|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Reflexx
Franchise Player
Joined: 25 Jun 2005
Posts: 11163
|
 Posted: Mon Aug 22, 2016 10:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DaMuleRules wrote: | | Reflexx wrote: | Iran sees it as ransom. They received a benefit that they weren't going to otherwise receive.
I think people who buy into this "bad timing" narrative are being intellectually dishonest. That money was pretty much written off by Iran. They didn't expect to receive it. But whoa... have a few hostages and then a bunch of money and a nuclear deal is offered. How convenient.
If this was a Republican in office, I'm positive that this thread would be filled with all the same people saying opposite things. |
You mean like Ronald Reagan? You do realize what he did? You don't think the Iranians saw that as a ransom?
If I were on the Right, the LAST thing I would be doing is trying to insinuate that others were trying to engage in double standards |
You're engaging in double standards.
Nowhere did I ever say that ransom was a good idea, no matter who did it.
I'm also not labeling Obama a villain for doing it. I can see why someone would want to do it.
I just think it's bad policy and I think it's even worse to try to pretend you didn't do it when you did. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Palin
Star Player
Joined: 26 Feb 2008
Posts: 1809
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
OregonLakerGuy
Franchise Player
Joined: 23 Feb 2005
Posts: 13207
Location: Oregon
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 23, 2016 3:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| To be clear, I actually don't have much problem with what the admin did here. This exchange was something that any administration would have done. This is the kind of thing that those who govern have to do. I just do not understand the need to insist that it was something other than a ransom. That we took the money from Iran in the first place is kind of cool, but not the point. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52657
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 23, 2016 4:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Reflexx wrote: | | DaMuleRules wrote: | | Reflexx wrote: | Iran sees it as ransom. They received a benefit that they weren't going to otherwise receive.
I think people who buy into this "bad timing" narrative are being intellectually dishonest. That money was pretty much written off by Iran. They didn't expect to receive it. But whoa... have a few hostages and then a bunch of money and a nuclear deal is offered. How convenient.
If this was a Republican in office, I'm positive that this thread would be filled with all the same people saying opposite things. |
You mean like Ronald Reagan? You do realize what he did? You don't think the Iranians saw that as a ransom?
If I were on the Right, the LAST thing I would be doing is trying to insinuate that others were trying to engage in double standards |
You're engaging in double standards.
Nowhere did I ever say that ransom was a good idea, no matter who did it.
I'm also not labeling Obama a villain for doing it. I can see why someone would want to do it.
I just think it's bad policy and I think it's even worse to try to pretend you didn't do it when you did. |
It's hardly a double standard to point out the idea that this situation is some game changer that has never occurred before is false.
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames
Jason Isbell
Man, do those lyrics resonate right now |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jodeke
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 67712
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered a great way to learn.
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 23, 2016 9:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Reflexx wrote: | | DaMuleRules wrote: | | Reflexx wrote: | Iran sees it as ransom. They received a benefit that they weren't going to otherwise receive.
I think people who buy into this "bad timing" narrative are being intellectually dishonest. That money was pretty much written off by Iran. They didn't expect to receive it. But whoa... have a few hostages and then a bunch of money and a nuclear deal is offered. How convenient.
If this was a Republican in office, I'm positive that this thread would be filled with all the same people saying opposite things. |
You mean like Ronald Reagan? You do realize what he did? You don't think the Iranians saw that as a ransom?
If I were on the Right, the LAST thing I would be doing is trying to insinuate that others were trying to engage in double standards |
You're engaging in double standards.
Nowhere did I ever say that ransom was a good idea, no matter who did it.
I'm also not labeling Obama a villain for doing it. I can see why someone would want to do it.
I just think it's bad policy and I think it's even worse to try to pretend you didn't do it when you did. |
I don't think it was ransom. It was payment ordered by the court. If you have to deny it being ransom so not to open Pandora's box, so be it.
_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.
Last edited by jodeke on Tue Aug 23, 2016 2:45 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Reflexx
Franchise Player
Joined: 25 Jun 2005
Posts: 11163
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 23, 2016 12:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DaMuleRules wrote: | | Reflexx wrote: | | DaMuleRules wrote: | | Reflexx wrote: | Iran sees it as ransom. They received a benefit that they weren't going to otherwise receive.
I think people who buy into this "bad timing" narrative are being intellectually dishonest. That money was pretty much written off by Iran. They didn't expect to receive it. But whoa... have a few hostages and then a bunch of money and a nuclear deal is offered. How convenient.
If this was a Republican in office, I'm positive that this thread would be filled with all the same people saying opposite things. |
You mean like Ronald Reagan? You do realize what he did? You don't think the Iranians saw that as a ransom?
If I were on the Right, the LAST thing I would be doing is trying to insinuate that others were trying to engage in double standards |
You're engaging in double standards.
Nowhere did I ever say that ransom was a good idea, no matter who did it.
I'm also not labeling Obama a villain for doing it. I can see why someone would want to do it.
I just think it's bad policy and I think it's even worse to try to pretend you didn't do it when you did. |
It's hardly a double standard to point out the idea that this situation is some game changer that has never occurred before is false. |
Where was that claim made? You're making up stuff to argue against. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90307
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 23, 2016 3:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| OregonLakerGuy wrote: | | Omar Little wrote: | | OregonLakerGuy wrote: | Both parties are hypocritical. Supporters of each party always seem to think theirs is less so.
It is the nature of governance that you end up in situations that make you look bad. This ransom, and it was ransom, is a gigantic nothingburger in the scope of US relations. All administrations end up having to hold their nose and make deals with bad actors. I have little doubt that a Republican admin would have made the same deal or one like it. Meh |
The problem here is that your trying to equivocate "sides" about something that has an actual definition. A ransom is something you pay to get something. A sanction is something that you take away to get something. The money was already agreed to be paid (and belongs to Iran). The US threatened a sanction (withholding the money) unless they got what they wanted. It not only isn't a ransom, it's the opposite. |
Dictionary.com's definition is the redemption of a prisoner, slave, or kidnapped person, of captured goods, etc., for a price. This definition seems a reasonable one and if you do not see how this transaction fit that definition, then we will simply have to disagree. |
I'm generally fine with agreeing to disagree on opinions, since people are entitled to their own opinions, and if they want to quit discussing them, that's the polite tactic to take. But that doesn't really apply to definable facts. And there is a factually correct answer here that isn't subject to opinion, and that is that a ransom is a payment extorted from one party by the other by seizing something or someone they care about, and only giving back that something or someone when paid.
It does not apply to something that is already agreed to be paid, and then is threatened to be withheld. The key here is that if Iran had not seized people, they were getting paid the money. So the money is not a ransom.
You'd be far firmer in asserting that the US forced Iran to ransom its agreed upon money by throwing in some people it was holding. If anything, the US extorted the Iranians with their own money, it didn't cough up money for the prisoners.
A great example of how this works happened a number of years ago when the Federal government wanted the states to raise the drinking age to 21. When states held out, the feds threatened to withhold money it had previously and separately agreed to give those states for highway maintenance. Because the states needed that previously agreed upon money, and the feds were threatening to renege on giving it, the states caved and raised the drinking age. A lot of people found that unfair and bad practice, but none of them thought the Feds had ransomed the drinking age. They thought, rightly, that the feds had leveraged the states.
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90307
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 23, 2016 3:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
BTW, it is also poor form to ask to agree to disagree and then go back and make your point again. Basically, that's just saying, "I want to make and continue to make my argument, but I want you to unilaterally stop rebutting it".
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
OregonLakerGuy
Franchise Player
Joined: 23 Feb 2005
Posts: 13207
Location: Oregon
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 23, 2016 5:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Omar Little wrote: | | OregonLakerGuy wrote: | | Omar Little wrote: | | OregonLakerGuy wrote: | Both parties are hypocritical. Supporters of each party always seem to think theirs is less so.
It is the nature of governance that you end up in situations that make you look bad. This ransom, and it was ransom, is a gigantic nothingburger in the scope of US relations. All administrations end up having to hold their nose and make deals with bad actors. I have little doubt that a Republican admin would have made the same deal or one like it. Meh |
The problem here is that your trying to equivocate "sides" about something that has an actual definition. A ransom is something you pay to get something. A sanction is something that you take away to get something. The money was already agreed to be paid (and belongs to Iran). The US threatened a sanction (withholding the money) unless they got what they wanted. It not only isn't a ransom, it's the opposite. |
Dictionary.com's definition is the redemption of a prisoner, slave, or kidnapped person, of captured goods, etc., for a price. This definition seems a reasonable one and if you do not see how this transaction fit that definition, then we will simply have to disagree. |
I'm generally fine with agreeing to disagree on opinions, since people are entitled to their own opinions, and if they want to quit discussing them, that's the polite tactic to take. But that doesn't really apply to definable facts. And there is a factually correct answer here that isn't subject to opinion, and that is that a ransom is a payment extorted from one party by the other by seizing something or someone they care about, and only giving back that something or someone when paid.
It does not apply to something that is already agreed to be paid, and then is threatened to be withheld. The key here is that if Iran had not seized people, they were getting paid the money. So the money is not a ransom.
You'd be far firmer in asserting that the US forced Iran to ransom its agreed upon money by throwing in some people it was holding. If anything, the US extorted the Iranians with their own money, it didn't cough up money for the prisoners.
A great example of how this works happened a number of years ago when the Federal government wanted the states to raise the drinking age to 21. When states held out, the feds threatened to withhold money it had previously and separately agreed to give those states for highway maintenance. Because the states needed that previously agreed upon money, and the feds were threatening to renege on giving it, the states caved and raised the drinking age. A lot of people found that unfair and bad practice, but none of them thought the Feds had ransomed the drinking age. They thought, rightly, that the feds had leveraged the states. |
Hmmm. Good example. Will think on it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
OregonLakerGuy
Franchise Player
Joined: 23 Feb 2005
Posts: 13207
Location: Oregon
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 23, 2016 5:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Omar Little wrote: | | BTW, it is also poor form to ask to agree to disagree and then go back and make your point again. Basically, that's just saying, "I want to make and continue to make my argument, but I want you to unilaterally stop rebutting it". |
I really wasn't trying to address your point there. I was making a poor attempt at clarifying what about the situation bugged me, but point taken. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90307
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 23, 2016 5:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| OregonLakerGuy wrote: | | Omar Little wrote: | | BTW, it is also poor form to ask to agree to disagree and then go back and make your point again. Basically, that's just saying, "I want to make and continue to make my argument, but I want you to unilaterally stop rebutting it". |
I really wasn't trying to address your point there. I was making a poor attempt at clarifying what about the situation bugged me, but point taken. |
I was just coming back here to clarify something myself, that being that I might have sounded more hostile than I want to. You and I have discussed so many things over the years (and I respect your candor and your views on many things) that i don't tend to filter what i say to you or expect it in reverse, but i didn't want to leave that sounding like there was some animosity.
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52657
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 23, 2016 5:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Reflexx wrote: |
Where was that claim made? You're making up stuff to argue against. |
Nope:
| Reflexx wrote: | | New advisory because Iran may be targeting Americans now. Who didn't see this coming? |
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames
Jason Isbell
Man, do those lyrics resonate right now |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Reflexx
Franchise Player
Joined: 25 Jun 2005
Posts: 11163
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 23, 2016 5:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DaMuleRules wrote: | | Reflexx wrote: |
Where was that claim made? You're making up stuff to argue against. |
Nope:
| Reflexx wrote: | | New advisory because Iran may be targeting Americans now. Who didn't see this coming? |
|
And?
I saw it coming. You didn't?
What does that have to do with the arguments you've been making? Nothing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52657
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 23, 2016 6:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Reflexx wrote: | | DaMuleRules wrote: | | Reflexx wrote: |
Where was that claim made? You're making up stuff to argue against. |
Nope:
| Reflexx wrote: | | New advisory because Iran may be targeting Americans now. Who didn't see this coming? |
|
And?
I saw it coming. You didn't?
What does that have to do with the arguments you've been making? Nothing. |
And you're claiming that somehow that the political climate has changed and new threats are occurring because on an unprecedented event. That's not even remotely the case. But congrats to you on your undying dedication to ignoring reality. I can totally see why someone on your end of the spectrum would go there.
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames
Jason Isbell
Man, do those lyrics resonate right now |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jodeke
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 67712
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered a great way to learn.
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 23, 2016 6:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Reflexx wrote: | | DaMuleRules wrote: | | Reflexx wrote: |
Where was that claim made? You're making up stuff to argue against. |
Nope:
| Reflexx wrote: | | New advisory because Iran may be targeting Americans now. Who didn't see this coming? |
|
And?
I saw it coming. You didn't?
What does that have to do with the arguments you've been making? Nothing. |
I ask why you think this is something new. Iran has been targeting Americans and Iranian Americans for years. You say now like it's new.
_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90307
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 23, 2016 7:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jodeke wrote: | | Reflexx wrote: | | DaMuleRules wrote: | | Reflexx wrote: |
Where was that claim made? You're making up stuff to argue against. |
Nope:
| Reflexx wrote: | | New advisory because Iran may be targeting Americans now. Who didn't see this coming? |
|
And?
I saw it coming. You didn't?
What does that have to do with the arguments you've been making? Nothing. |
I ask why you think this is something new. Iran has been targeting Americans and Iranian Americans for years. You say now like it's new. |
Well, to be fair, the problem with Iran was nonexistent until about 8 years ago. I'm sure Giuliani would be happy to verify that.
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52657
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 23, 2016 7:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Omar Little wrote: | | jodeke wrote: | | Reflexx wrote: | | DaMuleRules wrote: | | Reflexx wrote: |
Where was that claim made? You're making up stuff to argue against. |
Nope:
| Reflexx wrote: | | New advisory because Iran may be targeting Americans now. Who didn't see this coming? |
|
And?
I saw it coming. You didn't?
What does that have to do with the arguments you've been making? Nothing. |
I ask why you think this is something new. Iran has been targeting Americans and Iranian Americans for years. You say now like it's new. |
Well, to be fair, the problem with Iran was nonexistent until about 8 years ago. I'm sure Giuliani would be happy to verify that. |
Rudy should be happy to remember what he had for breakfast.
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames
Jason Isbell
Man, do those lyrics resonate right now |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Reflexx
Franchise Player
Joined: 25 Jun 2005
Posts: 11163
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 23, 2016 9:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DaMuleRules wrote: | | Reflexx wrote: | | DaMuleRules wrote: | | Reflexx wrote: |
Where was that claim made? You're making up stuff to argue against. |
Nope:
| Reflexx wrote: | | New advisory because Iran may be targeting Americans now. Who didn't see this coming? |
|
And?
I saw it coming. You didn't?
What does that have to do with the arguments you've been making? Nothing. |
And you're claiming that somehow that the political climate has changed and new threats are occurring because on an unprecedented event. That's not even remotely the case. But congrats to you on your undying dedication to ignoring reality. I can totally see why someone on your end of the spectrum would go there. |
It has changed. They're emboldened right now.
You can deny it all you want. I didnt expect otherwise. I just know how different your tune would be if it was a Republican in office. It would be far more aggressive than my tone. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jodeke
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 67712
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered a great way to learn.
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2016 11:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Omar Little wrote: | | jodeke wrote: | | Reflexx wrote: | | DaMuleRules wrote: | | Reflexx wrote: |
Where was that claim made? You're making up stuff to argue against. |
Nope:
| Reflexx wrote: | | New advisory because Iran may be targeting Americans now. Who didn't see this coming? |
|
And?
I saw it coming. You didn't?
What does that have to do with the arguments you've been making? Nothing. |
I ask why you think this is something new. Iran has been targeting Americans and Iranian Americans for years. You say now like it's new. |
Well, to be fair, the problem with Iran was nonexistent until about 8 years ago. I'm sure Giuliani would be happy to verify that. |
The problem is not new.
_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dubaholic1
Star Player
Joined: 23 Dec 2004
Posts: 3016
Location: Quality over Quantity
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
non-player zealot
Franchise Player
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Posts: 21365
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 02, 2016 11:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| the association wrote: | | I'm almost mesmerized here ... all of the jousting back and forth on this issue, most glossing over the fact that we withheld the funds in question for 35+ years! As if to say, "Well, of course, we're the U.S.! We just, you know, we labelled them extremists or terrorists or whatever we deemed sufficient to co-opt their $$$, and then we refused to turn over their (bleep) funds for nearly four decades!" |
They also bought upwards of 20 Tomcat jets from us when the Shah was in power and US servicemen and/or pilots were over there assisting their new Yankee jet program (like Mav and Iceman). When the revolution hit, the Americans high-tailed it outta there, but not before some slicksters on our side managed to take out some computer parts from each jet which made them incapable of firing. HA! There's no official explanation for how that happened, but c'mon. Anyway, there was built-in obsolescence even for F14 jets and we knew that the Iranians weren't going to be able to keep up with all the maintenance those jets required, nor would they have access to upgraded parts, etc. I'm wondering if any of that 400 mill was related to that ball o wax.
_________________
GOAT MAGIC REEL
SEDALE TRIBUTE
EDDIE DONX! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dubaholic1
Star Player
Joined: 23 Dec 2004
Posts: 3016
Location: Quality over Quantity
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 02, 2016 11:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
Geo-politics are such a murky thing to begin with.
I highly doubt that the press knows everything about this Iran deal so even trying to speculate on it is really useless until all the facts come out. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lakersken80
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Aug 2009
Posts: 38789
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 02, 2016 11:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| non-player zealot wrote: | | the association wrote: | | I'm almost mesmerized here ... all of the jousting back and forth on this issue, most glossing over the fact that we withheld the funds in question for 35+ years! As if to say, "Well, of course, we're the U.S.! We just, you know, we labelled them extremists or terrorists or whatever we deemed sufficient to co-opt their $$$, and then we refused to turn over their (bleep) funds for nearly four decades!" |
They also bought upwards of 20 Tomcat jets from us when the Shah was in power and US servicemen and/or pilots were over there assisting their new Yankee jet program (like Mav and Iceman). When the revolution hit, the Americans high-tailed it outta there, but not before some slicksters on our side managed to take out some computer parts from each jet which made them incapable of firing. HA! There's no official explanation for how that happened, but c'mon. Anyway, there was built-in obsolescence even for F14 jets and we knew that the Iranians weren't going to be able to keep up with all the maintenance those jets required, nor would they have access to upgraded parts, etc. I'm wondering if any of that 400 mill was related to that ball o wax. |
Sadly, a lot of the F-14's we had were sent to the crusher after they retired because we were afraid of them falling into the Iranian military's hands so they could continue their upkeep of the F-14's. The F-14's were so superior to many modern day fighters that Iran decided to keep jerry rigging parts to keep them in service than to buy a modern Chinese fighter. I would not say it was obsolescence that did in the F-14 considering it was a very complicated weapon system. Those swing wings were very maintenance intensive that the Navy decided to replace them with the F-18 Super Hornet despite shorter range and less payload capability. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
non-player zealot
Franchise Player
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Posts: 21365
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 04, 2016 9:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| lakersken80 wrote: | | non-player zealot wrote: | | the association wrote: | | I'm almost mesmerized here ... all of the jousting back and forth on this issue, most glossing over the fact that we withheld the funds in question for 35+ years! As if to say, "Well, of course, we're the U.S.! We just, you know, we labelled them extremists or terrorists or whatever we deemed sufficient to co-opt their $$$, and then we refused to turn over their (bleep) funds for nearly four decades!" |
They also bought upwards of 20 Tomcat jets from us when the Shah was in power and US servicemen and/or pilots were over there assisting their new Yankee jet program (like Mav and Iceman). When the revolution hit, the Americans high-tailed it outta there, but not before some slicksters on our side managed to take out some computer parts from each jet which made them incapable of firing. HA! There's no official explanation for how that happened, but c'mon. Anyway, there was built-in obsolescence even for F14 jets and we knew that the Iranians weren't going to be able to keep up with all the maintenance those jets required, nor would they have access to upgraded parts, etc. I'm wondering if any of that 400 mill was related to that ball o wax. |
Sadly, a lot of the F-14's we had were sent to the crusher after they retired because we were afraid of them falling into the Iranian military's hands so they could continue their upkeep of the F-14's. The F-14's were so superior to many modern day fighters that Iran decided to keep jerry rigging parts to keep them in service than to buy a modern Chinese fighter. I would not say it was obsolescence that did in the F-14 considering it was a very complicated weapon system. Those swing wings were very maintenance intensive that the Navy decided to replace them with the F-18 Super Hornet despite shorter range and less payload capability. |
Hm. You in the business or are you an aviation/jet aficionado?
The Tomcat was one of those rare perfect storms of design. It's true these things are designed and built by geniuses, but the same goes for the first variants of the Aardvark which came before it. The F14 fit the desired purpose of quickly dispatching Russian aircraft and ships that had new missile technology that made US ships and carriers vulnerable. The geniuses at Grumman just nailed the design in so many ways, it was like overkill to the Nth degree until we started proliferating them and also with the slippage of classified info and specs thru spies that always happens. The radar capabilities of the F14 were a marvel, I think they used both Doppler and pulse systems that allowed it to track many objects. You probably know that during testing, it successfully tracked 6 drones and shot down 5 of them. As far as the wings, iirc, it was also the first of its kind with computer controls which varied their position based on Mach number. It was back in the late 60s that they designed computerized controls for something so major. Amazing planes. Twin tails and dual engines as well. Looked cool too. And Maverick was comfortable leaving his wingman all the time because of how advanced they were.
_________________
GOAT MAGIC REEL
SEDALE TRIBUTE
EDDIE DONX! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
