UN votes for air strikes on Libya as Gaddafi warns of reprisals if West attacks

[Hot Mega]

in fact it's even better than the F-22.

You're high.

 

[Trident1]

You're high.

No just knowledgeable. The F-15E and the newest version F-15SE offers better radar capability on a tested multi role platform for less money than the F-22. I'd rather the USAF buy the F-15SE than the outrageously expensive F-22.

 

[Hot Mega]

No just knowledgeable. The F-15E and the newest version F-15SE offers better radar capability on a tested multi role platform for less money than the F-22. I'd rather the USAF buy the F-15SE than the outrageously expensive F-22.

Again, you're high. (If you're just belly aching about price that's one thing but to say the the F-15E/SE are better that the F-22...you're drinking or on drugs.)

 

[FrostyBoy]

I recall reading an article that described fatigue cracks on some of the F-15E airframes.

Without a doubt the F-15 is the best multi role aircraft ever made, in fact it's even better than the F-22.

You're high.

No just knowledgeable. The F-15E and the newest version F-15SE offers better radar capability on a tested multi role platform for less money than the F-22. I'd rather the USAF buy the F-15SE than the outrageously expensive F-22.

Again, you're high. (If you're just belly aching about price that's one thing but to say the the F-15E/SE are better that the F-22...you're drinking or on drugs.)

You're both right, but Trident wins by a nose. The F-22 is a great plane, but it is way too expensive for how the world is. "Belly aching" about the price is a perfectly valid concern. Who is this plane supposed to fight, that the F-15 can't fight just as effectively? There is no one out there that can field a comparable warplane and if there ever is, we'll know about it. As it stands, the USAF was able to clean the clock of any airborne threat, long before the F-22 was built.

As far as I'm concerned, "fighter" jets are obsolete. Again, if we fight anyone that has an air force worth a damn, we'll probably destroy the majority of it on the ground, through our various means. The rest will fall without much trouble. Keep in mind, the plane is one thing, but the training of the pilots is key. That's where America is supreme, and that ain't going to change anytime soon.

For my money, invest in the A-10 Warthog. Not only that, it has always been a mystery to me why the Navy hasn't adopted it and built it for carrier use. We will get much more use from ground-attack warplanes for the foreseeable future than F-15s, F-18s, etc.

 

[Hot Mega]

You're both right, but Trident wins by a nose. The F-22 is a great plane, but it is way too expensive for how the world is. "Belly aching" about the price is a perfectly valid concern. Who is this plane supposed to fight, that the F-15 can't fight just as effectively? There is no one out there that can field a comparable warplane and if there ever is, we'll know about it. As it stands, the USAF was able to clean the clock of any airborne threat, long before the F-22 was built.

As far as I'm concerned, "fighter" jets are obsolete. Again, if we fight anyone that has an air force worth a damn, we'll probably destroy the majority of it on the ground, through our various means. The rest will fall without much trouble. Keep in mind, the plane is one thing, but the training of the pilots is key. That's where America is supreme, and that ain't going to change anytime soon.

For my money, invest in the A-10 Warthog. Not only that, it has always been a mystery to me why the Navy hasn't adopted it and built it for carrier use. We will get much more use from ground-attack warplanes for the foreseeable future than F-15s, F-18s, etc.

Again...debating the price point in relationship to the foreseeable challenge is one thing. In other words, saying the F-15x has sufficient capability has nothing to do with comparing it to the F-22.

In terms of which is the superior craft....necessity aside, the F-22 is hands down IMO.

 

[FrostyBoy]

Again...debating the price point in relationship to the foreseeable challenge is one thing. In other words, saying the F-15x has sufficient capability has nothing to do with comparing it to the F-22.

In terms of which is the superior craft....necessity aside, the F-22 is hands down IMO.

Money wins wars. You can talk about duty, loyalty and honor (former military man here, so I'm in no way being a smartass), but money wins wars. Spending more than you have to, on weapons you don't need is bad strategy/tactics/policy. To put it another way, let's say that there is another warplane ready to be built (an F-23, if you will). It's so good that a high school grad can wipe a squadron of F-22s from the sky while picking his nose. But this plane is going to cost a Trillion dollars to build and deploy. Should we build it? Why?

I'm going to play devils advocate here (in a friendly way). You say the F-22 is better? Prove it. It has no combat track record, therefore there has been no cost/benefit analysis. There is no way of knowing how it's going to stand up maintenance-wise in a full-blown shooting war, where it is relied upon daily. And again, what exactly do we use it for? We are going to be fighting cave-dwellers and teenagers armed with AK's from now on.

Context is key. With the current world-wide situation being what it is, I'll stand by my earlier comment. I'll take my A-10 over your F-22 and Tridents F-15 any day, and call it the better warplane.

 

[magicspore]

The story so far

This is not a picture posting thread - Especially not one as stupid as the formerly attached

 

[TheOrangeCat]

Maybe I'm missing a subtle point, but at about this point in the Egypt saga, were UN calling for air strikes on Mubarack ... ? I'm thinking not, which makes me wonder why? Two entrenched, utterly corrupt, but at the same time quite effective, (sub) Saharan dictators who have cosied up to the west post 911 ... they sound the same. What's the diff?

 

[Trident1]

Money wins wars. You can talk about duty, loyalty and honor (former military man here, so I'm in no way being a smartass), but money wins wars. Spending more than you have to, on weapons you don't need is bad strategy/tactics/policy. To put it another way, let's say that there is another warplane ready to be built (an F-23, if you will). It's so good that a high school grad can wipe a squadron of F-22s from the sky while picking his nose. But this plane is going to cost a Trillion dollars to build and deploy. Should we build it? Why?

I'm going to play devils advocate here (in a friendly way). You say the F-22 is better? Prove it. It has no combat track record, therefore there has been no cost/benefit analysis. There is no way of knowing how it's going to stand up maintenance-wise in a full-blown shooting war, where it is relied upon daily. And again, what exactly do we use it for? We are going to be fighting cave-dwellers and teenagers armed with AK's from now on.

Context is key. With the current world-wide situation being what it is, I'll stand by my earlier comment. I'll take my A-10 over your F-22 and Tridents F-15 any day, and call it the better warplane.

I'll take my proven F-15 over the F-22. The F-15SE looks like yet another winner.:hatsoff:

 

[magicspore]

Maybe I'm missing a subtle point, but at about this point in the Egypt saga, were UN calling for air strikes on Mubarack ... ? I'm thinking not, which makes me wonder why? Two entrenched, utterly corrupt, but at the same time quite effective, (sub) Saharan dictators who have cosied up to the west post 911 ... they sound the same. What's the diff?

It could be that the US/UN/International community recognized that Mubarak couldnt last that long given how strong the revolution was. It was the first one so they thought they'd sit that one out while Ghaddafi on the the other hand was acting like a prick from the beginning , unrelenting and refusing vehemently to let go of power which drove them to take action .

 

[Ulysses31]

Maybe I'm missing a subtle point, but at about this point in the Egypt saga, were UN calling for air strikes on Mubarack ... ? I'm thinking not, which makes me wonder why? Two entrenched, utterly corrupt, but at the same time quite effective, (sub) Saharan dictators who have cosied up to the west post 911 ... they sound the same. What's the diff?

There is obviously the fact that Mubarek is a close US ally whilst Gaddafi is not. However the key was that Mubarek never unleashed the army onto the people so there was no mass murders, I doubt he had the army onside anyway. Gaddafi on the other hand is using planes, artillery, tanks and snipers to crush the rebellion which is causing lots of deaths which had to be stopped, I don't think he even has full army support which is why he's calling on mercenaries who simply kill for money.


Gaddafi surfaces to rant: We will defeat the crazed fascists

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-We-defeat-crazed-fascists.html#ixzz1HPltzCeH

Footage of Gaddafi's latest rant from his Tripoli compound was released last night by Libyan state television

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...rs-extraordinary-admission.html#ixzz1HPmZSVZp

 

[Member2019]

F-22

I'll take my proven F-15 over the F-22. The F-15SE looks like yet another winner.:hatsoff:

The F-22 is not a ground attack aircraft, the F-15 can be, let alone F-15E and variants, were designed to be.

But the F-22 eats F-15s for breakfast, a squadron by lunch and an airforce by dinner. That's what it was designed to do, and it does.

The F-35 is designed as the replacement for the F-16, a joint, low-cost, strike fighter with outstanding air-to-air combat superiority as a secondary role.

 

[Hot Mega]

Money wins wars. You can talk about duty, loyalty and honor (former military man here, so I'm in no way being a smartass), but money wins wars. Spending more than you have to, on weapons you don't need is bad strategy/tactics/policy. To put it another way, let's say that there is another warplane ready to be built (an F-23, if you will). It's so good that a high school grad can wipe a squadron of F-22s from the sky while picking his nose. But this plane is going to cost a Trillion dollars to build and deploy. Should we build it? Why?

I'm going to play devils advocate here (in a friendly way). You say the F-22 is better? Prove it. It has no combat track record, therefore there has been no cost/benefit analysis. There is no way of knowing how it's going to stand up maintenance-wise in a full-blown shooting war, where it is relied upon daily. And again, what exactly do we use it for? We are going to be fighting cave-dwellers and teenagers armed with AK's from now on.

Context is key. With the current world-wide situation being what it is, I'll stand by my earlier comment. I'll take my A-10 over your F-22 and Tridents F-15 any day, and call it the better warplane.

Again, you're challenging on a point I haven't made here. In terms of sheer capability in comparison to the F-15, the F-22 is the superior aircraft.

I have argued in the past re the B-1 (for example) that it was reasonable to cut the program based on the planning for the available options and the price tag of the B-1. That argument has nothing to do with diminishing the capabilities of the B-1 though.

The A-10?? Who's talking about an application in a theater besides you? No one's discussing practical application ...It was stated the F-15 was even 'better' than the F-22...I disagree.

The F-22 is not a ground attack aircraft, the F-15 can be, let alone F-15E and variants, were designed to be.

But the F-22 eats F-15s for breakfast, a squadron by lunch and an airforce by dinner. That's what it was designed to do, and it does.

The F-35 is designed as the replacement for the F-16, a joint, low-cost, strike fighter with outstanding air-to-air combat superiority as a secondary role.

Agree.

 

[FrostyBoy]

The A-10?? Who's talking about an application in a theater besides you? No one's discussing practical application ...It was stated the F-15 was even 'better' than the F-22...I disagree.

This is a thread about the conflict in Libya. You're saying the F-22 is the better warplane. I'm asking: At what? What is happening in Libya that we need the F-22 for? And what is happening there that makes the F-15 so great? Considering that the money spent is money that can't be spent elsewhere, are these valid investments?

I'm still relatively new here, so you're going to have to bear with me. When I see a thread title, I just assume that's what the discussion is about. I guess I'm stupid that way.

 

[Hot Mega]

This is a thread about the conflict in Libya. You're saying the F-22 is the better warplane. I'm asking: At what? What is happening in Libya that we need the F-22 for? And what is happening there that makes the F-15 so great? Considering that the money spent is money that can't be spent elsewhere, are these valid investments?

I'm still relatively new here, so you're going to have to bear with me. When I see a thread title, I just assume that's what the discussion is about. I guess I'm stupid that way.

The 'F' designation means the primary role of both aircraft is fighter. In terms of fighter capability the F-22 is superior.

I haven't commented much on the 'conflict' in Libya beyond saying it's beyond our role to be intervening in their affairs militarily but that's about it...

I was just responding to the narrow assertion by Tri that the F-15 was 'even better' than the F-22. I'm not sure if he meant for a specific mission but the F-22 is the best fighter aircraft out there.

I'm former military too but my knowledge of the F-22's capabilities doesn't have anything to do with that as it was many years ago when I was active duty.

 

[georges]

The 'F' designation means the primary role of both aircraft is fighter. In terms of fighter capability the F-22 is superior.

I haven't commented much on the 'conflict' in Libya beyond saying it's beyond our role to be intervening in their affairs militarily but that's about it...

I was just responding to the narrow assertion by Tri that the F-15 was 'even better' than the F-22. I'm not sure if he meant for a specific mission but the F-22 is the best fighter aircraft out there.

I'm former military too but my knowledge of the F-22's capabilities doesn't have anything to do with that as it was many years ago when I was active duty.

The f22 is the sole fifth generation fighter with the most advanced phased area scanned array radar, completely stealthy and able to reach mach 2+. It was however limited in production because of its costs and sadly obama stopped its production. Over 700 were planed now only 135 are in service. The f15e beats the f22 with the maximum attack payload of nearly 10 tons as well as in topspeed where the eagle reaches 2655km/h and also in autonomy, the eagle can fly a considerable long distance. Sure the f15 hasn't got the stealth, the ultimate phased area scanned array radar, ecms and the manoeuvrability of the f22 but even after all those years it remains a very capable aircraft.

 

[Trident1]

The F-15SE has some stealth capability as it's weapon stores are internal.

 

[Facetious]

U.S. finds no organized Al Qaeda presence in Libya opposition, officials say

Eastern Libya, the rebels' base, has a history as a breeding ground for Islamic militants, but an intelligence-gathering effort has not uncovered a significant number of extremists, officials say.



Reporting from Washington— Despite fears that Islamic extremists may be playing a hidden role in the rebellion against Moammar Kadafi, the U.S. intelligence community has found no organized presence of Al Qaeda or its allies among the Libyan opposition, American officials say.

A U.S. intelligence-gathering effort that began shortly after anti-Kadafi forces started seizing towns in eastern Libya last month has not uncovered a significant presence of Islamic militants among the insurgents.

"We're keeping an eye out for extremist activity in Libya, but we haven't seen much, if any, to date," said a U.S. counter-terrorism official. A Defense official added that the U.S. had not seen a direct link between the opposition and extremists.

A congressional staffer who receives intelligence briefings did not dispute those assessments. But the aide added: "There ought to be a concern and recognition that there may be such a linkage. There should also be an appreciation that the opposition is not a uniform, monolithic movement."

Eastern Libya has a history as a breeding ground for Islamic militants. U.S. officials say more than 100 Libyans entered Iraq to fight in the anti-U.S. insurgency between August 2006 and August 2007. The vast majority came from Benghazi, the rebels' de facto capital, and nearby Derna.

The Obama administration is concerned about long-term instability that could allow extremism to take root, and is sensitive to any suggestion that Al Qaeda, which has long opposed Kadafi, could somehow benefit from the U.S.-led international military effort in Libya.

On Feb. 24, Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, a North African affiliate of the group, vowed to "do whatever we can" to help the Libyan rebels, according to a statement translated by SITE Intelligence Group, a Washington-based company that tracks militant websites.

Kadafi has repeatedly claimed that the insurgents are dominated by Al Qaeda, a charge strongly denied by opposition leaders in eastern Libya, an area that has long opposed Kadafi.

Islamic fundamentalists clearly are among the rebels, but no organized segment is pursuing a Taliban-style government or an Al Qaeda agenda, Libya experts say.

"Who is behind the revolution? It's not the Islamists or the jihadists," said Noman Benotman, a former Libyan militant now with the Quilliam Foundation, a London-based group staffed by former Islamic radicals. "It's ordinary people, moderates, liberals, lawyers and writers."

"There's no evidence that any of the leaders are extremists, and to the extent that we know anything, they seem to be secular professionals," said Robert Pape, a terrorism expert at the University of Chicago who has traveled to Libya.

Charles Faddis, who led a CIA team in northern Iraq before the 2003 invasion, and who retired in 2008, questioned whether the U.S. intelligence community really understands who the rebels are.

"Everyone wants to believe the opposition consists of individuals dedicated to a democratic revolution," Faddis said. "Is that true?"

"Is this a political movement or a tribal one? What we need is solid intelligence on the nature of the opposition, who the key figures are, who is going to emerge on top. I suspect we do not have that, because our collection inside Libya, a denied area, has probably been very weak for a very long time."

A Libyan journalist in Derna said in an interview last week that Islamic militants were seeking influence in that city. "In the beginning I was very optimistic about the possibility of reform and change, but there has been a violent takeover and now we are seeing foreign fighters, Islamists, from the Gulf and other Arab countries," said Milad Hassani.

The large number of Libyans who went to fight in Iraq is less an indication of a large extremist community than a social network that could be activated in a short period of time, said Brian Fishman, a terrorism expert who analyzed captured documents about the Libyan fighters for the U.S. Military Academy at West Point.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said at a Senate committee hearing on March 2 that the U.S. should not let Libya slide into Somalia-like chaos and possibly create fertile ground for extremist ideologies to spread.

source


Wouldn't that be nice to later find out that the colonel wasn't so bad after all?
As they say, The devil you know is often better than the devil you don't.
I sure hope that our intel apparatus really follows up on this potential development.

Nescafe anybody? (spiked coffee) :1orglaugh :ak47:

 

[emceeemcee]

The row came as France confirmed that one of its fighter jets had destroyed a Libyan air force plane, the first to breach the no-fly zone since it was imposed on 19 March. The Libyan G2/Galeb trainer aircraft was destroyed by an air-to-ground missile just after it landed at an air base near rebel-held town of Misrata, a French military spokesman said.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/24/turkey-france-clash-libya-campaign

huh?


sounds like they might have whacked a plane and pilot who defected

 

[Straight Shooter]

Re: F-22

The F-22 is not a ground attack aircraft, the F-15 can be, let alone F-15E and variants, were designed to be.

But the F-22 eats F-15s for breakfast, a squadron by lunch and an airforce by dinner. That's what it was designed to do, and it does.

The F-35 is designed as the replacement for the F-16, a joint, low-cost, strike fighter with outstanding air-to-air combat superiority as a secondary role.

The F-22 is a multirole fighter, it's primary role is usually a fighter while the secondary role is air-to-surface attack.