during the presser, bloomberg said there was no link between the arrested guy and foreign entities

i just posted it b/c zerohedge is usually pretty good source

[Edited on November 20, 2011 at 9:52 PM. Reason : ended up not being an event relevant to this thread]

11/20/2011 9:52:06 PM

We're at war with Iran?

WE'RE AT WAR WITH IRAN?

SOUND THE ALARM SOUND THE BELLS RAISE YOUR ARMS DRAW YOUR BLADES MEN FOR THE MOTHERLAND!

11/20/2011 10:32:11 PM

Quote :

"i just posted it b/c zerohedge is usually pretty good source"

prisonplanet < zerohedge < drudgereport < foxnews

11/21/2011 10:47:21 AM

damn

http://en.news.maktoob.com/20090001253000/Iran_s_Revolutionary_Guards_dare_Israel_to_attack/Article.htm

Iran's Revolutionary Guards dare Israel to attack

Quote :

"TEHRAN (AFP) - Iran dares Israel to attack, because the retaliation would send the Jewish state to "the dustbin of history," a senior Revolutionary Guards commander said, according to the Fars news agency Monday. "Our greatest wish is that they commit such a mistake," the chief of the Guards' aerospatial division, Amir-Ali Hadjizadeh, was quoted as saying. "For some time there has been a hidden energy we hope to expend to consign the enemies of Islam forever to the dustbin of history," he said. "Our ballistic (missile) capacity never ceases to grow," he added."

11/22/2011 5:59:06 PM

Is Iran Already Under Attack?

Quote :

"Adam Chandler, the Goldblog deputy-editor-for-monitoring-Iran-obsessively-even-though-Goldblog-himself-also-monitors-Iran-obsessively, pointed out to me the other day that perhaps the West has already begun the attack on Iran's nuclear facilities, that perhaps we ought to reframe this issue a bit. The attacks he mentioned are not the usual sub-rosa, eyebrow-raising tech and computer virus sort of attacks, but outright physical attacks. This is more a semantic issue, I suppose (and yes, I realize the Iranian regime is virulently anti-semantic), but operations against Iran are seeming to move away from the pure Mossad-in-the-70s-style attacks to straight-up military confrontations. I don't know if this is a sign of escalation or desperation or both, though it seems to fair to say that less subtlety on the part of Israel, the U.S. and whoever else is doing this suggests that the previous tactics were deemed insufficient. Following a (perhaps not-so-mysterious) explosion on a military base last month that took with it the life of Gen. Hassan Tehrani Moghaddam--one of the Iranian missile program's most distinguished OGs--comes news of a second explosion in Isfahan this past Monday, which according to sources "struck the uranium enrichment facility there, despite denials by Tehran." Of course, accurate news out of Tehran is hard to come by, but if you want to take this a step further, one might consider Tuesday's (perhaps not-so-spontaneous) storming of the British embassy by Iranian "students" to be quite an effective smokescreen in keeping news of this second explosion from making serious waves. If you've had a lot of coffee, it's also worthy to note that on Monday evening, following the explosion in Iran, four missiles fired from southern Lebanon struck Israel--the first such incident in over two years. I'm not entirely convinced, but it's not unreasonable to group these recent explosions with the Stuxnet virus of last summer that haywired an uranium enrichment facility in Natanz; last October's explosion at a Shahab missile factory; the killing of three Iranian nuclear scientists in the past two years, last November's attempted assassination of Fereydoun Abbasi-Davan--a senior official in the nuclear program -- and rumblings of a second supervirus deployed this month as proof that the West's war on Iran's nuclear program is getting less covert by the minute."

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/12/is-iran-already-under-attack/249284/

12/2/2011 9:21:42 AM

Quote :

"Iran's diplomats in London have flown home on Friday as a deadline loomed for their expulsion following the storming of the British embassy in Tehran on Sunday. "I can confirm that, earlier this afternoon, all diplomatic staff of the Iranian embassy in London took off from Heathrow airport," said a British foreign office spokesman. "They are returning to Iran in line with the foreign secretary's statement to parliament on Wednesday." William Hague, the British foreign minister, told parliament on Wednesday that he had given Iran's diplomats 48 hours to close the embassy and leave the country after the attack on Britain's mission in Tehran on Tuesday. The Iranian flag was still flying outside the Iranian embassy in west London ahead of the deadline but a stream of people could be seen carrying suitcases and boxes out of the premises. A removals van was also parked outside a residential annexe to the building, while a British policeman was stationed at the door of the embassy. Al Jazeera's Tim Friend reporting from London said: "The embassy is empty, and diplomats are on their way to Tehran." Britain has also evacuated its diplomats from Iran and closed its embassy following the attack, which Hague said could not have happened without the Iranian regime's tacit consent. The Tehran protest came after the Iranian parliament voted on Sunday to expel the British ambassador and reduce trade relations with Britain in retaliation for UK-led sanctions against Iran's banking sector. Hundreds of students rampaged for hours through Britain's two diplomatic compounds in Tehran, tearing down the Union Jack flag , ripping up pictures of Queen Elizabeth II and trashing offices. New sanctions On Thursday, the European Union piled pressure on Iran following the attack, by beefing up sanctions over Tehran's nuclear programme and threatening to hit its oil and financial sector next. Last week, the US, Canada and the UK announced new sanctions against Iran, including measures to restrict the activities of the Iranian central bank. The UK said then it was severing all financial ties with Iran. The move followed a report by the UN's nuclear watchdog (IAEA) that said Iran had carried out tests "relevant to the development of a nuclear device". Iran denies the accusations, saying its nuclear programme is solely for peaceful purposes. Fresh demonstrations took place in Iran on Friday in support of the storming of the British compounds, the official IRNA news agency reported. After attending Friday prayers in Tehran University, worshippers flocked to central Enqelab (Revolution) Square, chanting "Death to Britain" and "(We) support the seizure of the second den of spies (the British embassy).""

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2011/12/201112215337535922.html

12/2/2011 2:52:57 PM

Why the fuck are sanctions still being used? Is there any example in history where sanctions actually influenced policy? The elite in Iran will find ways around sanctions. The common people will not, and as a result, they will be more likely to align themselves with the regime in opposition to Western forces.

Our leaders are idiots.



[Edited on December 2, 2011 at 4:17 PM. Reason : ]

12/2/2011 4:14:40 PM

Quote :

"Why the fuck are sanctions still being used?"

You know exactly why. It makes the domestic audience feel all warm and fuzzy that they're doing something, and it plays better with other countries and our homegrown peaceniks than launching the B-2's would. I don't think any intelligent person (or even most people in government, ba-dum-ching) actually expects sanctions to change how Iran behaves. They expect sanctions to placate our own concerns.

Quote :

"Is there any example in history where sanctions actually influenced policy?"

Sure, though not generally in what we'd call a productive way. For example, sanctions changed Japanese policy to "bomb Pearl Harbor."

12/3/2011 12:37:17 AM

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/04/us-iran-usa-drone-idUSTRE7B30CQ20111204

Quote :

"(Reuters) - Iran's military said on Sunday it had shot down a U.S. reconnaissance drone aircraft in eastern Iran, a military source told state television. "Iran's military has downed an intruding RQ-170 American drone in eastern Iran," Iran's Arabic-language Al Alam state television network quoted the unnamed source as saying. "The spy drone, which has been downed with little damage, was seized by the Iranian armed forces." Iran shot down the drone at a time when it is trying to contain foreign reaction to the storming of the British embassy in Tehran on Tuesday, shortly after London announced that it would impose sanctions on Iran's central bank in connection with Iran's controversial nuclear enrichment program. Britain evacuated its diplomatic staff from Iran and expelled Iranian diplomats in London in retaliation, and several other EU members recalled their ambassadors from Tehran. The attack dragged Iran's relations with Europe to a long-time low. Washington and EU countries have been discussing measures to restrict Iran's oil exports since the United Nations nuclear watchdog issued a report in November with what it said was evidence that Tehran had worked on designing an atom bomb. Iran says its nuclear program is entirely peaceful."

12/4/2011 10:29:29 AM

"Hi, I'm Troy McRQ170. You may remember me from other such invasions of sovereign airspaces as Pakistan and North Korea."

Not exactly a tiny little spy plane. 75-90 foot wingspawn, no doubt can be equipped as a bomber.


[Edited on December 4, 2011 at 10:37 AM. Reason : /]

12/4/2011 10:34:50 AM

I miss Phil Hartman

12/4/2011 4:08:17 PM

Maybe the Iranians will put some photos of this plane on facebook or twitter. I enjoyed seeing that fancy helicopter that we lost while murdering osama.

12/4/2011 7:34:26 PM

nah. its probably in china already by now. as it should be.

12/4/2011 7:54:25 PM

...or they could just be lying, but heaven forbid TSB actually side with its home country.

12/4/2011 8:04:18 PM

It is irrational to suggest that the U.S. isn't flying spy planes over Iran. It's not a matter of patriotism.

12/4/2011 8:28:47 PM

Quote :

"I enjoyed seeing that fancy helicopter that we lost while murdering osama."

The seals blew it up upon their exit. No one saw it.

12/5/2011 7:45:58 AM

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iran-drone-20111205,0,2353619.story

Quote :

"The North Atlantic Treaty Organization's U.S.-led force in neighboring Afghanistan said Iranian authorities might be referring to an unarmed U.S. reconnaissance plane that went missing during a mission in western Afghanistan late last week. "The operators of the UAV [unmanned aerial vehicle] lost control of the aircraft and had been working to determine its status," NATO's International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan said in a brief statement."

right

12/5/2011 8:10:46 AM

Quote :

"Not exactly a tiny little spy plane. 75-90 foot wingspawn, no doubt can be equipped as a bomber."

Yeah, because it's so easy to just attach bombs onto an aircraft.

12/5/2011 9:04:13 AM

^
I'm not an expert on military aircraft...so can you explain why it's not?

[Edited on December 5, 2011 at 9:31 AM. Reason : .]

12/5/2011 9:27:40 AM

Quote :

" The seals blew it up upon their exit. No one saw it. "

It wasn't completely destroyed, there are pics on the interwebs.

12/5/2011 9:48:00 AM

Quote :

"I'm not an expert on military aircraft...so can you explain why it's not?"

You don't have to be a military aircraft expert to figure it out. It's the same reason a Honda civic can't tow a boat. Common sense should give you a hint.

12/5/2011 10:05:49 AM

^^The only thing you could see from the photos posted was some wreckage and part of a tail rotor that appears to be a Commanche attack helicopter. Far from a top-secret aircraft.



----------------------

^^^Because it's a stealth aircraft meaning that any ordnance that is carried must be carried internally to avoid mucking with the radar profile of the airframe. Aircraft that are acquisitions as unarmed aircraft are optimized for space, fuel, and flight performance based on what it does and does not need. In other words, they didn't design it for the weight or space capacity to carry munitions.

In short, the previous commenter was correct; you can't just duct tape some SDBs to the underwing of an aircraft and call it a day. I'd bet a conversation with the ground crew could tell you exactly how little the spare space is inside the fuselage.

(A little more detail: Looking at the image posted, if that's the actual UAV, the fuselage appears to be, primarily, the air duct and jet engine. The wings generally contain mostly fuel and the rest, would be control avionics and recon equipment, if that is it's purpose. There is no bomb bay, there is no secret storage compartment... no weapons unless it was designed with them from square one. Even then, it wouldn't be capable of many munitions.)

[Edited on December 5, 2011 at 10:18 AM. Reason : Added '^'s]

12/5/2011 10:17:03 AM

^^
It has a takeoff weight of 8500 lbs. Seems like enough to carry a couple of 500 lb bombs. How should I know if the military has that capability or not?

^
Thanks.

12/5/2011 10:19:38 AM

Quote :

"How should I know if the military has that capability or not?"

No one should expect you too; it's idiotic to chastise people for not knowing everything about everything. However, it's also not too bright to jump to conclusions about something you don't know a lot about (that's nothing you did, but obviously it didn't stop smc). Hey, we all make assumptions, but making a leap from "the US is flying recon aircraft around potentially hostile areas" to "the US is flying around undoubtedly armed aircraft around areas that we currently are not in hostilities with" is a massive jump with big implications.

If someone's going to make a point like that, I would love to see any proof besides their normal "war mongers iz bad" rants and raves. From what I've read and seen, there's absolutely no reason to think we have anything armed anywhere near Iran besides anyone (a) operating in the south western area of Afghanistan and (b) Aegis vessels making sure no missiles get lobbed out of Iran towards the west a few hundred miles.

[Edited on December 5, 2011 at 10:43 AM. Reason : spelling]

12/5/2011 10:42:12 AM

There's plenty of reason to suspect covert operations in Iran (see the article I posted at the top of this page), but there is no proof at this point, only speculation.

12/5/2011 10:56:21 AM

I wasn't attempting to chastise you adultswim, only smc's comment of 'no doubt can be equipped as a bomber'.

12/5/2011 11:00:03 AM

^^The article you post doesn't send up any red flags to me, but as you said, it's just speculation.

I'm sure we're doing recon missions around Iran, but if that constitutes a "covert mission", then technically we've been conducting covert missions in most modern countries for years. That's the beauty of satellite networks. I just don't like the phrase "covert mission" because I think most people get this mental image of something from a fucking video game where they send 4 guys on a HALO jump into enemy territory to college information and intelligence artifacts, then return back to friendly territory. Doesn't work like that.

12/5/2011 11:14:20 AM

is there anything we can't do with a tomahawk that a stealth unmanned aircraft would be capable of doing with munitions? The only thing that comes to mind is bunker busters, but I thought those bombs were ungodly heavy.

12/5/2011 11:15:48 AM

^^
Well the assassination of nuclear scientists, explosions at nuclear facilities, and Stuxnet would all be clear acts of war if traced back to the US or Israel.

[Edited on December 5, 2011 at 11:19 AM. Reason : .]

12/5/2011 11:18:31 AM

Quote :

"is there anything we can't do with a tomahawk that a stealth unmanned aircraft would be capable of doing with munitions? The only thing that comes to mind is bunker busters, but I thought those bombs were ungodly heavy."

good question.

apples/oranges

the tomahawk has it's main single purpose while a UAV has a multi-role capability as a recon/radar jammer/decoy/battlefield surveillance/intercepting enemy comms/electronic warfare as well as deploy munitions



edit/ personal opinion:
the tomahawk is a great weapons system and is only currently deployed on naval platforms, its mission time can be compromising to a given scenario (tracking a vehicle)

instead of launching from 1000 nautical miles you could have a short range UAV deploy a missile to destroy a vehicle in a matter of seconds instead of risking a mission failure because of a moving target or losing track of the target.

[Edited on December 5, 2011 at 11:47 AM. Reason : edit]

12/5/2011 11:45:04 AM

^^You're right. If there was anything connecting us to those actions, it would certainly be a hostile action.

That being said, assassinating nuclear scientists doesn't accomplish anything tactically other than temporarily causing a hiccup in their development of nuclear technology while risking a massive international incident that would cause hostilities with Iran as well as between the US and the rest of the western world.

There are a lot of crazy, blood thirsty organizations around the world that have zero connection to the US government, some being militant and some being cyber. IMHO, when I see a news article that a Stuxent string was sent to the nuclear facilities in Iran and people automatically start assuming there is a US government connection, they aren't giving enough credit to other governments and organizations around the world.

---------------

^Kind of. UAV acquisition is.... fluid. It's not like other systems were you have a rigorous set of KPPs to meet before reaching IOC with a technology. We have some multi-purpose UAVs, but their hardware is fairly constant. A UAV may jump from Search and Rescue to Recon to aiding in the ISR of ground troops, but it's still equipped with the same camera and sensors, for the most part.

They can be modified, but not with depot-level maintenance. They would need to be sent back state-side or at least to a major depot facility.

[Edited on December 5, 2011 at 11:56 AM. Reason : ...]

12/5/2011 11:45:31 AM

This is an interesting read, given the recent explosion.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/18/wikileaks-us-embassy-cable-iran-nuclear

Quote :

"The United States was advised to adopt a policy of "covert sabotage" of Iran's clandestine nuclear facilities, including computer hacking and "unexplained explosions", by an influential German thinktank, a leaked US embassy cable reveals. Volker Perthes, director of Germany's government-funded Institute for Security and International Affairs, told US officials in Berlin that undercover operations would be "more effective than a military strike" in curtailing Iran's nuclear ambitions. A sophisticated computer worm, Stuxnet, infiltrated the Natanz nuclear facility last year, delaying Iran's programme by some months. The New York Times said this week that Stuxnet was a joint US-Israeli operation. On Monday, Iran's top nuclear negotiator blamed the US for the cyber-attack. Saeed Jalili told NBC News an investigation had found the US was involved in the attack that apparently shut down a fifth of Iran's nuclear centrifuges in November. "I have witnessed some documents that show [US participation]," he said. A diplomatic cable sent by the US ambassador to Germany, Philip Murphy, in January 2010, records that Perthes said a policy of "covert sabotage (unexplained explosions, accidents, computer hacking etc) would be more effective than a military strike, whose effects in the region could be devastating". Perthes is a leading western expert on Iran. An earlier diplomatic cable, sent by Murphy on 14 December 2009 showed that his advice was heeded by politicians and officials - including Condoleezza Rice, the former US secretary of state. "The majority of the guests at the table distinctly deferred to Perthes for guidance on where the Iran issue might be headed or should be headed," Murphy wrote. "This was striking amongst such a high ranking group of people operationally involved with the Iran issue." In an interview with the Guardian, Perthes said the ambassador accurately reflected his view "that 'unexplained accidents' or 'computer failures' etc are certainly better than military strikes. And that military strikes – a military escalation with Iran – must be avoided. "Compared to military action, such acts have the advantage that the leadership of a country that is affected wouldn't need to respond – everybody can agree that there was a technical failure, no one needs to shoot or bomb. And at the same time, everybody has understood the message – about what developments are unacceptable to the other side. "My sense at the beginning of 2010 was – without having any specific knowledge – that some countries were indeed preparing to slow down the Iranian nuclear programme by acts of sabotage, or computer hacking." US and Israeli officials refused to comment on their reported involvement with Stuxnet yesterday. However, the leaked cables show that more covert methods of infiltrating Iran's nuclear programme – including powerful cyber attacks – was a proposal gaining traction inside US diplomatic circles last year. President George Bush approved $300m (£189m) on joint covert projects aimed at Iran, understood to have included Stuxnet, before leaving office in 2009. The chances of a military strike against Iran are now understood to be receding, in part because of the success of the Stuxnet cyberattack, but also due to the assassination last year of two Iranian nuclear scientists, which was attributed to Israel. Stuxnet wiped out roughly a fifth of the centrifuges used to enrich uranium at Iran's Natanz base around August last year. Security experts told the Guardian at the time that Stuxnet was "the most refined piece of malware ever discovered", raising suspicion that it was a well-funded and potentially state-sponsored operation. According to the New York Times, the Stuxnet worm was tested at a secret Israeli bunker at Dimano, near the Negev desert."

12/5/2011 12:01:56 PM

^what is the consensus amongst liberals who voted for him based on a peace strategy instead of a covert war strategy? are you disappointed in obama for going to this level? or do you support the fact that he openly (yet secretively) is supporting a movement against a nuclear armed Iran?

i'm just curious

Quote :

"They would need to be sent back state-side or at least to a major depot facility."

while they are multi-role capable, they DO 'tend' to serve a single role function per mission. agreed.

12/5/2011 12:15:04 PM

Quote :

"Iran Has Missing U.S. Stealth Drone, U.S. Military Sources Tell Fox News "

12/5/2011 12:16:50 PM

Quote :

"^what is the consensus amongst liberals who voted for him based on a peace strategy instead of a covert war strategy? are you disappointed in obama for going to this level? or do you support the fact that he openly (yet secretively) is supporting a movement against a nuclear armed Iran?"

I didn't vote for him but to answer your question, I'm not a fan of the actions being taken against Iran. Even more-so if we're responsible for the assassinations, etc.

12/5/2011 12:33:14 PM

pack_bryan, your analysis of Tomahawk is a bit off. Tomahawk isn't a Navy-only system. They can also be launched via aircraft. The thing about UAVs is that they are either extremely available with limited range, or have long ranges and endurance but require a lot of prep time.

A Tomahawk is almost instantly available. If we had a naval asset in the GOO, we could have ordnance on target in about an hour using a Naval asset. An aircraft would need fueling and travel time. Tactically, bringing up Tomahawk in the same sentence as munitions that a UAV would carry (even class 3 UAVs) is a non-starter. Even the Reapers (basically armed Predators) carry Hellfire missiles which is the same size munition that an Apache helo carries... nothing too impressive. The operation for ordnance on UAVs has been little more than targets of opportunity. Currently, the situation that you currently laid out, where we know someone will be in an area, but we aren't sure where so we just have a UAV loiter until the a vehicle pops up, is the only regular use of armed drones. They can also be used to break up small arms fights.

-------------

Anyway, if you're going to think about this stuff, you can't just think of the system. I know that's what they teach at State, but a system is a part of a mission and you can't lose sight of that. If a UAV is in an area, it must report back to it's user. If I'm Haji sitting around in the desert, I'm not going to notice a class 2 UAV flying at 10K feet. I may not think there are any Americans around because I didn't get an education in the UK and I can't see or hear any Americans. If I see a car driving on the road and a missile is fired, I can see that the missile came from some kind of aircraft in the sky and I learn how to find signs of Americans and alter my tactics accordingly. Compare that to if I see a car on the road and without warning I have ordnance inbound with no sign of where it came from. Now I don't know where the Americans are, if they can see me, if they have people in the area, etc, etc...

The tactical picture surrounding having a little buzzing UAV is just completely different from anything else. If you are going to build a UAV for weapons, then it's going to be optimized for weapons. If it's built for cameras and sensors, then it will be optimized for that payload. I guess what I'm saying is be careful when you start talking about the multi-mission capability of a single UAV. The hardware doesn't change in any of the UAVs I've dealt with unless another program is funded to build a variant of that UAV, in which case it is no longer the same platform.

12/5/2011 2:07:41 PM

My tomahawk source was:

"Although a number of launch platforms have been deployed or envisaged, only naval (both surface ship and submarine) launched variants are currently in service."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomahawk_(missile)

Unless you have sources that we are launching tomahawks from B1's / B2's / B52's I stand corrected.

12/5/2011 2:14:28 PM

I'm fairly certain I'm the most knowledgeable person on TWW about USAF munitions, and I can say we do not carry them. The USAF does have plenty of cruise missiles, long range ground attack missiles and bombs, however, the Tomahawk is not one of them.

12/5/2011 2:33:40 PM

Quote :

"Unless you have sources that we are launching tomahawks from B1's / B2's / B52's I stand corrected."

I work about 2 minutes from Applications Engineering offices for Tomahawk. Trust me, I hear a lot about those fucking missiles (more than I care to... they're like a little fraternity or something).

They may have taken them out of the arsenal, but they are still down there working on some sort of airborne cruise missile-type programs that is akin to Tomahawk. It's always been a Navy program, so it's very likely that the Air Force replaced it with their own version of a similar platform.

[Edited on December 5, 2011 at 2:38 PM. Reason : .]

12/5/2011 2:36:37 PM

akin to Tomahawk

exactly.

I'm not knocking the tomahawk itself or your knowledge of where US weapons are currently stationed and how they are being launched.

12/5/2011 2:46:16 PM

^ Alright, man...

Point is you were suggesting and armed UAV could somehow be more convenient than 'a generic cruise missile launched from the sea'. That's not exactly true, as explained previously. Apples:Oranges.

12/5/2011 2:51:11 PM

nice photos of your ship. so we get it. you like tomahawks since you've fired them for a living.

original question: "is there anything we can't do with a tomahawk that a stealth unmanned aircraft would be capable of doing"


but yeh, Tomahawks are not only the same things as drones they are better!


[Edited on December 5, 2011 at 3:12 PM. Reason : ,]

12/5/2011 3:01:34 PM

^ No, you missed the point again. I actually am not a big Tomahawk fan or anything. Maybe I'm not being clear enough: your original question of whether there is anything a Tomahawk can do that a stealth UAV can't do isn't a silly question because "I like Tomahawks", it's because they are both totally different tactical units. UAVs are currently used as ISR capabilities. Some have been weaponized with "strategic" weapons that can be used for targets of opportunity or for breaking stalemates in small arms fights... but we don't send UAVs out to go hunting.

Tomahawks, on the other hand, are designed as strike weapons. They have one mission and one only: projected precision firepower from sea to land. That's it. Trying to say "is there anything a Tomahawk can do that a stealth UAV can't do" is like trying to ask if an orange is a better fruit than a hamburger. The question, by design, makes no sense. Hope this makes it a bit clearer.

12/5/2011 4:40:10 PM

but if a hamburger is a fruit then i get my daily requirements.

12/5/2011 5:02:10 PM

the question was asked in response to a comment being made about a UAV possibly being loaded up with 500-1000 pounds of ordnance and used for strike capabilities. I posed the question as a way of questioning why our military would spend millions of dollars on design modifications and refabricating a plane to do what an already existing weapons platform would be capable of.

12/5/2011 5:48:38 PM

Is it really inconceivable that the military is capable of wasting a shitload of money? It's like any government entity. When you don't have the market encouraging thrift and lower costs, you're going to have waste. The U.S. military is arguably the most wasteful organization on the planet.

[Edited on December 5, 2011 at 7:13 PM. Reason : ]

12/5/2011 7:12:18 PM

^^^^"but we don't send UAVs out to go hunting" hahaha. you had me until there. but you decided to go full retard and start claiming we have fucking tomahawks being deployed on planes. you dumbass. just look at bbhehe's post. i'll be sure to show that to a few people and get a few laughs later. so thanks.



[Edited on December 5, 2011 at 7:17 PM. Reason : ,]

12/5/2011 7:13:38 PM

a UAV capable of launching Tomahawks? Doubtful

Tomahawks are medium to long range munitions that are capable of executing a search/scan flight path, they are essentially UAVs without the reconnaissance platforms. They're pretty much only used when a target is known, whereas armed UAVs are hunter killer platforms.

12/5/2011 7:20:02 PM

Pack, what in the world are you talking about. The fact that Tomahawks use to be on aircraft isn't even a question. That's true. I assumed that they were still doing SOMETHING with the Air Force because the guys are crawling all over the Tomahawk building. Maybe they are just sharing software or simulations, but they are working together. Your initial point was somehow comparing the capabilities of UAVs and Tomahawks. If you forgot, I'll quote it for you:

Quote :

"the tomahawk is a great weapons system and is only currently deployed on naval platforms, its mission time can be compromising to a given scenario (tracking a vehicle) instead of launching from 1000 nautical miles you could have a short range UAV deploy a missile to destroy a vehicle in a matter of seconds instead of risking a mission failure because of a moving target or losing track of the target."

So.... I explained to you that a Tomahawk and UAV aren't interchangeable which makes this statement complete non-sense. Again, in case you forgot, I'll quote it.

Quote :

"The thing about UAVs is that they are either extremely available with limited range, or have long ranges and endurance but require a lot of prep time. A Tomahawk is almost instantly available. If we had a naval asset in the GOO, we could have ordnance on target in about an hour using a Naval asset. An aircraft would need fueling and travel time. Tactically, bringing up Tomahawk in the same sentence as munitions that a UAV would carry (even class 3 UAVs) is a non-starter."

Was there an incorrect factoid in there? Sure, I made a bad assumption off something I knew use to occur and based on the interactions I see between the Tomahawk office and the Air Force. The fact that my factoid about where Tomahawks were used doesn't in any way negate that your initial attempt to somehow compare the virtues of a Tomahawk vs a UAV makes absolutely no sense.

----

Quote :

"i'll be sure to show that to a few people and get a few laughs later. so thanks."

Sorry, I guess my idea of what you do in college for laughs has just changed a lot in the past two years. You sure showed me...

12/5/2011 8:25:20 PM

Quote :

"The only thing you could see from the photos posted was some wreckage and part of a tail rotor that appears to be a Commanche attack helicopter. Far from a top-secret aircraft."

that wreckage was sent to china for reverse engineering. they don't need the plane design,they just needed the stealth technology from it. China has the best mimicking engineers in the world.

12/5/2011 9:02:08 PM