America - The Official Thread

  • Thread starter ///M-Spec
  • 38,011 comments
  • 1,484,987 views
Liquid
Which doesn't make North any less of a massive hypocrite.
Click to expand...
Once I thought Oliver North's head belonged on the end of a spike. Now, having watched the mainly British Game of Thrones series, I hold a slightly more nuanced attitude.
 
twitcher
Bushehr, Iran is about the closest you can get in the Persian Gulf to Tehran, and it’s roughly 466 miles as the crow flies. Anything I could find about the Navy SM6 indicates it’s range is about 370 miles.
Click to expand...
Yeah, the missiles I mentioned would have the best chance of reaching the airport from outside Iran, but realistically you couldn't use them to fire at such a distance. Even ignoring the range limitations, the missile flight time would be so long that tracking the plane would have had to begun while it was sitting on the ground.


No argument from me on the operating costs, it’s not cheap. To my understanding, a lot of that has to do with the stealth coating...the paint job :lol:

Still though, outrage over operating costs is nothing new. After all, the operating costs of the F-15 and F-14 are part of the reason why the Airforce got F-16s and the Navy got F-18s (and part of the reason they retired the F-14s in favour of Super Hornets).
Click to expand...
Operating costs can be a little tricky to pin down too. Aircraft usually go from expensive when new, to less expensive when mature, and back up to expensive when aging. I wasn't able to find a source comparing the F-35 to the F-15C directly but their costs might actually be pretty similar per flight hour. The F-35's costs are elevated right now because it's immature, they'll go down in the following years. The F-15C on the other hand is aging and requires increased maintenance which brings up its cost. The lower maintenance F-16 is cheaper than the F-35 and will likely always be, but Lockheed is aiming for a price well below current figures by 2025 (questionable target) or at worst a moderate price decrease by 2024 that looks like it can reasonably be achieved. That's for the A, the B is going to be more expensive.
 
Bit by bit over decades, the US Congress has been ceding its Constitutional war powers responsibilities to the executive. Now Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) and Rand Paul seem like they may stand with House Democrats for a revision of the current AUMF. Good luck with that, as Jordan Peterson might say.



 
While I'm certainly not a fan of everything Mike Lee does, overall I think he and Mitt Romney are decent enough* Senators for Utah. I mean considering we had grumpy old man Orinn Hatch, it's not like it's a huge step up.

*for politicians anyway
 
The simple reality is that the US is only subject to any kind of threat from Iran because the US is deeply involved in the ME with troops & military assets scattered throughout Iran's backyard. Of course, Iran's entrenched hostility to Israel is a serious problem, but you've got to wonder if the trillions of dollars spent by the US & the various countries in the ME on weapons & fighting had been spent on "peace & reconciliation" the region wouldn't be a trillion times better off. :indiff:
 
Biggles
The simple reality is that the US is only subject to any kind of threat from Iran because the US is deeply involved in the ME with troops & military assets scattered throughout Iran's backyard
Click to expand...

The US have bad relationship with Iran since leftist revolutionaries helped islamic fundamentalists with Iranian Revolution which replaced pro-western monarchy with west-hating islamic theocracy.
 
Exorcet
Yeah, the missiles I mentioned would have the best chance of reaching the airport from outside Iran, but realistically you couldn't use them to fire at such a distance. Even ignoring the range limitations, the missile flight time would be so long that tracking the plane would have had to begun while it was sitting on the ground.
Click to expand...
I think it would really only be possible in a Hollywood movie.

Even if the missile had the theoretical range, hitting a stationary target on the ground from 300 miles away is not anywhere close to the same as hitting a moving airplane. The number of times the missile would have to recalculate its flight path as the airplane changed speed, direction, and altitude, would result in it having little to no energy left by the time it flew 300 miles.

A missile large enough to fly 300 miles would be detectable on radar. Again, the Iranians would have pretty solid proof that it was indeed a missile that shot the plane down.

From what I gather, the plane went down roughly 10-15 minutes after it was airborne? Correct me if I’m wrong there. Assuming the missile travelled at an average speed of Mach 2 (complete guess), 1522.41mph, it would take about 18 minutes to travel 466 miles (assuming missile launched from a ship in the Gulf). So yes, radar would have had to start tracking the target while it was on the ground, or immediately after take off. I know there are radars that can spot planes on the ground - it’s something Israel has to deal with all the time, their adversaries know the moment an Israeli jet goes wheels up. I’ve no idea what the range of these kind of radars is though, 300+ miles seems highly unlikely. What would be more likely than ground radar would be an AWACS flying over Iraq, but even there, they might have the ability to see targets 300 miles away against sky, but a target on the ground at 300 miles seems very optimistic.

Then there’s the “why”. Did the Americans just chuck a missile into the furball around Tehran’s international airport and hope to hit something, anything? Or did they target that plane specifically? If they target that flight specifically, you very quickly get into some Jason Borne / Bond type stuff, or 4-chan trolls are picking targets for the US Military (“ya, the Ukrainian one, that’ll really make everyone’s head spin!”).

Operating costs can be a little tricky to pin down too. Aircraft usually go from expensive when new, to less expensive when mature, and back up to expensive when aging. I wasn't able to find a source comparing the F-35 to the F-15C directly but their costs might actually be pretty similar per flight hour. The F-35's costs are elevated right now because it's immature, they'll go down in the following years. The F-15C on the other hand is aging and requires increased maintenance which brings up its cost. The lower maintenance F-16 is cheaper than the F-35 and will likely always be, but Lockheed is aiming for a price well below current figures by 2025 (questionable target) or at worst a moderate price decrease by 2024 that looks like it can reasonably be achieved. That's for the A, the B is going to be more expensive.
Click to expand...
As far as I know, USAF has retired most of its F-15C fleet. I think there’s one, maybe two Air National Guard squadrons that still fly them, and then a handful are used by the Red Air/Aggressor squadrons for dissimilar airframe BFM/BVR training, and war games.

A more fair comparison would be between the F-35 and an F-15E, or the brand spanking new F-15X (from what I can find, USAF just bought 12 of these for $1.2 billion, or $100 million per unit).
 
Per the Wall Street Journal, Trump killed Soleimani to try and bolster his chances at not getting removed from office:
WSJ
Mr. Trump, after the strike, told associates he was under pressure to deal with Gen. Soleimani from GOP senators he views as important supporters in his coming impeachment trial in the Senate, associates said.
Click to expand...

So, Trumpers, you good with this? This is an acceptable reason to go to war now?
 
Pupik
Nothing really. It just didn't surprise me just as it didn't surprise me in 1998.

Not saying that either is justified, but how history repeats itself history repeats itself.
Click to expand...

The more interesting part to me is that he's admitting it. Yet another time to ask "Does he not know it's wrong? Or does he know that his followers won't ever hold him accountable?" I can never decide which answer is worse.
 
huskeR32
The more interesting part to me is that he's admitting it. Yet another time to ask "Does he not know it's wrong? Or does he know that his followers won't ever hold him accountable?" I can never decide which answer is worse.
Click to expand...

In some ways, the transparency takes away a lot of the work if figuring out how much we're being lied to, but making it more flimsy isn't very reassuring.
 
Liquid
Click to expand...

Holy-Toledo.jpg


Danoff
It's much fun, but it runs afoul of the nutpicking fallacy if it's to be representative.
Click to expand...
You're not wrong. It's why things like 'Jaywalking' and Kimmel's 'Lie Witness News' are comedy gold. If they were to show clips from all respondents (nevermind the scores who simply kept walking), it would go on for hours and it wouldn't be very funny.
 
huh, so there is a name for that. I always wondered.
In other American news:

Seems so many of our friends abroad are picking at us.
 
Rallywagon
huh, so there is a name for that. I always wondered.
In other American news:

Seems so many of our friends abroad are picking at us.
Click to expand...

Should have break checked them :P

It’s kind of crazy, but this happens on a semi regular basis. Militaries are always playing games with one another.
 
Looks like the US was keen on assassinating another one of the top military leaders for Iran on the same night, but the operation didn't work out: https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...f86dbc-3245-11ea-898f-eb846b7e9feb_story.html

I have to imagine there were more than the two as well.

==

Also, it appears that a non-binding War Power resolution was passed in the House: https://www.npr.org/2020/01/09/7949...-in-effort-to-restrict-trumps-actions-against

I believe the Senate needs to approve it to make it an actual law. I'm not 100% sure. What I find odd though is that Trump and his staff are saying they had the authorization to attack Iran due to the War Powers Resolution passed in 2002. Somehow I don't think that lines up. Bombing and shooting up terrorist camps is a war on terrorism. Going after a country proper isn't.
 
Joey D
Looks like the US was keen on assassinating another one of the top military leaders for Iran on the same night, but the operation didn't work out: https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...f86dbc-3245-11ea-898f-eb846b7e9feb_story.html

I have to imagine there were more than the two as well.

==

Also, it appears that a non-binding War Power resolution was passed in the House: https://www.npr.org/2020/01/09/7949...-in-effort-to-restrict-trumps-actions-against

I believe the Senate needs to approve it to make it an actual law. I'm not 100% sure. What I find odd though is that Trump and his staff are saying they had the authorization to attack Iran due to the War Powers Resolution passed in 2002. Somehow I don't think that lines up. Bombing and shooting up terrorist camps is a war on terrorism. Going after a country proper isn't.
Click to expand...
Couldn't they just say "Iran is a terrorist organization" or "funds terrorist organizations" for justification?
 
Pupik
He actually pulled this play right out of Bill Clinton's book.
https://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/clinton-orders-airstrike-on-iraq-dec-16-1998-232571
Click to expand...
The link between this article and analogy of Trump case is based on this : "Some Republican members of Congress accused Clinton of using the airstrikes to divert attention from ongoing impeachment proceedings"... Very light for an article published almost 20 years after the event.

And the 1998 air strikes involved at least another allied country.
 
May 2019: Iran attacks oil rigs in the gulf

June 2019: Iran shoots down US drone

July 2019: Iran seizes British oil tanker

Sept 2019: Iran attacks Saudi oil facility

Dec 2019: Iran attacks military bases in Iraq

Dec 2019: Iran storms the us embassy in Baghdad

Jan 2020: US air strikes Baghdad, killing an Iran commander.

Jan 2020: Iran launches missiles targeting base with US soldiers in Iraq

(Edit) Jan 2020: it WAS Iran who shot down that Ukrainian passenger jet, “unintentionally”

But Trump is starting war?
 
Last edited:
Leo Thorne
May 2019: Iran attacks oil rigs in the gulf

June 2019: Iran shoots down US drone

July 2019: Iran seizes British oil tanker

Sept 2019: Iran attacks Saudi oil facility

Dec 2019: Iran attacks military bases in Iraq

Dec 2019: Iran storms the us embassy in Baghdad

Jan 2020: US air strikes Baghdad, killing an Iran commander.

Jan 2020: Iran launches missiles targeting base with US soldiers in Iraq

Jan 2020: Most likely was Iran who shot down that Ukrainian passenger jet

But Trump is starting war?
Click to expand...

For starters, take a look at the post above. Iran has never helped overthrow a democratically elected US government.

The US definitely shot down an Iranian civilian airliner killing everyone on board, including 66 children.

Iran has never financed & armed a neighbouring rival to attack the US, not "terrorist attacks" mind you, but a full fledged war that killed hundreds of thousands of Iranians.

Iran has ever invaded a direct neighbour of the US causing region-wide chaos & resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis ... & leading to the very ascendency of Iran in the region that the US is now trying to counter.

Iran has never launched crippling economic sanctions against the US.
 
Last edited:
Leo Thorne
May 2019: Iran attacks oil rigs in the gulf

June 2019: Iran shoots down US drone

July 2019: Iran seizes British oil tanker

Sept 2019: Iran attacks Saudi oil facility

Dec 2019: Iran attacks military bases in Iraq

Dec 2019: Iran storms the us embassy in Baghdad

Jan 2020: US air strikes Baghdad, killing an Iran commander.

Jan 2020: Iran launches missiles targeting base with US soldiers in Iraq

Jan 2020: Most likely was Iran who shot down that Ukrainian passenger jet

But Trump is starting war?
Click to expand...

Don't you want a war? I'm confused.
 

Latest Posts

Back