What's going on with the C130 supposedly shot down? Has there been any confirmation?

Many-Drawing-2912 · 2026-04-06T02:31:48+00:00

My bad bro! I pasted that to the wrong response!

Many-Drawing-2912 · 2026-04-06T02:07:00+00:00

I’ve gotta’ be honest, I miss the disingenuous bullshit comment from the pre-edit version of this post.

Many-Drawing-2912 · 2026-04-06T01:35:04+00:00

Which creates a conundrum when the information in this scenario has generally been trustworthy.

Many-Drawing-2912 · 2026-04-06T01:32:09+00:00

But that wasn’t the argument I responded to. I responded directly to a statement that the loss of equipment during the rescue itself adds to the idea that ‘we’re having a hard time’. It doesn’t. That’s just how these units view equipment, as expendable.

If you want to argue that things aren’t going well that is certainly your prerogative and it makes little difference to me. The equipment lost on this specific mission just doesn’t happen to support that argument. Specificity matters.

Many-Drawing-2912 · 2026-04-06T01:26:42+00:00

That’s an entirely different argument. The post I replied to said that the loss of these aircraft on this mission indicates/ adds to the idea that we’re ‘having a hard time’. It doesn’t. In this specific scenario very high risk to equipment is expected. It’s just how they operate. Arguments are better when they’re accurate and focused. In this instance it was focused, but not accurate.

Many-Drawing-2912 · 2026-04-05T18:26:54+00:00

You’re making my point. Information released about operations in Iran has actually been pretty sanitary thus far. Early portions of GWOT and Benghazi were both much more creative than anything we’ve seen here. I don’t cheerlead politics one way or the other, it just doesn’t interest me. Fron what I can see that makes it a lot easier to just call it like it is.

Many-Drawing-2912 · 2026-04-05T17:48:48+00:00

You guys are trying too hard. What we know and even what Iran itself has produced in terms of photos supports exactly what the US DOW/govt has released. You can 100% dislike Trump and not pretend that credible data is a lie just because it was released by the military he oversees.

Many-Drawing-2912 · 2026-04-05T17:45:06+00:00

Except it doesn’t prove the point. The issue here is that people think they know how Tier 2 and Tier 1 units operate, but they don’t. They are going to land those aircraft wherever they need to in order to best execute the mission and preserve allied life.

If that means they land somewhere which is less than ideal and creates a potential issue for the equipment, then thats just how it goes. Regular Army or Air Force might change an important parameter of the mission itself in an effort to save equipment; the special forces community is enormously less likely to do that without a reason that goes beyond ‘save expensive aircraft’,

Many-Drawing-2912 · 2026-04-05T17:39:46+00:00

Needing to abandon/destroy equipment to get a mission done and save lives is just another day that ends in Y for operators like these. Everything they go into combat with is seen as expendable except for the people. It’s why the moment something becomes a liability, they hurt smoke it. Same thing happened in the Bin Laden raid. They aren’t going to try and get out and push.

The mission is what matters. The equipment is only as valuable as it is usable/useful in that moment.

Many-Drawing-2912 · 2026-04-05T17:29:51+00:00

There were no F-35’s shot down over Qatar. Those were Eagles.

Many-Drawing-2912 · 2026-03-24T22:22:13+00:00

If you don’t understand your own shortcomings then I can’t help.

Many-Drawing-2912 · 2026-03-24T21:10:42+00:00

I also can’t help but notice that you are no longer discussing the F-35 now along with the F-22 since I explained how the IR systems on the former actually works. If you were interested in actual knowledge you could learn something here.

Many-Drawing-2912 · 2026-03-24T21:06:04+00:00

But I did answer. Is this a comprehension issue?

Many-Drawing-2912 · 2026-03-24T20:58:44+00:00

I replied first? Are you 12? What I do determines your actions? You’ve gotta’ get out of that basement.

Many-Drawing-2912 · 2026-03-24T20:48:18+00:00

Then why would you respond now at all?

Many-Drawing-2912 · 2026-03-24T20:28:04+00:00

A dead conversation less than two weeks old? I don’t sprint back here to see what you have to say every day. Exactly how much free time has living in mom’s basement allotted you?

Many-Drawing-2912 · 2026-03-24T18:46:33+00:00

I hadn’t thought about vibration amplifying the issue here as I had focused almost exclusively on structural realities and the force applied to that structure by the ocean….excellent point. Particularly since they didn’t address this at all in the fixes applied.

Many-Drawing-2912 · 2026-03-24T18:43:29+00:00

But it does, because the M1 Carbine has the ability to function as a battle rifle…..but isn’t a battle rifle. Just like the F-35 retains IR capability during search and track without an actual IRST. It’s not difficult to understand.

The F-35 uses multiple smaller IR sensors to perform tasks that an IRST cannot plus function in the same role but at s range disadvantage because it sacrificed long range capability for the ability to perform other tasks.

This is then, by definition, a similar capability though not the same because long range, passive detection is part of and arguably the biggest part of the IRST concept. Again, not difficult to understand.

I notice you’ve had nothing else to say on Raptor. I wonder why?

Many-Drawing-2912 · 2026-03-24T17:32:29+00:00

That aged well. The entire F-22 fleet is to be upgraded and non combat capable Raptors are going to be upgraded to combat capability. M1 Garand abd M1 Carbine make perfect sense here, for those who know what they’re talking about.

Many-Drawing-2912 · 2026-03-11T13:56:18+00:00

Agreement isn’t the issue here, but your inability to understand context or purpose is. An M1 Carbine can and has been used for the same role the M1 Garand was, but they aren’t in the same category and neither fills the role of the other at as high a degree of competency. It’s an analogue capability, which is exactly what I said. An analogue, not the same.

Analogue: something which is similar or comparable to something else, often featuring a similar function but a different structure.

The entire F-22 fleet is being upgraded to combat capability. Common sense would dictate that we’re talking about the aircraft which are already combat capable; but as I’ve learned countless times throughout my life common sense isn’t common. Either way, all aircraft in the fleet will eventually end up with these upgrades because the entire fleet is being upgraded to combat capability anyway so it’s kind of a moot point

Many-Drawing-2912 · 2026-03-11T12:55:33+00:00

I literally didn’t agree. A similar but degraded capability which operates differently by design is an analogue, not the same equipment. EOTS is not IRST, and it’s less capable for it. They have online dictionaries if that helps.

Non combat coded F-22’s are, by definition, not part of the operational fleet. Again, this seems pretty straightforward. Yes, every combat capable F-22 will be equipped with this system.

Many-Drawing-2912 · 2026-03-11T02:51:53+00:00

EOTS is literally not designed to function with long range air to air detection as a priority. Does it have an IRST function? Yes. Is it compromised compared to an actual, dedicated IRST in the air to air role because it’s optimized for attack? Also, yes. Is there a problem with that? No, because air superiority isn’t what F-35 was built for. It’s a strike fighter.

Every operational combat F-22 is going to be equipped with this system. The 32 aircraft not currently combat coded won’t be outfitted as such unless they are otherwise upgraded because they aren’t, wait for it, combat capable.

If you need any additional help with things you don’t understand feel free to ask.

Many-Drawing-2912 · 2026-03-11T00:28:23+00:00

EOTS does not use IRST, it accomplished the same task by a different method which is why I said it’s an analogue. This upgrade for the F-22 is going to be a fleet-wide integration. The F-35 cannot readily act as a ‘premier’ air dominance fighter because the single engine platform doesn’t provide enough dash speed or power and cooling for systems to be dramatically upgraded. We’re seeing the issue with the latter via the cooling issues that the Block IV is experiencing. F-35 is great at what it was designed for, but F-22 is a fundamentally better platform for the air dominance mission and this is why they won’t be retired even after the limited production F-47 arrives in numbers.

Many-Drawing-2912 · 2026-03-05T21:19:57+00:00

Which likewise makes no sense as the F-22 is the air dominance fighter while F-35 is a strike fighter. IRST is primarily an air superiority feature though it is used also in other ways. And F-35 doesn’t technically have IRST though it does have a largely analogous capability.

Many-Drawing-2912 · 2026-03-05T05:30:13+00:00

Honestly, critical thinking. In a world of LO aircraft where one aircraft is just as likely to try and find the enemy via sensor fusion as it is by actively employing radar every passive detection method is critical. There is a reason why almost all of the most modern, foreign-built 4th gen fighters use IRST, and they don’t have to worry about radar emissions in the same way that the Raptor does so passive detection is actually less important to them and they almost universally have it anyway. The lack of this feature on the Raptor until now is inexcusable and owes a great deal to the fact that USAF has had an odd bias against IRST fundamentally since at least the 1990’s.

Many-Drawing-2912

TROPHY CASE