Pages: 1 2 3 4

 

2007-02-18 16:34:16
BN
smells like wee wee
+159|7073
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,21 … public_rss

Malaysia and Indonesia are getting the Sukhoi Su-30 and we get the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

Apparently the F-35 is outmatched by the Su-35 Flankers.

We give the US a nice new base
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/secret … 03064.html

and what do we get?

SWEET FA
2007-02-18 16:44:07
Commie Killer
Member
+192|6692
Todays ally is tomorrows enemy. Were not gonna sell off the most advanced aircraft in human history right away, the first if any country to buy it will be the UK.
2007-02-18 16:46:19
redhawk454
Member
+50|6853|Divided States of America

BN wrote:

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,21222473-2,00.html?from=public_rss

Malaysia and Indonesia are getting the Sukhoi Su-30 and we get the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

Apparently the F-35 is outmatched by the Su-35 Flankers.

We give the US a nice new base
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/secret … 03064.html

and what do we get?

SWEET FA
Either you made a mistake or you are talking about 3 aircraft.
2007-02-18 16:47:22
UGADawgs
Member
+13|6626|South Carolina, US

Commie Killer wrote:

Todays ally is tomorrows enemy. Were not gonna sell off the most advanced aircraft in human history right away, the first if any country to buy it will be the UK.
Last time we sold an advanced piece of equipment (the F-14), we sold it to the supposedly stable Iranian Empire. Even allies can't be trusted with the absolute best.
2007-02-18 16:52:45
Ty
Mass Media Casualty
+2,398|7079|Noizyland

Fear. The Cold war was all about weaponry and fear. The war on terror is even a full-blown advertisment of the United States' fear of other countries by it's title alone. Allies or not, the US feels that it is on it's own and that everyone's out to get it. Ths is the reason it will not share with it's allies, even it's long term allies.

Commie Killer wrote:

Todays ally is tomorrows enemy. Were not gonna sell off the most advanced aircraft in human history right away, the first if any country to buy it will be the UK.
That pretty much says it all. It's honestly quite annoying being an ally of the US and having it believe this. Everyone's a turncoat but the mighty US, which is very untrue.

The US is built on fear, so I suppose it is part of the US culture to never treat it's allies as allies because of the fear that one day one of their friends may possibly decide to fight against them. Unlikely. So far modern history has shown us that if anyone is going to turn on it's allies it's the US.
[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
2007-02-18 16:55:08
BN
smells like wee wee
+159|7073

redhawk454 wrote:

BN wrote:

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,21222473-2,00.html?from=public_rss

Malaysia and Indonesia are getting the Sukhoi Su-30 and we get the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

Apparently the F-35 is outmatched by the Su-35 Flankers.

We give the US a nice new base
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/secret … 03064.html

and what do we get?

SWEET FA
Either you made a mistake or you are talking about 3 aircraft.
to use the words of Pauline Hanson...please explain.
2007-02-18 16:55:34
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6710|North Carolina
For the most part, Ty, I agree.

I think the fear is probably more like the cover story for the military industrial complex.  Basically, if you can get the public to fear the rest of the world, you can get them to agree with spending way too much on the military and on intervening in battles that we have no business entering.
2007-02-18 16:56:15
Commie Killer
Member
+192|6692

Ty wrote:

Fear. The Cold war was all about weaponry and fear. The war on terror is even a full-blown advertisment of the United States' fear of other countries by it's title alone. Allies or not, the US feels that it is on it's own and that everyone's out to get it. Ths is the reason it will not share with it's allies, even it's long term allies.

Commie Killer wrote:

Todays ally is tomorrows enemy. Were not gonna sell off the most advanced aircraft in human history right away, the first if any country to buy it will be the UK.
That pretty much says it all. It's honestly quite annoying being an ally of the US and having it believe this. Everyone's a turncoat but the mighty US, which is very untrue.

The US is built on fear, so I suppose it is part of the US culture to never treat it's allies as allies because of the fear that one day one of their friends may possibly decide to fight against them. Unlikely. So far modern history has shown us that if anyone is going to turn on it's allies it's the US.
When we turn on our allies it is because A) The government we were supporting was eradicated and a new government put in place B) That country becomes openly hostile towards us.

Can you provide a example of a country that we didnt warrant closing relations with?
2007-02-18 16:57:32
Aegis
Sailor with no BF2 Navy
+19|7050|I'm worldwide, beotch

BN wrote:

Apparently the F-35 is outmatched by the Su-35 Flankers.
Outmatched how?
You can't compare apples and oranges, bud -

F-35 is primarily a carrier-based strike aircraft that can also fight air-to-air.
Su-35 is an air superiority fighter (like the F-22, F-15, F-16, etc...) that is also strike-capable.

Then if you want to argue the Su is a better fighter, you have to starting talking weapons &  sensors - both of the airborne and the shipborne flavor (after all, fighter aircraft don't just go fly in circles - they are, in fact, working for controllers in an E-2, on a ship, or at a ground station) where the JSF wins hands down. In the missile environment, he who sees the other first usually wins.

Don't even get me started on bigger-picture items like aircraft control and pilot training... so if you think fighter jets do much of anything while on patrol without being directed to by a controller, then you're completely lost here...

Anyways, there's currently only like one, maybe two operational F-22 squadrons in existance - I'd probably hold my breath 'til all of ours come online and then you'll probably see the export of Raptor to close allies like Australia or the UK.

It has exactly DICK to do with fear or mistrust or anything else. It's our new shit that costed us untold billions of dollars to research and make, so quitcherbitchin about not getting one of our brand new toys. Why do people complain about American military might and then proceed to BITCH when we don't share that might with them?

Last edited by Aegis (2007-02-18 17:03:28)

2007-02-18 16:59:44
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6710|North Carolina

Commie Killer wrote:

Ty wrote:

Fear. The Cold war was all about weaponry and fear. The war on terror is even a full-blown advertisment of the United States' fear of other countries by it's title alone. Allies or not, the US feels that it is on it's own and that everyone's out to get it. Ths is the reason it will not share with it's allies, even it's long term allies.

Commie Killer wrote:

Todays ally is tomorrows enemy. Were not gonna sell off the most advanced aircraft in human history right away, the first if any country to buy it will be the UK.
That pretty much says it all. It's honestly quite annoying being an ally of the US and having it believe this. Everyone's a turncoat but the mighty US, which is very untrue.

The US is built on fear, so I suppose it is part of the US culture to never treat it's allies as allies because of the fear that one day one of their friends may possibly decide to fight against them. Unlikely. So far modern history has shown us that if anyone is going to turn on it's allies it's the US.
When we turn on our allies it is because A) The government we were supporting was eradicated and a new government put in place B) That country becomes openly hostile towards us.

Can you provide a example of a country that we didnt warrant closing relations with?
I think a better question would be: why do we ally with so many governments (including dictatorships) that are likely to turn on us -- i.e., Saddam.?
2007-02-18 16:59:54
Aegis
Sailor with no BF2 Navy
+19|7050|I'm worldwide, beotch

UGADawgs wrote:

Commie Killer wrote:

Todays ally is tomorrows enemy. Were not gonna sell off the most advanced aircraft in human history right away, the first if any country to buy it will be the UK.
Last time we sold an advanced piece of equipment (the F-14), we sold it to the supposedly stable Iranian Empire. Even allies can't be trusted with the absolute best.
True, but they got a shitty version of the radar and weapon suite and I don't believe they got the AIM-64 Phoenix, either. It's a pretty toy for them, but not useful as an interceptor with the reduced capability. Besides, it's outdated now - been out of our inventory for a few months now.
2007-02-18 17:02:33
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6906|132 and Bush

The US does not sell it's stealth technology from what I have read. If I spent hundreds of billions developing something I doubt I would just hand it over to a friend. Especially when it seems less and less of those friends are supporting me. Even with the go ahead with a new base. I'm pretty sure there is more that goes on with those discussions. It would be vary naive for us to believe there was a simplistic "barter" system that should allow for the free transaction of weapons technology. Harsh realities I guess. Anyone here that claims to know the motives behind the sharing of cutting edge weapons technology is blowing smoke up your ass. All weapons are built around fear. The US and their Allies have shared a wealth of new technology over the years. Pretending that the US is selfish is a way of showing that Australians should not support this new base. That's all this appears to be to me.

Last edited by Kmarion (2007-02-18 17:03:49)

Xbone Stormsurgezz
2007-02-18 17:04:05
Raptor1
Member
+19|6793
Thats true, and look at Iran, its run by some nutjob. The ironic this is they got the older F-14 and cause the F-14 reqquires alot of maintinence, they probably dont work too well.
2007-02-18 17:05:21
Ty
Mass Media Casualty
+2,398|7079|Noizyland

Commie Killer wrote:

When we turn on our allies it is because A) The government we were supporting was eradicated and a new government put in place B) That country becomes openly hostile towards us.

Can you provide a example of a country that we didn't warrant closing relations with?
Hold up, you guys allied yourselves with both Iraq and Iran, gave them both weapons and then watched them duke it out so you could benefit from their war. The realisation that your ally is funding your enemy and profiteering off your war is going to make your allies turn against you. To me that's just as bad as the US one day saying, "okay, we want to be your enemies now, no hard feelings."

Okay, so maybe I was a bit off saying that the US turns on it's allies, more, they drive their allies to turn on them.
[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
2007-02-18 17:05:26
sfarrar33
Halogenoalkane
+57|6923|InGerLand

Commie Killer wrote:

Todays ally is tomorrows enemy. Were not gonna sell off the most advanced aircraft in human history right away, the first if any country to buy it will be the UK.
thats hardly been American policy in the past...
most advanced aircraft in human history aye? ;-)
do we really need F-22's? i mean what happened to stupidly expensive but [supposidly] stupidly well equipped euro fighter?
2007-02-18 17:08:33
Aegis
Sailor with no BF2 Navy
+19|7050|I'm worldwide, beotch

sfarrar33 wrote:

do we really need F-22's?
No, probably not. I imagine if you did, you'd probably be getting it ASAP. There was a lot of sharing of aircraft tech in WWII, namely because everyone on our side NEEDED it to defeat the Luftwaffe and the Germans at large!
2007-02-18 17:11:40
Parker
isteal
+1,452|6699|The Gem Saloon
throughout aviation history, countries have "acquired" enemy aircraft to be one step ahead of the competition.
sprayandpray directed me to some articles regarding the capabilities of the stealth the F-22 sports and i cant say that i was impressed by our technology, compared to what everyone else is doing.
now, dont get me wrong, i love to say that US weapons technology is superior to everyone elses, but its just not true in this case.
there really is no way to know for sure the capabilities of any weapons platform, until you posses it and use it. i think that the US doesnt want that technology known yet.....it will happen inevitably, (think F-117) but they are probably trying to prolong it as much as possible.
2007-02-18 17:13:16
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6710|North Carolina

Ty wrote:

Commie Killer wrote:

When we turn on our allies it is because A) The government we were supporting was eradicated and a new government put in place B) That country becomes openly hostile towards us.

Can you provide a example of a country that we didn't warrant closing relations with?
Hold up, you guys allied yourselves with both Iraq and Iran, gave them both weapons and then watched them duke it out so you could benefit from their war. The realisation that your ally is funding your enemy and profiteering off your war is going to make your allies turn against you. To me that's just as bad as the US one day saying, "okay, we want to be your enemies now, no hard feelings."

Okay, so maybe I was a bit off saying that the US turns on it's allies, more, they drive their allies to turn on them.
Pretty much...  selling weapons in one way or another seems to be our motivation in all this.
2007-02-18 17:14:00
Fancy_Pollux
Connoisseur of Fine Wine
+1,306|6951

Ty wrote:

Hold up, you guys allied yourselves with both Iraq and Iran, gave them both weapons and then watched them duke it out so you could benefit from their war. The realisation that your ally is funding your enemy and profiteering off your war is going to make your allies turn against you. To me that's just as bad as the US one day saying, "okay, we want to be your enemies now, no hard feelings."

Okay, so maybe I was a bit off saying that the US turns on it's allies, more, they drive their allies to turn on them.
A moderator derailing a thread? Say it aint so!

As far as the OP goes, countries do not just hand over their best technology, ally or not. This is nothing new.
2007-02-18 17:15:18
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6834|Global Command

Fancy_Pollux wrote:

Ty wrote:

Hold up, you guys allied yourselves with both Iraq and Iran, gave them both weapons and then watched them duke it out so you could benefit from their war. The realisation that your ally is funding your enemy and profiteering off your war is going to make your allies turn against you. To me that's just as bad as the US one day saying, "okay, we want to be your enemies now, no hard feelings."

Okay, so maybe I was a bit off saying that the US turns on it's allies, more, they drive their allies to turn on them.
A moderator derailing a thread? Say it aint so!

As far as the OP goes, countries do not just hand over their best technology, ally or not. This is nothing new.
Ty's a thinker, not just a mod.
2007-02-18 17:16:33
Ty
Mass Media Casualty
+2,398|7079|Noizyland

I didn't derail it, it evolved naturally Mister Pollux.
All has to do with US giving 'allies' weapons anyways.

Edit: And Australia has been a US ally since World War Two, before then was allied to Britain who have been on the same side as the US since about the time the US war of independance stopped. How long does it take for two countries to become mates?

Last edited by Ty (2007-02-18 17:18:30)

[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
2007-02-18 17:22:24
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6906|132 and Bush

Congress has to approve the sell or distribution of weapons technology.

Otherwise you get huge mess's like the one's Abdul Qadeer Khan created in india.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Qade … and_pardon

In early February 2004, the Government of Pakistan reported that Khan had signed a confession indicating that he had provided Iran, Libya, and North Korea with designs and technology to aid in nuclear weapons programs, and claimed that the government had not been complicit in the proliferation activities. The Pakistani official who made the announcement said that Khan had admitted to transferring technology and information to Iran between 1989 and 1991, to North Korea and Libya between 1991 and 1997 (U.S. officials at the time maintained that transfers had continued with Libya until 2003), and additional technology to North Korea up until 2000.[5] On February 4, 2004, Khan appeared on national television and confessed to running a proliferation ring; he was pardoned the next day by Musharraf, the Pakistani president, but held under house arrest.[6]

You know why he was pardoned? .. He is called the father of the Pakistani nuclear Bomb.

I suggest watching a documentary by the BBC called Nuclear Walmart.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/p … 135736.stm

Last edited by Kmarion (2007-02-18 17:25:03)

Xbone Stormsurgezz
2007-02-18 17:25:26
Immobile Sniper
Member
+3|6804
> I saw on Modern Marvels a segment about the Raptor. In simulations,even with of a handicap of an inexperienced pilot against a superior one,even the vaunted F-15,the best pure dogfighter ever built,has NO CHANCE against a Raptor. They've simulated it every way they can think of,and the F-15 loses every time. The funny thing is,in real-world air combat,nothing has ever come close to the F-15. It has a record of 99-0 in documented dogfights. Even with odds of 4-1,we've never lost an American piloted F-15 due to air-to-air fire. Why do you think the MiG's and Su's look so much like the F-15? It's been well-documented that Russia was notorious for stealing designs,and in some cases,entire planes. The show also said the entire fleet of 257 Raptors cost the American tax-paying public 78 BILLION,roughly 40 mill each. Tommy D.
2007-02-18 17:25:42
Fancy_Pollux
Connoisseur of Fine Wine
+1,306|6951

Ty wrote:

I didn't derail it, it evolved naturally Mister Pollux.


I think I'm gonna start using that one.

Ty wrote:

Edit: And Australia has been a US ally since World War Two, before then was allied to Britain who have been on the same side as the US since about the time the US war of independance stopped. How long does it take for two countries to become mates?
It has nothing to do with trust, or being "mates", or anything like that. Countries simply do not export their most top secret technology and developments.

Let's say the U.S. is a CIA agent, and Australia is his wife. The CIA agent is bound to keep all of his knowledge top-secret, even from his wife. But they still have sex. And one day, the wife (Australia) will get pregnant.

Does this analogy clear things up?

Last edited by Fancy_Pollux (2007-02-18 17:26:02)

2007-02-18 17:28:11
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6906|132 and Bush

Immobile Sniper wrote:

> I saw on Modern Marvels a segment about the Raptor. In simulations,even with of a handicap of an inexperienced pilot against a superior one,even the vaunted F-15,the best pure dogfighter ever built,has NO CHANCE against a Raptor. They've simulated it every way they can think of,and the F-15 loses every time. The funny thing is,in real-world air combat,nothing has ever come close to the F-15. It has a record of 99-0 in documented dogfights. Even with odds of 4-1,we've never lost an American piloted F-15 due to air-to-air fire. Why do you think the MiG's and Su's look so much like the F-15? It's been well-documented that Russia was notorious for stealing designs,and in some cases,entire planes. The show also said the entire fleet of 257 Raptors cost the American tax-paying public 78 BILLION,roughly 40 mill each. Tommy D.
Pretty impressive when you consider the performance of the F-15. I bet we give some to the Israeli's so they can show us the proper way to fly them..lol. Israeli pilots are bad asses, they come over to train our pilots.
Xbone Stormsurgezz

 

Pages: 1 2 3 4

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard