Page 29 of 32 FirstFirst ... 192728293031 ... LastLast
Results 281 to 290 of 320

Thread: Our new and improved Iraq discussion thread!

  1. #281
    Site Supporter Borderland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Location
    The Salish Sea
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Watson View Post
    I don't know if this has anything to do with preparation for conflict with Iran, but they are working on SOMETHING.

    https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/...wVUlE.facebook

    "GPS reception may be unavailable or unreliable over a large portion of the southeastern states and the Caribbean during offshore military exercises scheduled between January 16 and 24."

    I was on the outer fringes of that map, supposedly have to have been at 25,000+ ft altitude to been affected, but the Ford GPS nav screen was showing us going around Athens Ala in circles while headed due West out of Huntsville.
    Shortly after 911 military facilities were jamming GPS L1/L2 signals as a precaution to attack. I was using the same frequencies that the military uses and got jammed. I called the OD of the navy base and he said he didn't know anything about it. They don't advertise because it's a DoD system and they can do what they want with it. We're just lucky they've developed and broadcast an uncoded signal that civilians can use.

    The uncoded signal may be getting jammed. That would be the one that some military like Iran could use if someone sold them a Garmin. It isn't a precise signal and can't be used for weapons guidance. Commercial aircraft are probably using authorized military coded signals but I wouldn't know that for a fact.

    As far as an imminent attack on some poor country like Iran I doubt that it's a sign. The military has tested their local area jamming capability in the US before. It drives people crazy. Think ground assault.
    Last edited by Borderland; 01-16-2020 at 11:37 AM.
    Snubbies.....resolving CQC issues since nineteen fiddy.

  2. #282
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    NW Florida
    Quote Originally Posted by Borderland View Post
    A 737 takes off at about 150 mph and usually cruises at about 450. Any US military aircraft that might have been over Tehran would not have been flying that slow.
    There probably wouldn't be just one of them, but a B-52 would be in the airspeed range of a 737.

  3. #283
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Watson View Post
    I don't know if this has anything to do with preparation for conflict with Iran, but they are working on SOMETHING.

    https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/...wVUlE.facebook

    "GPS reception may be unavailable or unreliable over a large portion of the southeastern states and the Caribbean during offshore military exercises scheduled between January 16 and 24."

    I was on the outer fringes of that map, supposedly have to have been at 25,000+ ft altitude to been affected, but the Ford GPS nav screen was showing us going around Athens Ala in circles while headed due West out of Huntsville.
    This is not that uncommon. Not a big deal.
    Last edited by TC215; 01-16-2020 at 12:38 PM.

  4. #284
    Site Supporter Borderland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Location
    The Salish Sea
    Quote Originally Posted by JTQ View Post
    There probably wouldn't be just one of them, but a B-52 would be in the airspeed range of a 737.
    I was looking into that B-52 thing when we had the last meltdown here on the first Iran thread. I was curious why the AF would still be using those and keep upgrading them. Seems they aren't actually used as bombers anymore like they were in Vietnam. Apparently they have been modified to carry some type of cruise missile. Those have a range of 1000 miles or more so they can be launched far enough from the target that a B-52 wouldn't have to be anywhere close the target. I'm not sure if any B-52's are on the ground anywhere in the ME but they can get there from just about anywhere, especially Diego Garcia. That's only about 7 hours to Tehran and they wouldn't be violating anyone's airspace except Iran's.

    I can now see why the republican guard was trigger happy.

    https://youtu.be/-hCjO43k-1Y
    Last edited by Borderland; 01-16-2020 at 01:56 PM.
    Snubbies.....resolving CQC issues since nineteen fiddy.

  5. #285
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    NW Florida
    Quote Originally Posted by Borderland View Post
    I was looking into that B-52 thing when we had the last meltdown here on the first Iran thread. I was curious why the AF would still be using those and keep upgrading them. Seems they aren't actually used as bombers anymore like they were in Vietnam. Apparently they have been modified to carry some type of cruise missile.
    During Desert Storm, B-52's did launch some cruise missiles, but primarily they dropped a whole bunch of bombs on Iraq.

    I suspect the Iranian's were paying attention.

  6. #286
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    TEXAS !
    Quote Originally Posted by Borderland View Post
    I was looking into that B-52 thing when we had the last meltdown here on the first Iran thread. I was curious why the AF would still be using those and keep upgrading them. Seems they aren't actually used as bombers anymore like they were in Vietnam. Apparently they have been modified to carry some type of cruise missile. Those have a range of 1000 miles or more so they can be launched far enough from the target that a B-52 wouldn't have to be anywhere close the target. I'm not sure if any B-52's are on the ground anywhere in the ME but they can get there from just about anywhere, especially Diego Garcia. That's only about 7 hours to Tehran and they wouldn't be violating anyone's airspace except Iran's.

    I can now see why the republican guard was trigger happy.

    https://youtu.be/-hCjO43k-1Y
    B-52s are still used for conventional bombing but normally not in heavily contested airspace as would be found over Iran.

  7. #287
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    TEXAS !
    Quote Originally Posted by JTQ View Post
    During Desert Storm, B-52's did launch some cruise missiles, but primarily they dropped a whole bunch of bombs on Iraq.

    I suspect the Iranian's were paying attention.
    They were used for conventional bombing in the early parts of the Afghanistan campaign as well.

  8. #288
    Ideas Are Bulletproof RevolverRob's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Baddest Part of Town...
    Though we don't have a lot of use for conventional bombers today, in that we use a lot of cruise missiles, conventional bomb munitions are inexpensive relative to missiles and even guided conventional munitions are cheaper than a cruise missile. If you control an airspace, conventional bombing makes a lot of sense as a tactic for eliminating build ups and further controlling the ground.

    For me, I think the testament of the B52 is like the C130 - both are broadly adaptable platforms that can work in a variety of roles in a modern battlefield. One reason they work well though, is because of their size. Once you size the airframe down, the types of things it can do well, become more limited. It is likely better to become specialized in your airframes than to attempt to do everything.

    The B52 is like a 6" magnum revolver. It can do a lot of stuff, simply by adapting the munitions it carries. But you aren't going to hide a fleet of B52s just anywhere.

    The C130 is like a 1911 - adaptable across a range of missions and easier to conceal, but still requires effort. Easy to use in the variety of roles it is engaged in.

    And everything else are you're more specialized weapons. Some argue the F35 is supposed to be the Glock 19 of the Air Force. I think it's probably more like the Sig 320 (pre-recall ).
    "P-f: I lurked for wonderful combat pistolcraft advice, but I ponied up cash for my daily dose of Dada." - Baldanders

  9. #289
    I posted this earlier but it never was acknowledged responded to by anyone. I know there are some people on here that are much more astute than me so ill ask again. I have read that a lot of people around Soleimani were arrested the number i recall was 100-150. Is it possible someone on that jet was a person the Iranians did not want to escape?
    Last edited by UNK; 01-16-2020 at 04:30 PM.
    uneducated and low information
    I'll wager you a PF dollar™ 😎
    He needed a healthy dose of bonded bullets. LSP552

  10. #290
    Moderator BehindBlueI's's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Midwest
    Quote Originally Posted by UNK View Post
    . Is it possible someone on that jet was a person the Iranians did not want to escape?
    That would assume that they didn't have the resources to stop him prior to take off but had the plan in place immediately after taking off to fire missiles at the correct plane. That would be an incredibly narrow window in time were a pair of missiles was a better option than picking him up at the airport. As such, I find it rather unlikely.
    L'otters are not afraid.
    WWOMJD?

    Quote Originally Posted by UNM1136 View Post
    Maybe with talented students I would lube up with baby oil and then go at it.

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •