DefenseTech Military.com
  • Categories
  • Full Archives
  • Monthly Archives
  • About Defense Tech
Subscribe to RSS

About Defense Tech

Defense Tech exam­ines the inter­sec­tion of tech­nol­ogy and defense from every angle and pro­vides analy­sis on what’s ahead.

Tip Us Off

Tip for Defense Tech?

SEND IT!

It’s Confidential!

Categories

  • 'Canes
  • Afghan Update
  • Ammo and Munitions
  • Armor
  • Around the Globe
  • Av Week Extra
  • Axe in Iraq (and Elsewhere)
  • Bizarro
  • Blimps
  • Blog Bidness
  • Body Armor Blues
  • Bomb Squad
  • Brownshoes in Action
  • Bubbleheads, etc.
  • Cammo Green
  • Catch the "Buzz"
  • Chem-Bio
  • Civilian Apps
  • Cloak and Dagger
  • Commandos
  • Comms
  • Contingency Ops
  • Cops and Robbers
  • Cyber-warfare
  • Data Diving
  • Defense Tech Poll
  • Defense Tech Radio
  • Dissent Tech
  • Door Kickers
  • Drones
  • DT Administrivia
  • Eat DT's Dust
  • Extra! Extra!
  • Eye on China
  • Fast Movers
  • FCS Watch
  • Fire for Effect
  • FOS Files
  • Friday Funnies
  • Gadgets and Gear
  • Going Green
  • Grand Ole Osprey
  • Ground Vehicles
  • Guns
  • Homeland Security
  • In the Weeds with Eric
  • Info War
  • Iraq Diary
  • Jarhead Jazz
  • JSF Watch
  • Just War Theories
  • Lasers and Ray Guns
  • Less-lethal
  • Logistics
  • Los Alamos and Labs
  • M4 Monopoly
  • Medic!
  • Mercs
  • Missiles
  • Money Money Money
  • Most Wanted
  • MRAP Edge
  • Net-Centric
  • Nukes
  • Old Skool
  • Our Shrinking Planet
  • Planes, Copters, Blimps
  • Podcast
  • Politricks
  • Polmar's Perspective
  • Popular Mechanics
  • Rapid Fire
  • Raptor Watch
  • Red Team
  • Retro-Futuro
  • Robots
  • Roll Your Own
  • Sabra Tech
  • Ships and Subs
  • Snipertech
  • Soldier Systems
  • Space
  • Special Ops
  • Star Wars
  • Strategery
  • Stray Trons
  • Tactical Development
  • Terror Tech
  • The Deadlies
  • The Defense Biz
  • The Peoples' Site
  • The Sunday Paper
  • The Tanker Tango
  • The View from Av Week
  • Those Nutty Norks
  • Training and Sims
  • Trimble on the Case
  • Uncategorized
  • Video Lounge
  • War Update
  • Ward'z Wonderz
  • You can run…

Archives

  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006
  • April 2006
  • March 2006
  • February 2006
  • January 2006
  • December 2005
  • November 2005
  • October 2005
  • September 2005
  • August 2005
  • July 2005
  • June 2005
  • May 2005
  • April 2005
  • March 2005
  • February 2005
  • January 2005
  • December 2004
  • November 2004
  • October 2004
  • September 2004
  • August 2004
  • July 2004
  • June 2004
  • May 2004
  • April 2004
  • March 2004
  • February 2004
  • January 2004
  • December 2003
  • November 2003
  • October 2003
  • September 2003
  • August 2003
  • July 2003
  • June 2003
  • May 2003
  • April 2003
  • March 2003
  • February 2003
  • January 2003

Home » The View from Av Week » US Electronic Fingerprints in Syria?

US Electronic Fingerprints in Syria?

This arti­cle first appeared in Aviation Week’s Ares Weblog.

President Bush pub­licly acknowl­edged that Syria has been doing some­thing sus­pi­cious involv­ing nuclear devel­op­ment and North Korea. Following his lead, other offi­cials are qui­etly drop­ping clues about how Syrias sus­pi­cious facil­ity was attacked.

The Israel Air Force’s stun­ning, unde­tected flight through Syria’s air defenses late last year — as part of a raid on a sus­pected nuclear facil­ity — bears elec­tronic fin­ger­prints sim­i­lar to those left in Baghdad by the U.S. in 1991 and 2003, say U.S. mil­i­tary and IT indus­try spe­cial­ists.

The raid on Syria was winked at by the U.S. which also sup­plied some non-​​participatory sup­port, they say.


The answer to the ques­tion of why the U.S. was involved is that “The Israelis can do things [within the region and Israel’s polit­i­cal struc­ture that] we some­times can’t do,” says a senior U.S. Air Force offi­cial with long back­ground in black oper­a­tions. Syria’s con­struc­tion of the facil­ity and North Korea’s par­tic­i­pa­tion “was an area of con­cern for us as well, so there was some help pro­vided in dis­cussing vul­ner­a­bil­i­ties and pro­vid­ing other knowl­edge [of Syria’s inte­grated air defenses and elec­tri­cal grid]. What occurred, isn’t incon­sis­tent with what hap­pened in Iraq twice before.“

So what did the U.S. forces do in Iraq in 1991 and 2003 to con­found air defenses, com­mu­ni­ca­tions and the abil­ity to com­mand forces in the field?

Read the rest of this story, see pics of Marine LAVs get­ting busy and get inside a big ‘ole helo gag­gle from our good friends at Aviation Week on Military​.com.

– Christian

Share |

May 5th, 2008 | The View from Av Week | 282735 Comments »http://defensetech.org/2008/05/05/us-electronic-fingerprints-in-syria/US+Electronic+Fingerprints+in+Syria%3F2008-05-05+13%3A05%3A55Ward You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

« « USS Independence, LCS 2, Launched | More Guns Good » »

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

  1. Brian says:
    May 5, 2008 at 10:15 am

    Well, hope­fully this will silence some of the stealth naysay­ers. When word of Israel’s attack first hit this web­site, there were quite a few here who used it as an oppor­tu­nity to attack stealth air­craft, say­ing they were over­priced and out­dated. “The Israelis can do the same thing cheaper and eas­ier!“
    Now we find out that the Israelis did it with US tech assistance.

    Reply
  2. Brad says:
    May 5, 2008 at 10:29 am

    Before the anti­semites get their foot in the door and ‘raise ques­tions’ regard­ing help­ing the Israelis (and their own men­tal health), I don’t think Israel needs our tech­nol­ogy per se to shut down Syria.
    All things are sim­i­lar, except for the dif­fer­ences, and dif­fer­ent, except for the sim­i­lar­i­ties, so it depends on ‘how’ sim­i­lar the elec­tronic ‘fin­ger­prints’ were — and what those fin­ger­prints are.
    I get the dis­tinct impres­sion 1991, 2003, and 2007 are linked only vaguely to each other — umm, black guys, with sneak­ers, yep, that one on the far right — so the links that appear reflect just the state of the art and not a mid­night cabal.

    Reply
  3. Wembley says:
    May 5, 2008 at 12:53 pm

    Why don;t we take a closer look at the ‘evi­dence’ here? Am I the only one who remem­bers what hap­pened last time? There are so many holes in the offi­cial ver­sion that you really have to doubt what’s going on, and the US involve­ment makes me a lot less com­fort­able. Who is doing who’s dirty work here?

    Reply
  4. CR says:
    May 5, 2008 at 12:57 pm

    Isn’t it funny how if you even think of ques­tion­ing the Israelis you’re auto­mat­i­cally branded an antisemite.…..

    Reply
  5. Roy Smith says:
    May 5, 2008 at 1:16 pm

    This just fuels the fire between those who just want stealth capa­bil­i­ties “ONLY” ver­sus those who feel that there should be a bal­ance between stealth air­craft & con­ven­tional aircraft.Israel does not cur­rently have stealth aircraft,so they have to use the con­ven­tional air­craft that they have.Hell,the Israelis could do spec­tac­u­lar things today with WWI Bi-​​planes if that was all they had to work with.The F-​​16I is a mar­velous plane,but the “F-​​35 or bust” crowd absolutely refuse to see it,they have their eye­lids shut tight & their fin­gers in their ears,they REFUSE to see it.Why we can’t have both IS a legit­i­mate question.The same with hav­ing BOTH F-​​15s & F-22s.The only rea­son why we still have F-​​15Es is because the “stealth Crowd” haven’t found a way.…yet to have a two-​​seat stealth air­craft to replace the F-​​15E.
    Of course,I totally feel that the way to go is “unmanned” killer robots & cyborg “super” sol­diers in fly­ing “Iron Man” suits & phaser rifles.We should hold off buy­ing new weapons until this “amaz­ing” break­through is achieved…in the year 2200.

    Reply
  6. Torpedo8 says:
    May 5, 2008 at 1:21 pm

    The US hasn’t had a lot of trou­ble with Russian-​​supplied air defense sys­tems lately. As sim­ple or as com­pli­cated as that may be, they’re will­ing to share this info with any­one who will do the work of Civilization in the ME (i.e. the Israelis) So let’s not hold our breath on the press conference.

    Reply
  7. Brian says:
    May 5, 2008 at 1:23 pm

    Imagine what could be done with all the tech and stealth…

    Reply
  8. Brad says:
    May 5, 2008 at 1:58 pm

    “Isn’t it funny how if you even think of ques­tion­ing the Israelis you’re auto­mat­i­cally branded an anti­semite.…..“
    No. It stopped being funny long ago.

    Reply
  9. WJS says:
    May 5, 2008 at 2:30 pm

    The Israelis need to be unleashed and get to work in that god­for­saken part of the world. When you have a small fire of good in a bar­baric dark­ness you blow on the embers.

    Reply
  10. whocares says:
    May 5, 2008 at 2:40 pm

    Well, do we really know for a fact that the Israelis did do the attack? What is inter­est­ing to me is the map of the area. The US is far closer to that site than the Israelis, its just over the Iraq bor­der. We have more capa­bil­ity from top to bot­tom for that kind of attack. We have F-​​22 that could do the job with lit­tle risk of detec­tion. We have the com­puter attack skills needed for the job.
    Finally, the US under Bush has told the North Koreans that a red line exists with their nuke pro­gram, cross it and pay the con­se­quences. What was that red line? Exporting their nuke tech to some other coun­try.
    I do believe that the US did that attack and Israel is tak­ing the credit so the US doesn’t get con­demned by half, no all of the Arab world.

    Reply
  11. pfcem says:
    May 5, 2008 at 3:48 pm

    Roy Smith,
    We WILL have BOTH F-​​15s & F-​​22 and F-​​16s & F-​​35s for quite some time. But F-​​15s & F-​​16s can not fly for­ever so they HAVE to replaced & procur­ing more F-​​15s instead of F-​​22s &/​or more F-​​16s instead of F-​​35s is just stu­pid. The supe­rior capa­bil­i­ties of the F-​​22 & F-​​35 FAR out­way their PROCUREMENT cost vs the PROCUREMENT cost of new F-​​15s & F-​​16s.
    Yes the F-​​16I is a mar­velous plane, but the F-​​35 is a MUCH supe­rior plane. The same is true in all the F-​​22/​F-​​35 vs Eurofighter dis­cus­sions. NOBODY is say­ing that the Eurofighter is not a mar­velous plane but it is a mar­velous 4th gen­er­a­tion plane while the F-​​22/​F-​​35 are/​will be mar­velous 5th gen­er­a­tion planes.

    Reply
  12. Roy Smith says:
    May 5, 2008 at 4:00 pm

    Off-Topic:We should have a thread on the movie “Iron Man” & how close we actu­ally are to hav­ing exoskele­ton suits that could mimic “Iron Man(minus the fly­ing of course)”.I never real­ized in the decades of grow­ing up & read­ing Iron Man,how rel­e­vant it is now in terms of tech­ni­cal capa­bil­i­ties we have now.
    On-​​Topic: I don’t think I have to be accused of being anti-​​semitic if I accuse Ehud Olmert of being a wimp & total ass hole(the slang word for female gen­i­talia & kitty cats also come to mind con­cern­ing him).I respect the Israeli mil­i­tary & technology.I have no respect for their gov­ern­ment leaders,just like I have no respect for the neo-​​con nut jobs cur­rently run­ning our coun­try.
    We only have so many F-22s,so we’d know if they were in the area or not.I’m not sure if any are or were in Iraq around the time of this raid.
    I still believe that hav­ing the proper BALANCE of stealth & con­ven­tional air­craft with elec­tronic counter-​​measures is the way we should go.The stealth crowd,however,have a totally closed mind about this concept.Stealth is like a reli­gion to them & any­body who says any­thing counter to stealth are “blas­phem­ing infidels.”

    Reply
  13. Roy Smith says:
    May 5, 2008 at 5:21 pm

    Stealth(5th Generation) is GREAT for night flying,where it excels most.Conventional aircraft(4.5th Generation) is great for day time flying.If you have a around the clock bomb­ing mission,like we had dur­ing Desert Storm,you are nat­u­rally going to use Stealth planes(F-22,F-35,& B-​​2) solely for night,& Conventional planes(F-15,F-16,AV-8,A-10,B-1,& B-​​52) for day,unless of course,we found a way to keep the sun from com­ing up,which would totally ben­e­fit our stealth aircraft,but totally screw up farm­ers world wide from grow­ing any crops naturally.Have we per­fected “cloak­ing” tech­nol­ogy so that our stealth air­craft could fly in the day time also?

    Reply
  14. Roy Smith says:
    May 5, 2008 at 5:29 pm

    Maybe if the Military-​​Industrial Complex weren’t try­ing to suck us dry for every dime we had through their extortion,we’d be able to buy both stealth & con­ven­tional air​craft​.At least the military-​​Industrial Complex was more HONEST dur­ing the 80’s.Today,they are just rip­ping us off & we aren’t get­ting s**t in return.Blame mis­sion creep,blame the pentagon,blame congress,or just blame the lying thieves suck­ing us dry.

    Reply
  15. Vitor says:
    May 5, 2008 at 6:43 pm

    I dis­agree about the F-​​35 being “much supe­rior” to the F-​​16.

    Reply
  16. citanon says:
    May 5, 2008 at 7:05 pm

    Roy Smith: “The F-​​16I is a mar­velous plane,but the “F-​​35 or bust” crowd absolutely refuse to see it,they have their eye­lids shut tight & their fin­gers in their ears,they REFUSE to see it.Why we can’t have both IS a legit­i­mate ques­tion.“
    Let’s see, uhhhh, MONEY!
    “The same with hav­ing BOTH F-​​15s & F-​​22s.“
    And that’s shap­ing up to be a fis­cal boondoggle.

    Reply
  17. blake says:
    May 5, 2008 at 10:27 pm

    Now that peo­ple are com­ment­ing about this in the open I would go back to com­ments that some of us made in Sept about this and you will find that this is old news — con­firmed. Sending Syria a mes­sage loud and clear is a no brainer — you can’t have that.
    More impor­tant is how many Russian AA sys­tems were sold after this? (sar­casm) While IAF took the heat for this is is gen­er­ally a good idea to have a FFID if you fly in the prox to US forces. Someday this will be on the History/​Mil chan­nel and the group fly out over the Med was prob­a­bly a faint.
    You can read about deliv­er­ies and appro­pri­a­tion mods to see that these sys­tems are ideal for the mis­sion type flown and com­pleted (tested) or atleast the sys­tems we know about (pub­lished)
    How many other coun­tries were in the know? That is a real question.

    Reply
  18. Roy Smith says:
    May 5, 2008 at 10:31 pm

    citanon,
    I agree,the blood­suck­ing Military-​​Industrial Complex is suck­ing us dry.If the Military-​​Industrial Complex were really the patri­ots they “CLAIM” to be,we could afford a hell of a lot of weapons spread across the board.However,its all about suck­ing us dry.It’s “all about the money,” its all about rip­ping off the tax pay­ing American cit­i­zen & putting our troops at need­less risk.
    Why haven’t they built super­sonic Stealth UCAV’s yet.That would please the both the Stealth crowd & the UAV/​UCAV crowd in one swoop.

    Reply
  19. pfcem says:
    May 5, 2008 at 10:32 pm

    Roy Smith,
    I see, stealth only works at night. ;) LOL!
    I agree that there should be a bal­ance of stealth & non-​​steath but that bal­ance DOES NOT include procur­ing more F-​​15s & F-​​16s instead of F-​​22s & F-​​35s.
    And I see that you are a con­spir­acy the­o­rist as well. :) Just one exam­ple: Lockheed Martin Corporation 5-​​Year Average Gross Profit Margin = 9.5%.

    Reply
  20. CTR1(SW) says:
    May 5, 2008 at 11:42 pm

    So Roy, do you own any stocks? Any mutu­als? You may be the pub­lic por­tion of “The Military Industrial Complex.” All of these com­pa­nies are pub­li­cally traded stocks who are legally bound to make a profit for their share-​​holders. The same is true for the oil.
    Now, back on the topic. Having blogs that dis­cuss the nuances of how mil­i­tary mis­sions are con­ducted is a two edged sword. Yes, we get to dis­cuss it, but our ene­mies also get to lis­ten in. Because of this, it will not be so easy the next time. (It’s called “opsec” folks.)

    Reply
  21. Roy Smith says:
    May 6, 2008 at 7:01 am

    Stealth is opti­mal at night,because besides being “invis­i­ble” on radar,the dark­ness hin­ders enemy pilots & ground ADA units from visu­al­iz­ing the aircraft.During the daytime,what good is stealth on radar,if every­body & their brother,sister,mama,etc. can see it streak­ing through the air? I seri­ously doubt that they’ll think it’s an UFO. The mak­ers of the F/​A-​​18E/​F Super hor­net had a very seri­ous finan­cial stake in get­ting rid of the F-​​14 Tomcat.There for they “heav­ily” influ­enced con­gress & then Sec.Def. Cheney to cut off funds for up keep & improve­ments on the F-14.The same goes with the A-​​6 Intruder.The only plane that needed replace­ment was the A-7.But there was money to be made.Think of all of the nuclear pow­ered cruis­ers we “Recycled(scrapped)(every sin­gle one,by the way),” & now all of a sudden,Congress wants nuclear pow­ered cruis­ers for our navy? Hello,if THATS not a con­spir­acy theory,I don’t know what is? this isn’t about defense,it’s about lin­ing pock­ets.
    As far as stealth ver­sus conventional,why can we not just replace our sin­gle seat F-​​16s with the F-​​35 & then,upgrade our 2-​​seat F-​​16s to F-​​16I stan­dards &/​or the F-​​16s Block 52+/60 that we are sell­ing to Poland,Greece,UAE & that we are propos­ing to sell to India? A two-​​seat F-​​16 could oper­ate like the F-​​15E Strike Eagle​.It seems so sim­ple & EASY TO UNDERSTAND,but,I guess even the idea of keep­ing a 2-​​seat con­ven­tional air­craft around steps on toes,right? Again,why is it a mat­ter of “money?” Until they start putting R2D2 in planes,there is still a need for “spe­cial­ized” 2-​​seat aircraft.

    Reply
  22. Wembley says:
    May 6, 2008 at 7:39 am

    Who says the flight was “unde­tected”?
    And why, if the aim was to ‘send a sig­nal’, do the Israelis refuse to con­firm the attack, let along accuse Syria of a nuclear pro­gram?
    All this stuff about the value of stealth air­craft is irrel­e­vant — the Israelis have always been able to bomb the Syrians. The ques­tion is what’s realy going on.

    Reply
  23. Camp says:
    May 6, 2008 at 8:25 am

    I’ve been won­der­ing…
    Why did the Israelis destroy the facil­ity before (accord­ing to the report) the reac­tor was fueled? Wouldn’t there have been more evi­dence (ie. radi­a­tion), if it was destroyed dur­ing the reac­tor startup? And as a bonus foul the mate­r­ial, as well as con­t­a­m­i­nate the equip­ment.
    “Satellite Photos Show Cleansing of Syrian Site“
    http://​www​.nytimes​.com/​2​0​0​7​/​1​0​/​2​6​/​w​o​r​l​d​/​m​i​d​d​l​e​e​a​s​t​/​2​6​w​e​a​p​o​n​s​.​h​t​m​l​?​_​r​=​1​&​a​m​p​;​o​r​e​f​=​s​l​o​gin
    “Syria’s Nuclear Reactor — pt 1″
    http://​youtube​.com/​w​a​t​c​h​?​v​=​4​a​h​6​R​m​c​e​wUM
    Re: Stealth. I think I’d be more sur­prised, if Israel didn’t have a cou­ple of stealth plat­forms hid­den away some­where.
    On a side note:
    And has any­one fig­ured out why North Korean built run­ways run­ning through/​into a Mountain?
    http://​maps​.google​.com/​m​a​p​s​?​h​l​=​e​n​&​a​m​p​;​i​e​=​U​T​F​8​&​a​m​p​;​l​l​=​3​9​.​0​9​2​5​6​6​,​1​2​7​.​4​1​0​6​3​6​&​a​m​p​;​s​p​n​=​0​.​0​1​5​9​5​4​,​0​.​0​2​9​0​1​1​&​a​m​p​;​t​=​h​&​a​m​p​;​z​=15
    http://​www​.strat​e​gy​page​.com/​m​i​l​i​t​a​r​y​_​p​h​o​t​o​s​/​2​0​0​8​0​4​2​9​2​3​3​0​5​0​.​a​spx

    Reply
  24. coolhand77 says:
    May 6, 2008 at 8:34 am

    I think we are miss­ing the point. Yes the “elec­tronic fin­ger­prints” look like US ECM gear because the Israelies USE US EQUIPMENT. Of course its going to look sim­i­lar. On the other hand, they may not be brag­ging about it because they don’t want every­one to know all their capa­bil­i­ties, nor how much they know about whats going on (let­ting an enemy know that com­pro­mises intel­li­gence and intel­le­gence assets).
    Why didn’t they bomb it after it was fueled? Which way does the wind blow? Is their even a small chance that by blow­ing up a FUELED NUCLEAR REACTOR you might dump par­ti­cles into the air that would blow into allied nations or your own? Yah, it might look like a good idea at first glance, but when you look at the colat­eral dam­age, it might not be such a bright idea…especially since that kind of colat­eral dam­age would just piss off more Arabs. The Israelies TRY not to hit civvie tar­gets or cause colat­eral damage…its not their fault that the enemy keeps using neigh­bor­hoods and houses as “human shield­ing” for their rocket launch­ers and ter­ror cells.

    Reply
  25. Brian says:
    May 6, 2008 at 9:29 am

    Roy, just because you can look up in the air and see a jet doesn’t mean you can shoot it down. Stealth is BETTER at night, of course, because you don’t give ANY warn­ing to your oppo­nent. But stealth in the day­time is still loads bet­ter than no stealth in the day­time.
    A 2 seat F-​​16 is no replace­ment for the F-​​15. Not even close, no mat­ter how much you upgrade it.

    Reply
  26. Roy Smith says:
    May 6, 2008 at 11:26 am

    I never said that the F-​​16I should replace the F-15E,I feel that it would com­ple­ment & sup­ple­ment the strike fighter/​fighter bomber capa­bil­i­ties of of the F-​​15E AND the use of B-​​1 bombers for strike missions.The F-16I(I’m using the I model as an exam­ple) can fly nap of the earth like the old F-​​111 use to.With dig­i­tal camouflage,the out­line of the F-​​16 can be dis­torted & hid­den from any enemy air­craft fly­ing over head of it.Having elec­tronic coun­ter­mea­sures installed will also help it.Both exter­nal & con­for­mal fuel tanks will give it long range​.As far as the F-​​35 goes,we should con­cen­trate on the V/​STOL model first,like what the Israelis are requesting.If we were ever to meet with an enemy that has a com­pe­tent air force,we’d want a jet that can get off the ground with­out ben­e­fit of have to take off from a bombed out runway(just like Israel expects that they will face in another war).I can see the F-​​22 oper­at­ing as a ded­i­cated Fighter-Interceptor,because of their thrust vec­tor­ing capabilities,both at night & in the daytime.Of all the mod­els of the F-35,the V/​STOL ver­sion is the MOST impor­tant ver­sion to get out first.

    Reply
  27. Roy Smith says:
    May 6, 2008 at 11:28 am

    Bruce Willis & the lat­est “Die Hard” movie made me a believer in the V/​STOL F-​​35.

    Reply
  28. Camp says:
    May 6, 2008 at 11:28 am

    coolhand77,
    I thought about that as well… The great­est threats of con­t­a­m­i­na­tion would be to the Euphrates via the cool­ing sys­tem. And for air­borne par­ti­cles, I have great doubts the NK ves­sel design is engi­neered to pro­vide col­lapse con­tain­ment dur­ing a cat­a­stro­phe. As such you’d def­i­nitely see a release of radi­a­tion into the air… as for how much, who knows. And it would be easy to demonise Israel for the con­t­a­m­i­na­tion…
    But if that’s the case, is the prece­dent to only destroy non-​​operational reac­tors? What if Syria had an oper­a­tional reac­tor in Damascus, or a large pop­u­la­tion cen­ter? Would Israel be so wor­ried about world out­rage, they wouldn’t take action?
    That said, the reac­tor fuel (I’m assum­ing) still has to be some­where. As well as the sci­en­tist & remain­ing equip­ment…
    So tech­ni­cally the pro­gram is set back, but remains a threat. What’s to pre­vent Syria from build­ing under­ground… or dis­pers­ing it’s pro­gram?
    “RBMK Reactor“
    http://​www​.nuclear​tourist​.com/​t​y​p​e​/​r​b​m​k​.​htm

    Reply
  29. pfcem says:
    May 6, 2008 at 1:45 pm

    Roy Smith,
    What good is EW if every­body & their brother, sis­ter, mama, etc. can see it streak­ing through the air? ;) Even IF any­body could “see” a stealth air­craft, what can the do about it? ;)
    I agree that the F/​A-​​18E/​F Super Hornet was a com­plete & utter fraud. BUT the fraud was not about lin­ing pock­ets but mak­ing sure that even though it was INFERIOR to the air­craft it was replac­ing that it was the only choice so the USN & Congress HAD to accept it. The A-​​6 did need a replace­ment & most of the F-​​14 were get­ting old & “too expen­sive” to main­tain.
    With the end of the cold war we no longer needed 3 dozen cruis­ers so we decom­mis­sioned all but the 22 newest/​youngest Ticonderoga class. And the next class of cruis­ers may be nuclear pow­ered because the DOD wants them to have a major ABM capa­bil­ity which requires a sig­nif­i­cantly larger ship & for a war­ship of ~26,000 tons nuclear power has LOWER pro­jected total life-​​cycle costs. Plus the the ~$800 mil­lion greater pro­cure­ment cost for nuclear power is not so sig­nif­i­cant when the ship even with­out nuclear power costs more than $4 bil­lion.
    “Why can we not just replace our sin­gle seat F-​​16s with the F-​​35 & then, upgrade our 2-​​seat F-​​16s to F-​​16I stan­dards &/​or the F-​​16s Block 52+/60 that we are sell­ing to Poland, Greece, UAE & that we are propos­ing to sell to India?” Because there aren’t enough two-​​seat F-​​16s (& they are usu­ally busy being used for train­ing) & just like all F-​​16s, they can not fly forever.

    Reply
  30. Roy Smith says:
    May 6, 2008 at 3:45 pm

    I don’t want to sound overly simplistic,but I think that the best solu­tion would be for the F-​​35B to come out first​.It is the most ver­sa­tile of the 3 mod­els planned.If the Air Force is seri­ous about replac­ing the A-​​10 Thunderbolt,then it should be with the F-​​35B instead of the F-35A.because of its V/​STOL capabilities,it could stay with the ground forces​.It could land in the same fields as the Apache Helicopters for refu­el­ing & would not need to fly back to some air field over 100 or more miles away​.It does not need paved or met­aled run­ways to operate.Again,this may sound overly simplistic,but it could land & take off from freeways,parking lots,top of buildings,where ever large heli­copters like CH-​​53 or CH-​​47s could take off & land.The A-​​10 may have more armor,but the F-​​35B has the abil­ity to take-​​off & land in more places & could respond much quicker to ground units need­ing imme­di­ate air support(because it would be much closer to the front).
    The only rea­son that the F-​​14 was too old & expen­sive to run is because the Pentagon & Congress closed the assem­bly lines mak­ing them & “broke the molds” so that new ones could not be made.They were also too invested in the F/​A-​​18 to pay for upgrades.Now they pretty much smashed up EVERY F-​​14 Tomcat we ever had because of the [made up & bogus] fear of Iran “get­ting a hold of them thar’ F-14s.The only legit­i­mate fear they had was that we’d find out what a use­less piece of s**t the F/​A-​​18A/​B/​C/​D/​E/​F Hornet/​Super Hornet was,& they wanted us to be stuck with it by smash­ing up all of the Tomcats so that we couldn’t go back to them.Maybe they’ll rein­vent the wheel like they are doing with the nuclear pow­ered cruiser.Maybe they’ll state the obvious,“the Super Hornet isn’t working,we need something’BETTER’,& we need to piss more money down this black hole to get it.“
    You have two scenarios,neither pretty.Either you have glob­al­ist elit­ists want­ing to neuter our coun­try so that a one world gov­ern­ment can come into place,or.…..you have a bunch of spoiled brat “chil­dren” break­ing their “toys” so that they can get newer,“better,” & shinier toys.Neither sce­nario is pretty,in fact they pretty much both suck.

    Reply
  31. WR says:
    May 6, 2008 at 4:17 pm

    CR: “Isn’t it funny how if you even think of ques­tion­ing the Israelis you’re auto­mat­i­cally branded an anti­semite.…..“
    Brad: “No. It stopped being funny long ago.“
    It is cer­tainly strange and prej­u­di­cial as ques­tion­ing some­thing does not auto­mat­i­cally qual­ify some­one as “anti-(whatever the per­son is ques­tion­ing)” as you, Brad, are seem­ingly doing.

    Reply
  32. Brad says:
    May 6, 2008 at 5:56 pm

    Whatever, WR, baby.
    So long as the Truthers, the Bakunities, the New Left, Islamofascists, and anti­semites (but I repeat myself) stay in their padded cells, I’m cool stomp­ing on “dissent.”

    Reply
  33. Roy Smith says:
    May 6, 2008 at 6:23 pm

    how do I know if I’m a Bakunite if I don’t know what the hell it means?
    Israel makes great weapons from what they have to work with.There is noth­ing wrong with the Israelis as people.They are engag­ing in both self-​​defense & survival.There is how­ever a group of global elitist,who have poi­soned the gov­ern­ments of Europe,North America,& Israel.Olmert is one of these idiots who had no prob­lem what­so­ever with sac­ri­fic­ing Israeli lives need­lessly as he did dur­ing the 2006 war with Lebanese Hizbollah & Palestinian Hamas,& how he doing with Israeli cities being bom­barded by Katyusha Rockets from Gaza.He divides up Israeli Jews between European Jews & African/​Asian Jews by giv­ing favored sta­tus towards the European/​North American/​South American Jews over the other Jews.He dis­crim­i­nates against his own people.Peres,Netanyahu,& Barak are no better,just like our choices between Obama,Clinton,&/or McCain are really no choices at all.

    Reply
  34. Brad says:
    May 6, 2008 at 6:45 pm

    Roy, Bakuninite = anar­chist after Bakunin. Don’t worry, you are just a nutcase6.

    Reply
  35. WR says:
    May 7, 2008 at 2:24 pm

    “Whatever, WR, baby. “
    Aha. A con­ces­sion, babe.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Click here to cancel reply.

Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree

    Most Popular Posts
    • What Does this Handle Do?
    • Marines Quiet About Brutal New Weapon
    • Starship Troopers Meets G.I. Joe
    • Semi-auto Grenade Thrower
    • Dowd's Bogus Grief Deficit
    • Adapting Women to Subs
    • Fort Hood Rampage
    • Keep it Simple
    • Mystery Drone Revealed
    • REPLACEMENT ARM, GOOD AS NEW
    Recent Comments
    • New Army PEO on the way
      To get our AAA quality shoes at reasonable price, Your...
      nike air force ones
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      "And no, the Koran does not say anything about killing...
      bdwilcox
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      When the Lord your God brings you into the land you are entering to...
      DualityOfMan
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      Fascism? Last time I heard, the fascists promoted christianity. Or,...
      DualityOfMan
    • Semi-auto Grenade Thrower
      I see an M16 firing, and I see a 40 mm grenade launcher...
      DualityOfMan
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      "I'd say go read some history on fascist ideology and then compare...
      Sam
    • Semi-auto Grenade Thrower
      No. I am not saying a grenade launcher on a rifle is a hoax. I...
      Zandor
    • Semi-auto Grenade Thrower
      For someone who trashes all the readers of the blog you sure do...
      a1189
    • Market for Acoustic Defense Systems Heats Up
      These devices vibrate tissue and bone not just...
      WJS
    • Semi-auto Grenade Thrower
      So are you saying the grenade launcher is a hoax or the M-16?...
      WJS
    Recent Articles
    • Semi-​​auto Grenade Thrower
    • Market for Acoustic Defense Systems Heats Up
    • Fort Hood Rampage
    • Keep it Simple
    • Airbag Defense
    • Dowd’s Bogus Grief Deficit
    • Did Someone Move the Furniture Around?
    • Lockheed Says Sbirs Still on Track For 2010
    • What Does this Handle Do?
    • Adapting Women to Subs
  • Channels: Military.com | Military Benefits | Military News | Off Duty | Join the Military | Military Education | Veteran Jobs | Military Money | Military Deals | Military Family | Military Community
  • Military.com Network: Military.com | MilBlogging | Defense Tech | DoD Buzz | SpouseBuzz | Fred's Place | GI Bill Express
  • Services: Army | Navy | Air Force | Marine Corps | Coast Guard | National Guard | Military Spouse
  • About Military.com About Us | Advertise With Us | Press | Affiliate Program | Monster Network | Help | Feedback | Privacy Policy | User Agreement | © 2009 Military Advantage