Anyone else find themselves thinking "flying gunboat" when considering the AC 130 can have a socking great artillery cannon sticking out the side of it?
Printable View
Anyone else find themselves thinking "flying gunboat" when considering the AC 130 can have a socking great artillery cannon sticking out the side of it?
The downside is, if the said artillery fired, the recoil would rip the aircraft to pieces.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
That's what the advertisements say.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
If that also reflects the reality of COIN operations, why are the US developing new prop versions for COIN tasks?
IN Vietnam the US already had Sparrows and didn't use cannons in all F-4 versions. Then the ROE demanded viasual ID of enemies and the entire range advantage went down the drain because they might have shot down a lot of friendlies otherwise. Even the F-22 has a gun now, probably because war isn't a serious of events that work out ideally in your favor. The A-10 also goes in close and employs a "machine gun", it was scheduled for retiremnt but was kept around longer because it was so very useful to have a plane that can go in close. The whole missiles from above thing works fine under certain circumstances but when your own patrol comes under fire or the enemies are well hidden, the pilots may just have to use their Mk.1 eyeballs for the engagement. Not to forget that some of those "precision" ammunitions may cost about as much as one of those little COIN aircraft per shot...Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
There are recoil systems for the recoil and the AC-130 is a big plane made of metal.
Anyway, I didn't mean the USA developed the A-29 but the A-67 that I linked earlier:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Aircraft_A-67_Dragon
The manufacturer, US Aircraft Corp., is based in the USA according to their website: http://usaircraftcorp.com/contactus.php
I wasn't saying that modern jet fighters are the best of the best against insurgents. It's that they can stay out of the effective range of most of the common insurgent weapons.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Those jets can still provide air supremacy. Even if they are not good at taking out insurgents one by one, they may make them wary of travelling openly in columns. They thus make the insurgents less efficient and can also help inspire hopelessness among them because of the invisible and lethal enemy they are faced with.
ISIS can transport their seized equipment openly because the hostile air forces active in the area have a limited presence behind ISIS lines. Unless you have huge numbers of them (which the Afghans won't), I don't think A-29s can give more than a limited presence (compared to e.g. F16s) - which of course is a hell lot better than no air presence at all.
I'm not sure why you are rating A-29s against the background of fighting ISIS. A-29s are sold to Afghanistan, not Iraq. AFAIK ISIS is not trying to conquer Afghanistan but Iraq.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
And the whole invisible jets in the sky thing may work if your GDP is actually higher than the fuel costs of doing that as the almighty Cube already pointed out. :sweatdrop:
For the time being, at least. Until you vote the next isolationist president into the offices of the white residence. ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
Just saying that if I had to choose between fighter jets and A-29s for counter-insurgency operations, I'd go for the fighter jets.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
ISIS is an example from practice for the theory I wrote. This thread also happens to be about Iraq and ISIS.
You've missed out the other compelling argument which GC gave. Fuel and other logistical support. Without an unreasonable amount of outside aid, the Afghan state might be able to support a fleet of A-29s. It would likely not be able to support a fleet of jets. If props can do the job, an A-29 flying in the air is better than an F-22 rusting on the ground.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
I wasn't arguing that Afghanistan should get fighter jets instead. The talk about fighter jets was a spin-off from my remark that the A-29 looked vulnerable to MG fire.
That's a sad excuse for being wrong on a tangential topic. :no:Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
It's the happiest legit reason I've ever seen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
ISIS has declared a caliphate, and has also shown that they suffer from hubris:
Also, why this? Seems completely random:Quote:
It also proclaimed the group's leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, as caliph and "leader for Muslims everywhere".
Quote:
Meanwhile, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called for the creation of an independent Kurdish state in response to gains made by Sunni insurgents in Iraq.
In a speech in Tel Aviv, he said the Kurds were "a nation of fighters and have proved political commitment and are worthy of independence".
Doofuses.Quote:
The international community, including neighbouring Turkey and the US, remain opposed to the breakup of Iraq.
That makes sense. It would probably be wrong to assume that Netanyahu has even as much as a sympathetic mitochondrion in his body.
The reaction to the "caliphate" will be interesting.
It gives a material "thing" for extremist groups to use as a rallying point.
If the "caliphate" is snuffed by the US or its allies the loons will point to that as another manifestation of America's evil.
The whole thing could blow up all by itself; it is certainly not clear that anyone else is "on-board" with this will to power.
Kurdistan will be an ethnic state - like Israel -it will be good for Kurds and bad for anyone living on "Kurdish" territory.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
Although, in two generations time that may have resolved itself.
Do you have any observations from their current semi-automous region in Iraq or statements from powerful or influential people in the region to back that up with?Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Comparison to modern Israel may have been a bit harsh, but the first thing the Kurds did in the current crisis was establish control over a city in the border regions after the Iraqi army fled.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
Perhaps it would be better to say that a Kurdish state will be for Kurds, which means it will not be for Arabs, though they will probably be tolerated.
Can the Caliphate tolerate a Kurdish state that does not acknowledge the supremacy of the caliph?Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Supposedly, the Kurds regard Kirkuk as their real capital city. Some more background information on its seizure:Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Quote:
Kirkuk city, which has a mixed population of Kurds, Arabs and Turkmen, has long been a thorny issue in Iraqi politics.
Its special status as a disputed city was recognised in the post-Saddam Hussein Iraqi constitution, which called for the situation in the city to be "normalised" by:
- The return to the south of Arabs settled there by the deposed ruler
- The restoration of expelled Kurds
- A census
- A referendum on whether the province should join the Kurdistan autonomous region.
But that has never happened, and Kirkuk, as well as other disputed areas along the Arab-Kurdish ethnic fault line, have been flashpoints for friction between Kurdish forces and Iraqi government troops.
Now, the latter have melted away, leaving Kirkuk to fall into the hands of the Kurds like a ripe fruit.
Kurdistan would definitely solve a lot of problems in the area, but getting there would probably cause more.
Turkey will never go along with it.
In a word?Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
No - it's like asking the medieval Pope to tolerate heretics.
It's unlikely this new Caliph will last all that long, anyway.
Who is he anyway?
Yes, I read that article.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
If Kurdistan becomes a reality there will be future wars with whatever emerges from the rest of Iraq. At current showing the Kurds are more likely to come out on top of that
Does it really matter if they get a caliphate?
A few days later they would just war over who should be caliph. Once that is settled, they would war over who should replace him.
Silly middle east. :no:
Getting a "like" from GC is like a participation medal...
It's times like this I miss the Templars...
They are called US army these days... At least according to Bush jr...Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TRVcnX8Vsw
GC confirmed for promoting arrogance among the children of the backroom with his "everyone gets a thank" style of parenting.
No, the actual Templars who enforced peace between Christian, Muslim and Jew - and were not discriminatory about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
Some more Kurdish news, from Turkey this time:
http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-news-f...where-28106737Quote:
A political party in Turkey has been allowed to use the word "Kurdistan" in its name, breaking a decades-long prohibition on the word, it's been reported.
The Supreme Court of Appeals' Prosecutor's Office in Ankara has ruled that Turkey's Kurdish Democratic Party (T-KDP) should be granted a licence to operate, allowing the word to be used in a political party's name for the first time, says Hurriyet Daily News. The move allows other parties representing Turkey's large Kurdish minority to use the word as Ankara moves towards what has been described as a "peaceful political solution to the country's Kurdish issue," according to today's Zaman newspaper.
EDIT: and of course, the plans of an Iraqi Kurdistan referendum should be mentioned, while I'm at it:
Quote:
The president of Iraq's autonomous Kurdistan Region has told the BBC he intends to hold a referendum on independence within months.
Massoud Barzani said that Iraq was already "effectively partitioned".
Early on yeah, they were quite discrimatory against the pagans in thier later years.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
I think you're confusing them Teutonic Knights.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
It appears I have.
I hope this Islamic State and new Caliphate snuff out all the individual terrorist cells and centralize all that radical islam into one big territory. It saves US the trouble of trying to figure out where to send our drones to bomb.
Wasn't the whole premise of the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq to get rid of such states not create a super version of it?
There seems to be (at least) 2 things working against the Caliphate:
1) the need for independent armed groups, who all have carved out a niche for themselves, to surrender authority to another
2) the instability of the structure; with so much invested in the Caliph there will be a free for all to snatch the crown.
I'm willing to bet that this is a "flash in the pan"; it might perhaps survive as a myth of what might have been...if only...
There was a premise?Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
Some potentially bad news:
Quote:
The Islamic State's move to monopolise power in the Sunni parts of Iraq is a bonus for the government in Baghdad, since it removes Iraqi political cover from the insurgency on the ground.
"We will not take the oath of allegiance, and we will not hand over our weapons - we will hide them," said a senior Sunni rebel source.
"But we can't fight Isis, it is too strong and it would be a losing battle. We give in. But we will remain active in Baghdad, where Isis doesn't have a presence."
What if you declared a caliphate and no one came:
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opi...522330520.html
Problems abound, and is anyone listening
Wrong topic, that article is about ISIL and this thread is about ISIS.
(What I actually want to ask is, which is it now?)
IS, probably..
Yeah I've been a bit confused at time about what stands for what and what exactly these guys are called.
Apparently, they started out as ISI (Islamic State of Iraq), then they became ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria), and now they are just to be called IS (Islamic State), since they have declared their caliphate and all.
I actually would love to see a caliphate.
A) I think it would show how mislead their Muslims ideas really are in a modern world.
B) It would mean some muslims from the western world would return to that war-ridden region.
Win-win.
My guess would be, that they would have to monitor the internet more than even China does, to keep the populace ignorant.
The choice between the words of "Levant" or "Syria" depends on how you translate the Arabic, geographical phrase "al-Sham", which literally means the Asiatic coast of the East Mediterrenean. I prefer the term ISIS, as the name of an Egyptian godess sounds significantly cooler than two, random syllabes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Then, after the declaration of the Chaliphate they renamed themselves to just Islamic State. I still preferred the Ottoman Sultans, though. Much more intruiging, not to mention that Abdul Hamit has the extra advantage of being hated by the entire Balkan Penninsula.
What tickles me is how the 'savour' of Iraq is Iran and the Shia Militas (the ones who fought the Allies), these who supported the regime in Syria and fought on their side. Whilst ISIS who was partially assisted by the Allies in the rebellion in Syria is the one assaulting Iraq.
Where is the link to that 'summary of the Middle East' which shows how much of a mess it is...
Which goes to show that "wait and see" is at least as viable a strategy in that region as the "fight for freedom". We upset the balance when we toppled Saddam, who, while not exactly a friend to us, was at least an enemy of our enemies, and who was doing an effective job of keeping them down without any involvement on our part, and thus without any reason for the loonies to resent us for keeping them down. Even though we weren't getting exactly what we wanted, it was close enough, without any expenditure of effort or resources on our part. The argument I made against war on Saddam in 2003 was just about the same as the one I made against war on Assad in 2013. In one case we went to war and are bitterly regretting it after wrecking our economy and reputation in going about it. In the other case, we didn't go to war, and I think we're bloody happy about our second thoughts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiaexz
The situation will only deteriorate further if we try to interfere. Iraq was a state held together by violence (Saddam's Baath party). Did anyone really think this would have changed because we built new roads everywhere?
If they didnt have oil would they have the money to arm themselves in a meaningful manner?
Oil is generally explored for, drilled by and refined by ex-pats. True more and more locals are getting skilled enough in engineering and sciences to do it themselves which is a good thing.
But take away the wears dependency for oil and how much clout would the Middle East or Russia have in today's world?
No they won't. They have enough domestic issues as it is without pressing for reforms that their leadership is unwilling to commit to themselves, so they'll be 'happy' to let the Middle East fester and deal with whomever appears to be the dominant powers as long as the Middle East doesn't attempt to stir things up in China itself...Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
They have a long tradition of 'whatever floats your boat as long as you do not try to export it here' when it comes to dealing with inconvenient allies of necessity. The only thing they might press for is for US imposed trade sanctions to be lifted, because it would be convenient for China to be able to do more business with Iran (oil, large untapped market).
India already is, much to the chagrin of Pakistan IIRC. Point is: both countries have a fundamentally less invasive attitude towards what goes on in the Middle East. So they won't be dealing with the 'crap', if they can avoid it and they will be able to avoid it since they don't walk around with an attitude that tends to make one slip up and land in the brown stuff.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
In other words: can you imagine China doing an operation Iraqi Freedom? No? Attempting to broker a peace between Israel and Palestine incurring significant loss of face over the farce that is the remnants of every accord ever signed? What, China just will quietly ignore it, and thereby avoid burning bridges, you say?
Why is that? I'll tell you: it's a particular mindset championed by Western Europeans & Americans that leads to these grand ideas to fix everything once and for all. Well intentioned though they might be, they are also risky and have a habit of backfiring spectacularly in the Middle East which is consistently more messed up than we seem to grasp.
China will simply buy the oil quietly and focus its diplomatic energies elsewhere -- nevermind how bad of a hellhole the Middle East becomes: not their problem, not theirs to fix. They have their dogma, they have their blind spots but these all concern other countries which are more credible threats to Chinese business as usual: North Korea, Japan, Russia, India, the USA.
India isn't much different: they have, if possible, even bigger social issues to sort out first, and anyway they too prefer to focus on securing their trade and supply routes over the Indian Ocean. Apart from that they have Pakistan to worry about and much of their action in Afghanistan are a direct countermeasure to perceived Pakistani influence/threats.
And so the intervention is about to begin, it seems:
But this is unlikely to have a decisive effect on the larger war, if I get it correctly.Quote:
US President Barack Obama says he has authorised air strikes against Islamic militants in northern Iraq but will not send US troops back to the country.
He said Islamic State (IS) fighters would be targeted to prevent the slaughter of religious minorities, or if they threaten US interests.
Strikes have not yet begun, but the US has made humanitarian air drops to Iraqis under threat from the militants.
Depends on the scope. I would say airpower can make it hard for ISIS to move around in the open but it cannot aid inner city fights as well.
Making them unable to move around gives the other powers more time to recover and build up and makes it harder for ISIS to operate.
In Libya there was most certainly an effect from bombing Gadaffi's army.
Whether it spells the total defeat of ISIS is probably less sure if that is what you mean.
Iraq is running low on FreedomTM, time to replenish!
I mean, this intervention can prove decisive in the sense that it can establish areas where ISIS can conquer land and where they can not (although ISIS being allowed to take shia-dominated areas as well as Kurdish areas seemed to be out of the question since the beginning of this, anyway).Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
But the limited scope of the intervention means that it is unlikely to have a major impact on the ability of ISIS to hold most of the areas they have already conquered.
Obama announces campaign to bomb, in Iraq, the guys that we armed in Syria....Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
Did you actually send them any arms in the end? Just be grateful that you pulled back from intervention against Assad in Syria, as that means that you at least have a significant card to play in this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Only because they use the equipment that you gave to guys in Iraq, I mean if we let anyone use anything other than the weapons designated for them, the world will end in chaos sooner or later!Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
This was often mentioned indirectly somewhere in the middle of the news here. Sentences like "if xyz, then Obama will reconsider sending more weapons to Syrian rebels". I hardly heard about it directly but it was very often mentioned in the context of reporting on the crisis.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
How come there is never an effort to bring back the Beirut of the 1960s as a model for change.
You've got your iron-heeled dictator types willing to be the center of the universe, plenty of would be caliphs desirous of ruling by shariyah, a few zionazi seeking to make everything from Damascus to Sainai into a kibbutz writ large, and, I have no doubt, a fair number of folks scamming any and all while playing middlemen to the mayhemists and stuffing their numbered Swiss accounts absolutely full.
So why does nobody fight to become a place for commerce, or tolerance, or even as one American pol put it, "a chicken in every pot?" Why do all the current crop of power seekers want to rule a wasteland?
Have they even thought about what they want in human terms?
During the Cold War, some of our more cold-blooded analysts were aware that the USA, by pre-empting without any warning, could have "won" the war against the Soviets (too many liquid-fueled rockets, too slow a command and control reaction time because of their centralized decision practices, greater stealth ability among our boomer subs, etc.). We'd have lost millions and taken major hits to our infrastructure, but the USSR would have been decapitated, its strategic forces gone and its tactical ability smashed. Eastern Europe would have broken away and much of the USSR would have been facing civil war and breakaways from the 'stans etc.
Somebody decided that 10s of millions of dead along with who knows how many in the USSR wasn't a cost worth paying -- whatever the more bloodless analysts thought about doability.
Why aren't more in the Middle East willing to make an analogous assessment about the human costs of all this? I begin to wonder if Jordan somehow acquired all of the people who believe in sanity.
Oh well, had to vent that.
We were training/advising/arming Syrian rebels. Publicly, we weren't assisting the real extremists- only the moderate extremists, but there's little doubt that weapons we provided and personnel we trained in Syria are fighting for ISIS.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
It's not very realistic to think you're going to arm these rebels and not those rebels, when they're all essentially fighting on the same side.
As though that was unexpected, or even matters. :rolleyes:Quote:
but there's little doubt that weapons we provided and personnel we trained in Syria are fighting for ISIS.
Even the divisions between rebel factions contribute to the intermixture.Quote:
It's not very realistic to think you're going to arm these rebels and not those rebels, when they're all essentially fighting on the same side.
Because it resulted in 30 years of brutal sectarian warfare?Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Stalin managed to arm just one faction of an alliance just fine.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
It's not as simple as that. The FSA is part of a coalition that includes islamists and which fights Assad, but it does not include ISIS. From what I know ISIS has done very little combat with Assad's forces and is hostile to other islamist groups. In fact, ISIS is hostile to everybody, and most of its combat in Syria has been about conquering land from other rebel groups.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Too many in the Middle East are locked in a circle of hate and would rather rule in hell then share in heaven. That's why they can't have nice things.
That attitude is why we're better off keeping the hell away from there and leaving them to their own devices than get involved. Unless there are important strategic or resource interests involved, I'd want us to keep away from anywhere south of Turkey and north of Kenya, and west of India.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
Pick the answer(s) you like:Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
A: Cause religion.
B: Cause Arabs are not built to think like that.
C: Cause the culture there is ****** up.
I've seen claims for all of the points, personally I go for religion and the cultures built around them being just nutty.
As long as it does not involve boots on the ground, I am more than willing to have the US compromise on its interventionist policies by just bombing IS from afar. The only thing to really follow this up with is by changing our policy to promote a multiple state solution. Let the Kurds rule themselves in the north, the shia in the east with baghdad and give the crazies their caliphate in the west, contained on all sides by US supported allies (kurds, turkey, Iraqi government, jordan).
My ideal situation is for the US to use this opportunity to relax tensions with Iran by promoting cooperation with each other against the Sunni extremists that are clearly looking for nothing more than hell on earth.
I am just glad the events of 'Shadow of Ender' series didn't pan out. Effectively, they established a caliphate then the 'Muslim nations' all joined it enmass, creating a political unity of pan-arabian nationalism centred around islam, unheard of since the Ottoman Empire.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
That really would have been a major shock to International Relations and Global Politics... and thats without the part where they invaded India.
Oh dear God how I want to see these animals wiped out. Down to the very last one of them. So many of my people dead. So many displaced. It's like 1914 all over again. Go Obama, bomb these monsters until there are none left. If we ever decide to do another ground offensive, I'll f@ing lie on my application if needed, but I'm going.
NO lack of clarity there.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
The airstrikes might help but nothing will be gained without boots on the ground. The real question is: Can Iraq provide effective troops on the ground to push back?
Complex mix of national unity and will, complicated by the troops level of professionalism and the competence of command.
Owning the airspace does not (by default) occupy the territory.
That's the way.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Demonize your opponents till they no longer have any human value, and then exterminate them.
Silly Jews with their holocausts :creep:
Considering that rvg is Syrian I kinda understand why he doesn't like them very much.
Viewing tip https://news.vice.com/topic/isis
cute
And the oil goes up to 200$ a barrel, western economies enter deeper recession and Russians grow fat on the profits. Not an option.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Hence why I cited strategic and resource interests. We need to do business with Saudi Arabia and other oil countries. However much it stinks, we need them. We don't need to do business with the likes of Lebanon, Israel, Palestine, Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc. Suez canal, Red Sea route through to the Gulf area, oil states. That's all we need from that region.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
Hey, I like that option....Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
It will mean your government will have even more money than they know what to do with. Which may mean more state-sponsored holiday camps for you.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Wonderful, sign me up!Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
But nah, my government will just put the money in a fund.... No fun...
Iraq is a major oil country. The top 5 countries with proven oil reserves includes Iraq, Iran and Venezuela.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Problems in one country in the region can spill over, e.g. Syrian rebellion -> ISIS
Assyrian. But yeah, this is personal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
What is your capital?Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Washington, D.C.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
I once again know nothing, with Assyrian I think of the Mesopotamian periods. Didn't know people still call themselves Assyrian nowadays.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg