tiny_tanker

These vehicles have actually been in Iraq for a while now, over a year I think. The EOD teams just love them. The downside is the are still only mine resistant, and they are still just as vulnerable to EFP attacks as any other vehicle. They should defiantly be included in the Marine modual, since they have put in to purchase at least 3000 more of there favorite flavor.

Not to change the subject but has anyone heard of paraclete body armor? It is apparently used by a few Air Forces personnel. Specifically TacP's, combat air controllers , people who do dangerous things with dangerous people. Anyway, I was speaking to one of these people who is embedded with the army and had asked him random questions about his job, and the armor issue came up. He compared it to the interceptor armor for me. He said that it was less bulky, weighed less, and provided better protection, keep in mind he has been working with the army pretty much since he joined the Air Force, he wears ACU's, carries the same kit as the army guys he's with, goes where they go, does what they do. So why isn't this armor being considered by the army? Am I missing some vital bit of information here, or is the Army just sticking with their pet project to save face? Also very interesting article flamingknives, I will have to read over it more closely.

Trust me I know allll about the airspace in Iraq, deal with it every day as a matter of fact. Not just deconflicting for aircraft but also artillery and the like. I know the procedure for helo routes have changed over the course of the war, to attempt to make them more "random", if you will, and it can never be random enough. There has been a downward trend in loses in the past years. Correct me if I'm wrong but haven't most losses been people doing dangerous things with Chinooks in Afghanistan?

Your absolutely right, and its standard practice to have Gunships, CAS and ISR support for an Air Assault. Its the the other 99% of the time when they are just flying the same route over and over again that they get hit. I'll have to do some digging to be sure but if I remember right 8 to 10 of those downed helos weren't doing an air assault.

I think those numbers are way off base. Even going off what John just posted, 4.6lbs for a 10"x12" section of Interceptor armor and 4.9lbs for the same in Dragon skin. Looks very similar to me, thats also where I got my slight increase from. Wouldn't be the first time the army has lied of unfairly tested something because someone had a pet project they wanted to use instead. At least the Air Force looks to be still wanting to get Dragon skin, good on'em.

Those are some interesting articles John, really makes me question the merits and the validity of the armies tests. From the results of the NIJ tests I'd take Dragon skin over Interceptor no matter what the small increase in weight.

Yeah I'm sure that Syria would slow the IDF down for a day or so before they were crushed completely. I'm not even sure what to say to this... other than what planet do you live on? I mean the terrorists are already in the game. What am I missing? :confused:

JonS Hate to say it but your probably 100% right. RMC Sorry if I came off as disagreeing, but I agree with you. Sometimes my fingers don't type everything my brain thinks... On the weight issue, I think it may be a big load of hors s#it. The Dragon skin already gives you the side protection that the add-on plates for the interceptor gives. So comparing the base models is insane, why not throw all the goodies that the guy in the field will have on it and then compare the weights. Then dunk them both in water to see how it'll feel when a guy is sweating his ass off while wearing it.

I have to give the dragon skin guys credit for their PR skills. They've had segments on Future Weapons and Mail Call that I've seen. It performed perfectly of course, would you expect anything less for a tv appearance? The Mail Call set really showed it off though, they fired 30 rounds from an MP5 into it with no failure, then followed it up with 30 rounds from an AK-47, and there was still zero penetration. It wasn't done on a clay block though so its hard to guess what the blunt trauma from that kind of punishment would be. Does anyone know the difference in coverage area between the two? It looks to me like the Dragon skin provides better protection in that sense without any additional side plates like on the Interceptor. This would also explain the weight difference. On the IED thing, body armor does increase survivability, but to get maximum protection the side and shoulder plates have to be worn. Of course it only protects the torso from trauma, and the majority of casualties are due to damage to the extremities. Thats all the fun facts and thoughts I have for today.

And the controversy continues! While I agree with the Army's decision to mandate/threaten/punish anyone not wearing their issued body armor, keeping fear an jealousy over who has the best armor on to a minimum. I have to say I find the Army's findings to be very stilted. I do have a question though, how much does the Interceptors weight change when you include all the extra armor is added, like the "required" side, shoulder, and groin plates? Also how does the Dragon skin compare in those area's or protection?

If I remember correctly this has already been addressed, you will be able to pop smoke manually for cover, but you won't have control over HE grenades. I just got off work and my brain is a little addled so I might be mistaken though.

I like how the bring the MRAP into the argument, touting as a possible replacement for a Stryker. It'll be a great replacement, for the HMMWV, since thats what its designed to replace, and thats all the army wants it for. From the data I have seen it the MRAP's will provide no more protection than that of the Stryker. Of course no vehicle has addressed the EFP issue yet, which is the most damaging road side weapon in use. And they will be seen in Syria, just like they are seen in Iraq.

Wow, I had not heard about the Baqubah attack, bit I didn't work this weekend either. It must have been a rather large explosion as the Stryker has proven fairly resilient to many IED's. A terrible loss none the less.

I guess I should have said "I've never seen a Mig 29 with thrust vectoring being used as a combat aircraft". That is a good find though, thank you for sharing it. Looks like it brings its general mobility up to par with the SU-27, and then gives it that extra little something.

flamingknives 1. Your right, but what do you think we will clear the majority of the skies with? Maybe our "air superiority fighters"?? 2. Also correct, except for a few to seat training models I think Syria poses. But when I compared its performance to the two seat F/A-18D earlier no one cared that the Mig had a slight advantage in close in dog fighting so why make an issue of it now? The new F/A-18E would slaughter the Mig with no problems just like the F-15, 22, 35. 3. Your thinking of the SU-37 Super Flanker, I have seen no Mig 29's with thrust vectoring, and I've seen a lot of both. 4. Agreed, its hard to compare an air force with pilots who get over 20 flying hours a month with one that get around 15 hours a year.

The F-22 brings a completely different dynamic to dog fighting. It can preform manuvers never before seen anywhere, unless you count purpose designed stunt planes. I watched a pilot at the Langley air show last year just playing around in one for about 20 min. He was pulling moves that made the bi-plane doing his act over the runway look like it was the most awkward thing in the world. On the note of whose the best, all depends on your tactics. The US is best at BVR, and the Israelis are probably kings of the dog fight because thats all they do. Thats not to say that US pilots are not extremely capable in that arena , the real question is why let the enemy get that close if you don't have to. Just my thoughts on the subject anyway.

Actually the Luftwaffe Mig-29 pilots are very good, but the Mig-29 isn't in the same class as the F-15 even, let alone next generation systems like the F-22 or F-35. There is a video out there of a training exercise between the Luftwaffe Mig-29 and a Navy F/A-18D squadron on the Germans home turf. It was a good match if i remember correctly the Migs won maybe two more engagements than the Hornets did. This is quite interesting since a two seat fighter is generally quite inferior to their single seat counterpart. The Syrians would fair much worse, using older versions of the Mig-29 with far inferior pilots. There would be a 100% casualty rate for any fighters that took to the air simple as that.

Thats good to hear, I'd hate for this to turn into some kind of quasi FPS. I'm not sure many of us would have the fortitude to micromanage our little digital squads that much anyway.

Call me crazy but I don't think leaving that phrase out will ruin the game in any way. Why add tension where none is needed after all.

I have to give the run through the gas chamber credit for one thing though, my sinuses have never been that clear.

I know they are allowed to carry frag and smoke, but I know its kinda user Dependant on the load out anymore. No tear gas though, its considered a a type of chemical weapon and needs near presidential order to be used.

If the bad guys are in a vehicle, and small arms isn't stopping them you move it up a notch, simple as that. That price also seems way to high. I know a Hellfire missile only costs around $50k and its a larger more expensive weapon type.

I've seen a few building raids by Stryker units, and the tactics seems to be the same every time. 1 squad is used to provide security and then they have 1 squad per floor. There is usually 1 to 2 squads providing cover from the surrounding buildings. It doesn't take long for a whole battalion to be taken up in the operation. I'd guess maybe 3 or 4 houses could be raided at once if they were all next to one another on the same block.

The F-15E is the only plane that can use the SDB which is the new big thing.

The Army Times had a story on the new ACU coveralls and flight suits several months ago, Dec or Jan I believe. I don't recall if the article said when they were to begin issuing then though, and I didn't pay to much attention since I'm in the Air Force and not the Army.