SOmeone Tell the Air Force this is same as doing nothing

[Manonthestreet]

Riiighhhttttt…..….. funny how many has US pulled off, no warning ……

You really have no idea just how hard it is to start a full blown Nuclear Exchange. It's designed today so that there can be no sneak attacks by either side. We have monitors and they have monitors. And then there are the spies up the ying yang by both sides. The Generals can't take a crap without the other side knowing how many squares he used of toilet paper. You have been watching way too many movies.

Nuke......Why would you need nukes to take out an airbase...…..wtf

And just how are you going to take out major Air Force Operational Bases? And how are you going to take out the stateside bases with the fighters, bombers and supplies to resupply lost inventory as a war goes on in Europe? There is only one sure fired way. You drop a nice nuke package and it's done.

All kind of cruise missiles that'll render you planes garbage before you can move em especially when they are parked in the open

I spent some time at Bitburg AB and not one single F-15 was parked out in the open. All of them were parked in Revetments. So you take out the Runway. A F-15 will use the taxiways to take off just as well. And it's tough enough to land in the cut grass almost anywhere on the base including the Golf Course. The F-16 does as well.

Your lack of operational knowledge shows big time.

I've seen plenty of pics of US airbases with many planes in the open. Your Mr know it all act is tiring as hell. btw Rand did a study on this very thing 1999. ....Having nukes is basically insurance against getting nuked, that's it. Using nukes to take out just an airbase is a waste

 

[Manonthestreet]

By your logic the Air Force just developed a useless policy cause only effective attack on an airbase according to you is a nuke.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

You really have no idea just how hard it is to start a full blown Nuclear Exchange. It's designed today so that there can be no sneak attacks by either side. We have monitors and they have monitors. And then there are the spies up the ying yang by both sides. The Generals can't take a crap without the other side knowing how many squares he used of toilet paper. You have been watching way too many movies.

Nuke......Why would you need nukes to take out an airbase...…..wtf

And just how are you going to take out major Air Force Operational Bases? And how are you going to take out the stateside bases with the fighters, bombers and supplies to resupply lost inventory as a war goes on in Europe? There is only one sure fired way. You drop a nice nuke package and it's done.

All kind of cruise missiles that'll render you planes garbage before you can move em especially when they are parked in the open

I spent some time at Bitburg AB and not one single F-15 was parked out in the open. All of them were parked in Revetments. So you take out the Runway. A F-15 will use the taxiways to take off just as well. And it's tough enough to land in the cut grass almost anywhere on the base including the Golf Course. The F-16 does as well.

Your lack of operational knowledge shows big time.

I've seen plenty of pics of US airbases with many planes in the open. Your Mr know it all act is tiring as hell. btw Rand did a study on this very thing 1999. ....Having nukes is basically insurance against getting nuked, that's it. Using nukes to take out just an airbase is a waste

So have I. But not US Forward Deployed Air Bases. We use Revetments. And you can nail the buildings and the runways but those Aircraft are going to go unscathed and launch anyway. It's one thing to take out a cargo hub but another to take out a fighter base. You are going to have to NUKE the fighter bases.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

By your logic the Air Force just developed a useless policy cause only effective attack on an airbase according to you is a nuke.

Stateside, the only way to take out that Air Base is to Nuke it. Your cruise missiles can't reach North and South Dakota or Oklahoma or Utah just to name a few. The Dakotas have the Bombers, OK and others have the Tankers, and other places have the replacement Fighters and pilots to replace the losses from the forward operational bases around the globe. If you attack Europe you have to also take out the replacements and the Bomber and Tanker Bases. And since almost the beginning of SAC, the bases have had mobility systems in place to relocate to "That Kansas Corn Field" for recover and relaunch. You are talking like this is something new. It's decades old. In fact, it's as old as Strategic Air Command and it's outlived SAC.

Tankers will be recovered. Fighters will be recovered and even some bombers will be recovered. And some will be relaunched on secondary missions. But they won't have their home bases to go back to. This is part of MAD. But it's also a lot more than that. It ensures the survival of the United States well past "The Day After". It means that the US will still be a functioning society and government and Russia or China will not.

 

[Manonthestreet]

Nuke......Why would you need nukes to take out an airbase...…..wtf

And just how are you going to take out major Air Force Operational Bases? And how are you going to take out the stateside bases with the fighters, bombers and supplies to resupply lost inventory as a war goes on in Europe? There is only one sure fired way. You drop a nice nuke package and it's done.

All kind of cruise missiles that'll render you planes garbage before you can move em especially when they are parked in the open

I spent some time at Bitburg AB and not one single F-15 was parked out in the open. All of them were parked in Revetments. So you take out the Runway. A F-15 will use the taxiways to take off just as well. And it's tough enough to land in the cut grass almost anywhere on the base including the Golf Course. The F-16 does as well.

Your lack of operational knowledge shows big time.

I've seen plenty of pics of US airbases with many planes in the open. Your Mr know it all act is tiring as hell. btw Rand did a study on this very thing 1999. ....Having nukes is basically insurance against getting nuked, that's it. Using nukes to take out just an airbase is a waste

So have I. But not US Forward Deployed Air Bases. We use Revetments. And you can nail the buildings and the runways but those Aircraft are going to go unscathed and launch anyway. It's one thing to take out a cargo hub but another to take out a fighter base. You are going to have to NUKE the fighter bases.

Oh please pit your runway you ain't going anywhere and I'm pretty sure we have cruise missiles that can pentrate those which means we aren't the only ones.

 

[Manonthestreet]

And just how are you going to take out major Air Force Operational Bases? And how are you going to take out the stateside bases with the fighters, bombers and supplies to resupply lost inventory as a war goes on in Europe? There is only one sure fired way. You drop a nice nuke package and it's done.

All kind of cruise missiles that'll render you planes garbage before you can move em especially when they are parked in the open

I spent some time at Bitburg AB and not one single F-15 was parked out in the open. All of them were parked in Revetments. So you take out the Runway. A F-15 will use the taxiways to take off just as well. And it's tough enough to land in the cut grass almost anywhere on the base including the Golf Course. The F-16 does as well.

Your lack of operational knowledge shows big time.

I've seen plenty of pics of US airbases with many planes in the open. Your Mr know it all act is tiring as hell. btw Rand did a study on this very thing 1999. ....Having nukes is basically insurance against getting nuked, that's it. Using nukes to take out just an airbase is a waste

So have I. But not US Forward Deployed Air Bases. We use Revetments. And you can nail the buildings and the runways but those Aircraft are going to go unscathed and launch anyway. It's one thing to take out a cargo hub but another to take out a fighter base. You are going to have to NUKE the fighter bases.

Oh please pit your runway you ain't going anywhere and I'm pretty sure we have cruise missiles that can pentrate those which means we aren't the only ones.

If you read the article it dealt with the Pacific theater.....quit wandering all over the place

 

[Manonthestreet]

I just saw pic of Guam with B_-52s in the open

 

[Daryl Hunt]

And just how are you going to take out major Air Force Operational Bases? And how are you going to take out the stateside bases with the fighters, bombers and supplies to resupply lost inventory as a war goes on in Europe? There is only one sure fired way. You drop a nice nuke package and it's done.

All kind of cruise missiles that'll render you planes garbage before you can move em especially when they are parked in the open

I spent some time at Bitburg AB and not one single F-15 was parked out in the open. All of them were parked in Revetments. So you take out the Runway. A F-15 will use the taxiways to take off just as well. And it's tough enough to land in the cut grass almost anywhere on the base including the Golf Course. The F-16 does as well.

Your lack of operational knowledge shows big time.

I've seen plenty of pics of US airbases with many planes in the open. Your Mr know it all act is tiring as hell. btw Rand did a study on this very thing 1999. ....Having nukes is basically insurance against getting nuked, that's it. Using nukes to take out just an airbase is a waste

So have I. But not US Forward Deployed Air Bases. We use Revetments. And you can nail the buildings and the runways but those Aircraft are going to go unscathed and launch anyway. It's one thing to take out a cargo hub but another to take out a fighter base. You are going to have to NUKE the fighter bases.

Oh please pit your runway you ain't going anywhere and I'm pretty sure we have cruise missiles that can pentrate those which means we aren't the only ones.

Ever wonder why the grass is so trimmed all over the tarmac where they allow grass to grow? You don't need concrete to take off on. And the taxiways make good runways as well. So do the roadways. Your Cruise Missiles won't penetrate the revetments so the Fighters will be operational.

And if you think you are going to sneak your cruise missiles within 1500 miles of Ogden, Ut, good friggin luck with that.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I just saw pic of Guam with B_-52s in the open

Yes, and heavy Bombers like the Buff aren't in Revetments usually. But if we start to get into a real shooting war, they are going to be in the air with Tankers refueling them to keep them that way until either the war kicks off OR it deescalates. You want to stop the bombers, you are going to have to take out the Tankers and they won't be stationed anywhere near where you can strike them on the ground usually. The Tanker doesn't know what distance is. He can launch out of Altus, AFB in OK and refuel almost anywhere to keep the bombers airborne running that racetrack. Our Tankers were supposed to be supporting fighters crossing the Atlantic but got retasked inflight and ended up refueling C-141s for Granada. You can have your heavies running a racetrack way up north or along the Russian Borders and the Tankers will be there to keep them refueled. You want to stop the Bombers? You are going to have to take out the Tankers and the only way to do that is to hit the bases with Nukes. And even that won't work since the base will redeploy in the meantime to an alternate location. Russia doesn't have enough Nukes to stop that.

The redeploying isn't new. It's been part of SAC since the day it was formed. It's as old as ICBMs.

 

[Manonthestreet]

All kind of cruise missiles that'll render you planes garbage before you can move em especially when they are parked in the open

I spent some time at Bitburg AB and not one single F-15 was parked out in the open. All of them were parked in Revetments. So you take out the Runway. A F-15 will use the taxiways to take off just as well. And it's tough enough to land in the cut grass almost anywhere on the base including the Golf Course. The F-16 does as well.

Your lack of operational knowledge shows big time.

I've seen plenty of pics of US airbases with many planes in the open. Your Mr know it all act is tiring as hell. btw Rand did a study on this very thing 1999. ....Having nukes is basically insurance against getting nuked, that's it. Using nukes to take out just an airbase is a waste

So have I. But not US Forward Deployed Air Bases. We use Revetments. And you can nail the buildings and the runways but those Aircraft are going to go unscathed and launch anyway. It's one thing to take out a cargo hub but another to take out a fighter base. You are going to have to NUKE the fighter bases.

Oh please pit your runway you ain't going anywhere and I'm pretty sure we have cruise missiles that can pentrate those which means we aren't the only ones.

Ever wonder why the grass is so trimmed all over the tarmac where they allow grass to grow? You don't need concrete to take off on. And the taxiways make good runways as well. So do the roadways. Your Cruise Missiles won't penetrate the revetments so the Fighters will be operational.

And if you think you are going to sneak your cruise missiles within 1500 miles of Ogden, Ut, good friggin luck with that.

Once more dumbass we are talking Pacific theater.

 

[Manonthestreet]

I just saw pic of Guam with B_-52s in the open

Yes, and heavy Bombers like the Buff aren't in Revetments usually. But if we start to get into a real shooting war, they are going to be in the air with Tankers refueling them to keep them that way until either the war kicks off OR it deescalates. You want to stop the bombers, you are going to have to take out the Tankers and they won't be stationed anywhere near where you can strike them on the ground usually. The Tanker doesn't know what distance is. He can launch out of Altus, AFB in OK and refuel almost anywhere to keep the bombers airborne running that racetrack. Our Tankers were supposed to be supporting fighters crossing the Atlantic but got retasked inflight and ended up refueling C-141s for Granada. You can have your heavies running a racetrack way up north or along the Russian Borders and the Tankers will be there to keep them refueled. You want to stop the Bombers? You are going to have to take out the Tankers and the only way to do that is to hit the bases with Nukes. And even that won't work since the base will redeploy in the meantime to an alternate location. Russia doesn't have enough Nukes to stop that.

The redeploying isn't new. It's been part of SAC since the day it was formed. It's as old as ICBMs.

Thanks for making my point. Llmmmaaooo

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I spent some time at Bitburg AB and not one single F-15 was parked out in the open. All of them were parked in Revetments. So you take out the Runway. A F-15 will use the taxiways to take off just as well. And it's tough enough to land in the cut grass almost anywhere on the base including the Golf Course. The F-16 does as well.

Your lack of operational knowledge shows big time.

I've seen plenty of pics of US airbases with many planes in the open. Your Mr know it all act is tiring as hell. btw Rand did a study on this very thing 1999. ....Having nukes is basically insurance against getting nuked, that's it. Using nukes to take out just an airbase is a waste

So have I. But not US Forward Deployed Air Bases. We use Revetments. And you can nail the buildings and the runways but those Aircraft are going to go unscathed and launch anyway. It's one thing to take out a cargo hub but another to take out a fighter base. You are going to have to NUKE the fighter bases.

Oh please pit your runway you ain't going anywhere and I'm pretty sure we have cruise missiles that can pentrate those which means we aren't the only ones.

Ever wonder why the grass is so trimmed all over the tarmac where they allow grass to grow? You don't need concrete to take off on. And the taxiways make good runways as well. So do the roadways. Your Cruise Missiles won't penetrate the revetments so the Fighters will be operational.

And if you think you are going to sneak your cruise missiles within 1500 miles of Ogden, Ut, good friggin luck with that.

Once more dumbass we are talking Pacific theater.

And, dipstick, it really doesn't matter. You may face the F-35 but the chances of the F-35 facing a S-400 is almost non existent. You had better be talking Naval, not Air Force and Army. And in the Pacific, the US Navy will kick anyone ass to hell and back. You just moved your goalposts into the water and they sunk.

 

[Manonthestreet]

I've seen plenty of pics of US airbases with many planes in the open. Your Mr know it all act is tiring as hell. btw Rand did a study on this very thing 1999. ....Having nukes is basically insurance against getting nuked, that's it. Using nukes to take out just an airbase is a waste

So have I. But not US Forward Deployed Air Bases. We use Revetments. And you can nail the buildings and the runways but those Aircraft are going to go unscathed and launch anyway. It's one thing to take out a cargo hub but another to take out a fighter base. You are going to have to NUKE the fighter bases.

Oh please pit your runway you ain't going anywhere and I'm pretty sure we have cruise missiles that can pentrate those which means we aren't the only ones.

Ever wonder why the grass is so trimmed all over the tarmac where they allow grass to grow? You don't need concrete to take off on. And the taxiways make good runways as well. So do the roadways. Your Cruise Missiles won't penetrate the revetments so the Fighters will be operational.

And if you think you are going to sneak your cruise missiles within 1500 miles of Ogden, Ut, good friggin luck with that.

Once more dumbass we are talking Pacific theater.

And, dipstick, it really doesn't matter. You may face the F-35 but the chances of the F-35 facing a S-400 is almost non existent. You had better be talking Naval, not Air Force and Army. And in the Pacific, the US Navy will kick anyone ass to hell and back. You just moved your goalposts into the water and they sunk.

Keep dreaming....dont think your vtol version will be available at the giant airbases under discussion

 

[Daryl Hunt]

So have I. But not US Forward Deployed Air Bases. We use Revetments. And you can nail the buildings and the runways but those Aircraft are going to go unscathed and launch anyway. It's one thing to take out a cargo hub but another to take out a fighter base. You are going to have to NUKE the fighter bases.

Oh please pit your runway you ain't going anywhere and I'm pretty sure we have cruise missiles that can pentrate those which means we aren't the only ones.

Ever wonder why the grass is so trimmed all over the tarmac where they allow grass to grow? You don't need concrete to take off on. And the taxiways make good runways as well. So do the roadways. Your Cruise Missiles won't penetrate the revetments so the Fighters will be operational.

And if you think you are going to sneak your cruise missiles within 1500 miles of Ogden, Ut, good friggin luck with that.

Once more dumbass we are talking Pacific theater.

And, dipstick, it really doesn't matter. You may face the F-35 but the chances of the F-35 facing a S-400 is almost non existent. You had better be talking Naval, not Air Force and Army. And in the Pacific, the US Navy will kick anyone ass to hell and back. You just moved your goalposts into the water and they sunk.

Keep dreaming....dont think your vtol version will be available at the giant airbases under discussion

Why would the F-35B be at a giant Airbase. They have their own postage sized carriers to operate from. Once again, don't you notice that your goal posts just keep sinking the more you move them in the Pacific?

What next, are you going to move those goal posts into out space? Just remember, they may have a few antisat missiles laying around for the F-15 and some for the Naval Ships.

 

[Manonthestreet]

Oh please pit your runway you ain't going anywhere and I'm pretty sure we have cruise missiles that can pentrate those which means we aren't the only ones.

Ever wonder why the grass is so trimmed all over the tarmac where they allow grass to grow? You don't need concrete to take off on. And the taxiways make good runways as well. So do the roadways. Your Cruise Missiles won't penetrate the revetments so the Fighters will be operational.

And if you think you are going to sneak your cruise missiles within 1500 miles of Ogden, Ut, good friggin luck with that.

Once more dumbass we are talking Pacific theater.

And, dipstick, it really doesn't matter. You may face the F-35 but the chances of the F-35 facing a S-400 is almost non existent. You had better be talking Naval, not Air Force and Army. And in the Pacific, the US Navy will kick anyone ass to hell and back. You just moved your goalposts into the water and they sunk.

Keep dreaming....dont think your vtol version will be available at the giant airbases under discussion

Why would the F-35B be at a giant Airbase. They have their own postage sized carriers to operate from. Once again, don't you notice that your goal posts just keep sinking the more you move them in the Pacific?

What next, are you going to move those goal posts into out space? Just remember, they may have a few antisat missiles laying around for the F-15 and some for the Naval Ships.

That's nice......so you have some F-35...you still have no idea what direction attack is coming form or what form......BTW F-35 is one of least capable attack platforms,,,,what dont you understand about conflicts aren't announced anymore.....first sign of war is something burning.....you act like you are some all knowing rube. Nukes are only prevent someone from nuking you and to say only a nuke can take out an airbase is asinine…..Falklands anyone ...classss

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Ever wonder why the grass is so trimmed all over the tarmac where they allow grass to grow? You don't need concrete to take off on. And the taxiways make good runways as well. So do the roadways. Your Cruise Missiles won't penetrate the revetments so the Fighters will be operational.

And if you think you are going to sneak your cruise missiles within 1500 miles of Ogden, Ut, good friggin luck with that.

Once more dumbass we are talking Pacific theater.

And, dipstick, it really doesn't matter. You may face the F-35 but the chances of the F-35 facing a S-400 is almost non existent. You had better be talking Naval, not Air Force and Army. And in the Pacific, the US Navy will kick anyone ass to hell and back. You just moved your goalposts into the water and they sunk.

Keep dreaming....dont think your vtol version will be available at the giant airbases under discussion

Why would the F-35B be at a giant Airbase. They have their own postage sized carriers to operate from. Once again, don't you notice that your goal posts just keep sinking the more you move them in the Pacific?

What next, are you going to move those goal posts into out space? Just remember, they may have a few antisat missiles laying around for the F-15 and some for the Naval Ships.

That's nice......so you have some F-35...you still have no idea what direction attack is coming form or what form......BTW F-35 is one of least capable attack platforms,,,,what dont you understand about conflicts aren't announced anymore.....first sign of war is something burning.....you act like you are some all knowing rube. Nukes are only prevent someone from nuking you and to say only a nuke can take out an airbase is asinine…..Falklands anyone ...classss

There are only two countries outside of the US that are capable of successfully attacking and destroying the Air Base in Guam and that's China and Russia. And both would have to use Nukes to do it. As in ICBMs. And you don't just wake up one morning and say, let's launch an ICBM attack and then go to breakfast. It takes about 72 hours to really get things ready do hit any single target. If you knew anything about the ICBM fleet you would understand this.

Yah, I know, a Sub can throw Nukes. But 2 seconds after that sub throws those nukes the whole world will know who did it and 72 hours later, that country is going to be hit from all sides. Russia can't have China throwing nukes because Russia might be next. Once a country starts throwing ICBMs, nothing stops them from attacking anyone else in the world outside of MAD. And don't think North Korea would even think about attacking Guam. Again, the only way to harm Guam without some real serious and immediate reprisals would be to nuke it. And at that point, even the Chinese are going to want their pound of flesh.

 

[Manonthestreet]

Once more dumbass we are talking Pacific theater.

And, dipstick, it really doesn't matter. You may face the F-35 but the chances of the F-35 facing a S-400 is almost non existent. You had better be talking Naval, not Air Force and Army. And in the Pacific, the US Navy will kick anyone ass to hell and back. You just moved your goalposts into the water and they sunk.

Keep dreaming....dont think your vtol version will be available at the giant airbases under discussion

Why would the F-35B be at a giant Airbase. They have their own postage sized carriers to operate from. Once again, don't you notice that your goal posts just keep sinking the more you move them in the Pacific?

What next, are you going to move those goal posts into out space? Just remember, they may have a few antisat missiles laying around for the F-15 and some for the Naval Ships.

That's nice......so you have some F-35...you still have no idea what direction attack is coming form or what form......BTW F-35 is one of least capable attack platforms,,,,what dont you understand about conflicts aren't announced anymore.....first sign of war is something burning.....you act like you are some all knowing rube. Nukes are only prevent someone from nuking you and to say only a nuke can take out an airbase is asinine…..Falklands anyone ...classss

There are only two countries outside of the US that are capable of successfully attacking and destroying the Air Base in Guam and that's China and Russia. And both would have to use Nukes to do it. As in ICBMs. And you don't just wake up one morning and say, let's launch an ICBM attack and then go to breakfast. It takes about 72 hours to really get things ready do hit any single target. If you knew anything about the ICBM fleet you would understand this.

Yah, I know, a Sub can throw Nukes. But 2 seconds after that sub throws those nukes the whole world will know who did it and 72 hours later, that country is going to be hit from all sides. Russia can't have China throwing nukes because Russia might be next. Once a country starts throwing ICBMs, nothing stops them from attacking anyone else in the world outside of MAD. And don't think North Korea would even think about attacking Guam. Again, the only way to harm Guam without some real serious and immediate reprisals would be to nuke it. And at that point, even the Chinese are going to want their pound of flesh.

LLLMMAAOOOOO...…...you keep repeating same bs...…….

 

[DrainBamage]

All kind of cruise missiles that'll render you planes garbage before you can move em especially when they are parked in the open

They aren't all parked in the open. Depends on the base and the aircraft.

Here is Kadena, they actually have fairly significant closing aircraft shelters. I'm not sure the percentage of aircraft that are kept in shelter at any given time, but it's not really accurate to imply they are all in the open.

 

[Manonthestreet]

All kind of cruise missiles that'll render you planes garbage before you can move em especially when they are parked in the open

They aren't all parked in the open. Depends on the base and the aircraft.

Here is Kadena, they actually have fairly significant closing aircraft shelters. I'm not sure the percentage of aircraft that are kept in shelter at any given time, but it's not really accurate to imply they are all in the open.

Dont believe I said all

 

[Daryl Hunt]

All kind of cruise missiles that'll render you planes garbage before you can move em especially when they are parked in the open

They aren't all parked in the open. Depends on the base and the aircraft.

Here is Kadena, they actually have fairly significant closing aircraft shelters. I'm not sure the percentage of aircraft that are kept in shelter at any given time, but it's not really accurate to imply they are all in the open.

Standard Forward Operational Fighter Base.