America - The Official Thread

[Touring Mars]

When the worlds maddest are lining up to condemn what Trump has done and is saying... you know how ****ed up the situation is..

Though some may argue that if the ‘world’s maddest are lining up to condemn Trump’, one may be better off listening to cooler heads.

The Secretary General of NATO Jens Stotlenberg has just given a presser after a meeting of the North Atlantic Council, and had this to say about the situation between the US and Iran: I’m paraphrasing, but these were the main points:

NATO has been concerned for years about Iran’s destabilising activities in the Middle East
Iran must never acquire a nuclear weapon
NATO is concerned about Iran’s missile testing program
NATO is united in condemning Iran’s support for terrorist groups
There has been recent escalations in attacks by Iran

In conclusion, Stotlenberg said “Iran must refrain from further violence and provocations.”

While also calling for ‘de-escalation and restraint’ all round, there was not a single word of condemnation of Trump or the US, but plenty of criticism of Iran. Meanwhile, Iran restated their aim to keep to General Soleimani’s aims of establishing the ‘global rule of the hidden Imam’.

 

[twitcher]

Can confirm. Crossed the Solent yesterday, very much a carrier in the harbour.

I doubt they will see any action without complete assurance of air superiority, given Iran has an air force of sorts.

I saw some announcement that the Navy would "protect British shipping" which I take to mean some WW2-style convoying. I highly doubt a carrier will be asked to take part, they aren't exactly practical escort ships.

The British carriers only fly Harriers off them, correct? If yes, then they wouldn’t be used in any kind of cap cover over the straight, that’ll be left to the air wing of the US Navy, as well as Air Force assets at Al Dhafra. That said, while yes Iran does have an airforce, at this point, it’s not much more of a threat than Saddam’s was. What is more of a worry are their surface to air missiles and air defence network (but the US have been subverting Iranian Air defences and flying into Iranian airspace with the F35 for over a year now, and they also have copies of Russian S300 missile systems set up in Nevada to practice on).

As far as the British carriers go, the carriers themselves wouldn’t be used as escorts, but maritime helicopters are an important aspect of mine sweeping, and especially submarine hunting. Iran has a number of small, diesel subs that can be incredibly quiet, and are the main threat to any ships in the gulf, straight, or Arabian Sea.



On a different note, with all the tension and drama surrounding these events...is anyone here old enough to remember Op Archer in 1986, where the US Navy destroyed several Iranian oil platforms (I believe that was in response to a US ship being bombed in port?), or Op Praying Mantis in 1988 where the US Navy destroyed 1/2 to 2/3 of the Iranian Navy in a single morning (this was in response to Iran laying mines in the strait), or the “accidental” shooting down of Iranian Air Flight 655 which killed over 200 civilians? What was the feeling after these events...as tense, less/more tense? And just for fun, how might twitter have changed the proceedings and outcomes of those events?

 

[baldgye]

Though some may argue that if the ‘world’s maddest are lining up to condemn Trump’, one may be better off listening to cooler heads.

The Secretary General of NATO Jens Stotlenberg has just given a presser after a meeting of the North Atlantic Council, and had this to say about the situation between the US and Iran: I’m paraphrasing, but these were the main points:

NATO has been concerned for years about Iran’s destabilising activities in the Middle East
Iran must never acquire a nuclear weapon
NATO is concerned about Iran’s missile testing program
NATO is united in condemning Iran’s support for terrorist groups
There has been recent escalations in attacks by Iran

In conclusion, Stotlenberg said “Iran must refrain from further violence and provocations.”

While also calling for ‘de-escalation and restraint’ all round, there was not a single word of condemnation of Trump or the US, but plenty of criticism of Iran. Meanwhile, Iran restated their aim to keep to General Soleimani’s aims of establishing the ‘global rule of the hidden Imam’.

While I don't disagree with her statements (or your paraphrasing of them), it wouldn't be in NATO's best interests to go after Trump for this missile attack, given what NATO fundamentally is.

 

[TenEightyOne]

The British carriers only fly Harriers off them, correct?

F-35s, the RN and RAF retired Harrier quite some time ago.

 

[novcze]

Sure, but no general is a saint. It's impossible given the job description. Provoking war with Iran is way more damaging than anything that Soleimani has or could have done.

Organizing proxy wars, supporting civil wars and terrorist organizations is not in the job description of most generals, at least in the NATO.

 

[Imari]

Organizing proxy wars, supporting civil wars and terrorist organizations is not in the job description of most generals, at least in the NATO.

Are you serious? Have you paid any attention to the US in the last few decades?

 

[Rallywagon]

Are you serious? Have you paid any attention to the US in the last few decades?

Right, that seems to have been copied straight from a US general's PD.

 

[PocketZeven]

As much as I dislike Trump. I must admit killing Suleimani was a good thing*. (I disagree with anything that would put innocent lives in danger though)
However I am concerned about the motivation. Was it selfinterest or for the safety of american people ? Untill now, everything he has done is purely out of selfinterest. I dont see any reason why this assasination wasnt also.

edit: *if responsible for the saudi attack

 

[Rallywagon]

As much as I dislike Trump. I must admit killing Suleimani was a good thing. (I disagree with anything that would put innocent lives in danger though)
However I am concerned about the motivation. Was it selfinterest or for the safety of american people ? Untill now, everything he has done is purely out of selfinterest. I dont see any reason why this assasination wasnt also.

Self interest? I dont think Trump has much interests in Iran. My personal opinion is that it was a two fold decision. Likely an Israel and one or more of the sycophants surrounding him put a bird or two in his ear and dropped the intel on his lap.
Probably looked a bit like this....

all that, and, honestly, let's all forget the impeachment...

 

[twitcher]

F-35s, the RN and RAF retired Harrier quite some time ago.

Whoops, my bad, forgot the UK got F35Bs. Still though, being that they’re Bs, they more than likely wouldn’t be used for air-to-air unless things are really desperate...that said it’s not as though Iran’s fleet of 30-50 year old F-4s, F-5s, F-14s, and Mig-29s would be much of a match for any 5th generation fighter flown by NATO countries. The UK’s F35s could definitely be used for Suppression/Destruction of air defences if things go real crazy though, especially since the F35 has demonstrated that it can fly through Iranian airspace, undetected and undisturbed.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Whoops, my bad, forgot the UK got F35Bs. Still though, being that they’re Bs, they more than likely wouldn’t be used for air-to-air unless things are really desperate

I guess we're desperate... that's one of the things we bought them for. They're Bs because UK carriers use ski jumps rather than steam cats.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Self interest? I dont think Trump has much interests in Iran. My personal opinion is that it was a two fold decision. Likely an Israel and one or more of the sycophants surrounding him put a bird or two in his ear and dropped the intel on his lap.
Probably looked a bit like this....

all that, and, honestly, let's all forget the impeachment...

Immediately after the strike he had a big rally to fire up Evangelical support.
Coincidence or not?

 

[twitcher]

I guess we're desperate... that's one of the things we bought them for. They're Bs because UK carriers use ski jumps rather than steam cats.

Lol I didn’t mean the UK is desperate . I just mean in the context of a UK carrier operating near Iran in conjunction with other NATO forces, no one would be assigning 35Bs from any country as cap cover or air superiority when there are other assets in the region, namely USAF F22s and F35As, and UK Typhoons.

The 35 was never designed primarily as an air superiority fighter, it’s more tailored towards SEAD/DEAD, Electronic Warfare, Close Air Support, and tactical battlefield information management. Due to the extra weight and limitations of the airframe to accommodate the VTOL system, the B version is least capable of the three versions in regards to Air-to-Air, so it seems odd that the UK would buy them for that reason (especially in the context of the UK already flying Typhoons, and announcing that Project Tempest aims to have 6th generation fighters in active duty by the early 2040s).

Again though, in the context of Iran, Iranian F-14s and Mig-29 are the only thing that could pose a remote threat to an F35, and the serviceability of Iranian aircraft is questionable at best at this point.

 

[Exorcet]

Libertarians ... & a lot of other people like to claim that it doesn't matter which of the two major parties you vote for.

Blind [dis]loyalty is part of the problem. You can't say that a given party isn't worth voting for until you see that party's candidates and their platforms. The issue for me is that the US is stuck with a terrible system that just seems to pit one side against the other.

I think this is patently incorrect. The Democrats & Republicans may, in some respects, act in similar ways, but do you really believe that Al Gore, if he had become President, would have blundered into Iraq? Do you really believe that HRC would have reneged on the Iran nuclear treaty & be threatening Iraq's "cultural sites". Do you really think Biden would continue the the belligerent nationalist policies of Trump?

Trump honestly surprised me, I have to say, but at the same time the seeing what he's done the past few years make me want to support the current US political landscape even less. The US could have decided not to vote for Trump in 2016, but we'd probably still be primed for another Trump in the following years. Maybe he'll be ousted in 2020, but if that's the only thing that's accomplished I won't feel as if anything meaningful has happened really.

Lol I didn’t mean the UK is desperate . I just mean in the context of a UK carrier operating near Iran in conjunction with other NATO forces, no one would be assigning 35Bs from any country as cap cover or air superiority when there are other assets in the region, namely USAF F22s and F35As, and UK Typhoons.

The 35 was never designed primarily as an air superiority fighter, it’s more tailored towards SEAD/DEAD, Electronic Warfare, Close Air Support, and tactical battlefield information management. Due to the extra weight and limitations of the airframe to accommodate the VTOL system, the B version is least capable of the three versions in regards to Air-to-Air, so it seems odd that the UK would buy them for that reason (especially in the context of the UK already flying Typhoons, and announcing that Project Tempest aims to have 6th generation fighters in active duty by the early 2040s).

Again though, in the context of Iran, Iranian F-14s and Mig-29 are the only thing that could pose a remote threat to an F35, and the serviceability of Iranian aircraft is questionable at best at this point.

The UK bought the B because of their carrier. It's literally the best aircraft in existence for their navy. It's also a fine fighter, even the B model, which mostly suffers from a lack of range rather than performance (but it is still behind the A). The US's C takes the performance hit as the larger wing needed for CATOBAR carriers hurts acceleration at air combat speeds.

In any case the F-35 can match anything pre 5th generation in air to air combat. The closest thing Iran has to a modern fighter is the F-14A from the 70's that the US has done everything in its power to make unmaintainable. It can shoot AIM-54's, if Iran has any in working condition, but that would require being able to find the F-35 in the first place. The UK has Meteors anyway, and taking that into account their F-35 could be considered the most deadly even if it's a vertical fan laden B model.

 

[dacc10]

Iran is no more threatening to the US than Iraq was. Iraq had a huge army, a big air defense network and an Air Force that was more closely matched to the USAF than Iran is now. Sure Iran's air defenses are way better than the ones used in Iraq in the 90's, but offensive technology also evolved to counter the air defenses. The real threats from Iran are small submarines and fast attack crafts, that could potentialy damage even a aircraft carrier. But even then, they would eventually be completely wipped off the map, since they wouldn't have the capability to keep air dominance over the region.

So, Iran does not want a conventional war, they will keep using the same tricks as before, terrorist and paramilitary groups to create chaos in the region, and maybe hit european and american cities. The real problem is the part where they up their uranium enrichment, and may start to produce nuclear weapons, both for their own use, and possibly for terrorist groups.

About Trump, this wasn't a thought up decision. Could be his ego, could be someone "behind" him, some warlord trying to get a war started, who knows. Now let's see what happens.

 

[Rallywagon]

I feel like this is a forgot about Dre moment. You guys are taking about subs like we ain't got none. What, you think the US sold them all?

 

[Danoff]

I feel like this is a forgot about Dre moment.

Yea, we all forgot about impeachment.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

So if Iraq asks us to leave their country...and we don't....is that an illegal occupation or...?

 

[Danoff]

So if Iraq asks us to leave their country...and we don't....is that an illegal occupation or...?

They didn't exactly ask us to come in.

 

[dacc10]

I feel like this is a forgot about Dre moment. You guys are taking about subs like we ain't got none. What, you think the US sold them all?

Everyone knows you have them, but the thing about subs is that they can inflict damage before they are detected. I mean, that's what they were made for in the first place. Even though it's unlikely, given the technological disparity, but war is unpredictable.

*But nice one, with the Dre moment.

 

[twitcher]

The UK bought the B because of their carrier. It's literally the best aircraft in existence for their navy. It's also a fine fighter, even the B model, which mostly suffers from a lack of range rather than performance (but it is still behind the A). The US's C takes the performance hit as the larger wing needed for CATOBAR carriers hurts acceleration at air combat speeds.

In any case the F-35 can match anything pre 5th generation in air to air combat. The closest thing Iran has to a modern fighter is the F-14A from the 70's that the US has done everything in its power to make unmaintainable. It can shoot AIM-54's, if Iran has any in working condition, but that would require being able to find the F-35 in the first place. The UK has Meteors anyway, and taking that into account their F-35 could be considered the most deadly even if it's a vertical fan laden B model.

It’s not just the best aircraft for the RN, it’s the only aircraft in production that works with RN, US, and Japanese “light carriers”. Lockheed Martin really cornered the market in that regard.

To my understanding, the B variant suffers (suffered?) from limitations in high-g maneuvers due to the way the airframe is constructed to accommodate the VTOL. Those may have been overcome though, like many of the 35s teething problems have been.

If an Iranian F-14 was ever able to shoot down a NATO F35, I think that would be a good sign that everyone should give up, because god is clearly on the Iranian side Like you said, rumours coming out of things like Red Flag indicate that the F35 is more than capable in air combat, despite that not being it’s primary design focus (and despite the many original rumours that the 35 was a PoS that couldn’t climb, couldn’t turn, etc. Now that they’ve turned the dials up to 9 or 10, it can really flex its muscle).

 

[Danoff]

Everyone knows you have them, but the thing about subs is that they can inflict damage before they are detected. I mean, that's what they were made for in the first place. Even though it's unlikely, given the technological disparity, but war is unpredictable.

Subs are very detectable. You need a sensor in the water though. I'd imagine the US has some of the best sub-detection and targeting systems in the world.

 

[Joey D]

Subs are very detectable. You need a sensor in the water though. I'd imagine the US has some of the best sub-detection and targeting systems in the world.

For $2 trillion we've dropped on military spending, I imagine we can hear the captain of a submarine burp on the other side of the ocean and be able to discern whether it was taco night or a burger bar.

 

[Swagger897]

Given the correct water conditions, nuclear powered subs are much louder than diesel powered ones.

Thermal layers are also probably crazy over there too.

 

[dacc10]

It’s not just the best aircraft for the RN, it’s the only aircraft in production that works with RN, US, and Japanese “light carriers”. Lockheed Martin really cornered the market in that regard.

The B version is also the version that made the whole program so expensive. A lot of problems and such.

Subs are very detectable. You need a sensor in the water though. I'd imagine the US has some of the best sub-detection and targeting systems in the world.

A sonar, is what you need, and they can be used from ships, submarines, helicopters and planes. And sure, submarines are detectable, but, depending on which type of submarine, if it's a modern one or and old one, their detection can be a lot harder than you may think. The same way one develops technology to better detect submarines, others try to make their submarine quieter.

 

[Danoff]

A sonar, is what you need, and they can be used from ships, submarines, helicopters and planes. And sure, submarines are detectable, but, depending on which type of submarine, if it's a modern one or and old one, their detection can be a lot harder than you may think. The same way one develops technology to better detect submarines, others try to make their submarine quieter.

As far as I know, submarine detection from aircraft consists of dropping things in the water. I've heard of laser detection of underwater objects from the air, but my understanding is that it's not a thing yet.

Passive listening can be done from subs towing a line or just underwater arrays.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Subs are very detectable. You need a sensor in the water though.

The Straits of Hormuz are around 200m deep - all you'd need is sunlight and an aeroplane to look down from. Not a great environment for subs, rather like a lot of the Med.

 

[dacc10]

As far as I know, submarine detection from aircraft consists of dropping things in the water. I've heard of laser detection of underwater objects from the air, but my understanding is that it's not a thing yet.

Passive listening can be done from subs towing a line or just underwater arrays.

Planes drop sonobuoys, yes.

And it's still a hard thing to do, detect and attack a modern enemy submarine.

The Straits of Hormuz are around 200m deep - all you'd need is sunlight and an aeroplane to look down from. Not a great environment for subs, rather like a lot of the Med.

Well thank God submarines only "hunt" during the day, under perfect daylight and perfect sea conditions.

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

I feel like this is a forgot about Dre moment. You guys are taking about subs like we ain't got none. What, you think the US sold them all?

Yea, we all forgot about impeachment.

We're on the next episode.

 

[Famine]

And sure, submarines are detectable, but, depending on which type of submarine, if it's a modern one or and old one, their detection can be a lot harder than you may think. The same way one develops technology to better detect submarines, others try to make their submarine quieter.

Just listen out for seismic events...