0 $
2,500 $
5,000 $
993 $
AUGUST 2020

U.S. F-35 Warplanes Pounded ISIS Hideouts In Iraq’s Nineveh (Videos)

Donate

The U.S.-led coalition announced on July 4 that it had launched a series of airstrikes on ISIS cells in the northern Iraqi province of Nineveh.

The airstrikes, which took place on June 24, were carried out by U.S. F-35 stealth combat aircraft. ISIS hideouts and tunnels in the Makhmur mountain range were struck. The results of the airstrikes were not released.

Yehia Rasool, a spokesperson for the Iraqi Commander-in-Chief, revealed that the airstrikes were carried out according to “accurate Iraqi intelligence information.”

The Makhmur mountains are teeming with ISIS cells. From there, the terrorists launch attacks against Iraqi government forces on a regular basis. The U.S.-led coalition targeted the mountains several times this year.

Last month, Joint Task Force of US-led international coalition reportedly conducted 59 operations and 12 strikes against Daesh in Iraq and Syria. As a result, 39 Daesh leaders and 123 detainees were killed.

U.S. F-35 Warplanes Pounded ISIS Hideouts In Iraq’s Nineveh (Videos)

Source: Twitter account of the Special Ops Joint Task Force-OIR (Iraq/Syria) @SOJTFOIR

Iraqi government forces are now intensifying their operations against ISIS remnants throughout Iraq. The Iraqi Air Force and the coalition’s air force are playing an increasing role in these operations. As a result, the group’s cells are sustaining serious losses.

MORE ON THIS TOPIC:

Donate

SouthFront

Do you like this content? Consider helping us!

  • Lone Ranger

    Good job.
    But why use stealth jets?
    Does isis have advanced radar systems?

    • Liberal guy

      Hahahahaha exactly good sense of humour. an sarcastic joke.

    • Liberal guy

      Probably testing there so called invincible aircraft.

      • FlorianGeyer

        The US F35 is an ideal aircraft for all of NATO as they are only deployed against adversaries who cannot shoot back :)

        • Liberal guy

          True

      • Justin

        The only true test would be against China or Russia!
        But wont be no war with Russia ever!
        But china war is very likely! More likely than u can imagine!

        2 super Carriers in the South China sea
        1 Super carrier near japan
        1 Helicopter Carrier near japan

        5 to 7 attack subs near Taiwan

        plus the armada of ships that accompany such carriers
        plus aerial defences sent to taiwan!

        This is either preparation or its protection!
        They dont want trump to win!

        Globalists are panicked!

        • Ronald

          A war with China would be tragic for all the world, the US is not the only one that relies on them for almost everything.

          • Justin

            lol of course it is! no sane person would argue otherwise!
            But it doesnt mean it wont happen!
            u can research every world war and study every single pre-cursor that lead to it! Trade wars, currency wars, financed dissent, old power meet new rising power etc etc etc!
            Every single box has been ticked!
            look at whats happening in Hong Kong, NK.
            look at the USA (within Dem states)

            winner takes all!

            its on! its very likely to happen! The only way it doesnt happen is if one side capitulates! the US election is what a lot of this shit depends on!

            my money is on China attacking Taiwan before the US election! Yes as always each side will blame one another as to who did what first! its all bla bla bla! in the end it will be china attacking Taiwan and trying to get it back!

            Some shit will go down within Australia too (my opinion, im from Australia)

            China is not the “good guy” or the innocent guy! u have been completely duped on that! u cant sit here on this site and say u hate israel, jews and globalists and at the same time say “china is the good guy”! lol they have been propped up by these people! they are the NEW USA! The new HQ for Globalists!

            there is an INSANE amount of info on this out there, but youre on the wrong website lol

    • FlorianGeyer

      I am thinking exactly the same thing :)

    • Justin

      Good point!
      What i would like to know is if they are F-35A’s or F-35C’s!
      If they were F-35C’s then id say it practice for ship based F-35 pilots!
      F-35 pilots need to practice their craft! Whats the best way to practice? Real world?
      testing, testing, testing and then, more testing!

      if a China war ramps up, it would likely involved all F-35 types!
      The F-35A airforce based
      The F-35B STOVL based on most Helicopter carriers
      The F-35C Carrier based ships!

      All of these pilots need as much practice as they can get! A war with China could be just around the corner!

      • Lone Ranger

        True, but an F-16 could have done the same job for 1/5th the price.
        F-35s are increadebly maintenance needy.
        For every hour flight it needs around 40 hour maintenance.

        • Justin

          i 100% agree!
          but does the F-16 stand up in a fight with SU-35?
          Does it stand up in a fight with Mig-29?
          Does it stand up in a fight with SU-30MKK?
          SU-27?

          If there is a war with china on the horizon, would u want your pilots and planes tested?
          whats the best way to test?
          practice makes perfect!

          • Lone Ranger

            Not really.
            But according to RAND China would win an air battle.
            Their losses would be around 50-60% vs 80-90% of the U.S.
            Given they are fighting at home of course.
            Long range radars and SAM systems would give China the upper hand.
            And the U.S. wouldnt be able to take them out first because China similar to Russia has an advanced layered SAM System, not as advanced or numerous as the Russian but still very capeble.
            But the bigger problem is they have long range cruise missiles, they can destroy carrier strike groups from the distance, airfields too in a radious of 3000km, enough to deny any strike coming from a carrier based jet.
            So that leaves the U.S. only with two options, cruise missiles or tactical nuke strike.
            But south Korea and Japan would burn in that case.

          • Justin

            attacking Taiwan might be different!
            Also remember it would involve so many other nations!
            China would be completely cut off from trade while the world still operates!
            Plus all it takes is a damaged 3 Gorges dam and its game over!

          • Brian Michael Bo Pedersen

            F-16 and Su-27/30/35 is two different platforms meant for two different missions.
            F-16 vs MiG-29/35 would come down to the pilot and not the platform.

            F-16 equals the MiG-29/35 and F-15 equals Su-27/30/35.

            F-16/MiG-29/35 is relative cheap and simple jack of all trades planes, like a VW and Toyota Hi Ace.
            They just works and you can fix them with a shoestring and a screwdriver.
            F-15 and Su-27/30/35 are interceptors/fleetprotectors, they excel in being long legged, long eyed and long armed.

          • Justin

            i hear what your saying here and i know u are getting into specifics! But its not the point im making and we are both digressing!

            i have made my point on why i think its not such a bad idea to get as much real world practice using the F-35 even when its against an enemy who has no radar! Well u could argue that u could test it against Iraqi radar (even though they are friendlies officially) and against Iran’s radar! There maybe something they can see that illustrates weather or not the stealth works! plus bombing raids in an F-35 with its expensive helmet system would be completely different to an F-16 for which im sure has already been perfected! you want your new pilots flying your new planes in as real world situations as u can get! no matter the cost!

            As for which type of aircrafts would fight in the skies in a theoretical war against China…..
            Well u meet in the sky whoever u meet in the sky right?

            What i am saying is that an F-16 is / was an air to air fighter!
            So is the SU-35 mainly!

            i know most planes are multirole now!

            But when u compare which planes would you want in the sky in a pure air to air fight….. which one would u want to be in if u were the USA or china!

            Forget the F-35 for a minute and lets pretend it doesnt exist!

            u have an F-16, F-15 and an FA-18
            Against an SU-27, Mig-29, SU-30mkk and an SU-35

            yes it depends on pilots etc etc etc!
            thats irrelevant!
            its which plane is the most survivable and likely to win!

            Now re-introduce the F-35 into this!
            if u are a yankee and u believe the F-35 is the real deal…. you dont want to be in one of the above planes do u! why be in a scenario where the airfight is slightly in your favour or slightly in China’s favour! u want it to be in YOUR favour at the highest possible ratio!

            Therefore fuck meeting these Mig-29’s and SU-35’s in the skies over china! RIGHT? fuck that! give me the best fucking plane (THAT HOPEFULLY WORKS) so i dont have to meet them AT ALL!

            Thats what i am saying!
            i know which planes are multirole, air superiority and bla bla bla! i know the comparisons between and A-10 and an SU-25! for all of these planes!

            im saying, give me the best tech, the best training, the best weapons, put all the advantage in my favour! make it so i see him long before he see’s me! Let me win this aerial war easy! Therefore let me practice no matter how much it costs! because if my side can get a 2:1 win ratio….. then we are happy Right? if better than 2:1 then we are very happy! right?

            So in the end, does 5 times the cost of this “real world practice sortie” pay off in a war thats just around the corner in a plane thats just come out of the oven?

            5 times the cost now could mean 100 times the saving later!
            u know what i mean!

          • Brian Michael Bo Pedersen

            “yes it depends on pilots etc etc etc!
            thats irrelevant!
            its which plane is the most survivable and likely to win!”

            Any platform is basically just a collection of nuts and bolts, the pilot and his/hers training is EVERYTHING!
            Proved again and again through tough reallife experience, the pilots training is thee deciding factor in war, no matter if the war is fought in the air, on the seas or on the ground.
            Ask the USAF pilots in Vietnam, ask the Israeli pilots in 67 and 73, ask the iraqis in the 80´s, etc etc.

            I agree that you should take every chance you have to test a new platform in a real scenario.
            Only in a real scenario does a new weapon show its real colors.

            And yes, i know that it is a plausible scenario that an F-16 and Flanker will meet in a war, but thats why F-16 pilots never fly alone, they have escorts, and that why Flanker never fly alone, they have someone to check “below the belt”.
            No single weapon can effectively be used by it self, the phrase “All-arms cooperation” was coined and vital since WW1, if not before.

            First qoute:
            “…there is no such thing as an invisible airplane, in the radar spectrum or in any other. Signatures can be suppressed; the cannot be eliminated.”

            Second qoute:
            “…technology cannot be divorced from tactics. Stupid tactics can negate seemingly overwhelming technological advantages, while intelligent tactics applied in a timely and decisive manner can overcome seemingly crippling technological deficiencies.”

            Page 242
            “Gulf War Air Power Survey, Volume 4, Weapons, tactics and training and space operations”
            By Washington, D.C. 1998
            ISBN: 9781478146544

            PS.
            Im not a yank and i dont believe that the F-35, in its current state, is the wunderwaffe media has made it to, and will it ever be, i doubt it.
            The F-35 has first flight in 2003 i believe, and today, 17 years later, its still not in a operational state, except for some very selected, isolated, dictated and “manufactured” situations.

          • Justin

            so from what i read you agree with most of what i said!

            Here is what i said:
            Practice, practice, practice as much as u can in real world scenarios
            give me the most training
            give me the best tech

            Cool, we agree on that

            As for F-35. i know its not a fighter! it relies mainly on stealth and sensors! No plane is invisible! i know that, everyone knows that! it just “delays detection” making it harder to detect and track! Then, from what i hear….. the person who detects the other first and shoots first usually has the advantage!

            Basically thats their belief when it comes to stealth! We see u before u see us! We lock onto u from a distance before u can get a lock on us! Then its goodnight Irene!

            Right? In a nutshell! Right?

            i am not a pilot! i just read! Everyone is building stealth or Trying to build stealth (including ships and subs).
            Even weapons are becoming stealth!
            i am not in the US intelligence dept therefore i have no idea if this trillion dollar plane works or not! Russia just dropped the price of its SU-57 to 45 million dollars (half that of the SU-35) so im guessing they have problems! Maybe it doesnt work and its all bullshit! maybe they have to rely on older (yet updated tech) for which the fall back would be the F-16, F-15 and the FA-18 with all its upgrades and variants!

            only real world war will expose this! however, they exist! and u need practice! as much as u can get!

            im not sure the Americans are that stupid to continue throwing money into this plane if it doesnt work! they have pulled the plug on many other designs that cost a fortune! But if they are truly as dumb as everyone says they are then i guess its their loss! but then again, if it works and gives them an advantage, well it could mean the difference between a thousand years of Communist rule or 1000 years of Democracy!

            in the end, they have stealth as well as other formidable aircraft! so i dont see it as a loss! it just gives them that extra option!

            i agree with u on pilot training! of course i do! but u left out tech! tech has also always proven to be a deciding factor! History has proven this over and over!

            Radar (brits used it in WW2)
            the Spitfire
            The enigma was great
            The computer which countered the enigma

            Tech has always meant the difference between win and lose! so please do not give me this crap about nuts and bolts! thats total bullshit! i KNOW pilot training matters! but u know what matters? BOTH!

            i dont care how good a pilot u are, u are not going to win an air battle if u are in a Mig-15 vs an SU-35 lol. i know thats an extreme example of very new and old tech, but its still and example!

            so i disagree with u on nuts and bolts! ive given u enough examples that shows tech makes a huge difference! in fact i would go even further to say that tech makes a bigger difference than pilot training! because in the end it could be the tech in which avoids a dog fight all together!

            Nice try though! but i think im right and u are wrong on the “nuts and bolts” statement! Was the Tiger tank nuts and bolts? the T-34? i KNOW… u need trainging and tactics but guess what?? Training and tactics are based on the capabilities of the actual hardware! if u have sloped armour and your enemy does not, doesnt your training and tactics now prefer a head on battle? when your a sherman tank, doesnt it mean your tactics and training change?

            When your an F-35 you aint training to be in a dog fight! because the aircraft is not designed for that! u are more likely trained to escape a dog fight (depending on who u come across in the sky)

            so yeah, your nuts and bolts comments seems a bit silly to me! i know u are trying to sound like an expert (even though im not) but i aint buying your BS!

          • Brian Michael Bo Pedersen

            Its clear that we agree on something and disagree on other subjects.
            You clearly misunderstood my “nuts and bolts” reference.

            The F-35 is meant as a fighter and trying to be an interceptor.
            The “F” in its name and the platforms it replaces should be an indicator to you that its a fighter, and its build and designed as a fighter.
            Contact Lockheed and NATO and they will tell you that its classified as a multirole fighter, with priority on air superiority; air superiority means shooting down enemys air assets = Fighter.

            T-34 had a advantage because of sloped armour yes, but it was only good because it simply flooded the german lines; the T-34 was build fast, cheap and simple:
            “Quantity has a quality in it self.” as Stalin said.

            My “BS”, as you so intelligently describe it, is from the pilot who got shot down, the man who pushed the button for the SA-3 and the government/country who ordered, paid for and flew the planes, ie: those who know.
            So if real life experience told from the very sources are “BS” to you, then i dont know what to tell you.

            If you want to hear the truth from someone who actually had hands on experience, lost friends in those situation and actually know what he say, then listen to me:
            In Iraq coalition high-tech state-of-the-art technology could not find freedomfighters launch sites, storage areas, IED´s and weapons caches.
            Super expensive sensors on drones, helicopters and planes could not find a IDF launch site hidden beneath a 1 eur sheet painted over, jammers could not prevent simple cellphone activated IED´s, could not track vehicles under a palmtree, could not see pallets of weapons 30cm under clear water, could not locate freedomfighters cellphones etc etc.
            Technology is super and a tool, but it must never replace simple logic, your own eyes and ears and simple human intelligence.

          • Justin

            Every “expert” on this site says the F-35 is a standoff fighter and mostly a bomber! not and air to air fighter! That part is left to the F-22 and other non stealth planes! Everyone knows Stealth declines the aerobatic requirements of a true dog fighter! This is common knowledge!

            F doesnt mean “pure air to air dog fighter”! it just means fighter! Which is a broad brush!
            Can it fight? yes, is it the preferred fighter? no!

            However the caveat is that u are a fighter, but a standoff fighter! you know what i mean by this but fuck it ill say it anyway!

            i detect u before u detect me! i shoot at u a long distance missile and then i get the fuck outta dodge!
            Thats where your F comes from!

            i know u get it…. i know u knew this before i even said it just now….
            but seriously, i think u are trying to save face and argue for no valid reason!

          • Brian Michael Bo Pedersen

            Im not quoting what “experts” on SF is saying, im qouting what the manufacture and the crew is saying.

            LO, the capability/ability you and many other call “stealth”, does not “declines the aerobatic requirements”, the more unstable a platform is by design, the more agile it is, you then use FBW to make it stable when needed.
            Read up on the development history of the F-16 and Su-27 family among others.

            I never said “F” means “pure air to air dog fighter”.
            The correct technical military terminology of a fighter actually defines several things, among those dogfighting by design.
            I believe that its a interceptor you confuse it with.

            “Standoff fighter”?
            Those two words are opposites in aviation, that is two very different things, once again, i think that you are confusing it with BVR on a interceptor.

            I presenting you with facts from the manufacture, the crew and hard earned experience, thats all.

            If i may; stop using exclamation points, “u” instead of “you” and foul language, it does not help you.

          • Justin

            If i may; stop using exclamation points, “u” instead of “you” and foul language, it does not help you.

            hi again,
            i agree my foul language should stop!
            My use of “u” instead of “you” will remain! i’m not writing for Times magazine here! its just a comments section of some far away website!

            i think you do know more than me (much more) on the F-35. My knowledge comes only from reading and doco’s!
            However, i believe the people i read and watch know what they are talking about! Even the negative views!
            Are you telling me that the F-35 was designed to fight in dog fights?
            i know how you will answer, it will be something like ” No, this plane is designed for multirole, to bomb, to fight, to be LO and shoot from afar!”
            fairly certain u’ll say that!

            But thats not what im reading and hearing!
            they are using the terms “Stand off fighter”!
            to fire from a far and detect you before they u detect me!
            plain and simple!
            also, it makes sense to me!
            if im in an F-35 and i have a very long range anti air missile OR a long range ground attack missile, then i want to shoot my missile as far away as possible! So that i am not detected at all OR if i am detected i am not tracked or targeted!
            If i am tracked and targeted then i want the distance between myself and your first missile shot at me to be buffer by hundreds of KM’s! So that even if your missile is headed right for my tail, i have already turned tailed, hit the supersonic thrusters and im getting out! hoping that i have a few hundred KM’s buffer behind me and moving out of the range of your counter attack!

            Now i see that my stealth is priority number one! whatever aerodynamic advantages i could have had in the design of my F-35 would have to take a back seat to my Stealth! Simply because ive got plenty of friends in other aircraft that can dog fight! i want to be stealth and remain stealth! i want u dead without even knowing i was there!

            So if u are saying that this plane was designed to have every advantage it could possibly have in a dog fight, then again, i am going to disagree with you! i might also send you some material stating this!

            But if u say this plane was designed to do everything then thats what i call a “cop out”!

            Every aircraft designed is designed for priority purposes! i know they call them multi-role but you know the F-16 is a dog fighter! you know the F-15 is a ground strike aircraft first and foremost!

            Dont come back with your crap about “design philosophies” and how the engineers of the F-16 hated other designs etc etc!

            the F-15 is a 2 seater and you know why!

            The F-16 is a single seater and much smaller and manoeuvrable!

            there is a difference even though both can do each others job, just not as good as the other!

            Therefore i believe whole heartedly that the F-35 can do the role of others just not as good as the others but it is very good AT WHAT IT WAS DESIGNED FOR, Stealth and stand off fighter!
            forget about mocking the label “stand off fighter” it has been used and u know what it means! its a layman’s term for people like me!

            i just think u cant come to the table on this! u are gonna sit there and say its an all rounder replacing all planes! and im gonna say “bullshit”!

            Then we can continue and send each other snippets we found on the internet stating otherwise!

          • Brian Michael Bo Pedersen

            When you are unable to use correct technical terms and a simple lack of knowledge of how aviation technology works, including FCR,BVR,RWR,MWS and LO among others, it shows how little you actually know of this subject and i dont see any reason to continue feeding you anger.

            The bottom line is that we can agree that we disagree.

            I will give you some advice for the future:
            1: Get your information on a giving subject from the men and women who deal with it everyday and those who had actual personal experience.
            Remember that no information is worth more than their source.

            2: Dont use foul language.

            3: Use correct technical terminology.

            4: Dont use exclamation points after almost each sentence.

            5: If you are quoting the other party in the discussion, do it correctly.

            6: Deliberately lowering your grammatic expressions does not make you look intelligent.

            Take care Justin.

          • Justin

            “When you are unable to use correct technical terms and a simple lack of knowledge of how aviation technology works, including FCR,BVR,RWR,MWS and LO among others”

            i said I…. AM….NOT….AN….EXPERT!
            However u claim to be “experienced”
            and i think an experienced person who says “nuts and bolts” when referring to the F-35 is full of shit!

            i disagree and im not an expert! i think youre a dumb Ex-whatever! thats what i think
            yes i know about the Osprey! i used Offsprey!

            But u know what? sometimes by accident i use “new” instead of “knew”!
            Sometimes i use “then” instead of than”.

            i know its unforgivable but like i said “this is not times magazine”.

            i call my grammar my own version of short hand!
            most people i know use “i” instead of “I”
            most people use “u” instead of “you” when texting each other! but i have never had a friend say “stop using the letter “u” to replace “you” because they arent Nazi’s!

            omg i just forgot to use ” ‘ ” when i wrote Arent! lol i should have wrote “aren’t”

            are u gonna get upset?

            arent vs aren’t? you gonna call the cops on me?

            You have a stick up your ass! Seriously! someone u dont even know and uve gone into grammar nazi mode!

            dont lose sleep over this!

          • Justin

            it wasnt Stalin who said “Quantity is a quality all on itself” and if he did, he got that from one of his Generals! it was him quoting someone else! go ahead and look it up!
            yes i know tech isnt everything!
            u can make blow up tanks like the brits did!
            make em out of wood!

            Some shit works some doesnt!
            (usa made a pen that works in space where as russia said “just use a fucking pencil”)
            Again u are making a shit argument here because u know damn well i can list tech that does work!
            Does GPS work?
            Can the US put a bomb up a camels ass? yes!
            do anti-air missiles work?
            does the offsprey fly 2.5 to 3 times the range of a normal helicopter BUT ALSO travel at around 550km per hour (about 250kmph more than a helicopter) and lift a good amount of weight!

            Think about the tech in that!
            3 times the range WHILST carrying much more weight than the next fastest chopper which is 250kmph slower!

            This is a HUGE difference!

            i know what u are trying to do! u are trying to save your original comment after stating my original comment was not so matter of fact!

            u agreed on the training
            but u dont agree on the tech!
            your arguement was “nuts and bolts” and tech doesnt always matter!
            but it also does matter and u are leaving that part out!

            i gave u examples and now u want to save face with counter arguements which in all due respect mean fuck all!

            BECAUSE IF TECH DIDNT MATTER, THEN ALL OF HISTORY WOULD HAVE NEVER SEEN ADVANCEMENTS IN:
            sword making
            bows
            arrows
            guns
            bullets
            rapid firing guns
            computers
            radar
            flight
            delta wings
            super sonic
            hyper sonic
            rockets
            etc etc etc etc etc

            so there is my counter claim and i know it shits all over yours!

            i know u will tell me “i didnt understand what u were trying to say” but i read clearly what u said!

            u said training and tactics, nuts and bolts, tech doesnt always work!

            and i counter with history, proven tech works and examples!

            dont get hot and flustered if u feel the need to save face! if u disagree just say it! or if u do agree but are too proud too, just swallow the pill and say “youre right”!
            because u cant argue with me on this!

            tech is important, perhaps [PERHAPS] the most important!
            tech gives u intelligence
            it enhances soldiering, kill rates, speed etc etc
            training is important which is why i said at the very start “they need to practice, thats why 5 x the cost sorties are an investment for future wars)

          • Brian Michael Bo Pedersen

            Why are you so angry Justin?

            If you are going to quote me, at least quote me correctly.
            Yes GPS often works.
            Laser, INS and GPS guided munition all have very good precision, when they work correctly, and each one have its advantages and disadvantages.
            If you mean SAM when you say “anti-air missiles”, then yes, they also works most of the time.
            If you mean the V-22 Osprey when you say “offsprey”, then it was never meant to replace all helicopters.
            Again, its a balance of pros and cons; the Osprey can carry more, faster and longer, but its too big, maintenance heavy and expensive.
            Several US Navy and USMC helicopters have had IFR/AAR capability for decades now, the US and the world learned the need for that, the hard way during the failed Iranian hostage “rescue” attempt.
            Apparently because the USAF forgot how important it it from their expensive experiences from the Vietnam war.

            Technology is not always the deciding factor, soldiers and crew have learned that the hard way, trying to say othervise is confirming that you never had any real-life experience yourself.
            You are implying that ive said “Technology does not matter”, i never said or implied that, i said from the start that technology is not always the deciding factor.

            “it enhances soldiering”, do you even know what the word “soldiering” means?

            To be honest Justin, im not the one getting “hot and flustered” (Allow me to assume that you meant “frustrated”?), its you with your foul language, exclamation marks and aggressive attitude.

          • Justin

            correct never had real life experience myself!
            apologise for the “offsprey” it was a late night lol

            i believe it was to Enhance capabilities the Helicopters could not offer.
            Nobody else has these and therefore its an advantage and its obvious why.

            okay so u agree Tech matters but also that it doesnt!
            i agree! sometimes just determination is the key!

            But i know tech is the advantage when BOTH nations are determined!
            Yes training too!

            Anyway are we going in circles now?
            This issue u have with my grammar and my language is weird. Do you think we are at school? Are you new here? if my grammar and language annoy you then you’ve come to the wrong place lol.

            i feel like im talking to my year 7 English teacher here!
            this is a one to one conversation, this is not going out for the world to see! The only person who is annoyed here is you!

            There is a label for people like you on most forums, its called “Grammar Nazi”!

            i dont think u are one but you are getting close. Calm the F down! All you are doing is showing me how much it annoys you.

            i hate people’s messy writing! i cant read it yet they can. so i dont tell them “write neatly dude”. Because they will just tell me to “shut the fuck up i am not writing this for your to read”. lol

            Anyway, we wont see eye to eye on this although i think u make safe statements. First your stating tech isnt everything, then youre saying you didint say it wasnt important. if you agreed tech is important then why were u saying all this other crap which only brought u back to saying tech is important?

            here is what i think…
            your reply / replies are so that you can EVENTUALLY state that you were an Ex-soldier or Ex-military. its like when people just NEED other people to think or know something about someone that was not at all required. Good for you buddy, youre an Ex something. But to be honest it doesnt get me hard.

            nothing impresses me anymore.

          • Brian Michael Bo Pedersen

            I never said that tech doesn matters, i said that it wasn the deciding factor.

            And its clear that you do not want to listen to those, including me, that have actual experience, therefore it is pointless to tell you how things works in real life.
            A bitter truth is better than a sweet lie Justin.

          • Justin

            i did listen i am reading everything u write!
            i just didnt agree with u at first!
            U then said i misunderstood u!
            ok fine, so u gave examples as to why training and tactics work and i said, “yes they why i said practice, practice, practice)
            Then u made your nuts and bolts comment
            i didnt agree with it. i gave examples!
            Then u explained what u meant by nuts and bolts!
            i said tech comes first and usually training is revolved around the tech produced.
            When u train in an F-35 im sure its different to training in an F-16. Systems, helmet, sensors, tactics. All different! im 1000% certain of that!

            From this i realised u dont totally disagree and i asked myself, “is this guy trying to save face? or is he just pushing for the moment where he can say he’s an ex-solider”?

            Dude, we agree on training! i put it in my very first comment! in fact it is why i made the comment (to practice in a F-35 in which the other guy said costs 5 x each sortie)

            Then u stuck your head in the door!
            Why?
            if u agreed on (practice) why were u getting involved?
            To say your piece?
            yes tech isnt the be all and end all!
            but its important!
            and u refrain from saying it wasnt!
            good!

            So we both agree training and tech are important!
            therefore u didnt need to stick your nose into my original comment!
            an F-35 is not nuts and bolts! PERIOD!
            Nor is an Enigma machine
            Nor is the first computer that Decrypted it!
            Nor is a Satelitte!
            Nor is a laser!
            Nor is a Submarine
            Nor is a SAM
            These are not nuts and bolts!
            i dont care if u were a 4 star general!
            tech is the deciding factor PERIOD!

            Training is important! thats why is said (PRACTICE, PRACTICE PRACTICE [using the F-35])

            Seriously i think u are here just to tell everyone in every comment u make that youre an ex-soldier!

            do u need an ego boost?
            Need to feed that ego?

        • Justin

          Also, why send an F-16 to do the job of a A-10 or an F-15 or FA-18?
          U need bombers not fighters against isis

          • Lone Ranger

            F-16 was transformed during the years from a pure fighter to a multirole jet to a strike aircraft.
            Why?
            Because its the cheapest way.
            New F-16s with the extra fuel tanks and targeting systems got so heavy, an F-18 would toast them in close combat.

          • Justin

            okay well I still think you want as much practice as possible in an F-35 as you can get! As a comparison, has China had any real world combat training of any kind in their aircraft?

            As you know, improvements are usually made from real world lessons!

            I still think its wise! it might be more expensive but it pays off in spades down the track in a potential war with China!

  • Fog of War

    Just PR B.S. to justify their continued presence in Iraq. Its sad really, the Iraqis dont even mount a forceful resistance to kick these POS out their country. I guess all the brave ones died fighting the Americans during the first 2 gulf wars.

  • swedish_viking

    I don’t understand why stealth jets would have been used?
    Daesh doesn’t have air-defenses or radar stations.
    F-35 might be many things but quiet isn’t one of them.
    This kind of attacks could be launched from a great distance since they already have the intelligence and coordination’s.
    Is it a PR thing to be able to say that it’s been used actively in the fight against Daesh?

  • LaRata

    Two A 10c to destroy all of this target ?