THIS was the Afghan Air Force!!!!WTF!!!!

[Vrenn]

The pilot IS the front seater.

The last man out is the pilot.

 

[Vrenn]

Is what I thought.

And it was not exactly like we were using a lot of strategic bombers in Afghanistan outside of the surges. Or in Iraq for that matter.

Unlike the Naval F-4, the AF F-4 has full flight controls in the WSO (back seat) station. With the front Seater gone (the Pilot) the back seater becomes the pilot. Unlike the Naval REO, the AF WSO either was a fully qualified pilot or close to one. That one "Pilot" we will always give the honors of being "THE PILOT" for that flight.

As for using Strategic Bombers in Afghanistan and Iraq, the only difference between a strategic Bomber B-52 is the payload. And Buffs operated out of Diego Garcia almost every day for years for both locales.

 

[Mushroom]

Unlike the Naval F-4, the AF F-4 has full flight controls in the WSO (back seat) station. With the front Seater gone (the Pilot) the back seater becomes the pilot. Unlike the Naval REO, the AF WSO either was a fully qualified pilot or close to one. That one "Pilot" we will always give the honors of being "THE PILOT" for that flight.

As for using Strategic Bombers in Afghanistan and Iraq, the only difference between a strategic Bomber B-52 is the payload. And Buffs operated out of Diego Garcia almost every day for years for both locales.

Which was retired in the 1990's, so not applicable really in Afghanistan.

And I know about the missions, we had both BUFFs and Lancers at the base I spent a year on when I was deployed out there. But those were largely only used for surges. Or when something came in for them. It was easy to tell when something was going on, as you could hear the Lancers spooling up on the runway all the way across the base, and 2 to 4 of them would then take off, one after the other as they left for a mission. Then we would not hear another one leaving for days. The BUFFs were obvious as well, but not as ear shattering as the B1 was.

 

[Vrenn]

Which was retired in the 1990's, so not applicable really in Afghanistan.

And I know about the missions, we had both BUFFs and Lancers at the base I spent a year on when I was deployed out there. But those were largely only used for surges. Or when something came in for them. It was easy to tell when something was going on, as you could hear the Lancers spooling up on the runway all the way across the base, and 2 to 4 of them would then take off, one after the other as they left for a mission. Then we would not hear another one leaving for days. The BUFFs were obvious as well, but not as ear shattering as the B1 was.

Due to the Salt Treaty, the B-1 Bone was not configured for Nuclear. But the Buffs could be configured either way like the B-2s. Plus, the Buffs were used for normal operations over the B-1 or the B-2 because of cost and you only use the B-1 and B-2 for special reasons. Normal use of the Buff probably will largely go unnoticed. But the Bone is LOUD and will be noticed.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

The Afghans weren't willing to fight. That's undeniable, therefore you're denying it. The South Vietnamese weren't willing to fight either, so the civil war there was also unwinnable.

For how many more hundreds of years did you want the USA in Afghanistan? History will look favorably on both Biden and Trump here.

It wasn’t a question of if to exit but how. Leaving billions of dollars worth of equipment and 1000s of Americans wasn’t optimal.

 

[Mushroom]

Due to the Salt Treaty, the B-1 Bone was not configured for Nuclear.

Uhhh, what?

That was not the SALT treaty. That was signed way back in 1971 under President Nixon. And the B-1A was still only on paper, essentially a heavier bomber variant of the F-111.

You obviously mean START (or later known as START I), signed by President Bush in 1991. And took effect in December 1994. And it was fully configured for nuclear payloads. Which is why they started removing that capability from the craft. So they were "configured for nuclear", that was just removed a decade later.

At which time we already had the B-2 Spirit on the way. So having 3 nuclear bombers just made no sense.

 

[Vrenn]

Uhhh, what?

That was not the SALT treaty. That was signed way back in 1971 under President Nixon. And the B-1A was still only on paper, essentially a heavier bomber variant of the F-111.

You obviously mean START (or later known as START I), signed by President Bush in 1991. And took effect in December 1994. And it was fully configured for nuclear payloads. Which is why they started removing that capability from the craft. So they were "configured for nuclear", that was just removed a decade later.

At which time we already had the B-2 Spirit on the way. So having 3 nuclear bombers just made no sense.

Salt...Start. Old brain cells. But the B-1 was no longer Nuclear configured and still isn't. Not to say that they can't have the proper racks and software uploaded easy enough.

 

[harmonica]

Dayton3 undeniable---they are unwilling to fight...it's undeniable....and they are corrupt......mygod--look at their history

 

[harmonica]

HereWeGoAgain no, they were not unwinnable...hahahhahah FIRST, you say that about Nam....NOW, you say that about Afghanistan ~!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
woooooooooohoooooooooo ...how many times does it have to happen, before you realize it???????????????????
Afghanistan reinforces it..they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years = all murders

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

HereWeGoAgain no, they were not unwinnable...hahahhahah FIRST, you say that about Nam....NOW, you say that about Afghanistan ~!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
woooooooooohoooooooooo ...how many times does it have to happen, before you realize it???????????????????
Afghanistan reinforces it..they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years = all murders

If the US really wanted to win they could.
They're just too squeamish to do whats necessary.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

George W. Bush's nephew served in Afghanistan. Sarah Palin's son served there too IIRC.

Lyndon Johnson's son in law served in Vietnam.

Epitaph on the Vietnam Memorial: PROUD TO DIE TAKING A RICHKID'S PLACE

The exception proves the rule. You might as well claim that Pat Tillman's heroism made up for all the unpatriotic jock cowards.

Second, there is usually something besides its rarity that makes the exception irrelevant. Rocky Bleier was cut from the team or he never would have been drafted. No real NFL players were.

 

[harmonica]

HereWeGoAgain said that with Vietnam--now saying it with Afghanistan ---get it???

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

HereWeGoAgain said that with Vietnam--now saying it with Afghanistan ---get it???

Yes I did.
And it's the truth. You cant win a war when politicians are calling the shots.

 

[harmonica]

HereWeGoAgain wrong..I guess the French politicians did the same--AND the Russians....etc etc

 

[harmonica]

HereWeGoAgain AND you think the Russians did go all out ???!!!!

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

HereWeGoAgain AND you think the Russians did go all out ???!!!!

Obviously not.
They could have brought nukes into the equation.
Just like we could have.
Or they could have dropped a shitload fuel air munitions.
We most definitely have the ability,we just wont go that far.

 

[Dayton3]

Obviously not.
They could have brought nukes into the equation.
Just like we could have.
Or they could have dropped a shitload fuel air munitions.
We most definitely have the ability,we just wont go that far.

The Russians did systematically massacre a couple of million Afghans.

 

[harmonica]

HereWeGoAgain
1. how many times do I have to say it??? we bombed Germany and Japan to hell--no surrender
2. then we bombed Vietnam MORE than we did Germany and Japan
3.nukes--my god--ridiculous

 

[harmonica]

HereWeGoAgain
1. how many times do I have to say it??? we bombed Germany and Japan to hell--no surrender
2. then we bombed Vietnam MORE than we did Germany and Japan
3.nukes--my god--ridiculous

AND Germany and Japan were more industrial countries

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

HereWeGoAgain
1. how many times do I have to say it??? we bombed Germany and Japan to hell--no surrender
2. then we bombed Vietnam MORE than we did Germany and Japan
3.nukes--my god--ridiculous

Japan surrendered because we nuked em.
And we didnt use nukes on the cong.
We have the ability to beat anyone but we wont because the world would have a shit fit.