Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Atlantic Wire)   Hey, by the way while you were distracted by secret recordings and replacement referees, the US suffered its worst airpower loss since the Vietnam war in Afghanistan   (theatlanticwire.com) divider line 169
    More: Interesting, Afghanistan, Vietnam, aviation, military uniforms, opinions  
•       •       •

24744 clicks; posted to Main » on 27 Sep 2012 at 3:05 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



169 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-09-27 08:24:44 PM  

OldManDownDRoad: AngryJailhouseFistfark: jakomo002: fireclown: The Dog Ate My Homework: When losing six aircraft is considered the worst loss of air power in a generation, you've got a pretty damn good track record.

yup.

Except those aircraft have been used exclusively on 3rd World countries with zero anti-aircraft capabilites, and certainly no air force of their own.

Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Yemen.

Tell me, when was the last time the United States of America actually fought a war in which their opponents had an actual working air force?

Germany in the 1940's.

[graphics8.nytimes.com image 361x450]

Was there, and later in Vietnam and would disagree with this while twirling his out-of-regs moustache.

The North Vietnamese had a very competent air force supplied and trained by the USSR.

As I recall, it was Olds who famously said: "We're going to fly up (to North Vietnam) through flak to drop some iron bombs on trucks, and probably be hassled by MiGs on the way out. But don't worry, I have it on good authority that none of this is happening."

/had the biggest hands of anyone I've met


I remember his funeral here at the Air Force Academy a few years ago. Probably the last time I'll ever see a Phantom 4-ship flyover.
 
2012-09-27 08:25:08 PM  
Meet the old war, same as the new war.
msnbcmedia3.msn.com

www.ginandtacos.com
lather

www.mudvillegazette.com
rinse

digitaljournalist.org
repeat
 
2012-09-27 08:54:15 PM  

HAMMERTOE: jakomo002: All told, the U.S. Air Force flew 5.25 million sorties over South Vietnam, North Vietnam, northern and southern Laos, and Cambodia, losing 2,251 aircraft: 1,737 to hostile action, and 514 in accidents. 110 of the losses were helicopters and the rest fixed-wing. A ratio of roughly 0.4 losses per 1,000 sorties compared favorably with a 2.0 rate in Korea and the 9.7 figure during World War II.[1]

5.25 Million sorties?!?

20 year long war * 365 days per year = 7305 days. 5.25 million sorties / 7305 days = 718.67 sorties per day, every single day of the war.

I call bullshiat.


If you consider the fact that there were nearly two thousand operational aircraft involved in the late sixties 718 sorties per day seems kind of low, actually.
 
2012-09-27 09:00:20 PM  

NuttierThanEver: Kazan: i care more about the marines who died than the damn overpriced planes.

This

/Also the Harriers are the worst farking planes in the US arsenal, we need to mothball the damn things.


No. We have no replacements and the support marines get from them is superior to the support they could get on paper from the air force.

It sounds good to say you arent really worried about the cost bit the fact is we live in a world where life has a value (be it strategic, dollar, etc). The loss of those aircraft had a cost higher than many attacks that killed more people.
 
2012-09-27 09:05:13 PM  

vudukungfu: Marcus Aurelius: The Vietnam War was in Vietnam, subby.

Yeah, which we fought when the Gremans Bombed Pearl Harbor.


suptg.thisisnotatrueending.com

The gaht-damn Gremans got nothin' to do with it!
 
2012-09-28 01:13:06 AM  

MAYORBOB: violentsalvation: No I wasn't distracted, I read about this the other 500 times it has been submitted and redlit in the past week.

So that's what you gain in return for $5 a month for TF? You get to read 500 failed submissions for every greenlit one. What a wise investment.


$50 a year, something like 14 cents a day. If you are here often, and get some enjoyment out of it, that pocket change is well spent. There are many other things on TotalFark beside the occasional old news greenlight.
 
2012-09-28 02:42:23 AM  

elchupacabra: If they harbored OBL and said FU like the Taliban had? ... Possibly, but they do have the Bomb.

Nukes tend to screw up everything in terms of what we put up with, sadly enough.



So when Mexican narco gangs commit atrocities on Americans in Mexico or in America, does the US invade Mexico?
 
2012-09-28 02:48:16 AM  
Don't worry, there are plenty more where they came from.
 
2012-09-28 08:01:00 AM  

steamingpile: I want what france has, a shiatload of candidates on the ballots that can garner enough support per state to be on each ballot


well, it has it't problems too, see the second time we had to vote this bufoon of Chirac:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Chirac%27s_second_term_as_Presid e nt_of_France

but on the whole, a better system.
Still needs a lot of improvment
 
2012-09-28 08:08:21 AM  
Just stop it. We have the Super Most Awesomest President Ever, and we don't want to hear any bad news about "war" and "death" and stuff while he is trying to collect money for his re-election.

Just shut up and vote for him so we can re-live the last 4 years one more time.
 
2012-09-28 08:12:50 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: hubiestubert: Weaver95: why are we still in Afghanistan anyway? i'm not even sure why we invaded them in the first place. something something terrorism war on drugs maybe?

Well, that and we did sort of dismantle their government...

They've never had a government. Whoever has the most machine guns is their ruler.


B-but... they were the moral equivalent of our founding fathers!!
 
2012-09-28 08:22:13 AM  

This text is now purple: Sgt Otter: Well, I was in Iraq in 2008, during the Surge. I remember the press crowning General Petraeus a modern-day Sun Tzu for his brilliant plan of "send more guys."

What was your point, again?

Worked for Grant in 1864.

Sometimes realizing you have an overwhelming resource advantage puts you up on the other guys.


Unless the other guys are the Viet Cong.
 
2012-09-28 09:59:57 AM  

Marine1: Mikey1969: vpb: If I remember correctly from the last couple of time this was submitted, this is all Obama's fault be it was on "his watch" like he was there pulling guard duty and fell asleep or something, and the harriers can never be replaced because they are out of production and the author is too ignorant to have heard of the F-35 that will replace the Harriers and which is the reason that they are out of production.

I don't understand why we need ANY new planes... Between the A-10, the Stealth Fighter, the Apache, and Spectre Gunships, I think we have our manned offensive airpower pretty much sewn up. And I don't care how 'old' these aircraft are, they do a Hell of a job. I don't think we need to dump billions upon billions developing something new when we more or less rule the planet's skies, and do it so effectively.

But that's just me.

You should care how "old" the aircraft are.

Airframes don't last forever.


Yes they do. An original flight-worthy Bleriot XI:

www.flightglobal.com

Now, just because it's the airborne equivalent of the Ship of Theseus doesn't mean anything. It still has some original parts.
 
2012-09-28 10:22:27 AM  

Marine1: jakomo002: fireclown: The Dog Ate My Homework: When losing six aircraft is considered the worst loss of air power in a generation, you've got a pretty damn good track record.

yup.

Except those aircraft have been used exclusively on 3rd World countries with zero anti-aircraft capabilites, and certainly no air force of their own.

Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Yemen.

Tell me, when was the last time the United States of America actually fought a war in which their opponents had an actual working air force?

Germany in the 1940's.

The argument could be made that Libya had one in the 1980s. Same goes for the First Persian Gulf War. Now, the air force wasn't working once the USAF and USN had their way with it, but that's a different story.


In korea, at least the early part, the NK AF was technically superior to ours as they had Russian made migs and we didn't have a jet fighter. The North Vietnamese Air Force was small but potent and a great number of legendary dogfights came form that war. After that? Not so Much, but mainly because manned, fixed wing aircraft, are, by and large obsolete and have been since the first Tomahawk missle was operational
 
2012-09-28 10:47:51 AM  

intelligent comment below: elchupacabra: If they harbored OBL and said FU like the Taliban had? ... Possibly, but they do have the Bomb.

Nukes tend to screw up everything in terms of what we put up with, sadly enough.


So when Mexican narco gangs commit atrocities on Americans in Mexico or in America, does the US invade Mexico?


Sorry, late response.

Once there's "critical mass", if the Mexican govt refuses to stop it, etc. I don't think we're even close, though. For that, though, I'm thinking the drug war is lost any way. Different scenario.

Not sure what you're trying to do -- define my position? Or corner me into a contradiction?
 
2012-09-28 10:49:25 AM  
In addendum: we can't wipe out all the bad guys, especially not simultaneously. Doesn't mean we throw up our hands and retreat inside our borders.
 
2012-09-28 03:59:26 PM  

Pantubo: Just stop it. We have the Super Most Awesomest President Ever, and we don't want to hear any bad news about "war" and "death" and stuff while he is trying to collect money for his re-election.

Just shut up and vote for him so we can re-live the last 4 years one more time.



When the media sugar coats the wars when Bush is President = patriotic

When the media does it for 0bama = LUBRUL MEDIA
 
2012-09-29 01:15:37 AM  
While Afghanistan is another Vietman of sorts, its also the opposite in other regards. It seemed not a day went by back in those Vietnam days when dead USA boys, blown up stuff, dead villagers, napalmed kids, all kinds of atrocity was on our nightly news. And thanks to what made it on TV and into the papers, the american public got damn sick of it, young people took up against the government, and made them get us out of that terrible war. And amazingly enough, the viet cong, or communists as they were monikered, didn't take over the world after we basically dumped our stuff and ran out on our 'democratic' ally South Vietnam. And the slaughter of our boys - and thier boys, stopped. Not so much these days, our 'transparent' government hiding the gore from us. Good luck finding any pictures of the Bastion battle and the blown up jump jets and the blown up fueling stations and the dead Marines and dead Al Qaida sappers. Our new 'embedded reporters' are either in bed all the time, or more likely their media bosses in bed with the government. The failures at Benghazi are only making the news now because the government and US news media is forced into it by the Libyans and thier picture phones proving to us what really happened. If not for them, our government and our 'news' media would have been done with it all weeks ago, and all news back to Romney's taxes or Kim Kardasian's not so great ass. And the slaughter of our boys and thier boys continues in afghanistan - not on the news. I say the hell with the embedded reporters and back to the old days with real reporters keeping the government honest with their pictures of the daily gore that continues in afghanistan. In Iraq, at least the media reminded everyday of the body count. Not so much anymore. 25 this month, 261 this year - just the USA ones. Mostly just boys, if you were to see thier faces. No big deal. Back to your comedy channel news now everyone.
 
2012-09-29 08:08:26 PM  

Magorn: In korea, at least the early part, the NK AF was technically superior to ours as they had Russian made migs and we didn't have a jet fighter. The North Vietnamese Air Force was small but potent and a great number of legendary dogfights came form that war. After that? Not so Much, but mainly because manned, fixed wing aircraft, are, by and large obsolete and have been since the first Tomahawk missle was operational


Which is another reason why the F-35 barely makes sense, let alone enough sense to justify the tens of billions dumped into what is so far just three production planes, and the stupid fighting over all kinds of pet projects to trick them out like the engines that were finally canceled last year.

Drones are scary, but they're the future. Get over it, Air Force.
 
Displayed 19 of 169 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report