America declaring all out war against ISIS (Aerial Strikes)

BuDo · **Joined:** Dec 2008 **Posts:** 4714 **Location:**

In his address to the nation, Obama declares war on ISIS utilizing aerial strikes only. Thoughts?

#Drones
#F35 Raptors
#Tomahawks
#Smart Bombs
#More drones

#The american air-force will be having a field day

Tasdik · **Joined:** Jan 2007 **Posts:** 13205 **Location:** Life

Blow the fuckers to hell.

BuDo · **Joined:** Dec 2008 **Posts:** 4714 **Location:**

Que infra-red/thermal video footage of unsuspecting combatants (and some civilians) on the ground getting taken out with drone and Apache helo attacks...This wont be nice...

_Dutchy_ · **Posted:** Thu Sep 11, 2014 4:44 am

#F35 Raptors ? :slap:

No need for thomahawks. Waste of money

Drones strikes. and F-18's wll do the bulk of the work. Hopefully the US will start working with Assad so they can solve this mess. and create some stability in the areea again.

Edit : No apache's will be used not in a manpads infested areea anyways. Obama can't afford to lose a single bird.

Isis · **Joined:** Apr 2006 **Posts:** 4171 **Location:**

Oh...

Think I might go into hiding!

*BlackFox · **Joined:** Sep 2008 **Posts:** 7923 **Location:**

ISIS They are crazy lunatics! But... air strikes ?
Nothing good will come out of it.

Grounded · **Joined:** Nov 2008 **Posts:** 1358 **Location:** Demacia

Isis wrote:

Oh...

Think I might go into hiding!

ROFL

Tasdik · **Joined:** Jan 2007 **Posts:** 13205 **Location:** Life

*BlackFox wrote:

ISIS They are crazy lunatics! But... air strikes ?
Nothing good will come out of it.

Their deaths are a good thing.

BuDo · **Joined:** Dec 2008 **Posts:** 4714 **Location:**

_Dutchy_ wrote:

#F35 Raptors ? :slap:

No need for thomahawks. Waste of money

Drones strikes. and F-18's wll do the bulk of the work. Hopefully the US will start working with Assad so they can solve this mess. and create some stability in the areea again.

Edit : No apache's will be used not in a manpads infested areea anyways. Obama can't afford to lose a single bird.

You're right about the F35 Ductch... Those things are a nightmare from so many points of view...especially performance and cost...They promise all sorts of feats but they actually suck... But watch how proponents of the F35 are happy for this chance at a demonstration...

Anyway the region will be a test bed for all sorts of air to ground weaponry...All those people who left the US and Europe to go and help fight alongside ISIS are probably second guessing their decision about now....

.curve · **Posted:** Thu Sep 11, 2014 11:36 pm

Tasdik wrote:

*BlackFox wrote:

ISIS They are crazy lunatics! But... air strikes ?
Nothing good will come out of it.

Their deaths are a good thing.

Agreed.

Also I'm looking forward to the infrared videos of unsuspecting terrorists getting demolished. And for the chatter between everyone as they coordinate the strike.

_Dutchy_ · **Posted:** Fri Sep 12, 2014 2:00 am

BuDo wrote:

_Dutchy_ wrote:

#F35 Raptors ? :slap:

No need for thomahawks. Waste of money

Drones strikes. and F-18's wll do the bulk of the work. Hopefully the US will start working with Assad so they can solve this mess. and create some stability in the areea again.

Edit : No apache's will be used not in a manpads infested areea anyways. Obama can't afford to lose a single bird.

You're right about the F35 Ductch... Those things are a nightmare from so many points of view...especially performance and cost...They promise all sorts of feats but they actually suck... But watch how proponents of the F35 are happy for this chance at a demonstration...

Anyway the region will be a test bed for all sorts of air to ground weaponry...All those people who left the US and Europe to go and help fight alongside ISIS are probably second guessing their decision about now....

Stop watching the media and educate yourself. About this plane.
There is no F-35 Raptor

There is a F-22 Raptor an air superiority fighter.
And a F-35 Lightning II Fighter/Bomber.

The F-35's is still in Testing Phase. So i won't be deployed in Syria/Iraq. And it should not be.
The F-35 is meant to fight the Chinese/Russians in an advanced conflict. Its designed to increase its Survivability in Modern warfare where the ground is filled with SAM's. The plane is about as agile as the F-16 or F/A-18. Meaning its still a capable dogfighter.

However outmatched in Agility by the Typhoon and SU-30. Which makes sense since they are air superiority fighters. But what the F-35 lacks in Agility it makes up in its Sensor suite and BVR Killing capability. Combined with stealth this plane will outmatch the SU-30's and Typhoons hands down in Real war scenario's

/End rage about F-35 Bashing.

BuDo · **Joined:** Dec 2008 **Posts:** 4714 **Location:**

Opps my bad on mixing them up...But the F35 does deserve a bashing...The documentaries I've watched made a good case against it...Points coming from professionals who design and built other fighters like the FA-18 hornet...Points coming from an actual engineer that help built the F35....Points coming from actual pilots that flew it....Computer simulations showing the F35 getting owned against the Russian su-series...

Simulation yes but still an indication of some measure of truth...Plus the F35 is jam packed with the latest bells and whistles in terms of technology which ironically causes huge setbacks with equipment failures and long hours spent in maintenance hangers...Too much bugs in it's software...Maybe it's too early to bash the F35 but the ridiculous price point and consistently falling short in its deliverables makes the bashing appear justified...

Love · **Joined:** Nov 2007 **Posts:** 5336 **Location:**

Yay, interesting discussion. Now I know a bit more about planes, even if I haven't verified the information.

_Dutchy_ · **Posted:** Fri Sep 12, 2014 10:32 am

BuDo wrote:

Opps my bad on mixing them up...But the F35 does deserve a bashing...The documentaries I've watched made a good case against it...Points coming from professionals who design and built other fighters like the FA-18 hornet...Points coming from an actual engineer that help built the F35....Points coming from actual pilots that flew it....Computer simulations showing the F35 getting owned against the Russian su-series...

Simulation yes but still an indication of some measure of truth...Plus the F35 is jam packed with the latest bells and whistles in terms of technology which ironically causes huge setbacks with equipment failures and long hours spent in maintenance hangers...Too much bugs in it's software...Maybe it's too early to bash the F35 but the ridiculous price point and consistently falling short in its deliverables makes the bashing appear justified...

Yes i've seen the "Professionals" who speak about this plane's failure. And it always designers of the previous generation of planes. for an example Pierre Sprey. He's against the F-35. And you know what? he claimed the same things about the F-15. Yet it became a very successful jet.

You should read up on the F-16. And how the Designers of the "previous generation" Bashed the F-16. It could not Fly. It would never fly it would be a failure! However the F-16 turned out to be the most successful Western jet made so far.

Like i said. Yes the SU-30 Wins on combat within the 2KM range. This is however a bad comparison. Why? because the F-35 is an Fighter/Bomber. and the SU-30 is an air superiority fighter. The F-22 is meant to kill the SU-30's not the F-35. And if the F-35 would engage a Su-30. It would be able to lock and fire way before the SU-30 Detected the F-35. Because of the stealth.

Stealth becomes less effective every year however its still an edge over the SU-30 in range detection.

Yes the F-35 is full of bugs. Because its in a Testing phase. like i said. They are being worked out. The F-35 is being bashed so much compaired to lets say the PAK-FA wich has just as much failures because the media is open in the west its not in the east. It takes time to work uit the "Kinks" in planes. Same happened with the F-16 check out its early flight records allot of them crashed. And the generation before that F-104. Was even WORSE.

Maintenance is a issue. Its longer then the jets before it. However we have chosen to go forward with advanced military tech. An M-1 Abrams requires more maintenance and man hours then an M-4 Sherman. Yet we go ahead with the M-1 abrams because we prefer Advanced weaponry. Same thing with the F-35. you cannot build an more advanced piece of equipment and expect it to be cheaper. and easier to maintain then the previous generation of equipment.

Aventus · **Posted:** Fri Sep 12, 2014 11:30 am

Were we ever not at war? All we did was swap the terror group out to drum up some good ol patriotism. So hurray for the next 14 years of war.

Love · **Joined:** Nov 2007 **Posts:** 5336 **Location:**

Omg please stfu, this is about planes now and I'm loving it.

BuDo · **Joined:** Dec 2008 **Posts:** 4714 **Location:**

_Dutchy_ wrote:

BuDo wrote:

Opps my bad on mixing them up...But the F35 does deserve a bashing...The documentaries I've watched made a good case against it...Points coming from professionals who design and built other fighters like the FA-18 hornet...Points coming from an actual engineer that help built the F35....Points coming from actual pilots that flew it....Computer simulations showing the F35 getting owned against the Russian su-series...

Simulation yes but still an indication of some measure of truth...Plus the F35 is jam packed with the latest bells and whistles in terms of technology which ironically causes huge setbacks with equipment failures and long hours spent in maintenance hangers...Too much bugs in it's software...Maybe it's too early to bash the F35 but the ridiculous price point and consistently falling short in its deliverables makes the bashing appear justified...

Yes i've seen the "Professionals" who speak about this plane's failure. And it always designers of the previous generation of planes. for an example Pierre Sprey. He's against the F-35. And you know what? he claimed the same things about the F-15. Yet it became a very successful jet.

You should read up on the F-16. And how the Designers of the "previous generation" Bashed the F-16. It could not Fly. It would never fly it would be a failure! However the F-16 turned out to be the most successful Western jet made so far.

Like i said. Yes the SU-30 Wins on combat within the 2KM range. This is however a bad comparison. Why? because the F-35 is an Fighter/Bomber. and the SU-30 is an air superiority fighter. The F-22 is meant to kill the SU-30's not the F-35. And if the F-35 would engage a Su-30. It would be able to lock and fire way before the SU-30 Detected the F-35. Because of the stealth.

Stealth becomes less effective every year however its still an edge over the SU-30 in range detection.

Yes the F-35 is full of bugs. Because its in a Testing phase. like i said. They are being worked out. The F-35 is being bashed so much compaired to lets say the PAK-FA wich has just as much failures because the media is open in the west its not in the east. It takes time to work uit the "Kinks" in planes. Same happened with the F-16 check out its early flight records allot of them crashed. And the generation before that F-104. Was even WORSE.

Maintenance is a issue. Its longer then the jets before it. However we have chosen to go forward with advanced military tech. An M-1 Abrams requires more maintenance and man hours then an M-4 Sherman. Yet we go ahead with the M-1 abrams because we prefer Advanced weaponry. Same thing with the F-35. you cannot build an more advanced piece of equipment and expect it to be cheaper. and easier to maintain then the previous generation of equipment.

I don't deny the problematic trend you've outline, but the only reason why we're going the see the F35 in service in the future is because nations like Australia, Canada, US etc have invested so much into the project that backing out right now would be a financial catastrophe...All these nations are not happy one bit with how things are progressing......

There is the perception that they've been suckered into a semi false hype/promise about the plane's capabilities/offerings by Lockheed Martin....Not that the plane's capabilities aren't possible, but setbacks hindering that realization are too common.....

Some of these nations have already, or is considering, reducing the amount of F35 initially ordered and decided to make up the deficit by going with McDonnell Douglas's super hornets to compliment their fleet...Australia is an example I believe...

When technological advances are so great that they start to hinder overall purpose it is time to re-evaluate...At the very least re-evaluate who should be implementing those technological advancements...

*BlackFox · **Joined:** Sep 2008 **Posts:** 7923 **Location:**

Tasdik wrote:

Their deaths are a good thing.

Well, Innocent victims would die... killed in "Obama" drone strikes.
Best solution... They should kill themselves.

TheDrop · **Joined:** May 2008 **Posts:** 7150 **Location:** uefa2012

Annnd we are caught up in another frenzy for war.

Hooray

.curve · **Posted:** Fri Sep 19, 2014 3:50 pm

TheDrop wrote:

Annnd we are caught up in another frenzy for war.

Hooray

I'm ok if they decide to sit back and just bomb the shit out of them. It's when they start mobilizing large numbers of troops when I'll have a problem.

BuDo · **Joined:** Dec 2008 **Posts:** 4714 **Location:**

.curve wrote:

TheDrop wrote:

Annnd we are caught up in another frenzy for war.

Hooray

I'm ok if they decide to sit back and just bomb the shit out of them. It's when they start mobilizing large numbers of troops when I'll have a problem.

And with that comment...it begs the question...Are the days of the foot soldier numbered?...As we advance in technology will the need for ground troops be the same?...I'm starting to think ground troops will have to be re-purposed and/or reduced....I noticed that in today's navy it doesn't require as many personnel (only 215, 275 pending the vessel type) as the navy from 40 years ago (400+) due to technological advancements....

.curve · **Posted:** Sat Sep 20, 2014 11:02 pm

BuDo wrote:

.curve wrote:

TheDrop wrote:

Annnd we are caught up in another frenzy for war.

Hooray

I'm ok if they decide to sit back and just bomb the shit out of them. It's when they start mobilizing large numbers of troops when I'll have a problem.

And with that comment...it begs the question...Are the days of the foot soldier numbered?...As we advance in technology will the need for ground troops be the same?...I'm starting to think ground troops will have to be re-purposed and/or reduced....I noticed that in today's navy it doesn't require as many personnel (only 215, 275 pending the vessel type) as the navy from 40 years ago (400+) due to technological advancements....

Definitely. I like to think it's always been at the front of their minds to reduce as many casualties as they can. With technology like unmanned drones and unmanned bombers, I can really only see foot soldiers being deployed as a means of establishing a forward base and taking locations.

I think the general strategy for war went from strength in numbers to strength in technology, and we're only at the beginning of it.

_Dutchy_ · **Posted:** Tue Sep 23, 2014 5:39 pm

Finnaly US started bombing ISIS in Syria.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9034BawdX4

Beter take coverw

The united states is joining the game

BuDo · **Joined:** Dec 2008 **Posts:** 4714 **Location:**

This war might be fought on two battlefields..home and abroad...These missile attacks are one thing but ISIS supporters that never got the chance to leave oversees for Iraq to help their "brothers in arms" are lurking around the neighborhoods within the US, Canada, Europe etc, awaiting their orders...waiting to retaliate with public bombing attacks....I wouldn't be surprised if that happened...

Love · **Joined:** Nov 2007 **Posts:** 5336 **Location:**

Wtf are you talking about, that doesn't sound like anything an american, aka, anyone who lives on this country without some sort of complete isolation would do. If for some reason anyone wants to bomb, let them bomb, I don't fear any bombing and no bombing can ever destroy the meaning of true freedom.

**** all this shit and **** the weak.

DarkJackal · **Joined:** Feb 2006 **Posts:** 6119 **Location:** A den~

True meaning means nothing when some terrorist does bomb some place and security is stepped up and new laws are made allowing random detaining and "illegal" searches for anyone and everyone etc.

Mayumi · **Posted:** Wed Sep 24, 2014 11:41 am

Nevermind using drones and aircraft,there only 1 way to eradicate isis,nuke them all, Iran / Iraq/ Pakistan / Syria.

BuDo · **Joined:** Dec 2008 **Posts:** 4714 **Location:**

DarkJackal wrote:

True meaning means nothing when some terrorist does bomb some place and security is stepped up and new laws are made allowing random detaining and "illegal" searches for anyone and everyone etc.

Yup true freedom means shit when your own government starts enforcing all sorts of restrictions, profiling and surveillance (a heighten version than whats current) in the name of national security...

.curve · **Posted:** Thu Sep 25, 2014 5:59 pm

BuDo wrote:

DarkJackal wrote:

True meaning means nothing when some terrorist does bomb some place and security is stepped up and new laws are made allowing random detaining and "illegal" searches for anyone and everyone etc.

Yup true freedom means shit when your own government starts enforcing all sorts of restrictions, profiling and surveillance (a heighten version than whats current) in the name of national security...

If you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to worry about.

*BlackFox · **Joined:** Sep 2008 **Posts:** 7923 **Location:**

.curve wrote:

If you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to worry about.

Imagine, they check you at every corner ! lulz

Silkroad Online Forums

America declaring all out war against ISIS (Aerial Strikes)

Who is online