42 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

But Iran is different because we have Trump and he is vewy smaht!

Girls between the ages of 7-12 get bombed

Zuker: Bombs away!

These aren't serious people.

Kash located the missing drones

3 hours ago, Paul852 said:

I was under the impression that America specifically voted against this type of stuff, no?

Yep pretty much everything he listed also applies to Russia, but for some strange mysterious reason, he was vehemently opposed to providing aid to Ukraine.

1 hour ago, The_Omega said:

Eh. As someone who's formative years were, largely, late '70's to the late '90's I think it's about f'ing time someone did something about Iran. I was also caught a bit off guard by US actually doing something and haven't entirely come to terms with it yet. I think we can destroy their regime, but I also realize that Iran has been important to a number of powerful bad actors who have been arming them for decades so there's always the possibility that it could take a lot longer than I (and many Americans) are comfortable with. I remember when Clinton decided on that air war over Yugoslavia rather than boots on the ground I didn't think there was anyway it would work, but it did, it just took a little while. I don't think Trump has that long here, but I could be wrong about that too.

We won’t destroy their regime without large numbers of US soldiers on the ground in Iran. And we are nowhere close to the type of build up for the troops that would be needed.

This "excursion” was warned against by all the major armed forces leaders. Trump was too stupid to listen. This will be a huge waste of money.

7 hours ago, VanHammersly said:

The Republican strategy at the moment seems to be desperately hope for a terrorist attack (and then desperately hope that whoever attacks us came into the country in a very specific time frame) so you can blame it on Biden and justify an invasion. Don't see any other way Trump puts boots on the ground without it, because otherwise he'd have no one blame it on.

It'd be great if Iran would go boob-for-tat and eliminate of some of the utter filth we have in lead we have for leaders, but I feel like Iranians are smart enough to know that that would actually be doing us a solid.

1 hour ago, The_Omega said:

Eh. As someone who's formative years were, largely, late '70's to the late '90's I think it's about f'ing time someone did something about Iran. I was also caught a bit off guard by US actually doing something and haven't entirely come to terms with it yet. I think we can destroy their regime, but I also realize that Iran has been important to a number of powerful bad actors who have been arming them for decades so there's always the possibility that it could take a lot longer than I (and many Americans) are comfortable with. I remember when Clinton decided on that air war over Yugoslavia rather than boots on the ground I didn't think there was anyway it would work, but it did, it just took a little while. I don't think Trump has that long here, but I could be wrong about that too.

Clinton drove Yugoslavia out of a country about the size of Connecticut. Iran’s 3 times the size of Texas and the goal is regime change. Completely different animal and 100% impossible strictly from the air.

1 hour ago, The_Omega said:

Eh. As someone who's formative years were, largely, late '70's to the late '90's I think it's about f'ing time someone did something about Iran. I was also caught a bit off guard by US actually doing something and haven't entirely come to terms with it yet. I think we can destroy their regime, but I also realize that Iran has been important to a number of powerful bad actors who have been arming them for decades so there's always the possibility that it could take a lot longer than I (and many Americans) are comfortable with. I remember when Clinton decided on that air war over Yugoslavia rather than boots on the ground I didn't think there was anyway it would work, but it did, it just took a little while. I don't think Trump has that long here, but I could be wrong about that too.

Fires alone cannot achieve strategic victory. There needs to be some type of maneuver element.

In the Balkans there were maneuver elements, it's just a lot of them weren't ours. In this case we do not have any maneuver elements as it stands right now, and it does not appear that there will be any.

I don't think this one's gonna be good. From the release sounds like a mid-air.

Two KC-135s. I'm guessing one was a customer.

I don't think any rescues are gonna be coming out of this one unfortunately, but I hope I'm wrong.

4 hours ago, Phillyterp85 said:

Have you learned nothing from Afghanistan and Iraq?

This is a different situation than both of those wars. What is your point?

4 hours ago, DrPhilly said:

No one is shedding any tears. The question is how it is going for the good ole US of A. The risk/reward item you talk about in your 1st sentence which I absolutely agree with.

This could turn out to be a brilliant world-changing victory or a total slog.

How is it going? The truth is no one really gives two ishs. Just like everything else. No one gave a ish about Afghanistan or Yemen, you name it. America hasn't really given a ish about a war since we needed to kill a bunch of Muslims after 9/11

4 hours ago, Paul852 said:

I was under the impression that America specifically voted against this type of stuff, no?

Trump is infinitely better than the alternative. That's what America voted for.

13 minutes ago, Bill said:

Two KC-135s. I'm guessing one was a customer.

I don't think any rescues are gonna be coming out of this one unfortunately, but I hope I'm wrong.

Is there even a way to ditch a kc-135? Gotta imagine they're all gone.

10 minutes ago, Mike31mt said:

This could turn out to be a brilliant world-changing victory

7 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Is there even a way to ditch a kc-135? Gotta imagine they're all gone.

I mean, it's a flying gas tank, so I would imagine not easily. I'm sure @Mlodj would have better insight than I would.

I know there was a Marine refueler that IIRC was able to limp to a safe landing, but that was a C-130 variant.

49 minutes ago, Mike31mt said:

Trump is infinitely better than the alternative. That's what America voted for.

I’m just worried that he might not win the FIFA Peace Prize next year

1 hour ago, Mike31mt said:

Trump is infinitely better than the alternative. That's what America voted for.

You mean like war with Iran and expensive gas? That alternative?

55 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Is there even a way to ditch a kc-135? Gotta imagine they're all gone.

The USAF tanker fleet consists of 500ish aircraft. Here are the numbers LINK for the KC-135: Air Mobility Command manages an inventory of 396 KC-135 Stratotankers, of which the Air Force Reserve and Air National Guard fly 243 aircraft in support of AMC's mission. The last one was delivered in 1965. The other tanker in the USAF inventory is the KC-46 (first one delivered in 2019), of which Boeing says there are just over 100 delivered so far LINK. So, the vast majority of the USAF tanker fleet qualifies for antique license plates.

In answer to the bail out question, tankers and transports are basically stuck with the WW II method of grabbing a parachute, strapping it on, and then finding their way to an exit to jump out of all while in a plane that may be wildly out of control. They generally don't plan on living through that experience. Ditching a modern aircraft is equally bad given the much higher speeds and heavier weights involved compared to WW II, when it was still an option. When I flew the 747 we didn't bother practice ditching in the simulator, even though there were procedures for it in the flight manual, because nobody thought it was a realistic option. That should give you an idea of what a miracle it was that "Sully" Sullenberger pulled off in that ditching in the Hudson River.

22 minutes ago, Mlodj said:

The USAF tanker fleet consists of 500ish aircraft. Here are the numbers LINK for the KC-135: Air Mobility Command manages an inventory of 396 KC-135 Stratotankers, of which the Air Force Reserve and Air National Guard fly 243 aircraft in support of AMC's mission. The last one was delivered in 1965. The other tanker in the USAF inventory is the KC-46 (first one delivered in 2019), of which Boeing says there are just over 100 delivered so far LINK. So, the vast majority of the USAF tanker fleet qualifies for antique license plates.

In answer to the bail out question, tankers and transports are basically stuck with the WW II method of grabbing a parachute, strapping it on, and then finding their way to an exit to jump out of all while in a plane that may be wildly out of control. They generally don't plan on living through that experience. Ditching a modern aircraft is equally bad given the much higher speeds and heavier weights involved compared to WW II, when it was still an option. When I flew the 747 we didn't bother practice ditching in the simulator, even though there were procedures for it in the flight manual, because nobody thought it was a realistic option. That should give you an idea of what a miracle it was that "Sully" Sullenberger pulled off that ditching in the Hudson River.

So pretty much no chance that any of the 6 survived? Truly sad if that's the case.

As for Sully, I remembered reading about it and watching a documentary, but had no idea the scrutiny they put him under during the investigation until I watched the movie, though I'm sure some of that was sensationalized for dramatic effect.

31 minutes ago, Mlodj said:

The USAF tanker fleet consists of 500ish aircraft. Here are the numbers LINK for the KC-135: Air Mobility Command manages an inventory of 396 KC-135 Stratotankers, of which the Air Force Reserve and Air National Guard fly 243 aircraft in support of AMC's mission. The last one was delivered in 1965. The other tanker in the USAF inventory is the KC-46 (first one delivered in 2019), of which Boeing says there are just over 100 delivered so far LINK. So, the vast majority of the USAF tanker fleet qualifies for antique license plates.

In answer to the bail out question, tankers and transports are basically stuck with the WW II method of grabbing a parachute, strapping it on, and then finding their way to an exit to jump out of all while in a plane that may be wildly out of control. They generally don't plan on living through that experience. Ditching a modern aircraft is equally bad given the much higher speeds and heavier weights involved compared to WW II, when it was still an option. When I flew the 747 we didn't bother practice ditching in the simulator, even though there were procedures for it in the flight manual, because nobody thought it was a realistic option. That should give you an idea of what a miracle it was that "Sully" Sullenberger pulled off that ditching in the Hudson River.

Also it kinda helped too that he was ditching it in a tidal river surrounded by a ton of boats and next to the jurisdiction of the largest PD in the world and not the open ocean with waves and such.

I know initially he was saying that it was just another day at the office and anyone could have done that, but recently he's come out and said, IMO correctly, that everyone working that day was firing on every cylinder and then some.

2 hours ago, VanHammersly said:

Clinton drove Yugoslavia out of a country about the size of Connecticut. Iran’s 3 times the size of Texas and the goal is regime change. Completely different animal and 100% impossible strictly from the air.

Never mind the fact that the Kosovo forces were around 20k strong, and the joint NATO peacekeeping effort was 30k troops, and it took the threat of the troops to get the Serbs to back down, and we still needed boots on the ground to secure it even though there was no fighting.

2 hours ago, Mike31mt said:

Trump is infinitely better than the alternative. That's what America voted for.

I concur…

Sounds like the plane crashed in a remote area or western Iraq.