

B-2 bombers flew without their Raptor escorts










Comments     Threshold


Um, no
By Mudhen6 on 3/23/2011 12:36:13 PM , Rating: 4
The fact that they are not being used has nothing to do with the F-22. IIRC the IFDL datalink (pulled an "ATM machine" there) does support one-way communication with other fighters equipped with JTIDS/FDL/Link 16 datalinks, wherein the F-22 can receive data but not transmit its own.

However, this doesn't hamper the effectiveness of the F-22 - in numerous exercises, the F-22 served as a "mini-AWACS" (the pilots would hang around after expending all its missiles) by simply directing other fighters like F-15Cs to enemy fighters using radio communications. Sure, things will probably be better with a two-way datalink, but the fact is that the APG-77 radar and its RWR/ECCM systems in the F-22 is just that good.

Bottom line - F-22s were probably not used in Libya because one, they absolutely aren't needed, and two, it sends the wrong message politically in a situation where Obama doesn't know what he's doing.

RE: Um, no
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 3/23/2011 12:46:35 PM , Rating: 4

I agree 100% with that. I mean, what the heck are we doing? Obama hasn't made his message clear and I think we deserve some answers.

RE: Um, no
By Mudhen6 on 3/23/2011 12:58:54 PM , Rating: 3

I doubt we'd get those answers. Nobody knows who's in charge, what the end-game/exit-strategy is, or even the current mission objectives.

RE: Um, no
By Nfarce on 3/23/11, Rating: 0
RE: Um, no
By vol7ron on 3/23/2011 9:44:57 PM , Rating: 1
I'd like to hear more about this "political committee." Most politicians don't know anything about war. In fact, many give a dull-eyed gaze when you mention "honor" as if it's Old English - the kind of word/phrase that you recognize, but just don't know what it means.

If it's a few ex-military strategists, then I think they might have better ability to make decisions than just one person; especially one that didn't know much about it some short time ago.

That being said, it's important to note that we didn't lose the war of Vietnam. The whole dissonance over that fact has given the war a negative connotation. Sure, many of us died, but more of them died. Regardless of the fact that there's no win in death, the point is we were unprepared for that war. It was guerrilla warfare around a political movement - that alone says enough: "lack of preparation and an excuse to make a stink."

Back on subject, the F-22 is bad-ass. I rather save it for another time shortly in the future.

RE: Um, no
By Regected on 3/23/2011 10:10:09 PM , Rating: 2
Yea, we need as many tricks up our sleeves as we can get when the war with China starts.

RE: Um, no
By Azethoth on 3/24/2011 4:47:10 AM , Rating: 3
Wow people. Read some lips and use some imagination. We are there to implement a "No Move Zone" against the dictator's team. Yes there is a lot of "No Fly Zone" thrown around because that is popular from Iraq and Bosnia. However, "any means necessary" was also chucked in there which makes it "No Move Zone".

Expect anything that moves to be stomped on. Oh wait, no need to expect, just watch it on television. Expect this to keep going until the "rebels" spread out and control all of Libya except for Tripoli.

So thats one part of it. Now for the other part. "Khadaffy Duck has to Go". Or something like that is what the Commander in Chief said. So expect us to kick ass and take names till his dumb ass is done gone.

Now I know that Republicans running for president called for exactly this last week (I am looking at you Newt Gingrinch), but now that Obama is actually doing it you are all flip flopping to "omg no, we dare not invade Libya, we can never win". Man up ffs. USA! USA! USA!

This is so totally not like Vietnam its not even funny. It is though totally like opening stage Afghanistan where we just did air cover for some rag-tag tribes till they conquered the whole place.

If you need to angst about something, then try to worry that we don't fustercluck things after Daffy Duck is gone.

RE: Um, no
By Alexvrb on 3/25/2011 12:39:23 AM , Rating: 2
OK so after we've "contained" Gadhafi and his boys to Tripoli... what then? Do we leave and watch him roll out again? Do we waste Tripoli? Do we park our rears in Libya for the long haul?

If this was Bush, would you STILL be saying "Man up! This ain't Vietnam son!"? I don't think so. Worse yet, you compared this to Afghanistan. You know, one of the places the Democrats wanted us out before Obama was in office? The dissidents have become rather quiet on that front (and others).

How long until he dons the purple robes, I wonder?

RE: Um, no
By Suntan on 3/23/2011 1:31:45 PM , Rating: 4
Not true!

He’s made it completely clear what he is doing… …at least as far as his Sweet 16 tourney bracket is concerned…


RE: Um, no
By AntDX316 on 3/25/2011 3:56:58 AM , Rating: 3

Because using the F22 with 1,000 LBS bombs cost money.

If there is no need to fly an F22 around the world there is no need. The commanders are smart and used that money, that was going to be used for fueling the F22 and the unecessary cost of ordinance, for other things.

It said in the article the F22 cannot use 250 LBS bombs. They want to use 250 LBS bombs because they can take out the targets on the ground. Using a 1000 LBS bomb would cost 4x more to get the job done.

I honestly believe the US commanders know they have air to air support from the other countries allied with them. The whole Libya war thing needs to be shared. The US taking all the debt would be a bad idea. All that effort has to be taken from somewhere in the end.

RE: Um, no
By Murloc on 3/23/2011 2:03:19 PM , Rating: 3
the onu ordered a no-fly zone, but those who pressured for it and most of those who are now bombing (stuff like tanks included) want gaddafi to go. He's using human shields so they can't kill him either.
Also qadafi has lost any legitimacy in the international community now, so he can't win or everyone will be in front of a really embarassing situation. That's why they will never let him take bengasi anyway.

Obama doesn't know what he's doing and he doesn't give you answers because he can't imho.
I mean, the dilemma is pretty clear.

RE: Um, no
By Lerianis on 3/25/2011 3:57:38 AM , Rating: 2
With all due respect, remember that they said the same thing of Saddam Hussein after the first Iraq War.... it turned out to be not so accurate.

Personally, I think that if we intervene anymore than we have in Libya, we are opening a can of worms that it is the same one that we opened when supporting someone with the initials O.B.L. in Afghanistan.

RE: Um, no
By snakeInTheGrass on 3/23/2011 2:53:21 PM , Rating: 5
I heard Libya had WMDs ready to go at 40 minutes notice.

There, justification problem solved. Better the silence of ignorance than the blatant lies, I guess. Though who knows - voters seemed to like the lies just fine. :)

RE: Um, no
By invidious on 3/23/11, Rating: -1
RE: Um, no
By StinkyWhizzleTeeth on 3/23/2011 4:29:51 PM , Rating: 5
That's not true, whoever started this myth is a liar. The second link that showed up is from Snopes. Please get used to this site because it helps eliminate a lot of FUD.

RE: Um, no
By Iaiken on 3/23/2011 6:31:59 PM , Rating: 4
Now I don't want to alarm you, but you're a both moron as well as a liar by proxy for attempting to sell this article as proof of a weapons program.

That this material was part of a weapons program is a complete and utter fabrication that both the government of Canada and Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (who approved the purchase) have categorically denied. The materials existence and it's quantities had been known to the government of Canada since 1991. How? Because everyone knew about this particular quantity of uranium...

The Uranium that was sold to Cameco was dated to 1991 at the latest and was under the supervision of UN inspectors since that time. The material was neither a secret nor was it recently discovered or recently acquired. All of this material was in sealed storage and had been documented and inventoried since 1991. This material was left over from failed research reactors that were destroyed in 1981 (by Israel) and 1991 (by the US).

This is therefore NOT the same uranium that Bush alleged Iraq had purchased in the years immediately before the war in order to resume the development of a nuclear weapons program. There is no evidence whatsoever that an actual purchase ever took place nor evidence of the facilities, equipment or the expertise required to undertake such an endeavor.

Any attempt to infer that this particular quantity of uranium was proof that Bush not a liar is logically and intellectually bankrupt.

The only purported evidence in existence is an Italian intelligence document that states Iraqi officials were attempting to purchase uranium in Niger. A document that was itself much criticized for it's chronological inaccuracies (such as being signed by people who were not in office at the indicated date).

RE: Um, no
By BruceLeet on 3/23/2011 7:02:11 PM , Rating: 5

I shit you not, I googled it for you therefor it is true.

RE: Um, no
By dajeepster on 3/24/2011 3:51:28 AM , Rating: 3
that was just too funny... i don't know why you got rated down... some people have no sense of humor.

RE: Um, no
By snakeInTheGrass on 3/23/11, Rating: 0
RE: Um, no
By Nfarce on 3/23/11, Rating: 0
RE: Um, no
By Iaiken on 3/23/2011 7:04:13 PM , Rating: 3
There was a large (and still growing) body of evidence long before Iraq that the statements coming out of the White House were false and that they were cherry picking intelligence that suited their purposes.

When people went out of their way to prove it, such as Joseph Wilson did when specifically tasked to investigate Niger for possible sale of uranium to Iraq. He found nothing to indicate that this was in fact the case. It was further determined that the Italian intelligence documents that the administrations assertion was based on were of questionable authenticity and accuracy.

When Mr Wilson publicly criticized the administration for panning his and other evidence that they were mistaken, they retaliated in a tit-for-tat by outing his wife position as a covert CIA officer. During the subsequent investigation it was affirmed that senior white house staff were responsible for leaking he identity to the press but no specific blame has been laid.

When numerous indicators and several of your closest allies point to your data being false and you do nothing about it because it could damage the message you are trying to send, you are still a liar. Even the British ambassador to the US admitted privately during the months leading up to the war that they were being taken for a ride.

A questionable report about Italian report about Iraqi officials attempting to buy uranium in Niger became probable WMD program. With no actual information added, this became a definite WMD program. With no further information this magically became a definite WMD program that posed an eminent and possibly immediate threat. And congress bought it...

RE: Um, no
By Nfarce on 3/23/2011 9:27:03 PM , Rating: 2
1) There was no hard evidence that the data was false. It was hearsay and hearsay only. That still does not make it a lie no matter how you spin it.

2) Valarie Plame was not clandestine when she was outed by Novak. Wilson himself has acknowledged that.

3) WMDs in the report included more than just nuclear WMDs.

4) If those who voted for the war were taken for a ride as so many accuse, then where was their leadership and judgment?

5) Why are current leaders still backing staying in Iraq?

6) Why is Guantanamo still open?

RE: Um, no
By StinkyWhizzleTeeth on 3/24/2011 3:29:57 AM , Rating: 4
Your #1 point is a False Argument!

You've got things backwards. The onus of evidence is on those who want to go to war, not those who do NOT want to go to war. Otherwise we would be in a perpetual state of war... oh wait...

RE: Um, no


RE: Um, no



RE: Um, no
We shouldn't be going to war without solid evidence.



RE: Um, no



RE: Um, no
By eonsnocrtnarrongi on 3/28/2011 1:14:52 AM , Rating: 1
Nfarce wrote a fantasy and the facts are after each lie:


Well then you are calling Cheney and the bois liars since they have admitted as much.


Another rightwing lie. Mrs. Plame was a covert op at the time she was outted. A FACT that FITZGERALD found in his investigation. That is just a FACT.
I know you FahxKoch bois hate FACTS.


There were no WMD's as Cheney as admitted in the last year on the major news networks. So you know more than DICK?


Dont know what this means.

5) Why are current leaders still backing staying in Iraq?

Because the Dems are afraid of Repubes calling them pussies and Repubes love killing anyone except the Zygote unless their daughter is pregnant from an illegal.

6) Why is Guantanamo still open?
Because the Repubes stopped Obama from closing it. Dont you read?

RE: Um, no
By phantom505 on 3/23/11, Rating: -1
RE: Um, no
By Skywalker123 on 3/23/11, Rating: 0
RE: Um, no
By AEvangel on 3/23/2011 3:13:44 PM , Rating: 5
What Obama is doing is distracting everyone from the news that Saudia Arabia invaded Bahrain to put down the civil uprising in that country.

Why did Saudia Arabia do this? Well Bahrain is a small island nation which produces little oil, but like the other major oil producing regions of Saudi Arabia, it is home to a regional Shiite majority which could ally with Iran if allowed freedom.

Why ignore Saudia Arabia acts of aggression on those similar heroic rebels and civilians that are being put down by a foreign army equipped with US military training and weapons?

Well because Saudia Arabia supports our failing dollar by allowing it to remain as the world currency on the price of oil even though it's losing value, not to mention they are the third largest holder of Treasury Bills. Also we cannot allow the people the freedom of association in the middle east specially if they associate with people we don't like, such as Iran.

RE: Um, no
By ClownPuncher on 3/23/2011 3:30:57 PM , Rating: 2
Politics, politics never changes.

RE: Um, no
By ComatoseDelirium on 3/23/2011 4:29:59 PM , Rating: 2
Quick fact check, Saudi Arabia would be in the Oil exporters group of countries. They are the 4th largest holder of treasury securities.


RE: Um, no
By Mudhen6 on 3/23/2011 12:52:06 PM , Rating: 5

"Perhaps the most important revelation by the 27th Fighter Sqdn. was demonstrating the F-22's ability to use its sensors to identify and target enemy aircraft for conventional fighters by providing information so they could engage the enemy sooner than they could on their own. Because of the advanced situational awareness they afford, F-22s would stick around after using up their weapons to continue providing targets and IDs to the conventional fighters.

"We always left F-22s on station to help, but we didn't designate any one aircraft to provide data," says Lt. Col. Wade Tolliver, the unit's commander. "It was critical that every F-22 out there provided all the data he had."

With its high-resolution radar, the F-22 can guarantee target altitudes to within a couple of hundred feet. Its ability to identify an aircraft is "sometimes many times quicker than the AWACS," he says. "It was a combination of high-resolution sensors and being closer to the targets."

"When I look down at my scope and put my cursor over a [friendly] F-15 or F/A-18, it tells me who they are locked on to," he says. For example, "I could help them out by saying, 'You're double-targeted and there's a group over here untargeted' . . . to make sure we got everybody." F-15 targets will be latent because of the radar sweep."

RE: Um, no
By eonsnocrtnarrongi on 3/28/2011 1:08:03 AM , Rating: 2
Ummm no. LOL at your comment that Obama doesnt know what he is doing.
1. He got a real coalition unlike Bush who got Jamaica.
2. He actually thought about what we were going to do unlike Bush who lied us into war.
3. He got the coalition to shoulder much of the cost and implementation of the action unlike Bush.
4. He doesnt hide the costs of these issues unlike Bush.

So who again doesnt and didnt know what they were doing?


Related Articles
