Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
The A-4 was not operational until AFTER the Korean War, making it's very first flight in 1954.
The Brits should have taken far worse losses in the Flaklands. The Argie Skyhawks pilots were so aggressive they were dropping their ordnance so low that most of the bombs had no time to arm. Without AWACS the Sea Harriers were always a day late and a pound short.*looks up and reads again*
Did I say "Korean War", or "Korean War era"?
The aircraft was designed during the war, and was typical of most aircraft designed and used during that conflict.
So I will stick by my statement it was Korean War era. Just as the F-16 is a Vietnam War era fighter.
The Brits should have taken far worse losses in the Flaklands. The Argie Skyhawks pilots were so aggressive they were dropping their ordnance so low that most of the bombs had no time to arm. Without AWACS the Sea Harriers were always a day late and a pound short.
i think most of that money is secretly going to The Cabal. Something needs to be done about the rationing of food in our military. it is very shocking.
Why Is the US Military Rationing Meals? They Have a $770 Billion Budget.
What’s Going On?31 May 2022 ~~ By Joe Hoft
Why Is the US Military Rationing Meals? They Have a $770 Billion Budget. What's Going On? | The Gateway Pundit | by Joe Hoft
What is going on? The US Military is rationing food on at least one huge aircraft carrier. Why is this happening? Doesn’t the military receive hundreds of billions of dollars each year? Where is the money going?www.thegatewaypundit.com
What is going on? The US Military is rationing food on at least one huge aircraft carrier. Why is this happening? Doesn’t the military receive hundreds of billions of dollars each year? Where is the money going?
This Memorial week we received information that the men and women on US aircraft carrier, the USS Harry Truman, are receiving food rations. This makes no sense.
The USS Harry Truman is not at war. It is not in harm’s way. It is in the Mediterranean Sea near the conflict in Ukraine but not in the Black Sea.
Around 5,000 personnel are on board this huge carrier. Reports are coming out that the ship is rationing food. Why is our military doing this? It makes no sense. They are only receiving two meals a day.
Where are the billions going? Who is making the call to ration meals for our soldiers? Is this the love and respect they get from the Biden/Obama Administration? It appears that this is punishment, but for what? Why are our soldiers being treated this way? Is this just another effort to destroy the US military? First, Biden had forced vaccinations – now food rations – what is going on?
Commentary:
What is disturbing is food rationing for our military that aren't deployed to war accomplishes a few things for the criminals running our government.
It dissuades military personnel from reenlisting, a purge of the military so they can remake it in their own image.
It reduces the spending on people that they don't care about so that they can funnel the money to their own pockets and projects.
It gives the Biden government a way of punishing military that haven't taken the jab as they have demanded.
They are trying to purge the military while making money doing it.
The good thing about that is that when the revolution does come, all the highly trained military personnel will be with the revolutionaries.
Don't the Brits have that variant of the Sea King with an extendable radar (beneath the fuselage) that can perform basic AWACs duties (not as good as a Hawkeye or Sentry of course but still useful).And they still do not have AWAC.
And it is like the RN learned nothing from that conflict. Even after losing 2 of their Sheffield class Destroyers (including the namesake), they are still little different than 40 years ago.
And I shake my head when I see the same things being repeated today. Like in other threads, some claiming that China will "rule the Pacific" by converting cargo ships to carriers. Like, they never heard of the Atlantic Conveyor.
And they still do not have AWAC.
And it is like the RN learned nothing from that conflict. Even after losing 2 of their Sheffield class Destroyers (including the namesake), they are still little different than 40 years ago.
And I shake my head when I see the same things being repeated today. Like in other threads, some claiming that China will "rule the Pacific" by converting cargo ships to carriers. Like, they never heard of the Atlantic Conveyor.
US NAVY LHAs and LHDs operate the F-35B with no skip jump.While Atlantic Conveyor could launch one of the Harriers (in vertical launch mode which means little fuel and weapons) at a time calling it a "carrier" by any measure is a gross exaggeration.
Without a ski jump, STO/VL carriers are a non factor.
US NAVY LHAs and LHDs operate the F-35B with no skip jump.
Don't the Brits have that variant of the Sea King with an extendable radar (beneath the fuselage) that can perform basic AWACs duties (not as good as a Hawkeye or Sentry of course but still useful).
US NAVY LHAs and LHDs operate the F-35B with no skip jump.
Harriers can operate with no ski jump.
But they cannot take off with maximum fuel and ordnance without one.
Harriers use rolling starts to carry fuel and ordnance. Their start point on my LHA was over my desk which was right below the flight deck. Talk about loud!Harriers can operate with no ski jump.
But they cannot take off with maximum fuel and ordnance without one.
Yes, and it can barely do that.
A helicopter does not have the range, speed, or service ceiling to make a good AWAC bird. Sure, it is better than nothing. But it comes nowhere even close to the "real deal".
So each decade, the US is pulling farther away from the UK in Naval Aviation capability. And to be honest, the more I see that happen the less I give a fig and see them as a "has-been" empire that is largely resting on it's laurels.
And the irony is, the Royal Navy after the Falklands realized that a major flaw in their defenses was their reliance upon an older generation Sea King for AWAC duties. Among them was the service ceiling (which limits how far out they can detect threats), range, speed, and loiter ability. They lost a lot of ships because they were in reality able to provide little to no AWAC capability to their fleet.
And their solution? Why, just continue to use helicopters. I guess they just assume that if "WWIII" was to ever start, they could rely on the US to pull their arses out of the fire with real AWAC aircraft. And real carriers. So they can continue to play with "bathtub toys". I know if I was in the Commonwealth of Nations, I would be getting more and more nervous every year.
You know we agree on most things military Mushroom but in my opinion, the British did pretty good in the Falklands War given the extreme distances and hence the logistical problems involved.
True, but not as good as they should have done against a "Third World Nation", using grossly antiquated equipment and a largely conscript military. The very fact that they had to hastily convert 2 cargo ships into "emergency carriers" shows that they had serious issued with their military. And one they have not really improved in the decades since. And I remember the shock among many during that conflict, at the huge losses they suffered against a foe that they should have defeated easily.
This can be seen in "Operation Black Buck", which took almost all of their logistical capability to get a small number of Vulcan Bombers there, with negligible results. In comparison, look at raids done by the US since 1990. Our pilots have flown missions half way around the world and back, done significant damage, and then returned. A great many times.
Hell, the Royal Navy claimed to have still been a strong navy even then. Yet they lost a lot of ships, while the "strongest" ship of the Argentine Navy was the ARA General Belgrano. Formerly the USS Phoenix, a Brooklyn Class Light Cruiser that entered service in 1938. Yet that was essentially the "Argentine Flagship", while the UK had ships that were almost 40 years newer that were sunk (2 of their 8 Sheffield class Destroyers).
For me, this should be of grave concern, as the UK is essentially the backbone of the "Commonwealth". That is 54 nations, all of which are relying upon a great deal of their defense being provided by the UK.
Realize, I do support the UK. But I also think they need to get their head out of their arse, and get serious about having a military force that will protect their close allies. Allies that should be even closer than the US as they were pretty much all once part of the "British Empire", and still look to them for military aid if attacked. It seems to me that they are relying way too much on "US Aid", and they should not do that. A nation should almost never rely completely upon an ally for defense, and should at least be able to provide a significant portion themselves.
To put it in perspective, what if say a nation decided to invade Guam. That is US territory, just as the Falklands are a UK territory. The US would likely need no assistance, and be able to put the "wrath of god" onto such an invasion force. Throwing entire divisions and fleets against them, including long distance bombing with ease from not only the US but our other bases in the area. During the Falklands campaign, the US even approved "lending" the UK the USS Iwo Jima and harriers in the event they lost their carrier in that conflict. That should scream how underequipped they were to defend their own territory.
And most shockingly to me, they have seemed to have learned nothing since then, and are still trying to operate the exact same way. Knowing full well that they came close to losing their ass that time.
With all due respect, you are a ground pounder and not a naval warfare expert. The Brits have two fairly capable aircraft carriers now.True, but not as good as they should have done against a "Third World Nation", using grossly antiquated equipment and a largely conscript military. The very fact that they had to hastily convert 2 cargo ships into "emergency carriers" shows that they had serious issued with their military. And one they have not really improved in the decades since. And I remember the shock among many during that conflict, at the huge losses they suffered against a foe that they should have defeated easily.
This can be seen in "Operation Black Buck", which took almost all of their logistical capability to get a small number of Vulcan Bombers there, with negligible results. In comparison, look at raids done by the US since 1990. Our pilots have flown missions half way around the world and back, done significant damage, and then returned. A great many times.
Hell, the Royal Navy claimed to have still been a strong navy even then. Yet they lost a lot of ships, while the "strongest" ship of the Argentine Navy was the ARA General Belgrano. Formerly the USS Phoenix, a Brooklyn Class Light Cruiser that entered service in 1938. Yet that was essentially the "Argentine Flagship", while the UK had ships that were almost 40 years newer that were sunk (2 of their 8 Sheffield class Destroyers).
For me, this should be of grave concern, as the UK is essentially the backbone of the "Commonwealth". That is 54 nations, all of which are relying upon a great deal of their defense being provided by the UK.
Realize, I do support the UK. But I also think they need to get their head out of their arse, and get serious about having a military force that will protect their close allies. Allies that should be even closer than the US as they were pretty much all once part of the "British Empire", and still look to them for military aid if attacked. It seems to me that they are relying way too much on "US Aid", and they should not do that. A nation should almost never rely completely upon an ally for defense, and should at least be able to provide a significant portion themselves.
To put it in perspective, what if say a nation decided to invade Guam. That is US territory, just as the Falklands are a UK territory. The US would likely need no assistance, and be able to put the "wrath of god" onto such an invasion force. Throwing entire divisions and fleets against them, including long distance bombing with ease from not only the US but our other bases in the area. During the Falklands campaign, the US even approved "lending" the UK the USS Iwo Jima and harriers in the event they lost their carrier in that conflict. That should scream how underequipped they were to defend their own territory.
And most shockingly to me, they have seemed to have learned nothing since then, and are still trying to operate the exact same way. Knowing full well that they came close to losing their ass that time.
This sounds like fake news
Why Is the US Military Rationing Meals? They Have a $770 Billion Budget.
What’s Going On?31 May 2022 ~~ By Joe HoftWhy Is the US Military Rationing Meals? They Have a $770 Billion Budget. What's Going On? | The Gateway Pundit | by Joe Hoft
What is going on? The US Military is rationing food on at least one huge aircraft carrier. Why is this happening? Doesn’t the military receive hundreds of billions of dollars each year? Where is the money going?
What is going on? The US Military is rationing food on at least one huge aircraft carrier. Why is this happening? Doesn’t the military receive hundreds of billions of dollars each year? Where is the money going?
This Memorial week we received information that the men and women on US aircraft carrier, the USS Harry Truman, are receiving food rations. This makes no sense.
The USS Harry Truman is not at war. It is not in harm’s way. It is in the Mediterranean Sea near the conflict in Ukraine but not in the Black Sea.
Around 5,000 personnel are on board this huge carrier. Reports are coming out that the ship is rationing food. Why is our military doing this? It makes no sense. They are only receiving two meals a day.
Where are the billions going? Who is making the call to ration meals for our soldiers? Is this the love and respect they get from the Biden/Obama Administration? It appears that this is punishment, but for what? Why are our soldiers being treated this way? Is this just another effort to destroy the US military? First, Biden had forced vaccinations – now food rations – what is going on?
Commentary:
What is disturbing is food rationing for our military that aren't deployed to war accomplishes a few things for the criminals running our government.
It dissuades military personnel from reenlisting, a purge of the military so they can remake it in their own image.
It reduces the spending on people that they don't care about so that they can funnel the money to their own pockets and projects.
It gives the Biden government a way of punishing military that haven't taken the jab as they have demanded.
They are trying to purge the military while making money doing it.
The good thing about that is that when the revolution does come, all the highly trained military personnel will be with the revolutionaries.
Two carriers without air groups.With all due respect, you are a ground pounder and not a naval warfare expert. The Brits have two fairly capable aircraft carriers now.
BTW, it was the USS Guam LPH-9 that the US considered lending the Brits.
The F-35B?Two carriers without air groups.
Enough aircraft to fill the hangers. The last I heard the RN was borrowing USMC aircraft and pilots.The F-35B?
What do you mean "air group"?
The carriers could carry 36 F-35s each. Right now they have eight RAF aircraft and ten borrowed USMC F-35s. They don't even hope to have the seventy two needed F-35s for over a decade.The F-35B?
What do you mean "air group"?
