Tories To Waste Billons On New Fighter Jets

[EagleSmack]

We are not there to protect the women, children or the elderly of Afghanistan. We went there on a hunting trip and to protect the poppy fields and secure the pipeline corridor. The altruistic reasons were dreamed up after the decision to invade a sovereign nation were made. How many innocent women, children and elderly has NATO killed in the last 8 years over there?

Ahhh... the imaginary pipeline that never was anything more than an idea. So that leaves the poppy fields and yes, the NATO went into Afghanistan to protect the poppy crops. No other reason at all. None. Just protecting poppy fields.

 

[#juan]

the F 15 was a way more suitable role for our Northen patrol at the time IMO.
How much was the generals opinion in this ever taken then and now?

Well, the F-15 was designed in the late sixties and first flew in 1972.
The F-18 was a newer aircraft and it first flew in 1979. The F-18 was designed to replace the F-14. At the time I liked
the F-14 because they were less money than the F-15 and their performance was almost identical. The swing wing on the F-14 made it
capable of landing on some pretty small runways

 

[El Barto]

Well, the F-15 was designed in the late sixties and first flew in 1972.
The F-18 was a newer aircraft and it first flew in 1979. The F-18 was designed to replace the F-14. At the time I liked
the F-14 because they were less money than the F-15 and their performance was almost identical. The swing wing on the F-14 made it
capable of landing on some pretty small runways

I will always have a week spot for the F14 . That plane so far can not be effectively replaced imo
Not even with the newer version of the F18 they are using now.

 

[MapleOne]

He He - the sorry state of our current planes and carriers - Time to replace them

 

[MapleOne]

More pics

 

[MapleOne]

Last set

 

[lone wolf]

We have a carrier???? I thought Bonnie became tunafish cans years ago....

 

[EagleSmack]

I will always have a week spot for the F14 . That plane so far can not be effectively replaced imo
Not even with the newer version of the F18 they are using now.

The thing about the F-14 was that it was designed solely as a fighter. It had no attack capabilities until after Desert Storm and some of the Tomcats were modified to attack land targets. The Tomcat was a Cold War design as it was made strictly to engage multiple Soviet Bombers at a great stand-off distance using the Pheonix missle. It was designed to engage the pesky Soviets long before they got into strike distance of the Carrier Battle Group.

The Tomcat was cool and fast but it had run it's course and was obselete.

 

[El Barto]

Obsolete in age probably but it is a shame that the newer models don't surpass the F 14 in performance.
An F 14 format as the D model i think built to todays standards would be what we need here. IMO

 

[EagleSmack]

Obsolete in age probably but it is a shame that the newer models don't surpass the F 14 in performance.
An F 14 format as the D model i think built to todays standards would be what we need here. IMO

The F-18's, F-22's, and F-35's are far superior to the F-14. The F-14 is obselete compared to all of them including the top of the line Russian fighters. The F-18 also replaced the A-6E Intruder and the Intruder could carry a bigger payload but the F-18 was clearly superior than the Intruder. The F4-U Corsair from WWII can do a tighter inside turn than the F-14 but it does not make it a better fighter aircraft than the F-14. Sadly the Tomcat is a Cold War relic.

 

[AnnaG]

Cliffy[/URL]]The military should only be used for self defense. A warrior's life should be dedicated to the protection of women, children and the elderly. As long as Harpo or other leader insists on using our military for any other purpose, I will remain unapologetically critical.

You're so right. Thank goodness there's no old people, women or kids in Afghanistan, so you can hang on to that thought.

Bump.

It's pretty f'n easy (and pretty heartless) to sit back and criticize people for going to Afghanistan when you aren't one of the poor Afghanis suffering under the Taliban and other.

 

[EagleSmack]

Bump.

It's pretty f'n easy (and pretty heartless) to sit back and criticize people for going to Afghanistan when you aren't one of the poor Afghanis suffering under the Taliban and other.

Stand by for the wind to change...

 

[ironsides]

or the US of A (their guerrilla army defeated the British). QUOTE]

Lets go over a little rough history. First of all, it was during the French and Indian war that the good English citizens were introduced to guerrilla warfare (by the French and their Indian allies). When the American Revolution broke out, the former English citizens had no regular army. During the battle of Lexington the settlers tried standing up to British regulars and were cut to pieces. It was while the British were marching back to Boston that they suffered their first defeat as a result of guerrilla warfare (only way the untrained settlers could fight back). The British in turn were decimated. The battle of Saratoga a regular British Army ran into the regular American Army under the command of General Horatio Gates which then forced British General Burgoyne to surrender after he found himself surrounded 17 October 1777. From the till the battle of Yorktown the British won most of the battles, but lost the war. They lost to a regular American Army, not to a guerrilla band. The guerrilla tactics only bought time for the Americans to build a trained army.

Since when should we put a price on protecting those we send to war. (reasons for the war are not important in this case.) If you send people to war they should have the best equipment possible.​

So now,on top of spending a few billion on fighter jets,our leaders {?}have decided to leave their toys in the sand box when their done playing with them.Is their gear so antiquated that it's not worth bringing home?

Tanks are really not built to last 100,000 miles like a civilian vehicle. A tank is pretty well worn out if not maintained, especially in combat. They are striped of classified stuff and pretty much only a empty hulk is left behind.​

 

[MapleOne]

Obsolete in age probably but it is a shame that the newer models don't surpass the F 14 in performance.
An F 14 format as the D model i think built to todays standards would be what we need here. IMO

HeHeHe, reminds me of an old quote I always thought was humerous

Instead of building newer and larger weapons of mass destruction, I think mankind should try to get more use out of the ones we have.

 

[El Barto]

hehehe, reminds me of an old quote i always thought was humerous

instead of building newer and larger weapons of mass destruction, i think mankind should try to get more use out of the ones we have.

rotflmffao

 

[ironsides]

Unfortunately we lost the F-14 for the same reason we lost the F-22, just to expensive to produce and maintain. The F-14 was the first modern fighter that could go from full speed to 30-35 MPH. It was a beautiful aircraft. I saw its last flight at the Fort Lauderdale airshow a couple of years ago. It was sad, it couldn't do a high speed pass because the wings were locked open. Chopped it up a week or so later.


2001 Airshow F-14 was operational then.

YouTube - F-14 Tomcat High Speed Passes

 

[lone wolf]

I bet Khdafi still shudders....

 

[ironsides]

Specs for the f35



Performance

• Maximum speed: Mach 1.67[269] (1,283 mph, 2,065 km/h)
• Range: 1,200 nmi (2,220 km) on internal fuel[270]
• Combat radius: 610 nmi (1,110 km) on internal fuel[270]
• Service ceiling: 60,000 ft[271] (18,288 m)
• Rate of climb: classified (not publicly available)
• Wing loading: 91.4 lb/ft² (446 kg/m²)
• Thrust/weight: **With full fuel: 0.84;[59]
  • With 50% fuel: 1.04 B:[59]
• g-Limits: 9 g[nb 4]

Specs for the cf 18



Performance

• Maximum speed: Mach 1.8 (1127 mph, 1814 km/h) at 36100 ft (11000 m)
• Combat radius: 330 mi (290 nmi, 537 km) on hi-lo-lo-hi mission
• Ferry range: 2070 mi (1800 nmi, 3330 km) (range without ordnance)
• Service ceiling: 50000 ft (15000 m)
• Rate of climb: 50000 ft/min (254 m/s)
• Thrust/weight: 0.89

From a tax payers point of view. There is there is recession and deficit spending . From ethical point of view we were so un-aware to what the government was going to decide as we were the last to know.

Do we really need this stealth technology? To me that is for a first strike role. What we need is range and long flight sorties.
We could of been looking at something cheaper too.

other than that. Not much against it.
Just the way it was done

Who or in what country do we the taxpayers know what our goverment will spend money on? We have no idea what the latest technology is, can only guess. In theory 1 F35 could take on 6 attacking F-15's easily. (in simulations) It would make a very good defensive interceptor.

I bet Khdafi still shudders....

Yup, haven't heard much from him lately.

 

[AnnaG]

Maybe if someone could get Leopards to fly?

 

[Cliffy]

Bump.

It's pretty f'n easy (and pretty heartless) to sit back and criticize people for going to Afghanistan when you aren't one of the poor Afghanis suffering under the Taliban and other.

And is it not heartless to leave tens of thousands of mentally challenged people out on the streets of our cities to be preyed upon by drug dealers? to leave them homeless and hopeless while we spend billions on protecting poppy crops? Someone's priorities are askew.