Boomer6

I have no desire to be lumped in with ppl like dayman, but I'm getting concerned we didnt adequately prepare for contingencies (the straight being closed comes to mind). Not having a valid strategy and thought out plans for contingencies to accomplish an actual objective is my concern, and its not without reason based on the last 20 years. Holding judgement and trying to give the benefit of the doubt though.

If we're using significant resources to sit DCA for drones then I disagree we have air supremacy over the area, and would say they're effectively interfering with our operation. The point stands regarding the risk our leaders are willing to accept in order to destroy Iran's ability to place mines in the straight.

Can you explain why you assess borderline air supremacy based on continued drone attacks (to say nothing of TBMs)? Also, if killing any boat capable of laying a mine drives ALR plaid from the government then I can easily see allowing the strafing of targets once Remington.

I have zero desire for the Iranian regime having any bargaining power WRT nukes, or anything military related for that matter. That goes for any other regime that executes the atrocities that Iran does. Believe it or not I signed up specifically to do what we're doing right now.

This is the financial intricacy I was hoping was being lost in the details. I'll try to be more judicious in my use of the word "anyone" when asking a serious question next time. With that ambiguity it was a coin flip between a short rage bait response from the left or a community college dissertation from Ratner...

The Obama administration gave Iran roughly $1.7 billion in 2016. We're now allowing 140 million barrels of Iranian oil to be sold. If that oil only sold for $90/barrel it would be $12.6 billion. Does anyone know if there is some financial intricacy I'm missing here that prevents Iran from making that money?

US removes sanctions on 140 million barrels of Iranian oil Just like we planned it...

Hopefully it was off the Grand canyon..

This video keeps getting removed from reddit and there are a lot of AI vids coming out of tictoc right now wrt Iran. Idk if they're deleting it because the DOW is asking them to or because it's AI, or both. Anyone have SA on its actual authenticity?

I actually have no doubt that it will be known for sure by the IC, and suspect it is already known. Whether the facts come to light after the war or the pilot is quietly disappeared only time will tell.

In what decade do you expect said growing pains to cease?

That video has been removed. Can't find it elsewhere either.

Kuwait's Minister of defense said "several U.S. military aircraft have crashed." Here's hoping they all got out.

I think we're talking past one another here. The attitude I have is one of skepticism with regard to defense companies and their ability to do what they say they can in a timely fashion. I'm also skeptical that anyone's prior service outweighs their loyalties when selling a product for their new employer. That just means I don't put added weight to what someone at the company is saying because they wore a flt suit way back when. One solution to said skepticism is for the DoW to stop signing contracts that allow us (us being the end users and taxpayers) to get bent over by companies. Or, as you said, force honest assessments from companies and hold thier feet to the fire. DoW bares half the blame in my opinion when it comes to our acquisition woes. I think a lack of skepticism on the part of DoW decision makers, specifically when dealing with the primes, is part of what has put us in this vicious cycle. Skepticism from my view does not mean scoff the newcomers and go back to the primes. DIUx is a prime (pun intended) example of where I'd like to see us moving w.r.t acquisitions. Trust but verify, is all I'm saying when it comes down to it.

Other air forces are already using it, cool story. That has nothing to do with how long it will take to get this platform approved for use with every fighter in our inventory. AFSOC may be able to get shit fielded in 3 years but us peasants in the CAF can barely get software changes in that timeframe so excuse me if I have doubts on your timeline. The E-7 is a good illustration of my point that "proven" platforms in use by our allies still take many years to become operational in our services. That's a critique on us not Embraer. I've sat through too many shameless pitches from dudes who wear LM, Northrop, Boeing, RTX, etc. polos and who were once "bros" to believe the company brochure. Phrases like "most of the risk is gone" are par for the course. That's a critique on dudes I know that were either ignorant or blatant sellouts. Don't take it personally. I don't know a single line pilot that isn't on board for trying something different when it comes to better capes/ acquisitions. The bobs who won't be going down range and are banking on a board spot at a big 3 are the ones that need convincing. Also, maybe vets should stop helping these companies oversell and under deliver...