Air Battle: What If an F-14 (That Iran Still Flies) Battled a Stealth F-22 Raptor?

[Hellfire]

An Indian talking about a country having a bad reputation, LOL. The country where cows are valued above human life and a family vacation is gangraping a female child on a fucking bus in broad daylight.
It's well documented that Saddam used his chemical weapons ineffectively and ended up harming his own soldiers you dumb prick
Not that I'd expect an animal that shits in the streets to be able to provide evidence of any of your bullshit arguments
You quoted me first randomly now tell me to go!
get fucked and go cry to the moderators as usual whilst you insult me and Iran in the same breath

You learn well from Pakistani posters! Deflect when you are squirming. Get a bit more personal, you may just convince everyone

Personally I do not think rape threads belong on PDF and their policy as stated is also the same (although implementation is lacking). The propensity to try and score 'brownie points' by cheering rape reports merely serve to exhibit an underlying misogynist approach. It remains a shame for every society and country and reporting it is better than sweeping it underground to hide and deny. But here look at your own country:

http://english.alarabiya.net/en/fea...oken-atrocities-witnessing-alarming-rise.html

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jun/24/jailed-iran-opposition-activists-rape

And the coup-de-grace, the case of Rayhaneh Jabbari, who was sentenced to death for defending herself from a government official trying to rape her!

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/ppmkmz/rayhaneh-jabbari-rape-death-sentence-iran

Back to the point.

In Halabjah, in 1987, the Iranians had two divisions, the 84th Iranian Division
and the 55th Parachute (Airborne) Division. The Iranians entered Halabjah
near the area of Darbandikhan Lake, and the dam, which has a high elevation.
They occupied this area and moved to take the Shadiran Mountain, after which
the land becomes flat all the way to Sulaimaniyah. So if they succeeded in getting
past Shadiran Mountain, they would be able to infiltrate much more and reach
Sulaimaniyah. Our defensive line here was desperate and relying especially on our
special forces.

The Kurds in Halabjah had evacuated. They left because the battle
had been going on for over a month before the use of chemicals. Jalal Talabani
controlled the eastern sector, and the Iraqi government contacted him, as it had
become an operational area, fearing for the safety of the Kurdish residents [and
warned them] not to stay in the area. Talabani notified [the Iraqi] command that
the Kurds had evacuated the area. To my knowledge, he signed a document confirming
that the evacuation took place from the village.
Then, we used the artillery to launch chemicals on this sector. The attack
almost entirely exterminated the Iranian division. This was the first true mass use
of chemicals, where the air force fully exterminated the 84th Division. It was limited
to Halabjah Valley. This had a tremendous psychological effect on the rest of the
Iranian soldiers. This is not meant to be a defense of what we did, but for the purposes
of historical honesty, the Kurds were not the target of this attack. We had focused
it on the Iranian forces present in that area. The Kurds who died during that
attack were those folks who refused to obey orders to evacuate the city, and their
numbers did not exceed 75–150 killed.53 And another thing is that the Iranians also
retaliated by using chemical weapons.

Murray: It seems that the Iranians did not use the chemical weapons until
the very end of the war. Why?

Hamdani: It was their lack of capabilities and limited production. They
only had a limited capability when we started using chemical weapons, not to mention
all the effort to produce those.

- Saddam's War: An Iraqi Military Perspective of the Iran-Iraq War, Kevin M Woods, Williamson Murray & Thomas Holaday with Munir Elkhamri

 

[Persian Gulf 1906]

- Saddam's War: An Iraqi Military Perspective of the Iran-Iraq War, Kevin M Woods, Williamson Murray & Thomas Holaday with Munir Elkhamri

LOL after all this time you were busy defecating in your streets this is the best you can come up with?

"An Iraqi Military Perspective" that cites an Iraqi general authored by people nobody has ever heard of (i.e. not credible academics in the slightest), good one

we know that indian men have the smallest penises in the world, but that's no excuse to spread lies on the internet little-penis shit-on-street boy.

 

[Nilgiri]

You are a man of classic tastes.

Thought I'd just post these here:

Grandpa lightning and Young jock "Chad" lightning:

A real U-2 that isnt some music band...with a cpl "talons":

Not many ppl realise just how slow the U-2 has to fly so its wings don't break off. Higher up...there is a small window of operation between stalling and this wing divergence (as we call it in aeroelasticity).

@Joe Shearer @Signalian @hellfire @Desert Fox @VCheng @waz @OsmanAli98 @Vergennes @TOPGUN @Hamartia Antidote @WAJsal @Levina @jhungary @gambit

 

[VCheng]

Not many ppl realise just how slow the U-2 has to fly so its wings don't break off. Higher up...there is a small window of operation between stalling and this wing divergence (as we call it in aeroelasticity).

Not bad for a plane the legendary Kelly Johnson designed when he figured out that he could make a plane fly at 80,000 feet at the edge of stalling with a good wing design, eh?

 

[Nilgiri]

Not bad for a plane the legendary Kelly Johnson designed when he figured out that he could make a plane fly at 80,000 feet at the edge of stalling with a good wing design, eh?

That god-damned swede could see air - some other aerospace guy.

Back in my uni days, we had a emeritus prof that was a junior engineer back then in skunkworks....the slide rule era of design....he had quite a lot of great stories on how things were done properly back in the day...coz the ppl he was working under had seen and fought a real war.

 

[VCheng]

That god-damned swede could see air - some other aerospace guy.

Back in my uni days, we had a emeritus prof that was a junior engineer back then in skunkworks....the slide rule era of design....he had quite a lot of great stories on how things were done properly back in the day...coz the ppl he was working under had seen and fought a real war.

Yes, those stories are legend. But, the game has moved on to much more complex issues, and here, while individual stars are still good, it is the teamwork that delivers better results.

 

[wali87]

2:1 in favour the tomcat, if Tom cruise was flying it

 

[Psychic]

An interesting conversation.

I get a lot of this kind of righteous indignation from members from another country, who consider any and every Indian victory to be a foul, not won in equal combat between equal numbers, and so on, and so forth..

Beyond a point, this becomes tiresome.

Let me give you an example;
Germans won the battle against France fair and square in WW2---Then the French formed resistance organizations---
Perhaps you'll act as a chivalrous Knight and declare the French resistance as terrorist since their armies lost it on the field and they should accept it and live under occupation peacefully...
Or can I expect a typical argument in response as that of a person with dual standards for judging people...
Or perhaps anyone not conforming to Western ideals yet pursuing guerilla warfare is the sole criteria for one to be declared a terrorist.

Geneva conventions don't state the same as you do...People have the right to fight an occupation force.

I get a lot of this kind of righteous indignation from members from another country, who consider any and every Indian victory to be a foul, not won in equal combat between equal numbers, and so on, and so forth..

India-Pakistan =/= USA-Afghanistan or France-Algeria etc...

And no one here is calling anything foul-play. This humble being is merely stating the fact that the weaker side has the right to resist. The right granted by the UN and Geneva conventions---Which some one here was trying to deny.

My point of contention is about RULES OF ENGAGEMENT for all belligerents in modern times.

Consider developments in Afghanistan and Iraq during the period (2006 - 2017), and in Syria during the period (2011 - 2017). Insurgencies in these countries took a DESTRUCTIVE and DIRTY turn, and innocent civilians paid a hefty price consequently. Focus shifted from high-profile (selective) targets to 'entire cities' which turned into a heap of ruins in the process, and a large number of people were forced to flee from their homes because they had no choice.

[1] Suicide attacks
[2] IED
[3] Not wearing uniforms
[4] Hiding among civilians, and using them as cover
[5] Going after SOFT TARGETS in general
[6] Murdering innocent with impunity for political ends (Terrorism)

Fighting tactics of agencies such as Afghan Taliban, ISIS-K, ISIS and Al-Qaeda Network, are a role-model for Muslims now? These agencies have done more harm than good. ISIS and Al-Qaeda Network will be history. ISIS-K will follow course.

Do you honestly expect a professional army to act normal while contending with aforementioned agencies? Expect any professional army to exercise sheer brutality or switch to controversial methods of engagement in return.

You complain about Drone Warfare? Wait for Terminators to arrive; machines will decide our fate. Micro-killers too.

Agencies should conform to civilian-friendly RULES OF ENGAGEMENT in a conflict, and should know [when to stop], or increasingly dreadful set-of-responses will await them in the future.

Iraqi people came back to their senses, but Afghan Taliban?

Let me give you an example;
Germans won the battle against France fair and square in WW2---Then the French formed resistance organizations---
Perhaps you'll act as a chivalrous Knight and declare the French resistance as terrorist since their armies lost it on the field and they should accept it and live under occupation peacefully...
Or can I expect a typical argument in response as that of a person with dual standards for judging people...
Or perhaps anyone not conforming to Western ideals yet pursuing guerilla warfare is the sole criteria for one to be declared a terrorist.

I was not specifically talking about X,Y or Z organization---I was merely stating the fact that the people of any occupied area have the right to resist foreign occupation. You were denying that fact...just because your idol USA denies them their right.

As far as them employing the so called dirty tactics is concerned, when the USA employs similar tactics, it's kosher (Assassinations, drones, helping drug cartels, sanctions killing a million children, destroying pharmaceutical industry, helping brutal dictators, using chemical warfare, helping good terrorists) so that makes the CIA a terror organization? If not then other groups doing similar things aren't either but you don't have the moral courage to call state terror as terrorism---now don't say that they employ those dirty tactics in response to Taliban as the sanctions which wrecked Afghanistan came before, Northern alliance thugs were supported long before, drug traffickers , child molesters and murderers were brought to power in Afghanistan by your idol USA---the criminals who were then at times assassinated (which you shamelessly try to paint as assassinating innocent people)....

Dirty tactics are employed by both sides---one is called a terrorist, other is not...
Either call both of them as terrorist or don't use that term since state terror ( Poising wells, burning forests and crops, bombing, droning, assassinating) is a real thing which you have been trying to deny or paint as a mere "reaction". It's like killing a dozen children then saying "but hey, someone from that village is a member of the resistance so they get what they deserve"...

What Afghan Taliban are doing is far better and morally superior regardless of the consequences than what USA and her allies in Afghanistan namely a NA thug here, a child molester there, a war criminal sitting over that fence etc have done.
They chose to fight and pay the price---your terminators right now are sitting on the negotiating table with them---BTW Taliban were offering to sit on the table in early 2002---but some people and I'll not mention who thought that why negotiate with "terrorists", they are defeated....
@Nilgiri

@django

 

[Joe Shearer]

Let me give you an example;
Germans won the battle against France fair and square in WW2---Then the French formed resistance organizations---
Perhaps you'll act as a chivalrous Knight and declare the French resistance as terrorist since their armies lost it on the field and they should accept it and live under occupation peacefully...
Or can I expect a typical argument in response as that of a person with dual standards for judging people...
Or perhaps anyone not conforming to Western ideals yet pursuing guerilla warfare is the sole criteria for one to be declared a terrorist.

You have it back to front. We keep getting told that we won through sheer numbers, or we get told that we didn't actually win, and get figures of ground acreage occupied (usually fudged figures), or told that on the ground, it was a draw, but in the air, we definitely lost, and so on.

So your analogy doesn't fit very well. However, your point in general is valid; it just doesn't apply to the phenomenon I mentioned.

Geneva conventions don't state the same as you do...People have the right to fight an occupation force.

India-Pakistan =/= USA-Afghanistan or France-Algeria etc...

And no one here is calling anything foul-play. This humble being is merely stating the fact that the weaker side has the right to resist. The right granted by the UN and Geneva conventions---Which some one here was trying to deny.

Please include me out.

Let me give you an example;

Germans won the battle against France fair and square in WW2---Then the French formed resistance organizations---
Perhaps you'll act as a chivalrous Knight and declare the French resistance as terrorist since their armies lost it on the field and they should accept it and live under occupation peacefully...
Or can I expect a typical argument in response as that of a person with dual standards for judging people...
Or perhaps anyone not conforming to Western ideals yet pursuing guerilla warfare is the sole criteria for one to be declared a terrorist.

I was not specifically talking about X,Y or Z organization---I was merely stating the fact that the people of any occupied area have the right to resist foreign occupation. You were denying that fact...just because your idol USA denies them their right.

As far as them employing the so called dirty tactics is concerned, when the USA employs similar tactics, it's kosher (Assassinations, drones, helping drug cartels, sanctions killing a million children, destroying pharmaceutical industry, helping brutal dictators, using chemical warfare, helping good terrorists) so that makes the CIA a terror organization? If not then other groups doing similar things aren't either but you don't have the moral courage to call state terror as terrorism---now don't say that they employ those dirty tactics in response to Taliban as the sanctions which wrecked Afghanistan came before, Northern alliance thugs were supported long before, drug traffickers , child molesters and murderers were brought to power in Afghanistan by your idol USA---the criminals who were then at times assassinated (which you shamelessly try to paint as assassinating innocent people)....

Dirty tactics are employed by both sides---one is called a terrorist, other is not...
Either call both of them as terrorist or don't use that term since state terror ( Poising wells, burning forests and crops, bombing, droning, assassinating) is a real thing which you have been trying to deny or paint as a mere "reaction". It's like killing a dozen children then saying "but hey, someone from that village is a member of the resistance so they get what they deserve"...

What Afghan Taliban are doing is far better and morally superior regardless of the consequences than what USA and her allies in Afghanistan namely a NA thug here, a child molester there, a war criminal sitting over that fence etc have done.
They chose to fight and pay the price---your terminators right now are sitting on the negotiating table with them---BTW Taliban were offering to sit on the table in early 2002---but some people and I'll not mention who thought that why negotiate with "terrorists", they are defeated....
@Nilgiri

@django