The X37 Spaceplane Scam

[edward ohare]

Recent media reports have characterized the USAF's X37 spaceplane as
an attempt to move warfare to space. The USAF denies the X37 is a
weapon, and USAF supporters have gone further stating its not even a
potential weapon. Meanwhile, the USAF's view of its true purpose has
not been plausibly explained.

While the average American may be reassured that his Air Force isn't
escallating war to space, the first thing he really ought to be asking
himself is does he want his military spending his money on things that
aren't weapons. If the X37 isn't a weapon or potential weapon, then
everyone involved ought to be run out of the USAF for not doing their
job.

Of course, it is a weapon. No one in the USAF is stupid enough to
spend money on non-weapons. Which brings up the question of why to
spend any money on a new frontier of warfare.

At present, the USAF can beat the top three or four air forces in the
world in an air war all by itself. With just a little help from the
USN and USMC, it can beat all the world's air forces combined. Is
there any need for capability expansion?

But for the most part, the USAF is a lost service, still wandering
around after over 60 years of existence trying to define a separate
mission for itself. And going to space is just another attempt to do
that.

But is control of space relevant? Its clearly based on an expansion
of the idea that control of enemy airspace wins wars. But control of
enemy airspace has not brought victory to the US in Iraq and
Afghanistan, where its completely unchallenged, and did not bring
victory in Viet Nam or Korea.

Nothing has really changed since the day Winston Churchill wrote that
even if all German cities were rendered largely unhabitable, it did
not follow that Hitler's control of them would be lessened. Even in
the nuclear age, simulations at the war college showed that
distructive nuclear exchanges between the US and USSR did not cause
either side to quit. Yet the USAF has squandered our money for over
six decades trying to disprove this, and is now doing it again over
the control of space, with the additional devious twist that they're
not working on a potential weapons system.

Large manned bombers have been obsolete since the development of
ICBMs, yet the USAF still has hundreds. In conjuction with the USN
and USMC, there is enough air power to beat all of our enimies and
friends combined. While George Bush turned many from the friends to
foes column, not everyone hates us. Not yet, anyway.

The USAF has ample advanced aircraft to fulfill any actual mission
within the capability of air power. Those missions are air cover and
ground support for the people doing the real work, the US Army and
USMC , and defense of what is actually the US. And, considering the
poor job the USAF has done on a mission it can actually accomplish,
ground support, those aircraft should be placed under US Army control.

Its time to hand most of the boys in blue their pink slips. If they
want to do something militarily useful, they can learn how to dig
foxholes.

And while we're at it, let's scrap about half of the USNs carriers.
Because if the locals won't provide us with airfields on the ground,
they don't like us well enough we ought to be fighting there in the
first place.

We don't need miltiary control of space. Control of enemy air space
is proven not to win wars. And we don't need enough aircraft for a
situation where every country in the world hates us. Unless we're
going to elect Sarah Palin as President.

[Ouroboros Rex]

On 4/23/2010 4:21 PM, edward ohare wrote:
> Recent media reports have characterized the USAF's X37 spaceplane as
> an attempt to move warfare to space. The USAF denies the X37 is a
> weapon, and USAF supporters have gone further stating its not even a
> potential weapon. Meanwhile, the USAF's view of its true purpose has
> not been plausibly explained.
>
> While the average American may be reassured that his Air Force isn't
> escallating war to space, the first thing he really ought to be asking
> himself is does he want his military spending his money on things that
> aren't weapons. If the X37 isn't a weapon or potential weapon, then
> everyone involved ought to be run out of the USAF for not doing their
> job.

No, transport is a routine military function. So is surveillance.


>
> Of course, it is a weapon. No one in the USAF is stupid enough to
> spend money on non-weapons. Which brings up the question of why to
> spend any money on a new frontier of warfare.

Dual purpose tech. War WILL be escalated to space. Also, the new
platform might present an opportunity for a brilliant pebble missile
defense that works. It looks a lot like a way for a conventional
aircraft to put something kinetic above the ICBM boost phase altitude
range on short notice.

[Mike[_34_]]

On Apr 23, 5:21*pm, edward ohare
> wrote:
> Recent media reports have characterized the USAF's X37 spaceplane as
> an attempt to move warfare to space. *The USAF denies the X37 is a
> weapon, and USAF supporters have gone further stating its not even a
> potential weapon. *Meanwhile, the USAF's view of its true purpose has
> not been plausibly explained.
>

The military has a lot of trucks. The X-37 is a truck. Trucks can
carry a pretty wide variety of different things.

Mike

[Keith Willshaw[_1_]]

"edward ohare" > wrote in message
...

>
> Of course, it is a weapon. No one in the USAF is stupid enough to
> spend money on non-weapons. Which brings up the question of why to
> spend any money on a new frontier of warfare.
>

Reality check.

The first role for the nascent air forces of the world was reconnaissance.
This
remains a major role of the USAF today. Those spy satellites don't launch
themselves.

Keith

[chatnoir]

On Apr 23, 3:16*pm, "Keith Willshaw"
> wrote:
> "edward ohare" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > Of course, it is a weapon. *No one in the USAF is stupid enough to
> > spend money on non-weapons. *Which brings up the question of why to
> > spend any money on a new frontier of warfare.
>
> Reality check.
>
> The first role for the nascent air forces of the world was reconnaissance..
> This
> remains a major role of the USAF today. Those spy satellites don't launch
> themselves.
>
> Keith

This can be used as a platform for high resolution photos. Especially
where say China would attack Taiwan and knock down our satelites
before the attack. This could be a mobile platform that could changwe
orbit - making it hard to shoot down!

[Daryl Hunt[_2_]]

edward ohare wrote:

Long time no hear from, Ed.


> Recent media reports have characterized the USAF's X37 spaceplane as
> an attempt to move warfare to space. The USAF denies the X37 is a
> weapon, and USAF supporters have gone further stating its not even a
> potential weapon. Meanwhile, the USAF's view of its true purpose has
> not been plausibly explained.

I see it as a testbed for other things that were put on the back burner
during the Nixon Days. USAF was told to get on the NASA bandwagon and
stay there. NASA is having a going out of business sale soon and much
of those back burnered programs will surface once again. Including
Transcontinental High Altitude Bomber that was nixed in the 70s along
with a fighter design.



>
> While the average American may be reassured that his Air Force isn't
> escallating war to space, the first thing he really ought to be asking
> himself is does he want his military spending his money on things that
> aren't weapons. If the X37 isn't a weapon or potential weapon, then
> everyone involved ought to be run out of the USAF for not doing their
> job.

It's a testbed. It can go many different directions.


>
> Of course, it is a weapon. No one in the USAF is stupid enough to
> spend money on non-weapons. Which brings up the question of why to
> spend any money on a new frontier of warfare.

Because, the US should never be behind the power curve.


>
> At present, the USAF can beat the top three or four air forces in the
> world in an air war all by itself. With just a little help from the
> USN and USMC, it can beat all the world's air forces combined. Is
> there any need for capability expansion?

If the enemy has suborbital bombers and fighters that can be on station
in 20 to 30 minutes then you ARE behind the power curve.


>
> But for the most part, the USAF is a lost service, still wandering
> around after over 60 years of existence trying to define a separate
> mission for itself. And going to space is just another attempt to do
> that.

USAF does it's job. One that no one else in the world can do. The EU
wouldn't be able to operate thier own military without USAF.


>
> But is control of space relevant? Its clearly based on an expansion
> of the idea that control of enemy airspace wins wars. But control of
> enemy airspace has not brought victory to the US in Iraq and
> Afghanistan, where its completely unchallenged, and did not bring
> victory in Viet Nam or Korea.


Did you read about the new missile that is launched in the USA and hits
a precision target anywhere in the world with enough accuracy to nail a
single person. It's a new class of weapon that does the damage of a
Nuke without the lasting fallout. Although it is intercontinental, it
doesn't need to go out of the atmosphere. It can skirt space. The
problem is, the Russians will have trouble telling from a Nuke. These
are problems that have yet to be worked out before it comes online.


>
> Nothing has really changed since the day Winston Churchill wrote that
> even if all German cities were rendered largely unhabitable, it did
> not follow that Hitler's control of them would be lessened. Even in
> the nuclear age, simulations at the war college showed that
> distructive nuclear exchanges between the US and USSR did not cause
> either side to quit. Yet the USAF has squandered our money for over
> six decades trying to disprove this, and is now doing it again over
> the control of space, with the additional devious twist that they're
> not working on a potential weapons system.

Lets see. How have they squandered. The old 10 Warhead of the
Minutement was in the 10 MT range per reentry vehicle. Now, they are
down to somewhere around 125KT. Plus, there a dramatically fewer
missiles sitting in the silos in both the US and Russia. If the talks
go well, there will be even fewer in the Silos and even the Nuke Capable
Bombers will have to be reduced. Sounds to me that this is quite a cost
saving plus making it a safer world.


>
> Large manned bombers have been obsolete since the development of
> ICBMs, yet the USAF still has hundreds. In conjuction with the USN
> and USMC, there is enough air power to beat all of our enimies and
> friends combined. While George Bush turned many from the friends to
> foes column, not everyone hates us. Not yet, anyway.

You can't recall a missile once it reaches a certain point. You can a
bomber. Plus, the whatifs says that if you put your eggs into one
basket, it's easier to counter your eggs hatching. It costs a lot less
for a decent ABM system than it does trying to stop the Tridents, MM and
the Bombers.



>
> The USAF has ample advanced aircraft to fulfill any actual mission
> within the capability of air power. Those missions are air cover and
> ground support for the people doing the real work, the US Army and
> USMC , and defense of what is actually the US. And, considering the
> poor job the USAF has done on a mission it can actually accomplish,
> ground support, those aircraft should be placed under US Army control.

Funny, you need to ask the Germans that tried to surrender to the P-47's
that were pounding them. And you need to ask the Iraqi Solders that
were trying to surrender to anyone that even resembled a Caucasion. The
bunch that surrender to the News People is case in point. If done
right, the heavies saves countless lives on both sides.



>
> Its time to hand most of the boys in blue their pink slips. If they
> want to do something militarily useful, they can learn how to dig
> foxholes.


That same argument was exactly the reason USAF was created. You want a
Marine join the Marines. You want heavy lifting, Air Superiority and
heavy bombers, joint the USAF. The leaders came to that decision in
1942 as well.


>
> And while we're at it, let's scrap about half of the USNs carriers.
> Because if the locals won't provide us with airfields on the ground,
> they don't like us well enough we ought to be fighting there in the
> first place.

Ed, Ed. Now you done did it. You will have the Squid Wrath upon you.
Those carriers are closest to the battle without actually being in it.
During WWII the Battleship was obsolete since a carrier group could take
out a BB group and did many times. If you take away the Carrier, you
would be require to speak only Japanese and be a second or third class
citizen. Actually, you wouldn't be a citizen since on a Japanese would
be considered a Citizen. Ask the Koreans and the Chinese on that one.


>
> We don't need miltiary control of space. Control of enemy air space
> is proven not to win wars. And we don't need enough aircraft for a
> situation where every country in the world hates us. Unless we're
> going to elect Sarah Palin as President.

So, your agenda comes through. Glad you cleared that up.


Oh, and nice to hear from you, Ed.

[edward ohare]

On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 17:49:19 -0700 (PDT), chatnoir
> wrote:

>
>This can be used as a platform for high resolution photos. Especially
>where say China would attack Taiwan and knock down our satelites
>before the attack. This could be a mobile platform that could changwe
>orbit - making it hard to shoot down!
..
I think China and Taiwan should handle their own problems.

If Taiwan thinks their safety is an issue, let them buy enough
missiles from us to have their own deterrent to a Chiinese attack. As
long as they have enough to tear off an arm, that's sufficient.
DeGaulle was right about that.

This is most interesting, the combination of responses saying its not
a weapon, and those saying it is and justifying it with could be
missions that don't benefit us.

I think the USAF should quit inventing missions and learn how to do
ground support. That's their only real mission, other than possibly
shooting down hijacked airliners. They don't need high tech for that.
Even a worn out F86 would work.

Pride in high tech but useless military equipment is the last gasp of
collapsing empires. Consider Spain, UK, and USSR. History repeats.

[Ouroboros Rex]

On 4/24/2010 12:00 PM, edward ohare wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 17:49:19 -0700 (PDT), chatnoir
> > wrote:
>
>>
>> This can be used as a platform for high resolution photos. Especially
>> where say China would attack Taiwan and knock down our satelites
>> before the attack. This could be a mobile platform that could changwe
>> orbit - making it hard to shoot down!
> .
> I think China and Taiwan should handle their own problems.
>
> If Taiwan thinks their safety is an issue, let them buy enough
> missiles from us to have their own deterrent to a Chiinese attack. As
> long as they have enough to tear off an arm, that's sufficient.
> DeGaulle was right about that.
>
> This is most interesting, the combination of responses saying its not
> a weapon, and those saying it is and justifying it with could be
> missions that don't benefit us.

Which ones don't benefit us?

[edward ohare]

On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 11:28:05 -0500, Ouroboros Rex >
wrote:

>On 4/24/2010 12:00 PM, edward ohare wrote:
>> On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 17:49:19 -0700 (PDT), chatnoir
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> This can be used as a platform for high resolution photos. Especially
>>> where say China would attack Taiwan and knock down our satelites
>>> before the attack. This could be a mobile platform that could changwe
>>> orbit - making it hard to shoot down!
>> .
>> I think China and Taiwan should handle their own problems.
>>
>> If Taiwan thinks their safety is an issue, let them buy enough
>> missiles from us to have their own deterrent to a Chiinese attack. As
>> long as they have enough to tear off an arm, that's sufficient.
>> DeGaulle was right about that.
>>
>> This is most interesting, the combination of responses saying its not
>> a weapon, and those saying it is and justifying it with could be
>> missions that don't benefit us.
>
> Which ones don't benefit us?


I described one above.

If you want to spend the money (you obviously do) then you show me the
benefit.

And if you don't want to do that, then you're saying that anything the
military wants to do is OK with you, that we work for them, not the
other way around.

[tankfixer]

In article >,
says...
>
> Recent media reports have characterized the USAF's X37 spaceplane as
> an attempt to move warfare to space. The USAF denies the X37 is a
> weapon, and USAF supporters have gone further stating its not even a
> potential weapon. Meanwhile, the USAF's view of its true purpose has
> not been plausibly explained.
>
> While the average American may be reassured that his Air Force isn't
> escallating war to space, the first thing he really ought to be asking
> himself is does he want his military spending his money on things that
> aren't weapons. If the X37 isn't a weapon or potential weapon, then
> everyone involved ought to be run out of the USAF for not doing their
> job.
>
> Of course, it is a weapon. No one in the USAF is stupid enough to
> spend money on non-weapons. Which brings up the question of why to
> spend any money on a new frontier of warfare.
>
> At present, the USAF can beat the top three or four air forces in the
> world in an air war all by itself. With just a little help from the
> USN and USMC, it can beat all the world's air forces combined. Is
> there any need for capability expansion?
>
> But for the most part, the USAF is a lost service, still wandering
> around after over 60 years of existence trying to define a separate
> mission for itself. And going to space is just another attempt to do
> that.
>
> But is control of space relevant? Its clearly based on an expansion
> of the idea that control of enemy airspace wins wars. But control of
> enemy airspace has not brought victory to the US in Iraq and
> Afghanistan, where its completely unchallenged, and did not bring
> victory in Viet Nam or Korea.
>
> Nothing has really changed since the day Winston Churchill wrote that
> even if all German cities were rendered largely unhabitable, it did
> not follow that Hitler's control of them would be lessened. Even in
> the nuclear age, simulations at the war college showed that
> distructive nuclear exchanges between the US and USSR did not cause
> either side to quit. Yet the USAF has squandered our money for over
> six decades trying to disprove this, and is now doing it again over
> the control of space, with the additional devious twist that they're
> not working on a potential weapons system.
>
> Large manned bombers have been obsolete since the development of
> ICBMs, yet the USAF still has hundreds. In conjuction with the USN
> and USMC, there is enough air power to beat all of our enimies and
> friends combined. While George Bush turned many from the friends to
> foes column, not everyone hates us. Not yet, anyway.
>
> The USAF has ample advanced aircraft to fulfill any actual mission
> within the capability of air power. Those missions are air cover and
> ground support for the people doing the real work, the US Army and
> USMC , and defense of what is actually the US. And, considering the
> poor job the USAF has done on a mission it can actually accomplish,
> ground support, those aircraft should be placed under US Army control.
>
> Its time to hand most of the boys in blue their pink slips. If they
> want to do something militarily useful, they can learn how to dig
> foxholes.
>
> And while we're at it, let's scrap about half of the USNs carriers.
> Because if the locals won't provide us with airfields on the ground,
> they don't like us well enough we ought to be fighting there in the
> first place.
>
> We don't need miltiary control of space. Control of enemy air space
> is proven not to win wars. And we don't need enough aircraft for a
> situation where every country in the world hates us. Unless we're
> going to elect Sarah Palin as President.

Yeah, no reason the X1...
Might as well scrap it...