quote:

Originally posted by lkdr1989:
Meanwhile Iran's bitches in Iraq are getting blasted.

I've never heard an A-10 from the receiving end before. That is utterly terrifying!

Looks like tha A10 merely knocked on the door.

I guess it's a warning to leave before it gets leveled.

quote:

Originally posted by corsair:

quote:

Originally posted by 92fstech:

Yeah, it seems like the A-10, working in conjunction with some E3s or Hawkeyes would excel in that role. It might even give the pilots some air-to-air opportunities shooting down drones.

Sadly the USAF E-3 tech is dated and old, many barely able to fly. The E-2D squadron that recently returned off of Nimitz, was re-deployed because their radars are modern and able to pick-up the smaller, hard to track drones.

quote:

I also saw this article today: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/ne...ocks-Royal-Navy.html. According to it, the entire Royal Navy only has 5 operational ships right now (3 frigates, 1 destroyer, and 1 sub).

The RN has been in a sad state for over a decade. Their Type-45 destroyers are great anti-air ships but full of gremlins. Hard to believe in an cost cutting effort when they first came out, they bypassed on the fire-control software upgrade to allow their deck gun to shoot-down air threats.

Yes England is bad shape.

As far as their subs, they are old and worn out and they can't afford to maintain them.

England does have nuclear weapons, but they lease the the missiles from the USA.

(Gee, I wonder why, they spend all the money they have on being a socialist nation with "free" medical care, etc. Uncle Sugar, aka their Daddy USA, will cover them with our military.)

This is absolutely crazy. Watch the article.
.

Best way to attack an air force...get'em while they're still on the ground: '67 Six-Day War Israel destroys Egypts air force on the tarmac, '91 Gulf War US destroys Iraqi air force on the ground, 2025 Ukraine attacks Russian air bases, some as deep as 2700-miles into Russian territory targeting long-range bombers and surveillance aircraft.

Did the base commander and wing commander not read up on the threat assessment of Iranian weapons? Have all the anti-drone technology that's been rolled-out by industry over the last 5-years never get purchased or, was it all for show? Base defense isn't a new concept but, the arrogance by many of the brass believing air superiority by way airplanes but ignoring the 'cheap kills' that a drone can achieve, particularly given its inherent low-observability, I think requires some court marshalls.

https://x.com/Osinttechnical/s...or-al-udeid-air-base

quote:

Originally posted by OKCGene:

Yes England is bad shape.

As far as their subs, they are old and worn out and they can't afford to maintain them.

To your point, the interview (2 min.) in this article with the British Defense Secretary is astonishing in that he has not a clue and/or an answer to the non-readiness of the British Navy

“British Defense Minister Outlines How the U.K Navy Will Defend the West, as Soon as They Locate Their Ships”

https://theconservativetreehou...-locate-their-ships/

Not good
https://x.com/Osinttechnical/s.../2038063581070029135

Have folks not been paying attention to that 3 day special military operation? The future is here, and it's Walmart drones with a hand grenade.

quote:

Originally posted by airsoft guy:
Have folks not been paying attention to that 3 day special military operation? The future is here, and it's Walmart drones with a hand grenade.

Fortunately Iran is almost out of drones and missiles and we have plenty of more jets to spare. Building hardened shelters and drone defenses for every base across the world would be more expensive than the loss of a few dozen airframes. The Iranians were never going to outsmart Trump but throw in Hegseth and this war was over the minute it started. Sometimes the best defense is a strong offense and we are excelling at that.

Trump has said from the beginning that we're going to take losses. Nobody should be under the assumption that we won't. You can't do what we're doing over there and expect to come away unscathed. But parking planes wingtip to wingtip on an open ramp in theater just kinda seems to be asking for it. That ramp is so densely packed that all the bad guys have to do is get a missile or drone over the fence and they're going to hit something. Planes are soft targets and it doesn't take much to burn one down.

Honestly, after seeing what the Ukranians did to the Russian strategic bomber fleet last year, we shouldn't be parking them like that stateside, either. But I drove by the local Air Reserve base a few weeks ago and there they were...a whole bunch of KC135s lined up next to each other in full view from the highway. At least spread them out a bit and throw up some concrete barriers between them so if one cooks off the shrapnel and fire doesn't get 3 or 4 more. Concrete barriers are cheap...the local concrete place has tons of them sitting around because that's what they do with all the leftover mix in the trucks when they get back from jobs. It won't stop everything, but it would be better than nothing.

I'm starting to get really concerned about where this conflict is taking us. I was cautiously ok with taking out the Ayatollah, the nuke facilities, and a bunch of IRGC shitheads, but now we can't control the strait and the news is talking about up to 10,000 US troops getting deployed. If that happens we're going to sustain a lot of losses that are irreplaceable...much worse than a 60 year-old aircraft. It's also going to make it a lot harder to leave, and I certainly didn't vote for another prolonged conflict in the middle east. Trump has a good track record of not doing that sort of thing, though, so I'm still holding out hope that this is just a negotiating tactic and we're not going to see an actual ground invasion of Iran.

quote:

Originally posted by corsair:
Best way to attack an air force...

1941, is that you?

No, it’s not good.
On 8 December 1941 (the same day local time as Pearl Harbor), the Japanese attacked Clark Field in the Philippines and about half of the US Army’s air power in the area was destroyed on the ground. One of the criticisms of that disaster was that the aircraft were parked wingtip to wingtip and easily destroyed. Even though there were objective reasons* for why the aircraft were left vulnerable that way, it’s something that MacArthur is criticized for to this day for his supposed incompetence.

Were/are there good reasons for why large numbers of aircraft should be left vulnerable today? I don’t know, but it seems unlikely. The 7/8 December 1941 attacks surprised many different military leaders, not just the US ones, but what excuse is there now? How many military and other targets have the Iranians successfully attacked since the war began?

And the “not good” part is not because of the tiny percentage of our military capability that was destroyed. As has been true before, the US cannot lose this war militarily, but it can lose it politically. To cite just one example, the Tết Offensive in Vietnam in 1968, including the battle for Huế, was a military defeat for the North Vietnamese, but a political disaster for the US, and the latter was far more important for the war’s outcome.

The destruction of our aircraft no doubt has many Democrats chortling with glee, and certainly was a boost to our other enemies: “See, brothers, Allah has given us a sign that we can fight and hurt the Great Satan. They are powerless to defend against us, and we will win!”

Not good in any way.

* If interested, read Sealing Their Fate: The Twenty-two Days That Decided World War II by David Downing, among other histories.

I don't want to see a ground invasion either. But I also do not want us to leave until the job is completed. To me that means the complete and total destruction of their military, their government, the mullahs and of course, anything used to make a nuclear bomb. The action we have taken in Iran should have been done decades ago. Imagine what a safer place the world would be today if we had done the same thing to North Korea when they were trying to build a nuke. Nobody had the guts to do it and now we are faced with having to deal with those psychopath's.

quote:

But I also do not want us to leave until the job is completed.

Agreed. But what constitutes "completed"? That needs to be clearly defined right now... preferably before now. Are we trying to kill off the scumbags in charge? Eliminate their ability to acquire a nuclear weapon? Destroy their ability to launch and manufacture long range missiles and drones? Gain military control of the Strait of Hormuz? Seize their oil production infrastructure? Replace their regime with a democratic government?

All of those goals seem like good things. Some of them are easily achievable. Others maybe not so much and probably not worth the effort to try. At what point can we agree that we've accomplished what we set out to do and go home?

I hope we're not set on regime change.

Killing off their senior leadership has certainly weakened their government, and I would absolutely love to see the Iranian people rise up and seize this opportunity to take control, elect leaders, and partner with the rest of the world for everyone's benefit. But that's up to them. We can't do it for them, and if we try I fear we just create another Iraq or Afghanistan where we're committed for 20+ years to set up our own idea of a government with corrupt local officials who nobody really likes, and which collapses the minute we leave.

Another possibility is we create Libya 2.0, where the strong man is dead, nobody's in charge, and all the rival groups are killing each other for control in a civil war. Terrorists thrive, civilians suffer, and we've created a new third-world shithole with terrible humanitarian consequences.

The third option is the IRGC remains in control, but in a subdued capacity with a drastically diminished ability to menace their neighbors, and with the understanding that if they get out of line in the future we'll be back to kick them in the head again. We don't get the moral satisfaction of completely eliminating a brutal regime, but our cost and commitment is a lot lower, and hopefully we can leverage more control over them through negotiations and sanctuons now that they've experienced some consequences. Even if that fails, I'd rather see us have to go back and drop some more bombs in 5 years than fight a brutal ground campaign and be comitted to occupying and nation-building for the next 20+.

quote:

Originally posted by 92fstech:

I hope we're not set on regime change.

Killing off their senior leadership has certainly weakened their government, and I would absolutely love to see the Iranian people rise up and seize this opportunity to take control, elect leaders, and partner with the rest of the world for everyone's benefit. But that's up to them. We can't do it for them, and if we try I fear we just create another Iraq or Afghanistan where we're committed for 20+ years to set up our own idea of a government with corrupt local officials who nobody really likes, and which collapses the minute we leave.

I think regime change is the only option. But, as you state, not to try to create a government in our image with someone of our choosing. That has not worked well in the past.

The current political and military leadership consist of true believers. Nobody gets any rank there unless they are fully on board with the mullah's mission. If we don't remove them all, one of them will rise as the new leader. He will then resurrect the long term goals of eliminating Israel and the USA, and will resume sponsoring terrorism.

Whomever the citizens choose is up to them. It does appear they are unable to overthrow the current government from within.

At what point to the military aged men pick up rifles and actually start engaging the guard?
Sending manpad missiles into drone launchers.

There's millions of potential soldiers.
Thousands of potential saboteurs.

Freedom is a difficult concept for humanity most everyone enjoys it but few are willing to fight for it.

quote:

Originally posted by Fly-Sig:
He will then resurrect the long term goals of eliminating Israel and the USA, and will resume sponsoring terrorism..

Im fine if we skip to that part without blowing 10s of billions of dollars, then leaving a ton of cutting edge military gear behind to hand the government back to the same 12 century people that were in charge originally.

But, wait, this time it’s different, right?

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:

quote:

Originally posted by Fly-Sig:
He will then resurrect the long term goals of eliminating Israel and the USA, and will resume sponsoring terrorism..

Im fine if we skip to that part without blowing 10s of billions of dollars, then leaving a ton of cutting edge military gear behind to hand the government back to the same 12 century people that were in charge originally.

But, wait, this time it’s different, right?

This time you have Trump and Hegseth leading the campaign so I'm not worried about any mistakes being made. Iran has the potential to be a thriving modern democracy if we are willing to commit our forces to it and keep the media from undermining support.

Yeah - hopefully we don't have a repeat of the past. The only thing I want to see left behind in Iran is spent ordinance.

quote:

Originally posted by Carpentermaass84:


This time you have Trump and Hegseth leading the campaign so I'm not worried about any mistakes being made. Iran has the potential to be a thriving modern democracy if we are willing to commit our forces to it and keep the media from undermining support.

I see. So Trump WASN’T involved the last time? He wasn’t President during any of it.

And there’s a 100 percent chance that he’s going to President when this is over? Interesting that you know this.

And you are talented enough to know that this is going to be way different (this time) than Afghanistan? Iraq? No? How about Libya? Still no? Lebanon? Bosnia? How many trillions did we pump into Ukraine over the last decade? But….this time it will be different!

No, it actually won’t be. The same people dancing in the street today because freedom will install a 12 Century daddy who promises free stuff in return for freedom. It’s been 25 years since 9/11 and take a look at NYC if you need your eyes opened.

We can give no one freedom. It just doesn’t work that way. What we do is kill a bunch of guys and pump billions into the next group of people to plot our demise with. Receipts? We did it in Afghanistan not once, but twice within the last half century.

Yes, the bombing needed to happen. But, let’s get out already and not pump billions into this.

I don't trust any of them living in that region There is no good guys and bad guys, they are all BAD.
I say let the CIA motivate them against each other, let them blow up each others water Desalination plants and let them wilt on the vine.
A week and it will be over.