Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 28

Thread: Gen. Mark A. Welsh III, F-22 pilot to Iranian F-4, "You really ought to go home,”

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,153

    Gen. Mark A. Welsh III, F-22 pilot to Iranian F-4, "You really ought to go home,”

    U.S. F-22 stealth fighter pilot taunted Iranian F-4 Phantom combat planes over the Persian Gulf
    The episode happened in March 2013, few months after a two Sukhoi Su-25 attack planes operated by the Pasdaran (informal name of the IRGC – the Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution) attempted to shoot down an American MQ-1 flying a routine surveillance flight in international airspace some 16 miles off Iran, the interception of the unmanned aircraft failed. After this attempted interception the Pentagon decided to escort the drones involved in ISR (intelligence surveillance reconnaissance) missions with fighter jets (either F-18 Hornets with the CVW 9 embarked on the USS John C. Stennis whose Carrier Strike Group is currently in the U.S. 5th Fleet area of responsibility or F-22 Raptors like those deployed to Al Dhafra in the UAE.

    New details about the episode were recently disclosed by Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh who on Sept. 17 not only confirmed that the fighter jets providing HVAAE (High Value Air Asset Escort) were F-22 stealth fighters but also said that:

    “He [the Raptor pilot] flew under their aircraft [the F-4s] to check out their weapons load without them knowing that he was there, and then pulled up on their left wing and then called them and said ‘you really ought to go home’”

    If the episode went exactly as Welsh described it, it was something more similar to Maverick’s close encouter with Russian Mig-28s in Top Gun movie than a standard interception.
    http://theaviationist.com/2013/09/19.../#.UjsinlOE5O_

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...hy-stunt-you-/
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    He was there to scare them off a us drone? Kinda defeats the purpose of a drone eh?

    Good job USAF .. ya scared a 3rd rate air force.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yK0P1Bk8Cx4

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    He was there to scare them off a us drone? Kinda defeats the purpose of a drone eh?...
    That was the biggest thought I took away from that, too.

    They are threatening our unmanned, expendable aircraft? Better send up some manned escorts and hope they survive!
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    518
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    He was there to scare them off a us drone? Kinda defeats the purpose of a drone eh?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yK0P1Bk8Cx4
    That was my first thought as well. I guess our military believes the danger to our pilots is minimal. Given how this event turned out, that seems to be an accurate assessment. Pretty good intimidation value as well.

  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by markand View Post
    That was my first thought as well. I guess our military believes the danger to our pilots is minimal.
    Then what the hell do we need drones for?

    Oh yeah, to feed the military industrial complex, the largest nonproductive sector of our economy.

  6. #6
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    They need real people to die. So they can sell a war to the public.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    Then what the hell do we need drones for?

    Oh yeah, to feed the military industrial complex, the largest nonproductive sector of our economy.
    I agree ... if dictator, I would slash military spending 75% ... then we could not get into unnecessary conflicts (including actions against US citizens)

  8. #8
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    I agree ... if dictator, I would slash military spending 75% ... then we could not get into unnecessary conflicts (including actions against US citizens)
    How about slash it by 90%?
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  9. #9
    Regular Member Rusty Young Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Αrida Zona
    Posts
    1,648
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    How about slash it by 90%?
    Slash it by 95%, reduce standing army to bare minimum, and focus efforts on educating and providing incentives for the CITIZENS to be minutemen. Let future wars be purely defensive.

    "I would never invade the United States. There would be a gun behind every blade of grass." - Isoroku Yamamoto, Commander-in-Chief of the Imperial Japanese Navy during WWII.

  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by Rusty Young Man View Post
    Slash it by 95%, reduce standing army to bare minimum, and focus efforts on educating and providing incentives for the CITIZENS to be minutemen. Let future wars be purely defensive.
    Best proposal so far. 95% seems about right.

  11. #11
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    Best proposal so far. 95% seems about right.
    Devote 99% of the 10% left over to maintaining out Navy, per the constitution. 1% to maintaining training bases.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  12. #12
    Regular Member Logan 5's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    690
    Why don't we slash it 100%, get rid of all our weapons, and make not only the sovereign citizens happy, but the pee partiers and anarchists and communists and the military of every country that wants to hit America?

    So while the anarchists and sovereign citizens and pee partiers are parading around with the toys they bought themselves with the tax dollars they saved the Chinese, Russian, Mexican and Lord know who else come in and take over.


    It's not the 1700s or the 1800. Hell even the 1900s are gone. It's 2013 and the times have changed. They couldn't got from London to WDC or NYC in a matter of hours back then. What about going from NYC to Adelaide or Brisbane? Times have changed and so much our defensive capabilities. It's no longer train a soldier for a few days and he's ready to go fight. Now we're talking about months, at best. That F-22 pilot, he didn't just hop into that plane straight from his horse drawn buggy. That takes YEARS of training. He wants it as a career, fine. Have at it. Some people make good farmers and some people make good fighter pilots. We need fine highly skilled pilots like him.
    Lifetime member, Gun Owners of America (http://gunowners.org/)
    Lifetime member, Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership (http://jpfo.org/)
    Member, Fraternal Order of Eagles since 8/02 (http://www.foe.com/)

    Registering gun owners to prevent crime, is like registering Jews to prevent a HOLOCAUST.

    I am not a lawyer in real life, or in play life. So anything I say is for debate and discussion only.

  13. #13
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by Logan 5 View Post
    Why don't we slash it 100%, get rid of all our weapons, and make not only the sovereign citizens happy, but the pee partiers and anarchists and communists and the military of every country that wants to hit America?

    So while the anarchists and sovereign citizens and pee partiers are parading around with the toys they bought themselves with the tax dollars they saved the Chinese, Russian, Mexican and Lord know who else come in and take over.


    It's not the 1700s or the 1800. Hell even the 1900s are gone. It's 2013 and the times have changed. They couldn't got from London to WDC or NYC in a matter of hours back then. What about going from NYC to Adelaide or Brisbane? Times have changed and so much our defensive capabilities. It's no longer train a soldier for a few days and he's ready to go fight. Now we're talking about months, at best. That F-22 pilot, he didn't just hop into that plane straight from his horse drawn buggy. That takes YEARS of training. He wants it as a career, fine. Have at it. Some people make good farmers and some people make good fighter pilots. We need fine highly skilled pilots like him.
    Great, then amend the constitution to allow for an air-force.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  14. #14
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318
    Quote Originally Posted by Logan 5 View Post
    Why don't we slash it 100%, get rid of all our weapons, and make not only the sovereign citizens happy, but the pee partiers and anarchists and communists and the military of every country that wants to hit America?

    So while the anarchists and sovereign citizens and pee partiers are parading around with the toys they bought themselves with the tax dollars they saved the Chinese, Russian, Mexican and Lord know who else come in and take over.


    It's not the 1700s or the 1800. Hell even the 1900s are gone. It's 2013 and the times have changed. They couldn't got from London to WDC or NYC in a matter of hours back then. What about going from NYC to Adelaide or Brisbane? Times have changed and so much our defensive capabilities. It's no longer train a soldier for a few days and he's ready to go fight. Now we're talking about months, at best. That F-22 pilot, he didn't just hop into that plane straight from his horse drawn buggy. That takes YEARS of training. He wants it as a career, fine. Have at it. Some people make good farmers and some people make good fighter pilots. We need fine highly skilled pilots like him.
    Exactly, that person was trained to become a fighter pilot, he wasn't born that way. And in the absence of a federal government, people will still be born non-fighter-pilots, and will still be trained to be fighter pilots. What's so special about a bunch of guys collecting taxes at gunpoint that only they are capable of training someone to fly a plane with missiles underneath? Nothing.

    I can only imagine, there were a group of guys around the revolutionary war period, who were adamant that the average Joe was just too damned stupid to know how to use a cannon, and we needed a federalized military to defend us. I mean, this isn't the medieval days anymore, these aren't bows and arrows we're shooting. These are sophisticated killing machines.

    And then during the medieval days... We can't just have "trained citizens" to defend our nation! It takes years of training from childhood to come to meet the standards of a longbowmen in the King's army. There's no way our nation could be defended by the average peasant. We need the King and bureaucracy in order to have a capable military. After all, we aren't fighting with sticks and stones anymore, we have swords, catapults, trebuchets, ballistas, longbows, crossbows... Peasants aren't capable of utilizing these advanced weapon systems.

    Never mind that 100% of American military men were at some point just a mere citizen you speak of. Not a single one of them was born a soldier. They became soldiers. And in the absence of a federal government, there would be nothing stopping them from doing the same.

    In fact, as with most things, most likely, in the absence of an absolute monopoly, the market would probably produce superior soldiers and fighting forces.

    It's silly to say that something like a military or capable militia wouldn't exist in a freer society. It absolutely would. Why? Because you want it to. What would prevent a capable militia or military from being created in a free society, where the majority of people want one, and are willing to spend their money to get one? What would stop it? Nothing.

    Silly billy. The "times have changed" argument is much over-used, and unfortunately falls a bit short of the mark. It is an argument stemmed from fear. Fear of losing the security of a standing military under the control and responsibility of another person, which you don't have to worry about if you so choose, even though the reality of the matter is that the security provided is a false one.

    Edit: Never mind the fact that a large percentage of American fighting forces overseas have been private contractors. Never mind the fact that the majority of major technological military advancements have been made in the private sector. Never mind the fact that in your very jet example, likely the entire payload of that fighter plane was designed and developed by a private company. But no no, private companies cannot provide what it takes to defend our nation. That company that designed the fighter plane - they wouldn't be able to train someone to actually fly it. Only the capable minds of the US Air Force or Navy, minds which wouldn't exist if it weren't for the Air Force or Navy, could possibly train someone how to fly a plane tactically and in battle.
    Last edited by stealthyeliminator; 09-23-2013 at 11:06 AM.

  15. #15
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    Devote 99% of the 10% left over to maintaining out Navy, per the constitution. 1% to maintaining training bases.
    Definitely.

  16. #16
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by stealthyeliminator View Post
    In fact, as with most things, most likely, in the absence of an absolute monopoly, the market would probably produce superior soldiers and fighting forces.
    Actually, without the "competition" of constant war, a standing army is likely to become weak and ineffective anyway.

    If you doubt that, take a look at the video of the execution of the raid on Jose Guerena. My paintball crew from highschool routinely displayed better tactics and practice.

  17. #17
    Regular Member DocWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Mountain Home, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    1,968
    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    Then what the hell do we need drones for?

    Oh yeah, to feed the military industrial complex, the largest nonproductive sector of our economy.
    They need to work out the kinks in the drones so they can use them in the USA to spy and target Americans starting with the trouble makers that are trying to keep the US Constitution from being shredded......so don't look up.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Urban Skeet City, Alabama
    Posts
    897
    I'd conscript everyone, teach them some basics, require everyone to keep a gun and ammo provided by the country, and to come to the defense of the realm. And then, let the world do what it wants without trying to be World Police.
    It takes a village to raise an idiot.

  19. #19
    Activist Member JamesCanby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Alexandria, VA at www.NoVA-MDSelfDefense.com
    Posts
    1,543
    Quote Originally Posted by Kirbinator View Post
    I'd conscript everyone, teach them some basics, require everyone to keep a gun and ammo provided by the country, and to come to the defense of the realm. And then, let the world do what it wants without trying to be World Police.
    So you and others seem to think that we can do away with our military just by arming the citizenry? Are you the same people who posit that those who are talking insurrection against this government wouldn't stand a chance against our military?

    So if we do what you suggest and simply arm and authorize civilians, what chance would we have against modernly-armed invaders?

  20. #20
    Regular Member DocWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Mountain Home, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    1,968
    Quote Originally Posted by Kirbinator View Post
    I'd conscript everyone, teach them some basics, require everyone to keep a gun and ammo provided by the country, and to come to the defense of the realm. And then, let the world do what it wants without trying to be World Police.
    Nice plan but the only flaw in it is that the goverment is crooked and it is harder to enslave the people if they are armed and trained to fight back. This is why the obama administration doesn't like or trust the military.

    QUOTE FROM 2009.

    (In the report, dated April 7 but begun last year, the Department of Homeland Security's intelligence section stated, "The return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks."

    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/..._to_veter.html

    A footnote that defined rightwing extremist groups as primarily hate-oriented or anti-government also stated, "It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.")
    Last edited by DocWalker; 09-30-2013 at 04:14 PM. Reason: Added source

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    460
    Quote Originally Posted by JamesCanby View Post
    So you and others seem to think that we can do away with our military just by arming the citizenry? Are you the same people who posit that those who are talking insurrection against this government wouldn't stand a chance against our military?

    So if we do what you suggest and simply arm and authorize civilians, what chance would we have against modernly-armed invaders?
    Being a veteran, I am not one for doing away with the military...so I am biased.

    But you mentioned modernly-armed invaders...which ones?

  22. #22
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by Bernymac View Post
    Being a veteran, I am not one for doing away with the military...so I am biased.

    But you mentioned modernly-armed invaders...which ones?
    There are many of us veterans on here.

    I said drop the military.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    460
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    There are many of us veterans on here.

    I said drop the military.
    I really don't give a rat's ass about your opinion of having a military or not and it is just about as relevant as my bias. Wasn't my question though.

  24. #24
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    There are many of us veterans on here.

    I said drop the military.
    +1 sediment

    I'm a veteran ... cold war is over, time to shrink our defense budget to about 10-25% of what it currently is...

    who's going to attack us? Canada? We have Palin watching the northwest area, that's good enough for me.

  25. #25
    Regular Member DocWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Mountain Home, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    1,968
    The goverment should be limited to the military, forign affairs (minus us giving them money), and national parks. They need to quit intruding into peoples lives and let the states run themselves. IMHO

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •