Why is Stealth So Important?

[James Dandy]

Seems to me like all the modern wars I can remember up from Vietnam
use mostly ordinary fighters and bombers.

I don't understand why such emphasis is put on that stealth stuff when
we use the same old planes from previously.

I still remember when the F-14 and F-15 came out. Don't we still use
these? Aren't they better than everyone else's stuff?

My son Billy tells me I'm out of date on such matters and that the old
Reds have stuff that is better than ours. Tell me it ain't so. I saw
on tv one night a show on the History Channel that showed a new plane
that did amazing flying but I can't recall its name. It was a Red
plane tho.

I don't have much interest in stealth so long as we keep pounding them
Arabs with B-52 bombs! God bless the almighty B-52.

Since I'm out of date maybe you guys can fill me in on the latest.
What makes a stealth aircraft better? If they are so good how come we
don't own many? What if they were all destroyed, wouldn't we still be
able to fight with the proven stuff?

Many thanks,

James Dandy

[Ed Rasimus]

On 9 Jan 2004 07:50:56 -0800, (James Dandy)
wrote:

>Seems to me like all the modern wars I can remember up from Vietnam
>use mostly ordinary fighters and bombers.
>
>I don't understand why such emphasis is put on that stealth stuff when
>we use the same old planes from previously.

In 1966, while I was flying the F-105 over N. Vietnam, we lost one
every 65 missions. In 1991, during Desert Storm we lost one fixed wing
aircraft every 3500 mission. In 2003 in Iraqi Freedom we lost one
fixed wing aircraft in 16,500 mission.

So, we're going to send you into aerial combat, how do you want your
odds of survival?
>
>I still remember when the F-14 and F-15 came out. Don't we still use
>these? Aren't they better than everyone else's stuff?

Are you still driving the car you bought in 1970? Are new cars better?

>
>My son Billy tells me I'm out of date on such matters and that the old
>Reds have stuff that is better than ours. Tell me it ain't so. I saw
>on tv one night a show on the History Channel that showed a new plane
>that did amazing flying but I can't recall its name. It was a Red
>plane tho.

Everyone has been developing not only aircraft, but avionics and
weapons as well. Flying 30 year old stuff isn't a good way to make it
to retirement.
>
>I don't have much interest in stealth so long as we keep pounding them
>Arabs with B-52 bombs! God bless the almighty B-52.
>
>Since I'm out of date maybe you guys can fill me in on the latest.
>What makes a stealth aircraft better? If they are so good how come we
>don't own many? What if they were all destroyed, wouldn't we still be
>able to fight with the proven stuff?

Stealth aircraft are more survivable. We don't have many, because the
military competes for $$$ against the welfare princesses and
redistribution of wealth candidates who run for election on a platform
of taking from "them" and giving to the masses. If they were all
destroyed, we'd be in deep kimchi. They are the "proven stuff."


>
>Many thanks,
>
>James Dandy

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Tarver Engineering]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> On 9 Jan 2004 07:50:56 -0800, (James Dandy)
> wrote:
>
> >Seems to me like all the modern wars I can remember up from Vietnam
> >use mostly ordinary fighters and bombers.
> >
> >I don't understand why such emphasis is put on that stealth stuff when
> >we use the same old planes from previously.
>
> In 1966, while I was flying the F-105 over N. Vietnam, we lost one
> every 65 missions. In 1991, during Desert Storm we lost one fixed wing
> aircraft every 3500 mission. In 2003 in Iraqi Freedom we lost one
> fixed wing aircraft in 16,500 mission.

I think we can pretty well know the iris on the J-75 was taking out 1% of
the F-105s. When Ed posted here that the F-105's brakes could not hold the
airplane in AB, I could see that iris stuck open/closed/half way between.
Since the introduction of onboard automated testing in aircraft and the next
30 years of R&D, the number of failures per launch has been driven down year
on year; excludeing aging aircraft issues, that may show themselves at any
time.

[Ed Rasimus]

On Fri, 9 Jan 2004 09:50:55 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> wrote:

>
>I think we can pretty well know the iris on the J-75 was taking out 1% of
>the F-105s.

Are you referring to the turbine Christmas tree? Failures of the
Christmas tree which held the three stages of turbine blades caused a
number of unexplained losses. I mention the bailout of Joe Vojir on
takeoff at Korat as well as the loss of Buzz Bullock and Dain Milliman
in takeoff accidents caused by turbine failure in When Thunder Rolled.

The AB nozzle (iris) didn't cause any accidents that I know about.
And, the nozzle is not synonymous with the speed brake petals or
pizzas (which were removed in '65).

> When Ed posted here that the F-105's brakes could not hold the
>airplane in AB, I could see that iris stuck open/closed/half way between.

No afterburner equipped aircraft that I know about can be held by
wheel brakes in AB. Carrier aircraft get into AB for launch by
employing a "hold back". The F-4, for example, couldn't be held in
military power by the wheel brakes. Engines were checked at 100% one
at a time. Takeoffs were done with a runup to 85% prior to brake
release, then to mil and finally to AB.



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Tarver Engineering]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 9 Jan 2004 09:50:55 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >I think we can pretty well know the iris on the J-75 was taking out 1% of
> >the F-105s.
>
> Are you referring to the turbine Christmas tree? Failures of the
> Christmas tree which held the three stages of turbine blades caused a
> number of unexplained losses. I mention the bailout of Joe Vojir on
> takeoff at Korat as well as the loss of Buzz Bullock and Dain Milliman
> in takeoff accidents caused by turbine failure in When Thunder Rolled.

I am refering to the AB nozzle, the iris at the back. It was a high failure
rate item, if stuck open offered the operator power in AB settings only, if
stuck in between, only lead sled power settings were available.

> The AB nozzle (iris) didn't cause any accidents that I know about.
> And, the nozzle is not synonymous with the speed brake petals or
> pizzas (which were removed in '65).

The AB nozzle was a sticky part of the J-75.

> > When Ed posted here that the F-105's brakes could not hold the
> >airplane in AB, I could see that iris stuck open/closed/half way between.
>
> No afterburner equipped aircraft that I know about can be held by
> wheel brakes in AB. Carrier aircraft get into AB for launch by
> employing a "hold back". The F-4, for example, couldn't be held in
> military power by the wheel brakes. Engines were checked at 100% one
> at a time. Takeoffs were done with a runup to 85% prior to brake
> release, then to mil and finally to AB.

I don't believe the F-4 had the nozzle problems associated with the J-75 AB.

[Denyav]

>In 1966, while I was flying the F-105 over N. Vietnam, we lost one
>every 65 missions. In 1991, during Desert Storm we lost one fixed wing
>aircraft every 3500 mission. In 2003 in Iraqi Freedom we lost one
>fixed wing aircraft in 16,500 mission.

One of the many "wrong" lessons learned in Vietnam,the ideas of Boyd&Co and
Stealth proponents are only two of them.

Vietnam was a proxy war,NV had full support of the other superpower and
China,whereas IRaq was a completely isolated third world country.Moreover,2003
Iraq Freedom operation started after 10 years of intense "preperations" and
further weakening Iraqi defences ,even if US used B-17s during Iraqi Freedom
(DSII),we probably would not lose even one of them either.

Only one conflict in last half century is comparable to Vietnam and its Yom
Kippur war .
FYI during first two weeks of Yom Kippur War Arab armies launched well over
7000 SAMs aganist Israeli aircraft.
Do you know how many SAMs launched aganist US aircraft during DSI and DSII?

Even aganist a small and weak country with improvisation skills,like Serbia,the
performance of Air Force was moderate at the best as a quote from Gen.Jumper
explains "Missions over Serbia on day 78 were as dangerous as they were one day
1"

Your next opponent might be Taliban,Iraq,Zimbabve,Ruanda,Backwardistan etc but
there is no guarantee for that.

[Gene Storey]

Stealth is used today to "knock down the door" and the rest of
the stuff does the grunt work. The B-2 and other stealth assets
are used to knock down the electronic systems (radar, communications, etc).
Once that's done, you can build air superiority and the enemy has
no GCI to help them. Everything they launch has to go solo. Actually,
if the Iraqi's would have flushed their fighters, they would have done
some damage, but in the end, the massive amount of fighters and AWACS
that were flying could have easily beat them back in a few hours.

Once that's done, the air is ours, and we start plinking pop-up electronic
assets and the mechanized forces.

[Greg Hennessy]

On 09 Jan 2004 20:15:51 GMT, (Denyav) wrote:

>>In 1966, while I was flying the F-105 over N. Vietnam, we lost one
>>every 65 missions. In 1991, during Desert Storm we lost one fixed wing
>>aircraft every 3500 mission. In 2003 in Iraqi Freedom we lost one
>>fixed wing aircraft in 16,500 mission.
>
>One of the many "wrong" lessons learned in Vietnam,the ideas of Boyd&Co and
>Stealth proponents are only two of them.
>

ROTFL! Oh really, and what pray tell is your practical insight to draw that
conclusion, compared to that of a combat vet who has a wardrobe full of
'dont that' T Shirts.



greg

--
You do a lot less thundering in the pulpit against the Harlot
after she marches right down the aisle and kicks you in the nuts.

[Denyav]

>ROTFL! Oh really, and what pray tell is your practical insight to draw that
>conclusion, compared to that of a combat vet who has a wardrobe full of
>'dont that' T Shirts.

Combat vets should try to do what they supposed to do best, we are not going to
re-fight Vietnam war or any war in the past,if f16 or f22 were available during
Vietnam war,it would be magnificent,but it was 30 years ago and science and
technology did not stop in 70s.

[Denyav]

>Stealth is used today to "knock down the door" and the rest of
>the stuff does the grunt work. The B-2 and other stealth assets
>are used to knock down the electronic systems (radar,

Yeah right,It proved its abilities,albeit under full ECM support aganist
defences of Panama,Afghanistan,Iraq,Serbia etc.
(In Balkans two ECM failures meant two f117 damages,but nevermind)
I wonder how they would fare against US ,UK or German counter LO systems?

Today you can detect and track a LO aircraft even more easily than conventional
aircraft with multistatics.
The stealty airborne platforms have only a PR value today,and thats the reason
why Air Force put them on display on every occasion,even though the passive
stealth is an extremely "sight-sensitive" technology !.

[Gene Storey]

"Denyav" > wrote
> >
> >Stealth is used today to "knock down the door" and the rest of
> >the stuff does the grunt work. The B-2 and other stealth assets
> >are used to knock down the electronic systems (radar,
>
> Yeah right,It proved its abilities,albeit under full ECM support aganist
> defences of Panama,Afghanistan,Iraq,Serbia etc.
> (In Balkans two ECM failures meant two f117 damages,but nevermind)


The US Military uses ECM and decoys. They would use them whether
or not stealth aircraft existed.

> I wonder how they would fare against US ,UK or German counter LO systems?

I don't know what UK and German "counter LO" systems are deployed and
integrated into their air defense system, or even if it exists.

> Today you can detect and track a LO aircraft even more easily than conventional
> aircraft with multistatics.

Your sentence doesn't make sense, so I'm assuming that English isn't your native
language, and will leave it at that.

> The stealty airborne platforms have only a PR value today,and thats the reason
> why Air Force put them on display on every occasion,even though the passive
> stealth is an extremely "sight-sensitive" technology !.

Fine, Fine. Whatever...

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
(Denyav) wrote:

> >Stealth is used today to "knock down the door" and the rest of
> >the stuff does the grunt work. The B-2 and other stealth assets
> >are used to knock down the electronic systems (radar,
>
> Yeah right,It proved its abilities,albeit under full ECM support aganist
> defences of Panama,Afghanistan,Iraq,Serbia etc.

Actually, over Baghdad, they didn't use active jamming for the F-117
sorties. It would have warned the defenses that an attack was coming.
Since there were well over a thousand sorties over Baghdad, with zero
losses and zero damage, it's amazing that you keep trying to suggest
this silly theory of yours.

> (In Balkans two ECM failures meant two f117 damages,but nevermind)
> I wonder how they would fare against US ,UK or German counter LO systems?
>
> Today you can detect and track a LO aircraft even more easily than
> conventional aircraft with multistatics.

Nope. That's just something the less-honest multistatic guys are
suggesting as a sales method. They still haven't gotten the system to
work that well against any aircraft, and certainly not good enough to
track and target any of the stealth aircraft.

> The stealty airborne platforms have only a PR value today,and thats
> the reason why Air Force put them on display on every occasion,

Except for that whole "flying them on combat missions" thing, not to
mention the "buying more of them" bit. Since everyone in the world
who's building combat planes is doing *some* stealth and low-observable
design, it's odd that they haven't gotten the message yet.

> even though the passive stealth is an extremely "sight-sensitive"
> technology !.

You keep using that "sight-sensitive" phrase, and it's still wrong.

....and if Russia could build a useful stealth plane, you'd be telling us
how wonderful it would be.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Denyav]

>I don't know what UK and German "counter LO" systems are deployed and
>integrated into their air defense system, or even if it exists.

But probably you know that an US system exists,so a Mitchell style
demonstration would be very useful to settle differences.

>Your sentence doesn't make sense, so I'm assuming that English isn't your
>native
>language, and will leave it at that.

It makes excellent sense for the ones who want to understand but a
clarification for you,multi static designers love everything that stealth
designers do to reduce backscatter.

>Fine, Fine. Whatever...
>

Spending hundreds of taxpayer billions for an obsolete technology is not fine,I
guess.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Denyav" > wrote in message
...
>
> Spending hundreds of taxpayer billions for an obsolete technology is not
fine,I
> guess.
>

What do you care if US taxpayers spend billions on obsolete technology?

[WaltBJ]

Trouble with the F15 and F14 - and the rest of the fleets - is that
fighters wear out. You can replace part after part but when the basic
airframe reaches its fatigue life - better scrap it and make pots and
pans out of it or you're going to have inflight failures. During my
career this happened to the F84, F86, F100, F105, KB29 and KB50, B47,
B52, C130, A26 and F4, to mention but a few. I lost a good friend to
inflight failure in an F4 on a training mission.
As for stealth, first let me mention I spent some 4000 hours sitting
behind a radar scope in a fighter. In the F102A and the F4 I could
detect another fighter at ranges up to 70 miles. The 104A's scope only
went out to 20 miles but it still beat the naked eye. Now a stealth
fighter wouldn't have this vulnerability, nor would it be detected at
night or in the weather until well after it detected an unstealthy
fighter. Upon detection of a target one manuevers into the target's
stern and then - do what is necessary. One does not have to lock on to
do this. It is quite easy to determine the target's approximate course
by monitoring target motion on the radar scope and, after moving into
the stern quarter, determining his exact course and altitude is
simple. Most radar warning gear will not indicate AI scanning so the
target will be unaware what is happening. Of course if you are in an
IR equipped fighter the target's problem is even worse - his first
indication of a problem is when (if) his missile warning gear detects
a missile launch in his six.l
Walt BJ

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"WaltBJ" > wrote in message
om...
>
> As for stealth, first let me mention I spent some 4000 hours sitting
> behind a radar scope in a fighter. In the F102A and the F4 I could
> detect another fighter at ranges up to 70 miles. The 104A's scope only
> went out to 20 miles but it still beat the naked eye. Now a stealth
> fighter wouldn't have this vulnerability, nor would it be detected at
> night or in the weather until well after it detected an unstealthy
> fighter.
>

How does a stealth fighter detect an unstealthy fighter?



Upon detection of a target one manuevers into the target's
> stern and then - do what is necessary. One does not have to lock on to
> do this. It is quite easy to determine the target's approximate course
> by monitoring target motion on the radar scope and, after moving into
> the stern quarter, determining his exact course and altitude is
> simple. Most radar warning gear will not indicate AI scanning so the
> target will be unaware what is happening. Of course if you are in an
> IR equipped fighter the target's problem is even worse - his first
> indication of a problem is when (if) his missile warning gear detects
> a missile launch in his six.l
> Walt BJ

[Denyav]

>Actually, over Baghdad, they didn't use active jamming for the F-117
>sorties. It would have warned the defenses that an attack was coming.
>Since there were well over a thousand sorties over Baghdad, with zero
>losses and zero damage, it's amazing that you keep trying to

I am talking about DS I,not DSII,During DSI several guided launches aganist
f117 have been detected and spoofed by jammers.
If Jammers failed during DS I,you would not have to wait till Balkan Conflict
for f117 losses.
About a year ago I posted some data about f117 performance during DS I,they
were under ECM protection all the way/
A quote from DS I f117 driver explains all "Jammers are like American
Express,never leave home without them"

>Nope. That's just something the less-honest multistatic guys are
>suggesting as a sales method. They still haven't gotten the system to
>work that well against any aircraft, and certainly not good enough to
>track and target any of the stealth aircraft.
>
They are doing exactly that almost on daily basis,plus they can also image
stealth aircraft with their multistatics.(they can even find out the type of
skin material)

>Except for that whole "flying them on combat missions" thing, not to
>mention the "buying more of them" bit. Since everyone in the world
>who's building combat planes is doing *some* stealth and low-observable
>design, it's odd that they haven't gotten the message yet.

Most of "new" stealth projects involve some kind of active stealth which is a
completely different animal.

>You keep using that "sight-sensitive" phrase, and it's still wrong.

Thats the truth ,passive stealth is an extremely "sight-sensitive" techonology
and in 70s and 80s you definitely needed to know the hardbody shape to counter
it,thanks to rasant development of multi statics and UWB radars thats not the
case anymore.

[Denyav]

>What do you care if US taxpayers spend billions on obsolete technology?

Because its my money and I have every right to say how things should be done in
this country,even if you disagree with my views.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Denyav" > wrote in message
...
>
> Because its my money and I have every right to say how things should be
done in
> this country,even if you disagree with my views.
>

It's US citizens' money.

[Denyav]

>It's US citizens' money.
>

Exactly,so its my money too.
Fair enough?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Denyav" > wrote in message
...
>
> Exactly,so its my money too.
> Fair enough?
>

You're pretty unfamiliar with the US for a US citizen.

[Denyav]

>You're pretty unfamiliar with the US for a US citizen.

You are dangerously underestimating US citizens.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
(Denyav) wrote:

> >Actually, over Baghdad, they didn't use active jamming for the F-117
> >sorties. It would have warned the defenses that an attack was coming.
> >Since there were well over a thousand sorties over Baghdad, with zero
> >losses and zero damage, it's amazing that you keep trying to
>
> I am talking about DS I,not DSII,During DSI several guided launches aganist
> f117 have been detected and spoofed by jammers.

....and while that might have been so, there were about a hundred times
as many sorties where the Iraqis didn't know they were in trouble until
the bombs started to hit.

> A quote from DS I f117 driver explains all "Jammers are like American
> Express,never leave home without them"

Jammers are what you use *after* they get a lock on you. Firing up
active countermeasures when there's no radar pointed at you is like
lighting a match in a dark room. Stealth planes use jammers as a last
resort, when they've been actively painted by a radar.

> >Nope. That's just something the less-honest multistatic guys are
> >suggesting as a sales method. They still haven't gotten the system to
> >work that well against any aircraft, and certainly not good enough to
> >track and target any of the stealth aircraft.
>
> They are doing exactly that almost on daily basis,plus they can also
> image stealth aircraft with their multistatics.(they can even find
> out the type of skin material)

Well, *you* claim they can, but so far, nobody has actually demonstrated
this. It ranks right up with some of the silliest claims by Soviet
techs back in the Cold War.

> >Except for that whole "flying them on combat missions" thing, not to
> >mention the "buying more of them" bit. Since everyone in the world
> >who's building combat planes is doing *some* stealth and low-observable
> >design, it's odd that they haven't gotten the message yet.
>
> Most of "new" stealth projects involve some kind of active stealth
> which is a completely different animal.

....and also pretty much theoretical, like those multistatics you keep
hoping someone will build.

> >You keep using that "sight-sensitive" phrase, and it's still wrong.
>
> Thats the truth ,passive stealth is an extremely "sight-sensitive" techonology

Only to the point where you can look at a plane and see where it's
biggest returns will be, it doesn't give you a magical key to let you
detect it. Radars have had fifteen years to develop to the point where
they could reliably track stealth planes, and they still *can't*, at
anything other than point-blank range.

> and in 70s and 80s you definitely needed to know the hardbody shape
> to counter it,thanks to rasant development of multi statics and UWB
> radars thats not the case anymore.

Yeah, the new multistatics and ultra wideband radars can't see them in
very different ways than the old radars couldn't see them.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Pete]

"Denyav" > wrote
> >You're pretty unfamiliar with the US for a US citizen.
>
> You are dangerously underestimating US citizens.

So you're saying you're one of the dumb ones?

Pete

[Scott Ferrin]

On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 18:19:16 GMT, Ed Rasimus >
wrote:

>On Fri, 9 Jan 2004 09:50:55 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> wrote:
>
>>
>>I think we can pretty well know the iris on the J-75 was taking out 1% of
>>the F-105s.
>
>Are you referring to the turbine Christmas tree? Failures of the
>Christmas tree which held the three stages of turbine blades caused a
>number of unexplained losses. I mention the bailout of Joe Vojir on
>takeoff at Korat as well as the loss of Buzz Bullock and Dain Milliman
>in takeoff accidents caused by turbine failure in When Thunder Rolled.
>
>The AB nozzle (iris) didn't cause any accidents that I know about.
>And, the nozzle is not synonymous with the speed brake petals or
>pizzas (which were removed in '65).
>
>> When Ed posted here that the F-105's brakes could not hold the
>>airplane in AB, I could see that iris stuck open/closed/half way between.
>
>No afterburner equipped aircraft that I know about can be held by
>wheel brakes in AB.

I remember reading somewhere that an F-111 could do it. (Not the Fs
though)

[Denyav]

>...and while that might have been so, there were about a hundred times
>as many sorties where the Iraqis didn't know they were in trouble until
>the bombs started to hit.
>

I think you will have to revise your claim significantly downward after reading
Air Forces own intelligence reports.

>Jammers are what you use *after* they get a lock on you. Firing up
>active countermeasures when there's no radar pointed at you is like
>lighting a match in a dark room. Stealth planes use jammers as a last
>resort, when they've been actively painted by a radar.

Not neccesarly,you can try to blind hostile radars or try to inject false data
even before an attack starts,if your artillery or special forces could destroy
them before attack even better.(I think that was the defining moment of DS
I,but we love to forget it)

>Well, *you* claim they can, but so far, nobody has actually demonstrated
>this. It ranks right up with some of the silliest claims by Soviet
>techs back in the Cold War.

For a demonstration you need the support of Air Force,only official operator of
airborne stealth platforms and they are of course not very supportive.
To make things even more complicated,the corporate entity that devoloped US
counter LO system is also producer of major US stealth platforms.
So such a competition is harmful for corporate profits,if multistatic wins the
corporation will probably lose stealth business,if stealth wins company will
lose a next generation product and its projected sales.
So,smart corporate strategy seems to be "keep a low profile in multi statics
till all projected stealth sales realized,then start high profile multistatics
campaign".

This a result of defense industry consolidations in 90s.



>..and also pretty much theoretical, like those multistatics you keep
>hoping someone will build.

Unlike multistatics,they are still experimental.
In multistatics issue there is nothing experimantal they are here.>Only to the
point where you can look at a plane and see where it's
>biggest returns will be, it doesn't give you a magical key to let you
>detect it. Radars have had fifteen years to develop to the point where
>they could reliably track stealth planes, and they still *can't*, at
>anything other than point-blank

Either you mean only backscatterer type radars when you use the term "radar" or
you call 600 miles "point blank" distance.
>Yeah, the new multistatics and ultra wideband radars can't see them in
>very different ways than the old radars couldn't see them.

Actually even old radars could see many things that they usually dont see only
if air defense community and radar developers stopped considering them as a
binary detection method,but its hard to change almost a hundred years old
customs overnight.

[Gene Storey]

If multistatic radar was deployed and operational, then how come the
US, NATO, France, UK, Japan, and Saudi Arabia invest so much
money in maintaining a "monostatic" AWACS fleet?

Why does the US, Europe, Asia, and especially India and Pakistan,
invest so much money in "monostatic" mobile radars?

That information alone should tell you how significant multistatic radar
has been integrated into defense systems. I can appreciate one transmitter,
multiple receivers, but using it to shoot down aircraft and track them
through the national airspace has not been so successful that very
expensive weapon systems have been rotating into the boneyard.

I think your either dreaming, or incorrectly extrapolating what you
read in Aviation Week, or Time magazine.

[Denyav]

>So you're saying you're one of the dumb ones?

The opposite of the recipient of my messages,so I must be one of them.

Cheers,

[Gene Storey]

In DS the initial F-117 and cruise missiles went in cold. After the F-117 were
RTB, the Navy and USAF began massive decoy flights which included
ECM drones. The drones themselves were firing-off chaff and flares, and
the Iraqi air defense units were getting a number of kills on the drones.
While they were killing the drones the first two strike packages came up
through the corridors left open and performed the first toss-bomb strikes.
I believe one F-16 got hit during egress. Each of these packages had an
EF-111 in it for ecm support against SAM, LRR, and AI assets.

ECM and decoys are a part of every modern air battle. It doesn't have
anything to do with stealth.

I know for a fact the B-2 and AWACS were the only two assets up, on
the night we took down the big bridge in Serbia. The NATO guys first
knew of the operation when their status boards lit-up. It was a weather
down day, and NATO was taking a nap.

No multistatics detected the B-2 and engaged it.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
(Denyav) wrote:

> >...and while that might have been so, there were about a hundred times
> >as many sorties where the Iraqis didn't know they were in trouble until
> >the bombs started to hit.
>
> I think you will have to revise your claim significantly downward
> after reading Air Forces own intelligence reports.

Then post them, and we can judge. Until that point, it's just more of
your silly "American tech sucks, Russian tech rules" propaganda.

> >Jammers are what you use *after* they get a lock on you. Firing up
> >active countermeasures when there's no radar pointed at you is like
> >lighting a match in a dark room. Stealth planes use jammers as a last
> >resort, when they've been actively painted by a radar.
>
> Not neccesarly,you can try to blind hostile radars or try to inject
> false data even before an attack starts

You *can*, when you're doing large operations, but for stealth fighers,
it's a really bad tactic.

> >Well, *you* claim they can, but so far, nobody has actually demonstrated
> >this. It ranks right up with some of the silliest claims by Soviet
> >techs back in the Cold War.
>
> For a demonstration you need the support of Air Force,only official
> operator of airborne stealth platforms and they are of course not
> very supportive.

In other words, the claim you made (about showing a working
stealth-detecting radar) was a lie.

(Silly "American corporations are covering up anti-stealth radars to
sell more planes" conspiracy deleted)

> >..and also pretty much theoretical, like those multistatics you keep
> >hoping someone will build.
>
> Unlike multistatics,they are still experimental.
> In multistatics issue there is nothing experimantal they are here.

They're here, they're just not that good.

> Either you mean only backscatterer type radars when you use the term
> "radar" or you call 600 miles "point blank" distance.

Still holding on to the multistatic radar fantasy, eh?

If someone had such a technology that worked, they'd be selling them by
the shipload to every penny-ante dictator on the planet, and the US
would be losing stealth planes on a regular basis.

Since that hasn't happened, it's just another of your silly little
Russian superiority vs US inferiority dreams.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Chad Irby]

In article <6IMLb.9902$6l1.8365@okepread03>,
"Gene Storey" > wrote:

> If multistatic radar was deployed and operational, then how come the
> US, NATO, France, UK, Japan, and Saudi Arabia invest so much
> money in maintaining a "monostatic" AWACS fleet?

Because multistatic radars, while interesting in theory, are a complete
failure in actual operation.

> Why does the US, Europe, Asia, and especially India and Pakistan,
> invest so much money in "monostatic" mobile radars?

Because they actually work, compared to multistatics.

> That information alone should tell you how significant multistatic radar
> has been integrated into defense systems. I can appreciate one transmitter,
> multiple receivers, but using it to shoot down aircraft and track them
> through the national airspace has not been so successful that very
> expensive weapon systems have been rotating into the boneyard.
>
> I think your either dreaming, or incorrectly extrapolating what you
> read in Aviation Week, or Time magazine.

Denyav's dreaming, hoping for a nationalistic resurrection of Great
Mother Russia.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Denyav]

>If multistatic radar was deployed and operational, then how come the
>US, NATO, France, UK, Japan, and Saudi Arabia invest so much
>money in maintaining a "monostat

Every monostatic radar could be part of a multi static system,alongside TV
,radio and phone emitters.You dont even need your own or friendly radars,even
hostile emitters too will do the job.
What you need is only atmosphere filled with EM waves.
But they have shortcomings too,they might be more vulnerable to some ECM
methods,their low altitude performance might be poorer than convantionel
radars.(Even though US counter LO system has been optimized to detect next
generation stealthy cruise misilles and UCAVs using terrain masking)

Why they still invest in convantionel radars
(and stealth platforms)?
Well,Mitchell has showed whole world in 1921 that the era of Battleships was
over,but the Admirals all over world continued to built bigger,better and more
expensive battleships till they learn the truth hard way during WWII.

>That information alone should tell you how significant multistatic radar
>has been integrated into defense systems. I can appreciate one transmitter,
>multiple receivers, but using it to shoot down aircraft and track them
>through the national airspace has

One emitter multiple receiver type multistatic,even tough theoretically
possible,would be the worst solution.


>I think your either dreaming, or incorrectly extrapolating what you
>read in Aviation Week, or Time magazine.

None of them published passive radar images of f117 as far as I know.

[Denyav]

>No multistatics detected the B-2 and engaged it.

Sure,no multistatics detected B-2,f117 or any other NATO aircraft,because
Serbians had no multistatics.
Even though this fact was well known by everbody,hitting two f117s by SAMs
created a multistatic scare in Washington and led to shutdown of serbian power
system.
(At that time US multistatic system,or the first version of it,was already a
couple of years old,so they were aware of the capabilities of US system)

[Denyav]

>Then post them, and we can judge. Until that point, it's just more of
>your silly "American tech sucks, Russian tech rules" propaganda.

US is one of the countries that developed a multi static system,Russia is not
among them.

>You *can*, when you're doing large operations, but for stealth fighers,
>it's a really bad tactic.

But,wouldn't losing stealth planes over hostile territory be an even worse
tactic?

>n other words, the claim you made (about showing a working
>stealth-detecting radar) was a lie.

No,when I say a demonstration,I mean a demonstration Mitchell style,for
everbody.

>(Silly "American corporations are covering up anti-stealth radars to
>sell more planes" conspiracy deleted)

Its a well proven strategy,would you buy a car if you known that the
manufacturer going to drop the type only a couple of weeks later?

>If someone had such a technology that worked, they'd be selling them by
>the shipload to every penny-ante dictator on the planet, and the US
>would be losing stealth planes on a regular basis.

Problem for the dictators is that US one of the three producers and other two
wont sell them to anyone for several reasons.
(They dont even officially acknowledge the existence of their own systems)

>Since that hasn't happened, it's just another of your silly little
>Russian superiority vs US inferiority dreams.

?????

[John Keeney]

"James Dandy" > wrote in message
m...
> Seems to me like all the modern wars I can remember up from Vietnam
> use mostly ordinary fighters and bombers.

Because that was what was available.
The F-117 & B-2 have been doing their fair share as they became available.

> I don't understand why such emphasis is put on that stealth stuff when
> we use the same old planes from previously.

Because it is getting time to replace the old stuff and stealth makes
the new stuff much better.

> I still remember when the F-14 and F-15 came out. Don't we still use
> these? Aren't they better than everyone else's stuff?

In some ways yes, in some ways no.
The last generation of Russian (Red) planes (Su-27 & MiG-29) are
aerodynamically superior. The currently coming on line generation
of European planes are at least the equal of the F-14 & F-15 in most
ways.
So far we've yet to fight anybody (and there may well not be anybody yet)
who can field an integrated force equal to ours: our AWACS, tankers
etc give our fighters a big leg up.

> My son Billy tells me I'm out of date on such matters and that the old
> Reds have stuff that is better than ours. Tell me it ain't so. I saw
> on tv one night a show on the History Channel that showed a new plane
> that did amazing flying but I can't recall its name. It was a Red
> plane tho.
>
> I don't have much interest in stealth so long as we keep pounding them
> Arabs with B-52 bombs! God bless the almighty B-52.
>
> Since I'm out of date maybe you guys can fill me in on the latest.
> What makes a stealth aircraft better?

It can get a lot closer before being detected and whack the bad guy
before he has a chance to duck.

> If they are so good how come we don't own many?

They are new and more expensive.
Give us time and we will own a bunch more of them.

> What if they were all destroyed, wouldn't we still be
> able to fight with the proven stuff?

Sure, it just cost more lives on our side and takes longer to win.



And yes, I do smell troll.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Denyav" > wrote in message
...
>
> I think you will have to revise your claim significantly downward after
reading
> Air Forces own intelligence reports.
>

So post the reports.

[Gernot Hassenpflug]

"Gene Storey" > writes:

> If multistatic radar was deployed and operational, then how come the
> US, NATO, France, UK, Japan, and Saudi Arabia invest so much
> money in maintaining a "monostatic" AWACS fleet?

As others have pointed out, multi-static radar has its advantages and
disadvantages, in the same way that a large and several small ships
have theirs: and the crucial area that makes the latter of both
examples effective is reliable and instantaneous communications.

That, plus the issues of redundancy and never placing all your eggs in
one basket. No matter what secret frequencies you devise, chances are
about 100% that during system testing stage even these will be picked
up and analyzed by other major powers.

Mitsubishi's bistatic/multistatic radar system currently under
development here at Kyoto University/Amagasaki Mitsubishi has shown
several critical performance problems at closer ranges for given
detection and tracking relaiance criteria, and of course the tecnhical
issues such as pulse-chasing and synchronization are not easy.

But once such issues are removed, then as has been pointed out, any EM
source and receiver could be integrated.
--
G Hassenpflug * IJN & JMSDF equipment/history fan

[Ed Rasimus]

On 09 Jan 2004 23:57:52 GMT, (Denyav) wrote:

>>ROTFL! Oh really, and what pray tell is your practical insight to draw that
>>conclusion, compared to that of a combat vet who has a wardrobe full of
>>'dont that' T Shirts.
>
>Combat vets should try to do what they supposed to do best, we are not going to
>re-fight Vietnam war or any war in the past,if f16 or f22 were available during
>Vietnam war,it would be magnificent,but it was 30 years ago and science and
>technology did not stop in 70s.

Your comment that was refuted was that Boyd & Co. and Stealth were two
concepts gleaned from Vietnam that were proven erroneous or invalid.

Boyd's work on energy maneuverability and three dimensional maneuver
is still the basis for 1-v-1 BFM and led to the development of
supporting element maneuver in multi-plane engagement. Without Boyd,
we'd still have Eagles, Vipers and Raptors running around in fighting
wing.

Stealth, and the idea of denying the defenses accurate az/el/range
data through a variety of technologies is going to be a foundation for
aircraft (and defense) designs for a long time to come.

As for what "combat vets should try to do", please acknowledge that
like all professions, military aviators are not one-dimensional
humans. We do a lot of things in a life time, and don't simply
disappear into the attic when the war is over.

As for the relevance of the lessons of Vietnam to F-16, F-22 or SU-37,
let me point you to Santyana---"those who will not learn the lessons
of history are condemned to repeat them."

Lots of science and technology, but it is directed by the experiences
gathered along the way.

You gotta problem wid dat?


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Ed Rasimus]

On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 04:17:22 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>How does a stealth fighter detect an unstealthy fighter?
>
Several options available. Data can be provided by other sources, such
as AWACS, ground radar or participating friendly aircraft. Data fusion
can provide three dimensional modeling with several cooperative
sources each providing one dimension of the data.

Or, you can use IR to provide an azimuth (totally passive) then "ping"
sporadically with an LPI (low probability of interception) radar to
gain range. Or, use IR only and simply integrate successive positions
to triangulate for range.

Feed data to missile, open doors and launch, lather, rinse, repeat.



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[fudog50]

Yes, in addition to a 60,000 (?) lb rated holdback chain.

On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 18:19:16 GMT, Ed Rasimus >
wrote:

>On Fri, 9 Jan 2004 09:50:55 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> wrote:
>
>>
>>I think we can pretty well know the iris on the J-75 was taking out 1% of
>>the F-105s.
>
>Are you referring to the turbine Christmas tree? Failures of the
>Christmas tree which held the three stages of turbine blades caused a
>number of unexplained losses. I mention the bailout of Joe Vojir on
>takeoff at Korat as well as the loss of Buzz Bullock and Dain Milliman
>in takeoff accidents caused by turbine failure in When Thunder Rolled.
>
>The AB nozzle (iris) didn't cause any accidents that I know about.
>And, the nozzle is not synonymous with the speed brake petals or
>pizzas (which were removed in '65).
>
>> When Ed posted here that the F-105's brakes could not hold the
>>airplane in AB, I could see that iris stuck open/closed/half way between.
>
>No afterburner equipped aircraft that I know about can be held by
>wheel brakes in AB. Carrier aircraft get into AB for launch by
>employing a "hold back". The F-4, for example, couldn't be held in
>military power by the wheel brakes. Engines were checked at 100% one
>at a time. Takeoffs were done with a runup to 85% prior to brake
>release, then to mil and finally to AB.
>
>
>
>Ed Rasimus
>Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
>"When Thunder Rolled"
>Smithsonian Institution Press
>ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Emmanuel.Gustin]

Ed Rasimus > wrote:

: In 1966, while I was flying the F-105 over N. Vietnam, we lost one
: every 65 missions. In 1991, during Desert Storm we lost one fixed wing
: aircraft every 3500 mission. In 2003 in Iraqi Freedom we lost one
: fixed wing aircraft in 16,500 mission.

However, the last two operations were characterized by
an almost total lack of opposition in the air. The
biggest threat to US combat aircraft these days seems
to come from small and IR-guided, portable missiles;
or even from machine guns. Very expensive anti-radar
stealth seems to offer little protection against these.
Reducing the IR signature seems to be more useful, but
only really effective against a primitive seeker. (But
MANPADS tend to be much smaller than AIM-9 and I suppose
that it will be difficult to equip them with an all-aspect
or imaging IR seeker.)

: Stealth aircraft are more survivable. We don't have many, because the
: military competes for $$$ against the welfare princesses and
: redistribution of wealth candidates who run for election on a platform
: of taking from "them" and giving to the masses.

AFAIK the US social security system runs with a positive balance,
i.e. money is flowing from it into other departments, not the
other way around. But that aside, the US military budget is huge,
it vastly outspends every other nation, and if it has few stealth
aircraft that is in part because until now, these have really
been prohibitively expensive both to buy and to operate in large
numbers. Besides, the numbers were not needed anyway: The B-2
and even more so the F-117 were ver^y specialized designs, and
aircraft that require special maintenance procedures and
climate-controlled hangars are of limited operational usefulness.
For stealth to be really useful, it must be made compatible
with dirt strips and pierced metal planking.

However, that was in part because the design of the F-117 and
the B-2 were willing to compromise very little stealth for
other characteristics. The F-22 and F-35 must involve an
increase in RCS as a penalty for lower cost and easier
maintenance, while relying on new materials and manufacturing
procedures to get good results.

Part of the attractiveness of a new design is that it may
actually be cheaper to buy and operate than its precedessor.
Manufacturers and officials seem to have promised this for
every weapons program since the late 1960s; I don't actually
know of a program that also achieved this goal.

For the F-22 a high degree of stealth may be worth the investment.
For the F-35 I am not so sure: I expect that 80% of the time,
these aircraft will be flying with large non-stealthy external
ordnance.

--
Emmanuel Gustin

[Kevin Brooks]

"Emmanuel.Gustin" > wrote in message
...
> Ed Rasimus > wrote:
>

<snip>

The B-2
> and even more so the F-117 were ver^y specialized designs, and
> aircraft that require special maintenance procedures and
> climate-controlled hangars are of limited operational usefulness.

They have already proven their operational usefullness. In view of that
fact, the above is an unsupportable assertion.

> For stealth to be really useful, it must be made compatible
> with dirt strips and pierced metal planking.

It already is "really useful". The loss of one stealth aircraft against how
many hundreds of sorties into environments that were rich with radar
directed threats in Iraq and former Yugoslavia. Again, your statement is
not supported by the facts.

<snip>

> Emmanuel Gustin
>

[Tarver Engineering]

"fudog50" > wrote in message
...
> Yes, in addition to a 60,000 (?) lb rated holdback chain.

The F-105 had to be chained down for trim.

> On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 18:19:16 GMT, Ed Rasimus >
> wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 9 Jan 2004 09:50:55 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>I think we can pretty well know the iris on the J-75 was taking out 1%
of
> >>the F-105s.
> >
> >Are you referring to the turbine Christmas tree? Failures of the
> >Christmas tree which held the three stages of turbine blades caused a
> >number of unexplained losses. I mention the bailout of Joe Vojir on
> >takeoff at Korat as well as the loss of Buzz Bullock and Dain Milliman
> >in takeoff accidents caused by turbine failure in When Thunder Rolled.
> >
> >The AB nozzle (iris) didn't cause any accidents that I know about.
> >And, the nozzle is not synonymous with the speed brake petals or
> >pizzas (which were removed in '65).
> >
> >> When Ed posted here that the F-105's brakes could not hold the
> >>airplane in AB, I could see that iris stuck open/closed/half way
between.
> >
> >No afterburner equipped aircraft that I know about can be held by
> >wheel brakes in AB. Carrier aircraft get into AB for launch by
> >employing a "hold back". The F-4, for example, couldn't be held in
> >military power by the wheel brakes. Engines were checked at 100% one
> >at a time. Takeoffs were done with a runup to 85% prior to brake
> >release, then to mil and finally to AB.
> >
> >
> >
> >Ed Rasimus
> >Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
> >"When Thunder Rolled"
> >Smithsonian Institution Press
> >ISBN #1-58834-103-8
>

[Emmanuel.Gustin]

Kevin Brooks > wrote:

: The B-2
:> and even more so the F-117 were very specialized designs, and
:> aircraft that require special maintenance procedures and
:> climate-controlled hangars are of limited operational usefulness.

: They have already proven their operational usefullness. In view of that
: fact, the above is an unsupportable assertion.

I wrote "limited operation usefulness", not "no operational
usefulness". Penalties such as these are acceptable for a
small number of aircraft with specialized roles. They are
not acceptable for the main body of an air force. If the
F-16 had had the maintenance requirements of the B-2,
the Gulf Wars would simply not have been fought. In some ways
stealth has been a backward step; since the 1960s engineers
have aimed to reduce maintenance requirements and turn-around
time, and to make aircraft less dependable on well-equipped
bases. The need for this was obvious in Korea and Vietnam,
as well as from the budget... The first generation of stealth
aircraft reversed this trend, a most unwelcome limitation on
their use.

:> For stealth to be really useful, it must be made compatible
:> with dirt strips and pierced metal planking.

: It already is "really useful". The loss of one stealth aircraft against how
: many hundreds of sorties into environments that were rich with radar
: directed threats in Iraq and former Yugoslavia.

Allow me to point out that the USAF has bought only 59 F-117s
and equipped only two operational squadrons with them. To me
this reflects a rather sober view of the operational usefulness
of the type: An useful accessory to the arsenal, but not able
to replace more conventional types. Before Stealth can be
incorporated in the backbone of the air frce, serious technical
problems need to be solved, and compromises must be made.

It is true that the loss rate of the F-117 has been low: The
low rate of other USAF aircraft has also been low, to the
point of making a comparison statistically insignificant.

--
Emmanuel Gustin

[Smartace11]

>incorporated in the backbone of the air frce, serious technical
>problems need to be solved, and compromises must be made.
>
>It is true that the loss rate of the F-117 has been low: The
>low rate of other USAF aircraft has also been low, to the
>point of making a comparison statistically insignificant.
>
>--
>Emmanuel Gustin

Sort of a narrow view of air operations, I would say. Having particiapted in a
number of 100 plane raids in SEA against a single point target that a single
B-2 cold take out now I'd say the tradeoffs with Stealth is no brainer. The
high maintenance requirements for stealth and the controlled hangar
environments are mainly a matter of materiels used in maintaining stealth
coatings and those materials have been much inproved in the past decade.

[Denyav]

>Your comment that was refuted was that Boyd & Co. and Stealth were two
>concepts gleaned from Vietnam that were proven erroneous or invalid.
>
>Boyd's work on energy maneuverability and three

>imensional maneuver
>is still the basis for 1-v-1 BFM and led to the development of
>supporting element maneuver in multi-plane engagement. Without Boyd,
>we'd still have Eagles, Vipers and Raptors running around in fighting
>wing.

Everything you said is correct and explains why the ideas of Boyd&Co were
"fundamentally" wrong.
They developed tactics for a world without situational and global awaraness
tools and designed warplanes to excel under such circumstances.
Lets put that way, during Vietnam war US had only rudimentary situational
awareness tools no global awareness tool at all.
Boyd&Co identified wrong problem and tried to solve wrong problem with a step
in the wrong direction,the real reason for not so perfect performance of US
aircraft in Vietnam was not their inability to perform high energy maneuvers or
missing cannons,it was unavailability of situational and global awareness tools
that we have today.
So,it would be much better if Boyd and others should have asked a couple of
questions to themselves before developing their concepts:
a)How it would be if US had total situational awareness in Vietnam?
b)Whats if such tools brcome available in next 10-15 years?
Unfortunately they developed their concepts without answering such questions
and also without fully understanding the direction of technological
development,so we have now full situational and global awareness but also 100 M
$ fighters that are not only capable of destroying MIG17s in dogfights also
capable of doing jack knife type fighting with Red Barons Fokker.
But thanks to such wonderful capabilities that they never ever need under full
situational awareness conditions,their ranges will never meet the criterias.

>Stealth, and the idea of denying the defenses accurate az/el/range
>data through a variety of technologies is going to be a foundation for
>aircraft (and defense) designs for a long time to come.

Thats even worse than Boyds ideas,"passive" stealth was already obsolete in
70s,(Might stay as a foundation for aircraft designs for a long time to come
though,specially if your adversaries are backward third world countries like
Panama,Iraq,Iran,NK,Somalia,Zambia etc)

>As for what "combat vets should try to do", please acknowledge that
>like all professions, military aviators are not one-dimensional
>humans. We do a lot of things in a life time, and don't simply
>disappear into the attic when the war is over.

I hope so,but Let me repeat the Battleship example,after Mitchell demonstration
it was obvious the the era of Battleships was over but Admirals all over the
world continued to order bigger better ,more capable and of course more
expensive Battleships (their showboats) till they learn the truth hard way
during WWII,
I am pretty sure,without WWII we,and probably everbody else, would still be
building bigger and better battleships.>As for the relevance of the lessons of
Vietnam to F-16, F-22 or SU-37,
>let me point you to Santyana---"those who will not learn the lessons
>of history are condemned to repeat them."
>
>
Thats true but only if learn correct lessons.

>Lots of science and technology, but it is directed by the experiences
>gathered along the way.
>
>You gotta problem wid dat?

Historically wars,unfortunately,were one of the driving forces behind the
scientific&technological development but calling Boyds ideas and passive
stealth a development would be strecth

[Denyav]

>However, that was in part because the design of the F-117 and
>the B-2 were willing to compromise very little stealth for
>other characteristics. The F-22 and F-35 must involve an

Frontal RCSs of B2 and f22 are identical.

[Cub Driver]

>I don't understand why such emphasis is put on that stealth stuff when
>we use the same old planes from previously.

We have less tolerance today than we did in 1970 for losing our pilots
in combat against enemy air defenses.

I'll bet there were days when Ed Rasimus wished that his F-105 had
stealthy characteristics.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Cub Driver]

>Boyd&Co identified wrong problem and tried to solve wrong problem with a step
>in the wrong direction,

Would you share with us your combat flight experience?

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Gene Storey]

"Cub Driver" > wrote
>
> I'll bet there were days when Ed Rasimus wished that his F-105 had
> stealthy characteristics.

It wouldn't have mattered, as the white house was building the ATO, and
most of them flew the same waypoints year after year. It was a war designed
to be lost, by officers who were pretty much derelict in everything they did.

[Kevin Brooks]

"Gene Storey" > wrote in message
news:tzwMb.10086$6l1.1052@okepread03...

<snip>

> It was a war designed to be lost, by officers who were pretty much
derelict in everything they did.
>
>

Well, the comment about micromanagement from the White House was generally
accurate, so I guessed you are getting a *bit* better, but then you toss out
this unsubstantiated crap. Please provide some evidence that US military
officers intended to lose the war...no? That's right, you can't. No doubt
there were decisions made by some officers that were, in hindsight, wrong.
But "pretty much derelict in everything they did"? It is amazing that you
have recently spent so much time and effort defending the actions of folks
like Hitler and Saddam, and then come out with an indictement like the
above.

Brooks

[Ed Rasimus]

On 12 Jan 2004 05:58:35 GMT, (Denyav) wrote:

When I said:
>>Your comment that was refuted was that Boyd & Co. and Stealth were two
>>concepts gleaned from Vietnam that were proven erroneous or invalid.
>>
>>Boyd's work on energy maneuverability and three
>
>>imensional maneuver
>>is still the basis for 1-v-1 BFM and led to the development of
>>supporting element maneuver in multi-plane engagement. Without Boyd,
>>we'd still have Eagles, Vipers and Raptors running around in fighting
>>wing.
>
Denyav responded:
>Everything you said is correct and explains why the ideas of Boyd&Co were
>"fundamentally" wrong.
>They developed tactics for a world without situational and global awaraness
>tools and designed warplanes to excel under such circumstances.

You garble apples and oranges here. While situational awareness is
critical, it's not the same issue as developing the principles of
three dimensional maneuver between two aircraft. The analytical tools
of P-sub-s diagramming to compare aircraft and optimize your own
performance are important and whether or not you possess total SA
still going to apply.

>Lets put that way, during Vietnam war US had only rudimentary situational
>awareness tools no global awareness tool at all.

And, we still don't have total SA. AWACS and data-fusion/sharing are
great advances, but the "fog of war" will remain. We did have Disco,
Red Crown, T-Ball and Combat Tree as well as our own sensors and nav
gear, but a lot of SA was a personally learned and honed skill.

>Boyd&Co identified wrong problem and tried to solve wrong problem with a step
>in the wrong direction,the real reason for not so perfect performance of US
>aircraft in Vietnam was not their inability to perform high energy maneuvers or
>missing cannons,it was unavailability of situational and global awareness tools
>that we have today.

You really should read a bit more history. While F-4s without guns got
a lot of notice, there were a lot more gun-equipped aircraft than
non-gun. The failures didn't relate to lack of SA as much as to
political gradualism and lack of will to win.

>So,it would be much better if Boyd and others should have asked a couple of
>questions to themselves before developing their concepts:
>a)How it would be if US had total situational awareness in Vietnam?

The answer is easy. It would be great. But, if you are running the war
for political purposes and trying to avoid major power nuclear
confrontation, it doesn't matter what your SA is.

>b)Whats if such tools brcome available in next 10-15 years?

What if? What if we had AWACS? Not much difference. What if we had
PGMs? Ahhh, that might have made a difference. What if we had
stand-off weaponry? Ahhh, that would be good to.


>>Stealth, and the idea of denying the defenses accurate az/el/range
>>data through a variety of technologies is going to be a foundation for
>>aircraft (and defense) designs for a long time to come.
>
>Thats even worse than Boyds ideas,"passive" stealth was already obsolete in
>70s,(Might stay as a foundation for aircraft designs for a long time to come
>though,specially if your adversaries are backward third world countries like
>Panama,Iraq,Iran,NK,Somalia,Zambia etc)

I did not distinguish active or passive stealth, but simply refuted
your contention that stealth is a failure. Loss rates for stealth
aircraft are statistically zero and target success rates are very
close to 100%. It makes little difference whether the opposition is
first or third world.
>
>>As for what "combat vets should try to do", please acknowledge that
>>like all professions, military aviators are not one-dimensional
>>humans. We do a lot of things in a life time, and don't simply
>>disappear into the attic when the war is over.
>
>I hope so,but Let me repeat the Battleship example,after Mitchell demonstration
>it was obvious the the era of Battleships was over but Admirals all over the
>world continued to order bigger better ,more capable and of course more
>expensive Battleships (their showboats) till they learn the truth hard way
>during WWII,

You might want to look into the Treaty of Washington 1922 to see the
status of battleship construction world wide. Mitchell's demontration
a couple of years later was relevant to aircraft vs ships and had
little to with battleships specifically.

You might apply your same incorrect logic substituting carrier for
battleship to see the error. Then check Battle of Midway.



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Ed Rasimus]

On 12 Jan 2004 06:03:22 GMT, (Denyav) wrote:

>>However, that was in part because the design of the F-117 and
>>the B-2 were willing to compromise very little stealth for
>>other characteristics. The F-22 and F-35 must involve an
>
>Frontal RCSs of B2 and f22 are identical.

Which is:

1.) incorrect

and

2.) irrelevant.



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Denyav]

>Which is:
>
>1.) incorrect
>

I hate to disappoint you,but correct

>2.) irrelevant.
>
You are correct here,in the era of multistatic and UWB radars,classical RCS
values are IRRELEVANT.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
(Denyav) wrote:

> You are correct here,in the era of multistatic and UWB
> radars,classical RCS values are IRRELEVANT.

Lowered returns, no matter what buzzword you're using, are quite
relevant.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Denyav" > wrote in message
...
>
> I hate to disappoint you,but correct
>

Prove it.

[Denyav]

>You garble apples and oranges here. While situational awareness is
>critical, it's not the same issue as developing the principles of
>three dimensional maneuver between two aircraft. The analytical tools
>of P-sub-s diagramming to compare aircraft and optimize your own
>performance are important and whether or not you possess total SA

I think you are contradicting yourself here,you gave an excellent answer to
another poster and explained how things are done in the era of full situational
awareness,as you correctly implied there is no need to acquire target with your
Mk.I eyeballs,you dont even need to acquire target with your own
sensors,somebody else could do it for you,what you need is only to fire your
missiles.
Do you need high energy manouvers or jack knife type fights for that?
If we had current SA tools in 60s,the Missilleer project would be a great
success.

>And, we still don't have total SA. AWACS and data-fusion/sharing are
>great advances, but the "fog of war" will remain. We did have Disco,
>Red Crown, T-Ball and Combat Tree as well as our own sensors and nav

Fog of war will always be part of the business.
Let me give a simple example,
Is there any guarantee that your family will start every time when you turn the
ignition key? No
But no auto manufacturer nowadays offers cranking handle type starting option
in their cars.

>You really should read a bit more history. While F-4s without guns got
>a lot of notice, there were a lot more gun-equipped aircraft than
>non-gun. The failures didn't relate to lack of SA as much as to
>political gradualism and lack of will to win.

Factors you mentioned were obviously the main factors at the national decision
making level,but less relevant at air-air combat level.

>You really should read a bit more history. While F-4s without guns got
>a lot of notice, there were a lot more gun-equipped aircraft than
>non-gun. The failures didn't relate to lack of SA as much as to
>political gradualism and lack of will to win.

>The answer is easy. It would be great. But, if you are running the war
>for political purposes and trying to avoid major power nuclear
>confrontation, it doesn't matter what your SA is.

Unless you bombed production bases of NV,which were located inside USSR and
China,you would not risk a nuclear war.
Politically it does not matter much how you shoot down an enemy plane,with guns
or with BVR missiles.>I did not distinguish active or passive stealth, but
simply refuted

>your contention that stealth is a failure. Loss rates for stealth
>aircraft are statistically zero and target success rates are very
>close to 100%. It makes little difference whether the opposition is
>first or third world.

Target success rate during DS I is more close to 1/10 th of what you are
quoting and during Balkan conflict more f117s damaged than convantionel
ones,even though f117s made up only small part of allied air fleet.
Regarding target success rate during whole Balkan war only 3 serbian air
defense radars were destroyed.
Even simple internetting of old serbian radars proved to be very effective
aganist stealth aircraft.
Did you ever wonder why US started destroying Chinese built Iraqi fiberoptic
network months before starting of Iraqi freedom using Special Forces and no fly
zone flights?
Chances of stealth aircraft aganist a sophisticated enemy using multistatics
and/or UKW radars?
Not any better than an old battleship without air cover.

[Ed Rasimus]

On 12 Jan 2004 17:47:59 GMT, (Denyav) wrote:

>>You garble apples and oranges here. While situational awareness is
>>critical, it's not the same issue as developing the principles of
>>three dimensional maneuver between two aircraft. The analytical tools
>>of P-sub-s diagramming to compare aircraft and optimize your own
>>performance are important and whether or not you possess total SA
>
>I think you are contradicting yourself here,you gave an excellent answer to
>another poster and explained how things are done in the era of full situational
>awareness,as you correctly implied there is no need to acquire target with your
>Mk.I eyeballs,you dont even need to acquire target with your own
>sensors,somebody else could do it for you,what you need is only to fire your
>missiles.
>Do you need high energy manouvers or jack knife type fights for that?
>If we had current SA tools in 60s,the Missilleer project would be a great
>success.

If I am going to enter the air/air arena, I need SA, but I'd better
also have a good understanding of three dimensional maneuver and the
relative performance envelope of both my own aircraft and my potential
adversary's. While the BVR war is the ideal, reality often has a way
of screwing up the perfect world and then you wind up turning and
burning.
>
>>And, we still don't have total SA. AWACS and data-fusion/sharing are
>>great advances, but the "fog of war" will remain. We did have Disco,
>>Red Crown, T-Ball and Combat Tree as well as our own sensors and nav
>
>>You really should read a bit more history. While F-4s without guns got
>>a lot of notice, there were a lot more gun-equipped aircraft than
>>non-gun. The failures didn't relate to lack of SA as much as to
>>political gradualism and lack of will to win.
>
>Factors you mentioned were obviously the main factors at the national decision
>making level,but less relevant at air-air combat level.

Air-to-air combat was a minor component of the Vietnam air war. There
was none, absolutely none in S. Vietnam, Laos or Cambodia and little
in the panhandle of NVN. There were only A/A engagements in Route
Package V and VI and from late '68 to spring of '72, we weren't going
there. In 250 combat missions, 150 of which were into N. Vietnam, I
encountered enemy aircraft only a half dozen times.

Given the alternative of better SA tools or better A/A training, I
would have chosen the training.
>
>>You really should read a bit more history. While F-4s without guns got
>>a lot of notice, there were a lot more gun-equipped aircraft than
>>non-gun. The failures didn't relate to lack of SA as much as to
>>political gradualism and lack of will to win.
>
>>The answer is easy. It would be great. But, if you are running the war
>>for political purposes and trying to avoid major power nuclear
>>confrontation, it doesn't matter what your SA is.
>
>Unless you bombed production bases of NV,which were located inside USSR and
>China,you would not risk a nuclear war.

You better get a few more books. There was serious concern over the
possibility of any conflict during those years escalating. The
political posture of both the US/NATO and the USSR/WP was that an
"attack on one is an attack on all" and the umbrella of coverage was
repeatedly asserted as covering client states as well.

>Politically it does not matter much how you shoot down an enemy plane,with guns
>or with BVR missiles.>I did not distinguish active or passive stealth, but
>simply refuted
>
>>your contention that stealth is a failure. Loss rates for stealth
>>aircraft are statistically zero and target success rates are very
>>close to 100%. It makes little difference whether the opposition is
>>first or third world.
>
>Target success rate during DS I is more close to 1/10 th of what you are
>quoting and during Balkan conflict more f117s damaged than convantionel
>ones,even though f117s made up only small part of allied air fleet.

Really? My statement on losses and target service are referring to
stealth aircraft performance, not the total air effort. To date there
has been only 1 F-117 lost in combat. During DS and IF, there were no
stealth aircraft -117s or B-2s lost or damaged.

>Regarding target success rate during whole Balkan war only 3 serbian air
>defense radars were destroyed.

Really?

>Even simple internetting of old serbian radars proved to be very effective
>aganist stealth aircraft.

Networking, not "internetting", but Serbian air defense radars, if we
discount one clueless F-16 "scared rabbit", were ineffective even
against non-stealthy aircraft.



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Gene Storey]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote
> "Gene Storey" > wrote
>
> Please provide some evidence that US military officers intended to lose the war

The war was lost, and officers are in charge of war.

It was lost in 1946 when we allowed the French to decolonize.

http://www.lexisnexis.com/academic/2upa/Imhw/VietnamMACV.asp

Basically, if you fly a B-52 down the same route as the previous three B-52, and do
it at the same altitude, and with the same waypoints, you and whoever drew-up the
operation are derelict. The fact that anyone survived is pure luck, and those that
died were very brave, but very wasted (much as going over the top in the great war
in the face of machine guns). The way to lose a war is to suffer casualties so great,
with such waste, the people back home won't want to go, and either burn their draft
cards, or joined the Reserves.

[Alan Minyard]

On 12 Jan 2004 06:03:22 GMT, (Denyav) wrote:

>>However, that was in part because the design of the F-117 and
>>the B-2 were willing to compromise very little stealth for
>>other characteristics. The F-22 and F-35 must involve an
>
>Frontal RCSs of B2 and f22 are identical.

Since you do not know the RCS of either (can you say
"classified"?, there, I knew you could) that is an utterly
unsupportable claim.

Al Minyard

[Ed Rasimus]

On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 16:59:37 -0600, "Gene Storey" >
wrote:

>"Kevin Brooks" > wrote
>> "Gene Storey" > wrote
>>
>> Please provide some evidence that US military officers intended to lose the war
>
>The war was lost, and officers are in charge of war.

You might want to review the relationship between the military and the
government established by the US Constitution.
>
>It was lost in 1946 when we allowed the French to decolonize.

???? We? Who is we? And, why would the French need approval from
anyone other than the French people? And, if they "decolonized" in
1946, what was going on at Dien Bien Phu in 1954?
>
>http://www.lexisnexis.com/academic/2upa/Imhw/VietnamMACV.asp

What's the relevance of the link? It certainly doesn't offer any
support for US military officers intending to lose.
>
>Basically, if you fly a B-52 down the same route as the previous three B-52, and do
>it at the same altitude, and with the same waypoints, you and whoever drew-up the
>operation are derelict.

You might refer to Marshall Michel's excellent work, "Eleven Days of
Christmas" for some insight into the relationship between SAC and the
rest of the US military. Pay close attention to the command
relationships. SAC was not under the operational control of MACV or
7th Air Force.

Then, you might also want to check the size of the target area, the
availability of offset or direct aim points for a weapons delivery,
and the need to avoid collateral damage in a target area. (I might
even offer you a first-person account by a POW who was moved to a cell
that was immediately across the street from the Hanoi Power Plant.)
Some times there are only so many ways you can approach a target. Why
come down Thud Ridge every day? It points at Hanoi, it doesn't have
much population and it provides radar screening from SAM sites. But,
that means you go the same way every day....Yep.

> The fact that anyone survived is pure luck, and those that
>died were very brave, but very wasted (much as going over the top in the great war
>in the face of machine guns). The way to lose a war is to suffer casualties so great,
>with such waste, the people back home won't want to go, and either burn their draft
>cards, or joined the Reserves.

But, if we count casualties, then the 58,000 names on the Wall are
minor compared to the estimates of 2 to 3 million that the NVN and VC
lost in the war.

Whether we won or lost, suffered immense casualties or none at all,
the sniveling weak sisters who burned their draft cards would still
have been driven only by the desire to preserve their own worthless
hides.

And, you might also want to check out the number of Reserve and Guard
units that served in combat in SEA and how many casualties they
incurred.
>

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Kevin Brooks]

"Gene Storey" > wrote in message
news:wFFMb.20$ce2.7@okepread03...
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote
> > "Gene Storey" > wrote
> >
> > Please provide some evidence that US military officers intended to lose
the war
>
> The war was lost, and officers are in charge of war.

You'll have to do better than that. How did they INTEND to lose it?

>
> It was lost in 1946 when we allowed the French to decolonize.

That is a ridiculous statement.

>
> http://www.lexisnexis.com/academic/2upa/Imhw/VietnamMACV.asp
>
> Basically, if you fly a B-52 down the same route as the previous three
B-52, and do
> it at the same altitude, and with the same waypoints, you and whoever
drew-up the
> operation are derelict. The fact that anyone survived is pure luck, and
those that
> died were very brave, but very wasted (much as going over the top in the
great war
> in the face of machine guns). The way to lose a war is to suffer
casualties so great,
> with such waste, the people back home won't want to go, and either burn
their draft
> cards, or joined the Reserves.

What claptrap. You are about one notch above that ZZBunker character in
terms of having a grasp of reality. The fact that the early tactics of the
B-52 raids during LBII were flawed had nothing to do with the way the war
progressed. And assigning the qualities of draft resister to *all*, or even
*most*, of the US citizens in the late sixties/early seventies is pure
unadulterated BS. While casualties are never good, the fact is that the
casualty count in Vietnam was much less than that of either WWI or WWII, and
the casualty *rate* was less than that experienced in Korea (given that the
duration of active combat operations in Korea was much less than that
experienced in Vietnam). You need to go back to supporting the policies of
Saddam and Hitler--as ridiculous as those attempts were, you were probably
making more headway with them than with this nonsense.

Brooks

>
>

[Gene Storey]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote
> "Gene Storey" > wrote in message
> > It was lost in 1946 when we allowed the French to decolonize.
>
> That is a ridiculous statement.

Merely a typo: recolonize.

[Gene Storey]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote
>
> Why come down Thud Ridge every day? It points at Hanoi, it doesn't have
> much population and it provides radar screening from SAM sites. But,
> that means you go the same way every day....Yep.

Plinking. Total waste of time. Didn't achieve anything, and akin to Germans
bombing London. Big deal.

[EB Jet]

From: (Denyav)
Date: 1/11/04 10:03 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: >

>However, that was in part because the design of the F-117 and
>the B-2 were willing to compromise very little stealth for
>other characteristics. The F-22 and F-35 must involve an

<Frontal RCSs of B2 and f22 are identical.>

Wrong

[WaltBJ]

58,000 lost - were they all due to combat in SEA?
I think not.
Walt BK

[Kevin Brooks]

"WaltBJ" > wrote in message
om...
> 58,000 lost - were they all due to combat in SEA?
> I think not.
> Walt BK

Not trying to be obtuse, but your point is...?

Brooks

[Gene Storey]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote
> "WaltBJ" > wrote
> > 58,000 lost - were they all due to combat in SEA?
> > I think not.
> > Walt BK
>
> Not trying to be obtuse, but your point is...?
>
> Brooks

You succeed without even trying. You spend all your time telling people
they're wrong, but never offer one gram of anything substantial. You are
hot air. Why not find a brown woman green boy?

[Kevin Brooks]

"Gene Storey" > wrote in message
news:DmSMb.86$ce2.46@okepread03...
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote
> > "WaltBJ" > wrote
> > > 58,000 lost - were they all due to combat in SEA?
> > > I think not.
> > > Walt BK
> >
> > Not trying to be obtuse, but your point is...?
> >
> > Brooks
>
> You succeed without even trying. You spend all your time telling people
> they're wrong, but never offer one gram of anything substantial. You are
> hot air. Why not find a brown woman green boy?

Obviously you need to take your meds and get back to us when you are
coherent--"brown woman/green boy"? Yep, you are in good company with Messeur
ZZBunker...

Brooks
>
>

[Kevin Brooks]

"Gene Storey" > wrote in message
news:F9HMb.28$ce2.0@okepread03...
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote
> > "Gene Storey" > wrote in message
> > > It was lost in 1946 when we allowed the French to decolonize.
> >
> > That is a ridiculous statement.
>
> Merely a typo: recolonize.

Gee, I guess the rest of your baseless and rather stupid rant was some kind
of "typo" as well, huh? Say hello to the nice men with white coats and that
really nifty buckle-up jacket for you...

Brooks
>
>

[Gene Storey]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote
> "Gene Storey" > wrote
> > "Kevin Brooks" > wrote
> > > "Gene Storey" > wrote in message
> > > > It was lost in 1946 when we allowed the French to decolonize.
> > >
> > > That is a ridiculous statement.
> >
> > Merely a typo: recolonize.
>
> Gee, I guess the rest of your baseless and rather stupid rant was some kind
> of "typo" as well, huh? Say hello to the nice men with white coats and that
> really nifty buckle-up jacket for you...

You keep masturbating, do you ever ejaculate?

[Kevin Brooks]

"Gene Storey" > wrote in message
news:d_SMb.87$ce2.34@okepread03...
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote
> > "Gene Storey" > wrote
> > > "Kevin Brooks" > wrote
> > > > "Gene Storey" > wrote in message
> > > > > It was lost in 1946 when we allowed the French to decolonize.
> > > >
> > > > That is a ridiculous statement.
> > >
> > > Merely a typo: recolonize.
> >
> > Gee, I guess the rest of your baseless and rather stupid rant was some
kind
> > of "typo" as well, huh? Say hello to the nice men with white coats and
that
> > really nifty buckle-up jacket for you...
>
> You keep masturbating, do you ever ejaculate?

H'mmm...preoccupation with bodily functions and other people's sex lives,
huh...? Yep, you are definitely in need of serious medical help, no doubt
about it.

Brooks
>
>

[Ed Rasimus]

On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 19:01:05 -0600, "Gene Storey" >
wrote:

>"Ed Rasimus" > wrote
>>
>> Why come down Thud Ridge every day? It points at Hanoi, it doesn't have
>> much population and it provides radar screening from SAM sites. But,
>> that means you go the same way every day....Yep.
>
>Plinking. Total waste of time. Didn't achieve anything, and akin to Germans
>bombing London. Big deal.
>

Well, it was my time to waste and pretty damned exciting.

If you check some tonnages delivered by the tactical forces during
Rolling Thunder (that's without the truly incredible numbers added by
the B-52s in Linebacker II), you'll find that we stack up quite
comparably to the major Allied bombing campaigns of WW II.
Exponentially greater than the "plinking" of the V-1, V-2 and light
bombers of the WW II Luftwaffe.

In just two days, the 29th and 30th of June, 1966, for example we
destroyed 85% of the POL storage and handling facilities in the
country. During most of the period we kept nearly 300,000 workers
occupied along the NE and NW railroads repairing the bridges and
rights of way. In LB II, during eleven days we confirmed kills on 43
SAM sites. There are other examples, but it seems that you have a
pretty firmly established position on the matter.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Gene Storey]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote
>
> Well, it was my time to waste and pretty damned exciting.

Well, maybe you'll write a sequal: "When Thunder Stopped Rolling"

The part where the Vietnamese had to clean up the mess you left,
and are still trying to recover economically, while you drive your
Arab Oil SUV tank to the Chinese Wal-Mart.

[Ed Rasimus]

On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 16:56:41 -0600, "Gene Storey" >
wrote:

>"Ed Rasimus" > wrote
>>
>> Well, it was my time to waste and pretty damned exciting.
>
>Well, maybe you'll write a sequal: "When Thunder Stopped Rolling"
>
>The part where the Vietnamese had to clean up the mess you left,
>and are still trying to recover economically, while you drive your
>Arab Oil SUV tank to the Chinese Wal-Mart.
>

I've got no regrets. The Vietnamese "mess" seems much more closely
related to Marxist economics and revolutionary rhetoric than anything
we did. The sequel right now is titled "Palace Cobra: Fascination With
a War", but that might change. It deals with going to the same targets
in the F-4 five years after the first tour, primarily because of the
efforts of those you seem to idolize who burned their draft cards and
stayed home.

Today in Vietnam, the economy is booming, tourism is rampant,
immigration is open (I encountered several Vietnamese students on
campus last semester who coincidentally were born in 1975, the year
the Saigon government fell.)

As for "Arab Oil SUV tank," I drive an Infiniti coupe and my wife
drives a Toyota. We get good gas mileage. I became disenamoured of
"Yank Tanks" during the years I lived in Europe. I don't shop at
Wal-Mart, but I often suggest my classes look at clothing labels in
their local Wal-Mart as a clear indication that American free
enterprise is succeeding in undermining the Marxist utopia in China.

You seem to be heavily into sloganeering, innuendo, stereotyping and
simplistic interpretation of events which you don't demonstrate a
clear understanding of.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Keith Willshaw]

"Gene Storey" > wrote in message
news:MI_Mb.98$ce2.93@okepread03...
> "Ed Rasimus" > wrote
> >
> > Well, it was my time to waste and pretty damned exciting.
>
> Well, maybe you'll write a sequal: "When Thunder Stopped Rolling"
>
> The part where the Vietnamese had to clean up the mess you left,
> and are still trying to recover economically, while you drive your
> Arab Oil SUV tank to the Chinese Wal-Mart.
>
>

If you want to be up to date you'd better make it the one
about the Vietnamese struggle to encourage US investment
in their country after 25 years of communism have impoverished it.

As the official Vietnamese Government website reported

<Quote>
in January 2004, a delegation from numerous leading companies of the US in
many fields as General Electric, Lockheed Martins, and American Global
Resources. will come to Vietnam looking for investment opportunities.
Finding market with greater interest as the above is active signal of
starting investment into Vietnam from the US, the experts predicted. With
journey of the US enterprises to Vietnam in January 2004, several investment
projects with billions dollars expected to be signed.

</Quote>



That whirring sound in the background is Uncle Ho

spinning in his grave.



Keith

[Mike Marron]

> Ed Rasimus > wrote:
>>"Gene Storey" > wrote:

>>Well, maybe you'll write a sequal: "When Thunder Stopped Rolling"

>>The part where the Vietnamese had to clean up the mess you left,
>>and are still trying to recover economically, while you drive your
>>Arab Oil SUV tank to the Chinese Wal-Mart.

>I've got no regrets. The Vietnamese "mess" seems much more closely
>related to Marxist economics and revolutionary rhetoric than anything
>we did.

Well said. And we didn't "lose" the war, per se. IIRC, we left the
South Vietnamese with the third largest air force in the world
(larger than the RAF, the post-war Luftwaffe, the Armée de l'air,
etc.) but the South Vietnamese simply didn't want to fight for
their_own_country!

>The sequel right now is titled "Palace Cobra: Fascination With
>a War", but that might change.

Howzabout "Air War in Shangri-la?" ;)

>It deals with going to the same targets in the F-4 five years after
>the first tour, primarily because of the efforts of those you seem to
>idolize who burned their draft cards and stayed home.

That, and the efforts of our politicians, of course.

>Today in Vietnam, the economy is booming, tourism is rampant,
>immigration is open (I encountered several Vietnamese students on
>campus last semester who coincidentally were born in 1975, the year
>the Saigon government fell.)

Exactly right. (Coca Cola is the beverage of choice in Vietnam these
days, no?)

>As for "Arab Oil SUV tank," I drive an Infiniti coupe and my wife
>drives a Toyota. We get good gas mileage. I became disenamoured of
>"Yank Tanks" during the years I lived in Europe. I don't shop at
>Wal-Mart, but I often suggest my classes look at clothing labels in
>their local Wal-Mart as a clear indication that American free
>enterprise is succeeding in undermining the Marxist utopia in China.

Speaking of which, I hold a valid Class "A" CDL (e.g: 80,000 lbs.
GVWR) w/tanker and hazmat endorsements. If these SUV's and "Yank
Tanks" get any bigger than they already are, my next "car" is gonna be
a nice Peterbilt or Freightliner with a 500 hp Cat diesel and Rockwell
Super-10 tranny (e.g: die you all you SUV pukes! ;)

>You seem to be heavily into sloganeering, innuendo, stereotyping and
>simplistic interpretation of events which you don't demonstrate a
>clear understanding of.

Sometimes Gene comes up with some amusing (and damn plausible)
stuff, but I've also detected quite a lot of bitterness and anger in
his posts that is somewhat disconcerting.

In any event, getting back to the topic of the importance of stealth,
I'm sure glad that they can't see my bird on radar since my
"stealthiness" enables me to operate it like both an airplane AND
an ultralight (e.g: the best of both worlds).

Is this a great country, or what! ;))

[Gene Storey]

"Mike Marron" > wrote
>
> ...the South Vietnamese simply didn't want to fight for
> their_own_country!

South Vietnam was designed in Washington DC. It was a fake
country. The Vietnamese fought for their country and terminated
the American hegemony.

> Sometimes Gene comes up with some amusing (and damn plausible)
> stuff, but I've also detected quite a lot of bitterness and anger in
> his posts that is somewhat disconcerting.

With only 30% of Americans turning out to vote, I am convinced that
we will be bankrupt by 2010, and all we will have is 1500 Nukes, no
oil, and Argentina's default will have been a carnival in comparison.

Unlike my grandfather, I don't plan to starve in a hobo camp, and have
enough ammunition to see me through the first two adjustments.

[Ed Rasimus]

On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 19:07:36 -0600, "Gene Storey" >
wrote:

>"Mike Marron" > wrote
>>
>> ...the South Vietnamese simply didn't want to fight for
>> their_own_country!
>
>South Vietnam was designed in Washington DC. It was a fake
>country. The Vietnamese fought for their country and terminated
>the American hegemony.

So, the Geneva Accords that divided Indochina after the withdrawal of
the French in 1954 were simply a fairy tale?

Might want to look up a definition of "hegemony" while you're in the
library as well. We certainly weren't a hegemon during the '60s and
'70s. There was quite a bit of multi-polarity during the period what
with the US, USSR, NATO, emerging Japan, Warsaw Pact, China, etc. We
might be in a position of hegemonic control today, but definitely not
during the Vietnam War.
>
>> Sometimes Gene comes up with some amusing (and damn plausible)
>> stuff, but I've also detected quite a lot of bitterness and anger in
>> his posts that is somewhat disconcerting.
>
>With only 30% of Americans turning out to vote, I am convinced that
>we will be bankrupt by 2010, and all we will have is 1500 Nukes, no
>oil, and Argentina's default will have been a carnival in comparison.

What is the relationship between the number of Americans that turn out
to vote, bankruptcy and nuclear weapons. The voting percentage in the
2000 presidential election was a lot closer to 55% and in some states,
such as mine, presidential election participation hovers near 80%.
(Which isn't to say that is a good thing. Ignorant voters are a worse
danger than non-voters.)

Bankruptcy? Hardly. The economy has weathered an intense blow
post-9/11, but seems to be rebounding nicely.

1500 nukes? Nah, we've got a bigger number than that.

No oil? C'mon, you need to review some of the strategic estimates of
US reserves. We've got plenty and are only buying offshore oil to save
our own resources.
>
>Unlike my grandfather, I don't plan to starve in a hobo camp, and have
>enough ammunition to see me through the first two adjustments.
>
Seems grandpa sowed his oats before starving, but didn't seem to
increase the intellectual capability of the family gene pool. Might
lean toward a greater dependence on reading and education rather than
firearms to see you through the adjustments.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Gene Storey]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote
>
> So, the Geneva Accords that divided Indochina after the withdrawal of
> the French in 1954 were simply a fairy tale?

Yes.

> What is the relationship between the number of Americans that turn out
> to vote, bankruptcy and nuclear weapons.

Illegitimacy.

[Evan Brennan]

Ed Rasimus > wrote in message >...
> failures didn't relate to lack of SA as much as to political gradualism


Please note that political gradualism worked well enough for Hanoi.
Uniting the North and South took 30 years, which suggests that
patience does have its rewards.

Their response so gradual that Ho Chi Minh had plenty of time
to grow a very long beard. Of course, he didn't live long enough
to see Saigon fall, so maybe you have a point. ; )



> and lack of will to win.


Specifically, LBJ's lack of will to occupy Laos, thanks to the
neutrality pact signed by the Kennedy Administration who probably
knew full well that Hanoi would sign it, but never honor it.

[WaltBJ]

Mike, don't kid yourself that you can't be seen on AI radar. I have
picked up geese at 7 miles on my F86D X-band (10ghz)radar off Okinawa
way back in 1956. Our GCI radar picked them up coming inbound and
asked me to check out the track. I was quite surprised when I closed
in on the target and discovered it was a flock of 7 geese heading for
Japan about 30 miles east of the southern tip of Okinawa. You are
about 75% water and Xband resonates with the water molecules - so you
will show up as a radar target.
Walt BJ

[Gene Storey]

"WaltBJ" > wrote
>
> You are about 75% water and Xband resonates with the water molecules - so you
> will show up as a radar target.

Actually the water frequency is in the K band (24 GHz). Just the opposite, it absorbs
electromagnetic waves. Birds, bees, etc, show up well on many wavelengths, down
to the L Band (1 GHz), and they show up because of their combined mass.

[[email protected]]

"Gene Storey" > wrote:

>"WaltBJ" > wrote
>>
>> You are about 75% water and Xband resonates with the water molecules - so you
>> will show up as a radar target.
>
>Actually the water frequency is in the K band (24 GHz). Just the opposite, it absorbs
>electromagnetic waves. Birds, bees, etc, show up well on many wavelengths, down
>to the L Band (1 GHz), and they show up because of their combined mass.
>
He's right Walt, you musta been thinking of something different
there.

Because water molecules resonate at ~24 gHz it absorbs the RF
energy (therefore won't reflect it). That's why microwave ovens
use that frequency.
--

-Gord.

[Buzzer]

On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 15:57:30 GMT, "Gord Beaman" )
wrote:

>"Gene Storey" > wrote:
>
>>"WaltBJ" > wrote
>>>
>>> You are about 75% water and Xband resonates with the water molecules - so you
>>> will show up as a radar target.
>>
>>Actually the water frequency is in the K band (24 GHz). Just the opposite, it absorbs
>>electromagnetic waves. Birds, bees, etc, show up well on many wavelengths, down
>>to the L Band (1 GHz), and they show up because of their combined mass.
>>
>He's right Walt, you musta been thinking of something different
>there.
>
>Because water molecules resonate at ~24 gHz it absorbs the RF
>energy (therefore won't reflect it). That's why microwave ovens
>use that frequency.

Microwave ovens 2.45GHz

[Alan Minyard]

On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 08:09:10 -0600, "Gene Storey" > wrote:

>"Kevin Brooks" > wrote
>> "Gene Storey" > wrote
>> > "Kevin Brooks" > wrote
>> > > "Gene Storey" > wrote in message
>> > > > It was lost in 1946 when we allowed the French to decolonize.
>> > >
>> > > That is a ridiculous statement.
>> >
>> > Merely a typo: recolonize.
>>
>> Gee, I guess the rest of your baseless and rather stupid rant was some kind
>> of "typo" as well, huh? Say hello to the nice men with white coats and that
>> really nifty buckle-up jacket for you...
>
>You keep masturbating, do you ever ejaculate?
>
That does it. PLONK

Al Minyard

[Gene Storey]

"Alan Minyard" > wrote
> On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 08:09:10 -0600, "Gene Storey" > wrote:
> >"Kevin Brooks" > wrote
> >> "Gene Storey" > wrote
> >> > "Kevin Brooks" > wrote
> >> > > "Gene Storey" > wrote in message
> >> > > > It was lost in 1946 when we allowed the French to decolonize.
> >> > >
> >> > > That is a ridiculous statement.
> >> >
> >> > Merely a typo: recolonize.
> >>
> >> Gee, I guess the rest of your baseless and rather stupid rant was some kind
> >> of "typo" as well, huh? Say hello to the nice men with white coats and that
> >> really nifty buckle-up jacket for you...
> >
> >You keep masturbating, do you ever ejaculate?
> >
> That does it. PLONK
>
> Al Minyard

Sounds like Alvin ejaculated there??

[Kevin Brooks]

"Gene Storey" > wrote in message
news:X%jNb.160$ce2.52@okepread03...
> "Alan Minyard" > wrote
> > On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 08:09:10 -0600, "Gene Storey" >
wrote:
> > >"Kevin Brooks" > wrote
> > >> "Gene Storey" > wrote
> > >> > "Kevin Brooks" > wrote
> > >> > > "Gene Storey" > wrote in message
> > >> > > > It was lost in 1946 when we allowed the French to decolonize.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > That is a ridiculous statement.
> > >> >
> > >> > Merely a typo: recolonize.
> > >>
> > >> Gee, I guess the rest of your baseless and rather stupid rant was
some kind
> > >> of "typo" as well, huh? Say hello to the nice men with white coats
and that
> > >> really nifty buckle-up jacket for you...
> > >
> > >You keep masturbating, do you ever ejaculate?
> > >
> > That does it. PLONK
> >
> > Al Minyard
>
> Sounds like Alvin ejaculated there??

Your single-minded fascination with the solitary sex act indicates that you
are either extremely immature for your years, or are some pimply-faced
teenager who recently discovered (some of) the facts of life and are
literally bursting at the seams to demonstrate your new-found knowledge to
any and all. Either way, Al has the right idea--the more people that
kill-file your psychotic rants the more likely you'll just fade into
oblivion, where you belong; and besides, blocking your posts will increase
the cumulative IQ of the remaining messages tenfold. AMF.

Brooks
>
>

[Gene Storey]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote
> "Gene Storey" > wrote in message
> news:X%jNb.160$ce2.52@okepread03...
> > "Alan Minyard" > wrote
> > > On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 08:09:10 -0600, "Gene Storey" >
> wrote:
> > > >"Kevin Brooks" > wrote
> > > >> "Gene Storey" > wrote
> > > >> > "Kevin Brooks" > wrote
> > > >> > > "Gene Storey" > wrote in message
> > > >> > > > It was lost in 1946 when we allowed the French to decolonize.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > That is a ridiculous statement.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Merely a typo: recolonize.
> > > >>
> > > >> Gee, I guess the rest of your baseless and rather stupid rant was
> some kind
> > > >> of "typo" as well, huh? Say hello to the nice men with white coats
> and that
> > > >> really nifty buckle-up jacket for you...
> > > >
> > > >You keep masturbating, do you ever ejaculate?
> > > >
> > > That does it. PLONK
> > >
> > > Al Minyard
> >
> > Sounds like Alvin ejaculated there??
>
> Your single-minded fascination with the solitary sex act indicates that you
> are either extremely immature for your years, or are some pimply-faced
> teenager who recently discovered (some of) the facts of life and are
> literally bursting at the seams to demonstrate your new-found knowledge to
> any and all. Either way, Al has the right idea--the more people that
> kill-file your psychotic rants the more likely you'll just fade into
> oblivion, where you belong; and besides, blocking your posts will increase
> the cumulative IQ of the remaining messages tenfold. AMF.

Still at it Kevin?

Nothing to contribute eh?

[[email protected]]

Buzzer > wrote:

>On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 15:57:30 GMT, "Gord Beaman" )
>wrote:
>
>>"Gene Storey" > wrote:
>>
>>>"WaltBJ" > wrote
>>>>
>>>> You are about 75% water and Xband resonates with the water molecules - so you
>>>> will show up as a radar target.
>>>
>>>Actually the water frequency is in the K band (24 GHz). Just the opposite, it absorbs
>>>electromagnetic waves. Birds, bees, etc, show up well on many wavelengths, down
>>>to the L Band (1 GHz), and they show up because of their combined mass.
>>>
>>He's right Walt, you musta been thinking of something different
>>there.
>>
>>Because water molecules resonate at ~24 gHz it absorbs the RF
>>energy (therefore won't reflect it). That's why microwave ovens
>>use that frequency.
>
>Microwave ovens 2.45GHz

Yes, sorry, missed the dot, 2.4 GHz
--

-Gord.

[Evan Brennan]

"Gene Storey" > wrote in message news:<sD0Nb.112$ce2.3@okepread03>...
> The Vietnamese fought for their country and terminated the
> American hegemony.


The vast majority of South Vietnamese people did not fight for
their country. The average peasant had no concept of Vietnam
being "a country". Most of the people lived in rural areas.
They knew little of and cared less about what happened outside
their own village.

They wanted to work in peace, with minimum interference from
whatever government was in place. These people were bewildered
farmers with no clear idea of what was happening -- except when
shells, bombs and bullets landed on them -- or when Vietcong
agents extorted payments from them, or murdered their family
members who questioned the Vietcong and their protection rackets.

About 80% of South Vietnamese were Buddhists, so some of them
objected when overzealous Catholics like Diem tried to push
the monks around. But then again, the Communists championed
atheism, and that idea was even less popular.

The vast majority of people who supported the Vietcong did so
because they were afraid of punitive action, not because they
were patriotic.

[Denyav]

>ways you can approach a target. Why
>come down Thud Ridge every day? It points at Hanoi, it doesn't have
>much population and it provides radar screening from SAM sites. But,
>that means you go the same way every day....Yep.
>

By all respect to all Thud or Scooter drivers of Vietnam era,we must also not
forget the the most dangerous missions in Vietnam were assigned to Rf101 and
RA5 planes.

[Denyav]

>ut the South Vietnamese simply didn't want to fight for
>their_own_country!

and for their democratically elected,non corrupt government!.

[Denyav]

>There was serious concern over the
>possibility of any conflict during those years escalating. The
>political posture of both the US/NATO and the USSR/WP was that an
>"attack on one is an attack on all" and the umbrella of coverage was
>repeatedly asserted as covering

Only one time during cold war there was a real nuclear exchange danger and it
was during Andropovs' time,because no other USSR leader was coached by a top
product of western capitalismus.

>Really? My statement on losses and target service are referring to
>stealth aircraft performance, not the total air effort. To date there
>has been only 1 F-117 lost in combat. During DS and IF, there were no
>stealth aircraft -117s or B-2s lost or damaged.

So what?,only other US aircraft lost during Balkan conflict is a F16.
None of unstealty Eagles or Bombcats were lost,even tough they did the
heavylifting of Balkan air campaign.
If you want to learn why US did not lose any B2 during war,you must first know
why US did not lose any f14 or 15s.

>Really?
>

Yes

>Networking, not "internetting", but Serbian air defense radars, if we
>discount one clueless F-16 "scared rabbit", were ineffective even
>against non-stealthy aircraft.

But in order make them ineffective US had transfer almost every available ECM
asset to balkans,even from very far away places like Japan,and ECM fleet has to
be kept airborne three times longer than planned.
In Balkans every radar that allowed to emit without suppression was a big
danger for any plane,stealthy or not.

[Denyav]

>Lowered returns, no matter what buzzword you're using, are quite
>relevant.
>

Lowered returns?
Actually I would not use the term returns for multi statics as this term rather
closely associated with the backscatters,multistatics have nothing to do with
backscatter,they chase the forward scatterer.
Imagine stealthy airborne platforms as "horizontal" mirrors withot sharp edges
and verticals.
Multi static designers love everything that backscatterer designers hate to see
in their target.

[Denyav]

>> I hate to disappoint you,but correct
>>
>
>Prove it.
>

Write to your Congressman/woman and demand a Mitchell style public demo,US
stealth fleet vs.US counter LO system now.

[Denyav]

>Since you do not know the RCS of either (can you say
>"classified"?, there, I knew you could) that is an utterly
>unsupportable claim.

Say whatever you want,they are identical and their RCS is even smaller than
insects RCS,an excellent number, but a totally irrelevant and useless
achievement in the era of multi statics and UWB radars.

[Smartace11]

>By all respect to all Thud or Scooter drivers of Vietnam era,we must also not
>forget the the most dangerous missions in Vietnam were assigned to Rf101 and
>RA5 planes.

Negative. The most dangerous missions were the F-4 chaff layers in Linebacker.
Hard to miss a chaff stream across the sky. The target is right at the front
of it. Second, the BUFFs over Bullseye, in the post release turn away from the
run in. heading.

[Ed Rasimus]

On 15 Jan 2004 21:18:34 GMT, (Denyav) wrote:

>>There was serious concern over the
>>possibility of any conflict during those years escalating. The
>>political posture of both the US/NATO and the USSR/WP was that an
>>"attack on one is an attack on all" and the umbrella of coverage was
>>repeatedly asserted as covering
>
>Only one time during cold war there was a real nuclear exchange danger and it
>was during Andropovs' time,because no other USSR leader was coached by a top
>product of western capitalismus.

You certainly make yourself a "moving target"--you say something
outrageous, then when it is refuted you jink into some other
preposterous assertion.

Maybe there was a nuclear exchange danger during Andropov's
administration, but you overlook a lot of conflicts from 1946 onward.
Certainly the level of capability grew, but the perceived possibility
of nuclear war was present during the Berlin Crisis, the Korean War,
the Czech and Hungarian uprisings, the Cuban Missile crisis, etc. etc.
etc.
>
>>Really? My statement on losses and target service are referring to
>>stealth aircraft performance, not the total air effort. To date there
>>has been only 1 F-117 lost in combat. During DS and IF, there were no
>>stealth aircraft -117s or B-2s lost or damaged.
>
>So what?,only other US aircraft lost during Balkan conflict is a F16.
>None of unstealty Eagles or Bombcats were lost,even tough they did the
>heavylifting of Balkan air campaign.
>If you want to learn why US did not lose any B2 during war,you must first know
>why US did not lose any f14 or 15s.

What you first said, when I asserted that Stealth (active or passive)
has resulted in low losses and high target success rates, was:

>>>Target success rate during DS I is more close to 1/10 th of what you are
>>>quoting and during Balkan conflict more f117s damaged than convantionel
>>>ones,even though f117s made up only small part of allied air fleet.

Now, you come back with "so what" only one F-16, no F-15s, no F-14s,
no B-2s (none participated in the Balkans,) and, of course only one
F-117. The more effective air defense of Iraq had no success against
stealthy airplanes either.


>
>>Really?
>>
>
>Yes

Nice editing here. The "Really?" was a follow up to your assertion
here:

>>>Regarding target success rate during whole Balkan war only 3 serbian air
>>>defense radars were destroyed.

Which of course, would lead the astute reader to question why, if the
US couldn't put out the radar eyes, they couldn't deter the attacking
aircraft? Either we did kill the radars effectively, thereby enhancing
survivability. Or, we didn't kill the radars and they continued to
operate incredibly incompetently. You've got to choose one horse or
the other to ride.

>>Networking, not "internetting", but Serbian air defense radars, if we
>>discount one clueless F-16 "scared rabbit", were ineffective even
>>against non-stealthy aircraft.
>
>But in order make them ineffective US had transfer almost every available ECM
>asset to balkans,even from very far away places like Japan,and ECM fleet has to
>be kept airborne three times longer than planned.

I assume your reference to transfer from Japan is about EA-6 carrier
based aircraft. Pacific fleet is in the big ocean, Atlantic fleet is
in the little ocean and usually in the Med.

EF-111s have been retired. ECM, for the most part is self-contained,
carried by the tactical aircraft themselves. Stand-off jamming is
still a part of the equation, but less. SEAD is no longer done by
dedicated single-purpose assets either. Stealth helps considerably
here.

>In Balkans every radar that allowed to emit without suppression was a big
>danger for any plane,stealthy or not.

There is always a crack in every universal statement. "Every radar" is
not connected to an air defense system. Not every radar can every be
suppressed. Selected radars can be rendered ineffective.

ECM, SEAD, stealth, etc. are not perfect solutions. As they told me
with the deployment of the first generation of ECM pods--they don't
make you invisible, the are used to "increase miss distance".
Increasingly that seems to be adequate.


>

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Gene Storey]

"Evan Brennan" > wrote
> "Gene Storey" > wrote
> > The Vietnamese fought for their country and terminated the
> > American hegemony.
>
>
> The vast majority of South Vietnamese people did not fight for
> their country. The average peasant had no concept of Vietnam
> being "a country". Most of the people lived in rural areas.
> They knew little of and cared less about what happened outside
> their own village.
>
> They wanted to work in peace, with minimum interference from
> whatever government was in place. These people were bewildered
> farmers with no clear idea of what was happening -- except when
> shells, bombs and bullets landed on them -- or when Vietcong
> agents extorted payments from them, or murdered their family
> members who questioned the Vietcong and their protection rackets.
>
> About 80% of South Vietnamese were Buddhists, so some of them
> objected when overzealous Catholics like Diem tried to push
> the monks around. But then again, the Communists championed
> atheism, and that idea was even less popular.
>
> The vast majority of people who supported the Vietcong did so
> because they were afraid of punitive action, not because they
> were patriotic.

You are generalizing. Peasants never get a say in any country (including
the United States). There were enough intellectuals and educated people
fighting, that the peasants didn't count.

On top of that you seem to be talking about the wrong folks. I'm talking
about the Vietnamese that rejected the countries division into two
regions under the promise of a vote. When the vote didn't take place,
the rebels in the South began their inevitable fall.

South Vietnam was a fake country. It never existed except in the eyes
of the invading/colonizing forces.

[Ed Rasimus]

On 15 Jan 2004 22:18:19 GMT, (Smartace11) wrote:

>>By all respect to all Thud or Scooter drivers of Vietnam era,we must also not
>>forget the the most dangerous missions in Vietnam were assigned to Rf101 and
>>RA5 planes.
>
>Negative. The most dangerous missions were the F-4 chaff layers in Linebacker.
> Hard to miss a chaff stream across the sky. The target is right at the front
>of it. Second, the BUFFs over Bullseye, in the post release turn away from the
>run in. heading.

Not to get into a "mine is bigger than yours", but different aircraft
at different time had different risks.

The only way a reasonable comparison can be made would be check stats
on losses per sortie. If that is done, you won't find the RF-101 at
the head of the list, since the aircraft was used theaterwide for
recce. While the Voodoos did lose a bunch, they didn't lose the
highest number per sortie.

As for Linebacker, I just compiled a list of LB losses and found the
USAF lost 60 F4-D and E aircraft during the period from May through
October of the LB campaign. Only a fraction of those were involved in
chaff drops. A lot were lost to MiGs.

While the relationship between the chaff corridor and the source is
true, only the lead flight in a chaff package gets that distinction.
The remaining three or four flights are back along the stream and
don't stand out as well. Additionally, they are above the guns and
stabilized in resolution cell pod coverage. It's a lousy mission, no
argument, but don't think it was the most dangerous.

My nominee would be early illuminators flying stabilized circles
around heavily defended targets, hand-aiming a grease pencil mark on
the canopy to keep a Zot spot on the target long enough for the bomb
dropper to dump an LGB.

You might also want to go back and check loss rates in the early days
of the war before ECM pods, chaff support and RWR gear.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Kevin Brooks]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> On 15 Jan 2004 22:18:19 GMT, (Smartace11) wrote:
>
> >>By all respect to all Thud or Scooter drivers of Vietnam era,we must
also not
> >>forget the the most dangerous missions in Vietnam were assigned to Rf101
and
> >>RA5 planes.
> >
> >Negative. The most dangerous missions were the F-4 chaff layers in
Linebacker.
> > Hard to miss a chaff stream across the sky. The target is right at the
front
> >of it. Second, the BUFFs over Bullseye, in the post release turn away
from the
> >run in. heading.
>
> Not to get into a "mine is bigger than yours", but different aircraft
> at different time had different risks.

Yep. And I would not forget the "other" aviators in the theater--over 3,000
UH-1 variants were lost during the war, with over 2,000 crew KIA
(www.vhpa.org/heliloss.pdf ). That would mean about as many UH-1's were
lost as all of the fixed wing losses from all of the services combined, add
the other helo types and I suspect the loss "balance" would shift to the
rotary side.

Brooks

<snip>

[Ed Rasimus]

On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 00:42:16 GMT, "Kevin Brooks"
> wrote:

>
>"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
>>
>> Not to get into a "mine is bigger than yours", but different aircraft
>> at different time had different risks.
>
>Yep. And I would not forget the "other" aviators in the theater--over 3,000
>UH-1 variants were lost during the war, with over 2,000 crew KIA
>(www.vhpa.org/heliloss.pdf ). That would mean about as many UH-1's were
>lost as all of the fixed wing losses from all of the services combined, add
>the other helo types and I suspect the loss "balance" would shift to the
>rotary side.
>
>Brooks

Yep. Lots of losses of helicopters. Lots of helicopters. Lots of
intrepid Army aviators shot down multiple times. An incredibly
hazardous mission.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Pete]

"Denyav" > wrote
>
> Write to your Congressman/woman and demand a Mitchell style public demo,US
> stealth fleet vs.US counter LO system now.

There has been an ongoing, real world public demo for over a decade.

Result:
US stealth aircraft - thousands

Various radar systems - 1

Pete

[Smartace11]

>My nominee would be early illuminators flying stabilized circles
>around heavily defended targets, hand-aiming a grease pencil mark on
>the canopy to keep a Zot spot on the target long enough for the bomb
>dropper to dump an LGB.
>
>You might also want to go back and check loss rates in the early days
>of the war before ECM pods, chaff support and RWR gear.

Funny I was going to mention that but didn't

My put was pretty subjective Ed but you may well be right. My first stint
there was in Constant Guard out of Holloman, one of the "summer help" in F-4Ds.
We flew mostly bombing missions in line abreast four ships, four flights in
trail. Like the WWII bomber formations, it was "hold your position nomatter
what". On one of my first Linebackers, I got up close and personal with a
couple of optically guided SA-2s that were flying through the formation close
enough for me to realize the Mach 3 sonic boom could really rattle the F-4.
Hated that mission. The Korat Hunter-Killer and escort missions felt a lot
better than those dumb bomb truck sorties..

Did have a friend out of Ubon tell me, stats aside, that the chaff mission was
a lot worse in his opinion, having flown both.

I escorted a flight of LGB droppers during Linebacker II in Gen Merkling's back
seat - one of those double bang "to hell with crew rest" Linebacker sorties.
We sat in orbit over the lake in the middle of Hanoi for 15 minutes waiting for
a small cloud to move off the coal fired electrical plant there. It moved,
they got it. we all went home. Only had about 8 rounds of 57mm shot at us the
whole time. Guess they were Winchester from the night before. I think that
was the second or third night of LBII

Steve

[Smartace11]

>Yep. And I would not forget the "other" aviators in the theater--over 3,000
>UH-1 variants were lost during the war, with over 2,000 crew KIA
>(www.vhpa.org/heliloss.pdf ). That would mean about as many UH-1's were
>lost as all of the fixed wing losses from all of the services combined, add
>the other helo types and I suspect the loss "balance" would shift to the
>rotary side.
>
>Brooks
>

Yeah but we wer talking about airplanes, though!

Just kidding.

That was a pretty messy job. Talked to any number of rotary wing guys at the
bar who had been shot down four or five times.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Denyav" > wrote in message
...
>
> Write to your Congressman/woman and demand a Mitchell style public demo,US
> stealth fleet vs.US counter LO system now.
>

No. You have to support your own claims.

[Gene Storey]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote
>
> Yep. Lots of losses of helicopters. Lots of helicopters. Lots of
> intrepid Army aviators shot down multiple times. An incredibly
> hazardous mission.

So hazardous the missions were flown by Warrants:

"These commissioned warrant officers are direct representatives of
the president of the United States. They derive their authority from the
same source as commissioned officers but remain specialists, in contrast
to commissioned officers, who are generalists."

To put it nicely.

[Evan Brennan]

"Gene Storey" > wrote in message news:<HGFNb.310$ce2.102@okepread03>...
> Peasants never get a say in any country (including the United States).


That might make sense, if not for the laundry list of Peasant Wars
of the 20th Century. : )

Eric Wolf wrote the classic study of the same name.


> There were enough intellectuals and educated people fighting


Nearly all the South Vietnamese intellectuals and educated people
lived in large cities...where the Communists had the least support.
That is one reason why the 1968 Tet Offensive failed. There was
no general uprising of the people in the cities, as the Commies
had hoped.

The Vietcong's main support base was, in fact, drawn from peasants
in the countryside.


> the peasants didn't count.


LOL.


> On top of that you seem to be talking about the wrong folks. I'm talking
> about the Vietnamese that rejected the countries division into two
> regions under the promise of a vote.


If peasants didn't count, very few people would reject such a division.


> South Vietnam was a fake country.


No more phony than the Communist regime. Giap himself was a Catholic.
Bottom line is that the South lost funding and support from their
foreign allies at a time when the North did not.

The Vietcong guerrillas nonetheless failed, the North Vietnamese Army
was forced to take over their fight, and the war was decided with
conventional battles, years after American ground troops pulled out
of Vietnam.

[Ed Rasimus]

On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 23:51:14 -0600, "Gene Storey" >
wrote:

>"Ed Rasimus" > wrote
>>
>> Yep. Lots of losses of helicopters. Lots of helicopters. Lots of
>> intrepid Army aviators shot down multiple times. An incredibly
>> hazardous mission.
>
>So hazardous the missions were flown by Warrants:
>
>"These commissioned warrant officers are direct representatives of
>the president of the United States. They derive their authority from the
>same source as commissioned officers but remain specialists, in contrast
>to commissioned officers, who are generalists."
>
>To put it nicely.
>

Yes, a lot of Army aviators are warrant officers. A lot are also
commissioned officers.

Don't know the source of your quote, but it starts out with an
oxymoron, "commissioned warrant officers". They area either one or the
other.

Whether or not a warrant officer is an appropriate rank for a job has
nothing at all to do with the hazard involved.

One might want to review the ranks of the POWs in the Vietnam war to
check regarding the hazard and warrant relationship.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Kevin Brooks]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 23:51:14 -0600, "Gene Storey" >
> wrote:
>
> >"Ed Rasimus" > wrote
> >>
> >> Yep. Lots of losses of helicopters. Lots of helicopters. Lots of
> >> intrepid Army aviators shot down multiple times. An incredibly
> >> hazardous mission.
> >
> >So hazardous the missions were flown by Warrants:
> >
> >"These commissioned warrant officers are direct representatives of
> >the president of the United States. They derive their authority from the
> >same source as commissioned officers but remain specialists, in contrast
> >to commissioned officers, who are generalists."
> >
> >To put it nicely.
> >
>
> Yes, a lot of Army aviators are warrant officers. A lot are also
> commissioned officers.

Yep. But the great majority of Army aviators are, and were at that time,
WO's/CWO's.

>
> Don't know the source of your quote, but it starts out with an
> oxymoron, "commissioned warrant officers". They area either one or the
> other.

He is probably confusing the contemporary situation with the situation that
existed in the Vietnam era, when Army WO's were indeed "just" WO's, so to
speak. A few years back the Army came up with this nifty plan to
"commission" its senior CWO's (which would I guess make your "oxymoron" a
reality) so that they could meet all of the requirements set forth for
commissioned officers (i.e., UCMJ stuff, command, etc.)--not sure how it all
turned out in the end, but I *think* they made it happen. If there are any
serving CWO's out there, feel free to correct that view.

>
> Whether or not a warrant officer is an appropriate rank for a job has
> nothing at all to do with the hazard involved.

Very true.

>
> One might want to review the ranks of the POWs in the Vietnam war to
> check regarding the hazard and warrant relationship.

That would be a factor of geography more than anything else, as the WO
aviators were doing the vast majority of their flying down south where the
likelihood of becoming a POW was quite a bit less--unfortunately, the
likelihood of finding yourself *dead* was not that much different, as can be
attested by the fact that over a thousand Huey pilots died during the war.
That said, I do remember serving with one former aviator type CW4 (he had
lost his flight ticket due to medical reasons and was serving out his last
years in the maintenance arena, and helped support our construction
operation in Central America) who did indeed end the war as a POW. He had
been shot down while flying an OH-6 Loach near the DMZ, and got snagged by
the NVA and transported northward. I believe his observer/co-pilot did not
make it.

Brooks

>
>
> Ed Rasimus

[John R Weiss]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote...
>
>> Don't know the source of your quote, but it starts out with an
>> oxymoron, "commissioned warrant officers". They area either one or the
>> other.
>
> He is probably confusing the contemporary situation with the situation that
> existed in the Vietnam era, when Army WO's were indeed "just" WO's, so to
> speak. A few years back the Army came up with this nifty plan to
> "commission" its senior CWO's (which would I guess make your "oxymoron" a
> reality) so that they could meet all of the requirements set forth for
> commissioned officers (i.e., UCMJ stuff, command, etc.)--not sure how it all
> turned out in the end, but I *think* they made it happen. If there are any
> serving CWO's out there, feel free to correct that view.

There are "just" WOs and Commissioned Warrant Officers now. The WO1 rank is not
a Commissioned Warrant Officer, but all CWO2 through CWO5 ranks are Commissioned
Warrant Officers. Last I knew:

Army has WO1 - CWO4 (may have adopted CWO5 by now)

Air Force has no Warrant Officers

Navy and Marines have CWO2 - CWO5 (no longer any WO1s)

John Weiss
LCDR, USN, Ret (not a Warrant Officer)

[Kevin Brooks]

"John R Weiss" > wrote in message
news:SsUNb.70673$nt4.95664@attbi_s51...
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote...
> >
> >> Don't know the source of your quote, but it starts out with an
> >> oxymoron, "commissioned warrant officers". They area either one or the
> >> other.
> >
> > He is probably confusing the contemporary situation with the situation
that
> > existed in the Vietnam era, when Army WO's were indeed "just" WO's, so
to
> > speak. A few years back the Army came up with this nifty plan to
> > "commission" its senior CWO's (which would I guess make your "oxymoron"
a
> > reality) so that they could meet all of the requirements set forth for
> > commissioned officers (i.e., UCMJ stuff, command, etc.)--not sure how it
all
> > turned out in the end, but I *think* they made it happen. If there are
any
> > serving CWO's out there, feel free to correct that view.
>
> There are "just" WOs and Commissioned Warrant Officers now. The WO1 rank
is not
> a Commissioned Warrant Officer, but all CWO2 through CWO5 ranks are
Commissioned
> Warrant Officers. Last I knew:
>
> Army has WO1 - CWO4 (may have adopted CWO5 by now)

The CWO-5 grade has been used in the Army since around 1999/2000.

Brooks

>
> Air Force has no Warrant Officers
>
> Navy and Marines have CWO2 - CWO5 (no longer any WO1s)
>
> John Weiss
> LCDR, USN, Ret (not a Warrant Officer)
>

[B2431]

>From: "John R Weiss"
>Date: 1/16/2004 10:39 AM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <SsUNb.70673$nt4.95664@attbi_s51>
>
>"Kevin Brooks" > wrote...
>>
>>> Don't know the source of your quote, but it starts out with an
>>> oxymoron, "commissioned warrant officers". They area either one or the
>>> other.
>>
>> He is probably confusing the contemporary situation with the situation that
>> existed in the Vietnam era, when Army WO's were indeed "just" WO's, so to
>> speak. A few years back the Army came up with this nifty plan to
>> "commission" its senior CWO's (which would I guess make your "oxymoron" a
>> reality) so that they could meet all of the requirements set forth for
>> commissioned officers (i.e., UCMJ stuff, command, etc.)--not sure how it
>all
>> turned out in the end, but I *think* they made it happen. If there are any
>> serving CWO's out there, feel free to correct that view.
>
>There are "just" WOs and Commissioned Warrant Officers now. The WO1 rank is
>not
>a Commissioned Warrant Officer, but all CWO2 through CWO5 ranks are
>Commissioned
>Warrant Officers. Last I knew:
>
> Army has WO1 - CWO4 (may have adopted CWO5 by now)
>
> Air Force has no Warrant Officers
>
> Navy and Marines have CWO2 - CWO5 (no longer any WO1s)
>
>John Weiss
>LCDR, USN, Ret (not a Warrant Officer)
>

If memory serves the C in CWO is for chief. I don't believe warrants are
considered commissioned.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[Thomas Schoene]

B2431 wrote:
>> From: "John R Weiss"
>> Date: 1/16/2004 10:39 AM Central Standard Time
>> Message-id: <SsUNb.70673$nt4.95664@attbi_s51>
>>
>> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote...
>>>
>>>> Don't know the source of your quote, but it starts out with an
>>>> oxymoron, "commissioned warrant officers". They area either one or
>>>> the other.
>>>
>>> He is probably confusing the contemporary situation with the
>>> situation that existed in the Vietnam era, when Army WO's were
>>> indeed "just" WO's, so to speak. A few years back the Army came up
>>> with this nifty plan to "commission" its senior CWO's (which would
>>> I guess make your "oxymoron" a reality) so that they could meet all
>>> of the requirements set forth for commissioned officers (i.e., UCMJ
>>> stuff, command, etc.)--not sure how it all turned out in the end,
>>> but I *think* they made it happen. If there are any serving CWO's
>>> out there, feel free to correct that view.
>>
>> There are "just" WOs and Commissioned Warrant Officers now. The WO1
>> rank is not
>> a Commissioned Warrant Officer, but all CWO2 through CWO5 ranks are
>> Commissioned
>> Warrant Officers. Last I knew:
>>
>> Army has WO1 - CWO4 (may have adopted CWO5 by now)
>>
>> Air Force has no Warrant Officers
>>
>> Navy and Marines have CWO2 - CWO5 (no longer any WO1s)
>>
>> John Weiss
>> LCDR, USN, Ret (not a Warrant Officer)
>>
>
> If memory serves the C in CWO is for chief. I don't believe warrants
> are considered commissioned.
>

This is a fairly recent change, but a Chief Warrant Officer is now
categorized as a "commissioned warrant officer," which is a class of officer
distinct from both "warrant officer" and "commissioned officer."

http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/almanac/almanac/people/insignias/officers.ht
ml

"The lowest ranking warrant officers serve under a warrant, but they receive
commissions from the president upon promotion to chief warrant officer 2.
These commissioned warrant officers are direct representatives of the
president of the United States. They derive their authority from the same
source as commissioned officers but remain specialists, in contrast to
commissioned officers, who are generalists. There are no warrant officers in
the Air Force."

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

[Kevin Brooks]

"Thomas Schoene" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> B2431 wrote:
> >> From: "John R Weiss"
> >> Date: 1/16/2004 10:39 AM Central Standard Time
> >> Message-id: <SsUNb.70673$nt4.95664@attbi_s51>
> >>
> >> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote...
> >>>
> >>>> Don't know the source of your quote, but it starts out with an
> >>>> oxymoron, "commissioned warrant officers". They area either one or
> >>>> the other.
> >>>
> >>> He is probably confusing the contemporary situation with the
> >>> situation that existed in the Vietnam era, when Army WO's were
> >>> indeed "just" WO's, so to speak. A few years back the Army came up
> >>> with this nifty plan to "commission" its senior CWO's (which would
> >>> I guess make your "oxymoron" a reality) so that they could meet all
> >>> of the requirements set forth for commissioned officers (i.e., UCMJ
> >>> stuff, command, etc.)--not sure how it all turned out in the end,
> >>> but I *think* they made it happen. If there are any serving CWO's
> >>> out there, feel free to correct that view.
> >>
> >> There are "just" WOs and Commissioned Warrant Officers now. The WO1
> >> rank is not
> >> a Commissioned Warrant Officer, but all CWO2 through CWO5 ranks are
> >> Commissioned
> >> Warrant Officers. Last I knew:
> >>
> >> Army has WO1 - CWO4 (may have adopted CWO5 by now)
> >>
> >> Air Force has no Warrant Officers
> >>
> >> Navy and Marines have CWO2 - CWO5 (no longer any WO1s)
> >>
> >> John Weiss
> >> LCDR, USN, Ret (not a Warrant Officer)
> >>
> >
> > If memory serves the C in CWO is for chief. I don't believe warrants
> > are considered commissioned.
> >
>
> This is a fairly recent change, but a Chief Warrant Officer is now
> categorized as a "commissioned warrant officer," which is a class of
officer
> distinct from both "warrant officer" and "commissioned officer."
>
>
http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/almanac/almanac/people/insignias/officers.ht
> ml
>
> "The lowest ranking warrant officers serve under a warrant, but they
receive
> commissions from the president upon promotion to chief warrant officer 2.
> These commissioned warrant officers are direct representatives of the
> president of the United States. They derive their authority from the same
> source as commissioned officers but remain specialists, in contrast to
> commissioned officers, who are generalists. There are no warrant officers
in
> the Air Force."

Exactly. Thanks for the clarification, Tom.

Brooks

>
> --
> Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
> "If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
> special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)
>
>
>
>

[Denyav]

>You certainly make yourself a "moving target"--you say something
>outrageous, then when it is refuted you jink into some other
>preposterous assertion.

The definition of the term "outrageous" usually changes with time or better
with knowledge base,for example if you could go one century back and tell a
famous turn of the century era what you have in your household he probably had
called it a outrageous claim.
The (passive) stealth issue is probably best example,stealth proponents think
that f22 (orB2) has a bird size frontal RCS,so that they cannot be detected by
any radar at meaningful distances,while I say that f22 frontal RCS is insect
size,not bird size but it,like all other stealth platforms its very easy to
detect and track f22 at very long ranges with different radars.
The very first version of US multistatic went into service in early 1998,almost
a decade behind German version,so there is lots of room for catch up work here.

>Andropov's
>administration, but you overlook a lot of conflicts from 1946 onward.
>Certainly the level of capability grew, but the perceived possibility
>of nuclear war was present during the Berlin Crisis, the Korean War,
>the Czech and Hungarian uprisings, the Cuban Missile crisis, etc. etc.
>etc.

Do you think I forgat them?,during none of them including much publicized Cuban
misille crisis we were closer to nuclear war than short Andropov era,because
that was first and only time Soviet leadership was ready to say to US "Stay at
home or else"
Thanks to Mr.Philby,a top product of capitalistic west.

>What you first said, when I asserted that Stealth (active or passive)
>has resulted in low losses and high target success rates, was:
>
What active or passive stealth got to do with the extremely low
f14,15,16,Tornado,Mirage etc losses???

>Now, you come back with "so what" only one F-16, no F-15s, no F-14s,
>no B-2s (none participated in the Balkans,) and, of course only one
>F-117. The more effective air defense of Iraq had no success against
>stealthy airplanes either.
>

The most effective air defense US faced after Vietnam war was undoubletely
Serbian defenses,as Gen.Jumpers put out "Missions over Serbia on day 78 were as
dangerous as the missions on day 1".
Serbians wanted to conserve their limited air defense assets and did not use
use their assets agressively and US did not want to take to much risks.
This one of the main reasons why Serbian air defenses finished war almost
unstratched and US finished wae with extremely low losses.
After Balkan conflict many studies about the ineffectiveness of US SEAD efforts
have been completed.
You are wrong B2s participated in Balkan War and the events triggered by a
spoofed guided launch aganist one them caused a diplomatic crisis.

>>Really?
>>>
>>
>>Yes
>
>Nice editing here. The "Really?" was a follow up to your assertion
>here:

Air defenses,or the quality of any defense effort, could only be as good
intellectual,scientific and technological level of the people that own and use
them,as British learned it hard way during Boer War.
Iraq was and is a backward third world country whereas former Yugaslavia,though
not an advanced country by many standards,was not a backward third world
country either.
They managed to hit two f117s,whereas Iraqis, although they had better
equipment on the paper,were only capable of launching a couple radar guided
SAMs aganist them,and their guided launches were spoofrd easily.

>ich of course, would lead the astute reader to question why, if the
>US couldn't put out the radar eyes, they couldn't deter the attacking
>aircraft? Either we did kill the radars effectively, thereby enhancing
>survivability. Or, we didn't kill the radars and they continued to
>operate incredibly incompetently

Almost every possible ECM asset were transferred to Balkan arena after hits on
f117s ,does it say something ?

>EF-111s have been retired. ECM, for the most part is self-contained,
>carried by the tactical aircraft themselves. Stand-off jamming is

Yes,EF-111s were retired in 1998,a perfect example of Air forces correct
judgement capability.
Do you know how the Navy argued to keep minesweeper force after Balkan war?

[John R Weiss]

"B2431" > wrote...
>
> If memory serves the C in CWO is for chief. I don't believe warrants are
> considered commissioned.

Partially right...

The "C" in CWO does stand for "Chief," but the CWO2 - CWO5 ranks are indeed also
Commissioned. A few quick references:

Warrant officers hold warrants from their service secretary and are
specialists and experts in certain military technologies or capabilities. The
lowest ranking warrant officers serve under a warrant, but they receive
commissions from the president upon promotion to chief warrant officer 2. These
commissioned warrant officers are direct representatives of the president of the
United States. They derive their authority from the same source as commissioned
officers but remain specialists, in contrast to commissioned officers, who are
generalists. There are no warrant officers in the Air Force. --
http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/almanac/almanac/people/insignias/officers.html

Officers in the Navy are either Line officers or Staff Corps. Among these
are also Limited Duty Officers and Commissioned Warrant Officers. Staff Corps
and Commission Warrant Officers wear Insignia in place of the Line officer's
star. -- http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/ranks/rankrate.html

Commissioned officers in the Navy are either Line officers or Staff Corps
officers. Some have advanced through the enlisted rates and are designated for
duty in certain technical fields. These are Limited Duty Officers (LDO) and
commisisoned warrant officers (CWO). CWOs and Staff corps LDOs wear their
specialty insignia on the sleeve of the dress blue uniforms and on their
shoulder boards in place of the star worn by Line officers. On Winter Blue and
khaki uniforms, the specialty insignia is a collar device worn on the left
collar while the rank device is worn on the right. --
http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/ranks/officers/ldo-warrant/ldo-war.html

Also see http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/ranks/officers/o-rank.html


BTW, I made an error earlier -- the USMC still has WO1s; the Navy and Coast
Guard do not.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"John R Weiss" > wrote in message
news:SsUNb.70673$nt4.95664@attbi_s51...
>
> There are "just" WOs and Commissioned Warrant Officers now. The WO1 rank
is not
> a Commissioned Warrant Officer, but all CWO2 through CWO5 ranks are
Commissioned
> Warrant Officers. Last I knew:
>

The "C" in CWO is for "Chief", not "Commissioned".

[John R Weiss]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote...
>
> The "C" in CWO is for "Chief", not "Commissioned".

True. Still, the CWO2 - CWO5 ranks are Commissioned.

[[email protected]]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

>
>"John R Weiss" > wrote in message
>news:SsUNb.70673$nt4.95664@attbi_s51...
>>
>> There are "just" WOs and Commissioned Warrant Officers now. The WO1 rank
>is not
>> a Commissioned Warrant Officer, but all CWO2 through CWO5 ranks are
>Commissioned
>> Warrant Officers. Last I knew:
>>
>
>The "C" in CWO is for "Chief", not "Commissioned".
>
That's correct, no WO is commissioned whether WO, MWO, or CWO (of
any grade).
--

-Gord.

[[email protected]]

"John R Weiss" > wrote:

>
>BTW, I made an error earlier -- the USMC still has WO1s; the Navy and Coast
>Guard do not.


....and it appears that I made an error also...I should have said
that there are no commissioned WO's in the Canadian military.
Sorry.
--

-Gord.

[fudog50]

I read the original thread earlier and had a laff, it just goes to
show how little everyone knows about CWO's and I hope it stays that
way, it's kinda fun!!!

I guess my commissioning decree that I have hanging on my "I love me"
wall from the president of the United States and signed by the SECNAV
is just a mirage, or a fake then? I think you better get your facts
straight, here is some help coming from a (commisioned, there is no
other kind) Chief Warrant Officer in The US Navy...

In the Navy, you have to be at least a Chief (E7 or above) to even
apply. On the very moment you are commisioned (you go straight to
CW02, CWO3 if you are selected as an E9, there are no W.O's or even
W01's in the navy, you are a Chief Warrant Officer from day one ). We
have a permanant commission, not temporary. Most Line and Staff
Officers and LDO's have only a temporary commission, until they are
offered a permanant commission after being a LT for 2 years. So this
is at about the 6 year mark for them, and they are considered USNR
until they accept permanant commission and convert to USN.

One other big difference for us is that our selections and promotions
are only confirmed through the CNO. Other officer ranks are Senate
confirmed. Hope this helps a little to clear up any confusuion.


in theOn Fri, 16 Jan 2004 23:17:23 GMT, "John R Weiss"
> wrote:

>"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote...
>>
>> The "C" in CWO is for "Chief", not "Commissioned".
>
>True. Still, the CWO2 - CWO5 ranks are Commissioned.

[Ed Rasimus]

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 19:45:40 GMT, fudog50 > wrote:

>I read the original thread earlier and had a laff, it just goes to
>show how little everyone knows about CWO's and I hope it stays that
>way, it's kinda fun!!!
>
>I guess my commissioning decree that I have hanging on my "I love me"
>wall from the president of the United States and signed by the SECNAV
>is just a mirage, or a fake then? I think you better get your facts
>straight, here is some help coming from a (commisioned, there is no
>other kind) Chief Warrant Officer in The US Navy...

Well, I'm always willing to get my facts straight. But, can you cut me
a bit of slack and acknowledge that what is current today has not
always been the way it was?

The terminology "Warrant Officer" refers to the fact that he/she holds
the rank by (traditionally) the issuance of a "warrant"--a government
document bestowing rank and authority to conduct certain actions. A
"commission" for a military officer was presidential and with the
authority of congress. A warrant did not require that level of
authorization. Things have obviously changed and I willingly defer to
more current knowledge.
>
>In the Navy, you have to be at least a Chief (E7 or above) to even
>apply. On the very moment you are commisioned (you go straight to
>CW02, CWO3 if you are selected as an E9, there are no W.O's or even
>W01's in the navy, you are a Chief Warrant Officer from day one ). We
>have a permanant commission, not temporary. Most Line and Staff
>Officers and LDO's have only a temporary commission, until they are
>offered a permanant commission after being a LT for 2 years. So this
>is at about the 6 year mark for them, and they are considered USNR
>until they accept permanant commission and convert to USN.

Well, that's a bit garbled. But, you're on my ground here. Commissions
for officers are not "temporary"--there is no expiration date. They
are "regular" or "reserve", indicating the component to which your
commission applies. The regular component is governed by grade
limitation policies.
>
>One other big difference for us is that our selections and promotions
>are only confirmed through the CNO. Other officer ranks are Senate
>confirmed. Hope this helps a little to clear up any confusuion.

That's the grade limitation issue.
>

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Cub Driver]

I think it's a hoot that a navy *warrant* officer should be
commissioned, given that the whole point of the "warrant" was to
create an officer who wasn't commissioned.

The British navy used to have warrant officers, and probably devised
the system. Thus the OED: "an officer in certain armed services
(formerly also in the Navy) who holds office by a warrant, ranking
between a commissioned officer and an NCO."

Are you sure that what's on your wall is a commission and not a
warrant? Both are pieces of paper.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Kevin Brooks]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> I think it's a hoot that a navy *warrant* officer should be
> commissioned, given that the whole point of the "warrant" was to
> create an officer who wasn't commissioned.

Do you find it a "hoot" that the Army also considers its senior warrnats to
be commissioned?

>
> The British navy used to have warrant officers, and probably devised
> the system. Thus the OED: "an officer in certain armed services
> (formerly also in the Navy) who holds office by a warrant, ranking
> between a commissioned officer and an NCO."
>
> Are you sure that what's on your wall is a commission and not a
> warrant? Both are pieces of paper.

Personally, it all makes sense to me. By considering some warrants as
commissioned officers you increase their range of capabilities without any
real negative effect (IIRC when this program began a few years back there
was rumbling from some in the warranted community that it would result in
dire consequences--none of which seem to have come to be). Why shouldn't a
CWO be able to take a sworn statement from a troop as well as any other
commissioned officer? Why shouldn't a CWO be able to command his A-Team
(there is now a WO slot in every SF A-Team) or detachment with the full
authority and privaledges of his commissioned counterparts? The WO's remain
the same technical specilaists they always were--they now just enjoy a bit
more authority in some areas.

Brooks
>
> all the best -- Dan Ford
> email:
>
> see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
> and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[[email protected]]

Cub Driver wrote:
>
> I think it's a hoot that a navy *warrant* officer should be
> commissioned, given that the whole point of the "warrant" was to
> create an officer who wasn't commissioned.
>
> The British navy used to have warrant officers, and probably devised
> the system. Thus the OED: "an officer in certain armed services
> (formerly also in the Navy) who holds office by a warrant, ranking
> between a commissioned officer and an NCO."
>
> Are you sure that what's on your wall is a commission and not a
> warrant? Both are pieces of paper.
>
> all the best -- Dan Ford
> email:
>
> see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
> and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com


Glad you think it's a hoot. But the facts are that Chief Warrant
Officers in the USN carry commissions.
The differences are minor and mostly of interest to barracks/sea
lawyers. Whether it's a warrant or a commission doesn't matter nearly as
much as how well you lead...

[fudog50]

Cubby,

Yeah I'm sure.


On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 06:36:36 -0500, Cub Driver
> wrote:

>
>I think it's a hoot that a navy *warrant* officer should be
>commissioned, given that the whole point of the "warrant" was to
>create an officer who wasn't commissioned.
>
>The British navy used to have warrant officers, and probably devised
>the system. Thus the OED: "an officer in certain armed services
>(formerly also in the Navy) who holds office by a warrant, ranking
>between a commissioned officer and an NCO."
>
>Are you sure that what's on your wall is a commission and not a
>warrant? Both are pieces of paper.
>
>all the best -- Dan Ford
>email:
>
>see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
>and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Justin Broderick]

"Thomas Schoene" > wrote in message
ink.net...

>
> This is a fairly recent change, but a Chief Warrant Officer is now
> categorized as a "commissioned warrant officer," which is a class of
officer
> distinct from both "warrant officer" and "commissioned officer."
>

Around 1867 the RN began rewarding its long-serving warrant officers with
commissions. The USN followed suit in the Naval Personnel Act of 1899 (the
same act that eliminated the rank of commodore and the Engineer Corps). The
grade was commissioned warrant officer, but the actual titles were "Chief
Boatswain," "Chief Gunner," "Chief Carpenter" and so on, and the "C's" for
"chief" and "commissioned" have become confused over the years. Since 1899,
USN commissioned warrant officers wore the regular officer's cap bade with
shield and eagle. The old WO cap device, plain crossed anchors, has
disappeared along with the "pin-striper" WO-1 rank.

The Marines adopted CWOs in the 1920s, the Army in WW2. I'm not sure about
the USCG. At some point after WW2, legislation officially replaced
"commissioned" with "chief" in the title.

--Justin

[Justin Broderick]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...


> I think it's a hoot that a navy *warrant* officer should be
> commissioned, given that the whole point of the "warrant" was to
> create an officer who wasn't commissioned.
>
> The British navy used to have warrant officers, and probably devised
> the system. Thus the OED: "an officer in certain armed services
> (formerly also in the Navy) who holds office by a warrant, ranking
> between a commissioned officer and an NCO."
>
> Are you sure that what's on your wall is a commission and not a
> warrant? Both are pieces of paper.
>

The grades W-2 and up are commissioned in all services.

US Code Title 10, Sec.571:
<<(b) Appointments in the grade of regular warrant officer, W-1, shall be
made by warrant by the Secretary concerned. Appointments in regular chief
warrant officer grades shall be made by commission by the President.>>

--Justin

[Cub Driver]

>Do you find it a "hoot" that the Army also considers its senior warrnats to
>be commissioned?

I would, if it's true.

Next thing you know, they'll be commissioning NCOs.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Cub Driver]

> Why shouldn't a
>CWO be able to take a sworn statement from a troop as well as any other
>commissioned officer?

Why shouldn't a sergeant? Or a private? Or a civilian?

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Cub Driver]

>Whether it's a warrant or a commission doesn't matter nearly as
>much as how well you lead...

My company commander in France was a major (well--it was a large
company!).

Like so many company- and field-grade officers in the 1950s, he had
run out his string and was about to be busted back to his top enlisted
rank. Fortunately for him, that had been was a warrant officer.

We also had in that company a sergeant who'd been a chaplain during
WWII, and who found life as an enlisted man preferable to life on the
outside.

Yet another case, a captain at Fort Bragg, was to have been RIFfed a
week or so before he finished the twenty years (whatever) that would
have enabled him to retire (when he did eventually retire) with a
captain's pay and status, rather than the sergeant he was about to
become. The captain checked into the hospital with some mysterious
heart flutter (whatever). He was a very popular man, and several of us
visited him there to wish him well. Of course there was nothing at all
wrong with him. It seems that the army wouldn't bust a hospitalized
man. Once he had passed the magic day, he meant to check out and take
his reduction like a man.

Warrants were very rare in the 1950s. I don't think I ever met a
warrant officer during my two years in the army. (The major of course
was shipped out to serve in another outfit.) Later, in Vietnam, I saw
bunches of them, usually driving helicopters.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: WO vs CWO [was: Why is Stealth So Important?]
>From:
>Date: 1/18/04 8:02 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id:

>> I think it's a hoot that a navy *warrant* officer should be
>> commissioned, given that the

Thre is nothing about WW II that was a "hoot".



Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Kevin Brooks]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> >Do you find it a "hoot" that the Army also considers its senior warrnats
to
> >be commissioned?
>
> I would, if it's true.

Well, it is true, as you would know by now if you bothered to read the other
posts in this thread.

>
> Next thing you know, they'll be commissioning NCOs.

Why?

>
> all the best -- Dan Ford
> email:
>
> see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
> and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Kevin Brooks]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> > Why shouldn't a
> >CWO be able to take a sworn statement from a troop as well as any other
> >commissioned officer?
>
> Why shouldn't a sergeant?

Because there is no need.

> Or a private?

Ditto.

> Or a civilian?

Actually, I think civilian personnel employed by the DoD in the proper
position can do so.

Brooks

>
> all the best -- Dan Ford
> email:
>
> see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
> and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Thomas Schoene]

Cub Driver wrote:
>> Do you find it a "hoot" that the Army also considers its senior
>> warrnats to be commissioned?
>
> I would, if it's true.
>
Dan:

Are you saying the information provided by DOD is incorrect? Two of us have
already posted this link, but it seems you did not bother to read it so I'll
post it again.

http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/almanac/almanac/people/insignias/officers.ht
ml

"The lowest ranking warrant officers serve under a warrant, but they receive
COMMISSIONS from the president upon promotion to chief warrant officer 2.
These COMMISSIONED WARRANT OFFICERS are direct representatives of the
president of the United States. They derive their authority from the same
source as commissioned officers but remain specialists, in contrast to
commissioned officers, who are generalists." [Emphasis addded.]

That should be clear enough. If not, there's the piece of US Code Justin
posted.

US Code Title 10, Sec.571:
<<(b) Appointments in the grade of regular warrant officer, W-1, shall be
made by warrant by the Secretary concerned. Appointments in regular chief
warrant officer grades shall be made by COMMISSION by the President.>>
[Emphasis added]

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

[Cub Driver]

>> Next thing you know, they'll be commissioning NCOs.
>
>Why?

Why not? If a warrant officer can be a commissioned officer, so can
Top.

I notice that they're calling him "sir" these days. That used to get
you 20 push-ups in the U.S. Army.

A commissioned non-commissioned officer! That would be army-think at
its finest.

But really no more foolish than a commissioned warrant officer--a
warrant, after all, being by definition something less than a
commission.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Kevin Brooks]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> >> Next thing you know, they'll be commissioning NCOs.
> >
> >Why?
>
> Why not? If a warrant officer can be a commissioned officer, so can
> Top.

Why?

>
> I notice that they're calling him "sir" these days. That used to get
> you 20 push-ups in the U.S. Army.

Where did you get *that* from?

>
> A commissioned non-commissioned officer! That would be army-think at
> its finest.
>
> But really no more foolish than a commissioned warrant officer--a
> warrant, after all, being by definition something less than a
> commission.

Gee, I guess we should have frozen military development about forty years
ago, huh? Would that have made you happier?

Brooks

>
> all the best -- Dan Ford

[Dweezil Dwarftosser]

Cub Driver wrote:
>
> >> Next thing you know, they'll be commissioning NCOs.
> >
> >Why?
>
> Why not? If a warrant officer can be a commissioned officer, so can
> Top.
>
> I notice that they're calling him "sir" these days. That used to get
> you 20 push-ups in the U.S. Army.
>
> A commissioned non-commissioned officer! That would be army-think at
> its finest.
>
> But really no more foolish than a commissioned warrant officer--a
> warrant, after all, being by definition something less than a
> commission.

Sometime in the late 1950s, the US services
created the enlisted "supergrades", E-8 and E-9
- specifically for the purpose of eventually
doing away with the Warrant Officer grade.

It took more than a dozen years, but the USAF
did exactly that. (They could hang in until
retirement... but zero new ones were created.)

BTW - in the Kaiserslautern (Germany) Military
Community (headed by the Brigadier running the
86th TFG at Ramstein), we had LOTS of Army types
in the many base housing areas.

There were three sections of base housing: enlisted,
senior NCOs, and officer. My neighbor across the
apartment hall (in senior NCO housing) was an Army
CWO - and we both had very similar training, duties,
and responsibilites in our respective fields.

- John T. former MSgt, USAF

[fudog50]

Hey Dan,

Where are you coming from anyway? What is your point? You sound like
you are on some kinda high horse? Sorry if you don't agree that Chief
Warrant Officers should be commissioned and you think it is foolish,
but where are you coming from and why? Did a CWO **** in your wheaties
long ago? My personal view is that "Mustang" officers, (up through the
ranks, pal) overall make the best leaders, with the experience of
having been there and done that. And the upward transgression to more
responsibilty, authority and accountability (and consequently better
pay) is only logical. Your point about commissioning NCO's is silly,
we already do commission NCO's in every service, here is what
happens.....after they get commissioned, they are no longer NCO's,
(NCO stands for NON-commissioned Officer). A top can get a
commission, just as a Master Chief in the Navy can, but then they are
no longer enlisted, or senior NCO's. I don't get where you were going
with this. OBTW, yeah where did you get that "sir" thing for
enlisted? I don't know about the other services, but if you call any
kind of Chief in the Navy (E7-E9) sir, they will surely let you know
the score!

On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 06:03:04 -0500, Cub Driver
> wrote:

>
>>> Next thing you know, they'll be commissioning NCOs.
>>
>>Why?
>
>Why not? If a warrant officer can be a commissioned officer, so can
>Top.
>
>I notice that they're calling him "sir" these days. That used to get
>you 20 push-ups in the U.S. Army.
>
>A commissioned non-commissioned officer! That would be army-think at
>its finest.
>
>But really no more foolish than a commissioned warrant officer--a
>warrant, after all, being by definition something less than a
>commission.
>
>all the best -- Dan Ford
>email:
>
>see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
>and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Dweezil Dwarftosser]

Kevin Brooks wrote:
>
> "Cub Driver" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > >> Next thing you know, they'll be commissioning NCOs.
> > >
> > >Why?
> >
> > Why not? If a warrant officer can be a commissioned officer, so can
> > Top.
>
> Why?

Similar levels of training, duties, and experience.
Since the upper-level NCO is likely older and more
experienced, he probably has better judgement, too.
(NOT that I'm advocating this; who in their right
mind would trade in a bunch of stripes for a funky
lieutenant's bars?)

> > I notice that they're calling him "sir" these days. That used to get
> > you 20 push-ups in the U.S. Army.
>
> Where did you get *that* from?

The proper form of address for Warrant Officers is
"Mister". For NCOs it is "Sergeant", "Petty Officer",
(or, in some services, "Chief", if applicable).

[Cub Driver]

>> I notice that they're calling him "sir" these days. That used to get
>> you 20 push-ups in the U.S. Army.
>
>Where did you get *that* from?

What, the push-ups?

Basic training in Company G, 272nd Infantry Regiment, 69th Infantry
Division, Fort Dix, NJ, January 1956.



all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Cub Driver]

>(NOT that I'm advocating this; who in their right
>mind would trade in a bunch of stripes for a funky
>lieutenant's bars?)

Oh, I wasn't suggesting that, any more than the CWO wears lieutenant's
bars.

Top would still wear his stripes. He would simply become a
commissioned NCO. If it can work with a warrant, it can work with the
E grades.

Little plug here for the master of all newsreaders:


I highly recommend Forte Agent as a newsreader. It handles newsgroup
messages far better than any "included" newsreader such as those
bundled with Internet Explorer, Outlook, Netscape, or Opera--all of
which I have tried.

Download the software at www.forteinc.com/agent/download.php

The program includes the latest version of Agent as well as its
freeware version, called Free Agent. This enables you to get the feel
of the software without paying up front.

However, where Agent really shines is in its ability to filter out
objectional subjects or posters: Control+K and you're done! It was to
get that functionality that I upgraded to the paid version a year ago,
and I have never regretted it. The cost to register the software (and
thereby to unlock the full-featured version on your computer) is $29.

(A major revison is in the works. However, if you register the current
version, the upgrade will be free.)




all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Kevin Brooks]

"Dweezil Dwarftosser" > wrote in message
...
> Kevin Brooks wrote:
> >
> > "Cub Driver" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > >> Next thing you know, they'll be commissioning NCOs.
> > > >
> > > >Why?
> > >
> > > Why not? If a warrant officer can be a commissioned officer, so can
> > > Top.
> >
> > Why?
>
> Similar levels of training, duties, and experience.
> Since the upper-level NCO is likely older and more
> experienced, he probably has better judgement, too.
> (NOT that I'm advocating this; who in their right
> mind would trade in a bunch of stripes for a funky
> lieutenant's bars?)

NCO's have their jobs, and very important ones at that--there is a reason
they have oft been referred to as the "backbone" of whatever service is the
subject of the discussion. Commissioned officers have their jobs as well,
and NCO's traditionally don't really care to assume those duties (even the
platoon sergeant forced to serve as platoon leader due to a shortage of LT's
usually, in my experience, looks forward to getting a new LT if for no other
reason than to reduce the amount of time he has to dedicate to apaerwork and
meetings that he otherwise would not have to manage). The policy of
commissioning CWO's to allow them more freedom of action, and to better
utilize the total available officer manpower pool, in no way implies or
justifies commissioning "non-commissioned" officers.

>
> > > I notice that they're calling him "sir" these days. That used to get
> > > you 20 push-ups in the U.S. Army.
> >
> > Where did you get *that* from?
>
> The proper form of address for Warrant Officers is
> "Mister". For NCOs it is "Sergeant", "Petty Officer",
> (or, in some services, "Chief", if applicable).

Uhmmm--the poster was claiming that First Sergeants were the ones supposedly
being called "sir", not warrants. And in the Army, the common form of
address for CWO's is "chief", though you can also call them "Mister" the
same as you do a "Wobbly One".

Brooks

[Kevin Brooks]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> >> I notice that they're calling him "sir" these days. That used to get
> >> you 20 push-ups in the U.S. Army.
> >
> >Where did you get *that* from?
>
> What, the push-ups?

No, the insane idea that first sergeants are being routinely called "sir".

Brooks

>
> Basic training in Company G, 272nd Infantry Regiment, 69th Infantry
> Division, Fort Dix, NJ, January 1956.
>
>
>
> all the best -- Dan Ford
> email:
>
> see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
> and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Kevin Brooks]

"fudog50" > wrote in message
...

<snip>

Complete agreement with your words regarding the acceptability and wisdom of
commissioning the CWO's, but...

My personal view is that "Mustang" officers, (up through the
> ranks, pal) overall make the best leaders, with the experience of
> having been there and done that.

IMO, that depends on how the "Mustang" made it to where he is. If you are
talking LDO's in the Navy, sure. But coming from the Army side I have seen
more than a couple of former enlisted or former NCO's have real problems
making the transition to officer. Unlike those LDO's, however, and unlike
the majority of WO/CWO's, a lot of those "prior service" LT's did not have
all that many years of service under their belt when they made the switch
(most are still in their early or mid twenties). I saw two characteristics
pop up in the prior service junior officers all too often--they either
wanted to micromanage thier platoons, thinking they were still NCO's
somewhere in the back of their minds, or they were among the worst of the
misguided "I'm an officer, therefore ever-so-much-superior to you" types
when dealing with their troops and NCO's (thank goodness the latter was the
less prevalent behavior). That does not describe all of them--but it does
describe enough of them that it led to the observation being made by more
than just your's truly.

Brooks

And the upward transgression to more
> responsibilty, authority and accountability (and consequently better
> pay) is only logical. Your point about commissioning NCO's is silly,
> we already do commission NCO's in every service, here is what
> happens.....after they get commissioned, they are no longer NCO's,
> (NCO stands for NON-commissioned Officer). A top can get a
> commission, just as a Master Chief in the Navy can, but then they are
> no longer enlisted, or senior NCO's. I don't get where you were going
> with this. OBTW, yeah where did you get that "sir" thing for
> enlisted? I don't know about the other services, but if you call any
> kind of Chief in the Navy (E7-E9) sir, they will surely let you know
> the score!
>
> On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 06:03:04 -0500, Cub Driver
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >>> Next thing you know, they'll be commissioning NCOs.
> >>
> >>Why?
> >
> >Why not? If a warrant officer can be a commissioned officer, so can
> >Top.
> >
> >I notice that they're calling him "sir" these days. That used to get
> >you 20 push-ups in the U.S. Army.
> >
> >A commissioned non-commissioned officer! That would be army-think at
> >its finest.
> >
> >But really no more foolish than a commissioned warrant officer--a
> >warrant, after all, being by definition something less than a
> >commission.
> >
> >all the best -- Dan Ford
> >email:
> >
> >see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
> >and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com
>

[fudog50]

Kevin,
I totally agree with you, it's all up to the individual and there are
bad apples in every bushel. I, for one had a difficult time
transitioning to the wardroom after being a Chief for 6 years, and
never quite fit in with the rest of the J.O.'s, or the more senior
'O's. I was no longer accepted in the Chiefs Mess, and the J.O.'s
feared me, and we had nothing in common. After about 2 years I finally
found my niche, and it has been a great deal of fun!

On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 17:39:31 GMT, fudog50 > wrote:

>Cubby,
>
>Yeah I'm sure.
>
>
>On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 06:36:36 -0500, Cub Driver
> wrote:
>
>>
>>I think it's a hoot that a navy *warrant* officer should be
>>commissioned, given that the whole point of the "warrant" was to
>>create an officer who wasn't commissioned.
>>
>>The British navy used to have warrant officers, and probably devised
>>the system. Thus the OED: "an officer in certain armed services
>>(formerly also in the Navy) who holds office by a warrant, ranking
>>between a commissioned officer and an NCO."
>>
>>Are you sure that what's on your wall is a commission and not a
>>warrant? Both are pieces of paper.
>>
>>all the best -- Dan Ford
>>email:
>>
>>see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
>>and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[John Hairell]

On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 16:36:03 -0500, Cub Driver
> wrote:

>
>>Whether it's a warrant or a commission doesn't matter nearly as
>>much as how well you lead...
>
>My company commander in France was a major (well--it was a large
>company!).

I was in a training company a t Ft. Rucker (1977) that had over 700
people in it. For a while I was a platoon leader, with the august
rank of E-2. The other three platoon leaders were all E-6s. The C.O.
was a captain, a mustang officer promoted from W.O. in RVN. There
were no Lts in that company.

[stuff snipped]
>
>Yet another case, a captain at Fort Bragg, was to have been RIFfed a
>week or so before he finished the twenty years (whatever) that would
>have enabled him to retire (when he did eventually retire) with a
>captain's pay and status, rather than the sergeant he was about to
>become. The captain checked into the hospital with some mysterious
>heart flutter (whatever). He was a very popular man, and several of us
>visited him there to wish him well. Of course there was nothing at all
>wrong with him. It seems that the army wouldn't bust a hospitalized
>man. Once he had passed the magic day, he meant to check out and take
>his reduction like a man.

Strange story - the Army pays retirement money at the highest rank a
person ever held, not the last rank they held. I once saw an Army
Times retirement notice which listed a bunch of people newly retired,
and one of them was an E-1! Maybe a typo, maybe not.

And I knew two C.W.O.s that were riffed in the big "non-qualitative
RIF" of 1976/77 who opted to stay in as E-5s. They later got their
warrants back. One of them had 7,000 + hours on CH-47s alone.
They retired with their warrant ranks.

>Warrants were very rare in the 1950s. I don't think I ever met a
>warrant officer during my two years in the army. (The major of course
>was shipped out to serve in another outfit.) Later, in Vietnam, I saw
>bunches of them, usually driving helicopters.
>

They were there, you just didn't meet them. Of course there were many
more during the Vietnam war.

John Hairell )