Hezbollah night-vision gear manufactured in Britain

[glatt]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

If you google "hezbollah akkar" this thread is the #1 result.

I'm more proud of "erect nipples." Even if that thread's not as high.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by tw

A-10s also have long loiter times.

First reference ~ combat radius 620 miles on a deep strike mission or 288 miles on a close air support mission with a 1.7 hour loiter Performance.

second reference ~ Operational radius: close air support and escort, 2 h loiter, 20 min reserves: 288 miles; deep strike: 620 miles.

It is able to fly at a relatively slow speed of 200 mph (320 km/h), which gives it an advantage in the ground-attack role, where fast fighter-bombers often have difficulty pursuing small and slow-moving ground targets.

At 200 mph, watching a particular spot, especially if it's not visible for 360 degrees, might be difficult.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
UAV loiter times;
Darkstar = 8hr
Global Hawk = 42hr
Gnat 750 = 48hr
Hunter = 12hr
Model 410 = 12hr
Outrider = 4hr
Pioneer = 5.5hr
Predator = HR

Loiter airspeed is typically 100 to 120 mph, and some have a stall speed as low as 60 mph.

[tw]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

First reference ~ combat radius 620 miles on a deep strike mission or 288 miles on a close air support mission with a 1.7 hour loiter Performance. ...

A-10s would fly up to 4 hours covering a downed pilot. A-10s would fly up to 8 hours on a sorte. There is no airborne machine a soldier wants more - A-10s. They are that damn good at ground attack. Nothing is better.

A-10s could not find even one massive Scud missile in open desert. A-10s and UAVs could not find whole divisions of Serbian armor in Bosnia. xoxoxoBruce - are you saying lesser Israeli UAVs could therefore find concealed and tiny rockets in rough terrain? Only if you believe military propaganda and fiction novels - or MaggieL. No matter how many speculation and numbers are posted, it has never happened.

Do you really think recon aircraft monitor one spot? Recon aircraft must look everywhere, continuously moving, to get lucky; to find a single target. Do you really think they monitor one spot all day looking for a rocket launched only from that spot? That is what you posted and that is not how air power searches for an enemy.

Very few UAVs exist even in the American military. If a UAV gets lucky; sees a fired rocket, then what? An attack aircraft takes many minutes to arrive, then figure out what the UAV was looking at, and then maneuver to fire. Meanwhile rocket and enemy are long gone. Attacks must be on a wide and indiscriminate area. Your post also assumes UAVs are as common as rocks in a quarry. UAV numbers remain few.

Name just one war where air power could accurately attack any concealed military in the past 30 years. Name one? You cannot. In every case, ground spotters were required OR the enemy was already flushed out by ground forces into open terrain. Massive NATO attacks on Serbs in Bosnia with weapons the Israelis only wish they had. Where was all that damage? Near zero. Why? No ground spotters. MaggieL knew this when she posted lies. A classic Rush Limbaugh trick. Post a lie and move on hoping others will not see the lie.

Akkar. Israel's intent to attack even innocent Lebanese in a province farthest from war - Akkar. You did not deny Akkar which is the irrefutible fact. Akkar and MaggieL’s intentional lying is the topic. A list of UAVs says nothing relevant.

MaggieL was wrong AND she knew she was wrong. It's that one sided. She posted those biased pro-Israeli lies anyway. Where is a single war that demonstrates otherwise? None. Zero. Does not exist. She lied knowing full well that she was lying.

If Israel could do as MaggieL claimed, then all we need do is send the US Air Force to Darfur – problem solved. Even the US military cannot do that in the wide open and flat lands of Darfur – without ground forces. MaggieL lied. Israeli air attacks were clearly indiscriminate. MaggieL – tell us how air power could also solve Darfur? She cannot for the same reason she lied about Israel in Lebanon.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by tw

A-10s also have long loiter times. Scud missiles are tens of times larger, require large trucks to transport...

An A-10 has a loiter time that compares favorably with an F-16. It does *not* compare favorably with any UAV.

Now please compare the number of Scuds vs. the number of rockets used by Hez, and the relative land areas of the Scud box and Lebanon below the Litani. Calcuate the number of targets per unit area in each case. Adjust sensor perfromance for a decade and a half of technology improvement. Then factor in that the IDF has been surveilling that area from just across the border for about as long as Hez has been fortifying it, as opposed to your Desert Storm scenario.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by tw

A-10s would fly up to 4 hours covering a downed pilot. A-10s would fly up to 8 hours on a sorte. There is no airborne machine a soldier wants more - A-10s. They are that damn good at ground attack. Nothing is better.

It's a shame were down to 200 of them, patching them back together with spit and baling wire, while building fighters that cost hundreds of millions and are rarely used to their potential.

A-10s could not find even one massive Scud missile in open desert. A-10s and UAVs could not find whole divisions of Serbian armor in Bosnia. xoxoxoBruce - are you saying lesser Israeli UAVs could therefore find concealed and tiny rockets in rough terrain? Only if you believe military propaganda and fiction novels - or MaggieL. No matter how many speculation and numbers are posted, it has never happened.

I don't know what the Israelis have in their bag of tricks, they were far ahead of anyone in the development of UAVs. Our UAVs, however, can spot a man at night, unless he's in a cave or building. I have a film clip of a predator spotting some Iraqis burying an IED in the road and waiting on station until the fighters came and dropped a 500 lb bomb on them....all on film. OK, not film...bits.

Do you really think recon aircraft monitor one spot? Recon aircraft must look everywhere, continuously moving, to get lucky; to find a single target. Do you really think they monitor one spot all day looking for a rocket launched only from that spot? That is what you posted and that is not how air power searches for an enemy.

You don't know how UAVs work, do you? If a UAV saw the rocket launched, it would follow the the launcher sending constant position feedback until the fighters caught up with them, in our military. Again, I don't know how the Israelis work or what they have.

Very few UAVs exist even in the American military. If a UAV gets lucky; sees a fired rocket, then what? An attack aircraft takes many minutes to arrive, then figure out what the UAV was looking at, and then maneuver to fire. Meanwhile rocket and enemy are long gone. Attacks must be on a wide and indiscriminate area. Your post also assumes UAVs are as common as rocks in a quarry. UAV numbers remain few.

Don't tell me what I assume..... you can't even get what I actually posted straight.
You said targets can't be spotted from the air, which is total bullshit. You're not up to speed with the available technology. I didn't claim the Israelis did or didn't do, anything. I don't know. I only know that we can...... or all the clips of them working in Iraq were filmed in the same studio as the moon landing.
Oh, and the example I gave above of the Predator finding the guys burying an IED, the guy controlling the Predator was in the USA.

Name just one war where air power could accurately attack any concealed military in the past 30 years. Name one? You cannot. In every case, ground spotters were required OR the enemy was already flushed out by ground forces into open terrain. Massive NATO attacks on Serbs in Bosnia with weapons the Israelis only wish they had. Where was all that damage? Near zero. Why? No ground spotters. MaggieL knew this when she posted lies. A classic Rush Limbaugh trick. Post a lie and move on hoping others will not see the lie..

Concealed, nope. But if they stay concealed, they're not a problem, are they? It's when they come out to play, they're a problem and they can be spotted from the air. Spotting from the air, spotters on the ground, spies in the enemy camp, nothing is 100% foolproof because you have to get information to the people that can use it, in real time.

Akkar. Israel's intent to attack even innocent Lebanese in a province farthest from war - Akkar. You did not deny Akkar which is the irrefutible fact. Akkar and MaggieL’s intentional lying is the topic. A list of UAVs says nothing relevant.

MaggieL was wrong AND she knew she was wrong. It's that one sided. She posted those biased pro-Israeli lies anyway. Where is a single war that demonstrates otherwise? None. Zero. Does not exist. She lied knowing full well that she was lying.

If Israel could do as MaggieL claimed, then all we need do is send the US Air Force to Darfur – problem solved. Even the US military cannot do that in the wide open and flat lands of Darfur – without ground forces. MaggieL lied. Israeli air attacks were clearly indiscriminate. MaggieL – tell us how air power could also solve Darfur? She cannot for the same reason she lied about Israel in Lebanon.

I'll leave you kids to your discussion, play nice.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

It's a shame were down to 200 of them, patching them back together with spit and baling wire, while building fighters that cost hundreds of millions and are rarely used to their potential.

Agree with you there; the A-10 is a fine aircraft and of incredible tactical utility. It suffers from not having the testosterone appeal of a pure fighter. But it has the feel of a classic, like the DC-3, the B-52 or the F-15.

They just retired the last Tomcats, by the way.

[Ibby]

If I was miliitarily inclined, and had to pick a plane to fly, I'd go A-10 all the way.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by Ibram

If I was miliitarily inclined, and had to pick a plane to fly, I'd go A-10 all the way.

SR-71 for me. Closest thing to being an astronaut.

[xoxoxoBruce]

The A-10 is a red headed step child because the Air Force wanted bigger badder supersonic fighters. The A-10 was proposed by the Army for ground support but the Air Force insisted the ground war was dead. They insisted that ICBMs and air war was the future.

The Army had enough clout to get the A-10 built and the Air Force will never forgive them. Especially since they were right.

Not only ground support, but clearing landing zones for the choppers.

I love this tidbit. When that 30mm Gatling gun is kicking out 3,900 rounds per minute, the recoil is exactly equal to the thrust of one of it's engines. Good thing it has two engines.

[tw]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

The A-10 is a red headed step child because the Air Force wanted bigger badder supersonic fighters. The A-10 was proposed by the Army for ground support but the Air Force insisted the ground war was dead. They insisted that ICBMs and air war was the future.

Members of A-10 squadrons tell me the A-10 is a creation of a West German General (and WWII fighter pilot) who so hated Russians.

Air Force generals - as demonstrated even by Israelis in their seventh invasion of Lebanon - still refuse to admit their purpose and abilities. The A-10 is probably the world's best airplane. All other Air Force planes are support functions to their best plane - the A10. The A-10 is for the #1 job - support the boots.

This fact demonstrated but again and again - in Kuwait, in Iraq, in Afghanistan (British troops in a leaked analysis don't want their own airplanes - they want A-10s). They don't want UAVs which are not as effective, are largely experimental, and cannot respond fast enough. A-10 is the only Air Force plane designed specifically for the Air Force's #1 task - support the boots. Why? There is still no replacement for boots on the ground; other than negotiations. Those boots need effective air support. In the Air Force, that is an A-10.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by richlevy

SR-71 for me. Closest thing to being an astronaut.

Better hope you find somebody to buy the JP-7 for you. Especially since SR-71 tanks leak like a sieve on the ground...gotta leave room for the titanium to expand when the skin heats up in cruise.

Let's see...12,219 gallons. DoD says they buy it at $3/gal, which is pretty amazing considering 100LL AvGas cost me $3.80/gal on Friday. Of course DoD gets theirs for $1.14/gal.

So...at DoD prices a fill up costs something north of $36,600. And then there's the triethylborane for the afterburner and air-starts. It adds up...

Cheaper to wait for VSS Enterprise, the first Virgin Galactic ship.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by Ibram

If I was miliitarily inclined, and had to pick a plane to fly, I'd go A-10 all the way.

Fucking A.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Ibram

If I was miliitarily inclined, and had to pick a plane to fly, I'd go A-10 all the way.

There's a lot to be said for armor when people are shooting at you.

There's also some advantage to being elsewhere at Mach 2.

[headsplice]

I second the motion of being elsewhere at Mach 2 when people are shooting at me.

[xoxoxoBruce]

That doesn't help the people you're supporting, though.