons Platoon.

And I can't imagine the Army does it much differently. In almost everything I have discovered, the Army and Marines run their light infantry units pretty much the same way, other than rank differences between the two.

And this really has not changed much that I am aware of in decades. The only difference from when I was a grunt and now is that they have moved from the M60 to the M240. But other than that the gun section has remained the same.

Your modern Infantry company has a staggering 22 machine guns, between M240 and M249. That is a hell of a lot of firepower, dwarfing what even the Germans had.

However, I would barely call the M249 "crew served". I know I had never seen them operated in that way. In all my years, I have never seen one mounted on a tripod, and even as a SAW gunner I carried the spare barrel myself. At most, 1 or 2 drums of ammo would be distributed to each of the other team members, but that is about it.

And those gun teams can be assigned out by the Company Commander to accompany patrols if it is needed. This is most seen if the entire Company is on the move, and there is no rear base camp for them to protect. At that point 1 gun is normally assigned to each Rifle Platoon, with the 4th normally working with the rest of the Weapons Platoon and Headquarters Platoon.

 

[ecofarm]

But there is a Machine Gun Squad in an Infantry Company. In the Marine Corps there are 2 of them, each having 2 M240 machine guns for a total of 4 guns. Each gun has a 4 man team. One carries the gun, another the tripod, and the next the T&E, spare barrel and most of the ammunition. 2 teams per squad, 2 squads make up the Machine Gun section of the Weapons Platoon.

And I can't imagine the Army does it much differently. In almost everything I have discovered, the Army and Marines run their light infantry units pretty much the same way, other than rank differences between the two.

And this really has not changed much that I am aware of in decades. The only difference from when I was a grunt and now is that they have moved from the M60 to the M240. But other than that the gun section has remained the same.

Your modern Infantry company has a staggering 22 machine guns, between M240 and M249. That is a hell of a lot of firepower, dwarfing what even the Germans had.

However, I would barely call the M249 "crew served". I know I had never seen them operated in that way. In all my years, I have never seen one mounted on a tripod, and even as a SAW gunner I carried the spare barrel myself. At most, 1 or 2 drums of ammo would be distributed to each of the other team members, but that is about it.

And those gun teams can be assigned out by the Company Commander to accompany patrols if it is needed. This is most seen if the entire Company is on the move, and there is no rear base camp for them to protect. At that point 1 gun is normally assigned to each Rifle Platoon, with the 4th normally working with the rest of the Weapons Platoon and Headquarters Platoon.

I hear heavy weapons company (d) no longer exists, but when I was in 16 gun trucks (four per platoon) there with 50s or 19s.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Hell even manpads are not new, the us stinger and the russian igla entered service around th early 80's. many decades behind us, time to realize what you are calling a new threat is an old one we have long dealt with.

It goes back even farther than that. The FIM-43 REDEYE was first implemented in 1967, and over 85,000 of them were made. What many people do not understand about the Soviet-Afghan War is that most of the missiles used were not STINGERS, but REDEYES.

The REDEYE was already being phased out by that time, so the US simply dumped their remaining inventories in Afghanistan. Most of the missiles used were actually Vietnam era REDEYEs. The STINGER was not used until 1986, when all of the REDEYEs had already been expended.

However, visually the two systems are almost identical, so it is not surprising that most simply assume that all of the missiles used were STINGER.