The Official Star Trek Movie Forum

The Official Star Trek Movie Forum > Star Trek > Off Topic Discussions > Military Spending
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #161  
Old 07-18-2009, 07:21 PM
Howlin' Wolf's Avatar
Howlin' Wolf Howlin' Wolf is offline
Lieutenant Commander
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Outpost #31
Posts: 753
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Akula2ssn View Post
From an air defense standpoint however, it still was a failure. He could not prevent the F-117 from hitting its target. In fact he needed it to hit its target first in order to have a starting point from which to direct his batteries, which defeats the tactical purpose of air defense batteries.
The wisest post in this current discussion.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #162  
Old 07-18-2009, 07:28 PM
MrQ1701's Avatar
MrQ1701 MrQ1701 is offline
Vice Admiral
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Espanola, New Mexico
Posts: 3,940
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Howlin' Wolf View Post
Look man I'm not trying to start any sh*t with you and what we 'believe' is irrelevant. A lot of what I discuss I get from people that I served with who still serve. None of it classified of course. I'm at my house partying with some friends and if my sarcasm is showing through ignore it and I apologize for it.
Was this for me? I didn't think you were starting anything. I also did not pick up on any sarcasm. We simply disagree whether or not France would have had enough information regarding F-117 bombing missions to be of any use to our enemy. I don't think that type of information would have been available beyond a small circle of people. I hope I did not come across as rude.
__________________
To secure the peace is to prepare for war. -Metallica
Reply With Quote
  #163  
Old 07-18-2009, 07:48 PM
Howlin' Wolf's Avatar
Howlin' Wolf Howlin' Wolf is offline
Lieutenant Commander
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Outpost #31
Posts: 753
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrQ1701 View Post
Was this for me? I didn't think you were starting anything. I also did not pick up on any sarcasm. We simply disagree whether or not France would have had enough information regarding F-117 bombing missions to be of any use to our enemy. I don't think that type of information would have been available beyond a small circle of people. I hope I did not come across as rude.

I think we're both spirited posters and as such the conversation can become spirited which to me is normally a good thing. But I've been banned from forums sometimes for merely stating my opinion or being a little 'energetic' with my posts and as a result I'm a little cautious if I'm not sure how someone is taking my side of the discussion. But it's Saturday and like I said I'm partying with some friends and was actually beginning to wonder if 'I' was being rude and sarcastic. I hope not.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #164  
Old 07-18-2009, 07:51 PM
MrQ1701's Avatar
MrQ1701 MrQ1701 is offline
Vice Admiral
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Espanola, New Mexico
Posts: 3,940
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Howlin' Wolf View Post
I think we're both spirited posters and as such the conversation can become spirited which to me is normally a good thing. But I've been banned from forums sometimes for merely stating my opinion or being a little 'energetic' with my posts and as a result I'm a little cautious if I'm not sure how someone is taking my side of the discussion. But it's Saturday and like I said I'm partying with some friends and was actually beginning to wonder if 'I' was being rude and sarcastic. I hope not.
heck, I was banned from THIS forum for awhile!!

No worries. I felt no rudeness coming from your posts.
__________________
To secure the peace is to prepare for war. -Metallica
Reply With Quote
  #165  
Old 07-18-2009, 07:57 PM
Howlin' Wolf's Avatar
Howlin' Wolf Howlin' Wolf is offline
Lieutenant Commander
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Outpost #31
Posts: 753
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrQ1701 View Post
heck, I was banned from THIS forum for awhile!!
.......................and that my main man is exactly what I'm trying to avoid.

Well I've been challenged to a game of darts so it's up to you to figure out how that 117 was shot down.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #166  
Old 07-18-2009, 09:29 PM
Samuel Samuel is offline
Vice Admiral
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,883
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Akula2ssn View Post
From an air defense standpoint however, it still was a failure. He could not prevent the F-117 from hitting its target. In fact he needed it to hit its target first in order to have a starting point from which to direct his batteries, which defeats the tactical purpose of air defense batteries.
True. But he certainly kept it from dropping another bomb the next day. Whether the target is coming in or flying out any kind of kill is a success. I guess if you look at it from the other side, was that 117's mission a success? Or did its loss outweigh the benefits from the destruction of the target, whatever it was?
Reply With Quote
  #167  
Old 07-18-2009, 09:51 PM
Akula2ssn's Avatar
Akula2ssn Akula2ssn is offline
Commander
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Seattle
Posts: 1,454
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Samuel View Post
True. But he certainly kept it from dropping another bomb the next day. Whether the target is coming in or flying out any kind of kill is a success. I guess if you look at it from the other side, was that 117's mission a success? Or did its loss outweigh the benefits from the destruction of the target, whatever it was?
Its loss was insignificant compared to the damage the F-117 had done in previous air strikes and continued to do in the over 400 sorties the plane did during the Kosovo campaign, and even less significant when put next to the over 1300 combat sorties the plane has done in its career. For the Serb Army, it was nothing more than a morale booster and of little consequence to preventing the outcome of the conflict.
__________________

"Don't confuse facts with reality."
-Robert D. Ballard

Last edited by Akula2ssn : 07-18-2009 at 09:54 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #168  
Old 07-18-2009, 10:21 PM
Samuel Samuel is offline
Vice Admiral
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,883
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Akula2ssn View Post
Its loss was insignificant compared to the damage the F-117 had done in previous air strikes and continued to do in the over 400 sorties the plane did during the Kosovo campaign, and even less significant when put next to the over 1300 combat sorties the plane has done in its career. For the Serb Army, it was nothing more than a morale booster and of little consequence to preventing the outcome of the conflict.
The 400 other sorties did. That specific plane was turned into a pile of junk and it could do no more harm. The guy on the ground, in the radar vehicle, in the cockpit or on the ship is not concerned with long term big strategic thinking. In their own sphere of influence a success is extremely significant.

Anyways... one thing also to keep in mind that the 117 was shot down by a guy using what he already had, some intelligence information and creative thinking. Regardless of his luck imagine what an organized and well-funded military research program could accomplish.
Reply With Quote
  #169  
Old 07-18-2009, 10:43 PM
Akula2ssn's Avatar
Akula2ssn Akula2ssn is offline
Commander
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Seattle
Posts: 1,454
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Samuel View Post
The 400 other sorties did. That specific plane was turned into a pile of junk and it could do no more harm. The guy on the ground, in the radar vehicle, in the cockpit or on the ship is not concerned with long term big strategic thinking. In their own sphere of influence a success is extremely significant.

Anyways... one thing also to keep in mind that the 117 was shot down by a guy using what he already had, some intelligence information and creative thinking. Regardless of his luck imagine what an organized and well-funded military research program could accomplish.
Yeah...So? If your original point was to bring into question the effectiveness of the F-117, that one instance doesn't do it. It has time after time gotten the mission done in the most heavily fortified locations. Unfortunately in just that one case, we had a plane that did not return. So in other words out of all the combat sorties less than 1% ended up in the loss of a plane. Yeah when you're fighting a losing war like they were, any kill becomes emotionally significant. You take what you can get. Again, that is insignificant in terms of evaluating the F-117's performance as a whole. That kind of kill to loss ratio is right there among the top of any combat aircraft and the F-117 with its 1970s technology has been able to retire with that prestigious record after fighting in conflicts in the 1990s.

The Colonel Dani achieved his kill not because he had exploited a weakness in the F-117. He achieved it because he was a savvy tactician and, if his statements are true about using what they had seen from previous F-117 attacks to figure out possible flight paths, was able to exploit a flaw in the planning of the F-117 sorties, not so much in the F-117 itself. It is potentially an indicator of lax judgment on the part of NATO commanders. As I said before and I'll say again, the F-117 and it's stealth ability are tools. They do not in any way shape or form relieve the people in the field of exercising good tactical judgment. Not even the precious F-35 will change that.
__________________

"Don't confuse facts with reality."
-Robert D. Ballard

Last edited by Akula2ssn : 07-18-2009 at 11:12 PM.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:49 AM.


Forum theme courtesy of Mark Lambert
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2009 by Paramount Pictures. STAR TREK and all related
marks and logos are trademarks of CBS Studios Inc. All Rights Reserved.