GIVEN CURRENT WARS, F-35s ARE BETTER CHOICE THAN MORE F-22As

[Mike[_7_]]

Inside the Air Force
Next-gen bomber must be adequately funded
YOUNG: GIVEN CURRENT WARS, F-35s ARE BETTER CHOICE THAN MORE F-22As
Date: June 6, 2008
Allowing the Air Force to buy more F-22As in exchange for fewer F-35
Lightning IIs does not make sense given the nature of the wars in Iraq
and Afghanistan, Pentagon acquisition chief John Young told reporters
this week. Any decision on buying more F-22As at the expense of F-35s
would have to be based on operational requirements that the service
identifies, Young said during a June 5 briefing. He will leave this
decision up to the Air Force. “The Air Force has taken some looks at
that and been uncomfortable with cutting some more Joint Strike
Fighters, so that’s coupled [to] a force-structure decision,” Young
said. The “Joint Strike Fighter is totally coupled to the requirements
and force-structure decision. It’s not a law of just buy fewer and see
if everything works out.” Both aircraft have unique capabilities that
are best suited for specific missions, he said. However, when looking
at the current conflict environment, Young said that the F-35 is
probably the better-suited airplane, pointing to the F-35’s ground-
attack capability and datalinks as advantages in the current wars.
“JSF is incredibly capable, half the price of the F-22 . . . I would
agree that any decision to buy more F-22s at the expense of JSF is not
a good choice for the taxpayer,” Young said. “F-22 is still working to
add the air-to-ground capability after the fact and at some
significant cost,” he said. Still, Young warned that future
requirements may change, especially with a new administration taking
power next year. Alluding to the Air Force’s next-generation bomber,
the acquisition czar also repeated comments he made earlier this week
claiming that he would not approve any program he determines is not
likely to stay on-budget and on-time. This week, Young told lawmakers
that he does not believe the Air Force will be able to field the
bomber by 2018 because of funding issues. “I’ve said it before and
I’ll say it again, the 2018 was a nice planning date in the
[Quadrennial Defense Review], it is not a mandatory date . . . the
degree to which the Air Force is willing to fund [the bomber] will
determine the date that [it] will be available,” Young said. Early
cost estimates for the bomber were “significantly less” than
comparable programs, especially given how quickly the service wanted
to field the plane, he said. He is now waiting for the results of a
Defense Science Board review into the costs and schedule for the
program before he will sign off on the program. “I do not want to be
part of another marquee failed program,” he said, adding that he hopes
to use their review in budget decisions about the bomber by 2009. Also
at this week’s briefing, Young told reporters that the C-5 Reliability
Enhancement and Re-engining Program could be challenged by the fact
that many parts for the 40-year-old airlifter are becoming obsolete,
and the service could face a supplier gap. “We are discovering that we
may have some suppliers who want to get out of that business space,”
Young said. “I may have some obsolete parts. [But] I have no authority
to go buy a life-of-type buy for that program” because of a current
law. He noted that, without being able to lock in current parts in a
multiyear deal, he will be forced to find new parts that will have to
be re-qualified and retested, causing the costs to rise by tens of
millions of dollars. “So the law will force me to let those parts go
obsolete, and then I’ll have to go spend $10 [million], $20 [million],
$40 million to re-qualify and test the new parts and I can’t do it,”
he said. In an effort to reign in costs, the C-5 RERP program has been
slashed to 48 aircraft from 108, allowing the Pentagon to save $9.8
billion from the program which was re-certified earlier this spring
after breaching the Nunn-McCurdy statute that caps per-unit cost
growth in military programs. The Pentagon recently ordered the Air
Force to infuse another $1.8 billion into the program which DOD
expects to cost $7.7 billion through 2015. The C-5 RERP is meant to
make the airlifters 75 percent more mission capable than current C-5s.

[William Black[_1_]]

"Mike" > wrote in message
...
Inside the Air Force
Next-gen bomber must be adequately funded
YOUNG: GIVEN CURRENT WARS, F-35s ARE BETTER CHOICE THAN MORE F-22As

---------------------------------

Given current wars they'd be better off buying a load of Douglas A-1
Skyraiders and a few WWII twin engined bombers.

What they need is something very reliable that lugs a largish bombload
around and can absorb ground fire while dropping it in smallish quantities
with great precision.

What they don't need right now is large complex jet fighter/bombers that are
designed to fight a major European war.

--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

..

[eyeball]

On Jun 10, 4:20 pm, "William Black" >
wrote:

>
> What they don't need right now is large complex jet fighter/bombers that are
> designed to fight a major European war.

Until the next war?

[William Black[_1_]]

"eyeball" > wrote in message
...
> On Jun 10, 4:20 pm, "William Black" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>> What they don't need right now is large complex jet fighter/bombers that
>> are
>> designed to fight a major European war.
>
> Until the next war?

Who with?

--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

[Ian B MacLure]

"William Black" > wrote in
:

>
> "eyeball" > wrote in message
> .
> ..
>> On Jun 10, 4:20 pm, "William Black" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> What they don't need right now is large complex jet fighter/bombers
>>> that are
>>> designed to fight a major European war.
>>
>> Until the next war?
>
> Who with?

Right now the "who" and "with" are unknown.
Rest assured however that at some point there will be both
"who" and "with".

IBM

[Ian B MacLure]

"William Black" > wrote in
:

[snip]

> Given current wars they'd be better off buying a load of Douglas A-1
> Skyraiders and a few WWII twin engined bombers.

Rubbish.

> What they need is something very reliable that lugs a largish bombload
> around and can absorb ground fire while dropping it in smallish
> quantities with great precision.

Evidently you've missed the point that PGMs can be delivered
from altitudes where the carrier is largely immune from ground
fire of the kind asshats have available.

> What they don't need right now is large complex jet fighter/bombers
> that are designed to fight a major European war.

Which would neatly rob us of the ability to deal with a war
of that kind. You may think thats wise but most folks don't.

IBM

[Tiger]

William Black wrote:
> "Mike" > wrote in message
> ...
> Inside the Air Force
> Next-gen bomber must be adequately funded
> YOUNG: GIVEN CURRENT WARS, F-35s ARE BETTER CHOICE THAN MORE F-22As
>
> ---------------------------------
>
> Given current wars they'd be better off buying a load of Douglas A-1
> Skyraiders and a few WWII twin engined bombers.
>
> What they need is something very reliable that lugs a largish bombload
> around and can absorb ground fire while dropping it in smallish
quantities
> with great precision.
>
> What they don't need right now is large complex jet fighter/bombers
that are
> designed to fight a major European war.
>

In other words."Why pay 2008 Corvette money to do a job your old 1988
F150 could do?" I'm sure there plenty of stuff in the boneyard that fits
the bill. A-10's, A6's, A-4's, Phantoms, A-7's. Old stuff, but to drop
bombs in zones with no Mig threats they work. I think the A-1 may be
pushing the concept a bit, but I hear you.....

[Raymond O'Hara]

"Ian B MacLure" > wrote in message
.. .
> "William Black" > wrote in
> :
>
>>
>> "eyeball" > wrote in message
>> .
>> ..
>>> On Jun 10, 4:20 pm, "William Black" >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> What they don't need right now is large complex jet fighter/bombers
>>>> that are
>>>> designed to fight a major European war.
>>>
>>> Until the next war?
>>
>> Who with?
>
> Right now the "who" and "with" are unknown.
> Rest assured however that at some point there will be both
> "who" and "with".
>
> IBM

its best to deal with real threats now than to worry about a hypothetical
threat that will probably never materialize.

[eyeball]

On Jun 10, 9:02 pm, "Raymond O'Hara" >
wrote:
> "Ian B MacLure" > wrote in 7.131...
>
>
>
> > "William Black" > wrote in
> :
>
> >> "eyeball" > wrote in message
> .
> >> ..
> >>> On Jun 10, 4:20 pm, "William Black" >
> >>> wrote:
>
> >>>> What they don't need right now is large complex jet fighter/bombers
> >>>> that are
> >>>> designed to fight a major European war.
>
> >>> Until the next war?
>
> >> Who with?
>
> > Right now the "who" and "with" are unknown.
> > Rest assured however that at some point there will be both
> > "who" and "with".
>
> > IBM
>
> its best to deal with real threats now than to worry about a hypothetical
> threat that will probably never materialize.

Can you guarantee that?

[Raymond O'Hara]

"eyeball" > wrote in message
...
> On Jun 10, 9:02 pm, "Raymond O'Hara" >
> wrote:
>> "Ian B MacLure" > wrote in
>> 7.131...
>>
>>
>>
>> > "William Black" > wrote in
>> :
>>
>> >> "eyeball" > wrote in message
>> .
>> >> ..
>> >>> On Jun 10, 4:20 pm, "William Black" >
>> >>> wrote:
>>
>> >>>> What they don't need right now is large complex jet fighter/bombers
>> >>>> that are
>> >>>> designed to fight a major European war.
>>
>> >>> Until the next war?
>>
>> >> Who with?
>>
>> > Right now the "who" and "with" are unknown.
>> > Rest assured however that at some point there will be both
>> > "who" and "with".
>>
>> > IBM
>>
>> its best to deal with real threats now than to worry about a hypothetical
>> threat that will probably never materialize.
>
> Can you guarantee that?

can you envision any scenario in which the U.S. and russia fight?
are we going to invade them? i think we'd notice a huge naval build up for
them to invade us?
do you think they are going to overrun europe?

[Ian B MacLure]

"Raymond O'Hara" > wrote in
:

[snip]

> its best to deal with real threats now than to worry about a
> hypothetical threat that will probably never materialize.

Which ensures that the next who will come as a complete
surprise technologically. Besides which, the Air Force is
only lightly burdened by the present conflict as a small
number of fast movers and heavies are quite capable dealing
with what local resources can't. Not to mention that artillery
and missile technology allows the guy in contact to choose
which asshat he wants to whack on an individual basis.

IBM

[Ian B MacLure]

"Raymond O'Hara" > wrote in
:

[snip]

> can you envision any scenario in which the U.S. and russia fight?
> are we going to invade them? i think we'd notice a huge naval build up
> for them to invade us?
> do you think they are going to overrun europe?

Still in a state of denial from the last war I see.

IBM

[Raymond O'Hara]

"Ian B MacLure" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Raymond O'Hara" > wrote in
> :
>
> [snip]
>
>> can you envision any scenario in which the U.S. and russia fight?
>> are we going to invade them? i think we'd notice a huge naval build up
>> for them to invade us?
>> do you think they are going to overrun europe?
>
> Still in a state of denial from the last war I see.
>
> IBM


huh? do you mean WWII? or what?

[Raymond O'Hara]

"Ian B MacLure" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Raymond O'Hara" > wrote in
> :
>
> [snip]
>
>> its best to deal with real threats now than to worry about a
>> hypothetical threat that will probably never materialize.
>
> Which ensures that the next who will come as a complete
> surprise technologically. Besides which, the Air Force is
> only lightly burdened by the present conflict as a small
> number of fast movers and heavies are quite capable dealing
> with what local resources can't. Not to mention that artillery
> and missile technology allows the guy in contact to choose
> which asshat he wants to whack on an individual basis.
>
> IBM

we are in two wars now{which we are losing} and you're worried about an
imaginary war against an imaginary opponent.
russia is not a credible threat. and it is decades away from being one.

[g lof2]

On Jun 10, 5:32*pm, Tiger > wrote:
> William Black wrote:
>
> *> "Mike" > wrote in message
> ....
> *> Inside the Air Force
> *> Next-gen bomber must be adequately funded
> *> YOUNG: GIVEN CURRENT WARS, F-35s ARE BETTER CHOICE THAN MORE F-22As
> *>
> *> ---------------------------------
> *>
> *> Given current wars they'd be better off buying a load of Douglas A-1
> *> Skyraiders and a few WWII twin engined bombers.
> *>
> *> What they need is something very reliable that lugs a largish bombload
> *> around and can absorb ground fire while dropping it in smallish
> quantities
> *> with great precision.
> *>
> *> What they don't need right now is large complex jet fighter/bombers
> that are
> *> designed to fight a major European war.
> *>
>
> In other words."Why pay 2008 Corvette money to do a job your old 1988
> F150 could do?" I'm sure there plenty of stuff in the boneyard that fits
> the bill. A-10's, A6's, A-4's, Phantoms, A-7's. Old stuff, but to drop
> bombs in zones with no Mig threats they work. I think the A-1 may be
> pushing the concept a bit, but I hear you.....

Until the run into the a battery on the latest SAMs , ot a Nex-Gen
Stealth fighter, which are design to handle the latest fighters. At
which point they become so much flying scrap metal. And remember, the
reason we have air conreol is because we have the best fighter to
knock the other sides fighter out before the get to shoot at our
troops.

Frankly what I read in the story reminds me of the old warning about
fighting the last war, and not planning for the next.

[Tiger]

Raymond O'Hara wrote:
> "Ian B MacLure" > wrote in message
> .. .
>
>>"Raymond O'Hara" > wrote in
:
>>
>>
>>
> we are in two wars now{which we are losing} and you're worried about an
> imaginary war against an imaginary opponent.
> russia is not a credible threat. and it is decades away from being one.
>
>


Losing? Lose to whom? Current events don't seem be anywere close. As for
Russia? They have in the last year expanded their military activity.
They are flying Bears again, opposed our missile defence plans, and Nato
expansions. Decades may be a bit much.

[Raymond O'Hara]

"Tiger" > wrote in message
...
> Raymond O'Hara wrote:
>> "Ian B MacLure" > wrote in message
>> .. .
>>
>>>"Raymond O'Hara" > wrote in
:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> we are in two wars now{which we are losing} and you're worried about an
>> imaginary war against an imaginary opponent.
>> russia is not a credible threat. and it is decades away from being one.
>
>
> Losing? Lose to whom? Current events don't seem be anywere close. As for
> Russia? They have in the last year expanded their military activity. They
> are flying Bears again, opposed our missile defence plans, and Nato
> expansions. Decades may be a bit much.
>


we are not going to achieve whatever it is bush was after. and eventually we
will leave.

and ooo bears. propdriven bombers. yeah. i hear they are getting JSIIIs and
T-34/85s out of mothballs too.
scary tupolev bears, ouch, a scary threat.

[Andrew Swallow[_2_]]

eyeball wrote:
> On Jun 10, 4:20 pm, "William Black" >
> wrote:
>
>> What they don't need right now is large complex jet fighter/bombers that are
>> designed to fight a major European war.
>
> Until the next war?

Next war - to bomb Peking you either need a very long range (twice
across the Pacific) or launch from a carrier.

Tactical against insurgents does not need the range and stealth. Sea
launch may be needed if there are no near by airports. Short take
off using roads could be useful.

Tactical and stategic bombing are going to need different planes.

Andrew Swallow

[Tiger]

g lof2 wrote:
> On Jun 10, 5:32 pm, Tiger > wrote:
>
>>William Black wrote:
>>
>> > "Mike" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > Inside the Air Force
>> > Next-gen bomber must be adequately funded
>> > YOUNG: GIVEN CURRENT WARS, F-35s ARE BETTER CHOICE THAN MORE F-22As
>> >
>> > ---------------------------------
>> >
>> > Given current wars they'd be better off buying a load of Douglas A-1
>> > Skyraiders and a few WWII twin engined bombers.
>> >
>> > What they need is something very reliable that lugs a largish bombload
>> > around and can absorb ground fire while dropping it in smallish
>>quantities
>> > with great precision.
>> >
>> > What they don't need right now is large complex jet fighter/bombers
>>that are
>> > designed to fight a major European war.
>> >
>>
>>In other words."Why pay 2008 Corvette money to do a job your old 1988
>>F150 could do?" I'm sure there plenty of stuff in the boneyard that fits
>>the bill. A-10's, A6's, A-4's, Phantoms, A-7's. Old stuff, but to drop
>>bombs in zones with no Mig threats they work. I think the A-1 may be
>>pushing the concept a bit, but I hear you.....
>
>
> Until the run into the a battery on the latest SAMs , ot a Nex-Gen
> Stealth fighter, which are design to handle the latest fighters. At
> which point they become so much flying scrap metal. And remember, the
> reason we have air conreol is because we have the best fighter to
> knock the other sides fighter out before the get to shoot at our
> troops.
>
> Frankly what I read in the story reminds me of the old warning about
> fighting the last war, and not planning for the next.

The bad guys of late seem to prefer Ied's & rpg's to Radar guided SAm
sites... Nor does most of the world have the $$$ for next gen Stealth
fighters. Even our Allies can bearly put a decent force together. The
topic point was spending money on a F22 air superiorty fighter. A job it
does well but there is no air threat. That makes it useless when the
current need for the airforce is to supply CAS. The F35 which will do,
said mission is years away. If your planning for the next war, Nethier
plane is really what you want.

[Arved Sandstrom]

"Tiger" > wrote in message
...
> William Black wrote:
> > "Mike" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > Inside the Air Force
> > Next-gen bomber must be adequately funded
> > YOUNG: GIVEN CURRENT WARS, F-35s ARE BETTER CHOICE THAN MORE F-22As
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> >
> > Given current wars they'd be better off buying a load of Douglas A-1
> > Skyraiders and a few WWII twin engined bombers.
> >
> > What they need is something very reliable that lugs a largish bombload
> > around and can absorb ground fire while dropping it in smallish
> quantities
> > with great precision.
> >
> > What they don't need right now is large complex jet fighter/bombers
> that are
> > designed to fight a major European war.
> >
>
> In other words."Why pay 2008 Corvette money to do a job your old 1988 F150
> could do?" I'm sure there plenty of stuff in the boneyard that fits the
> bill. A-10's, A6's, A-4's, Phantoms, A-7's. Old stuff, but to drop bombs
> in zones with no Mig threats they work. I think the A-1 may be pushing the
> concept a bit, but I hear you.....

I haven't gotten the impression that the A-10 is going away any time soon...

AHS

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Tiger
> writes
>William Black wrote:
>> What they need is something very reliable that lugs a largish bombload
>> around and can absorb ground fire while dropping it in smallish
>quantities
>> with great precision.
>>
>> What they don't need right now is large complex jet fighter/bombers
>that are
>> designed to fight a major European war.
>>
>
>In other words."Why pay 2008 Corvette money to do a job your old 1988
>F150 could do?" I'm sure there plenty of stuff in the boneyard that
>fits the bill. A-10's, A6's, A-4's, Phantoms, A-7's. Old stuff, but to
>drop bombs in zones with no Mig threats they work. I think the A-1 may
>be pushing the concept a bit, but I hear you.....

Fine until the Bad Guys hit it with a 1960s-vintage SA-7 or similar,
which is cheap and widely proliferated and very effective against such
aircraft (as evidenced by the withdrawal of the A-1 from Vietnam by the
end).

By the time you've added the IRCM capability to survive MANPADS,
included the navigation and comms gear needed to hit *that* building to
support the troops, and bolted on the sensors that let you operate at
night as well as by day... your solution is no longer quick, cheap and
simple.


It's the old problem of the Blitzfighter: it's an appealing notion to
fill the skies with cheap, simple aircraft armed with a simple but
deadly gun and unburdened by complex electronic boondoggles, but the
reality falls over when many are blotted from the sky by SAMs, others
can't be reached on a swamped VHF voicenet, those that can get to where
they're needed get into long conversations about "I see the street, I
think, and some red smoke, you want me to hit the red smoke?... okay,
across the street and three houses north of the red smoke... I show two
red smokes now... was that you calling 'Check! Check! Check!'?"

The F-16 and A-10 are good examples, both initially hailed by the
Lightweight Fighter Mafia as everything a combat aircraft should be
(though the ideal aircraft, according to the LWF, seems to have been the
A6M Zero...) and both being "ruined" by the addition of the useless,
wasteful electronics that let them do more than excel at range-shooting
on bright sunny days (and both subsequently demonstrating remarkable
effectiveness and longevity...)

--
The nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its
warriors, will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done
by fools.
-Thucydides


paul<dot>j<dot>adam[at]googlemail{dot}.com

[Jim Wilkins]

On Jun 10, 8:14*pm, Ian B MacLure > wrote:
> > Who with?
>
> * * * * Right now the "who" and "with" are unknown.
> * * * * Rest assured however that at some point there will be both
> * * * * "who" and "with".
>
> * * * * IBM

Look at world conditions in 1930 and see if you could have predicted
the next war.

[Roger Conroy[_2_]]

"Tiger" > wrote in message
...
> Raymond O'Hara wrote:
>> "Ian B MacLure" > wrote in message
>> .. .
>>
>>>"Raymond O'Hara" > wrote in
:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> we are in two wars now{which we are losing} and you're worried about an
>> imaginary war against an imaginary opponent.
>> russia is not a credible threat. and it is decades away from being one.
>
>
> Losing? Lose to whom? Current events don't seem be anywere close. As for
> Russia? They have in the last year expanded their military activity. They
> are flying Bears again, opposed our missile defence plans, and Nato
> expansions. Decades may be a bit much.
>

Russia is not the only possible future technologically advanced enemy -
don't take your eyes of China, or a possible Arab alliance.

[Roger Conroy[_2_]]

"Tiger" > wrote in message
...
>g lof2 wrote:
>> On Jun 10, 5:32 pm, Tiger > wrote:
>>
>>>William Black wrote:
>>>
>>> > "Mike" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>> > Inside the Air Force
>>> > Next-gen bomber must be adequately funded
>>> > YOUNG: GIVEN CURRENT WARS, F-35s ARE BETTER CHOICE THAN MORE F-22As
>>> >
>>> > ---------------------------------
>>> >
>>> > Given current wars they'd be better off buying a load of Douglas A-1
>>> > Skyraiders and a few WWII twin engined bombers.
>>> >
>>> > What they need is something very reliable that lugs a largish bombload
>>> > around and can absorb ground fire while dropping it in smallish
>>>quantities
>>> > with great precision.
>>> >
>>> > What they don't need right now is large complex jet fighter/bombers
>>>that are
>>> > designed to fight a major European war.
>>> >
>>>
>>>In other words."Why pay 2008 Corvette money to do a job your old 1988
>>>F150 could do?" I'm sure there plenty of stuff in the boneyard that fits
>>>the bill. A-10's, A6's, A-4's, Phantoms, A-7's. Old stuff, but to drop
>>>bombs in zones with no Mig threats they work. I think the A-1 may be
>>>pushing the concept a bit, but I hear you.....
>>
>>
>> Until the run into the a battery on the latest SAMs , ot a Nex-Gen
>> Stealth fighter, which are design to handle the latest fighters. At
>> which point they become so much flying scrap metal. And remember, the
>> reason we have air conreol is because we have the best fighter to
>> knock the other sides fighter out before the get to shoot at our
>> troops.
>>
>> Frankly what I read in the story reminds me of the old warning about
>> fighting the last war, and not planning for the next.
>
> The bad guys of late seem to prefer Ied's & rpg's to Radar guided SAm
> sites... Nor does most of the world have the $$$ for next gen Stealth
> fighters. Even our Allies can bearly put a decent force together. The
> topic point was spending money on a F22 air superiorty fighter. A job it
> does well but there is no air threat. That makes it useless when the
> current need for the airforce is to supply CAS. The F35 which will do,
> said mission is years away. If your planning for the next war, Nethier
> plane is really what you want.
>

Can you ABSOLUTELY, GUARANTEE that no possible future enemy could
aquire/develop such technology within the next 30 or so years?

[Andrew Swallow[_2_]]

Juergen Nieveler wrote:
[snip]

> Redesign a B747 or A380 with a conveyor belt and a hole in the bottom
> so that it can drop scores of smart bombs, one at a time, and you'll
> have all the air support you'll need for the ground forces.
>
> Juergen Nieveler

Make the hole in the side rather than the bottom. Civilian aircraft
have large cargo holds whose doors are on the side.

The aircraft have sufficient space to carry bombs, missiles and a gun.

Andrew Swallow

[Jack Linthicum]

On Jun 11, 1:34 am, "Arved Sandstrom" >
wrote:
> "Tiger" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > William Black wrote:
> > > "Mike" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Inside the Air Force
> > > Next-gen bomber must be adequately funded
> > > YOUNG: GIVEN CURRENT WARS, F-35s ARE BETTER CHOICE THAN MORE F-22As
>
> > > ---------------------------------
>
> > > Given current wars they'd be better off buying a load of Douglas A-1
> > > Skyraiders and a few WWII twin engined bombers.
>
> > > What they need is something very reliable that lugs a largish bombload
> > > around and can absorb ground fire while dropping it in smallish
> > quantities
> > > with great precision.
>
> > > What they don't need right now is large complex jet fighter/bombers
> > that are
> > > designed to fight a major European war.
>
> > In other words."Why pay 2008 Corvette money to do a job your old 1988 F150
> > could do?" I'm sure there plenty of stuff in the boneyard that fits the
> > bill. A-10's, A6's, A-4's, Phantoms, A-7's. Old stuff, but to drop bombs
> > in zones with no Mig threats they work. I think the A-1 may be pushing the
> > concept a bit, but I hear you.....
>
> I haven't gotten the impression that the A-10 is going away any time soon...
>
> AHS

I went through a long discussion on this newsgroup advocating a
carrier-able version of the A-10 or a new design.

[William Black[_1_]]

"Mike Williamson" > wrote in message
...
> William Black wrote:
>>
>> Given current wars they'd be better off buying a load of Douglas A-1
>> Skyraiders and a few WWII twin engined bombers.
>>
>> What they need is something very reliable that lugs a largish bombload
>> around and can absorb ground fire while dropping it in smallish
>> quantities with great precision.
>>
>> What they don't need right now is large complex jet fighter/bombers that
>> are designed to fight a major European war.
>>
>
> That's what the WWII twin engined bombers were built for, but that is
> besides the point. No B-25 would be allowed to FLY in Iraq, much less
> drop a bomb on anything. They don't have the equipment to safely fly
> in the airspace around Baghdad, for instance (some of the most congested
> airspace in the world, and not nearly as neat and tidy as, say, Chicago
> O'Hare airport).

Technical issue.

Easy to solve.


They also don't have anywhere near the accuracy needed
> to be allowed to drop a bomb just about anywhere in the country- when it
> comes to dropping bombs, a counter-insurgency has come to being about
> dropping them right on the specific vehicle/person/room you are aiming
> at, not hitting a railroad yard.

Again, that's a technical issue.

You just throw the old gear out and bolt new gear on.

It's still going to be a lot cheaper than new F-35s

--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.


>
> Mike

[William Black[_1_]]

"Ian B MacLure" > wrote in message
.. .
> "William Black" > wrote in
> :
>
>>
>> "eyeball" > wrote in message
>> .
>> ..
>>> On Jun 10, 4:20 pm, "William Black" >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> What they don't need right now is large complex jet fighter/bombers
>>>> that are
>>>> designed to fight a major European war.
>>>
>>> Until the next war?
>>
>> Who with?
>
> Right now the "who" and "with" are unknown.
> Rest assured however that at some point there will be both
> "who" and "with".
>

I'm sure.

But if it turns out to be yet another gang of urban terrorists the F35s will
be about as useful as the SSBNs.

--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

[William Black[_1_]]

"g lof2" > wrote in message
...
On Jun 10, 5:32 pm, Tiger > wrote:
> William Black wrote:
>
> > "Mike" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Inside the Air Force
> > Next-gen bomber must be adequately funded
> > YOUNG: GIVEN CURRENT WARS, F-35s ARE BETTER CHOICE THAN MORE F-22As
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> >
> > Given current wars they'd be better off buying a load of Douglas A-1
> > Skyraiders and a few WWII twin engined bombers.
> >
> > What they need is something very reliable that lugs a largish bombload
> > around and can absorb ground fire while dropping it in smallish
> quantities
> > with great precision.
> >
> > What they don't need right now is large complex jet fighter/bombers
> that are
> > designed to fight a major European war.
> >
>
> In other words."Why pay 2008 Corvette money to do a job your old 1988
> F150 could do?" I'm sure there plenty of stuff in the boneyard that fits
> the bill. A-10's, A6's, A-4's, Phantoms, A-7's. Old stuff, but to drop
> bombs in zones with no Mig threats they work. I think the A-1 may be
> pushing the concept a bit, but I hear you.....

Until the run into the a battery on the latest SAMs , ot a Nex-Gen
Stealth fighter, which are design to handle the latest fighters. At
which point they become so much flying scrap metal. And remember, the
reason we have air conreol is because we have the best fighter to
knock the other sides fighter out before the get to shoot at our
troops.

------------------------

Youi mean the vast Tabilan air threat that was sucessfully neutralised after
a hard fight?

I don't remember that one, perhaps you'll enlighten us...

--------------------------

--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

[Typhoon502]

On Jun 11, 6:51*am, "Roger Conroy" >
wrote:
> "Tiger" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Raymond O'Hara wrote:
> >> "Ian B MacLure" > wrote in message
> .. .
>
> >>>"Raymond O'Hara" > wrote in
> :
>
> >> *we are in two wars now{which we are losing} and you're worried about an
> >> imaginary war against an imaginary opponent.
> >> russia is not a credible threat. and it is decades away from being one.
>
> > Losing? Lose to whom? Current events don't seem be anywere close. As for
> > Russia? They have in the last year expanded their military activity. They
> > are flying Bears again, opposed our missile defence plans, and Nato
> > expansions. Decades may be a bit much.
>
> Russia is not the only possible future technologically advanced enemy -
> don't take your eyes of China, or a possible Arab alliance.- Hide quoted text -

Not to mention Venezuela...

[Raymond O'Hara]

"Typhoon502" > wrote in message
...
On Jun 11, 6:51 am, "Roger Conroy" >
wrote:
> "Tiger" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Raymond O'Hara wrote:
> >> "Ian B MacLure" > wrote in message
> .. .
>
> >>>"Raymond O'Hara" > wrote in
> :
>
> >> we are in two wars now{which we are losing} and you're worried about an
> >> imaginary war against an imaginary opponent.
> >> russia is not a credible threat. and it is decades away from being one.
>
> > Losing? Lose to whom? Current events don't seem be anywere close. As for
> > Russia? They have in the last year expanded their military activity.
> > They
> > are flying Bears again, opposed our missile defence plans, and Nato
> > expansions. Decades may be a bit much.
>
> Russia is not the only possible future technologically advanced enemy -
> don't take your eyes of China, or a possible Arab alliance.- Hide quoted
> text -

>Not to mention Venezuela...

we don't need F-22s to fight venezuela.

[Raymond O'Hara]

"Jim Wilkins" > wrote in message
...
On Jun 10, 8:14 pm, Ian B MacLure > wrote:
> > Who with?
>
> Right now the "who" and "with" are unknown.
> Rest assured however that at some point there will be both
> "who" and "with".
>
> IBM

>Look at world conditions in 1930 and see if you could have predicted
>the next war.


many did predict it.
and its not 1930

[Roger Conroy[_2_]]

"Raymond O'Hara" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jim Wilkins" > wrote in message
> ...
> On Jun 10, 8:14 pm, Ian B MacLure > wrote:
>> > Who with?
>>
>> Right now the "who" and "with" are unknown.
>> Rest assured however that at some point there will be both
>> "who" and "with".
>>
>> IBM
>
>>Look at world conditions in 1930 and see if you could have predicted
>>the next war.
>
>
> many did predict it.
> and its not 1930
>

So if you are incapable of understanding historical analogy, then answer
this:
Who is going to be at war with whom in 2022, and what types of weapons
systems will be used?

[AirRaid[_3_]]

I'd advocate an F-22C with:
more powerful, more efficient engines (40,000+ lbs trust each)
IRST, plus the other things that were cut out of the 1980s ATF spec as
the YF-22 was finalized..
improved stealth
larger weapons bay that can hold 8-10 AMRAAMs

Upgrade current F-22A models with as much of the tech that goes into
F-22C as possible.


F-35 is no replacement for F-22
Just like F-16 was no replacement for F-15C, F-15E.



On Jun 10, 1:16 pm, Mike > wrote:
> Inside the Air Force
> Next-gen bomber must be adequately funded
> YOUNG: GIVEN CURRENT WARS, F-35s ARE BETTER CHOICE THAN MORE F-22As
> Date: June 6, 2008
> Allowing the Air Force to buy more F-22As in exchange for fewer F-35
> Lightning IIs does not make sense given the nature of the wars in Iraq
> and Afghanistan, Pentagon acquisition chief John Young told reporters
> this week. Any decision on buying more F-22As at the expense of F-35s
> would have to be based on operational requirements that the service
> identifies, Young said during a June 5 briefing. He will leave this
> decision up to the Air Force. “The Air Force has taken some looks at
> that and been uncomfortable with cutting some more Joint Strike
> Fighters, so that’s coupled [to] a force-structure decision,” Young
> said. The “Joint Strike Fighter is totally coupled to the requirements
> and force-structure decision. It’s not a law of just buy fewer and see
> if everything works out.” Both aircraft have unique capabilities that
> are best suited for specific missions, he said. However, when looking
> at the current conflict environment, Young said that the F-35 is
> probably the better-suited airplane, pointing to the F-35’s ground-
> attack capability and datalinks as advantages in the current wars.
> “JSF is incredibly capable, half the price of the F-22 . . . I would
> agree that any decision to buy more F-22s at the expense of JSF is not
> a good choice for the taxpayer,” Young said. “F-22 is still working to
> add the air-to-ground capability after the fact and at some
> significant cost,” he said. Still, Young warned that future
> requirements may change, especially with a new administration taking
> power next year. Alluding to the Air Force’s next-generation bomber,
> the acquisition czar also repeated comments he made earlier this week
> claiming that he would not approve any program he determines is not
> likely to stay on-budget and on-time. This week, Young told lawmakers
> that he does not believe the Air Force will be able to field the
> bomber by 2018 because of funding issues. “I’ve said it before and
> I’ll say it again, the 2018 was a nice planning date in the
> [Quadrennial Defense Review], it is not a mandatory date . . . the
> degree to which the Air Force is willing to fund [the bomber] will
> determine the date that [it] will be available,” Young said. Early
> cost estimates for the bomber were “significantly less” than
> comparable programs, especially given how quickly the service wanted
> to field the plane, he said. He is now waiting for the results of a
> Defense Science Board review into the costs and schedule for the
> program before he will sign off on the program. “I do not want to be
> part of another marquee failed program,” he said, adding that he hopes
> to use their review in budget decisions about the bomber by 2009. Also
> at this week’s briefing, Young told reporters that the C-5 Reliability
> Enhancement and Re-engining Program could be challenged by the fact
> that many parts for the 40-year-old airlifter are becoming obsolete,
> and the service could face a supplier gap. “We are discovering that we
> may have some suppliers who want to get out of that business space,”
> Young said. “I may have some obsolete parts. [But] I have no authority
> to go buy a life-of-type buy for that program” because of a current
> law. He noted that, without being able to lock in current parts in a
> multiyear deal, he will be forced to find new parts that will have to
> be re-qualified and retested, causing the costs to rise by tens of
> millions of dollars. “So the law will force me to let those parts go
> obsolete, and then I’ll have to go spend $10 [million], $20 [million],
> $40 million to re-qualify and test the new parts and I can’t do it,”
> he said. In an effort to reign in costs, the C-5 RERP program has been
> slashed to 48 aircraft from 108, allowing the Pentagon to save $9.8
> billion from the program which was re-certified earlier this spring
> after breaching the Nunn-McCurdy statute that caps per-unit cost
> growth in military programs. The Pentagon recently ordered the Air
> Force to infuse another $1.8 billion into the program which DOD
> expects to cost $7.7 billion through 2015. The C-5 RERP is meant to
> make the airlifters 75 percent more mission capable than current C-5s.

[Raymond O'Hara]

"Roger Conroy" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Raymond O'Hara" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Jim Wilkins" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> On Jun 10, 8:14 pm, Ian B MacLure > wrote:
>>> > Who with?
>>>
>>> Right now the "who" and "with" are unknown.
>>> Rest assured however that at some point there will be both
>>> "who" and "with".
>>>
>>> IBM
>>
>>>Look at world conditions in 1930 and see if you could have predicted
>>>the next war.
>>
>>
>> many did predict it.
>> and its not 1930
>>
>
> So if you are incapable of understanding historical analogy, then answer
> this:
> Who is going to be at war with whom in 2022, and what types of weapons
> systems will be used?
>

and you want to spend billions on pure fantasy speculation?
who has anything anywhere near as good as what wer have?
who is building up anything.
its not the 1930s
its not the cold war.
so stop fighting WWII andWWIII, they aren't going to happen as you imagine.

[Jim Wilkins]

On Jun 11, 11:34*am, "Roger Conroy" >
wrote:
> Who is going to be at war with whom in 2022, and what types of weapons
> systems will be used

Napoleon was unknown in 1790.
In 1910 England and Germany were each other's best trading partners.
Germany was the model democracy in 1930.
In 1940 the Air Corps had prepared to defend our coastlines. WTF is a
Guadal Canal?
Who expected the Korean War in early 1950, or Vietnam in 1960?
Argentina taking on England??? Are you dreaming?
There was no chance of war with Iraq in 1990 or 2000.

Whatever comes will be the war we are least prepared for so they have
a better prospect of winning.

[Christopher Manteuffel]

On Jun 11, 4:07 am, "Paul J. Adam" > wrote:

> The F-16 and A-10 are good examples, both initially hailed by the
> Lightweight Fighter Mafia as everything a combat aircraft should be
> (though the ideal aircraft, according to the LWF, seems to have been the
> A6M Zero...) and both being "ruined" by the addition of the useless,
> wasteful electronics that let them do more than excel at range-shooting
> on bright sunny days (and both subsequently demonstrating remarkable
> effectiveness and longevity...)

Don't forget the ultimate example of this sort of thing: the A-4
Skyhawk. Heinemann's fanatical devotion to weight saving meant that
you had an excellent air frame capable of holding its own in a
dogfight (as Aggressor pilots proved on numerous occasions). And in
the hands of a determined pilot, well, ask the RN how effective it can
be as an attack aircraft. Unfortunately, it really took until the A4D2
(aka the A4B after the great renaming) to get an airplane that was
functional in more conditions than daylight only- with guided weapons,
adequate navigation systems, etc. The A4D2N (aka A4C), with all sorts
of fancy-pants radars and ECM's and so on was even more useful, and
not surprisingly, 4x as many A4C's were made as A4-nils. Heinemann was
a fantastic designer and I really admire his discipline about weight,
but I think he might have gone a bit too far with mission weight from
time to time.

Chris Manteuffel

[Keith Willshaw[_3_]]

"Raymond O'Hara" > wrote in message
...

>
>>Not to mention Venezuela...
>
> we don't need F-22s to fight venezuela.
>
>

Unless they buy a **** load of su-27's and S-400's with all
that oil money the US is supplying them.

With production running at 3 million barrels per day they
have an income of around $170 billion per annum which is
double what they had last year.

That could buy Chavez a lot of shiny new toys that go bang.

Keith

[Tiger]

Paul J. Adam wrote:
> In message >, Tiger
> > writes
>
>> William Black wrote:
>>
>>>
>>
>> In other words."Why pay 2008 Corvette money to do a job your old 1988
>> F150 could do?" I'm sure there plenty of stuff in the boneyard that
>> fits the bill. A-10's, A6's, A-4's, Phantoms, A-7's. Old stuff, but to
>> drop bombs in zones with no Mig threats they work. I think the A-1 may
>> be pushing the concept a bit, but I hear you.....
>
>
> Fine until the Bad Guys hit it with a 1960s-vintage SA-7 or similar,
> which is cheap and widely proliferated and very effective against such
> aircraft (as evidenced by the withdrawal of the A-1 from Vietnam by the
> end).

The cost vs. benifit seems out of wack. You want a $100 milion plane
designed for chasing Migs to drop bombs on Bad guy X. Rather than a $20
million A6 or A10 designed for that purpose 30 years ago? Both in theory
can get hit by the golden BB.Based on combat so far Choppers are a more
likely target for your SA-7. Lower flying, slow. Our losses in rotor
wing craft far excedes any fixed wing losses. Also even recently retired
planes are equiped with flares & chaff to counter missle threats.



>
> By the time you've added the IRCM capability to survive MANPADS,
> included the navigation and comms gear needed to hit *that* building to
> support the troops, and bolted on the sensors that let you operate at
> night as well as by day... your solution is no longer quick, cheap and
> simple.
>
>
> It's the old problem of the Blitzfighter: it's an appealing notion to
> fill the skies with cheap, simple aircraft armed with a simple but
> deadly gun and unburdened by complex electronic boondoggles, but the
> reality falls over when many are blotted from the sky by SAMs, others
> can't be reached on a swamped VHF voicenet, those that can get to where
> they're needed get into long conversations about "I see the street, I
> think, and some red smoke, you want me to hit the red smoke?... okay,
> across the street and three houses north of the red smoke... I show two
> red smokes now... was that you calling 'Check! Check! Check!'?"

All the pricey toys of Saddam's Air defence got few kills. The f-16 may
old enough to drink,but I could take a few down to Venezeula turn
Hugo's shinny new toys into toast in a day.

>
> The F-16 and A-10 are good examples, both initially hailed by the
> Lightweight Fighter Mafia as everything a combat aircraft should be
> (though the ideal aircraft, according to the LWF, seems to have been the
> A6M Zero...) and both being "ruined" by the addition of the useless,
> wasteful electronics that let them do more than excel at range-shooting
> on bright sunny days (and both subsequently demonstrating remarkable
> effectiveness and longevity...)
>
A-10's are lightwieght?

As for the Zero. It's strengths play to a difference in design
philosophy. It was to be used offensively & swiftly like a Katana sword.
It's armor was it's speed & climb. We on the other hand take the suit
of armor approach to planes. Thus we build stuff like the Hellcat or
P47. The LWF program also helped close the quantity gap over our foes.
The f-14 & f-15 had quality, but a $30 million a pop not numbers.

[Keith Willshaw[_3_]]

"Raymond O'Hara" > wrote in message
...
>

>>
>
> and you want to spend billions on pure fantasy speculation?

Thats what defense planning amounts to

> who has anything anywhere near as good as what wer have?

Russia and increasingly China

> who is building up anything.

Russia, China, India , Iran

> its not the 1930s

No its the 21st century where increasing numbers of industrialized
nations are chasing decreasing natural resources. The prospect
of nation deciding it needs to go to war to secure its oil supply
has happened before - see Pearl Harbor

Then there's the continuing radicalisation in the Muslim world
and rising Russian nationalism.

> its not the cold war.
> so stop fighting WWII andWWIII, they aren't going to happen as you
> imagine.

Or as you do. What planners are expected to do is work on
the basis of capabilities not intentions. Todays ally can become
an enemy overnight. See Iran as an example.

Keith

[Raymond O'Hara]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Raymond O'Hara" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>
>>>Not to mention Venezuela...
>>
>> we don't need F-22s to fight venezuela.
>>
>>
>
> Unless they buy a **** load of su-27's and S-400's with all
> that oil money the US is supplying them.
> With production running at 3 million barrels per day they
> have an income of around $170 billion per annum which is
> double what they had last year.
>
> That could buy Chavez a lot of shiny new toys that go bang.
>
> Keith


when he does but them and trains people to use them, and trains people to
service them.
and since su-27s first flew in 1977 and went into service in 1984 i'd say
they are not exactly cutting edge technology.


>

[Raymond O'Hara]

"Jim Wilkins" > wrote in message
...
On Jun 11, 11:34 am, "Roger Conroy" >
wrote:
> Who is going to be at war with whom in 2022, and what types of weapons
> systems will be used

Napoleon was unknown in 1790.
In 1910 England and Germany were each other's best trading partners.
Germany was the model democracy in 1930.
In 1940 the Air Corps had prepared to defend our coastlines. WTF is a
Guadal Canal?
Who expected the Korean War in early 1950, or Vietnam in 1960?
Argentina taking on England??? Are you dreaming?
There was no chance of war with Iraq in 1990 or 2000.

Whatever comes will be the war we are least prepared for so they have
a better prospect of winning.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


or maybe a new barbarian invasion or the south will try to secede again.
OH NO! the sky might fall.



history has shown couintryies with huge armies generally have the wrong
army.
the french,british and ussr all found out in WWII that they had the wrong
army at the start,
the ruskis and the french had very large "modern" armies.
germany and the U.S. had next to nothing. when war started to loom germany
and the u.s. enyered it with the right armies.

a strong country is a country with a strong manufacturing base and not one
with a huge army.

wars are won by spare parts and what you can replace.

[Tiger]

Keith Willshaw wrote:
> "Raymond O'Hara" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
>>>Not to mention Venezuela...
>>
>>we don't need F-22s to fight venezuela.
>>
>>
>
>
> Unless they buy a **** load of su-27's and S-400's with all
> that oil money the US is supplying them.
>
> With production running at 3 million barrels per day they
> have an income of around $170 billion per annum which is
> double what they had last year.
>
> That could buy Chavez a lot of shiny new toys that go bang.
>
> Keith
>
>

Saddam had toys too. Come put up or shut up time, they ran or got zaped.
Just because you own a Porsche, don't mean you can drive like Jeff
Gordon. We still have experince, training & tactics to go along with our
USA made toys.

[Tiger]

Roger Conroy wrote:
> "Raymond O'Hara" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>"Jim Wilkins" > wrote in message
...
>>On Jun 10, 8:14 pm, Ian B MacLure > wrote:
>>
>>>>Who with?
>>>
>>>Right now the "who" and "with" are unknown.
>>>Rest assured however that at some point there will be both
>>>"who" and "with".
>>>
>>>IBM
>>
>>>Look at world conditions in 1930 and see if you could have predicted
>>>the next war.
>>
>>
>>many did predict it.
>>and its not 1930
>>
>
>
> So if you are incapable of understanding historical analogy, then answer
> this:
> Who is going to be at war with whom in 2022, and what types of weapons
> systems will be used?
>
>

If oil stays above $100 a barrel Lots of people will be fighting sooner
than 2022. The oil haves vs the oil have nots.

[Tiger]

AirRaid wrote:
> I'd advocate an F-22C with:
> more powerful, more efficient engines (40,000+ lbs trust each)
> IRST, plus the other things that were cut out of the 1980s ATF spec as
> the YF-22 was finalized..
> improved stealth
> larger weapons bay that can hold 8-10 AMRAAMs
>
> Upgrade current F-22A models with as much of the tech that goes into
> F-22C as possible.
>
>
> F-35 is no replacement for F-22
> Just like F-16 was no replacement for F-15C, F-15E.


What do you sacrifce to pay for it? THE C-5 upgrade? A New Tanker? THe
V-22? Push back the F35 even further and increased cost? The next Gen
bomber some keep asking for? The grounded F-15 problem? Sorry but Obama
( God help us) does not seem like a big USAF spender. I've yet to hear
him back even one major weapon program. SO what do you give up to get
your F22'S???????

[Andrew Swallow[_2_]]

Raymond O'Hara wrote:
[snip]

>
> or maybe a new barbarian invasion or the south will try to secede again.
> OH NO! the sky might fall.

French speaking Quebec may decide to leave.

>
> wars are won by spare parts and what you can replace.
>
That is long wars.

Andrew Swallow
>

[Roger Conroy[_2_]]

"Tiger" > wrote in message
...
> Roger Conroy wrote:
>> "Raymond O'Hara" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>"Jim Wilkins" > wrote in message
...
>>>On Jun 10, 8:14 pm, Ian B MacLure > wrote:
>>>
>>>>>Who with?
>>>>
>>>>Right now the "who" and "with" are unknown.
>>>>Rest assured however that at some point there will be both
>>>>"who" and "with".
>>>>
>>>>IBM
>>>
>>>>Look at world conditions in 1930 and see if you could have predicted
>>>>the next war.
>>>
>>>
>>>many did predict it.
>>>and its not 1930
>>>
>>
>>
>> So if you are incapable of understanding historical analogy, then answer
>> this:
>> Who is going to be at war with whom in 2022, and what types of weapons
>> systems will be used?
>
> If oil stays above $100 a barrel Lots of people will be fighting sooner
> than 2022. The oil haves vs the oil have nots.
>

Don't take your eye off the "Water Haves" vs. "Water Have Nots" either.

[Raymond O'Hara]

"Andrew Swallow" > wrote in message
...
> Raymond O'Hara wrote:
> [snip]
>
>>
>> or maybe a new barbarian invasion or the south will try to secede again.
>> OH NO! the sky might fall.
>
> French speaking Quebec may decide to leave.
>
>>
>> wars are won by spare parts and what you can replace.
> That is long wars.
>




what other kind are there?

"home before the leaves fall"
popular saying in august 1914

[Raymond O'Hara]

"Roger Conroy" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tiger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Roger Conroy wrote:
>>> "Raymond O'Hara" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>
>>>>"Jim Wilkins" > wrote in message
...
>>>>On Jun 10, 8:14 pm, Ian B MacLure > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>Who with?
>>>>>
>>>>>Right now the "who" and "with" are unknown.
>>>>>Rest assured however that at some point there will be both
>>>>>"who" and "with".
>>>>>
>>>>>IBM
>>>>
>>>>>Look at world conditions in 1930 and see if you could have predicted
>>>>>the next war.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>many did predict it.
>>>>and its not 1930
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> So if you are incapable of understanding historical analogy, then
>>> answer this:
>>> Who is going to be at war with whom in 2022, and what types of weapons
>>> systems will be used?
>>
>> If oil stays above $100 a barrel Lots of people will be fighting sooner
>> than 2022. The oil haves vs the oil have nots.
>>
>
> Don't take your eye off the "Water Haves" vs. "Water Have Nots" either.
>

the "have nots" are not in position to threaten the "haves"

[Typhoon502]

On Jun 11, 10:39*am, "Raymond O'Hara" >
wrote:
> "Typhoon502" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> On Jun 11, 6:51 am, "Roger Conroy" >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Tiger" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > > Raymond O'Hara wrote:
> > >> "Ian B MacLure" > wrote in message
> > .. .
>
> > >>>"Raymond O'Hara" > wrote in
> > :
>
> > >> we are in two wars now{which we are losing} and you're worried about an
> > >> imaginary war against an imaginary opponent.
> > >> russia is not a credible threat. and it is decades away from being one.
>
> > > Losing? Lose to whom? Current events don't seem be anywere close. As for
> > > Russia? They have in the last year expanded their military activity.
> > > They
> > > are flying Bears again, opposed our missile defence plans, and Nato
> > > expansions. Decades may be a bit much.
>
> > Russia is not the only possible future technologically advanced enemy -
> > don't take your eyes of China, or a possible Arab alliance.- Hide quoted
> > text -
> >Not to mention Venezuela...
>
> we don't need F-22s to fight venezuela.- Hide quoted text -

If they buy Su-30MKIs? Venezuela has a lot of money and a good
Communist leader. F-15s might be able to handle the threat today, but
those airframes are aging, and you need an air dominance fighter of
*at least* an F-15C's capability to stand even with current Flankers.
Personally, I don't think we should be counting on 30-year-old
fighters in most any scenario, least of which is an ambitious and
belligerent banana republic president with fistfuls of petrodollars.

[Tiger]

Raymond O'Hara wrote:
> "Roger Conroy" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>"Tiger" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>Roger Conroy wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Raymond O'Hara" > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Jim Wilkins" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>On Jun 10, 8:14 pm, Ian B MacLure > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>
> the "have nots" are not in position to threaten the "haves"
>
>

Iran Is not hearing you. Hugo Chavez & Putin do not believe you. Nigeria
& Mexico are internally screwed up. Hell just this week a "have not,"
called Israel Said stop the nuke building or we will do it for you to
Iran (a oil have). Sounds like a position to threat to me, And Wall
street agreed, thus the price spike.

[Andrew Swallow[_2_]]

Raymond O'Hara wrote:
> "Andrew Swallow" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Raymond O'Hara wrote:
>> [snip]
>>
>>> or maybe a new barbarian invasion or the south will try to secede again.
>>> OH NO! the sky might fall.
>> French speaking Quebec may decide to leave.
>>
>>> wars are won by spare parts and what you can replace.
>> That is long wars.
>>
>
>
>
>
> what other kind are there?
>
> "home before the leaves fall"
> popular saying in august 1914
>
>
6 Day ones.

Hitler thought he had found a short war strategy.
Churchill had other plans.

Andrew Swallow

[Ian B MacLure]

"Raymond O'Hara" > wrote in
:

[snip]

> and you want to spend billions on pure fantasy speculation?
> who has anything anywhere near as good as what wer have?
> who is building up anything.
> its not the 1930s
> its not the cold war.
> so stop fighting WWII andWWIII, they aren't going to happen as you
> imagine.

What Hairy Ray fails to comprehend is that folks with far more
clue than he has have concluded he has **** for brains.

IBM

[Ian B MacLure]

"Raymond O'Hara" > wrote in news:aeudndUYX8-
:

[snip]

>>
>> Still in a state of denial from the last war I see.
>>
>> IBM
>
>
> huh? do you mean WWII? or what?

Pick one. Any one will do for you apparently.

IBM

[Raymond O'Hara]

"Andrew Swallow" > wrote in message
...
> Raymond O'Hara wrote:
>> "Andrew Swallow" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Raymond O'Hara wrote:
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>>> or maybe a new barbarian invasion or the south will try to secede
>>>> again.
>>>> OH NO! the sky might fall.
>>> French speaking Quebec may decide to leave.
>>>
>>>> wars are won by spare parts and what you can replace.
>>> That is long wars.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> what other kind are there?
>>
>> "home before the leaves fall"
>> popular saying in august 1914
> 6 Day ones.
>
> Hitler thought he had found a short war strategy.
> Churchill had other plans.
>
> Andrew Swallow


it was chamberlain who declared war on hitler.

[Raymond O'Hara]

"Tiger" > wrote in message
...
> Raymond O'Hara wrote:
>> "Roger Conroy" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>"Tiger" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>>Roger Conroy wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"Raymond O'Hara" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Jim Wilkins" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>>On Jun 10, 8:14 pm, Ian B MacLure > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>
>> the "have nots" are not in position to threaten the "haves"
>
> Iran Is not hearing you. Hugo Chavez & Putin do not believe you. Nigeria &
> Mexico are internally screwed up. Hell just this week a "have not," called
> Israel Said stop the nuke building or we will do it for you to Iran (a oil
> have). Sounds like a position to threat to me, And Wall street agreed,
> thus the price spike.
>


they are have nots? they are 3 of the worlds largest oil producers.
russia and venezuela are all set for water too.
and iran has plenty at the moment.

[Tiger]

Raymond O'Hara wrote:
> "Tiger" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Raymond O'Hara wrote:
>>
>>>"Roger Conroy" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Tiger" > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Roger Conroy wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Raymond O'Hara" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Jim Wilkins" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>>>On Jun 10, 8:14 pm, Ian B MacLure > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>> the "have nots" are not in position to threaten the "haves"
>>
>>Iran Is not hearing you. Hugo Chavez & Putin do not believe you. Nigeria & Mexico are internally screwed up. Hell just this week a "have not," called
>>Israel Said stop the nuke building or we will do it for you to Iran (a oil
>>have). Sounds like a position to threat to me, And Wall street agreed,
>>thus the price spike.
>>
>
>
>
> they are have nots? they are 3 of the worlds largest oil producers.
> russia and venezuela are all set for water too.
> and iran has plenty at the moment.
>
>
The paragraph "is" discussing Haves. Read again....

[g lof2]

On Jun 10, 10:03*pm, Tiger > wrote:
> g lof2 wrote:
> > On Jun 10, 5:32 pm, Tiger > wrote:
>
> >>William Black wrote:
>
> >> > "Mike" > wrote in message
> >> ....
> >> > Inside the Air Force
> >> > Next-gen bomber must be adequately funded
> >> > YOUNG: GIVEN CURRENT WARS, F-35s ARE BETTER CHOICE THAN MORE F-22As
>
> >> > ---------------------------------
>
> >> > Given current wars they'd be better off buying a load of Douglas A-1
> >> > Skyraiders and a few WWII twin engined bombers.
>
> >> > What they need is something very reliable that lugs a largish bombload
> >> > around and can absorb ground fire while dropping it in smallish
> >>quantities
> >> > with great precision.
>
> >> > What they don't need right now is large complex jet fighter/bombers
> >>that are
> >> > designed to fight a major European war.
>
> >>In other words."Why pay 2008 Corvette money to do a job your old 1988
> >>F150 could do?" I'm sure there plenty of stuff in the boneyard that fits
> >>the bill. A-10's, A6's, A-4's, Phantoms, A-7's. Old stuff, but to drop
> >>bombs in zones with no Mig threats they work. I think the A-1 may be
> >>pushing the concept a bit, but I hear you.....
>
> > Until the run into the a battery on the latest SAMs , ot a Nex-Gen
> > Stealth fighter, which are design to handle the latest fighters. At
> > which point they become so much flying scrap metal. And remember, the
> > reason we have air conreol is because we have the best fighter to
> > knock the other sides fighter out before the get to shoot at our
> > troops.
>
> > Frankly what I read in the story reminds me of the old warning about
> > fighting the last war, and not planning for the next.
>
> The bad guys of late seem to prefer Ied's & rpg's to Radar guided SAm
> sites... Nor does most of the world *have the $$$ for next gen Stealth
> fighters. Even our Allies can bearly put a decent force together. The
> topic point was spending money on a F22 air superiorty fighter. A job it
> does well but there is no air threat. That makes it useless when the
> current need for the airforce is to supply CAS. The F35 which will do,
> said mission is years away. If your planning for the next war, Nethier
> plane is *really what you want.- Hide quoted text -
>

The problem with your argument is your assumion that there cannot be
future threat to US air superiority. The key to US military power over
the last sixty years was your control of the air. It is important for
us to maintain that superiority if we are to remain the top military
power. Therefore we must build enough F-22 to assure we retain that
power while the production lines are still open, else it will become
far more expensive to re open the production lines later when it
becomes necessary.

> - Show quoted text -

[Tiger]

g lof2 wrote:
> On Jun 10, 10:03 pm, Tiger > wrote:
>
>>g lof2 wrote:
>>
>>>On Jun 10, 5:32 pm, Tiger > wrote:
>>
>>>>William Black wrote:
>>>
>>>>>"Mike" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>Inside the Air Force
>>>>>Next-gen bomber must be adequately funded
>>>>>YOUNG: GIVEN CURRENT WARS, F-35s ARE BETTER CHOICE THAN MORE F-22As
>>>>
>>>>>---------------------------------
>>>>
>>>>>Given current wars they'd be better off buying a load of Douglas A-1
>>>>>Skyraiders and a few WWII twin engined bombers.
>>>>
>>>>>What they need is something very reliable that lugs a largish bombload
>>>>>around and can absorb ground fire while dropping it in smallish
>>>>
>>>>quantities
>>>>
>>>>>with great precision.
>>>>
>>>>>What they don't need right now is large complex jet fighter/bombers
>>>>
>>>>that are
>>>>
>>>>>designed to fight a major European war.
>>>>
>>>>In other words."Why pay 2008 Corvette money to do a job your old 1988
>>>>F150 could do?" I'm sure there plenty of stuff in the boneyard that fits
>>>>the bill. A-10's, A6's, A-4's, Phantoms, A-7's. Old stuff, but to drop
>>>>bombs in zones with no Mig threats they work. I think the A-1 may be
>>>>pushing the concept a bit, but I hear you.....
>>>
>>>Until the run into the a battery on the latest SAMs , ot a Nex-Gen
>>>Stealth fighter, which are design to handle the latest fighters. At
>>>which point they become so much flying scrap metal. And remember, the
>>>reason we have air conreol is because we have the best fighter to
>>>knock the other sides fighter out before the get to shoot at our
>>>troops.
>>
>>>Frankly what I read in the story reminds me of the old warning about
>>>fighting the last war, and not planning for the next.
>>
>>The bad guys of late seem to prefer Ied's & rpg's to Radar guided SAm
>>sites... Nor does most of the world have the $$$ for next gen Stealth
>>fighters. Even our Allies can bearly put a decent force together. The
>>topic point was spending money on a F22 air superiorty fighter. A job it
>>does well but there is no air threat. That makes it useless when the
>>current need for the airforce is to supply CAS. The F35 which will do,
>>said mission is years away. If your planning for the next war, Nethier
>>plane is really what you want.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>
>
> The problem with your argument is your assumion that there cannot be
> future threat to US air superiority. The key to US military power over
> the last sixty years was your control of the air. It is important for
> us to maintain that superiority if we are to remain the top military
> power. Therefore we must build enough F-22 to assure we retain that
> power while the production lines are still open, else it will become
> far more expensive to re open the production lines later when it
> becomes necessary.
>
>
>>- Show quoted text -
>
>
>
Going back to the start of this " GIVEN CURRENT WARS, F-35s ARE BETTER
CHOICE THAN MORE F-22As." We are not exactly facing any Battles of
Britian from anybody or collection of somebodies. The F-22 is a high end
Air superority fighter. Great! And we are going to buy about 180 of
them. At something like $100 Million each. About the price of 4 F-15's.
We never intended for a whole airforce of them. The volume plane is
the F35. Most our allies or enemies don't even have 180 planes in there
whole air force; let alone fighters. You might like to refuel those
F22's? Where are going to get $$$ for tankers? You might like Transport
troops and parts for your F-22's? Where's the money to upgrade your
airlift that has racking up flight time running back & forth to Kabul &
baghdad??? I like the F-22 as well. But we are not spending the whole
DOD budget on it, Hoping to re-fight Eagle-Day.....

[Roger Conroy[_2_]]

"Tiger" > wrote in message
...
>g lof2 wrote:
>> On Jun 10, 10:03 pm, Tiger > wrote:
>>
>>>g lof2 wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Jun 10, 5:32 pm, Tiger > wrote:
>>>
>>>>>William Black wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>"Mike" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>>Inside the Air Force
>>>>>>Next-gen bomber must be adequately funded
>>>>>>YOUNG: GIVEN CURRENT WARS, F-35s ARE BETTER CHOICE THAN MORE F-22As
>>>>>
>>>>>>---------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>>>Given current wars they'd be better off buying a load of Douglas A-1
>>>>>>Skyraiders and a few WWII twin engined bombers.
>>>>>
>>>>>>What they need is something very reliable that lugs a largish bombload
>>>>>>around and can absorb ground fire while dropping it in smallish
>>>>>
>>>>>quantities
>>>>>
>>>>>>with great precision.
>>>>>
>>>>>>What they don't need right now is large complex jet fighter/bombers
>>>>>
>>>>>that are
>>>>>
>>>>>>designed to fight a major European war.
>>>>>
>>>>>In other words."Why pay 2008 Corvette money to do a job your old 1988
>>>>>F150 could do?" I'm sure there plenty of stuff in the boneyard that
>>>>>fits
>>>>>the bill. A-10's, A6's, A-4's, Phantoms, A-7's. Old stuff, but to drop
>>>>>bombs in zones with no Mig threats they work. I think the A-1 may be
>>>>>pushing the concept a bit, but I hear you.....
>>>>
>>>>Until the run into the a battery on the latest SAMs , ot a Nex-Gen
>>>>Stealth fighter, which are design to handle the latest fighters. At
>>>>which point they become so much flying scrap metal. And remember, the
>>>>reason we have air conreol is because we have the best fighter to
>>>>knock the other sides fighter out before the get to shoot at our
>>>>troops.
>>>
>>>>Frankly what I read in the story reminds me of the old warning about
>>>>fighting the last war, and not planning for the next.
>>>
>>>The bad guys of late seem to prefer Ied's & rpg's to Radar guided SAm
>>>sites... Nor does most of the world have the $$$ for next gen Stealth
>>>fighters. Even our Allies can bearly put a decent force together. The
>>>topic point was spending money on a F22 air superiorty fighter. A job it
>>>does well but there is no air threat. That makes it useless when the
>>>current need for the airforce is to supply CAS. The F35 which will do,
>>>said mission is years away. If your planning for the next war, Nethier
>>>plane is really what you want.- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>
>>
>> The problem with your argument is your assumion that there cannot be
>> future threat to US air superiority. The key to US military power over
>> the last sixty years was your control of the air. It is important for
>> us to maintain that superiority if we are to remain the top military
>> power. Therefore we must build enough F-22 to assure we retain that
>> power while the production lines are still open, else it will become
>> far more expensive to re open the production lines later when it
>> becomes necessary.
>>
>>
>>>- Show quoted text -
>>
>>
>>
> Going back to the start of this " GIVEN CURRENT WARS, F-35s ARE BETTER
> CHOICE THAN MORE F-22As." We are not exactly facing any Battles of Britian
> from anybody or collection of somebodies. The F-22 is a high end Air
> superority fighter. Great! And we are going to buy about 180 of them. At
> something like $100 Million each. About the price of 4 F-15's. We never
> intended for a whole airforce of them. The volume plane is the F35. Most
> our allies or enemies don't even have 180 planes in there whole air force;
> let alone fighters. You might like to refuel those F22's? Where are going
> to get $$$ for tankers? You might like Transport troops and parts for your
> F-22's? Where's the money to upgrade your airlift that has racking up
> flight time running back & forth to Kabul & baghdad??? I like the F-22 as
> well. But we are not spending the whole DOD budget on it, Hoping to
> re-fight Eagle-Day.....
>

Anyone who bases their armaments aquisition programme on CURRENT wars is an
idiot and is doomed to be on the losing side in the NEXT war. Major
equipment is intended to be used for about 20-30 years.
Take the example of the "Teens" generation of US fighter aircraft. They came
off the drawing boards in the 1970's and are now at the end of their useful
life as first world front-line equipment. It really is not acceptable for a
1st world fighter pilot to be flying the same plane that his father did.
"Shock and Awe" only works if you have a clear margin of superiority over
the enemy. Any leader who sends his forces into battle equipped at parity to
the enemy should be shot for gross incompetence.

[eatfastnoodle]

On Jun 12, 2:43*pm, "Roger Conroy" >
wrote:
> "Tiger" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> >g lof2 wrote:
> >> On Jun 10, 10:03 pm, Tiger > wrote:
>
> >>>g lof2 wrote:
>
> >>>>On Jun 10, 5:32 pm, Tiger > wrote:
>
> >>>>>William Black wrote:
>
> >>>>>>"Mike" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>>>>Inside the Air Force
> >>>>>>Next-gen bomber must be adequately funded
> >>>>>>YOUNG: GIVEN CURRENT WARS, F-35s ARE BETTER CHOICE THAN MORE F-22As
>
> >>>>>>---------------------------------
>
> >>>>>>Given current wars they'd be better off buying a load of Douglas A-1
> >>>>>>Skyraiders and a few WWII twin engined bombers.
>
> >>>>>>What they need is something very reliable that lugs a largish bombload
> >>>>>>around and can absorb ground fire while dropping it in smallish
>
> >>>>>quantities
>
> >>>>>>with great precision.
>
> >>>>>>What they don't need right now is large complex jet fighter/bombers
>
> >>>>>that are
>
> >>>>>>designed to fight a major European war.
>
> >>>>>In other words."Why pay 2008 Corvette money to do a job your old 1988
> >>>>>F150 could do?" I'm sure there plenty of stuff in the boneyard that
> >>>>>fits
> >>>>>the bill. A-10's, A6's, A-4's, Phantoms, A-7's. Old stuff, but to drop
> >>>>>bombs in zones with no Mig threats they work. I think the A-1 may be
> >>>>>pushing the concept a bit, but I hear you.....
>
> >>>>Until the run into the a battery on the latest SAMs , ot a Nex-Gen
> >>>>Stealth fighter, which are design to handle the latest fighters. At
> >>>>which point they become so much flying scrap metal. And remember, the
> >>>>reason we have air conreol is because we have the best fighter to
> >>>>knock the other sides fighter out before the get to shoot at our
> >>>>troops.
>
> >>>>Frankly what I read in the story reminds me of the old warning about
> >>>>fighting the last war, and not planning for the next.
>
> >>>The bad guys of late seem to prefer Ied's & rpg's to Radar guided SAm
> >>>sites... Nor does most of the world *have the $$$ for next gen Stealth
> >>>fighters. Even our Allies can bearly put a decent force together. The
> >>>topic point was spending money on a F22 air superiorty fighter. A job it
> >>>does well but there is no air threat. That makes it useless when the
> >>>current need for the airforce is to supply CAS. The F35 which will do,
> >>>said mission is years away. If your planning for the next war, Nethier
> >>>plane is *really what you want.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> The problem with your argument is your assumion that there cannot be
> >> future threat to US air superiority. The key to US military power over
> >> the last sixty years was your control of the air. It is important for
> >> us to maintain that superiority if we are to remain the top military
> >> power. Therefore we must build enough F-22 to assure we retain that
> >> power while the production lines are still open, else it will become
> >> far more expensive to re open the production lines later when it
> >> becomes necessary.
>
> >>>- Show quoted text -
>
> > Going back to the start of this " GIVEN CURRENT WARS, F-35s ARE BETTER
> > CHOICE THAN MORE F-22As." We are not exactly facing any Battles of Britian
> > from anybody or collection of somebodies. The F-22 is a high end Air
> > superority fighter. Great! And we are going to buy about 180 of them. At
> > something like $100 Million each. About the price of 4 F-15's. We never
> > intended for a whole airforce of them. The volume plane is the F35. Most
> > our allies or enemies don't even have 180 planes in there whole air force;
> > let alone fighters. You might like to refuel those F22's? Where are going
> > to get $$$ for tankers? You might like Transport troops and parts for your
> > F-22's? Where's the money to upgrade your airlift that has racking up
> > flight time running back & forth to Kabul & baghdad??? I like the F-22 as
> > well. But we are not spending the whole DOD budget on it, Hoping to
> > re-fight Eagle-Day.....
>
> Anyone who bases their armaments aquisition programme on CURRENT wars is an
> idiot and is doomed to be on the losing side in the NEXT war. Major
> equipment is intended to be used for about 20-30 years.
> Take the example of the "Teens" generation of US fighter aircraft. They came
> off the drawing boards in the 1970's and are now at the end of their useful
> life as first world front-line equipment. It really is not acceptable for a
> 1st world fighter pilot to be flying the same plane that his father did.
> "Shock and Awe" only works if you have a clear margin of superiority over
> the enemy. Any leader who sends his forces into battle equipped at parity to
> the enemy should be shot for gross incompetence.

it's not unreasonable to expect a new fighter every 30 years or so.
But F22 price tag is simply outrageous, it threatens everything else
the air force needs, remember, fighter by its own doesn't count for
much, you need a integrated force with a balanced procurement policy.
What looks like right now is the air force officials, who all used to
be fighter pilots, seem to be more than ready to scrap everything else
in order for them to have a few more F22s. That's not right and that's
not going to help the force and anybody else in the long run.
Everybody wants to have the best toy in town, but there are only so
much money around, especially with the budget deficit already so high,
so the escalating cost overruns must stop, otherwise, you will end up
with a military so advanced that any war they fight will prove to be a
financial disaster, win or lose. Despite the patriotic rhetoric, war
is and should be considered a investment, and return of investment
should be considered before war, especially oversea military
adventure, is launched. precisely the kind that US will most likely
face in the future, whether it's against a ragtag group of guerrillas
or a great power with high tech weaponry. Countless great powers, with
their best equipped and best trained troops, lost to insurgency and
seemly weak rebellions because the cost of fighting a high cost war
against an enemy with vastly lower cost of waging wars. Take Iraq as
an example, 3 trillions in five years is not sustainable, not even for
the US. That's why I think US will lose the Iraq war no matter how
unwilling the Republican is to accept it. Shiny weapon like F22 is
just the kind of weapon that will further increase the cost, it's very
much likely future adversary will exploit this weakness in a
protracted war.

[Jack Linthicum]

On Jun 12, 2:43 am, "Roger Conroy" >
wrote:
> "Tiger" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> >g lof2 wrote:
> >> On Jun 10, 10:03 pm, Tiger > wrote:
>
> >>>g lof2 wrote:
>
> >>>>On Jun 10, 5:32 pm, Tiger > wrote:
>
> >>>>>William Black wrote:
>
> >>>>>>"Mike" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>>>>Inside the Air Force
> >>>>>>Next-gen bomber must be adequately funded
> >>>>>>YOUNG: GIVEN CURRENT WARS, F-35s ARE BETTER CHOICE THAN MORE F-22As
>
> >>>>>>---------------------------------
>
> >>>>>>Given current wars they'd be better off buying a load of Douglas A-1
> >>>>>>Skyraiders and a few WWII twin engined bombers.
>
> >>>>>>What they need is something very reliable that lugs a largish bombload
> >>>>>>around and can absorb ground fire while dropping it in smallish
>
> >>>>>quantities
>
> >>>>>>with great precision.
>
> >>>>>>What they don't need right now is large complex jet fighter/bombers
>
> >>>>>that are
>
> >>>>>>designed to fight a major European war.
>
> >>>>>In other words."Why pay 2008 Corvette money to do a job your old 1988
> >>>>>F150 could do?" I'm sure there plenty of stuff in the boneyard that
> >>>>>fits
> >>>>>the bill. A-10's, A6's, A-4's, Phantoms, A-7's. Old stuff, but to drop
> >>>>>bombs in zones with no Mig threats they work. I think the A-1 may be
> >>>>>pushing the concept a bit, but I hear you.....
>
> >>>>Until the run into the a battery on the latest SAMs , ot a Nex-Gen
> >>>>Stealth fighter, which are design to handle the latest fighters. At
> >>>>which point they become so much flying scrap metal. And remember, the
> >>>>reason we have air conreol is because we have the best fighter to
> >>>>knock the other sides fighter out before the get to shoot at our
> >>>>troops.
>
> >>>>Frankly what I read in the story reminds me of the old warning about
> >>>>fighting the last war, and not planning for the next.
>
> >>>The bad guys of late seem to prefer Ied's & rpg's to Radar guided SAm
> >>>sites... Nor does most of the world have the $$$ for next gen Stealth
> >>>fighters. Even our Allies can bearly put a decent force together. The
> >>>topic point was spending money on a F22 air superiorty fighter. A job it
> >>>does well but there is no air threat. That makes it useless when the
> >>>current need for the airforce is to supply CAS. The F35 which will do,
> >>>said mission is years away. If your planning for the next war, Nethier
> >>>plane is really what you want.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> The problem with your argument is your assumion that there cannot be
> >> future threat to US air superiority. The key to US military power over
> >> the last sixty years was your control of the air. It is important for
> >> us to maintain that superiority if we are to remain the top military
> >> power. Therefore we must build enough F-22 to assure we retain that
> >> power while the production lines are still open, else it will become
> >> far more expensive to re open the production lines later when it
> >> becomes necessary.
>
> >>>- Show quoted text -
>
> > Going back to the start of this " GIVEN CURRENT WARS, F-35s ARE BETTER
> > CHOICE THAN MORE F-22As." We are not exactly facing any Battles of Britian
> > from anybody or collection of somebodies. The F-22 is a high end Air
> > superority fighter. Great! And we are going to buy about 180 of them. At
> > something like $100 Million each. About the price of 4 F-15's. We never
> > intended for a whole airforce of them. The volume plane is the F35. Most
> > our allies or enemies don't even have 180 planes in there whole air force;
> > let alone fighters. You might like to refuel those F22's? Where are going
> > to get $$$ for tankers? You might like Transport troops and parts for your
> > F-22's? Where's the money to upgrade your airlift that has racking up
> > flight time running back & forth to Kabul & baghdad??? I like the F-22 as
> > well. But we are not spending the whole DOD budget on it, Hoping to
> > re-fight Eagle-Day.....
>
> Anyone who bases their armaments aquisition programme on CURRENT wars is an
> idiot and is doomed to be on the losing side in the NEXT war. Major
> equipment is intended to be used for about 20-30 years.
> Take the example of the "Teens" generation of US fighter aircraft. They came
> off the drawing boards in the 1970's and are now at the end of their useful
> life as first world front-line equipment. It really is not acceptable for a
> 1st world fighter pilot to be flying the same plane that his father did.
> "Shock and Awe" only works if you have a clear margin of superiority over
> the enemy. Any leader who sends his forces into battle equipped at parity to
> the enemy should be shot for gross incompetence.

Shock and awe has been demonstrated as a concept only. Useful for
Power Point, useless, or more than useless, in terms of actual
application. If you do s&a, and it doesn't, your enemy is encouraged
to resist.

[Arved Sandstrom]

"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
...
> In message >, Tiger >
> writes
>>William Black wrote:
>>> What they need is something very reliable that lugs a largish bombload
>>> around and can absorb ground fire while dropping it in smallish
>>quantities
>>> with great precision.
>>>
>>> What they don't need right now is large complex jet fighter/bombers
>>that are
>>> designed to fight a major European war.
>>>
>>
>>In other words."Why pay 2008 Corvette money to do a job your old 1988 F150
>>could do?" I'm sure there plenty of stuff in the boneyard that fits the
>>bill. A-10's, A6's, A-4's, Phantoms, A-7's. Old stuff, but to drop bombs
>>in zones with no Mig threats they work. I think the A-1 may be pushing the
>>concept a bit, but I hear you.....
>
> Fine until the Bad Guys hit it with a 1960s-vintage SA-7 or similar, which
> is cheap and widely proliferated and very effective against such aircraft
> (as evidenced by the withdrawal of the A-1 from Vietnam by the end).
>
> By the time you've added the IRCM capability to survive MANPADS, included
> the navigation and comms gear needed to hit *that* building to support the
> troops, and bolted on the sensors that let you operate at night as well as
> by day... your solution is no longer quick, cheap and simple.
>
>
> It's the old problem of the Blitzfighter: it's an appealing notion to fill
> the skies with cheap, simple aircraft armed with a simple but deadly gun
> and unburdened by complex electronic boondoggles, but the reality falls
> over when many are blotted from the sky by SAMs, others can't be reached
> on a swamped VHF voicenet, those that can get to where they're needed get
> into long conversations about "I see the street, I think, and some red
> smoke, you want me to hit the red smoke?... okay, across the street and
> three houses north of the red smoke... I show two red smokes now... was
> that you calling 'Check! Check! Check!'?"
>
> The F-16 and A-10 are good examples, both initially hailed by the
> Lightweight Fighter Mafia as everything a combat aircraft should be
> (though the ideal aircraft, according to the LWF, seems to have been the
> A6M Zero...) and both being "ruined" by the addition of the useless,
> wasteful electronics that let them do more than excel at range-shooting on
> bright sunny days (and both subsequently demonstrating remarkable
> effectiveness and longevity...)

When analyzed this way, yes, most reasonable folks would agree - these days
in real-life you do need - minimum - an upgraded A-10 or equivalent to
realistically stand a chance of being survivable, operating in night/adverse
weather, and being able to use smart weapons.

I think what turns most critics' cranks is the sheer obscene cost of the
advanced fighters. The unit cost for A-10's is quoted at roughly US $10-15
million on the sites I found. All I know is that the F-22 unit cost is
somewhere north of US $100 million (the Air Force says $142 million on their
factsheet but who knows which unit cost that is) and the F-35 unit cost is
also over US $100 million. Neither is as optimized for CAS as the A-10 is
(criticisms of the F-35 in that role include that it is less able than the
A-10 to find ground targets independently, has less survivability, doesn't
persist/loiter nearly as well as the A-10, and doesn't have a Honking Big
Cannon).

I don't think anyone with a clue is saying please bring back the Skyraider.
But it's a legit complaint to quibble about servicing the ground forces CAS
needs with super-expensive fighter-bombers.

It is of course as much of an issue in Canada as it is elsewhere. There will
always be a camp that favours planes along the lines of the retired
CF-5/CF-116, others who can stomach prices in the CF-18 range, and any
number who are keen to see F-35's replace the CF-18. I myself just can't see
something like a CF-35 (or whatever they call it) as being available in
enough numbers to support a CF deployment similar to Afghanistan...what'll
they have, a couple of ac available in theatre at any given time? The
problem for Canada is we cannot easily support two different fleets. Me, I'd
go with a Saab Gripen NG.

AHS

[Yeff]

On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 20:42:02 -0700 (PDT), g lof2 wrote:

> And remember, the reason we have air conreol is because we have the best
> fighter to knock the other sides fighter out before the get to shoot at
> our troops.

It's actually a combined effort. AWACS, Rivet Joint, ground radar assets,
ground-based intelligence assets, sea-based radar assets... you get the
idea. It all goes back to the concept of "First Look, First Kill". If I
see you before you see me, the odds favor the fact that you'll be walking
home.

Modern doctrine isn't to go in and mix it up with the enemy fighters,
today's doctrine is to snipe the hostile aircraft out of the sky. If you
end up in a furball then you screwed up somewhere along the way. Granted,
sometimes you can't anticipate that happening but it's a good
rule-of-thumb.

Current fighters are snipers, and if I see the enemy first, betting odds
say that I win the fight.

--

-Jeff B.
zoomie at fastmail fm

[Andre Ilausky]

Juergen Nieveler schrieb:

> Imagine how many GBU39 you could put inside a B747...

Imagine the militarization costs for comms, data-links, electronic
countermeasures...

> add mid-air
> refueling, a second flight crew etc. (room wouldn't be much of an
> issue), and you'd get a bomb platform that can stay overhead pretty
> much all day,

During the Gulf War B-52 made a trip of 35 hours from Louisiana to Iraq
and back.

> just waiting for somebody to request for a strike.

And after CAS is requested the ground forces have to wait for a
Jumbo Jet to actually make the strike... A Super Hornet or Strike Eagle
will probably be able to carry about two dozens SDB. That's plenty and
speedy.

[Yeff]

On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 00:20:43 -0400, Raymond O'Hara wrote:

> we are not going to achieve whatever it is bush was after.

Preempting Sadam before he aquired WMDs? Yeah, we did that. And rather
spectacularly I might add.

Am I the only one who remembers the preemptive war debate?

--

-Jeff B.
zoomie at fastmail fm

[Yeff]

On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 05:05:34 -0700 (PDT), Jack Linthicum wrote:

> I went through a long discussion on this newsgroup advocating a
> carrier-able version of the A-10

Not gonna happen. Increase the strength of the landing gear and you
sacrifice the amount of ordnance you can carry.

> or a new design.

Yeah, something with an incredible sensor suite, stealthy, and a good bomb
load. Hey, maybe we could modify the F-35?

Oh.

--

-Jeff B.
zoomie at fastmail fm

[Jack Linthicum]

On Jun 12, 11:58 am, Zombywoof > wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 12:30:41 GMT, Yeff > wrote:
> >On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 05:05:34 -0700 (PDT), Jack Linthicum wrote:
>
> >> I went through a long discussion on this newsgroup advocating a
> >> carrier-able version of the A-10
>
> >Not gonna happen. Increase the strength of the landing gear and you
> >sacrifice the amount of ordnance you can carry.
>
> >> or a new design.
>
> >Yeah, something with an incredible sensor suite, stealthy, and a good bomb
> >load. Hey, maybe we could modify the F-35?
>
> One of the versions of the F-35 is for Carriers. Part of the whole
> design concept behind it. One Aircraft with 80% parts
> interchangeability reduces design, production & maintenance costs.
>
> One of my concerns is that with the F-22 & F-35 the USAF once again
> appears to be neglecting the Close Air Support role which is always
> going to be needed regardless of the amount of Air Superiority. I
> know that they are "predicting" that the F-35 will take over some of
> that role, but a "Fast-Burner" is not the most effective platform for
> the CAS mission, especially at its 100 million+ price tag.
>
> Perhaps the SM-47 Super Machete needs to be given a closer look at
> for this role as the A-10 ages. After all it projected that the SM-47
> will be produced in manned, as well as unmanned/remote
> pilot-in-the-loop and unmanned autonomous configurations. At I think a
> projected cost of 10 Million each, a much better alternative to the
> 100 Million+ F-35. It also doesn't leave our field personnel without
> a good strong CAS platform once the A-10 dies of old age.
>
> Seehttp://www.stavatti.com/SM47_OVERVIEW.htmlfor more 411
> --
> "Everything in excess! To enjoy the flavor of life, take big bites.
> Moderation is for monks."

Yes, an unmanned CAS aircraft would have the same attention to the job
as the manned USAF versions. The USAF hates CAS because it doesn't win
medals and gets them in bar fights.

[Jack Linthicum]

On Jun 12, 11:24 am, Zombywoof > wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 03:18:07 -0700 (PDT), Jack Linthicum
>
> > wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>
>
> >> Anyone who bases their armaments aquisition programme on CURRENT wars is an
> >> idiot and is doomed to be on the losing side in the NEXT war. Major
> >> equipment is intended to be used for about 20-30 years.
> >> Take the example of the "Teens" generation of US fighter aircraft. They came
> >> off the drawing boards in the 1970's and are now at the end of their useful
> >> life as first world front-line equipment. It really is not acceptable for a
> >> 1st world fighter pilot to be flying the same plane that his father did.
> >> "Shock and Awe" only works if you have a clear margin of superiority over
> >> the enemy. Any leader who sends his forces into battle equipped at parity to
> >> the enemy should be shot for gross incompetence.
>
> >Shock and awe has been demonstrated as a concept only. Useful for
> >Power Point, useless, or more than useless, in terms of actual
> >application. If you do s&a, and it doesn't, your enemy is encouraged
> >to resist.
>
> As a concept only? Tell that to the any number of countries that fell
> to Blitzkrieg. Tell that to Saddam (after you dig him up) about
> Desert Storm (heavy on the Storm). Large massive overwhelming
> lightening shook attacks (from land, sea or air) definitely leaves the
> Defenders in some version of awe. More times then not with a
> resounding "Holy ****, what was that?".
>
> The Air Force retired all 64 F-117's on 22 April 2008,primarily due to
> the purchasing and eventual deployment of the more effective F-22
> Raptor and F-35 Lightning II. Even though the F-22 is primarily an
> air superiority fighter, it has multiple capabilities (as almost all
> new USAF Aircraft do) that include ground attack, electronic warfare,
> and signals intelligence roles.
>
> Now if you think that purchasing 183 of them is a bit much, note that
> the USAF originally planned to order 750 ATFs (the original concept
> program that gave birth to the F-22), with production beginning in
> 1994; however, the 1990 Major Aircraft Review altered the plan to 648
> aircraft beginning in 1996. The goal changed again in 1994, when it
> became 442 aircraft entering service in 2003 or 2004, but a 1997
> Department of Defense report put the purchase at 339. In 2003, the Air
> Force said that the existing congressional cost cap limited the
> purchase to 277. By 2006, the Pentagon said it will buy 183 aircraft,
> which would save $15 billion but raise the cost of each aircraft, and
> this plan has been de facto approved by Congress in the form of a
> multi-year procurement plan, which still holds open the possibility
> for new orders past that point. The total cost of the program by 2006
> was $62 billion.
>
> By the time everything is said & done and all 183 fighters have been
> purchased & deployed, $34 billion will have been spent on actual
> procurement. This will result in a total program cost of $62 billion
> or about $339 million per aircraft. The incremental cost for one
> additional F-22 is around $138 million; decreasing with larger
> volumes. If the Air Force were to buy 100 more F-22s today, the cost
> of each one would be less and would continue to drop with additional
> aircraft purchases.
>
> Now as to the F-35 Lightning II, one of the primary reasons its costs
> (to US Taxpayers) is less is that it is a "Jointly" designed &
> produced platform with United Kingdom, Italy, the Netherlands, Canada,
> Turkey, Australia, Norway and Denmark contributing US$4.375 billion
> toward the development costs of the program. The entire concept
> behind the JSF program ( F-35 Lightning II) was created to replace
> various aircraft while keeping development, production, and operating
> costs down via sharing the development costs with the aforementioned
> countries. Cost were also kept down by building three variants of one
> aircraft, sharing 80% of their parts.
>
> All-in-all the MORE you build of anything, the overall lower per unit
> cost you come up with. When you have other Nations assisting in the
> funding of the development phase you also reduce (to the US Taxpayer)
> those "sunk" costs.
>
> Just like the F-16 is the cheaper, sleeker one engine version of the
> F-15, a similar statement can be made about the F-35 as it is also a
> one engine aircraft which in & of itself reduces both production &
> operational costs. This is all part of the Hi-Low strategy to have a
> mix of two different fighters that was started with the F-15/F-16
> program in the USAF and the F-14/F-18 program in the Navy.
>
> http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/q0216.shtmlexplains the
> entire Hi-Low strategy fairly well and in simple terms.
> --
> "Everything in excess! To enjoy the flavor of life, take big bites.
> Moderation is for monks."

Shock and Awe looked good on TV, looks even better in the briefing
room. IIRC nobody was actual hurt during that display, oh, except for
a few civilians.

addam's bunker, a draw for tourists in Green Zone
Dec 7 01:45 PM US/Eastern



Saddam Hussein's underground bunker, surprisingly undamaged despite
heavy US bombing in 2003, has become an informal tourist attraction
for visitors and residents of Baghdad's downtown Green Zone area.

US forces hurled two 900 kilo (2,000 pound) GBU-28 bunker-busting
bombs at the building on the opening night of the US-led offensive to
invade Iraq, March 19, 2003, according to the US military.

Over the next four days at least six more bunker-busters were dropped
on the building, and the holes they smashed in the roof are still
visible.

The blasts caused impressive damage to the six-story high steel and
concrete structure, known as the Believers Palace, built atop the
bunker.

US soldiers and visitors who tour the site today pose for pictures
near giant craters in the palace, amid heaps of twisted steel rods,
concrete blocks and charred marble slabs.

Souvenir hunters can still find crystals from the giant chandelier
that once hung in the main hall.

Yet despite the whirlwind of destruction, most of the palace is still
structurally sound.

And the bunker, which lies under the rubble, is virtually intact --
more than 20 years after it was built for 66 million dollars by the
German firm Boswau and Knauer (Walter Bau-AG building group).

Deep inside, the only light comes from flashlights carried by
visitors, and the only sounds are their footsteps and a steady drip,
drip, drip of water from a broken water pipe.

"We still cant find the water main," said Sergeant First Class Patrick
McDonald, who works with a civil affairs unit and is the Green Zones
de facto bunker expert.

"Even to this day some of the rooms have an inch of putrid water with
some type of biological life."

Saddam's room is about the size of a small master bedroom in a
suburban house and differs from the other rooms only by its tan
wallpaper.

One of the last images of him as president was televised footage of a
meeting he held with top aides in the 30-square-meter (320-square-
foot) bunker conference room just before the "shock and awe" phase of
the war began.

Karl Bernd Esser, the bunker architect, told Germany's ZDF television
when the war began that the structure he designed could survive
anything short of a direct hit from a Hiroshima-style nuclear weapon.

Overall, the three-level, sprawling bunker is large enough to house
250 people, say US officials. It has an air filtration system, a large
kitchen and was fully prepared for an attack with biological or
chemical weapons.

It also has its own power supply. Its large generators, which are
powerful enough to supply the whole Green Zone area with electricity,
seem brand new.

"The only danger was that Saddam and his people would have been buried
here," said McDonald.

"But there are tunnels to get out that lead to the Tigris River," some
200 meters (yards) away, he said.

Between the Believers Palace and the bunker was even more protection
-- a two-floor "plug" -- a reinforced helmet of sorts to make up for
one of the bunkers shortcomings: it was barely underground.

A reinforced concrete box inside a box, the bunker was long ago
stripped of any valuables, first by Iraqi looters as US troops entered
Baghdad, and later by US troops seeking to furnish outside
headquarters buildings.

Some of the recovered valuables are in storage, said McDonald.

"The high water table in Baghdad makes it difficult to build anything
deep underground," explained McDonald.

The "plug" consisted of two 25 centimetres (10-inch) thick false
floors separated by one meter (three feet) of empty space.

"The false floors served to trick the smart bombs into thinking they
have penetrated into the bunker," McDonald said.

"As far as we know this is the most extensive bunker facility in the
country," McDonald said.

"There are a number of small single, or three and four room bunkers
under different palaces, but this is the biggest one, and the most
extensive."

According to locals, Saddam used the bunker less than eight times
since it was built, McDonald said, although he kept a staff to
maintain its elaborate water, cooling, air filtration and electrical
system.

Iraq's new government, which takes over in late December, will have to
decide what to do with the site.

The structure is so well built it would be difficult to demolish, and
the massive palace above makes it impossible to bury.

"So its left there for people like myself to give tours when I have
the time," said McDonald.

[Yeff]

On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 09:15:22 -0700 (PDT), Jack Linthicum wrote:

> The USAF hates CAS because it doesn't win
> medals and gets them in bar fights.

And you know this how?

--

-Jeff B.
zoomie at fastmail fm

[eatfastnoodle]

On Jun 13, 12:15*am, Jack Linthicum >
wrote:
> On Jun 12, 11:58 am, Zombywoof > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 12:30:41 GMT, Yeff > wrote:
> > >On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 05:05:34 -0700 (PDT), Jack Linthicum wrote:
>
> > >> I went through a long discussion on this newsgroup advocating a
> > >> carrier-able version of the A-10
>
> > >Not gonna happen. *Increase the strength of the landing gear and you
> > >sacrifice the amount of ordnance you can carry.
>
> > >> or a new design.
>
> > >Yeah, something with an incredible sensor suite, stealthy, and a good bomb
> > >load. *Hey, maybe we could modify the F-35?
>
> > One of the versions of the F-35 is for Carriers. *Part of the whole
> > design concept behind it. *One Aircraft with 80% parts
> > interchangeability reduces design, production & maintenance costs.
>
> > One of my concerns is that with the F-22 & F-35 the USAF once again
> > appears to be neglecting the Close Air Support role which is always
> > going to be needed regardless of the amount of Air Superiority. *I
> > know that they are "predicting" that the F-35 will take over some of
> > that role, but a "Fast-Burner" is not the most effective platform for
> > the CAS mission, especially at its 100 million+ price tag.
>
> > Perhaps the *SM-47 Super Machete needs to be given a closer look at
> > for this role as the A-10 ages. *After all it projected that the SM-47
> > will be produced in manned, as well as unmanned/remote
> > pilot-in-the-loop and unmanned autonomous configurations. At I think a
> > projected cost of 10 Million each, a much better alternative to the
> > 100 Million+ F-35. *It also doesn't leave our field personnel without
> > a good strong CAS platform once the A-10 dies of old age.
>
> > Seehttp://www.stavatti.com/SM47_OVERVIEW.htmlformore 411
> > --
> > "Everything in excess! To enjoy the flavor of life, take big bites.
> > Moderation is for monks."
>
> Yes, an unmanned CAS aircraft would have the same attention to the job
> as the manned USAF versions. The USAF hates CAS because it doesn't win
> medals and gets them in bar fights.

Maybe the Pentagon should give the whole CAS to the Army, army will
select the plane, army pilot will fly the mission, I'm sure more
attention would be paid to it under the Army. USAF hates it anyway,

I know it's not gonna happen because USAF wants to control every
flyable asset in the military. But secretary of defense, the president
should show the leadership and just order it to be done. It's always
better to have something under the control of somebody who actually
have the incentive to develop it.

[Jack Linthicum]

On Jun 12, 12:31 pm, Yeff > wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 09:15:22 -0700 (PDT), Jack Linthicum wrote:
> > The USAF hates CAS because it doesn't win
> > medals and gets them in bar fights.
>
> And you know this how?
>
> --
>
> -Jeff B.
> zoomie at fastmail fm

Watching bar fights and listening to the AFs whine. Actually watched a
"combined" exercise on Hawaii and the subsequent bar fight. Looked
like a regularly scheduled event.

[Ed Rasimus[_1_]]

On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 09:47:17 -0700 (PDT), Jack Linthicum
> wrote:

>On Jun 12, 12:31 pm, Yeff > wrote:
>> On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 09:15:22 -0700 (PDT), Jack Linthicum wrote:
>> > The USAF hates CAS because it doesn't win
>> > medals and gets them in bar fights.
>>
>> And you know this how?
>>
>> --
>>
>> -Jeff B.
>> zoomie at fastmail fm
>
>Watching bar fights and listening to the AFs whine. Actually watched a
>"combined" exercise on Hawaii and the subsequent bar fight. Looked
>like a regularly scheduled event.

Your mileage may vary, but I've got a couple of gongs for ground
support and none for air/air. CAS is one of the most fun missions you
can do in a tactical aircraft. The only bar fight I ever saw was
between folks fighting to be the first to buy an fighter pilot a beer
for CAS the grunts had appreciated.

The major difference today isn't that CAS is hated by the AF, but
simply that CAS looks a lot different than it did in the past. No more
"gomers in the wire" "danger close" "whites of their eyes" stuff. JDAM
from the menopause brings more precise support without the grunt ever
seeing the airplane. It might just as well be organic artillery fire.
He never knows.

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
www.thundertales.blogspot.com
www.thunderchief.org

[Ed Rasimus[_1_]]

On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 09:44:22 -0700 (PDT), eatfastnoodle
> wrote:

>On Jun 13, 12:15*am, Jack Linthicum >
>wrote:
>> On Jun 12, 11:58 am, Zombywoof > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 12:30:41 GMT, Yeff > wrote:
>> > >On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 05:05:34 -0700 (PDT), Jack Linthicum wrote:
>>
>> > >> I went through a long discussion on this newsgroup advocating a
>> > >> carrier-able version of the A-10
>>
>> > >Not gonna happen. *Increase the strength of the landing gear and you
>> > >sacrifice the amount of ordnance you can carry.
>>
>> > >> or a new design.
>>
>> > >Yeah, something with an incredible sensor suite, stealthy, and a good bomb
>> > >load. *Hey, maybe we could modify the F-35?
>>
>> > One of the versions of the F-35 is for Carriers. *Part of the whole
>> > design concept behind it. *One Aircraft with 80% parts
>> > interchangeability reduces design, production & maintenance costs.
>>
>> > One of my concerns is that with the F-22 & F-35 the USAF once again
>> > appears to be neglecting the Close Air Support role which is always
>> > going to be needed regardless of the amount of Air Superiority. *I
>> > know that they are "predicting" that the F-35 will take over some of
>> > that role, but a "Fast-Burner" is not the most effective platform for
>> > the CAS mission, especially at its 100 million+ price tag.
>>
>> > Perhaps the *SM-47 Super Machete needs to be given a closer look at
>> > for this role as the A-10 ages. *After all it projected that the SM-47
>> > will be produced in manned, as well as unmanned/remote
>> > pilot-in-the-loop and unmanned autonomous configurations. At I think a
>> > projected cost of 10 Million each, a much better alternative to the
>> > 100 Million+ F-35. *It also doesn't leave our field personnel without
>> > a good strong CAS platform once the A-10 dies of old age.
>>
>> > Seehttp://www.stavatti.com/SM47_OVERVIEW.htmlformore 411
>> > --
>> > "Everything in excess! To enjoy the flavor of life, take big bites.
>> > Moderation is for monks."
>>
>> Yes, an unmanned CAS aircraft would have the same attention to the job
>> as the manned USAF versions. The USAF hates CAS because it doesn't win
>> medals and gets them in bar fights.
>
>Maybe the Pentagon should give the whole CAS to the Army, army will
>select the plane, army pilot will fly the mission, I'm sure more
>attention would be paid to it under the Army. USAF hates it anyway,
>
>I know it's not gonna happen because USAF wants to control every
>flyable asset in the military. But secretary of defense, the president
>should show the leadership and just order it to be done. It's always
>better to have something under the control of somebody who actually
>have the incentive to develop it.

How much time in the USAF do you have to know so much about this
"hate"?

Who is going to buy this plane for the Army? Train the pilots? The
maintainers? The supply chain? The weapons? Just buy a plane and give
it to the Army?

You also seem woefully ignorant about the entire concept of joint
operations.

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
www.thundertales.blogspot.com
www.thunderchief.org

[Tiger]

eatfastnoodle wrote:
> On Jun 13, 12:15 am, Jack Linthicum >
> wrote:
>
>>On Jun 12, 11:58 am, Zombywoof > wrote:
>>
> Maybe the Pentagon should give the whole CAS to the Army, army will
> select the plane, army pilot will fly the mission, I'm sure more
> attention would be paid to it under the Army. USAF hates it anyway,
>
> I know it's not gonna happen because USAF wants to control every
> flyable asset in the military. But secretary of defense, the president
> should show the leadership and just order it to be done. It's always
> better to have something under the control of somebody who actually
> have the incentive to develop it.

Hell Right now the Pakistaini's & our Nato allies wish we learn to shoot
only the enemy. The Guys in the clouds are ****ing off the friendlies
Again based on yesterdays news.

[Roger Conroy[_2_]]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 09:47:17 -0700 (PDT), Jack Linthicum
> > wrote:
>
>>On Jun 12, 12:31 pm, Yeff > wrote:
>>> On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 09:15:22 -0700 (PDT), Jack Linthicum wrote:
>>> > The USAF hates CAS because it doesn't win
>>> > medals and gets them in bar fights.
>>>
>>> And you know this how?
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> -Jeff B.
>>> zoomie at fastmail fm
>>
>>Watching bar fights and listening to the AFs whine. Actually watched a
>>"combined" exercise on Hawaii and the subsequent bar fight. Looked
>>like a regularly scheduled event.
>
> Your mileage may vary, but I've got a couple of gongs for ground
> support and none for air/air. CAS is one of the most fun missions you
> can do in a tactical aircraft. The only bar fight I ever saw was
> between folks fighting to be the first to buy an fighter pilot a beer
> for CAS the grunts had appreciated.
>
> The major difference today isn't that CAS is hated by the AF, but
> simply that CAS looks a lot different than it did in the past. No more
> "gomers in the wire" "danger close" "whites of their eyes" stuff. JDAM
> from the menopause brings more precise support without the grunt ever
> seeing the airplane. It might just as well be organic artillery fire.
> He never knows.
>
> Ed Rasimus
> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
> www.thundertales.blogspot.com
> www.thunderchief.org

No more Sandys dumping napalm on the treeline from knife-fight altitude - a
scene much used by Hollywood.
I wonder how the movies would portray LGBs arriving out of the blue?

[Tex Houston[_3_]]

"Roger Conroy" > wrote in message
...
>
> No more Sandys dumping napalm on the treeline from knife-fight altitude -
> a scene much used by Hollywood.
> I wonder how the movies would portray LGBs arriving out of the blue?
>

Laser Guided Bombs? How old-fashioned...

Tex Houston

[Tiger]

Ed Rasimus wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 09:44:22 -0700 (PDT), eatfastnoodle
> > wrote:
>
>
>>On Jun 13, 12:15 am, Jack Linthicum >
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Jun 12, 11:58 am, Zombywoof > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 12:30:41 GMT, Yeff > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 05:05:34 -0700 (PDT), Jack Linthicum wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>I went through a long discussion on this newsgroup advocating a
>>>>>>carrier-able version of the A-10
>>>>>
>>>>>Not gonna happen. Increase the strength of the landing gear and you
>>>>>sacrifice the amount of ordnance you can carry.
>>>>
>>>>>>or a new design.
>>>>>
>>>>>Yeah, something with an incredible sensor suite, stealthy, and a good bomb
>>>>>load. Hey, maybe we could modify the F-35?
>>>>
>>>>One of the versions of the F-35 is for Carriers. Part of the whole
>>>>design concept behind it. One Aircraft with 80% parts
>>>>interchangeability reduces design, production & maintenance costs.
>>>
>>>>One of my concerns is that with the F-22 & F-35 the USAF once again
>>>>appears to be neglecting the Close Air Support role which is always
>>>>going to be needed regardless of the amount of Air Superiority. I
>>>>know that they are "predicting" that the F-35 will take over some of
>>>>that role, but a "Fast-Burner" is not the most effective platform for
>>>>the CAS mission, especially at its 100 million+ price tag.
>>>
>>>>Perhaps the SM-47 Super Machete needs to be given a closer look at
>>>>for this role as the A-10 ages. After all it projected that the SM-47
>>>>will be produced in manned, as well as unmanned/remote
>>>>pilot-in-the-loop and unmanned autonomous configurations. At I think a
>>>>projected cost of 10 Million each, a much better alternative to the
>>>>100 Million+ F-35. It also doesn't leave our field personnel without
>>>>a good strong CAS platform once the A-10 dies of old age.
>>>
>>>>Seehttp://www.stavatti.com/SM47_OVERVIEW.htmlformore 411
>>>>--
>
>
> How much time in the USAF do you have to know so much about this
> "hate"?
>
> Who is going to buy this plane for the Army? Train the pilots? The
> maintainers? The supply chain? The weapons? Just buy a plane and give
> it to the Army?
>
> You also seem woefully ignorant about the entire concept of joint
> operations.
>
> Ed Rasimus
> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
> www.thundertales.blogspot.com
> www.thunderchief.org


Aggreed!
The playing with the deck chairs of who drops bombs vs flys cover is a
waste. The basic point The F-22 fanclub seems to be missing is we are
not in 1940 England and there is no major air battle comming. The need
now & for the forseeable future is under 10,000 ft. Not Mig chasing. We
have the the force for that & a surplus. Yet the fan club wants more????
Rest of the force be damned? What good is a 500 plane F22 force if they
have no Tankers, Cargo planes, SAR or anything elese?

[Raymond O'Hara]

"Yeff" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 00:20:43 -0400, Raymond O'Hara wrote:
>
>> we are not going to achieve whatever it is bush was after.
>
> Preempting Sadam before he aquired WMDs? Yeah, we did that. And rather
> spectacularly I might add.
>
> Am I the only one who remembers the preemptive war debate?
>

which proved to be based on false{made up} intelligence.

[Raymond O'Hara]

"Tiger" > wrote in message
...
> Raymond O'Hara wrote:
>> "Tiger" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>Raymond O'Hara wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Roger Conroy" > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Tiger" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Roger Conroy wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Raymond O'Hara" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"Jim Wilkins" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>>>>On Jun 10, 8:14 pm, Ian B MacLure > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>> the "have nots" are not in position to threaten the "haves"
>>>
>>>Iran Is not hearing you. Hugo Chavez & Putin do not believe you. Nigeria
>>>& Mexico are internally screwed up. Hell just this week a "have not,"
>>>called Israel Said stop the nuke building or we will do it for you to
>>>Iran (a oil have). Sounds like a position to threat to me, And Wall
>>>street agreed, thus the price spike.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> they are have nots? they are 3 of the worlds largest oil producers.
>> russia and venezuela are all set for water too.
>> and iran has plenty at the moment.
>>
>>
> The paragraph "is" discussing Haves. Read again....
>


i replied to conroy you idiot.
look at his post and mine.
if you can't keep up don't play.

[Raymond O'Hara]

"Roger Conroy" > wrote in message
...
> Anyone who bases their armaments aquisition programme on CURRENT wars is
> an idiot and is doomed to be on the losing side in the NEXT war. Major
> equipment is intended to be used for about 20-30 years.
> Take the example of the "Teens" generation of US fighter aircraft. They
> came off the drawing boards in the 1970's and are now at the end of their
> useful life as first world front-line equipment. It really is not
> acceptable for a 1st world fighter pilot to be flying the same plane that
> his father did. "Shock and Awe" only works if you have a clear margin of
> superiority over the enemy. Any leader who sends his forces into battle
> equipped at parity to the enemy should be shot for gross incompetence.
>

anybody who ignores the war they are fighting now to worry about a
hypothetical war against an yndetermined enemy at an undetermined future
date will lose the current war and render worries about future wars moot.

nobody has anything in the pipeline either.

[David E. Powell]

On Jun 12, 12:19*pm, Jack Linthicum >
wrote:
> On Jun 12, 11:24 am, Zombywoof > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 03:18:07 -0700 (PDT), Jack Linthicum
>
> > > wrote:
>
> > <snip>
>
> > >> Anyone who bases their armaments aquisition programme on CURRENT wars is an
> > >> idiot and is doomed to be on the losing side in the NEXT war. Major
> > >> equipment is intended to be used for about 20-30 years.
> > >> Take the example of the "Teens" generation of US fighter aircraft. They came
> > >> off the drawing boards in the 1970's and are now at the end of their useful
> > >> life as first world front-line equipment. It really is not acceptable for a
> > >> 1st world fighter pilot to be flying the same plane that his father did.
> > >> "Shock and Awe" only works if you have a clear margin of superiority over
> > >> the enemy. Any leader who sends his forces into battle equipped at parity to
> > >> the enemy should be shot for gross incompetence.
>
> > >Shock and awe has been demonstrated as a concept only. Useful for
> > >Power Point, useless, or more than useless, in terms of actual
> > >application. If you do s&a, and it doesn't, your enemy is encouraged
> > >to resist.
>
> > As a concept only? *Tell that to the any number of countries that fell
> > to Blitzkrieg. *Tell that to Saddam (after you dig him up) about
> > Desert Storm (heavy on the Storm). *Large massive overwhelming
> > lightening shook attacks (from land, sea or air) definitely leaves the
> > Defenders in some version of awe. *More times then not with a
> > resounding "Holy ****, what was that?".
>
> > The Air Force retired all 64 F-117's on 22 April 2008,primarily due to
> > the purchasing and eventual deployment of the more effective F-22
> > Raptor and F-35 Lightning II. *Even though the F-22 is primarily an
> > air superiority fighter, it has multiple capabilities (as almost all
> > new USAF Aircraft do) that include ground attack, electronic warfare,
> > and signals intelligence roles.
>
> > Now if you think that purchasing 183 of them is a bit much, note that
> > the USAF originally planned to order 750 ATFs (the original concept
> > program that gave birth to the F-22), with production beginning in
> > 1994; however, the 1990 Major Aircraft Review altered the plan to 648
> > aircraft beginning in 1996. The goal changed again in 1994, when it
> > became 442 aircraft entering service in 2003 or 2004, but a 1997
> > Department of Defense report put the purchase at 339. In 2003, the Air
> > Force said that the existing congressional cost cap limited the
> > purchase to 277. By 2006, the Pentagon said it will buy 183 aircraft,
> > which would save $15 billion but raise the cost of each aircraft, and
> > this plan has been de facto approved by Congress in the form of a
> > multi-year procurement plan, which still holds open the possibility
> > for new orders past that point. The total cost of the program by 2006
> > was $62 billion.
>
> > By the time everything is said & done and all 183 fighters have been
> > purchased & deployed, $34 billion will have been spent on actual
> > procurement. *This will *result in a total program cost of $62 billion
> > or about $339 million per aircraft. The incremental cost for one
> > additional F-22 is around $138 million; decreasing with larger
> > volumes. If the Air Force were to buy 100 more F-22s today, the cost
> > of each one would be less and would continue to drop with additional
> > aircraft purchases.
>
> > Now as to the F-35 Lightning II, one of the primary reasons its costs
> > (to US Taxpayers) is less is that it is a "Jointly" designed &
> > produced platform with United Kingdom, Italy, the Netherlands, Canada,
> > Turkey, Australia, Norway and Denmark contributing US$4.375 billion
> > toward the development costs of the program. *The entire concept
> > behind the *JSF program ( F-35 Lightning II) was created to replace
> > various aircraft while keeping development, production, and operating
> > costs down via sharing the development costs with the aforementioned
> > countries. Cost were also kept down *by building three variants of one
> > aircraft, sharing 80% of their parts.
>
> > All-in-all the MORE you build of anything, the overall lower per unit
> > cost you come up with. *When you have other Nations assisting in the
> > funding of the development phase you also reduce (to the US Taxpayer)
> > those "sunk" costs.
>
> > Just like the F-16 is the cheaper, sleeker one engine version of the
> > F-15, a similar statement can be made about the F-35 as it is also a
> > one engine aircraft which in & of itself reduces both production &
> > operational costs. *This is all part of the Hi-Low strategy to have a
> > mix of two different fighters that was started with the F-15/F-16
> > program in the USAF and the F-14/F-18 program in the Navy.
>
> >http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/q0216.shtmlexplainsthe
> > entire Hi-Low strategy fairly well and in simple terms.
> > --
> > "Everything in excess! To enjoy the flavor of life, take big bites.
> > Moderation is for monks."
>
> Shock and Awe looked good on TV, looks even better in the briefing
> room. IIRC nobody was actual hurt during that display, oh, except for
> a few civilians.
>
> addam's bunker, a draw for tourists in Green Zone
> Dec 7 01:45 PM US/Eastern
>
> * * * * * * * * Saddam Hussein's underground bunker, surprisingly undamaged despite
> heavy US bombing in 2003, has become an informal tourist attraction
> for visitors and residents of Baghdad's downtown Green Zone area.
>
> US forces hurled two 900 kilo (2,000 pound) GBU-28 bunker-busting
> bombs at the building on the opening night of the US-led offensive to
> invade Iraq, March 19, 2003, according to the US military.
>
> Over the next four days at least six more bunker-busters were dropped
> on the building, and the holes they smashed in the roof are still
> visible.
>
> The blasts caused impressive damage to the six-story high steel and
> concrete structure, known as the Believers Palace, built atop the
> bunker.
>
> US soldiers and visitors who tour the site today pose for pictures
> near giant craters in the palace, amid heaps of twisted steel rods,
> concrete blocks and charred marble slabs.
>
> Souvenir hunters can still find crystals from the giant chandelier
> that once hung in the main hall.
>
> Yet despite the whirlwind of destruction, most of the palace is still
> structurally sound.
>
> And the bunker, which lies under the rubble, is virtually intact --
> more than 20 years after it was built for 66 million dollars by the
> German firm Boswau and Knauer (Walter Bau-AG building group).
>
> Deep inside, the only light comes from flashlights carried by
> visitors, and the only sounds are their footsteps and a steady drip,
> drip, drip of water from a broken water pipe.
>
> "We still cant find the water main," said Sergeant First Class Patrick
> McDonald, who works with a civil affairs unit and is the Green Zones
> de facto bunker expert.
>
> "Even to this day some of the rooms have an inch of putrid water with
> some type of biological life."
>
> Saddam's room is about the size of a small master bedroom in a
> suburban house and differs from the other rooms only by its tan
> wallpaper.
>
> One of the last images of him as president was televised footage of a
> meeting he held with top aides in the 30-square-meter (320-square-
> foot) bunker conference room just before the "shock and awe" phase of
> the war began.
>
> Karl Bernd Esser, the bunker architect, told Germany's ZDF television
> when the war began that the structure he designed could survive
> anything short of a direct hit from a Hiroshima-style nuclear weapon.
>
> Overall, the three-level, sprawling bunker is large enough to house
> 250 people, say US officials. It has an air filtration system, a large
> kitchen and was fully prepared for an attack with biological or
> chemical weapons.
>
> It also has its own power supply. Its large generators, which are
> powerful enough to supply the whole Green Zone area with electricity,
> seem brand new.
>
> "The only danger was that Saddam and his people would have been buried
> here," said McDonald.
>
> "But there are tunnels to get out that lead to the Tigris River," some
> 200 meters (yards) away, he said.
>
> Between the Believers Palace and the bunker was even more protection
> -- a two-floor "plug" -- a reinforced helmet of sorts to make up for
> one of the bunkers shortcomings: it was barely underground.
>
> A reinforced concrete box inside a box, the bunker was long ago
> stripped of any valuables, first by Iraqi looters as US troops entered
> Baghdad, and later by US troops seeking to furnish outside
> headquarters buildings.
>
> Some of the recovered valuables are in storage, said McDonald.
>
> "The high water table in Baghdad makes it difficult to build anything
> deep underground," explained McDonald.
>
> The "plug" consisted of two 25 centimetres (10-inch) thick false
> floors separated by one meter (three feet) of empty space.
>
> "The false floors served to trick the smart bombs into thinking they
> have penetrated into the bunker," McDonald said.
>
> "As far as we know this is the most extensive bunker facility in the
> country," McDonald said.
>
> "There are a number of small single, or three and four room bunkers
> under different palaces, but this is the biggest one, and the most
> extensive."
>
> According to locals, Saddam used the bunker less than eight times
> since it was built, McDonald said, although he kept a staff to
> maintain its elaborate water, cooling, air filtration and electrical
> system.
>
> Iraq's new government, which takes over in late December, will have to
> decide what to do with the site.
>
> The structure is so well built it would be difficult to demolish, and
> the massive palace above makes it impossible to bury.
>
> "So its left there for people like myself to give tours when I have
> the time," said McDonald.

They can give tours like the Greenbrier, so it could be fine to just
leave it and give tours. maybe even have guests pay to "stay in the
bunker?"

[Raymond O'Hara]

"Jack Linthicum" > wrote in message
news:23b02533-0a2e-4799-8ce1-
> Shock and awe has been demonstrated as a concept only. Useful for
> Power Point, useless, or more than useless, in terms of actual
> application. If you do s&a, and it doesn't, your enemy is encouraged
> to resist.

shock&awe has been the biggest strategic mistake the U.S. has made in
iraq.{besides attacking in the first place}
our army was more than capable of defeating the iraqi army without it
it was pure wanton destruction that destroyed the very infrustructure we
need to set iraq right.
how different would it be if iraqis had running water and electricity.
a restored economy would be the best thing towards pacifying the country.

[Raymond O'Hara]

"Zombywoof" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 03:18:07 -0700 (PDT), Jack Linthicum
> > wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>> Anyone who bases their armaments aquisition programme on CURRENT wars is
>>> an
>>> idiot and is doomed to be on the losing side in the NEXT war. Major
>>> equipment is intended to be used for about 20-30 years.
>>> Take the example of the "Teens" generation of US fighter aircraft. They
>>> came
>>> off the drawing boards in the 1970's and are now at the end of their
>>> useful
>>> life as first world front-line equipment. It really is not acceptable
>>> for a
>>> 1st world fighter pilot to be flying the same plane that his father did.
>>> "Shock and Awe" only works if you have a clear margin of superiority
>>> over
>>> the enemy. Any leader who sends his forces into battle equipped at
>>> parity to
>>> the enemy should be shot for gross incompetence.
>>
>>Shock and awe has been demonstrated as a concept only. Useful for
>>Power Point, useless, or more than useless, in terms of actual
>>application. If you do s&a, and it doesn't, your enemy is encouraged
>>to resist.
>>
> As a concept only? Tell that to the any number of countries that fell
> to Blitzkrieg. Tell that to Saddam (after you dig him up) about
> Desert Storm (heavy on the Storm). Large massive overwhelming
> lightening shook attacks (from land, sea or air) definitely leaves the
> Defenders in some version of awe. More times then not with a
> resounding "Holy ****, what was that?".

the germans didn't destrot the infrustructure ot the countries they over
ran and only two, fr and pol. had real armies.
the bombings were close air support for the advancing ground troops.
the fact the germans captured the countries intact greatly facilitated their
pacification.
the fact we didn't has hampered ours.

[g lof2]

On Jun 12, 5:16*am, Yeff > wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 20:42:02 -0700 (PDT), g lof2 wrote:
> > And remember, the reason we have air conreol is because we have the best
> > fighter to knock the other sides fighter out before the get to shoot at
> > our troops.
>
> It's actually a combined effort. *AWACS, Rivet Joint, ground radar assets,
> ground-based intelligence assets, sea-based radar assets... you get the
> idea. *It all goes back to the concept of "First Look, First Kill". *If I
> see you before you see me, the odds favor the fact that you'll be walking
> home.
>
> Modern doctrine isn't to go in and mix it up with the enemy fighters,
> today's doctrine is to snipe the hostile aircraft out of the sky. *If you
> end up in a furball then you screwed up somewhere along the way. *Granted,
> sometimes you can't anticipate that happening but it's a good
> rule-of-thumb.
>
> Current fighters are snipers, and if I see the enemy first, betting odds
> say that I win the fight.
>
> --
>
> -Jeff B.
> zoomie at fastmail fm

Your absolutly right, but you still need the fighter to take the shot.
It does you no good to know were the enemy is when you can't do
anything about it. The is a limit to manuver warfare, amd avoiding
contact only good when your on offense. I your the defence you are
force to react to an attack, and that means sending fighters out to
protect yourself.

[g lof2]

On Jun 12, 3:14*am, eatfastnoodle > wrote:
> On Jun 12, 2:43*pm, "Roger Conroy" >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Tiger" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > >g lof2 wrote:
> > >> On Jun 10, 10:03 pm, Tiger > wrote:
>
> > >>>g lof2 wrote:
>
> > >>>>On Jun 10, 5:32 pm, Tiger > wrote:
>
> > >>>>>William Black wrote:
>
> > >>>>>>"Mike" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >>>>>>Inside the Air Force
> > >>>>>>Next-gen bomber must be adequately funded
> > >>>>>>YOUNG: GIVEN CURRENT WARS, F-35s ARE BETTER CHOICE THAN MORE F-22As
>
> > >>>>>>---------------------------------
>
> > >>>>>>Given current wars they'd be better off buying a load of Douglas A-1
> > >>>>>>Skyraiders and a few WWII twin engined bombers.
>
> > >>>>>>What they need is something very reliable that lugs a largish bombload
> > >>>>>>around and can absorb ground fire while dropping it in smallish
>
> > >>>>>quantities
>
> > >>>>>>with great precision.
>
> > >>>>>>What they don't need right now is large complex jet fighter/bombers
>
> > >>>>>that are
>
> > >>>>>>designed to fight a major European war.
>
> > >>>>>In other words."Why pay 2008 Corvette money to do a job your old 1988
> > >>>>>F150 could do?" I'm sure there plenty of stuff in the boneyard that
> > >>>>>fits
> > >>>>>the bill. A-10's, A6's, A-4's, Phantoms, A-7's. Old stuff, but to drop
> > >>>>>bombs in zones with no Mig threats they work. I think the A-1 may be
> > >>>>>pushing the concept a bit, but I hear you.....
>
> > >>>>Until the run into the a battery on the latest SAMs , ot a Nex-Gen
> > >>>>Stealth fighter, which are design to handle the latest fighters. At
> > >>>>which point they become so much flying scrap metal. And remember, the
> > >>>>reason we have air conreol is because we have the best fighter to
> > >>>>knock the other sides fighter out before the get to shoot at our
> > >>>>troops.
>
> > >>>>Frankly what I read in the story reminds me of the old warning about
> > >>>>fighting the last war, and not planning for the next.
>
> > >>>The bad guys of late seem to prefer Ied's & rpg's to Radar guided SAm
> > >>>sites... Nor does most of the world *have the $$$ for next gen Stealth
> > >>>fighters. Even our Allies can bearly put a decent force together. The
> > >>>topic point was spending money on a F22 air superiorty fighter. A job it
> > >>>does well but there is no air threat. That makes it useless when the
> > >>>current need for the airforce is to supply CAS. The F35 which will do,
> > >>>said mission is years away. If your planning for the next war, Nethier
> > >>>plane is *really what you want.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > >> The problem with your argument is your assumion that there cannot be
> > >> future threat to US air superiority. The key to US military power over
> > >> the last sixty years was your control of the air. It is important for
> > >> us to maintain that superiority if we are to remain the top military
> > >> power. Therefore we must build enough F-22 to assure we retain that
> > >> power while the production lines are still open, else it will become
> > >> far more expensive to re open the production lines later when it
> > >> becomes necessary.
>
> > >>>- Show quoted text -
>
> > > Going back to the start of this " GIVEN CURRENT WARS, F-35s ARE BETTER
> > > CHOICE THAN MORE F-22As." We are not exactly facing any Battles of Britian
> > > from anybody or collection of somebodies. The F-22 is a high end Air
> > > superority fighter. Great! And we are going to buy about 180 of them. At
> > > something like $100 Million each. About the price of 4 F-15's. We never
> > > intended for a whole airforce of them. The volume plane is the F35. Most
> > > our allies or enemies don't even have 180 planes in there whole air force;
> > > let alone fighters. You might like to refuel those F22's? Where are going
> > > to get $$$ for tankers? You might like Transport troops and parts for your
> > > F-22's? Where's the money to upgrade your airlift that has racking up
> > > flight time running back & forth to Kabul & baghdad??? I like the F-22 as
> > > well. But we are not spending the whole DOD budget on it, Hoping to
> > > re-fight Eagle-Day.....
>
> > Anyone who bases their armaments aquisition programme on CURRENT wars is an
> > idiot and is doomed to be on the losing side in the NEXT war. Major
> > equipment is intended to be used for about 20-30 years.
> > Take the example of the "Teens" generation of US fighter aircraft. They came
> > off the drawing boards in the 1970's and are now at the end of their useful
> > life as first world front-line equipment. It really is not acceptable for a
> > 1st world fighter pilot to be flying the same plane that his father did.
> > "Shock and Awe" only works if you have a clear margin of superiority over
> > the enemy. Any leader who sends his forces into battle equipped at parity to
> > the enemy should be shot for gross incompetence.
>
> it's not unreasonable to expect a new fighter every 30 years or so.
> But F22 price tag is simply outrageous, it threatens everything else
> the air force needs, remember, fighter by its own doesn't count for
> much, you need a integrated force with a balanced procurement policy.
> What looks like right now is the air force officials, who all used to
> be fighter pilots, seem to be more than ready to scrap everything else
> in order for them to have a few more F22s. That's not right and that's
> not going to help the force and anybody else in the long run.
> Everybody wants to have the best toy in town, but there are only so
> much money around, especially with the budget deficit already so high,
> so the escalating cost overruns must stop, otherwise, you will end up
> with a military so advanced that any war they fight will prove to be a
> financial disaster, win or lose. Despite the patriotic rhetoric, war
> is and should be considered a investment, and return of investment
> should be considered before war, especially oversea military
> adventure, is launched. precisely the kind that US will most likely
> face in the future, whether it's against a ragtag group of guerrillas
> or a great power with high tech weaponry. Countless great powers, with
> their best equipped and best trained troops, lost to insurgency and
> seemly weak rebellions because the cost of fighting a high cost war
> against an enemy with vastly lower cost of waging wars. Take Iraq as
> an example, 3 trillions in five years is not sustainable, not even for
> the US. That's why I think US will lose the Iraq war no matter how
> unwilling the Republican is to accept it. Shiny weapon like F22 is
> just the kind of weapon that will further increase the cost, it's very
> much likely future adversary will exploit this weakness in a
> protracted war.- Hide quoted text -
>

Yes, the project unit cost per unit is high, but the marginal cost of
buying addition F-22 would be quit a bit less. The hugh start up cost
imposed by congress and the civilian in the Pentagon that is
responsible for that $100 MILLION dollar price tag. That why it so
important to buy enough F-22 now, when the cost of additional fighters
are low, instead of waiting unit we have to pay the bureaucates $20
billion dollar tab a second time.


> - Show quoted text -

[Raymond O'Hara]

"g lof2" > wrote in message
...
On Jun 12, 5:16 am, Yeff > wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 20:42:02 -0700 (PDT), g lof2 wrote:
> > And remember, the reason we have air conreol is because we have the best
> > fighter to knock the other sides fighter out before the get to shoot at
> > our troops.
>
> It's actually a combined effort. AWACS, Rivet Joint, ground radar assets,
> ground-based intelligence assets, sea-based radar assets... you get the
> idea. It all goes back to the concept of "First Look, First Kill". If I
> see you before you see me, the odds favor the fact that you'll be walking
> home.
>
> Modern doctrine isn't to go in and mix it up with the enemy fighters,
> today's doctrine is to snipe the hostile aircraft out of the sky. If you
> end up in a furball then you screwed up somewhere along the way. Granted,
> sometimes you can't anticipate that happening but it's a good
> rule-of-thumb.
>
> Current fighters are snipers, and if I see the enemy first, betting odds
> say that I win the fight.
>
> --
>
> -Jeff B.
> zoomie at fastmail fm

Your absolutly right, but you still need the fighter to take the shot.
It does you no good to know were the enemy is when you can't do
anything about it. The is a limit to manuver warfare, amd avoiding
contact only good when your on offense. I your the defence you are
force to react to an attack, and that means sending fighters out to
protect yourself.


we have fighters, and better ones than others too
if we were falling behind and there was a credible threat thn sure. but we
aren't and there isn't.

[Raymond O'Hara]

"Tiger" > wrote in message
...
> Ed Rasimus wrote:
>> On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 09:44:22 -0700 (PDT), eatfastnoodle
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Jun 13, 12:15 am, Jack Linthicum >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Jun 12, 11:58 am, Zombywoof > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 12:30:41 GMT, Yeff > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 05:05:34 -0700 (PDT), Jack Linthicum wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>I went through a long discussion on this newsgroup advocating a
>>>>>>>carrier-able version of the A-10
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Not gonna happen. Increase the strength of the landing gear and you
>>>>>>sacrifice the amount of ordnance you can carry.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>or a new design.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Yeah, something with an incredible sensor suite, stealthy, and a good
>>>>>>bomb
>>>>>>load. Hey, maybe we could modify the F-35?
>>>>>
>>>>>One of the versions of the F-35 is for Carriers. Part of the whole
>>>>>design concept behind it. One Aircraft with 80% parts
>>>>>interchangeability reduces design, production & maintenance costs.
>>>>
>>>>>One of my concerns is that with the F-22 & F-35 the USAF once again
>>>>>appears to be neglecting the Close Air Support role which is always
>>>>>going to be needed regardless of the amount of Air Superiority. I
>>>>>know that they are "predicting" that the F-35 will take over some of
>>>>>that role, but a "Fast-Burner" is not the most effective platform for
>>>>>the CAS mission, especially at its 100 million+ price tag.
>>>>
>>>>>Perhaps the SM-47 Super Machete needs to be given a closer look at
>>>>>for this role as the A-10 ages. After all it projected that the SM-47
>>>>>will be produced in manned, as well as unmanned/remote
>>>>>pilot-in-the-loop and unmanned autonomous configurations. At I think a
>>>>>projected cost of 10 Million each, a much better alternative to the
>>>>>100 Million+ F-35. It also doesn't leave our field personnel without
>>>>>a good strong CAS platform once the A-10 dies of old age.
>>>>
>>>>>Seehttp://www.stavatti.com/SM47_OVERVIEW.htmlformore 411
>>>>>--
>>
>>
>> How much time in the USAF do you have to know so much about this
>> "hate"?
>>
>> Who is going to buy this plane for the Army? Train the pilots? The
>> maintainers? The supply chain? The weapons? Just buy a plane and give
>> it to the Army? You also seem woefully ignorant about the entire concept
>> of joint
>> operations. Ed Rasimus
>> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
>> www.thundertales.blogspot.com
>> www.thunderchief.org
>
>
> Aggreed!
> The playing with the deck chairs of who drops bombs vs flys cover is a
> waste. The basic point The F-22 fanclub seems to be missing is we are not
> in 1940 England and there is no major air battle comming. The need now &
> for the forseeable future is under 10,000 ft. Not Mig chasing. We have the
> the force for that & a surplus. Yet the fan club wants more????
> Rest of the force be damned? What good is a 500 plane F22 force if they
> have no Tankers, Cargo planes, SAR or anything elese?
>

or an enemy.
the air force should never have been spun out of the army.

[Yeff]

On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 14:42:30 -0400, Raymond O'Hara wrote:

>> Am I the only one who remembers the preemptive war debate?
>>
>
> which proved to be based on false{made up} intelligence.

Who "made up" the intelligence?

Do you remember the debate about whether we should wait to have proof - a
mushroom cloud rising over Israel - or whether we should just stop him
before he had a chance to go nuclear?

Oh, and do you remember when Clinton made regime change in Iraq national
policy? Hey, we did that, too!

--

-Jeff B.
zoomie at fastmail fm

[Roger Conroy[_2_]]

"Raymond O'Hara" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Roger Conroy" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Anyone who bases their armaments aquisition programme on CURRENT wars is
>> an idiot and is doomed to be on the losing side in the NEXT war. Major
>> equipment is intended to be used for about 20-30 years.
>> Take the example of the "Teens" generation of US fighter aircraft. They
>> came off the drawing boards in the 1970's and are now at the end of their
>> useful life as first world front-line equipment. It really is not
>> acceptable for a 1st world fighter pilot to be flying the same plane that
>> his father did. "Shock and Awe" only works if you have a clear margin of
>> superiority over the enemy. Any leader who sends his forces into battle
>> equipped at parity to the enemy should be shot for gross incompetence.
>>
>
> anybody who ignores the war they are fighting now to worry about a
> hypothetical war against an yndetermined enemy at an undetermined future
> date will lose the current war and render worries about future wars moot.
>
> nobody has anything in the pipeline either.
>

Why would "worry[ing] about a hypothetical war against an [u]ndetermined
enemy at an undetermined future date" mean that you would lose the current
war? Fighting a war and preparing for the next one are not mutually
exclusive.

[Raymond O'Hara]

"Yeff" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 14:42:30 -0400, Raymond O'Hara wrote:
>
>>> Am I the only one who remembers the preemptive war debate?
>>>
>>
>> which proved to be based on false{made up} intelligence.
>
> Who "made up" the intelligence?


the bu****es and their lakeys.





>
> Do you remember the debate about whether we should wait to have proof - a
> mushroom cloud rising over Israel - or whether we should just stop him
> before he had a chance to go nuclear?
>
> Oh, and do you remember when Clinton made regime change in Iraq national
> policy? Hey, we did that, too!
>
> --
>
> -Jeff B.
> zoomie at fastmail fm

[Raymond O'Hara]

"Roger Conroy" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Raymond O'Hara" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Roger Conroy" > wrote in message
>> ...[i]
>>> Anyone who bases their armaments aquisition programme on CURRENT wars is
>>> an idiot and is doomed to be on the losing side in the NEXT war. Major
>>> equipment is intended to be used for about 20-30 years.
>>> Take the example of the "Teens" generation of US fighter aircraft. They
>>> came off the drawing boards in the 1970's and are now at the end of
>>> their useful life as first world front-line equipment. It really is not
>>> acceptable for a 1st world fighter pilot to be flying the same plane
>>> that his father did. "Shock and Awe" only works if you have a clear
>>> margin of superiority over the enemy. Any leader who sends his forces
>>> into battle equipped at parity to the enemy should be shot for gross
>>> incompetence.
>>>
>>
>> anybody who ignores the war they are fighting now to worry about a
>> hypothetical war against an yndetermined enemy at an undetermined future
>> date will lose the current war and render worries about future wars moot.
>>
>> nobody has anything in the pipeline either.
>>
>
> Why would "worry about a hypothetical war against an [u]ndetermined
> enemy at an undetermined future date" mean that you would lose the current
> war? Fighting a war and preparing for the next one are not mutually
> exclusive.
>
>



we don't have an unlimited budget.
inWWII we concentrated on WWII not WWIII.

[Roger Conroy[_2_]]

"Raymond O'Hara" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Roger Conroy" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Raymond O'Hara" > wrote in message
>> ...[i]
>>>
>>> "Roger Conroy" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Anyone who bases their armaments aquisition programme on CURRENT wars
>>>> is an idiot and is doomed to be on the losing side in the NEXT war.
>>>> Major equipment is intended to be used for about 20-30 years.
>>>> Take the example of the "Teens" generation of US fighter aircraft. They
>>>> came off the drawing boards in the 1970's and are now at the end of
>>>> their useful life as first world front-line equipment. It really is not
>>>> acceptable for a 1st world fighter pilot to be flying the same plane
>>>> that his father did. "Shock and Awe" only works if you have a clear
>>>> margin of superiority over the enemy. Any leader who sends his forces
>>>> into battle equipped at parity to the enemy should be shot for gross
>>>> incompetence.
>>>>
>>>
>>> anybody who ignores the war they are fighting now to worry about a
>>> hypothetical war against an yndetermined enemy at an undetermined future
>>> date will lose the current war and render worries about future wars
>>> moot.
>>>
>>> nobody has anything in the pipeline either.
>>>
>>
>> Why would "worry about a hypothetical war against an [u]ndetermined
>> enemy at an undetermined future date" mean that you would lose the
>> current war? Fighting a war and preparing for the next one are not
>> mutually exclusive.
>>
>>
>
>
>
> we don't have an unlimited budget.
> inWWII we concentrated on WWII not WWIII.
>

By the end of WW2 development of practically all the major weapons systems
of the cold war had at least been started:
Nuclear bombs/warheads, ballistic missiles, intercontinental range bombers,
tactical missiles (ground and air), jet aircraft, "true" submarines (rather
than submersibles), cruise missiles...

[Raymond O'Hara]

"Roger Conroy" > wrote in message
...
>> we don't have an unlimited budget.
>> inWWII we concentrated on WWII not WWIII.
>>
>
> By the end of WW2 development of practically all the major weapons systems
> of the cold war had at least been started:
> Nuclear bombs/warheads, ballistic missiles, intercontinental range
> bombers, tactical missiles (ground and air), jet aircraft, "true"
> submarines (rather than submersibles), cruise missiles...
>
>


all those weapons were for fighting WWII nobody gave a thought about any
cold wars.
we weren't making anything with a the idea of fighting an hypothetical enemy
30 years in the future in mind.
we weren't building anything that took away from what we were doing.

[Roger Conroy[_2_]]

"Raymond O'Hara" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Roger Conroy" > wrote in message
> ...
>>> we don't have an unlimited budget.
>>> inWWII we concentrated on WWII not WWIII.
>>>
>>
>> By the end of WW2 development of practically all the major weapons
>> systems of the cold war had at least been started:
>> Nuclear bombs/warheads, ballistic missiles, intercontinental range
>> bombers, tactical missiles (ground and air), jet aircraft, "true"
>> submarines (rather than submersibles), cruise missiles...
>>
>>
>
>
> all those weapons were for fighting WWII nobody gave a thought about any
> cold wars.
> we weren't making anything with a the idea of fighting an hypothetical
> enemy 30 years in the future in mind.
> we weren't building anything that took away from what we were doing.
>

It looks like you are implying that killing Arab peasants was a major design
criterion for F22 & F35

[Dan[_12_]]

Roger Conroy wrote:
> "Raymond O'Hara" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Roger Conroy" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>> we don't have an unlimited budget.
>>>> inWWII we concentrated on WWII not WWIII.
>>>>
>>> By the end of WW2 development of practically all the major weapons
>>> systems of the cold war had at least been started:
>>> Nuclear bombs/warheads, ballistic missiles, intercontinental range
>>> bombers, tactical missiles (ground and air), jet aircraft, "true"
>>> submarines (rather than submersibles), cruise missiles...
>>>
>>>
>>
>> all those weapons were for fighting WWII nobody gave a thought about any
>> cold wars.
>> we weren't making anything with a the idea of fighting an hypothetical
>> enemy 30 years in the future in mind.
>> we weren't building anything that took away from what we were doing.
>>
>
> It looks like you are implying that killing Arab peasants was a major design
> criterion for F22 & F35
>
>

Actually O'Hara is demonstrating his lack of strategic planning and
making a rather poor analogy. WW2 was an all out war for survival. There
were a few people thinking about post war projects, but the priority was
winning the war. Every part of the economy and infrastructure of the
warring parties was dedicated to winning. Iraq and Afghanistan pale in
comparison.

No one can make any better than an educated guess as to what
conflicts may occur 10 years or more into the future. The suggestion
that development and procurement must cease to focus on brush wars is
ludicrous. Recently the U.S. F-15 fleet was grounded due to structural
failures attributable to age. What does O'Hara suggest a war of any kind
be fought with 10 years from now even if the opposition doesn't have
anything more advanced that what is now available? Through normal
attrition how being will the U.S. F-15 and F-16 fleets be? What happens
if the opposition has managed to produce a new fighter type in the few
years prior to that war and the U.S. had stopped procuring and
developing in 2008 because O'Hara says we need to design and procure
only for the present wars?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Raymond O'Hara]

"Roger Conroy" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Raymond O'Hara" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Roger Conroy" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>> we don't have an unlimited budget.
>>>> inWWII we concentrated on WWII not WWIII.
>>>>
>>>
>>> By the end of WW2 development of practically all the major weapons
>>> systems of the cold war had at least been started:
>>> Nuclear bombs/warheads, ballistic missiles, intercontinental range
>>> bombers, tactical missiles (ground and air), jet aircraft, "true"
>>> submarines (rather than submersibles), cruise missiles...
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> all those weapons were for fighting WWII nobody gave a thought about any
>> cold wars.
>> we weren't making anything with a the idea of fighting an hypothetical
>> enemy 30 years in the future in mind.
>> we weren't building anything that took away from what we were doing.
>>
>
> It looks like you are implying that killing Arab peasants was a major
> design criterion for F22 & F35
>

no. o'm saying it isn't . and therefor wait on them and but what we
actually need and will use

as it is, in 30 year manned planes will probably be obsolete.

we are already at the edge of human abilities.

i like F-22s too, they are very cool. but they aren't what we need now.

[Raymond O'Hara]

"Dan" > wrote in message
...
>
> Actually O'Hara is demonstrating his lack of strategic planning and
> making a rather poor analogy. WW2 was an all out war for survival. There
> were a few people thinking about post war projects, but the priority was
> winning the war. Every part of the economy and infrastructure of the
> warring parties was dedicated to winning. Iraq and Afghanistan pale in
> comparison.
>



i'm not arguing for the F-22.
and there is a lot at stake in tis war. bush has us on the verge of becoming
the UK in the post war period, a former superpower
broken by the enourmous cost of a war.

nobody is a credible threat. you guys want to build "maginot"fighters. to
fight a war long envisioned in europe but whose conditions have changed.
there is no more warsaw pact. russia has no aircraft carriers nor does
china. the idealogical divide of commie/capitalism is gone.
even china has gone capitalist.
any war for resources will involve our european allies as they need thm too.
so a russian attempt to take over the middle east would be looked askance at
by them too.


its you who are barking up the wrong strategic tree. you keep looking at it
with cold war eyes.




> No one can make any better than an educated guess as to what conflicts
> may occur 10 years or more into the future. The suggestion that
> development and procurement must cease to focus on brush wars is
> ludicrous. Recently the U.S. F-15 fleet was grounded due to structural
> failures attributable to age. What does O'Hara suggest a war of any kind
> be fought with 10 years from now even if the opposition doesn't have
> anything more advanced that what is now available? Through normal
> attrition how being will the U.S. F-15 and F-16 fleets be? What happens if
> the opposition has managed to produce a new fighter type in the few years
> prior to that war and the U.S. had stopped procuring and developing in
> 2008 because O'Hara says we need to design and procure only for the
> present wars?
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>


we need what we need now. you want to blow off the war we are in for a
really cool imaginary war with imaginary opponents.
100 mil for planes we don't need and can't afford is a waste of resources.
we already know how to make f-22s,

[Andrew Swallow[_2_]]

Raymond O'Hara wrote:
> "Andrew Swallow" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Raymond O'Hara wrote:
>>> "Andrew Swallow" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Raymond O'Hara wrote:
>>>> [snip]
>>>>
>>>>> or maybe a new barbarian invasion or the south will try to secede
>>>>> again.
>>>>> OH NO! the sky might fall.
>>>> French speaking Quebec may decide to leave.
>>>>
>>>>> wars are won by spare parts and what you can replace.
>>>> That is long wars.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> what other kind are there?
>>>
>>> "home before the leaves fall"
>>> popular saying in august 1914
>> 6 Day ones.
>>
>> Hitler thought he had found a short war strategy.
>> Churchill had other plans.
>>
>> Andrew Swallow
>
>
> it was chamberlain who declared war on hitler.
>
>
Chamberlain then appointed Churchill head of the Royal Navy.

Andrew Swallow

[Tiger]

Raymond O'Hara wrote:
> "Yeff" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 00:20:43 -0400, Raymond O'Hara wrote:
>>
>>
>>>we are not going to achieve whatever it is bush was after.
>>
>>Preempting Sadam before he aquired WMDs? Yeah, we did that. And rather
>>spectacularly I might add.
>>
>>Am I the only one who remembers the preemptive war debate?
>>
>
>
> which proved to be based on false{made up} intelligence.
>
>
>

Faulty intel. Also it takes two to dance. Saddam had a chance to give
up. He bluffed and lost.

[Tiger]

Raymond O'Hara wrote:
> "Roger Conroy" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>>we don't have an unlimited budget.
>>>inWWII we concentrated on WWII not WWIII.
>>>
>>
>>By the end of WW2 development of practically all the major weapons systems
>>of the cold war had at least been started:
>>Nuclear bombs/warheads, ballistic missiles, intercontinental range
>>bombers, tactical missiles (ground and air), jet aircraft, "true"
>>submarines (rather than submersibles), cruise missiles...
>>
>>
>
>
>
> all those weapons were for fighting WWII nobody gave a thought about any
> cold wars.
> we weren't making anything with a the idea of fighting an hypothetical enemy
> 30 years in the future in mind.
> we weren't building anything that took away from what we were doing.
>
>

Your re-writing history. Both sides were looking post war well before
Yalta. That's why everybody went hunting for Nazi tech & scienists even
before VE day.

[Dan[_12_]]

Raymond O'Hara wrote:
> "Dan" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Actually O'Hara is demonstrating his lack of strategic planning and
>> making a rather poor analogy. WW2 was an all out war for survival. There
>> were a few people thinking about post war projects, but the priority was
>> winning the war. Every part of the economy and infrastructure of the
>> warring parties was dedicated to winning. Iraq and Afghanistan pale in
>> comparison.
>>
>
>
>
> i'm not arguing for the F-22.

You misunderstand, I never said you were.

> and there is a lot at stake in tis war. bush has us on the verge of becoming
> the UK in the post war period, a former superpower
> broken by the enourmous cost of a war.

You underestimate the U.S. economy that is not now on a war footing.
The U.K. was bankrupted by fighting for her life with every penny she
had. There's a huge difference.

>
> nobody is a credible threat.

Maybe not now, but what about 10 years from now?

you guys want to build "maginot"fighters. to
> fight a war long envisioned in europe but whose conditions have changed.
> there is no more warsaw pact. russia has no aircraft carriers nor does
> china. the idealogical divide of commie/capitalism is gone.
> even china has gone capitalist.

Again you misunderstand. I never said anything about a Cold War
scenario nor did I imply such a case. I never specified an enemy.

any war for resources will involve our european allies as they need
thm too.
> so a russian attempt to take over the middle east would be looked askance at
> by them too.

Again you misunderstand what is going on. Have you noticed the
Europeans aren't agreeing on much as it is? Suppose Iran makes good her
threat to take out Israel and gets a few other local countries to join
in? Are you SURE Europe will unite to ensure a flow of oil? If they
sides against Iran it's a sure thing their supply of oil will be shut
off. The U.S. has to consider going it alone.

>
>
> its you who are barking up the wrong strategic tree. you keep looking at it
> with cold war eyes.


Actually you misunderstand me again. For example Red China is
developing advanced fighters. The Russians are exporting fighters. What
happens if they both supply and train a third party like Iran?

There's no immediate Cold War type threat, but will this still be
true 10 years from now? Are you prepared to bet your nation's security
on that? The Russians have been flying Bear missions similar to those
they flew during the Cold War. They may have ideas of becoming a world
power again.

>
>
>
>
>> No one can make any better than an educated guess as to what conflicts
>> may occur 10 years or more into the future. The suggestion that
>> development and procurement must cease to focus on brush wars is
>> ludicrous. Recently the U.S. F-15 fleet was grounded due to structural
>> failures attributable to age. What does O'Hara suggest a war of any kind
>> be fought with 10 years from now even if the opposition doesn't have
>> anything more advanced that what is now available? Through normal
>> attrition how being will the U.S. F-15 and F-16 fleets be? What happens if
>> the opposition has managed to produce a new fighter type in the few years
>> prior to that war and the U.S. had stopped procuring and developing in
>> 2008 because O'Hara says we need to design and procure only for the
>> present wars?
>>
>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>>
>
>
> we need what we need now.

That's true, tell Congress to foot the bill.

you want to blow off the war we are in for a
> really cool imaginary war with imaginary opponents.

On the other hand, you want to be unprepared for a war of a different
kind than the U.S. is currently fighting. It's nice to hope there will
never be another major war, but if you plan on never having another one
you will always be wrong.

Look what happened 5 years after the end of WW2 when the U.S. had to
fight in Korea. The MiG-15 was a bit of a surprise.

> 100 mil for planes we don't need and can't afford is a waste of resources.
> we already know how to make f-22s,

OK, let's do as O'Hara says and cease production of F-22 immediately.
Now you have to come up with the money to disassemble the production
lines, store the equipment for future use and have a year's advance
notice before some bad guy decides to take you on. You will need the
time to get the lines going again and get new aircraft coming off the end.

In the mean time the current F-22 population will decline due to
accidents and testing. The F-16 and F-15 population is aging rapidly.

Do you really think status quo will stay in effect another 10 years?
To not plan for the future is a tad silly, wouldn't you say?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Raymond O'Hara]

"Tiger" > wrote in message
...
> Raymond O'Hara wrote:
>> "Yeff" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 00:20:43 -0400, Raymond O'Hara wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>we are not going to achieve whatever it is bush was after.
>>>
>>>Preempting Sadam before he aquired WMDs? Yeah, we did that. And rather
>>>spectacularly I might add.
>>>
>>>Am I the only one who remembers the preemptive war debate?
>>>
>>
>>
>> which proved to be based on false{made up} intelligence.
>>
>>
>>
>
> Faulty intel. Also it takes two to dance. Saddam had a chance to give up.
> He bluffed and lost.
>

and we might lose too.

[Raymond O'Hara]

"Andrew Swallow" > wrote in message
...
> Raymond O'Hara wrote:
>> "Andrew Swallow" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Raymond O'Hara wrote:
>>>> "Andrew Swallow" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> Raymond O'Hara wrote:
>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>
>>>>>> or maybe a new barbarian invasion or the south will try to secede
>>>>>> again.
>>>>>> OH NO! the sky might fall.
>>>>> French speaking Quebec may decide to leave.
>>>>>
>>>>>> wars are won by spare parts and what you can replace.
>>>>> That is long wars.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> what other kind are there?
>>>>
>>>> "home before the leaves fall"
>>>> popular saying in august 1914
>>> 6 Day ones.
>>>
>>> Hitler thought he had found a short war strategy.
>>> Churchill had other plans.
>>>
>>> Andrew Swallow
>>
>>
>> it was chamberlain who declared war on hitler.
>>
>>
> Chamberlain then appointed Churchill head of the Royal Navy.
>
> Andrew Swallow

and churchill later replaced chamberlain. but it was chamberlain who
declared against hitler.
after hitler reneged on munich it was easy to not make any more deals, it
was obvious they were a waste.
any british leader would have refused to deal with hitler, they act like
everything was all churchill.

the alliwes won WWII despite winnie not because of him.

[Raymond O'Hara]

"Dan" > wrote in message ...
> Raymond O'Hara wrote:
>> "Dan" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Actually O'Hara is demonstrating his lack of strategic planning and
>>> making a rather poor analogy. WW2 was an all out war for survival. There
>>> were a few people thinking about post war projects, but the priority was
>>> winning the war. Every part of the economy and infrastructure of the
>>> warring parties was dedicated to winning. Iraq and Afghanistan pale in
>>> comparison.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> i'm not arguing for the F-22.
>
> You misunderstand, I never said you were.
>
>> and there is a lot at stake in tis war. bush has us on the verge of
>> becoming the UK in the post war period, a former superpower
>> broken by the enourmous cost of a war.
>
> You underestimate the U.S. economy that is not now on a war footing. The
> U.K. was bankrupted by fighting for her life with every penny she had.
> There's a huge difference.
>
>>
>> nobody is a credible threat.
>
> Maybe not now, but what about 10 years from now?


are they just going to magically appear in 10 years, full blown, armed to
the teeth with ultra-fighters?
if we, the worlds most powerful economy need 10 years to get ready so won't
they{whomever thy might be}.
so who is it? the F-22 has only 2 enemies in sight, china and russia.
during the cold war we never found a reason to fight the ruskis. now that
its over and all russia's allies are nw on our side i see the chance as even
less.


>
> you guys want to build "maginot"fighters. to
>> fight a war long envisioned in europe but whose conditions have changed.
>> there is no more warsaw pact. russia has no aircraft carriers nor does
>> china. the idealogical divide of commie/capitalism is gone.
>> even china has gone capitalist.
>
> Again you misunderstand. I never said anything about a Cold War
> scenario nor did I imply such a case. I never specified an enemy.
>

right. because there is no credible enemy.
it's russia ,china or nobody. hugo chavez can not make venezuela into any
kind of threat.





> any war for resources will involve our european allies as they need thm
> too.
>> so a russian attempt to take over the middle east would be looked askance
>> at by them too.
>
> Again you misunderstand what is going on. Have you noticed the Europeans
> aren't agreeing on much as it is? Suppose Iran makes good her threat to
> take out Israel and gets a few other local countries to join in? Are you
> SURE Europe will unite to ensure a flow of oil? If they sides against Iran
> it's a sure thing their supply of oil will be shut off. The U.S. has to
> consider going it alone.
>
>>
>>
>> its you who are barking up the wrong strategic tree. you keep looking at
>> it with cold war eyes.
>
>
> Actually you misunderstand me again. For example Red China is developing
> advanced fighters. The Russians are exporting fighters. What happens if
> they both supply and train a third party like Iran?
>
> There's no immediate Cold War type threat, but will this still be true
> 10 years from now? Are you prepared to bet your nation's security on that?
> The Russians have been flying Bear missions similar to those they flew
> during the Cold War. They may have ideas of becoming a world power again.
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> No one can make any better than an educated guess as to what conflicts
>>> may occur 10 years or more into the future. The suggestion that
>>> development and procurement must cease to focus on brush wars is
>>> ludicrous. Recently the U.S. F-15 fleet was grounded due to structural
>>> failures attributable to age. What does O'Hara suggest a war of any kind
>>> be fought with 10 years from now even if the opposition doesn't have
>>> anything more advanced that what is now available? Through normal
>>> attrition how being will the U.S. F-15 and F-16 fleets be? What happens
>>> if the opposition has managed to produce a new fighter type in the few
>>> years prior to that war and the U.S. had stopped procuring and
>>> developing in 2008 because O'Hara says we need to design and procure
>>> only for the present wars?
>>>
>>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>>>
>>
>>
>> we need what we need now.
>
> That's true, tell Congress to foot the bill.
>
> you want to blow off the war we are in for a
>> really cool imaginary war with imaginary opponents.
>
> On the other hand, you want to be unprepared for a war of a different
> kind than the U.S. is currently fighting. It's nice to hope there will
> never be another major war, but if you plan on never having another one
> you will always be wrong.
>
> Look what happened 5 years after the end of WW2 when the U.S. had to
> fight in Korea. The MiG-15 was a bit of a surprise.
>
>> 100 mil for planes we don't need and can't afford is a waste of
>> resources.
>> we already know how to make f-22s,
>
> OK, let's do as O'Hara says and cease production of F-22 immediately.
> Now you have to come up with the money to disassemble the production
> lines, store the equipment for future use and have a year's advance notice
> before some bad guy decides to take you on. You will need the time to get
> the lines going again and get new aircraft coming off the end.
>


what bad guy?


.."i don't know" doesn't justify spending a billion dollars on spec.

it won't cast much to mothball the production line, certaily less than
buying and maintaining a slew of planes that will be old by the time
any threat "might"appear

when national survival is at stake and we get serious the F-22 will be
fine. but to just break the bank at the expence of today on a longshot
"might" makes no sense.

anybody we need the F-22 to counter we'll just hit with an ICBMs anyway.


maginot fighters.

[Raymond O'Hara]

"Tiger" > wrote in message
...
> Raymond O'Hara wrote:
>> "Roger Conroy" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>>we don't have an unlimited budget.
>>>>inWWII we concentrated on WWII not WWIII.
>>>>
>>>
>>>By the end of WW2 development of practically all the major weapons
>>>systems of the cold war had at least been started:
>>>Nuclear bombs/warheads, ballistic missiles, intercontinental range
>>>bombers, tactical missiles (ground and air), jet aircraft, "true"
>>>submarines (rather than submersibles), cruise missiles...
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> all those weapons were for fighting WWII nobody gave a thought about any
>> cold wars.
>> we weren't making anything with a the idea of fighting an hypothetical
>> enemy 30 years in the future in mind.
>> we weren't building anything that took away from what we were doing.
>
> Your re-writing history. Both sides were looking post war well before
> Yalta. That's why everybody went hunting for Nazi tech & scienists even
> before VE day.
>

and they waited post war to build post war.

[Tiger]

Raymond O'Hara wrote:
> "Tiger" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Raymond O'Hara wrote:
>>
>>>"Yeff" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 00:20:43 -0400, Raymond O'Hara wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>we are not going to achieve whatever it is bush was after.
>>>>
>>>>Preempting Sadam before he aquired WMDs? Yeah, we did that. And rather
>>>>spectacularly I might add.
>>>>
>>>>Am I the only one who remembers the preemptive war debate?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>which proved to be based on false{made up} intelligence.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Faulty intel. Also it takes two to dance. Saddam had a chance to give up.
>>He bluffed and lost.
>>
>
>
> and we might lose too.
>
>
>
>

The enemy lacks popular support. The Government is taking military ops
independent of the US. Enemy command & control is being eliminated &
rated out. Al Sadir's ceasefire is still holding. Infastructure
improvements continues to improve way of life. US losses are at record
low levels. Oil revenue is helping to stabilise the Government. US
planning to drop combat brigades to back to 15 and reduce tours.

We are not losing......

[Tiger]

Mike Williamson wrote:
> Tiger wrote:
>
>>
>> Hell Right now the Pakistaini's & our Nato allies wish we learn to
>> shoot only the enemy. The Guys in the clouds are ****ing off the
>> friendlies Again based on yesterdays news.
>>
> According to the news reports I saw on the incident, the Pakistani
> military was informed before the strikes took place and informed the
> US that there were no Pakistani forces in the area. It seems from the
> news stories that there may have been some confusion on the part of
> the Pakistani military, due to lack of cooperation between the
> regular army and the Frontier Corps.
>
> An investigation has been started, with Afghan and Pakistani
> participation in order to find out exactly what happened and how
> it can be prevented in the future
>
> Mike

Still the PR is bad. Rule #1, don't **** off the locals. There are too
many knuckleheads who don't seem to be on the same page. See the story
yesterday about the Marines kicking you two dumbasses for throwing
puppies of a cliff on YOU TUBE. Or the guy a few weeks back using the
koran for target practice? The problem in this case is that we have had
one too many airstrikes gone bad. Either hitting civies or other Nato
troops.

[Tiger]

Raymond O'Hara wrote:
> "Tiger" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Raymond O'Hara wrote:
>>
>>>"Roger Conroy" > wrote in message
...
>>
> and they waited post war to build post war.
>
>


Why do I get the feeling When ever folk say the earth is round, you will
post it's flat???? What waiting? Dick Bong was killed testing P-80's in
Aug of 1945. Work on the A bomb never stopped. The race for the Ebe
river was a race gain zones of control postwar. Nobody was waiting.....

[Dan[_12_]]

Raymond O'Hara wrote:
> "Dan" > wrote in message ...
>> Raymond O'Hara wrote:
>>> "Dan" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Actually O'Hara is demonstrating his lack of strategic planning and
>>>> making a rather poor analogy. WW2 was an all out war for survival. There
>>>> were a few people thinking about post war projects, but the priority was
>>>> winning the war. Every part of the economy and infrastructure of the
>>>> warring parties was dedicated to winning. Iraq and Afghanistan pale in
>>>> comparison.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> i'm not arguing for the F-22.
>> You misunderstand, I never said you were.
>>
>>> and there is a lot at stake in tis war. bush has us on the verge of
>>> becoming the UK in the post war period, a former superpower
>>> broken by the enourmous cost of a war.
>> You underestimate the U.S. economy that is not now on a war footing. The
>> U.K. was bankrupted by fighting for her life with every penny she had.
>> There's a huge difference.
>>
>>> nobody is a credible threat.
>> Maybe not now, but what about 10 years from now?
>
>
> are they just going to magically appear in 10 years, full blown, armed to
> the teeth with ultra-fighters?

In case you haven't noticed several countries are working on advanced
fighters. Some of those countries will export and train. In 10 years a
country with high school and college educated manpower could produce a
viable air force from an existing military.

> if we, the worlds most powerful economy need 10 years to get ready so won't
> they{whomever thy might be}.

Who said anything about taking 10 years to get ready? I chose the 10
years as a hypothetical since you insist Iraq and Afghanistan are a
template for future wars the U.S. will be involved with.

> so who is it? the F-22 has only 2 enemies in sight, china and russia.
> during the cold war we never found a reason to fight the ruskis. now that
> its over and all russia's allies are nw on our side i see the chance as even
> less.

China and Russia may be the only potential enemies YOU see, but you
are thinking of today and Cold War. I don't think that way. For example,
sooner or later petroleum will become rather scarce. The U.S. may need
to either seize or defend petroleum production.
>
>
>> you guys want to build "maginot"fighters. to
>>> fight a war long envisioned in europe but whose conditions have changed.
>>> there is no more warsaw pact. russia has no aircraft carriers nor does
>>> china. the idealogical divide of commie/capitalism is gone.
>>> even china has gone capitalist.
>> Again you misunderstand. I never said anything about a Cold War
>> scenario nor did I imply such a case. I never specified an enemy.
>>
>
> right. because there is no credible enemy.
> it's russia ,china or nobody.

Are you positive about that?

hugo chavez can not make venezuela into any
> kind of threat.

Are you sure about that?
>
>
>> any war for resources will involve our european allies as they need thm
>> too.
>>> so a russian attempt to take over the middle east would be looked askance
>>> at by them too.
>> Again you misunderstand what is going on. Have you noticed the Europeans
>> aren't agreeing on much as it is? Suppose Iran makes good her threat to
>> take out Israel and gets a few other local countries to join in? Are you
>> SURE Europe will unite to ensure a flow of oil? If they sides against Iran
>> it's a sure thing their supply of oil will be shut off. The U.S. has to
>> consider going it alone.
>>
>>>
>>> its you who are barking up the wrong strategic tree. you keep looking at
>>> it with cold war eyes.
>>
>> Actually you misunderstand me again. For example Red China is developing
>> advanced fighters. The Russians are exporting fighters. What happens if
>> they both supply and train a third party like Iran?
>>
>> There's no immediate Cold War type threat, but will this still be true
>> 10 years from now? Are you prepared to bet your nation's security on that?
>> The Russians have been flying Bear missions similar to those they flew
>> during the Cold War. They may have ideas of becoming a world power again.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> No one can make any better than an educated guess as to what conflicts
>>>> may occur 10 years or more into the future. The suggestion that
>>>> development and procurement must cease to focus on brush wars is
>>>> ludicrous. Recently the U.S. F-15 fleet was grounded due to structural
>>>> failures attributable to age. What does O'Hara suggest a war of any kind
>>>> be fought with 10 years from now even if the opposition doesn't have
>>>> anything more advanced that what is now available? Through normal
>>>> attrition how being will the U.S. F-15 and F-16 fleets be? What happens
>>>> if the opposition has managed to produce a new fighter type in the few
>>>> years prior to that war and the U.S. had stopped procuring and
>>>> developing in 2008 because O'Hara says we need to design and procure
>>>> only for the present wars?
>>>>
>>>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>>>>
>>>
>>> we need what we need now.
>> That's true, tell Congress to foot the bill.
>>
>> you want to blow off the war we are in for a
>>> really cool imaginary war with imaginary opponents.
>> On the other hand, you want to be unprepared for a war of a different
>> kind than the U.S. is currently fighting. It's nice to hope there will
>> never be another major war, but if you plan on never having another one
>> you will always be wrong.
>>
>> Look what happened 5 years after the end of WW2 when the U.S. had to
>> fight in Korea. The MiG-15 was a bit of a surprise.
>>
>>> 100 mil for planes we don't need and can't afford is a waste of
>>> resources.
>>> we already know how to make f-22s,
>> OK, let's do as O'Hara says and cease production of F-22 immediately.
>> Now you have to come up with the money to disassemble the production
>> lines, store the equipment for future use and have a year's advance notice
>> before some bad guy decides to take you on. You will need the time to get
>> the lines going again and get new aircraft coming off the end.
>>
>
>
> what bad guy?

Does it matter? Read what I wrote for what I meant. Regardless of
whom the bad guy is restarting production from a dead stop isn't an
instant event.
>
>
> ."i don't know" doesn't justify spending a billion dollars on spec.
>
> it won't cast much to mothball the production line, certaily less than
> buying and maintaining a slew of planes that will be old by the time
> any threat "might"appear

You are thinking small again. The aircraft assembly lines are only
final assembly points. What about all the suppliers of sub-assemblies
and parts? The avionics and engine manufacturers would have to be
convinced to start production again, contracts would have to be let and
so on. It isn't like they assemble Monogram model F-22 kits.

>
> when national survival is at stake and we get serious the F-22 will be
> fine. but to just break the bank at the expence of today on a longshot
> "might" makes no sense.

As I said before, other nations are developing advanced fighters. The
U.S. may have to face them someday.
>
> anybody we need the F-22 to counter we'll just hit with an ICBMs anyway.

Now who is Cold War thinking? After WW2 "conventional" thinking was
that nuclear weapons made all others obsolete. Korea changed all that.
The U.S. used your theory of "why prepare for the type of war we will
never fight again?" MiG-15 was a big surprise to people who thought the
North Koreans, just as you now think other countries, wouldn't fly front
line aircraft. Granted some MiGs were flown by Soviet pilots, but they
trained and supported North Koreans who weren't all that shabby as
combat pilots.
>
>
> maginot fighters.

Maginot ICBMs? If you are going to use historical comparisons try
using a more appropriate one.
>
>

For the sweet love of humanity try a spell checker.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Raymond O'Hara]

"Dan" > wrote in message
...
> Raymond O'Hara wrote:
>> "Dan" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Raymond O'Hara wrote:
>>>> "Dan" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> Actually O'Hara is demonstrating his lack of strategic planning and
>>>>> making a rather poor analogy. WW2 was an all out war for survival.
>>>>> There were a few people thinking about post war projects, but the
>>>>> priority was winning the war. Every part of the economy and
>>>>> infrastructure of the warring parties was dedicated to winning. Iraq
>>>>> and Afghanistan pale in comparison.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> i'm not arguing for the F-22.
>>> You misunderstand, I never said you were.
>>>
>>>> and there is a lot at stake in tis war. bush has us on the verge of
>>>> becoming the UK in the post war period, a former superpower
>>>> broken by the enourmous cost of a war.
>>> You underestimate the U.S. economy that is not now on a war footing.
>>> The U.K. was bankrupted by fighting for her life with every penny she
>>> had. There's a huge difference.
>>>
>>>> nobody is a credible threat.
>>> Maybe not now, but what about 10 years from now?
>>
>>
>> are they just going to magically appear in 10 years, full blown, armed to
>> the teeth with ultra-fighters?
>
> In case you haven't noticed several countries are working on advanced
> fighters. Some of those countries will export and train. In 10 years a
> country with high school and college educated manpower could produce a
> viable air force from an existing military.
>
>> if we, the worlds most powerful economy need 10 years to get ready so
>> won't they{whomever thy might be}.
>
> Who said anything about taking 10 years to get ready? I chose the 10
> years as a hypothetical since you insist Iraq and Afghanistan are a
> template for future wars the U.S. will be involved with.
>
>> so who is it? the F-22 has only 2 enemies in sight, china and russia.
>> during the cold war we never found a reason to fight the ruskis. now that
>> its over and all russia's allies are nw on our side i see the chance as
>> even less.
>
> China and Russia may be the only potential enemies YOU see, but you are
> thinking of today and Cold War. I don't think that way. For example,
> sooner or later petroleum will become rather scarce. The U.S. may need to
> either seize or defend petroleum production.
>>
>>
>>> you guys want to build "maginot"fighters. to
>>>> fight a war long envisioned in europe but whose conditions have
>>>> changed.
>>>> there is no more warsaw pact. russia has no aircraft carriers nor does
>>>> china. the idealogical divide of commie/capitalism is gone.
>>>> even china has gone capitalist.
>>> Again you misunderstand. I never said anything about a Cold War
>>> scenario nor did I imply such a case. I never specified an enemy.
>>>
>>
>> right. because there is no credible enemy.
>> it's russia ,china or nobody.
>
> Are you positive about that?
>
> hugo chavez can not make venezuela into any
>> kind of threat.
>
> Are you sure about that?
>>
>>
>>> any war for resources will involve our european allies as they need
>>> thm too.
>>>> so a russian attempt to take over the middle east would be looked
>>>> askance at by them too.
>>> Again you misunderstand what is going on. Have you noticed the
>>> Europeans aren't agreeing on much as it is? Suppose Iran makes good her
>>> threat to take out Israel and gets a few other local countries to join
>>> in? Are you SURE Europe will unite to ensure a flow of oil? If they
>>> sides against Iran it's a sure thing their supply of oil will be shut
>>> off. The U.S. has to consider going it alone.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> its you who are barking up the wrong strategic tree. you keep looking
>>>> at it with cold war eyes.
>>>
>>> Actually you misunderstand me again. For example Red China is
>>> developing advanced fighters. The Russians are exporting fighters. What
>>> happens if they both supply and train a third party like Iran?
>>>
>>> There's no immediate Cold War type threat, but will this still be true
>>> 10 years from now? Are you prepared to bet your nation's security on
>>> that? The Russians have been flying Bear missions similar to those they
>>> flew during the Cold War. They may have ideas of becoming a world power
>>> again.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> No one can make any better than an educated guess as to what
>>>>> conflicts may occur 10 years or more into the future. The suggestion
>>>>> that development and procurement must cease to focus on brush wars is
>>>>> ludicrous. Recently the U.S. F-15 fleet was grounded due to structural
>>>>> failures attributable to age. What does O'Hara suggest a war of any
>>>>> kind be fought with 10 years from now even if the opposition doesn't
>>>>> have anything more advanced that what is now available? Through normal
>>>>> attrition how being will the U.S. F-15 and F-16 fleets be? What
>>>>> happens if the opposition has managed to produce a new fighter type in
>>>>> the few years prior to that war and the U.S. had stopped procuring and
>>>>> developing in 2008 because O'Hara says we need to design and procure
>>>>> only for the present wars?
>>>>>
>>>>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> we need what we need now.
>>> That's true, tell Congress to foot the bill.
>>>
>>> you want to blow off the war we are in for a
>>>> really cool imaginary war with imaginary opponents.
>>> On the other hand, you want to be unprepared for a war of a different
>>> kind than the U.S. is currently fighting. It's nice to hope there will
>>> never be another major war, but if you plan on never having another one
>>> you will always be wrong.
>>>
>>> Look what happened 5 years after the end of WW2 when the U.S. had to
>>> fight in Korea. The MiG-15 was a bit of a surprise.
>>>
>>>> 100 mil for planes we don't need and can't afford is a waste of
>>>> resources.
>>>> we already know how to make f-22s,
>>> OK, let's do as O'Hara says and cease production of F-22 immediately.
>>> Now you have to come up with the money to disassemble the production
>>> lines, store the equipment for future use and have a year's advance
>>> notice before some bad guy decides to take you on. You will need the
>>> time to get the lines going again and get new aircraft coming off the
>>> end.
>>>
>>
>>
>> what bad guy?
>
> Does it matter? Read what I wrote for what I meant. Regardless of whom
> the bad guy is restarting production from a dead stop isn't an instant
> event.
>>
>>
>> ."i don't know" doesn't justify spending a billion dollars on spec.
>>
>> it won't cast much to mothball the production line, certaily less than
>> buying and maintaining a slew of planes that will be old by the time
>> any threat "might"appear
>
> You are thinking small again. The aircraft assembly lines are only final
> assembly points. What about all the suppliers of sub-assemblies and parts?
> The avionics and engine manufacturers would have to be convinced to start
> production again, contracts would have to be let and so on. It isn't like
> they assemble Monogram model F-22 kits.
>
>>
>> when national survival is at stake and we get serious the F-22 will be
>> fine. but to just break the bank at the expence of today on a longshot
>> "might" makes no sense.
>
> As I said before, other nations are developing advanced fighters. The
> U.S. may have to face them someday.
>>
>> anybody we need the F-22 to counter we'll just hit with an ICBMs anyway.
>
> Now who is Cold War thinking? After WW2 "conventional" thinking was that
> nuclear weapons made all others obsolete. Korea changed all that. The U.S.
> used your theory of "why prepare for the type of war we will never fight
> again?" MiG-15 was a big surprise to people who thought the North Koreans,
> just as you now think other countries, wouldn't fly front line aircraft.
> Granted some MiGs were flown by Soviet pilots, but they trained and
> supported North Koreans who weren't all that shabby as combat pilots.
>>
>>
>> maginot fighters.
>
> Maginot ICBMs? If you are going to use historical comparisons try using
> a more appropriate one.
>>
>>



you want to spend for a weapon that will never be used or be obsolete when
the time comes.

the maginot reference is to the fact the F-22 will be as big a waste.
ICBMs are quite viable weapons.

[Raymond O'Hara]

"Tiger" > wrote in message
...
> Raymond O'Hara wrote:
>> "Tiger" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>Raymond O'Hara wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Roger Conroy" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>> and they waited post war to build post war.
>>
>>
>
>
> Why do I get the feeling When ever folk say the earth is round, you will
> post it's flat???? What waiting? Dick Bong was killed testing P-80's in
> Aug of 1945. Work on the A bomb never stopped. The race for the Ebe river
> was a race gain zones of control postwar. Nobody was waiting.....
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

we are currently engaged in two wars. we have a runaway deficit.
and you're advocating spending billions on a weapons system that will not do
anything for us.
it is a great plane and if it was the cold war sure. but times have changed
and we must too.
a big main force war isn't going to happen anytime in the next 50 years.
we need to settle what we are involved in and get the budget under control.
then you can think about new toys for use against an imaginary enemy.

[Dan[_12_]]

Raymond O'Hara wrote:
> "Dan" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Raymond O'Hara wrote:
>>> "Dan" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Raymond O'Hara wrote:
>>>>> "Dan" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> Actually O'Hara is demonstrating his lack of strategic planning and
>>>>>> making a rather poor analogy. WW2 was an all out war for survival.
>>>>>> There were a few people thinking about post war projects, but the
>>>>>> priority was winning the war. Every part of the economy and
>>>>>> infrastructure of the warring parties was dedicated to winning. Iraq
>>>>>> and Afghanistan pale in comparison.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> i'm not arguing for the F-22.
>>>> You misunderstand, I never said you were.
>>>>
>>>>> and there is a lot at stake in tis war. bush has us on the verge of
>>>>> becoming the UK in the post war period, a former superpower
>>>>> broken by the enourmous cost of a war.
>>>> You underestimate the U.S. economy that is not now on a war footing.
>>>> The U.K. was bankrupted by fighting for her life with every penny she
>>>> had. There's a huge difference.
>>>>
>>>>> nobody is a credible threat.
>>>> Maybe not now, but what about 10 years from now?
>>>
>>> are they just going to magically appear in 10 years, full blown, armed to
>>> the teeth with ultra-fighters?
>> In case you haven't noticed several countries are working on advanced
>> fighters. Some of those countries will export and train. In 10 years a
>> country with high school and college educated manpower could produce a
>> viable air force from an existing military.
>>
>>> if we, the worlds most powerful economy need 10 years to get ready so
>>> won't they{whomever thy might be}.
>> Who said anything about taking 10 years to get ready? I chose the 10
>> years as a hypothetical since you insist Iraq and Afghanistan are a
>> template for future wars the U.S. will be involved with.
>>
>>> so who is it? the F-22 has only 2 enemies in sight, china and russia.
>>> during the cold war we never found a reason to fight the ruskis. now that
>>> its over and all russia's allies are nw on our side i see the chance as
>>> even less.
>> China and Russia may be the only potential enemies YOU see, but you are
>> thinking of today and Cold War. I don't think that way. For example,
>> sooner or later petroleum will become rather scarce. The U.S. may need to
>> either seize or defend petroleum production.
>>>
>>>> you guys want to build "maginot"fighters. to
>>>>> fight a war long envisioned in europe but whose conditions have
>>>>> changed.
>>>>> there is no more warsaw pact. russia has no aircraft carriers nor does
>>>>> china. the idealogical divide of commie/capitalism is gone.
>>>>> even china has gone capitalist.
>>>> Again you misunderstand. I never said anything about a Cold War
>>>> scenario nor did I imply such a case. I never specified an enemy.
>>>>
>>> right. because there is no credible enemy.
>>> it's russia ,china or nobody.
>> Are you positive about that?
>>
>> hugo chavez can not make venezuela into any
>>> kind of threat.
>> Are you sure about that?
>>>
>>>> any war for resources will involve our european allies as they need
>>>> thm too.
>>>>> so a russian attempt to take over the middle east would be looked
>>>>> askance at by them too.
>>>> Again you misunderstand what is going on. Have you noticed the
>>>> Europeans aren't agreeing on much as it is? Suppose Iran makes good her
>>>> threat to take out Israel and gets a few other local countries to join
>>>> in? Are you SURE Europe will unite to ensure a flow of oil? If they
>>>> sides against Iran it's a sure thing their supply of oil will be shut
>>>> off. The U.S. has to consider going it alone.
>>>>
>>>>> its you who are barking up the wrong strategic tree. you keep looking
>>>>> at it with cold war eyes.
>>>> Actually you misunderstand me again. For example Red China is
>>>> developing advanced fighters. The Russians are exporting fighters. What
>>>> happens if they both supply and train a third party like Iran?
>>>>
>>>> There's no immediate Cold War type threat, but will this still be true
>>>> 10 years from now? Are you prepared to bet your nation's security on
>>>> that? The Russians have been flying Bear missions similar to those they
>>>> flew during the Cold War. They may have ideas of becoming a world power
>>>> again.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> No one can make any better than an educated guess as to what
>>>>>> conflicts may occur 10 years or more into the future. The suggestion
>>>>>> that development and procurement must cease to focus on brush wars is
>>>>>> ludicrous. Recently the U.S. F-15 fleet was grounded due to structural
>>>>>> failures attributable to age. What does O'Hara suggest a war of any
>>>>>> kind be fought with 10 years from now even if the opposition doesn't
>>>>>> have anything more advanced that what is now available? Through normal
>>>>>> attrition how being will the U.S. F-15 and F-16 fleets be? What
>>>>>> happens if the opposition has managed to produce a new fighter type in
>>>>>> the few years prior to that war and the U.S. had stopped procuring and
>>>>>> developing in 2008 because O'Hara says we need to design and procure
>>>>>> only for the present wars?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>>>>>>
>>>>> we need what we need now.
>>>> That's true, tell Congress to foot the bill.
>>>>
>>>> you want to blow off the war we are in for a
>>>>> really cool imaginary war with imaginary opponents.
>>>> On the other hand, you want to be unprepared for a war of a different
>>>> kind than the U.S. is currently fighting. It's nice to hope there will
>>>> never be another major war, but if you plan on never having another one
>>>> you will always be wrong.
>>>>
>>>> Look what happened 5 years after the end of WW2 when the U.S. had to
>>>> fight in Korea. The MiG-15 was a bit of a surprise.
>>>>
>>>>> 100 mil for planes we don't need and can't afford is a waste of
>>>>> resources.
>>>>> we already know how to make f-22s,
>>>> OK, let's do as O'Hara says and cease production of F-22 immediately.
>>>> Now you have to come up with the money to disassemble the production
>>>> lines, store the equipment for future use and have a year's advance
>>>> notice before some bad guy decides to take you on. You will need the
>>>> time to get the lines going again and get new aircraft coming off the
>>>> end.
>>>>
>>>
>>> what bad guy?
>> Does it matter? Read what I wrote for what I meant. Regardless of whom
>> the bad guy is restarting production from a dead stop isn't an instant
>> event.
>>>
>>> ."i don't know" doesn't justify spending a billion dollars on spec.
>>>
>>> it won't cast much to mothball the production line, certaily less than
>>> buying and maintaining a slew of planes that will be old by the time
>>> any threat "might"appear
>> You are thinking small again. The aircraft assembly lines are only final
>> assembly points. What about all the suppliers of sub-assemblies and parts?
>> The avionics and engine manufacturers would have to be convinced to start
>> production again, contracts would have to be let and so on. It isn't like
>> they assemble Monogram model F-22 kits.
>>
>>> when national survival is at stake and we get serious the F-22 will be
>>> fine. but to just break the bank at the expence of today on a longshot
>>> "might" makes no sense.
>> As I said before, other nations are developing advanced fighters. The
>> U.S. may have to face them someday.
>>> anybody we need the F-22 to counter we'll just hit with an ICBMs anyway.
>> Now who is Cold War thinking? After WW2 "conventional" thinking was that
>> nuclear weapons made all others obsolete. Korea changed all that. The U.S.
>> used your theory of "why prepare for the type of war we will never fight
>> again?" MiG-15 was a big surprise to people who thought the North Koreans,
>> just as you now think other countries, wouldn't fly front line aircraft.
>> Granted some MiGs were flown by Soviet pilots, but they trained and
>> supported North Koreans who weren't all that shabby as combat pilots.
>>>
>>> maginot fighters.
>> Maginot ICBMs? If you are going to use historical comparisons try using
>> a more appropriate one.
>>>
>
>
>
> you want to spend for a weapon that will never be used or be obsolete when
> the time comes.
>
> the maginot reference is to the fact the F-22 will be as big a waste.
> ICBMs are quite viable weapons.
>
>

Guess what, ICBM has never been used in combat. It is not a deterrent
to some fool with a martyr complex. It is a weapon of last resort, the
very last. More money has been expended on ICBM, IRBM and SLBM than will
ever be expended on F-22. No ICBM, IRBM or SLBM has ever been used for
its intended purpose. They are weapons of mass destruction. No sane
person wants to be the first to use them. They are strategic weapons,
F-22 is tactical.

Remember Peacekeeper ICBM? It was never used. How many are still on
duty? Remember Titan ICBM? It was never used. How many are still on
duty? You want to spend money on a system that will never be used.

Back to your Maginot reference. Maginot designed a series of forts to
keep the Germans from invading. The French assumed the only country they
would have to fight would be the Germans. They also felt they didn't
have to keep up with the Germans militarily. They had a bigger army and
the faith the U.K. would be there to save them. History proved the Nazis
needn't have worried. The French also had an ongoing ruckus in Indochina.

ICBM is just like the Maginot line in that it will only deter those
who wish to be deterred by it. 9-11 ring a bell?

F-22 can be used offensively without obliterating entire cities. F-22
can carry a variety of weapons that have different effects. ICBM is
limited to thermonuclear weapons. Your suggestion ICBM is more "viable"
is thus disproved.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Dan[_12_]]

Raymond O'Hara wrote:
<snip>
> a big main force war isn't going to happen anytime in the next 50 years.

You may be willing to stake your life on that, I'm not. I have
history on my side. Since WW2 there were Korea, Viet Nam and Gulf War
where an air superiority fighter was a requirement. Iraq may not have
had the greatest air force, but they didn't exactly roll over either.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Roger Conroy[_2_]]

"Raymond O'Hara" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Roger Conroy" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Raymond O'Hara" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "Roger Conroy" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>> we don't have an unlimited budget.
>>>>> inWWII we concentrated on WWII not WWIII.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> By the end of WW2 development of practically all the major weapons
>>>> systems of the cold war had at least been started:
>>>> Nuclear bombs/warheads, ballistic missiles, intercontinental range
>>>> bombers, tactical missiles (ground and air), jet aircraft, "true"
>>>> submarines (rather than submersibles), cruise missiles...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> all those weapons were for fighting WWII nobody gave a thought about any
>>> cold wars.
>>> we weren't making anything with a the idea of fighting an hypothetical
>>> enemy 30 years in the future in mind.
>>> we weren't building anything that took away from what we were doing.
>>>
>>
>> It looks like you are implying that killing Arab peasants was a major
>> design criterion for F22 & F35
>>
>
> no. o'm saying it isn't . and therefor wait on them and but what we
> actually need and will use
>
Is that a sentence?

> as it is, in 30 year manned planes will probably be obsolete.
>
> we are already at the edge of human abilities.

Why would they be obsolete? Because somebody, somewhere is currently
developing their replacements.
But you reckon it is quite uneccessary to develop new concepts until the
other side actually starts using them against your country.

I have news for you - it easily takes up to to 20 years to move a new
generation of weapon system from "napkin doodle" to front line service.
A young engineer can enter the industry at the start of concept development
and reach retirement before the production line is running smoothly.
I cite the example of the V22. The Ryan company was one of the first to work
on the concept way back in the early 1960s. So it sometimes stretches to 40+
years!

The Canadian Arrow fighter first embodied concepts that only became
"standard features" in the US Teens series.

> i like F-22s too, they are very cool. but they aren't what we need now.

I absolutely agree - but how do you know they won't be needed in 10, 20, 30
years time? Its too late to start doodling on napkins when the enemy opens
fire.

With that thinking, the US will still have B17s and P51s as front line
equipment. Somebody still has the blueprints stored away, lets restart the
production line tomorrow! After all they are perfectly adequate for wiping
out Arab peasants and as you has so clearly demonstrated there is absolutely
no possibility of your country having to face any other type of enemy
anytime within the next generation at least.

[Roger Conroy[_2_]]

"Raymond O'Hara" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tiger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Raymond O'Hara wrote:
>>> "Tiger" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>
>>>>Raymond O'Hara wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"Roger Conroy" > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>> and they waited post war to build post war.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Why do I get the feeling When ever folk say the earth is round, you will
>> post it's flat???? What waiting? Dick Bong was killed testing P-80's in
>> Aug of 1945. Work on the A bomb never stopped. The race for the Ebe river
>> was a race gain zones of control postwar. Nobody was waiting.....
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> we are currently engaged in two wars. we have a runaway deficit.
> and you're advocating spending billions on a weapons system that will not
> do anything for us.
> it is a great plane and if it was the cold war sure. but times have
> changed and we must too.
> a big main force war isn't going to happen anytime in the next 50 years.

"Peace in our time" - the phrase seems vaguely familiar?

Well we can all go back to bed now, Mr. O'Hara has personally guaranteed
"World Peace".

> we need to settle what we are involved in and get the budget under
> control. then you can think about new toys for use against an imaginary
> enemy.
>

If you ever stop thinking up "new toys for use against an imaginary enemy"
that is exactly the momemt the enemy ceaces to be imaginary. Cite the
Maginot Line as a prime example of such complacency.

[Jeff Crowell[_1_]]

Ed Rasimus wrote:
> No more
> "gomers in the wire" "danger close" "whites of their eyes" stuff. JDAM
> from the menopause
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


ROTFL!

What is it they say about old fighter pilots? ;-)


Jeff

[Typhoon502]

On Jun 13, 9:17*am, Zombywoof > wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 20:27:53 -0500, Dan > wrote:
> The F-15's are aging real badly, but the F-16's are fairing slightly
> better. *What came as a real surprise to me was the dumping of the
> F-117 (yes I know not a real fighter) so early in its operational
> life.

I don't think you can really say the F-117 was "early" in its
operational life. It was a small fleet of subsonic jets that started
life in what, the 1970s and got used hard from 1989 on.

> > * Do you really think status quo will stay in effect another 10 years?
> >To not plan for the future is a tad silly, wouldn't you say?
>
> Which status quo, us (the US) constantly in-fighting & bickering with
> ourselves over the Guns or Butter dilemma? *Yeah I certainly see that
> happening for at least the next 10 years, if not more!

True. Personally, I think that the F-22 buy is far too small,
considering all the capability (current and future) that the airframe
has. The F-35 is not going to come along soon enough to supplant the
F-22 and won't be as capable at air dominance and the tactical command-
and-control that the F-22 can do.

And if you think Russia and China are the only potential threats on
the horizon that the F-22 might be suitable against, you're naive and
blind.

[Airyx]

On Jun 12, 5:21*pm, "Raymond O'Hara" >
wrote:
> "Yeff" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 14:42:30 -0400, Raymond O'Hara wrote:
>
> >>> Am I the only one who remembers the preemptive war debate?
>
> >> which proved to be based on false{made up} intelligence.
>
> > Who "made up" the intelligence?
>
> the bu****es and their lakeys.

After a full, democrat-led investigation, it was found that there was
NO False Intelligence.

It was also found that there was no pressure from the Bush
administration to make the existing evidence appear more sinister then
it was, but their intrepentation was provided.

The Senate Armed Forces comittee had the intel presented to them by
unbaised Intel sources, and all of them, (Including Hillary), fully
agreed with its conclusions, and signed-off on the go-ahead for the
invasion.

[Airyx]

On Jun 10, 10:11*pm, "Raymond O'Hara" >
wrote:

> can you envision any scenario in which the U.S. and russia fight?
> are we going to invade them? i think we'd notice a huge naval build up for
> them to invade us?
> do you think they are going to overrun europe?- Hide quoted text -

Sure, Russia has already taken military action in Northern Asia, and
is attempting to re-annex one of their former Soviet states. It is
unlikely that the US would intervene there, but its possible.

A less likely scenario, but a more likely US intervention would around
Russia's on-going conflict with Japan over the Kurile islands.

Other potential adversaries with strong air capabilities are China
(conflicts with India, Vietnam, Phillipeans, Taiwan), and Venezuala
(conflicts will all of their neighbors).

France thought WWII would be fought in much the same way as WWI, slow
stagnated trench warfare. That's what they were prepared for, and
that's why they got their butts kicked.

[Dean]

On Jun 13, 10:59 am, Airyx > wrote:
> On Jun 10, 10:11 pm, "Raymond O'Hara" >
> wrote:
>
> > can you envision any scenario in which the U.S. and russia fight?
> > are we going to invade them? i think we'd notice a huge naval build up for
> > them to invade us?
> > do you think they are going to overrun europe?- Hide quoted text -
>
> Sure, Russia has already taken military action in Northern Asia, and
> is attempting to re-annex one of their former Soviet states. It is
> unlikely that the US would intervene there, but its possible.
>
> A less likely scenario, but a more likely US intervention would around
> Russia's on-going conflict with Japan over the Kurile islands.
>
> Other potential adversaries with strong air capabilities are China
> (conflicts with India, Vietnam, Phillipeans, Taiwan), and Venezuala
> (conflicts will all of their neighbors).
>
> France thought WWII would be fought in much the same way as WWI, slow
> stagnated trench warfare. That's what they were prepared for, and
> that's why they got their butts kicked.

I'm curious, where has Russia taken miltary action in Northern Asia?
Does Mongolia or China know?

And saying Russia has a conflict with japan over the Kurile Islands is
an exaggeration. That conflict was over 60 years ago.

[Ed Rasimus[_1_]]

On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 07:55:07 -0700 (PDT), Airyx >
wrote:

>On Jun 12, 5:21*pm, "Raymond O'Hara" >
>wrote:
>> "Yeff" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>> > On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 14:42:30 -0400, Raymond O'Hara wrote:
>>
>> >>> Am I the only one who remembers the preemptive war debate?
>>
>> >> which proved to be based on false{made up} intelligence.
>>
>> > Who "made up" the intelligence?
>>
>> the bu****es and their lakeys.
>
>After a full, democrat-led investigation, it was found that there was
>NO False Intelligence.
>
>It was also found that there was no pressure from the Bush
>administration to make the existing evidence appear more sinister then
>it was, but their intrepentation was provided.
>
>The Senate Armed Forces comittee had the intel presented to them by
>unbaised Intel sources, and all of them, (Including Hillary), fully
>agreed with its conclusions, and signed-off on the go-ahead for the
>invasion.

An even more authoritative review of the Senate Rockefeller committee
language:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/08/AR2008060801687.html

The repetitious phrase "supported by the intelligence" is
illustrative.

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
www.thundertales.blogspot.com
www.thunderchief.org

[Raymond O'Hara]

"Dean" > wrote in message news:15867593-e4e5-4269-a87d->
And saying Russia has a conflict with japan over the Kurile Islands is
> an exaggeration. That conflict was over 60 years ago.


japan would like sakhalin back but a wars worth of want.

[Raymond O'Hara]

"Airyx" > wrote in message
...
On Jun 10, 10:11 pm, "Raymond O'Hara" >
Other potential adversaries with strong air capabilities are China
(conflicts with India, Vietnam, Phillipeans, Taiwan), and Venezuala
(conflicts will all of their neighbors).


the only scenario we'd get involved in is china/taiwan. and increasingly we
look like we might sell taiwan out even more than we have.

nixon should have made taiwan and china renounce all claims each has on the
other. his great triumph was a sham


we won't intervene in any china/india or china/vietnam affairs. nither india
or VN are historic allies and india was closer to the soviets than us in
the cold war.


venezuela might have oil money but they are not a power. as to their
neighbors, why would they or anybody attac guyana
and the cali cartel is probably better armed and trained than chavez's army.


china is the only real possiblity and they are a long way from being able to
even dream about invading taiwan.


we are the only country with any ability to project power overseas for the
forseeable future.

[Raymond O'Hara]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 07:55:07 -0700 (PDT), Airyx >
> wrote:
>
>>On Jun 12, 5:21 pm, "Raymond O'Hara" >
>>wrote:
>>> "Yeff" > wrote in message
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>> > On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 14:42:30 -0400, Raymond O'Hara wrote:
>>>
>>> >>> Am I the only one who remembers the preemptive war debate?
>>>
>>> >> which proved to be based on false{made up} intelligence.
>>>
>>> > Who "made up" the intelligence?
>>>
>>> the bu****es and their lakeys.
>>
>>After a full, democrat-led investigation, it was found that there was
>>NO False Intelligence.
>>
>>It was also found that there was no pressure from the Bush
>>administration to make the existing evidence appear more sinister then
>>it was, but their intrepentation was provided.
>>
>>The Senate Armed Forces comittee had the intel presented to them by
>>unbaised Intel sources, and all of them, (Including Hillary), fully
>>agreed with its conclusions, and signed-off on the go-ahead for the
>>invasion.
>
> An even more authoritative review of the Senate Rockefeller committee
> language:
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/08/AR2008060801687.html
>
> The repetitious phrase "supported by the intelligence" is
> illustrative.
>
> Ed Rasimus
> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
> www.thundertales.blogspot.com
> www.thunderchief.org



watch this. this is the man you support
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ilCWJvRxVJ4

[Raymond O'Hara]

"Dan" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> the maginot reference is to the fact the F-22 will be as big a waste.
>> ICBMs are quite viable weapons.
>
> Guess what, ICBM has never been used in combat. It is not a deterrent to
> some fool with a martyr complex. It is a weapon of last resort, the very
> last. More money has been expended on ICBM, IRBM and SLBM than will ever
> be expended on F-22. No ICBM, IRBM or SLBM has ever been used for its
> intended purpose. They are weapons of mass destruction. No sane person
> wants to be the first to use them. They are strategic weapons, F-22 is
> tactical.
>







ICBMs worked perfectly. they were meant to deter an invasion and they did.
maybe you've heard of MAD, it kept the peace for 50 years
they were to counter a real existing threat.
the F-22 doesn't have an adversary and we cn't afford them.and like the
maginot line when he times comes for its use it might turn out
it isn't the right thing to have..

[Raymond O'Hara]

"Zombywoof" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 20:27:53 -0500, Dan > wrote:
>
>>Raymond O'Hara wrote:
>>> "Dan" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Actually O'Hara is demonstrating his lack of strategic planning and
>>>> making a rather poor analogy. WW2 was an all out war for survival.
>>>> There
>>>> were a few people thinking about post war projects, but the priority
>>>> was
>>>> winning the war. Every part of the economy and infrastructure of the
>>>> warring parties was dedicated to winning. Iraq and Afghanistan pale in
>>>> comparison.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> i'm not arguing for the F-22.
>>
>> You misunderstand, I never said you were.
>>
>>> and there is a lot at stake in tis war. bush has us on the verge of
>>> becoming
>>> the UK in the post war period, a former superpower
>>> broken by the enourmous cost of a war.
>>
>> You underestimate the U.S. economy that is not now on a war footing.
>>The U.K. was bankrupted by fighting for her life with every penny she
>>had. There's a huge difference.
>>
> And every penny she could beg, borrow or steal.
>>>
>>> nobody is a credible threat.
>>
>> Maybe not now, but what about 10 years from now?
>>
> I do believe that is the 10,000 dollar question.


and a new country is going to magically appear?
in 10 years things will be prettu nuch as they are now. russia and china
still won't have viable navies.
we are 50 years from any possible wars.





>>
>>you guys want to build "maginot"fighters. to
>>> fight a war long envisioned in europe but whose conditions have changed.
>>> there is no more warsaw pact. russia has no aircraft carriers nor does
>>> china. the idealogical divide of commie/capitalism is gone.
>>> even china has gone capitalist.
>>
>> Again you misunderstand. I never said anything about a Cold War
>>scenario nor did I imply such a case. I never specified an enemy.
>>
> Currently the "enemy" is an ideology, all the advanced aircraft in the
> world aren't going to help you with that one.
>>
>> any war for resources will involve our european allies as they need
>>thm too.
>>> so a russian attempt to take over the middle east would be looked
>>> askance at
>>> by them too.
>>
>> Again you misunderstand what is going on. Have you noticed the
>>Europeans aren't agreeing on much as it is? Suppose Iran makes good her
>>threat to take out Israel and gets a few other local countries to join
>>in? Are you SURE Europe will unite to ensure a flow of oil? If they
>>sides against Iran it's a sure thing their supply of oil will be shut
>>off. The U.S. has to consider going it alone.
>>
> Hell what "if" they decide to side with Iran?
>>>


israel has nukes too.
and yeah europe is going to side against israel, they sit it out, they ain't
got a dog in that fight.

you two are creating fantasy scenarios.

[Raymond O'Hara]

"Typhoon502" > wrote in message
news:bfaabc1b-2e05-46d1-902a-
>And if you think Russia and China are the only potential threats on
>the horizon that the F-22 might be suitable against, you're naive and
>blind.


name these threats.
and where do they get their stuff? there is us, russia,the UK and france to
buy from.
who else has the aero-industry and the resources to build a fleet of $100
fighters?.

[Raymond O'Hara]

"Roger Conroy" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Raymond O'Hara" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Roger Conroy" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "Raymond O'Hara" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> "Roger Conroy" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>>> we don't have an unlimited budget.
>>>>>> inWWII we concentrated on WWII not WWIII.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> By the end of WW2 development of practically all the major weapons
>>>>> systems of the cold war had at least been started:
>>>>> Nuclear bombs/warheads, ballistic missiles, intercontinental range
>>>>> bombers, tactical missiles (ground and air), jet aircraft, "true"
>>>>> submarines (rather than submersibles), cruise missiles...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> all those weapons were for fighting WWII nobody gave a thought about
>>>> any cold wars.
>>>> we weren't making anything with a the idea of fighting an hypothetical
>>>> enemy 30 years in the future in mind.
>>>> we weren't building anything that took away from what we were doing.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It looks like you are implying that killing Arab peasants was a major
>>> design criterion for F22 & F35
>>>
>>
>> no. o'm saying it isn't . and therefor wait on them and but what we
>> actually need and will use
>>
> Is that a sentence?
>
>> as it is, in 30 year manned planes will probably be obsolete.
>>
>> we are already at the edge of human abilities.
>
> Why would they be obsolete? Because somebody, somewhere is currently
> developing their replacements.
> But you reckon it is quite uneccessary to develop new concepts until the
> other side actually starts using them against your country.
>
> I have news for you - it easily takes up to to 20 years to move a new
> generation of weapon system from "napkin doodle" to front line service.
> A young engineer can enter the industry at the start of concept
> development and reach retirement before the production line is running
> smoothly.
> I cite the example of the V22. The Ryan company was one of the first to
> work on the concept way back in the early 1960s. So it sometimes stretches
> to 40+ years!
>
> The Canadian Arrow fighter first embodied concepts that only became
> "standard features" in the US Teens series.
>
>> i like F-22s too, they are very cool. but they aren't what we need now.
>
> I absolutely agree - but how do you know they won't be needed in 10, 20,
> 30 years time? Its too late to start doodling on napkins when the enemy
> opens fire.
>
> With that thinking, the US will still have B17s and P51s as front line
> equipment. Somebody still has the blueprints stored away, lets restart the
> production line tomorrow! After all they are perfectly adequate for wiping
> out Arab peasants and as you has so clearly demonstrated there is
> absolutely no possibility of your country having to face any other type of
> enemy anytime within the next generation at least.
>
>
>

you are like akid in a toy store who wants everything regardless of your
mommt's bydget
and sating we can't afford a fleet of $100,000,000 fighters is not saying
i'm against all defense.
that is typical of your ilk. just make up lies and then attribute them to
others.

[Raymond O'Hara]

"Roger Conroy" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Raymond O'Hara" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Tiger" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Raymond O'Hara wrote:
>>>> "Tiger" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>>Raymond O'Hara wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Roger Conroy" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>
>>>> and they waited post war to build post war.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Why do I get the feeling When ever folk say the earth is round, you will
>>> post it's flat???? What waiting? Dick Bong was killed testing P-80's in
>>> Aug of 1945. Work on the A bomb never stopped. The race for the Ebe
>>> river was a race gain zones of control postwar. Nobody was waiting.....
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> we are currently engaged in two wars. we have a runaway deficit.
>> and you're advocating spending billions on a weapons system that will not
>> do anything for us.
>> it is a great plane and if it was the cold war sure. but times have
>> changed and we must too.
>> a big main force war isn't going to happen anytime in the next 50 years.
>
> "Peace in our time" - the phrase seems vaguely familiar?
>
> Well we can all go back to bed now, Mr. O'Hara has personally guaranteed
> "World Peace".
>
>> we need to settle what we are involved in and get the budget under
>> control. then you can think about new toys for use against an imaginary
>> enemy.
>>
>
> If you ever stop thinking up "new toys for use against an imaginary enemy"
> that is exactly the momemt the enemy ceaces to be imaginary. Cite the
> Maginot Line as a prime example of such complacency.
>

again you and dan engage in strawman arguments.
you want us to turn into the UK, a bankrupt country.

[Roger Conroy[_2_]]

"Tex Houston" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> "Roger Conroy" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> No more Sandys dumping napalm on the treeline from knife-fight altitude -
>> a scene much used by Hollywood.
>> I wonder how the movies would portray LGBs arriving out of the blue?
>>
>
> Laser Guided Bombs? How old-fashioned...
>
> Tex Houston

Well until someone comes up with a JDAM variant that can have its aimpoint
changed while it falls - for moving targets - I'll stick with "old
fashioned" laser guided bombs and LOAL missiles.

[Typhoon502]

On Jun 13, 2:16*pm, "Raymond O'Hara" >
wrote:
> "Typhoon502" > wrote in message
>
> news:bfaabc1b-2e05-46d1-902a-
>
> >And if you think Russia and China are the only potential threats on
> >the horizon that the F-22 might be suitable against, you're naive and
> >blind.
>
> name these threats.
> and where do they get their stuff? there is us, russia,the UK and france to
> buy from.
> who else has the aero-industry and the resources to build a fleet of $100
> fighters?.

Let's say India and Pakistan engage in a shooting war that has the
potential to go nuclear and/or threatens shipping and neighboring
countries. Both India and Pakistan have fourth-generation fighters,
including Indian Su-30s. If the US and/or UN intervene, the F-22 would
be at the center of any air dominance strategy because it has the
speed, radar, sensor fusion, and data sharing (and training) to sort
out airborne traffic, identify threats, and either deter or kill
aggressive combat aircraft without exposing itself to retaliation.
There's one scenario.

North Korea decides to push south. They've got MiG-23s and MiG-29s,
and unbeknownst to Western intelligence, they've got a small force of
Su-34 strike jets that are flying interdiction missions against
strategic SoKo targets. F-15s from Kadena have their hands full with
the Fulcums and can't operate effectively in the NK air defense
environment. F-22s are needed to catch the Su-34s in transit because
the Raptors can get north fast, pick out the targets with APG-77, and
make the kills without showing up on radar and thus avoiding the worst
of the SAM threat. There's another.

Venezuela decides to annex part of Guyana like Iraq went after Kuwait.
Venezuela's Su-30s have a magnitude greater combat capability than
anything that can locally be sent up to defend Guyana, and are an easy
match for F-15Cs and F-18Es. The F-22s are the only jets available
that can outfight the Su-30s, some of which turn out to be piloted by
Russian "advisors." There's another.

Those are a few scenarios. None of them are particularly wild. And
that doesn't include potential Russian, Chinese, or Middle East
brewups.

[Ed Rasimus[_1_]]

On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 12:40:11 -0700 (PDT), Typhoon502
> wrote:

>On Jun 13, 2:16*pm, "Raymond O'Hara" >
>wrote:
>> "Typhoon502" > wrote in message
>>
>> news:bfaabc1b-2e05-46d1-902a-
>>
>> >And if you think Russia and China are the only potential threats on
>> >the horizon that the F-22 might be suitable against, you're naive and
>> >blind.
>>
>> name these threats.
>> and where do they get their stuff? there is us, russia,the UK and france to
>> buy from.
>> who else has the aero-industry and the resources to build a fleet of $100
>> fighters?.
>
>Let's say India and Pakistan engage in a shooting war that has the
>potential to go nuclear and/or threatens shipping and neighboring
>countries. Both India and Pakistan have fourth-generation fighters,
>including Indian Su-30s. If the US and/or UN intervene, the F-22 would
>be at the center of any air dominance strategy because it has the
>speed, radar, sensor fusion, and data sharing (and training) to sort
>out airborne traffic, identify threats, and either deter or kill
>aggressive combat aircraft without exposing itself to retaliation.
>There's one scenario.
>
>North Korea decides to push south. They've got MiG-23s and MiG-29s,
>and unbeknownst to Western intelligence, they've got a small force of
>Su-34 strike jets that are flying interdiction missions against
>strategic SoKo targets. F-15s from Kadena have their hands full with
>the Fulcums and can't operate effectively in the NK air defense
>environment. F-22s are needed to catch the Su-34s in transit because
>the Raptors can get north fast, pick out the targets with APG-77, and
>make the kills without showing up on radar and thus avoiding the worst
>of the SAM threat. There's another.
>
>Venezuela decides to annex part of Guyana like Iraq went after Kuwait.
>Venezuela's Su-30s have a magnitude greater combat capability than
>anything that can locally be sent up to defend Guyana, and are an easy
>match for F-15Cs and F-18Es. The F-22s are the only jets available
>that can outfight the Su-30s, some of which turn out to be piloted by
>Russian "advisors." There's another.
>
>Those are a few scenarios. None of them are particularly wild. And
>that doesn't include potential Russian, Chinese, or Middle East
>brewups.

It is patently unfair to introduce anything like facts or rational
argument into a usenet discussion. We are anticipating a Supreme Court
ruling later this week confirming this basic Constitutional guarantee.
Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
www.thundertales.blogspot.com
www.thunderchief.org

[Typhoon502]

On Jun 13, 4:08*pm, Ed Rasimus > wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 12:40:11 -0700 (PDT), Typhoon502

> >Those are a few scenarios. None of them are particularly wild. And
> >that doesn't include potential Russian, Chinese, or Middle East
> >brewups.
>
> It is patently unfair to introduce anything like facts or rational
> argument into a usenet discussion. We are anticipating a Supreme Court
> ruling later this week confirming this basic Constitutional guarantee.


Too true. And Tim Russert died today, too. Out of respect, I choose
not to engage the dummies in debates that are out of their league.

[Dan[_12_]]

Raymond O'Hara wrote:
> "Roger Conroy" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Raymond O'Hara" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "Tiger" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Raymond O'Hara wrote:
>>>>> "Tiger" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>>> Raymond O'Hara wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Roger Conroy" > wrote in message
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>> and they waited post war to build post war.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Why do I get the feeling When ever folk say the earth is round, you will
>>>> post it's flat???? What waiting? Dick Bong was killed testing P-80's in
>>>> Aug of 1945. Work on the A bomb never stopped. The race for the Ebe
>>>> river was a race gain zones of control postwar. Nobody was waiting.....
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> we are currently engaged in two wars. we have a runaway deficit.
>>> and you're advocating spending billions on a weapons system that will not
>>> do anything for us.
>>> it is a great plane and if it was the cold war sure. but times have
>>> changed and we must too.
>>> a big main force war isn't going to happen anytime in the next 50 years.
>> "Peace in our time" - the phrase seems vaguely familiar?
>>
>> Well we can all go back to bed now, Mr. O'Hara has personally guaranteed
>> "World Peace".
>>
>>> we need to settle what we are involved in and get the budget under
>>> control. then you can think about new toys for use against an imaginary
>>> enemy.
>>>
>> If you ever stop thinking up "new toys for use against an imaginary enemy"
>> that is exactly the momemt the enemy ceaces to be imaginary. Cite the
>> Maginot Line as a prime example of such complacency.
>>
>
> again you and dan engage in strawman arguments.
> you want us to turn into the UK, a bankrupt country.
>
>
>
I do? You really don't understand the current economy nor do you
seem to comprehend what is actually going on world wide. You don't seem
to have a grasp of potential threats.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Tiger]

Raymond O'Hara wrote:
> "Tiger" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Raymond O'Hara wrote:
>>
>>>"Tiger" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Raymond O'Hara wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Roger Conroy" > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>and they waited post war to build post war.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>Why do I get the feeling When ever folk say the earth is round, you will
>>post it's flat???? What waiting? Dick Bong was killed testing P-80's in
>>Aug of 1945. Work on the A bomb never stopped. The race for the Ebe river
>>was a race gain zones of control postwar. Nobody was waiting.....
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> we are currently engaged in two wars. we have a runaway deficit.
> and you're advocating spending billions on a weapons system that will not do
> anything for us.
> it is a great plane and if it was the cold war sure. but times have changed
> and we must too.
> a big main force war isn't going to happen anytime in the next 50 years.
> we need to settle what we are involved in and get the budget under control.
> then you can think about new toys for use against an imaginary enemy.
>
>
>

Actually my position on this is in the middle. Right of your build
nothing side & left of the F-22 fanclub. Keep production at 183. Move
forward with the F35. Use the rest of the piggy bank on other USAF needs.

[Raymond O'Hara]

"Typhoon502" > wrote in message
news:209963bf-6fe3-49eb-b87c-> fighters?.

>Let's say India and Pakistan engage in a shooting war that has the
>potential to go nuclear and/or threatens shipping and neighboring
>countries. Both India and Pakistan have fourth-generation fighters,
>including Indian Su-30s. If the US and/or UN intervene, the F-22 would
>be at the center of any air dominance strategy because it has the
>speed, radar, sensor fusion, and data sharing (and training) to sort
>out airborne traffic, identify threats, and either deter or kill
>aggressive combat aircraft without exposing itself to retaliation.
>There's one scenario.


right, shipping. what shipping woild it disrupt and why.
they've fought wars. they never attacked any shipping they have a long
border.
if they go nuclear we won't send troops,
nope not credible




>North Korea decides to push south. They've got MiG-23s and MiG-29s,
>and unbeknownst to Western intelligence, they've got a small force of
>Su-34 strike jets that are flying interdiction missions against
>strategic SoKo targets. F-15s from Kadena have their hands full with
>the Fulcums and can't operate effectively in the NK air defense
>environment. F-22s are needed to catch the Su-34s in transit because
>the Raptors can get north fast, pick out the targets with APG-77, and
>make the kills without showing up on radar and thus avoiding the worst
>of the SAM threat. There's another.


tegular planes can beat them and russia isn't selling them the latest stuff
because they can't affotd to pay cash. NK is on the verge of famine. SK and
what we have in the inventory already would be more than adequate
nope not credible






>Venezuela decides to annex part of Guyana like Iraq went after Kuwait.
>Venezuela's Su-30s have a magnitude greater combat capability than
>anything that can locally be sent up to defend Guyana, and are an easy
>match for F-15Cs and F-18Es. The F-22s are the only jets available
>that can outfight the Su-30s, some of which turn out to be piloted by
>Russian "advisors." There's another.

we don't need F-22s to crush venezuela.
we'd take out the venezuelan aitforce faster than israel took out egypt in
67.





Those are a few scenarios. None of them are particularly wild. And
that doesn't include potential Russian, Chinese, or Middle East
brewups.



and none that can't be handled by what we have.
we haven't fallen behind, we still have more and better stuff plus we have
spare parts.
chavez makes a good boogyman because he is a bit of a loud mouth loon. but
all his talk aside venezuela is a 3rd world country.
california has more people. venezuela wouldn't do as well as iraq.

[Raymond O'Hara]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 12:40:11 -0700 (PDT), Typhoon502
> > wrote:
>
>>On Jun 13, 2:16 pm, "Raymond O'Hara" >
>>wrote:
>>> "Typhoon502" > wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:bfaabc1b-2e05-46d1-902a-
>>>
>>> >And if you think Russia and China are the only potential threats on
>>> >the horizon that the F-22 might be suitable against, you're naive and
>>> >blind.
>>>
>>> name these threats.
>>> and where do they get their stuff? there is us, russia,the UK and france
>>> to
>>> buy from.
>>> who else has the aero-industry and the resources to build a fleet of
>>> $100
>>> fighters?.
>>
>>Let's say India and Pakistan engage in a shooting war that has the
>>potential to go nuclear and/or threatens shipping and neighboring
>>countries. Both India and Pakistan have fourth-generation fighters,
>>including Indian Su-30s. If the US and/or UN intervene, the F-22 would
>>be at the center of any air dominance strategy because it has the
>>speed, radar, sensor fusion, and data sharing (and training) to sort
>>out airborne traffic, identify threats, and either deter or kill
>>aggressive combat aircraft without exposing itself to retaliation.
>>There's one scenario.
>>
>>North Korea decides to push south. They've got MiG-23s and MiG-29s,
>>and unbeknownst to Western intelligence, they've got a small force of
>>Su-34 strike jets that are flying interdiction missions against
>>strategic SoKo targets. F-15s from Kadena have their hands full with
>>the Fulcums and can't operate effectively in the NK air defense
>>environment. F-22s are needed to catch the Su-34s in transit because
>>the Raptors can get north fast, pick out the targets with APG-77, and
>>make the kills without showing up on radar and thus avoiding the worst
>>of the SAM threat. There's another.
>>
>>Venezuela decides to annex part of Guyana like Iraq went after Kuwait.
>>Venezuela's Su-30s have a magnitude greater combat capability than
>>anything that can locally be sent up to defend Guyana, and are an easy
>>match for F-15Cs and F-18Es. The F-22s are the only jets available
>>that can outfight the Su-30s, some of which turn out to be piloted by
>>Russian "advisors." There's another.
>>
>>Those are a few scenarios. None of them are particularly wild. And
>>that doesn't include potential Russian, Chinese, or Middle East
>>brewups.
>
> It is patently unfair to introduce anything like facts or rational
> argument into a usenet discussion. We are anticipating a Supreme Court
> ruling later this week confirming this basic Constitutional guarantee.
> Ed Rasimus
> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
> www.thundertales.blogspot.com
> www.thunderchief.org


facts? they are all fantasy scenarios.
saddams imaginary WMDs were a more credible threat.

[Raymond O'Hara]

"Dan" > wrote in message
...
> Raymond O'Hara wrote:
>> "Roger Conroy" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "Raymond O'Hara" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> "Tiger" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> Raymond O'Hara wrote:
>>>>>> "Tiger" > wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Raymond O'Hara wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Roger Conroy" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>> and they waited post war to build post war.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Why do I get the feeling When ever folk say the earth is round, you
>>>>> will post it's flat???? What waiting? Dick Bong was killed testing
>>>>> P-80's in Aug of 1945. Work on the A bomb never stopped. The race for
>>>>> the Ebe river was a race gain zones of control postwar. Nobody was
>>>>> waiting.....
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> we are currently engaged in two wars. we have a runaway deficit.
>>>> and you're advocating spending billions on a weapons system that will
>>>> not do anything for us.
>>>> it is a great plane and if it was the cold war sure. but times have
>>>> changed and we must too.
>>>> a big main force war isn't going to happen anytime in the next 50
>>>> years.
>>> "Peace in our time" - the phrase seems vaguely familiar?
>>>
>>> Well we can all go back to bed now, Mr. O'Hara has personally guaranteed
>>> "World Peace".
>>>
>>>> we need to settle what we are involved in and get the budget under
>>>> control. then you can think about new toys for use against an imaginary
>>>> enemy.
>>>>
>>> If you ever stop thinking up "new toys for use against an imaginary
>>> enemy" that is exactly the momemt the enemy ceaces to be imaginary. Cite
>>> the Maginot Line as a prime example of such complacency.
>>>
>>
>> again you and dan engage in strawman arguments.
>> you want us to turn into the UK, a bankrupt country.
>>
>>
>>
> I do? You really don't understand the current economy nor do you seem
> to comprehend what is actually going on world wide. You don't seem to have
> a grasp of potential threats.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

you just bring up fantasy scenarios.

you don't understand the economy.
we can't at the momen affor billions for a plane that does one thing and
one thing that is the least likely threat.
in 30 years most likely UMVs will rule.

[Ian B MacLure]

Airyx > wrote in
:

[snip]

> France thought WWII would be fought in much the same way as WWI, slow
> stagnated trench warfare. That's what they were prepared for, and
> that's why they got their butts kicked.

The French have an ancient tradition of preparing for the last
war.

IBM

[Dan[_12_]]

Raymond O'Hara wrote:
> "Dan" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Raymond O'Hara wrote:
>>> "Roger Conroy" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> "Raymond O'Hara" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> "Tiger" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> Raymond O'Hara wrote:
>>>>>>> "Tiger" > wrote in message
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Raymond O'Hara wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Roger Conroy" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> and they waited post war to build post war.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why do I get the feeling When ever folk say the earth is round, you
>>>>>> will post it's flat???? What waiting? Dick Bong was killed testing
>>>>>> P-80's in Aug of 1945. Work on the A bomb never stopped. The race for
>>>>>> the Ebe river was a race gain zones of control postwar. Nobody was
>>>>>> waiting.....
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> we are currently engaged in two wars. we have a runaway deficit.
>>>>> and you're advocating spending billions on a weapons system that will
>>>>> not do anything for us.
>>>>> it is a great plane and if it was the cold war sure. but times have
>>>>> changed and we must too.
>>>>> a big main force war isn't going to happen anytime in the next 50
>>>>> years.
>>>> "Peace in our time" - the phrase seems vaguely familiar?
>>>>
>>>> Well we can all go back to bed now, Mr. O'Hara has personally guaranteed
>>>> "World Peace".
>>>>
>>>>> we need to settle what we are involved in and get the budget under
>>>>> control. then you can think about new toys for use against an imaginary
>>>>> enemy.
>>>>>
>>>> If you ever stop thinking up "new toys for use against an imaginary
>>>> enemy" that is exactly the momemt the enemy ceaces to be imaginary. Cite
>>>> the Maginot Line as a prime example of such complacency.
>>>>
>>> again you and dan engage in strawman arguments.
>>> you want us to turn into the UK, a bankrupt country.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> I do? You really don't understand the current economy nor do you seem
>> to comprehend what is actually going on world wide. You don't seem to have
>> a grasp of potential threats.
>>
>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
> you just bring up fantasy scenarios.
>
> you don't understand the economy.
> we can't at the momen affor billions for a plane that does one thing and
> one thing that is the least likely threat.
> in 30 years most likely UMVs will rule.
>
>
Amazing, and you tell me I'm bringing up fantasy scenarios? I'm not
sure why you can tell us with a straight face how the U.S. won't be in
another major war in the next 50 years, UMVs will "rule" in 30 years,
ICBMs are a natural response to an attack against the U.S. and the like,
yet can't see threats can change in the same time frame.

As for the economy, the U.S. wastes more money on pork than it spends
on F-22. I'm not justifying the cost of F-22, but it simply isn't that
big a dent in the U.S. economy.

In any event I doubt you will ever understand what is going on now or
what is likely to occur in the future and I will never understand how
you think it's logical to not replace aging aircraft with newer ones.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Ian B MacLure]

Ed Rasimus > wrote in
:

> On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 07:55:07 -0700 (PDT), Airyx >
> wrote:
>
>>On Jun 12, 5:21*pm, "Raymond O'Hara" >
>>wrote:
>>> "Yeff" > wrote in message
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>> > On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 14:42:30 -0400, Raymond O'Hara wrote:
>>>
>>> >>> Am I the only one who remembers the preemptive war debate?
>>>
>>> >> which proved to be based on false{made up} intelligence.
>>>
>>> > Who "made up" the intelligence?
>>>
>>> the bu****es and their lakeys.
>>
>>After a full, democrat-led investigation, it was found that there was
>>NO False Intelligence.
>>
>>It was also found that there was no pressure from the Bush
>>administration to make the existing evidence appear more sinister then
>>it was, but their intrepentation was provided.
>>
>>The Senate Armed Forces comittee had the intel presented to them by
>>unbaised Intel sources, and all of them, (Including Hillary), fully
>>agreed with its conclusions, and signed-off on the go-ahead for the
>>invasion.
>
> An even more authoritative review of the Senate Rockefeller committee
> language:
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/08/AR20080
> 60801687.html
>
> The repetitious phrase "supported by the intelligence" is
> illustrative.

I was wondering when someone was going to point that out.
Funny thing, the usual suspects haven't been crowing about
this report.

IBM

[Roger Conroy[_2_]]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 07:55:07 -0700 (PDT), Airyx >
> wrote:
>
>>On Jun 12, 5:21 pm, "Raymond O'Hara" >
>>wrote:
>>> "Yeff" > wrote in message
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>> > On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 14:42:30 -0400, Raymond O'Hara wrote:
>>>
>>> >>> Am I the only one who remembers the preemptive war debate?
>>>
>>> >> which proved to be based on false{made up} intelligence.
>>>
>>> > Who "made up" the intelligence?
>>>
>>> the bu****es and their lakeys.
>>
>>After a full, democrat-led investigation, it was found that there was
>>NO False Intelligence.
>>
>>It was also found that there was no pressure from the Bush
>>administration to make the existing evidence appear more sinister then
>>it was, but their intrepentation was provided.
>>
>>The Senate Armed Forces comittee had the intel presented to them by
>>unbaised Intel sources, and all of them, (Including Hillary), fully
>>agreed with its conclusions, and signed-off on the go-ahead for the
>>invasion.
>
> An even more authoritative review of the Senate Rockefeller committee
> language:
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/08/AR2008060801687.html
>
> The repetitious phrase "supported by the intelligence" is
> illustrative.
>
> Ed Rasimus
> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
> www.thundertales.blogspot.com
> www.thunderchief.org

I wonder where all the finest quality "Grade A" bovine excrement that Colin
Powell spouted before the assembled multitudes at the UN - (fully
illustrated with piccies of pioson gas trucks and all, for the benefit of
those who don't read very well) came from?

[Dan[_12_]]

Zombywoof wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 00:43:48 -0500, Dan > wrote:
>
>> Raymond O'Hara wrote:
>> <snip>
>>> a big main force war isn't going to happen anytime in the next 50 years.
>> You may be willing to stake your life on that, I'm not. I have
>> history on my side. Since WW2 there were Korea, Viet Nam and Gulf War
>> where an air superiority fighter was a requirement. Iraq may not have
>> had the greatest air force, but they didn't exactly roll over either.
>>
> Actually they did, they rolled over & play dead or fled. There were
> no attempts at any meaningful maintenance of Iraqi airspace by the
> Iraqi's.

Well, the 33rd TFW took out 16 Iraqi MiGs that weren't rolling over
or fleeing. They may not have been anywhere near top notch, but those 16
at least did put up a fight.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Tiger]

Dan wrote:
> Zombywoof wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 00:43:48 -0500, Dan > wrote:
>>
>>> Raymond O'Hara wrote:
>>> <snip>
>
> Well, the 33rd TFW took out 16 Iraqi MiGs that weren't rolling over or
> fleeing. They may not have been anywhere near top notch, but those 16 at
> least did put up a fight.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired


While not on the O'hara side of the fence, can we aggree more spending
on a f22 means a delay in the F35 program? Also that increasing the
number beyond 183 in the current budget environment means other Air
force programs will robbed to pay for them?

[Dan[_12_]]

Tiger wrote:
> Dan wrote:
>> Zombywoof wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 00:43:48 -0500, Dan > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Raymond O'Hara wrote:
>>>> <snip>
>>
>> Well, the 33rd TFW took out 16 Iraqi MiGs that weren't rolling over
>> or fleeing. They may not have been anywhere near top notch, but those
>> 16 at least did put up a fight.
>>
>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
>
> While not on the O'hara side of the fence, can we aggree more spending
> on a f22 means a delay in the F35 program? Also that increasing the
> number beyond 183 in the current budget environment means other Air
> force programs will robbed to pay for them?
>
Certainly, with current budget constraints. That's a far cry from
O'Hara's theory of bankrupting the country. He's got his mind made up
and can't comprehend what is really going on around him. His personal
biases block this.

As an aside I wonder if he's ever been in the military.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Ed Rasimus[_1_]]

On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 09:29:42 -0400, Tiger >
wrote:

>Dan wrote:
>> Zombywoof wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 00:43:48 -0500, Dan > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Raymond O'Hara wrote:
>>>> <snip>
>>
>> Well, the 33rd TFW took out 16 Iraqi MiGs that weren't rolling over or
>> fleeing. They may not have been anywhere near top notch, but those 16 at
>> least did put up a fight.
>>
>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
>
>While not on the O'hara side of the fence, can we aggree more spending
>on a f22 means a delay in the F35 program? Also that increasing the
>number beyond 183 in the current budget environment means other Air
>force programs will robbed to pay for them?

Actually no, we can't agree on that. It is apples/oranges. The F-22
progam is in production with almost 20 years of development and
evolution already as sunk costs. The F-35 program is where F-22 was in
1992.

The incremental unit cost for additional F-22s (which are
multi-mission capable now) is not a trade-off against F-35 development
funding and purchase of an aircraft that won't reach full scale
production and deployment for at least five years.

The only thing being "robbed" in these scenarios is increased social
program spending, the result of political pandering, pork-barreling
and earmarking.

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
www.thundertales.blogspot.com
www.thunderchief.org

[Tiger]

Ed Rasimus wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 09:29:42 -0400, Tiger >
> wrote:
>
>
>>Dan wrote:
>>
>>>Zombywoof wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 00:43:48 -0500, Dan > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Raymond O'Hara wrote:
>>>>><snip>
>>>>
>>> Well, the 33rd TFW took out 16 Iraqi MiGs that weren't rolling over or
>>>fleeing. They may not have been anywhere near top notch, but those 16 at
>>>least did put up a fight.
>>>
>>>Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>>
>>
>>While not on the O'hara side of the fence, can we aggree more spending
>>on a f22 means a delay in the F35 program? Also that increasing the
>>number beyond 183 in the current budget environment means other Air
>>force programs will robbed to pay for them?
>
>
> Actually no, we can't agree on that. It is apples/oranges. The F-22
> progam is in production with almost 20 years of development and
> evolution already as sunk costs. The F-35 program is where F-22 was in
> 1992.
>
> The incremental unit cost for additional F-22s (which are
> multi-mission capable now) is not a trade-off against F-35 development
> funding and purchase of an aircraft that won't reach full scale
> production and deployment for at least five years.
>
> The only thing being "robbed" in these scenarios is increased social
> program spending, the result of political pandering, pork-barreling
> and earmarking.
>
> Ed Rasimus
> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
> www.thundertales.blogspot.com
> www.thunderchief.org

I have doubts Obama will provide even a budget for a slingshot......

[tankfixer]

In article >, raymond-
says...
>
> "Typhoon502" > wrote in message
> ...
> On Jun 11, 6:51 am, "Roger Conroy" >
> wrote:
> > "Tiger" > wrote in message
> >
> > ...
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > Raymond O'Hara wrote:
> > >> "Ian B MacLure" > wrote in message
> > .. .
> >
> > >>>"Raymond O'Hara" > wrote in
> > :
> >
> > >> we are in two wars now{which we are losing} and you're worried about an
> > >> imaginary war against an imaginary opponent.
> > >> russia is not a credible threat. and it is decades away from being one.
> >
> > > Losing? Lose to whom? Current events don't seem be anywere close. As for
> > > Russia? They have in the last year expanded their military activity.
> > > They
> > > are flying Bears again, opposed our missile defence plans, and Nato
> > > expansions. Decades may be a bit much.
> >
> > Russia is not the only possible future technologically advanced enemy -
> > don't take your eyes of China, or a possible Arab alliance.- Hide quoted
> > text -
>
> >Not to mention Venezuela...
>
> we don't need F-22s to fight venezuela.

You are one of those who believe in fair fights ?

--

"Oh Norman, listen! The loons are calling!"
- Katherine Hepburn, "On Golden Pond"

[Raymond O'Hara]

"Ian B MacLure" > wrote in message
.. .
> Airyx > wrote in
> :
>
> [snip]
>
>> France thought WWII would be fought in much the same way as WWI, slow
>> stagnated trench warfare. That's what they were prepared for, and
>> that's why they got their butts kicked.
>
> The French have an ancient tradition of preparing for the last
> war.
>
> IBM
>


that's hardly a french only trait.

[Raymond O'Hara]

"tankfixer" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, raymond-
> says...
>>
>> "Typhoon502" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> On Jun 11, 6:51 am, "Roger Conroy" >
>> wrote:
>> > "Tiger" > wrote in message
>> >
>> > ...
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > > Raymond O'Hara wrote:
>> > >> "Ian B MacLure" > wrote in message
>> > .. .
>> >
>> > >>>"Raymond O'Hara" > wrote in
>> > :
>> >
>> > >> we are in two wars now{which we are losing} and you're worried about
>> > >> an
>> > >> imaginary war against an imaginary opponent.
>> > >> russia is not a credible threat. and it is decades away from being
>> > >> one.
>> >
>> > > Losing? Lose to whom? Current events don't seem be anywere close. As
>> > > for
>> > > Russia? They have in the last year expanded their military activity.
>> > > They
>> > > are flying Bears again, opposed our missile defence plans, and Nato
>> > > expansions. Decades may be a bit much.
>> >
>> > Russia is not the only possible future technologically advanced enemy -
>> > don't take your eyes of China, or a possible Arab alliance.- Hide
>> > quoted
>> > text -
>>
>> >Not to mention Venezuela...
>>
>> we don't need F-22s to fight venezuela.
>
> You are one of those who believe in fair fights ?
>
>

it still won't be a fair fight.

[tankfixer]

In article >, raymond-
says...
>
> "tankfixer" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, raymond-
> > says...
> >>
> >> "Typhoon502" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> On Jun 11, 6:51 am, "Roger Conroy" >
> >> wrote:
> >> > "Tiger" > wrote in message
> >> >
> >> > ...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > > Raymond O'Hara wrote:
> >> > >> "Ian B MacLure" > wrote in message
> >> > .. .
> >> >
> >> > >>>"Raymond O'Hara" > wrote in
> >> > :
> >> >
> >> > >> we are in two wars now{which we are losing} and you're worried about
> >> > >> an
> >> > >> imaginary war against an imaginary opponent.
> >> > >> russia is not a credible threat. and it is decades away from being
> >> > >> one.
> >> >
> >> > > Losing? Lose to whom? Current events don't seem be anywere close. As
> >> > > for
> >> > > Russia? They have in the last year expanded their military activity.
> >> > > They
> >> > > are flying Bears again, opposed our missile defence plans, and Nato
> >> > > expansions. Decades may be a bit much.
> >> >
> >> > Russia is not the only possible future technologically advanced enemy -
> >> > don't take your eyes of China, or a possible Arab alliance.- Hide
> >> > quoted
> >> > text -
> >>
> >> >Not to mention Venezuela...
> >>
> >> we don't need F-22s to fight venezuela.
> >
> > You are one of those who believe in fair fights ?
> >
> >
>
> it still won't be a fair fight.

So ?

If technical superiority will allow my country to prevail with fewer
casualties then I vote for the fancy tech.


--

"Oh Norman, listen! The loons are calling!"
- Katherine Hepburn, "On Golden Pond"

[tankfixer]

In article >, raymond-
says...

> are they just going to magically appear in 10 years, full blown, armed to
> the teeth with ultra-fighters?

Yes.

Example: German 1930 to 1940.

--

"Oh Norman, listen! The loons are calling!"
- Katherine Hepburn, "On Golden Pond"

[tankfixer]

In article >, raymond-
says...
>
> as it is, in 30 year manned planes will probably be obsolete.
>


IIRC that claim was made already.

Around 1960 or ther abouts...

--

"Oh Norman, listen! The loons are calling!"
- Katherine Hepburn, "On Golden Pond"

[tankfixer]

In article >, Zomby-
says...
> On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 00:43:48 -0500, Dan > wrote:
>
> >Raymond O'Hara wrote:
> ><snip>
> >> a big main force war isn't going to happen anytime in the next 50 years.
> >
> > You may be willing to stake your life on that, I'm not. I have
> >history on my side. Since WW2 there were Korea, Viet Nam and Gulf War
> >where an air superiority fighter was a requirement. Iraq may not have
> >had the greatest air force, but they didn't exactly roll over either.
> >
> Actually they did, they rolled over & play dead or fled. There were
> no attempts at any meaningful maintenance of Iraqi airspace by the
> Iraqi's.


Never bet the next opponant will do as the last did.

I know it's never been proven but the Iraqi airfocre may have caught
that flle deises from the Mirage fighters they flew


--

"Oh Norman, listen! The loons are calling!"
- Katherine Hepburn, "On Golden Pond"

[tankfixer]

In article >,
says...
>
> "Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 09:47:17 -0700 (PDT), Jack Linthicum
> > > wrote:
> >
> >>On Jun 12, 12:31 pm, Yeff > wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 09:15:22 -0700 (PDT), Jack Linthicum wrote:
> >>> > The USAF hates CAS because it doesn't win
> >>> > medals and gets them in bar fights.
> >>>
> >>> And you know this how?
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>>
> >>> -Jeff B.
> >>> zoomie at fastmail fm
> >>
> >>Watching bar fights and listening to the AFs whine. Actually watched a
> >>"combined" exercise on Hawaii and the subsequent bar fight. Looked
> >>like a regularly scheduled event.
> >
> > Your mileage may vary, but I've got a couple of gongs for ground
> > support and none for air/air. CAS is one of the most fun missions you
> > can do in a tactical aircraft. The only bar fight I ever saw was
> > between folks fighting to be the first to buy an fighter pilot a beer
> > for CAS the grunts had appreciated.
> >
> > The major difference today isn't that CAS is hated by the AF, but
> > simply that CAS looks a lot different than it did in the past. No more
> > "gomers in the wire" "danger close" "whites of their eyes" stuff. JDAM
> > from the menopause brings more precise support without the grunt ever
> > seeing the airplane. It might just as well be organic artillery fire.
> > He never knows.
> >
> > Ed Rasimus
> > Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
> > www.thundertales.blogspot.com
> > www.thunderchief.org
>
> No more Sandys dumping napalm on the treeline from knife-fight altitude - a
> scene much used by Hollywood.
> I wonder how the movies would portray LGBs arriving out of the blue?


Chirping birds...
The leafs in the trees fluttering in the gentle breeze..
In the distance you can hear the rumble of a vehicle column..

The building to your front sits quiet in the morning sun.

BOOM

When the dust clears there is only rubble...




--

"Oh Norman, listen! The loons are calling!"
- Katherine Hepburn, "On Golden Pond"

[tankfixer]

In article <z484k.1094$L03.864@edtnps92>,
says...
> The unit cost for A-10's is quoted at roughly US $10-15
> million on the sites I found. All I know is that the F-22 unit cost is
> somewhere north of US $100 million (the Air Force says $142 million on their
> factsheet but who knows which unit cost that is) and the F-35 unit cost is
> also over US $100 million.

That A-10 cost was probably for the lst ones built, way back when ??

I can FEDLOG the M35 2-1/2 ton truck and get a price. Last Time I
checked a M35A2 was $47,000 or so..
But you can't order any new ones because the production line is long
gone.


--

"Oh Norman, listen! The loons are calling!"
- Katherine Hepburn, "On Golden Pond"

[Roger Conroy[_2_]]

"tankfixer" > wrote in message
...
> In article <z484k.1094$L03.864@edtnps92>,
> says...
>> The unit cost for A-10's is quoted at roughly US $10-15
>> million on the sites I found. All I know is that the F-22 unit cost is
>> somewhere north of US $100 million (the Air Force says $142 million on
>> their
>> factsheet but who knows which unit cost that is) and the F-35 unit cost
>> is
>> also over US $100 million.
>
> That A-10 cost was probably for the lst ones built, way back when ??
>
> I can FEDLOG the M35 2-1/2 ton truck and get a price. Last Time I
> checked a M35A2 was $47,000 or so..
> But you can't order any new ones because the production line is long
> gone.
>
>
> --
>
> "Oh Norman, listen! The loons are calling!"
> - Katherine Hepburn, "On Golden Pond"

Don't worry, according to Mr. O'Hara's logic, as long as you've still got
the original paper napkin sketch, starting up a production line is easy!
What an idjit!

[Dan[_12_]]

Zombywoof wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 04:44:59 -0500, Dan > wrote:
>
>> Zombywoof wrote:
>>> On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 00:43:48 -0500, Dan > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Raymond O'Hara wrote:
>>>> <snip>
>>>>> a big main force war isn't going to happen anytime in the next 50 years.
>>>> You may be willing to stake your life on that, I'm not. I have
>>>> history on my side. Since WW2 there were Korea, Viet Nam and Gulf War
>>>> where an air superiority fighter was a requirement. Iraq may not have
>>>> had the greatest air force, but they didn't exactly roll over either.
>>>>
>>> Actually they did, they rolled over & play dead or fled. There were
>>> no attempts at any meaningful maintenance of Iraqi airspace by the
>>> Iraqi's.
>> Well, the 33rd TFW took out 16 Iraqi MiGs that weren't rolling over
>> or fleeing. They may not have been anywhere near top notch, but those 16
>> at least did put up a fight.
>>
> Yeah I know a little bit about that since I was stationed @ Eglin AFB
> during the event at what was then the Tactical Air Warfare Center.
>
Then you remember the 16 green stars and the signs that read
"Biggest MiG parts distributors in Southwest Asia." I was in main base
with 9 SOS at the time.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Dan[_12_]]

tankfixer wrote:
> In article <z484k.1094$L03.864@edtnps92>,
> says...
>> The unit cost for A-10's is quoted at roughly US $10-15
>> million on the sites I found. All I know is that the F-22 unit cost is
>> somewhere north of US $100 million (the Air Force says $142 million on their
>> factsheet but who knows which unit cost that is) and the F-35 unit cost is
>> also over US $100 million.
>
> That A-10 cost was probably for the lst ones built, way back when ??
>
> I can FEDLOG the M35 2-1/2 ton truck and get a price. Last Time I
> checked a M35A2 was $47,000 or so..
> But you can't order any new ones because the production line is long
> gone.
>
>
My copy of Fed Log is 10 years old. Do they still publish it on
CD-ROM? I'd love to get my hands on a current set.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Michael Shirley]

On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 13:34:14 -0700, tankfixer >
wrote:

> In article >, raymond-
> says...
>>
>> as it is, in 30 year manned planes will probably be obsolete.
>>
>
>
> IIRC that claim was made already.
>
> Around 1960 or ther abouts...

And in 1971-72 when Teledyne Ryan was experimenting with the
Ryan Model 234 for defense suppression missions against SAM-2, (V-750-VK)
sites using LGBs and a short EO bomb called Stubby HOBO.

In the end, missiles with conventional EMP devices and airplanes able to
use their radars to HERFGUN the UAVs will keep the manned aircraft in
business for the most part.

--
"Implications leading to ramifications leading to shenanigans"-- Admiral
Elmo Zumwalt, USN.

[Raymond O'Hara]

"tankfixer" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, raymond-
> says...
>>
>> "tankfixer" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article >, raymond-
>> > says...
>> >>
>> >> "Typhoon502" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> On Jun 11, 6:51 am, "Roger Conroy" >
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > "Tiger" > wrote in message
>> >> >
>> >> > ...
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > > Raymond O'Hara wrote:
>> >> > >> "Ian B MacLure" > wrote in message
>> >> > .. .
>> >> >
>> >> > >>>"Raymond O'Hara" > wrote in
>> >> > :
>> >> >
>> >> > >> we are in two wars now{which we are losing} and you're worried
>> >> > >> about
>> >> > >> an
>> >> > >> imaginary war against an imaginary opponent.
>> >> > >> russia is not a credible threat. and it is decades away from
>> >> > >> being
>> >> > >> one.
>> >> >
>> >> > > Losing? Lose to whom? Current events don't seem be anywere close.
>> >> > > As
>> >> > > for
>> >> > > Russia? They have in the last year expanded their military
>> >> > > activity.
>> >> > > They
>> >> > > are flying Bears again, opposed our missile defence plans, and
>> >> > > Nato
>> >> > > expansions. Decades may be a bit much.
>> >> >
>> >> > Russia is not the only possible future technologically advanced
>> >> > enemy -
>> >> > don't take your eyes of China, or a possible Arab alliance.- Hide
>> >> > quoted
>> >> > text -
>> >>
>> >> >Not to mention Venezuela...
>> >>
>> >> we don't need F-22s to fight venezuela.
>> >
>> > You are one of those who believe in fair fights ?
>> >
>> >
>>
>> it still won't be a fair fight.
>
> So ?
>
> If technical superiority will allow my country to prevail with fewer
> casualties then I vote for the fancy tech.
>

if the fancy tech results in bankruptcy and the cancelations of needed
things i'll pass on that tech for a while,

[Raymond O'Hara]

"tankfixer" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, raymond-
> says...
>
>> are they just going to magically appear in 10 years, full blown, armed to
>> the teeth with ultra-fighters?
>
> Yes.
>
> Example: German 1930 to 1940.
>

the germans didn't have the best stuff. and there was plenty of warning.
the french built the maginot linebefore the german threat was known.
you want to do the same today.
we started then too.
the u.s. built a tank factory and it was producing tanks in less than a
year.

[Raymond O'Hara]

"tankfixer" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, raymond-
> says...
>>
>> as it is, in 30 year manned planes will probably be obsolete.
>>
>
>
> IIRC that claim was made already.
>
> Around 1960 or ther abouts...
>

they also once claimed man would never fly and that people would die from
the physical strain if trains exceeded 30mph.
H.G.Wells was thought a bit weird too.and his ideas were seen as not
happening, {rockets too the moon? hah!}
technology moves on.

[Raymond O'Hara]

"Dan" > wrote in message
...
> Tiger wrote:
>> Dan wrote:
>>> Zombywoof wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 00:43:48 -0500, Dan > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Raymond O'Hara wrote:
>>>>> <snip>
>>>
>>> Well, the 33rd TFW took out 16 Iraqi MiGs that weren't rolling over or
>>> fleeing. They may not have been anywhere near top notch, but those 16 at
>>> least did put up a fight.
>>>
>>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>>
>>
>> While not on the O'hara side of the fence, can we aggree more spending on
>> a f22 means a delay in the F35 program? Also that increasing the number
>> beyond 183 in the current budget environment means other Air force
>> programs will robbed to pay for them?
>>
> Certainly, with current budget constraints. That's a far cry from
> O'Hara's theory of bankrupting the country. He's got his mind made up and
> can't comprehend what is really going on around him. His personal biases
> block this.

are you forgetting the trillion dollar war we are in that you wish to
continue for ego purposes?
if it were peace time, i'd be all for the F-22 but at the moment we have
more pressing concerns.

the chimpler has done one thing. he has made the war nothing to the home
frot. you thinkthings are just business as usual and that the war doesn't
cost. you are like a 17 yer old girl with a credit card.

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Zombywoof
> writes
>Now back to the original discussion; the fact that every MIG destroyed
>in air-to-air combat (which was fairly lopsided), including the five
>Soviet-made MiG-29 Fulcrums, were downed by F-15C's,

Weren't two taken down by F/A-18s?

Doesn't deny the need for capable aircraft, just don't get
platform-obsessed.

--
The nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its
warriors, will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done
by fools.
-Thucydides


paul<dot>j<dot>adam[at]googlemail{dot}.com

[Dan[_12_]]

Raymond O'Hara wrote:
> "Dan" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Tiger wrote:
>>> Dan wrote:
>>>> Zombywoof wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 00:43:48 -0500, Dan > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Raymond O'Hara wrote:
>>>>>> <snip>
>>>> Well, the 33rd TFW took out 16 Iraqi MiGs that weren't rolling over or
>>>> fleeing. They may not have been anywhere near top notch, but those 16 at
>>>> least did put up a fight.
>>>>
>>>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>>>
>>> While not on the O'hara side of the fence, can we aggree more spending on
>>> a f22 means a delay in the F35 program? Also that increasing the number
>>> beyond 183 in the current budget environment means other Air force
>>> programs will robbed to pay for them?
>>>
>> Certainly, with current budget constraints. That's a far cry from
>> O'Hara's theory of bankrupting the country. He's got his mind made up and
>> can't comprehend what is really going on around him. His personal biases
>> block this.
>
> are you forgetting the trillion dollar war we are in that you wish to
> continue for ego purposes?

Who says I wish for the war to continue for "ego purposes?"

> if it were peace time, i'd be all for the F-22 but at the moment we have
> more pressing concerns.

You still don't get it, one has nothing to do with the other. Please
learn how the U.S. budget system works.
>
> the chimpler has done one thing.

Your true agenda comes forth. It isn't the money that bothers you,
it's the man in charge.

he has made the war nothing to the home
> frot.

Please translate that into a known language.

you thinkthings are just business as usual and that the war doesn't
> cost.

You don't seem to have read a word I have written. I have never said
the war doesn't "cost." I have, however, said procurement for the war
isn't the only consideration at hand.

you are like a 17 yer old girl with a credit card.
>
And you are a stoopie num-num head, so neener to you too. Feel better
now?

Now that we have been reduced to name calling I am going to drop
this. Have a nice day.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Ian B MacLure]

"Raymond O'Hara" > wrote in
:

>
> "Ian B MacLure" > wrote in message
> .. .


[i]
>> The French have an ancient tradition of preparing for the last
>> war.
>>
>> IBM
>>
>
>
> that's hardly a french only trait.

Didn't say it was. They are just so very good at it.

IBM

[Raymond O'Hara]

"Dan" > wrote in message
...
> Raymond O'Hara wrote:
>> "Dan" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Raymond O'Hara wrote:
>>>> "Roger Conroy" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> "Raymond O'Hara" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> "Tiger" > wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> Raymond O'Hara wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Tiger" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Raymond O'Hara wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Roger Conroy" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>> and they waited post war to build post war.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why do I get the feeling When ever folk say the earth is round, you
>>>>>>> will post it's flat???? What waiting? Dick Bong was killed testing
>>>>>>> P-80's in Aug of 1945. Work on the A bomb never stopped. The race
>>>>>>> for the Ebe river was a race gain zones of control postwar. Nobody
>>>>>>> was waiting.....
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> we are currently engaged in two wars. we have a runaway deficit.
>>>>>> and you're advocating spending billions on a weapons system that will
>>>>>> not do anything for us.
>>>>>> it is a great plane and if it was the cold war sure. but times have
>>>>>> changed and we must too.
>>>>>> a big main force war isn't going to happen anytime in the next 50
>>>>>> years.
>>>>> "Peace in our time" - the phrase seems vaguely familiar?
>>>>>
>>>>> Well we can all go back to bed now, Mr. O'Hara has personally
>>>>> guaranteed "World Peace".
>>>>>
>>>>>> we need to settle what we are involved in and get the budget under
>>>>>> control. then you can think about new toys for use against an
>>>>>> imaginary enemy.
>>>>>>
>>>>> If you ever stop thinking up "new toys for use against an imaginary
>>>>> enemy" that is exactly the momemt the enemy ceaces to be imaginary.
>>>>> Cite the Maginot Line as a prime example of such complacency.
>>>>>
>>>> again you and dan engage in strawman arguments.
>>>> you want us to turn into the UK, a bankrupt country.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I do? You really don't understand the current economy nor do you seem
>>> to comprehend what is actually going on world wide. You don't seem to
>>> have a grasp of potential threats.
>>>
>>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>>
>> you just bring up fantasy scenarios.
>>
>> you don't understand the economy.
>> we can't at the momen affor billions for a plane that does one thing and
>> one thing that is the least likely threat.
>> in 30 years most likely UMVs will rule.
> Amazing, and you tell me I'm bringing up fantasy scenarios? I'm not
> sure why you can tell us with a straight face how the U.S. won't be in
> another major war in the next 50 years, UMVs will "rule" in 30 years,
> ICBMs are a natural response to an attack against the U.S. and the like,
> yet can't see threats can change in the same time frame.
>
> As for the economy, the U.S. wastes more money on pork than it spends on
> F-22. I'm not justifying the cost of F-22, but it simply isn't that big a
> dent in the U.S. economy.
>
> In any event I doubt you will ever understand what is going on now or
> what is likely to occur in the future and I will never understand how you
> think it's logical to not replace aging aircraft with newer ones.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired


how can you with a straight face ignore the two wars we are in now and the
massive debt/deficit bush has created to pay it.

[Typhoon502]

On Jun 14, 7:30 pm, "Paul J. Adam" > wrote:
> In message >, Zombywoof
> > writes
>
> >Now back to the original discussion; the fact that every MIG destroyed
> >in air-to-air combat (which was fairly lopsided), including the five
> >Soviet-made MiG-29 Fulcrums, were downed by F-15C's,
>
> Weren't two taken down by F/A-18s?
>
> Doesn't deny the need for capable aircraft, just don't get
> platform-obsessed.

I think you're right. And I also think that the Iraqis bagged at least
one US jet...didn't a MiG-25 get a kill on a Hornet?

And to make an aside on the Venezuelan threat scenario, I'm not
entirely confident that the F-15Cs would fight at a parity level with
Su-30s, especially with the latest Russian AAMs. The Eagle drivers
might just find themselves in a sticky situation.

[Dan[_12_]]

Typhoon502 wrote:
> On Jun 14, 7:30 pm, "Paul J. Adam" > wrote:
>> In message >, Zombywoof
>> > writes
>>
>>> Now back to the original discussion; the fact that every MIG destroyed
>>> in air-to-air combat (which was fairly lopsided), including the five
>>> Soviet-made MiG-29 Fulcrums, were downed by F-15C's,
>> Weren't two taken down by F/A-18s?
>>
>> Doesn't deny the need for capable aircraft, just don't get
>> platform-obsessed.
>
> I think you're right. And I also think that the Iraqis bagged at least
> one US jet...didn't a MiG-25 get a kill on a Hornet?
>
> And to make an aside on the Venezuelan threat scenario, I'm not
> entirely confident that the F-15Cs would fight at a parity level with
> Su-30s, especially with the latest Russian AAMs. The Eagle drivers
> might just find themselves in a sticky situation.

My point exactly. A simple comparison between the U.S.A.A.F. and Nazi
Luftwaffe in early 1945 shows that poorly trained pilots with good
equipment and motivation can still hurt the best air force in the world
albeit with limited effect.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[tankfixer]

In article >, raymond-
says...
>
> "tankfixer" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, raymond-
> > says...
> >
> >> are they just going to magically appear in 10 years, full blown, armed to
> >> the teeth with ultra-fighters?
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> > Example: German 1930 to 1940.
> >
>
> the germans didn't have the best stuff. and there was plenty of warning.
> the french built the maginot linebefore the german threat was known.
> you want to do the same today.
> we started then too.
> the u.s. built a tank factory and it was producing tanks in less than a
> year.

In 1930 Germany was a semi stable democracy that was no danger to her
neighbors.
No one really believe she would be a danger again.
Over the next ten years she build up her airforce and army to the point
that by 1940 she had taken Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, France,
Belgium and the Netherlands.
Back then a fighter or tank could be designed and produced in under a
year.
To suggest that any country can do that now is absurd.


--

"Oh Norman, listen! The loons are calling!"
- Katherine Hepburn, "On Golden Pond"

[tankfixer]

In article >, says...
> tankfixer wrote:
> > In article <z484k.1094$L03.864@edtnps92>,
> > says...
> >> The unit cost for A-10's is quoted at roughly US $10-15
> >> million on the sites I found. All I know is that the F-22 unit cost is
> >> somewhere north of US $100 million (the Air Force says $142 million on their
> >> factsheet but who knows which unit cost that is) and the F-35 unit cost is
> >> also over US $100 million.
> >
> > That A-10 cost was probably for the lst ones built, way back when ??
> >
> > I can FEDLOG the M35 2-1/2 ton truck and get a price. Last Time I
> > checked a M35A2 was $47,000 or so..
> > But you can't order any new ones because the production line is long
> > gone.
> >
> >
> My copy of Fed Log is 10 years old. Do they still publish it on
> CD-ROM? I'd love to get my hands on a current set.


A 5 disk set of CD-ROM or a single DVD..
Still FOUO

I shudder to remember the days of looking up a part on the fisch.

--

"Oh Norman, listen! The loons are calling!"
- Katherine Hepburn, "On Golden Pond"

[Raymond O'Hara]

"Dan" > wrote in message
...
> Typhoon502 wrote:
>> On Jun 14, 7:30 pm, "Paul J. Adam" > wrote:
>>> In message >, Zombywoof
>>> > writes
>>>
>>>> Now back to the original discussion; the fact that every MIG destroyed
>>>> in air-to-air combat (which was fairly lopsided), including the five
>>>> Soviet-made MiG-29 Fulcrums, were downed by F-15C's,
>>> Weren't two taken down by F/A-18s?
>>>
>>> Doesn't deny the need for capable aircraft, just don't get
>>> platform-obsessed.
>>
>> I think you're right. And I also think that the Iraqis bagged at least
>> one US jet...didn't a MiG-25 get a kill on a Hornet?
>>
>> And to make an aside on the Venezuelan threat scenario, I'm not
>> entirely confident that the F-15Cs would fight at a parity level with
>> Su-30s, especially with the latest Russian AAMs. The Eagle drivers
>> might just find themselves in a sticky situation.
>
> My point exactly. A simple comparison between the U.S.A.A.F. and Nazi
> Luftwaffe in early 1945 shows that poorly trained pilots with good
> equipment and motivation can still hurt the best air force in the world
> albeit with limited effect.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired


in 1945 untrained nazies got slaughtered, the luftwaffe didn't come out to
play much anymore and our planes spent their time strafing grounded
fighters.


and venezuela would see its air force slaughtered too.
they don't have sophisticated AWACS needed and they don't and won't have the
numbers.

yeah chavez liked to buddy up with fidel, he makes crazy pronouncements and
he'd be out of business faster than saddam should he try anything with
anybody.

[Dan[_12_]]

tankfixer wrote:
> In article >, says...
>> tankfixer wrote:
>>> In article <z484k.1094$L03.864@edtnps92>,
>>> says...
>>>> The unit cost for A-10's is quoted at roughly US $10-15
>>>> million on the sites I found. All I know is that the F-22 unit cost is
>>>> somewhere north of US $100 million (the Air Force says $142 million on their
>>>> factsheet but who knows which unit cost that is) and the F-35 unit cost is
>>>> also over US $100 million.
>>> That A-10 cost was probably for the lst ones built, way back when ??
>>>
>>> I can FEDLOG the M35 2-1/2 ton truck and get a price. Last Time I
>>> checked a M35A2 was $47,000 or so..
>>> But you can't order any new ones because the production line is long
>>> gone.
>>>
>>>
>> My copy of Fed Log is 10 years old. Do they still publish it on
>> CD-ROM? I'd love to get my hands on a current set.
>
>
> A 5 disk set of CD-ROM or a single DVD..
> Still FOUO
>
> I shudder to remember the days of looking up a part on the fisch.
>

Microfiche was a royal pain.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Michael Shirley]

On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 10:52:15 -0700, Tiger > wrote:


> Hell Right now the Pakistaini's & our Nato allies wish we learn to shoot
> only the enemy. The Guys in the clouds are ****ing off the friendlies
> Again based on yesterdays news.

I'm not so sure I'd call Pakistan an ally. They're closer to the Chinese
as members of the Shanghai Cooperative Organization and a lot closer still
in joint weapons programs to them, than they are us. I'd term our
relationship more of a shotgun marriage with them doing the bare minimum
to not have Washington just set up a black ops squadron and just go flying
strike and interdiction missions in Waziristan that would cause extreme
embarassment to the Pakistanis.
--
"Implications leading to ramifications leading to shenanigans"-- Admiral
Elmo Zumwalt, USN.

[Michael Shirley]

On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 10:22:15 -0700, Ed Rasimus
> wrote:


> Who is going to buy this plane for the Army? Train the pilots? The
> maintainers? The supply chain? The weapons? Just buy a plane and give
> it to the Army?

Funny thing, but there may be a way around that.

Let me draw a parallel here starting with a WW-I trick that we should be
looking at.

Prior to WW-I, we had this thing called "The Preparedness Movement." One
of the interesting things about that, is that you had rich folks on the
East Coast buying power boats from outfits like Herreshoff's which had an
interesting attribute. In the event of war, they could be quickly
converted to small gunboats for coastal patrol. The Navy termed these
"Section Patrol Boats." And as it happened, they turned out to be rather
useful. You can see pics of them at the Hazegray site.

Not only did those boats provide a quickly convertible patrol boat force,
but also a pool of men experienced in handling small power boats.

Now fast forward to 2008. The FAA and the EAA have come up with a new
class of pilot's license, called Sport Pilot, and have created a new class
of plane weighing between 255 and 1300 pounds. Thus far, the offerings
from various manufacturers like the Diamond Katana and Cessna's new, and
Chinese built, Skycatcher, are all in the $80,000.00 per unit range, but
they don't have to be. I did some cost analysis about four years ago, and
came to the conclusion that a plane capable of rough field operation
within the Sport Pilot parameters set up by FAA could be produced for
about $12,000.00 each using an automotive conversion engine like a
Suzuki-Geo. It would not be
hard to design such a plane so that it could handle light close support
and interdiction after it's converted. For example, you could do
machinegun mounts similar to the ones used by French with their T-28
Fennecs in Algeria.
Bomb racks for small bombs, rocket launchers or even small missiles could
be carried.

There is precident for this. Count Carl Gustav Von Rosen operated with
planes like these in the Biafran Civil War and did quite well with them.
The CIA was attacking Nicaraguan oil facilities for a time using similar
aircraft.

And with the development of some of the new diesel aircraft engines, the
options for tactical employment are greatly improved.

The pilots skills one gets from a Sport Pilot certificate, roughly is
equivalent to the skills of a Huey or Aircobra pilot from Vietnam who was
carrying a TAC Ticket, if one excludes weapons delivery.

Such planes, if designed for rough field use, could provide several Army
Brigades, with a couple of Aeroweapons Companies, say, with twenty
aircraft a piece and the necessary support organization, for very little.

The planes could be designed for air delivery, truck transport, or going
back to Operation Torch, launch from Escort and Merchant aircraft carriers
with the intention of having them land at airstrips in the lodgement area
of an amphibious operation to provide TACAIR for troops thereon.

They could also function as FACs, light air support for air rescue,
patrol of lines of communication, ect. In short, they'd be useful. Not the
glamorous jets that one usually thinks of, but very, very useful
nonetheless.

And at twelve grand a pop, they'd be dirt cheap.

If nothing else, they're worth consideration given that our offshoring of
existing industrial base and the merge & RIF mania we've had since 1947,
doesn't leave us with much in the way of excess aircraft production
capacity.

In short, they're worth thinking about.
>
> You also seem woefully ignorant about the entire concept of joint
> operations.

No, actually I don't think that joint operations are all they're cracked
up to be. For example, in Afghanistan, the Air Force told the Army that
they couldn't even deliver towed artillery and that all heavy weapons
support would have to come from the air. That's okay until weather goes
below Air Force weather minimums like they did during Operation Anaconda,
when the Air Force called the game and the troops on the mountain had
nothing heavier than 81mm mortars for support. Artillery is an all weather
weapon, but the Air Force would neither deliver, nor support it.

At least towed artillery and light planes would belong to the Army
commander and he could operate them as the situation dictated without
having to worry about what REMFs in some rear line Air Force billet
thought about it.

Best of all, the industrial base needed to produce these things is a
whole lot more modest than what we'd need for something as advanced as
we'd like to have.

BTW, I've been reading about the Blitzfighter for years, but I've never
seen a picture of one. Usually Air Material Command's guys will do artists
renderings of various proposals at the drop of a hat, but I've never been
able to locate a drawing of Burton's Blitzfighter. Does one exist? I'd
dearly love to see what the base proposal was, coming out of Wright
Patterson's concepts shop.


"Implications leading to ramifications leading to shenanigans"-- Admiral
Elmo Zumwalt, USN.

[Raymond O'Hara]

"tankfixer" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, raymond-
> says...
>>
>> "tankfixer" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article >, raymond-
>> > says...
>> >
>> >> are they just going to magically appear in 10 years, full blown, armed
>> >> to
>> >> the teeth with ultra-fighters?
>> >
>> > Yes.
>> >
>> > Example: German 1930 to 1940.
>> >
>>
>> the germans didn't have the best stuff. and there was plenty of warning.
>> the french built the maginot linebefore the german threat was known.
>> you want to do the same today.
>> we started then too.
>> the u.s. built a tank factory and it was producing tanks in less than a
>> year.
>
> In 1930 Germany was a semi stable democracy that was no danger to her
> neighbors.
> No one really believe she would be a danger again.
> Over the next ten years she build up her airforce and army to the point
> that by 1940 she had taken Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, France,
> Belgium and the Netherlands.
> Back then a fighter or tank could be designed and produced in under a
> year.
> To suggest that any country can do that now is absurd.
>

in 1930 everybody was mired in a worldwide depression. england and france
were bankrupt.
the situation is not at all analogous. and germany was a concievable enemy.
and the fact is the allies didn't lack better weapons than the germans.
hurricanes and DW520s were capable and the spitfire maybe better than the
ME109.
british tanks had better armour and french tanks had better armour and
bigger guns.

you are carrying on like we are defenseless and falling behind.

and you also refuse to acknowledge the fact we are embroiled in 2 wars that
are straining the economy and which show no sign of ending anytime soon. .
we just can't keep spending on things that aren't needed now,

[Ian B MacLure]

tankfixer > wrote in
:

[snip]

> When the dust clears there is only rubble...

Of course Hollywierd being what it is the building will probably
be labelled "Kindergarten".

Well at least when the VRWC starts stringing the usual suspects up
I can jump on the Metro with my rope and be in Hollywierd in an
hour.

Reality though is so much better. Anybody remember "the luckiest
man in Iraq" from GW1.

IBM

[Raymond O'Hara]

"Tiger" > wrote in message
...
> eatfastnoodle wrote:
>> On Jun 13, 12:15 am, Jack Linthicum >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Jun 12, 11:58 am, Zombywoof > wrote:
>>>
>> Maybe the Pentagon should give the whole CAS to the Army, army will
>> select the plane, army pilot will fly the mission, I'm sure more
>> attention would be paid to it under the Army. USAF hates it anyway,
>>
>> I know it's not gonna happen because USAF wants to control every
>> flyable asset in the military. But secretary of defense, the president
>> should show the leadership and just order it to be done. It's always
>> better to have something under the control of somebody who actually
>> have the incentive to develop it.
>
> Hell Right now the Pakistaini's & our Nato allies wish we learn to shoot
> only the enemy. The Guys in the clouds are ****ing off the friendlies
> Again based on yesterdays news.
>


every army has friendly fire incidents, even the pakis and our nato allies.
its just a way to america bash.

[Ian B MacLure]

"Raymond O'Hara" > wrote in
:

[snip]

> how can you with a straight face ignore the two wars we are in now and
> the massive debt/deficit bush has created to pay it.

We are nowhere near the percentage of GDP for defence we've had
as late as Vietnam.
And a high percentage of that deficit would have to be ascribed to
domestic spending since Congress and I'm sad to say the
Administration have exhibited scant interest in controlling that
aspect of the federal budget.

IBM

[Ian B MacLure]

Typhoon502 > wrote in news:4865a85c-f12a-4e51-8290-
:

[snip]

> And to make an aside on the Venezuelan threat scenario, I'm not
> entirely confident that the F-15Cs would fight at a parity level with
> Su-30s, especially with the latest Russian AAMs. The Eagle drivers
> might just find themselves in a sticky situation.

Assuming of course there were any SU-30s still operational
when the Eagles showed up.

IBM

[eatfastnoodle]

On Jun 15, 12:34*pm, "Michael Shirley" > wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 10:52:15 -0700, Tiger > wrote:
> > Hell Right now the Pakistaini's & our Nato allies wish we learn to shoot *
> > only the enemy. The Guys in the clouds are ****ing off the friendlies *
> > Again based on yesterdays news.
>
> * * * * I'm not so sure I'd call Pakistan an ally. They're closer to the Chinese *
> as members of the Shanghai Cooperative Organization and a lot closer still *
> in joint weapons programs to them, than they are us. I'd term our *
> relationship more of a shotgun marriage with them doing the bare minimum *
> to not have Washington just set up a black ops squadron and just go flying *
> strike and interdiction missions in Waziristan that would cause extreme *
> embarassment to the Pakistanis.
> --
> "Implications leading to ramifications leading to shenanigans"-- Admiral *
> Elmo Zumwalt, USN.

Pakistan isn't a member of the Shanghai Cooperative Organization. And
given the history of them being betrayed by the US and left in the
dust after they committed significant resources to some of the most
important US operations, it's hard their blame to not trust the US.
Remember Afghanistan, the second after Soviet Union withdrew,
Pakistan was dumped by the US and US refused to deliver multiple F16s
already paid by Pakistan and no refund was offered. How can anybody
trust you after you committed such a blatant betray and acted as if
you were a con-artist.(People with a half ounce of integrity would at
least return the money if you couldn't deliver the plane for whatever
reason).

[tankfixer]

In article >, raymond-
says...
>
> "tankfixer" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, raymond-
> > says...
> >>
> >> "tankfixer" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > In article >, raymond-
> >> > says...
> >> >
> >> >> are they just going to magically appear in 10 years, full blown, armed
> >> >> to
> >> >> the teeth with ultra-fighters?
> >> >
> >> > Yes.
> >> >
> >> > Example: German 1930 to 1940.
> >> >
> >>
> >> the germans didn't have the best stuff. and there was plenty of warning.
> >> the french built the maginot linebefore the german threat was known.
> >> you want to do the same today.
> >> we started then too.
> >> the u.s. built a tank factory and it was producing tanks in less than a
> >> year.
> >
> > In 1930 Germany was a semi stable democracy that was no danger to her
> > neighbors.
> > No one really believe she would be a danger again.
> > Over the next ten years she build up her airforce and army to the point
> > that by 1940 she had taken Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, France,
> > Belgium and the Netherlands.
> > Back then a fighter or tank could be designed and produced in under a
> > year.
> > To suggest that any country can do that now is absurd.
> >
>
> in 1930 everybody was mired in a worldwide depression. england and france
> were bankrupt.
> the situation is not at all analogous. and germany was a concievable enemy.

The world believed Germany was neutered after the end of WW1

> and the fact is the allies didn't lack better weapons than the germans.
> hurricanes and DW520s were capable and the spitfire maybe better than the
> ME109.

The argument can go round and round but thte fact is Germany rebuilt her
military over the short ten year period.
The same length of time you think we would have as a warning now.

> british tanks had better armour and french tanks had better armour and
> bigger guns.

A minscual number of British tanks were better armored than German
tanks.

>
> you are carrying on like we are defenseless and falling behind.

Hardly, I am countering your arguments with the facts of the time.


>
> and you also refuse to acknowledge the fact we are embroiled in 2 wars that
> are straining the economy and which show no sign of ending anytime soon. .
> we just can't keep spending on things that aren't needed now,

You should pay attention better.
Iraq shows every sign of being resolved.
And if Obama wins and actually does as he claims then within a year we
will be out of Iraq (except for forces to guard US interests, train the
Iraqi's and chase terrorists, Sen Obama's words not mine)



--

"Oh Norman, listen! The loons are calling!"
- Katherine Hepburn, "On Golden Pond"

[tankfixer]

In article >, Zomby-
says...
> On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 20:16:45 -0700, tankfixer
> > wrote:
>
> >In article >, raymond-
> says...
> >>
> >> "tankfixer" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > In article >, raymond-
> >> > says...
> >> >
> >> >> are they just going to magically appear in 10 years, full blown, armed to
> >> >> the teeth with ultra-fighters?
> >> >
> >> > Yes.
> >> >
> >> > Example: German 1930 to 1940.
> >> >
> >>
> >> the germans didn't have the best stuff. and there was plenty of warning.
> >> the french built the maginot linebefore the german threat was known.
> >> you want to do the same today.
> >> we started then too.
> >> the u.s. built a tank factory and it was producing tanks in less than a
> >> year.
> >
> >In 1930 Germany was a semi stable democracy that was no danger to her
> >neighbors.
> >No one really believe she would be a danger again.
> >Over the next ten years she build up her airforce and army to the point
> >that by 1940 she had taken Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, France,
> >Belgium and the Netherlands.
> >Back then a fighter or tank could be designed and produced in under a
> >year.
> >To suggest that any country can do that now is absurd.
> >
> Did you mean CAN or Can't.

I think its unlikely any country can go from idea to production in a
year like happened in WW2

>
> Given enough resources an awful lot can be accomplished. We take an
> awful long time doing things right now over all sorts of debates over
> money.

One thing that happens now is the constant tinkering with the design.
Lengthens the design and prototype cycle excessivly.

>
> In another scrape for survival I think the US could do a whole bunch
> of things very quickly, although we would have to ramp up a lot of our
> manufacturing capability first though, or out-source the actual
> building to the Chinese or somebody.





--

"Oh Norman, listen! The loons are calling!"
- Katherine Hepburn, "On Golden Pond"

[Typhoon502]

On Jun 15, 2:42*am, Ian B MacLure > wrote:
> Typhoon502 > wrote in news:4865a85c-f12a-4e51-8290-
> :
>
> * * * * [snip]
>
> > And to make an aside on the Venezuelan threat scenario, I'm not
> > entirely confident that the F-15Cs would fight at a parity level with
> > Su-30s, especially with the latest Russian AAMs. The Eagle drivers
> > might just find themselves in a sticky situation.
>
> * * * * Assuming of course there were any SU-30s still operational
> * * * * when the Eagles showed up.

I reference both the Korean and Vietnam wars where the supposedly
backwards two-bit dictatorships had Russian pilots and maintenance
crews flying top-line equipment for them. Do you think that Chavez
would absolutely refuse to have Russian "advisors" back his power play
if he could get them?

[The Horny Goat]

On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 02:36:25 -0400, "Raymond O'Hara"
> wrote:

>> Hell Right now the Pakistaini's & our Nato allies wish we learn to shoot
>> only the enemy. The Guys in the clouds are ****ing off the friendlies
>> Again based on yesterdays news.
>
>every army has friendly fire incidents, even the pakis and our nato allies.
>its just a way to america bash.

No - when the Canadians had 4 dead and 8 wounded at American hands in
Afghanistan, your president made 5 public appearances later that day
and didn't mention the incident in any of them.

I think Canadians generally are bright enough to know that in war sh**
happens but Dubya had no fewer than 5 opportunities to say something
like "we have some bad news from Afghanistan and the United States is
very sorry..." or something minimal to that effect. That he DIDN'T
choose to take one of his 5 chances to say something like that
suggests the ally is taken for granted.

Had the roles been reversed and Canadian aircraft killed US troops you
can be sure that both Americans would be PO'd and that the Canadian
Prime Minister would say something. Had somehow our prime minister NOT
said something like that Americans would be furious and rightly so.

That's not America-bashing - that's how allies treat allies.

[Andrew Swallow[_2_]]

Airyx wrote:
[snip]

>
> Other potential adversaries with strong air capabilities are China
> (conflicts with India, Vietnam, Phillipeans, Taiwan), and Venezuala
> (conflicts will all of their neighbors).

Britain may have a defence agreement with Venezuala's neighbour Gyana.

Andrew Swallow

[Michael Shirley]

On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 10:27:54 -0700, Mike Williamson
> wrote:

>
>
> Are you suggesting that the US lease these light aircraft from their
> current owners (the method by which the "section patrol craft" were
> entered into Naval Service)?

That's one way. The other is just to exercise eminent domain and pay them
off in the event of a war. The neat thing about this particular deal is
that you have a large pool of pilots who are experienced in the operation
of the type that can be brought in and given training in such things as
weapons delivery. That really speeds things up.

>
> Aircraft such as you describe would not have the payload capacity
> to carry a useful armament or the fuel for a useful time on station.

Not true. First off, you can base these close to the FEBA, (Forward Edge
of Battle Area) and they don't require a nice, long visible concrete
landing strip. Any ploughed field will do. And as for useful armament,
that's not entirely true either. Carl Gustav Von Rosen did a fine job of
making monkeys out of the British and East German pilots his little
squadron was up against, and in the Balkans, an amazing array of aircraft
to include crop dusters, were modified for air strikes and did fairly well.

And there are a variety of very effective weapons that these can carry,
like small CBU bomblets, antitank bombs, napalm or other incendaries,
rockets, and there's nothing stopping you from building them so that they
could carry Hellfire or other small precision guided munitions. If a small
UAV can carry it, there's no reason why our vest pocket TACAIR asset can't.
And I've been doing some initial work on what I guess you'd call a
universal weapons adaptor box. Instead of a separate black box and wiring
harness for every missile you can hang on the pylon, I've been doping out
an idea for a sort of military USB plug so that when the weapons delivery
computer gets started, it downloads the firing & interface data it needs
from a ROM chip on the missile. Then you deliver according to what you've
got on the pylon, with no special wiring or added black boxes. I sort of
got the idea from when the Brits were modifying GR MK 3 Harriers to carry
Sidewinders, which required additional wiring. It was a great
improvisation, but they shouldn't have had to do it, and the thing that
scares me here is that nobody seems to have learned from the experience.

The missile makers won't like it, because a universal weapons adaptor
will eat into revenue for all of those extra black boxes and all of the
tech reps and special instrument racks that you need to maintain and
troubleshoot them, but plug & play in precision guided weapons is an idea
whose time has come.

Either way though, a modified Sport Light operating at the Brigade level
near the FEBA will have plenty of loiter time, fast turnaround times and
some fairly effective weapons that they can carry and use. And best of
all, you get to skip all of the Air Force bureaucracy when you want to put
hot iron on a target someplace, and best of all, being an Army asset, we
could build them so that their radio will directly communicate with the
VRC-77s in my old tank, which is a really nice feature, because air
support requests don't have to go through two dozen people just to get
aircraft tasked, let alone have em show up when and where you need em.
Keep in mind that these aren't like an old Phantom II squadron where you
have a battalion sized organization or larger supporting eight airplanes..
There is no reason that a light Aeroweapons Company couldn't operate 22
light attack planes with a company sized TO&E. (When I was doing my
original research, I took the logistic footprint of an Army tank company
equipped with M-60A1 (RISE) to define the logistical constraints. The
complexity of the weapons in question is comparable, with the planes
actually being somewhat simpler.)
>
> A Hellfire missile (used aboard the Predator, for instance) weighs
> 99 pounds, plus the equipment necessary to mount it, target it, fire
> it, etc (cost, probably several hundred thousand dollars). This is
> probably the smallest guided missile weapon you will find. A small
> diameter bomb (a "low-collateral-damage" weapon) weighs in at 250
> pounds. But travelling at 100 kts or so, and flying
> at a couple thousand feet, you have to fly just about directly over
> the target to hit it with a bomb.

We can do it better than that. My proposal for a universal weapons
adaptor box is one way. And that thing would use COTS, (Commercial Off The
Shelf) components and a Linux based operating system. The military USB bus
would use software based on Hotplug, which handles plug & play USB devices.

I'm looking at a system that won't weigh more than ten pounds. And that's
do-able with COTS components. And with some of the stuff we can do with
graphite epoxy, I can get weights for weapons pylons down and maybe a lot.
And keep in mind that we could use TOW-2s as well. The new ones aren't
wire guided and we can use tech developed in previous programs to give the
missiles millimeter wave seekers and a rom chip based target
identification library. There's plenty of room in the missile for that.

Just because we always did it one way, doesn't mean that we can't
do better. And keep in mind that the plane is designed at the outset to be
able to adapted for ground support including external weapons carriage at
the outset.

And you can do accurate bombing even with a reflector type weapons site..
Back during the Korean War, the Marines were asked whether they preferred
jet or propeller driven close air support and to a man they preferred the
older Corsairs. Why? Because they could come in low and slow and put the
ordinance where the ground troops wanted it. And the reflector sights were
all that the pilots had and they did fine.

>
>> There is precident for this. Count Carl Gustav Von Rosen operated
>> with planes like these in the Biafran Civil War and did quite well
>> with them. The CIA was attacking Nicaraguan oil facilities for a time
>> using similar aircraft.
>> And with the development of some of the new diesel aircraft
>> engines, the options for tactical employment are greatly improved.
>> The pilots skills one gets from a Sport Pilot certificate, roughly
>> is equivalent to the skills of a Huey or Aircobra pilot from Vietnam
>> who was carrying a TAC Ticket, if one excludes weapons delivery.
>
> I'll have to ask for some documentation on this. The FAA requires a
> total of only 20 hours flying instruction for a 'Sport Pilot' ticket-
> are you saying that military helicopter pilots only required 20 hours
> of training in the late 1960's? Note that a sport pilot can only
> carry one passenger (indeed, can not fly an aircraft capable of
> carrying more than one passenger in addition to the pilot), can only
> fly in Day, VFR conditions in certain airspace, and is not even
> considered capable of flying "for hire." Heck, a simple private pilot's
> license requires twice the flying training, and I guarantee you a
> private pilot would not be qualified to carry out the missions you
> suggest.

A helicopter requires more time, but I can take a twenty hour pilot, give
him around fifty more hours plus ground training and he could do this.

A Tac ticket was VFR only and was a short course. Flight lead tended to
be guys with an IFR rating but not always. The big difference is in being
able to fly with a topographic map rather than an FAA style sectional.
Terrain is important in weapons delivery in support of line troops.

We'd have to tweak the Sport Pilot regulations a bit, but there are valid
national security reasons for doing so. The FAA was mostly concerned with
the amount of damage a plane crash would do if a pilot screwed up. They
still tend to operate like their primary job is protecting Juan Trippe's
investors. That's got to change. The Canadian ultralight regulations are a
little bit better in this regard.

And keep in mind that we're not talking about commercial pilots or people
with a private pilots' license operating in Chicago O'Hare's pattern or
any of that kind of nonsense. We're talking about taking sport pilots and
converting them into ground support pilots able to take a low and slow
airplane and use it for things like support of troops in contact, Bed
Check Charlie raids, patrol of lines of communication, and limited
interdiction, and those guys have enough training that if we added the
tactics, some more emphasis on map reading and terrain orientation from an
airplane and weapons delivery, they could do this. The two biggest things
are terrain orientation and weapons delivery. But we can teach that. The
Army's good at it.

Keep in mind that these planes are intended to let you do your job with
your head out of the cockpit and systems management is a minimal
requirement, compared to say, what it was in an old F-105D flying a
nuclear delivery mission out of Turkey. You're not going to be staging out
of Italy, flying nine hours and then waiting for a Combat Controller to
give you a target like you do in Afghanistan. These planes won't be much
farther back than where you keep the medium artillery. They'll be
operating off of old washboard roads and ploughed fields, not airstrips.
They'll be a field weapon, and assumptions from operating jet aircraft in
a TACAIR environment don't really apply.

>> Such planes, if designed for rough field use, could provide several
>> Army Brigades, with a couple of Aeroweapons Companies, say, with
>> twenty aircraft a piece and the necessary support organization, for
>> very little.

>> The planes could be designed for air delivery, truck transport, or
>> going back to Operation Torch, launch from Escort and Merchant
>> aircraft carriers with the intention of having them land at airstrips
>> in the lodgement area of an amphibious operation to provide TACAIR for
>> troops thereon.
>> They could also function as FACs, light air support for air
>> rescue, patrol of lines of communication, ect. In short, they'd be
>> useful. Not the glamorous jets that one usually thinks of, but very,
>> very useful nonetheless.
>> And at twelve grand a pop, they'd be dirt cheap.
>
> I don't believe they'd be "very, very useful." At best, they
> might be "not quite useless." They don't seem capable of performing
> any of the missions listed. Heck, in some cases, you are suggesting
> a or scenario for which there is no requirement, i.e. replaying Torch.
> First, there aren't any "escort or merchant aircraft carriers." There
> are ships with helipads, for which you use helicopters, which are
> already in the inventory and which are much more capable.

Being an ex-ground soldier and knowing the limitations of support of
troops in contact when you're dealing with jets, I strongly disagree.
Being an ex-Tanker, I'm looking at this from a user angle. And most
support jobs require a little ordinance at the right time in the right
place, and these planes can do that. There are a lot of situations where a
light plane with smaller ordinance can get you better effect than calling
up the Howitzer Battery and asking for a battery three and screwing around
with adjusting fire, when one guy who can eyeball the target and put a
rocket on it, will do it faster and better.

I know the circumstances and the targets and the effects of existing
weapons and I know what these planes would be able to do, and I think that
they'd work quite well and be more available and cheaper to operate than
the helicopters that we're forced to rely on because of the 1947 Key West
Agreement.

And that Torch scenario is more likely than you think. Ever heard of the
Vickers Containerised Weapons Fit? It was a proposal in the 70's for
producing sea control ships and auxilliary cruisers and escorts by
installing modification kits on containerships. And containerships are the
most common and cheapest to operate merchant hulls in the world. Decking
one so that it could launch and even recover light planes can be done in
days. Most of the containerized modules needed to turn it into a working
merchant aircraft carrier can be built cheaply, stored indefinitely and
assembled at need. I suspect that the Chinese are doing this for some of
their COSCO assets too, since it expands their capabilities and is cheap
to do and because it makes sense given what they want and need to do.

Look at Afghanistan and Iraq and our biggest problems come from the fact
that our logistics are weak and our weapons are set up assuming
prepositioned stocks rather than deployable assets. And that means that
our ability to intervene and the time in which we can do so, are severely
circumscribed. Light planes and converted containership hulls will do a
lot to get around that. And with a shrinking military, less money to spend
and a more hostile world than it used to be, prepositioning isn't all that
valid of a logistical solution anymore, which means that the real
transformation in military affairs is less about weird electronics weapons
than it is about a shift from prepositioned assets to ones that can be
deployed in a timely manner. It does you no good to use the most expensive
and complex weapons in the world if you can't get them to where you need
them and keep them operational in the field. The next war, we're not gonna
be able to do like we did in Gulf Wars One and Two by using controlled
cannibalization of assets in CONUS to provide a stream of replacement
circut boards and the like. Our Air Force is getting too small for us to
get away with that. (Remember that story of Burton's about that F-111D
Confidence mission where only five planes made it to Australia and they
were only kept operating by grounding every F-111D in CONUS? I don't know
about you, but I found that one embarassing, and yet we don't seem to be
changing any.)
>
> Light support for Air Rescue (I take it this is for Combat Search
> and Rescue (CSAR))?

Yup. For guys who get hit while delivering support to troops in contact
and on limited interdiction missions. There it's a matter of how fast you
can get help in, and a guy with even light weapons who can keep the other
guys heads down, is better now, than a pair of Warthogs and an MH-60 a
half hour down the road. The longer you take, the more stuff you've got to
have, so doing things fast is better than waiting around.

>
> Suppressing enemy fires in an area to allow forces to carry out the
> rescue has proven to be a project best equipped with a fairly large
> amount of available firepower- A-10's are currently considered quite
> useful for this work. In addition to a long loiter time, they typically
> carry a variety of ordnance that individually weigh as much or more than
> the aircraft you are proposing. They are also fast enough to get to the
> target area *before* the rescue equipment. Showing up with the
> rescue forces isn't a good way to accomplish this, as they then have
> to "hang around" in bad-guy territory while you sanitize the landing
> area. If someone shows up first to do this, then your light support
> is not required. Also, sanitizing the area of bad guys in a small,
> lightly armed and armored aircraft is a good way of maximizing your
> rescue bird's effectiveness, because they will probably have to
> rescue your light support aircraft's pilot too, when they arrive,
> if the bad guys are present in any force (such as, for instance, the
> force required to cause the CSAR event in the first place).

If you've got time, and you've got the A-10s and the heavier stuff. My
assumption is that more of our wars are going to resemble Task Force Smith
type situations than anything else, which means that having the big stuff
is nice, but odds on you won't have it. Remember that little situation in
Mogadishu? Small, light elements are more likely to be okayed by
politicians than big heavy ones.

Everything I do, is predicated on the idea that faster is better and that
a pickup game is going to do more good than a carefully layed on operation
will later. And done right, I don't think that the risk will be undue.
Keep in mind that there are some awesome weapons out there that aren't
very big, like Dillon Aero's M145D gatling gun. Also keep in mind that
these planes are flying close to the FEBA. They're within artillery range
and in range of other supporting weapons as well. Working together, you
can raise merry hell with that stuff. That pilot doesn't just have what
he's got on the airplane. He's got everything that the Brigade has that
can shoot at his disposal, and that's like waking up to the Wrath of God
on a particularly bad day. So if he gets low on ammo, he can hand off to
the mortar sections of whatever Cavalry Squadron or Combat Support Company
is nearby, he's got the Howitzer Battery, he's got direct fire weapons of
the Brigade, and all of that comes down like a ton of bricks if you're on
the recieving end. Even the old Four Duce, (106mm mortar) is actually
pretty awesome when you figure that it carries as much explosive as a
155mm howitzer round and we've replaced the old mortars with a really
nice, and very, very accurate, 120mm that'll ruin your day if you're on
the recieving end.

And in addition to high explosives and hot steel, there's something else
that the Brigade can do for those pilots. Smoke! Kinda hard to screw with
the guys doing the rescue when somebody's just dumped a smokescreen on top
of them. Makes target acquisition, to put it crudely, a cast iron bitch.
And we Army guys have a tendency to look after our own, so those pilots
have a lot of on call support that the Air Force guys can't get because
they can't talk to the guy in the tank--me!

Those little planes may be small, and they may be crude by jet driver
standards, but they're no more and probably a good deal less vulnerable
than the old Hueys and Snakes were during Vietnam, but they can deliver
what's needed when it's needed, they've got plenty of backup that they can
call, and there's a whole lot less to go wrong with them than there is in
all of that modern turbine technology that looks good in the showroom but
which packs up all too much when it gets out where the shooting's actually
taking place.

>
> Patrolling lines of communications
>
> Actually useful during an insurgency. The trouble is, your insurgents
> will probably be doing their mischief during the night or in bad
> weather. Your sport pilot isn't actually qualified to fly in either,
> and at $12,000 your aircraft won't be equipped for it any way.

Useful in general warfare. Our enemies have made close studies of the
partisan operations on the Russian Front and we can expect diversionary
troop attacks against lines of communication targets during a war. The
Chinese are really big on the idea.

As far as equipping those planes go, we can equip a percentage of them
and train some of the better pilots for that. In Vietnam, our Army
Aviation Assets had a mix of pilots with IFR training and pilots with Tac
Tickets and there was a concerted effort to upgrade their training in
theater as time and resources permitted. There's no reason to think that
we can't operate that way again.

And lest we forget history, good old Bed Check Charlie and the Russian
Night Witches who were their predecessors, operated in planes that not
only didn't have IFR gear, but they did it in weather that would shut our
Air Force down. (Not to mention doing it in PO-2 biplanes, which had to be
miserable.) We can do better than that, without having to go to an Air
Force level of complexity. In real wars where the bureaucrats are kept at
bay, you'd be amazed at just how inventive our guys can get.

And we can do it with a $12,000.00 airplane.

>
>>> You also seem woefully ignorant about the entire concept of joint
>>> operations.

>> No, actually I don't think that joint operations are all they're
>> cracked up to be. For example, in Afghanistan, the Air Force told the
>> Army that they couldn't even deliver towed artillery and that all
>> heavy weapons support would have to come from the air. That's okay
>> until weather goes below Air Force weather minimums like they did
>> during Operation Anaconda, when the Air Force called the game and the
>> troops on the mountain had nothing heavier than 81mm mortars for
>> support. Artillery is an all weather weapon, but the Air Force would
>> neither deliver, nor support it.

>> At least towed artillery and light planes would belong to the
>> Army commander and he could operate them as the situation dictated
>> without having to worry about what REMFs in some rear line Air Force
>> billet thought about it.
>
> Towed artillery DOES belong to the Army, and so does the helicopter
> airlift used to move it to a tactical location. The inability
> to put towed artillery into place was not a problem with "some rear line
> Air Force billet," as you so quaintly call it- it was due to the
> inability of helicopters to carry heavy equipment to the high
> altitudes required for Operation Anaconda. That makes it a problem
> with the Army transportation system, not the Air Force. The Air Force
> therefore didn't tell the Army that all heavy support would be from
> the Air- the Army told the Air Force that (and, given typical
> cross-service planning and communications, probably occurred about
> the time the troops boarding their helicopters for the operation
> to begin).

The Air Force wouldn't even bring them in to Bagram, and that
on airlift assets that are allegedly supposed to be able to operate on
rough fields. Theater and Intertheater airlift is tasked to the Air Force,
and the last time the Army tried it, the Air Force delivered a massive
blizzard of crap that resulted in the Army giving up it's Caribous to the
Air Force, who in turn promptly sent them to the Boneyard. And every time
it gets mentioned,
the Air Force waves the Key West Agreement like a bloody red flag and
screams, "Roles & Missions."

And in the case of the 82nd's 105mms, when they can't be moved in one
piece, they can be moved in pieces and assembled on site. The Artillery
guys know how to do that and they're good at it. If the Air Force had
delivered to
Bagram, they'd have had them. Bet the rent on it.

If the tubes had been in-country, the Army would have gotten them where
they needed to go, but unfortunately, the Air Force stated that they
couldn't get the guns to Bagram. And the Army doesn't control that ALOC or
the assets that move material along it. The Air Force does.

And what you're not factoring in, is that the enemy doesn't wait for
weather or for the Air Force to get their ducks in a row. When they move,
the Army has to move and weather minimums be damned. That means that the
troops had to be on that hill and they had to have support, and as usual,
the Blue Suits in Italy were a day late and a dollar short.

Part of being able to win in a war is to have a shorter OODA loop than
the other guy does, and that means being able to move when you have to and
the Air Force for both technical and bureaucratic reasons can't. And that
means missing opportunites that we shouldn't. Giving the Army a field
deployable organic light air support capability, goes a long way towards
rectifying that dismal state of affairs.

>
> Actually, reading an analysis of the planning and coordination
> involved, it probably wasn't mentioned even then-after all,
> the US Navy, scheduled to supply most of the tactical air
> (fighter-bomber) support, wasn't even told the date it would
> start, and as a result had the carrier Stennis stand down flying
> operations on the first day. See-
>
> http://stinet.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA463654&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf

That's another problem. And that's why the Army needs an organic
capability that is an asset in the Brigade Commander's tool box. Having to
deal with things a thousand miles away when your S2, (Intelligence
Officer) tells you that you've gotta move now, is a great recipie for a
disaster. The Navy problem in that operation just underscores the point.

>
> As for weather minimums, you seem to think that they were created
> arbitrarily by some Air Force guy because he had nothing better to
> do. If the weather is "below minimums," it generally means that it
> is not POSSIBLE to deliver ordnance on target accurately- target
> identification and engagement in close proximity to friendly forces
> is hazardous enough already, you want to make it more likely that
> friendly forces are hit? Remember, without a visual talley on a
> target, the only weapon that can be delivered by an Air Force
> aircraft is a JDAM. This requires precise coordinates from the
> ground controller (which will itself likely be handicapped by
> weather). If you want a platform that can get under (much of)
> the weather and engage in close proximity to friendly troops
> in such circumstances, then you are looking for a helicopter-
> and shockingly enough, the Army has those for that precise
> purpose. As organic assets, they are also more readily available
> at the local level (they are NOT available to the division next door,
> who may well have a greater need for them, but that is what
> you get from organic assets and decentralized control).

I'd rather have the guy who's in the mud deciding some of
that rather than some guy in a soft chair in Italy. It's probably
gonna come as a shock, but most guys who've done the Forward Observer's
Course and who've had basic FAC training are pretty good at estimating
weather. Then again, we live in it. And we've got some pretty remarkable
means of targetting too. If we can see it, we can kill it, and these days,
we've got thermal imaging gear that lets us see just about anything.

The Artillery guys have a neat toy. They've got a gadget that lets you
set up, take a GPS ping, put the optical sight on the target, either ping
with a laser ranger or punch in an estimate, and it'll compute the offset
and send it directly to a fire direction center. From there, they've got
other gadgets that will figure elevation, charge, allow for earth's
rotation and drop rounds just about anyplace that you like it. It's
getting to be where they can fire for effect without a lot of sensing and
adjusting fire from the Forward Observer. And this gear is getting more
and more common.

Now there's nothing that says that we can't build a little box like the
transponder that the Marines used to tell the A-6 pilots where you were,
so that they could guide off of you and hit what you designated under
cloud cover. And GPS makes that thing pretty precise these days.

We've got 250 pound GPS bombs and they're getting smaller, so there's no
reason why the planes couldn't bomb accurately without ever seeing the
target, as long as the electronics are working. Or, given that thermal
sights are getting small enough to hang on a rifle now, (big difference
from the Thermal Imaging Sight prototype I got to try out at the Armor
Engineering Test Board back in 77, that required an M-60A1 to carry it),
so there's no reason that I couldn't put SMOKE, (White Phosporus) on a
target and have the plane bomb on that.

In short, it ain't like the old days. Weather minimums for jets are
understandible because they move fast and don't want to be smeared all
over the side of a mountain, but an armed 100mph light plane can operate
in the kind of light soup that a jet can't, with the right gear. And if
it's cheap enough to festoon the grunts with it, it's cheap enough for our
little airplanes.)
>
> Your arguements here appear to be based on a profound misunderstanding
> of the issues and circumstances, as well as a bias against the Air
> Force.

Nope. They're based on a study of history as well as being a former Tank
Commander who's had the fun experience of sitting on a range and watching
a pair of F-111s come screaming in and miss the entire range by two miles.

In the wars to come, the old chess game model is out. Look at it this
way. Imagine a basketball game where it's played between one guy who has
to dictate the moves to all of his players and a regular basketball team
who know the game, have worked together and know what the goal is and can
work accordingly. The way the Air Force plays it, it's like that guy
trying to move players like they're chess pieces. And it doesn't work
anymore.

You've got to operate in such a way as to give your enemies a maximum
amount of uncertainty and you've got to be fast and agile enough to react
quickly to changes and opportunities while constantly reassessing and
changing how you go about doing what you do. Boyd's OODA loop.

The way that the Air Force wants to operate, we can't do that and no
amount of crap about net centric warfare is gonna change the fact that our
tendency towards long chains of command, lousy interoperability and loads
of bureaucracy, cedes points to the enemy. We could get away with that
when we were bigger than everybody else and could outmuscle everybody, but
now we can't, which means that we've got to substitute brains for mass and
come up with the most compact and responsive structures that we can.

Our future wars are going to resemble Task Force Smith, in all it's
horror more than it's gonna resemble WW-II or the Soviet Debauch into
Fulda Gap that I trained for and fortunately never had to do. Nathan
Bedford Forrest's old adage of getting there first with the most, is gonna
be a watchword, which means that you've got to have deployable assets and
really shorts lines of communication and control and that means that
you're going to have to operate in small specified commands, (Like a
brigade!) that have a mission, identity, assets and a common command
structure, rather than the kind of unified command nonsense that the Air
Force likes that should have been thoroughly discredited when it failed so
badly in Grenada. It's gotta be a team effort, not the kind of chessgame
crap that you get right now with competing hostile bureaucracies that
don't play well together.

Our guys are gonna have to move fast, be agile enough to change according
to changes in the situation and to do so well enough to dominate it, and
to perpetually keep the enemy on the horns of Sherman's dilemma. The
current setup won't do that, and we know that because it never, ever has
done so successfully. The old British Rail Task Force has got to become an
American game, even if some of the players don't like it.

I'm not hostile to the Air Force, so much as I am hostile to bureaucracy
and military policy thats based on the most solipsistic assumptions I've
ever seen. When you take a skeptical look at the whole thing, what you
find is that most of what we propose to do, depends on the enemy being
compliant enough to play by our rules, and that's not likely to happen
anymore. Stuff like the Maxwell AFB Battlespace Dominance concept is
mostly warmed over Douhetism, and the current avoidance of Boyd's Manouver
Warfare concepts are gonna get people killed and lose us wars. SO it seems
reasonable to me that it's not unreasonable to argue forcefully for
changing it. We're not gonna get the wars that we want to fight, we're
gonna get the wars that we're stuck fighting, and we need to deal with
that.

"Implications leading to ramifications leading to shenanigans"-- Admiral
Elmo Zumwalt, USN.

[Michael Shirley]

On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 00:40:38 -0700, eatfastnoodle >
wrote:

> On Jun 15, 12:34Â*pm, "Michael Shirley" > wrote:
>> On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 10:52:15 -0700, Tiger >
>> wrote:
>> > Hell Right now the Pakistaini's & our Nato allies wish we learn to
>> shoot Â*
>> > only the enemy. The Guys in the clouds are ****ing off the friendlies
>> Â*
>> > Again based on yesterdays news.
>>
>> Â* Â* Â* Â* I'm not so sure I'd call Pakistan an ally. They're closer to
>> the Chinese Â*
>> as members of the Shanghai Cooperative Organization and a lot closer
>> still Â*
>> in joint weapons programs to them, than they are us. I'd term our Â*
>> relationship more of a shotgun marriage with them doing the bare
>> minimum Â*
>> to not have Washington just set up a black ops squadron and just go
>> flying Â*
>> strike and interdiction missions in Waziristan that would cause extreme
>> Â*
>> embarassment to the Pakistanis.
>> --
>> "Implications leading to ramifications leading to shenanigans"--
>> Admiral Â*
>> Elmo Zumwalt, USN.
>
> Pakistan isn't a member of the Shanghai Cooperative Organization. And
> given the history of them being betrayed by the US and left in the
> dust after they committed significant resources to some of the most
> important US operations, it's hard their blame to not trust the US.
> Remember Afghanistan, the second after Soviet Union withdrew,
> Pakistan was dumped by the US and US refused to deliver multiple F16s
> already paid by Pakistan and no refund was offered. How can anybody
> trust you after you committed such a blatant betray and acted as if
> you were a con-artist.(People with a half ounce of integrity would at
> least return the money if you couldn't deliver the plane for whatever
> reason).

Look at their defense agreements, military history and joint defense
programs, to include that nice new port the Peoples Liberation Army-Navy's
building there. China and Pakistan are closer to each other than the US
and Germany was in the Cold War. And if you look closely at that, what you
see is that they're defacto members of SCO. And any professional order of
battle in that coalition will include Pakistan in China's column, not ours.

As far as doublecrossing them, I agree. Washington doublescrosses
everybody. One of the problems with being as big as we are, and having
decision cycles predicated on the news cycle, the fundraising cycle and
election cycles, is that it makes for a government that has a rather short
range view of things. That's bad, and it's going to bite us, and arguably,
it is biting us. That's what we get for having a political structure
composed of people who believe that it's possible to act without
consequences. Welcome to the real world.

It's one of the reasons that I'm absolutely opposed to handing over the
Kurds to Baghdad. We've doublecrossed em twice that I can remember and I'd
just as soon leave things in working order there, than to hand the whole
mess over to the first pimp that takes a State Department employee to
lunch.

From my view though, it's not a matter of why our friends are fast
becoming our enemies. We're agreed on that point. My point of view has to
do with maintaining the national security interests of the United States
in a world where our politicians have created the classiest pack of
enemies that anybody could ever want, leaving us to deal with them if we
can.

And that means some fundamental changes to how we approach things,
starting with the Middle East. We can't afford sideshows in sandtrap wars,
period. Our capabilities have shrunken too much. Our industrial base is
short, our logistics are lousy, (the only reason that Desert Storm was
possible was because the British Merchant Navy provided critical sealift)
our military overdepends on boutique weapons that we can neither procure
consistantly in useful numbers or replace when they are destroyed. In
short, we've got a mess.

I'm not gonna argue the point about how we got into the mess that we're
in. That's obvious, even to a Senator. <Chuckle> I'm not gonna argue that
we've made some implacably deadly enemies, starting with the old Weiqi
players in Beijing. That much is as obvious as a corpse floating in the
pool.

No, my point is that having made all of these enemies, we must survive
having done so, and that means some major shifts in how we base and use
our military assets, and the Middle East, is a luxury right now that we
can ill afford, so I'm all for cutting our losses, letting Europe deal
with their own security issues and shifting our focus to the Carribean,
the Pacific and our Southern Border, where we've got some critical and
potentially lethal problems.




--
"Implications leading to ramifications leading to shenanigans"-- Admiral
Elmo Zumwalt, USN.

[Michael Shirley]

On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 20:16:45 -0700, tankfixer >
wrote:


> In 1930 Germany was a semi stable democracy that was no danger to her
> neighbors.
> No one really believe she would be a danger again.
> Over the next ten years she build up her airforce and army to the point
> that by 1940 she had taken Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, France,
> Belgium and the Netherlands.
> Back then a fighter or tank could be designed and produced in under a
> year.
> To suggest that any country can do that now is absurd.

Not at all. Remember the Boeing Bird of Prey demonstrator? They did that
plane in roughly a year. And going full scale development without a lot of
change orders from Wright Patterson, they'd have been able to do in less
than another year.

Here's something for you to factor into your assessment. Back in 1960,
Herman Kahn, of Hudson Institute, (Sort of an East Coast RAND Corporation)
wrote a neat little book called On Thermonuclear War. One of the things
that he noted, that I've always kept in mind, is that by 1960, the primary
business of the Aircraft Industry wasn't designing and building
airplanes-- it was research and development. Lots of paper studies, loads
of really cool artwork, but if you really wanted to screw things up, tell
em to build what they designed.

You can, design airplanes fast. What it takes is shops where a designer
can design, build and test a plane, (I've got Kelly Johnson's rules for
operating a Skunk Works someplace and he is emphatic on the point) and
then the builders need to be able to sell them so that they can build more
planes. An aeronautical engineer these days gets to work on maybe one
project, and because of an insanely long, twenty plus years long product
development cycle, his experience stops there. And he doesn't get to
design more than that because the business is R&D, not building and
selling airplanes.

The Air Force doesn't work that way, because Stewart Symington made the
decision that the atomic bomb made the ability to maintain and expand
aircraft manufacture in wartime, irrelevant. According to him and to
subsequent generations of Air Force Generals, we go with what we have, and
hopefully we win before we run out of goodies.

The real world has pretty much invalidated that assumption.
Unfortunately, we don't have the technological defense in depth that we
once had, because of around sixty years of Merge & RIF as Air Force policy.

What that means is that we buy boutique airplanes that are so expensive
that we don't dare hazard them and if we do, we can't replace them when
they're lost. And we can't in a timely way, replace aircraft that are
irrelevant to our current situation because either conditions are changed
or the situation estimate on which their specifications are based were
found to be in error. The original B-17 was a coast defense weapon. By the
time that the Air Force really got going over Germany, that plane was in
the E model, was a virtually different airplane and was in expanded mass
production. We can't do that anymore.

We also can't supplement or replace planes that aren't relevant to our
situation with new ones, and when we get a bad design, we're stuck with
it, rather than shifting it off to some secondary job and replacing it
with a better one, not least of which because our designer's bench is
very, very short staffed. In the old days, when Donovan Berlin hit his
slump, guys like Lee Atwood and Ed Heinemann and Kelly Johnson could pick
up. And that kind of technological defense in depth is lost to us.

So, in the meantime, we're stuck. And that's scary. If the F-22 and the
F-35 turn out to be either bad or not what we need, what do we replace
them with? Our current situation has us stuck going to war flying the
Brewster Buffalo rather than using the Wildcat and developing the Hellcat.

Its not just the individual platforms that are of concern here. We've got
to change the way that we do business and get back to where we're in the
business of designing and building and flying airplanes, not doing R&D and
substituting paper studies for real world experience.

Rumor has it that Boeing's Phantom Works is designing a new bomber as a
private initiative to compete with something that Northrop's working on
now. I hope that we encourage them and basically encourage everybody to
get back to building and flying airplanes. Right now, the only place you
see any activity like that is in the Drone & UAV business because the Air
Force never got to set that end of the market in concrete. Hopefully what
they're doing will spread to the manned aircraft game.

In the meantime. I think that we can design and build combat capable
aircraft in a year and that's a good time frame to aim for. It imposes
some dicipline on the designers and forces them to look at flight hardware
rather than paper studies and cool artwork.

BTW, speaking of cool artwork, does anybody know where I can get an image
of what the guys at Wright Patterson said that Burton's Blitzfighter was
supposed to look like?
>
--
"Implications leading to ramifications leading to shenanigans"-- Admiral
Elmo Zumwalt, USN.

[Michael Shirley]

On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 08:45:37 -0700, Dean > wrote:


> I'm curious, where has Russia taken miltary action in Northern Asia?
> Does Mongolia or China know?

Yes. They got into a multidivisional spitting match back in 1969 along
the Uri and Ussuri rivers. Border dispute. It's why the Soviets set up the
Fortified Area Troops.

--
"Implications leading to ramifications leading to shenanigans"-- Admiral
Elmo Zumwalt, USN.

[Michael Shirley]

On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 23:59:33 -0700, Zombywoof > wrote:

>
> In another scrape for survival I think the US could do a whole bunch
> of things very quickly, although we would have to ramp up a lot of our
> manufacturing capability first though, or out-source the actual
> building to the Chinese or somebody.

Unless we're fighting the Chinese, in which case we're gonna really
regret the outsourcing of high tech production equipment that Boeing,
Cessna, (Their new plane, the Skycatcher is actually gonna be built by
Chengdu) and our auto manufacturers gave em. I saw some footage of one of
GM's plants in China a few weeks back and when I saw the level of
automation and the high throughput, my stomach went into a knot. It won't
take much to retool for military production.



--
"Implications leading to ramifications leading to shenanigans"-- Admiral
Elmo Zumwalt, USN.

[Michael Shirley]

On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 15:18:47 -0700, Andrew Swallow
> wrote:

> Airyx wrote:
> [snip]
>
>> Other potential adversaries with strong air capabilities are China
>> (conflicts with India, Vietnam, Phillipeans, Taiwan), and Venezuala
>> (conflicts will all of their neighbors).
>
> Britain may have a defence agreement with Venezuala's neighbour Gyana.

They have for years. The Brits used to practice deploying Harriers there,
mostly as a demonstration to the Venezuelans.

"Implications leading to ramifications leading to shenanigans"-- Admiral
Elmo Zumwalt, USN.

[eatfastnoodle]

On Jun 16, 8:10*am, "Michael Shirley" > wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 00:40:38 -0700, eatfastnoodle > *
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 15, 12:34*pm, "Michael Shirley" > wrote:
> >> On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 10:52:15 -0700, Tiger > *
> >> wrote:
> >> > Hell Right now the Pakistaini's & our Nato allies wish we learn to *
> >> shoot *
> >> > only the enemy. The Guys in the clouds are ****ing off the friendlies *
> >> *
> >> > Again based on yesterdays news.
>

>
> * * * * Look at their defense agreements, military history and joint defense *
> programs, to include that nice new port the Peoples Liberation Army-Navy's *
> building there. China and Pakistan are closer to each other than the US *
> and Germany was in the Cold War. And if you look closely at that, what you *
> see is that they're defacto members of SCO. And any professional order of *
> battle in that coalition will include Pakistan in China's column, not ours..

That's because Chinese has been on their side ever since the Pakistani
independence, both countries has undergone major political and
economic changes ever since. Yet no matter who is in charge in
Pakistan, generals, politicians, good guy, bad guy, crooks, whatever,
China always stands with Pakistan in their fight with India. Their
relation is fundamentally in line with their strategic interests.
That's why it's so strong. As for the US, I guess everybody agrees
that in the eyes of US government, Pakistan is nothing more than a
convenient ally at best, a tool I would say. As for average joes, the
image of Pakistan isn't that much better than Taliban.


> * * * * As far as doublecrossing them, I agree. Washington doublescrosses *
> everybody. One of the problems with being as big as we are, and having *
> decision cycles predicated on the news cycle, the fundraising cycle and *
> election cycles, is that it makes for a government that has a rather short *
> range view of things. That's bad, and it's going to bite us, and arguably, *
> it is biting us. That's what we get for having a political structure *
> composed of people who believe that it's possible to act without *
> consequences. Welcome to the real world.
>
> * * * * It's one of the reasons that I'm absolutely opposed to handing over the *
> Kurds to Baghdad. We've doublecrossed em twice that I can remember and I'd *
> just as soon leave things in working order there, than to hand the whole *
> mess over to the first pimp that takes a State Department employee to *
> lunch.
>
> * * * * From my view though, it's not a matter of why our friends are fast *
> becoming our enemies. We're agreed on that point. My point of view has to *
> do with maintaining the national security interests of the United States *
> in a world where our politicians have created the classiest pack of *
> enemies that anybody could ever want, leaving us to deal with them if we *
> can.
>
> * * * * And that means some fundamental changes to how we approach things, *
> starting with the Middle East. We can't afford sideshows in sandtrap wars, *
> period. Our capabilities have shrunken too much. Our industrial base is *
> short, our logistics are lousy, (the only reason that Desert Storm was *
> possible was because the British Merchant Navy provided critical sealift) *
> our military overdepends on boutique weapons that we can neither procure *
> consistantly in useful numbers or replace when they are destroyed. In *
> short, we've got a mess.
>
> * * * * I'm not gonna argue the point about how we got into the mess that we're *
> in. That's obvious, even to a Senator. <Chuckle> I'm not gonna argue that *
> we've made some implacably deadly enemies, starting with the old Weiqi *
> players in Beijing. That much is as obvious as a corpse floating in the *
> pool.
>
> * * * * No, my point is that having made all of these enemies, we must survive *
> having done so, and that means some major shifts in how we base and use *
> our military assets, and the Middle East, is a luxury right now that we *
> can ill afford, so I'm all for cutting our losses, letting Europe deal *
> with their own security issues and shifting our focus to the Carribean, *
> the Pacific and our Southern Border, where we've got some critical and *
> potentially lethal problems.

One change of approach I would like to say is for the US to give up on
its obsession to stick its noses into other people's business. US used
to be far better a friend during the cold war when Soviet Union used
to send tanks into any of its ally who dared to think about leaving
the Warsaw pact, France kicked American troops out and opened pursued
its own path, US accepted it and worked with France still. Seriously,
the kind of "Manifest Destiny" attitude ****es off everybody.

I'm not an expert on the nitty-gritty details, but please elect
somebody who knows what he's doing and who has at least a little
common sense. WMD issue aside, whether or not the military is
"winning" in Iraq now aside, anybody who has common sense would hope
for the best but plan for the worst even though you are 100% sure the
best case scenario would happen because any sane people would know
that there isn't 100% sure thing. instead, this administration based
its plan on the assumption that US soldiers would be welcomed as
liberators. That's beyond dumb.


> --
> "Implications leading to ramifications leading to shenanigans"-- Admiral *
> Elmo Zumwalt, USN.

[William Black[_1_]]

"Michael Shirley" > wrote in message
news:op.uctgnu05ra3qj7@schooner-blue...
> On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 23:59:33 -0700, Zombywoof > wrote:
>
>>
> I saw some footage of one of GM's plants in China a few weeks back and
> when I saw the level of automation and the high throughput, my stomach
> went into a knot. It won't take much to retool for military production.

But it'll probably take a level of project management and technical
sophistication that isn't available in great quantities in China.

The factories may be in China but they're designed in the West, and the
skills for designing such a factory, and the management of the processes
used, aren't available to the Chinese in any great quantity.

That's why they're making Blu Ray players and not top of the range avionics
for export.

The technologies aren't that different.

--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

[Leadfoot[_3_]]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 09:29:42 -0400, Tiger >
> wrote:
>
>>Dan wrote:
>>> Zombywoof wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 00:43:48 -0500, Dan > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Raymond O'Hara wrote:
>>>>> <snip>
>>>
>>> Well, the 33rd TFW took out 16 Iraqi MiGs that weren't rolling over or
>>> fleeing. They may not have been anywhere near top notch, but those 16 at
>>> least did put up a fight.
>>>
>>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>>
>>
>>While not on the O'hara side of the fence, can we aggree more spending
>>on a f22 means a delay in the F35 program? Also that increasing the
>>number beyond 183 in the current budget environment means other Air
>>force programs will robbed to pay for them?
>
> Actually no, we can't agree on that. It is apples/oranges. The F-22
> progam is in production with almost 20 years of development and
> evolution already as sunk costs. The F-35 program is where F-22 was in
> 1992.
>
> The incremental unit cost for additional F-22s (which are
> multi-mission capable now) is not a trade-off against F-35 development
> funding and purchase of an aircraft that won't reach full scale
> production and deployment for at least five years.
>
> The only thing being "robbed" in these scenarios is increased social
> program spending, the result of political pandering, pork-barreling
> and earmarking.


Actually I think 432 F-22's was about right. What robbed USAF of 250 of
them was the 500 billion dollar adventure in Iraq and not increased social
program spending.

Think carefully next time you want to remove a despicable dictator in a
country ripe for insurgency. The present situation in Iraq was very
predictable.

>
> Ed Rasimus
> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
> www.thundertales.blogspot.com
> www.thunderchief.org

[Michael Shirley]

On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 18:26:57 -0700, Leadfoot > wrote:


> Think carefully next time you want to remove a despicable dictator in a
> country ripe for insurgency. The present situation in Iraq was very
> predictable.

And our future problems with the Chinese, doubly so.

"Implications leading to ramifications leading to shenanigans"-- Admiral
Elmo Zumwalt, USN.

[Leadfoot[_3_]]

"Zombywoof" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 09:29:42 -0400, Tiger >
> wrote:
>
>>Dan wrote:
>>> Zombywoof wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 00:43:48 -0500, Dan > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Raymond O'Hara wrote:
>>>>> <snip>
>>>
>>> Well, the 33rd TFW took out 16 Iraqi MiGs that weren't rolling over or
>>> fleeing. They may not have been anywhere near top notch, but those 16 at
>>> least did put up a fight.
>>>
>>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>>
>>
>>While not on the O'hara side of the fence, can we aggree more spending
>>on a f22 means a delay in the F35 program? Also that increasing the
>>number beyond 183 in the current budget environment means other Air
>>force programs will robbed to pay for them?
>>
> I've not read where there is a proposal to expand beyond the current
> project 183, but I don't follow things as closely as I once did.
>
> One of the things that has to be remembered that all USAF kills were
> by F-15C's, the very aircraft that the F-22 is slated to replace. The
> very first F-16 air-to-air kill was on 27 December 1992, when a F-16D
> shot down an Iraqi MiG-25 in UN-restricted airspace over southern Iraq
> with an AIM-120 AMRAAM.

First USAF F-16 kill, not first F-16 kill


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-16#Operation_Peace_for_Galilee_.281982.29


>
> Again this was the first USAF F-16 kill since the F-16 was introduced.
> So exactly how many projected air-to-air kills do you think the F-35
> will have, or at least chances to have? Air Superiority is NOT its
> projected "primary" role. The F-22 & F-35 are designed to work in
> Tandem with the F-35 performing the current F-16 & A-10 missions.
> --
> "Everything in excess! To enjoy the flavor of life, take big bites.
> Moderation is for monks."

[Michael Shirley]

On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 22:08:18 -0700, eatfastnoodle >
wrote:


>>
>> Â* Â* Â* Â* Look at their defense agreements, military history and joint
>> defense Â*
>> programs, to include that nice new port the Peoples Liberation
>> Army-Navy's Â*
>> building there. China and Pakistan are closer to each other than the US
>> Â*
>> and Germany was in the Cold War. And if you look closely at that, what
>> you Â*
>> see is that they're defacto members of SCO. And any professional order
>> of Â*
>> battle in that coalition will include Pakistan in China's column, not
>> ours.
>
> That's because Chinese has been on their side ever since the Pakistani
> independence, both countries has undergone major political and
> economic changes ever since. Yet no matter who is in charge in
> Pakistan, generals, politicians, good guy, bad guy, crooks, whatever,
> China always stands with Pakistan in their fight with India. Their
> relation is fundamentally in line with their strategic interests.
> That's why it's so strong. As for the US, I guess everybody agrees
> that in the eyes of US government, Pakistan is nothing more than a
> convenient ally at best, a tool I would say. As for average joes, the
> image of Pakistan isn't that much better than Taliban.

Yup, that isn't gonna change ever since the Chinese provided weapons
after the West embargoed them back in the 60's.



>
> One change of approach I would like to say is for the US to give up on
> its obsession to stick its noses into other people's business. US used
> to be far better a friend during the cold war when Soviet Union used
> to send tanks into any of its ally who dared to think about leaving
> the Warsaw pact, France kicked American troops out and opened pursued
> its own path, US accepted it and worked with France still. Seriously,
> the kind of "Manifest Destiny" attitude ****es off everybody.

Yup. I think that they do it out of habit. For the most part, not a lot
of thought goes into our foreign policy at the Government level. Mostly
it's farmed out to think tanks and Beltway Bandits and a lot of those are
financed by various tax exempt foundations that front for various moneyed
interests.

Your typical politician tends to be ignorant of everything except
fundraising and media relations. He's overdependant on staff and the staff
is overdependant on whomever takes them to lunch and gives them some piece
of research that they're not all that competent to make assessments of.

>
> I'm not an expert on the nitty-gritty details, but please elect
> somebody who knows what he's doing and who has at least a little
> common sense. WMD issue aside, whether or not the military is
> "winning" in Iraq now aside, anybody who has common sense would hope
> for the best but plan for the worst even though you are 100% sure the
> best case scenario would happen because any sane people would know
> that there isn't 100% sure thing. instead, this administration based
> its plan on the assumption that US soldiers would be welcomed as
> liberators. That's beyond dumb.

You'll never see it here. Our system selects for the lowest common
denominator of politician and thus the lowest common denominator is what
we get. Anybody with real principles or any kind of actual knowledge will
get filtered out before he can run for city council, let alone Congress or
the Senate. Structurally, this country is totally incapable of producing
somebody like Winston Churchill.

And it gets worse. Most government policy is an outsourced product. That
worked sort of, in the 50's because the universities were actually
producing diciplined intellectuals who could apply a little skepticism and
critically assess information. We're no longer able to produce guys like
James Schlesinger anymore, because our university systems have lost the
ability to do that. We ceded the college campuses to the radical left in
the 60's and 70's and now, as far as producing the technicians who
actually can create viable policy and administer it goes, they can't. They
do a remarkably good job of producing fair copies of the New Soviet Man
though. My youngest is in college now, and she's planning on a career as
an attorney. When I got a look at what they're demanding that she take as
core curriculium, I was appalled. A college education these days have
costs ranging from five to six significant digits and looking at what
they're being asked to pay for, I can tell you that a modern university
education in this country is a fraud and things are deteriorating from
there. Critical thinking skills are out and courses based on the most
schizoid ideology I've ever seen, predominate.

The end result is that the formation of policy is in the hands of an
increasingly incompetent group of people. And the end result of that will
be that the policies in question will be schizoid, self contradictory, and
in general, destructive to the continued maintenance of our national
security.

My guess is that the future is going to be replete with ever more
instances of us shooting ourselves in the ass. And anybody who has to
determine what their relationship is to our government needs to take that
into account. I'm an American. I've lived here my entire life except for
some travel as a member of the military. And I can't predict what our
policy establishment or our politicians will do, simply because they're
too ignorant to come up with a consistant policy on anything. You have
some individuals who are competent, but you'll find that Gresham's Law
applies to government as much as it does anything else-- the bad will
drive out the good and we're seeing that here.

So, if anybody's planning on doing anything to preserve Post Renaissance
Western Civilization in the world, they can expect to do it in spite of
Washington at least as often as they do because of it.

--
"Implications leading to ramifications leading to shenanigans"-- Admiral
Elmo Zumwalt, USN.

[Michael Shirley]

On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 02:56:13 -0700, William Black
> wrote:

>
> "Michael Shirley" > wrote in message
> news:op.uctgnu05ra3qj7@schooner-blue...
>> On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 23:59:33 -0700, Zombywoof >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>> I saw some footage of one of GM's plants in China a few weeks back and
>> when I saw the level of automation and the high throughput, my stomach
>> went into a knot. It won't take much to retool for military production.
>
> But it'll probably take a level of project management and technical
> sophistication that isn't available in great quantities in China.

Today, no, but that state of affairs won't last for long.

>
> The factories may be in China but they're designed in the West, and the
> skills for designing such a factory, and the management of the processes
> used, aren't available to the Chinese in any great quantity.
>
> That's why they're making Blu Ray players and not top of the range
> avionics
> for export.
>
> The technologies aren't that different.

That'll change. As it is, when Rockwell-Garmin sold em modern GPS
technology back during the Clinton Administration and Boeing did the same
with the ring laser gyro autopilot during the same time frame, that made
me sick too. It buys the Chinese time to get good at things, while
extending the usefulness of weapons that might not otherwise be up to
scratch. Both of those avionics systems went into the Qing-5, a 1958
design for a tactical nuclear strike fighter that was supposed to be able
to do what the early model F-105s could. That plane was utterly obsolete
until we upgraded their NAV/ATTACK systems for them.

I can just imagine what Obama's mob will do when they're elected.

--
"Implications leading to ramifications leading to shenanigans"-- Admiral
Elmo Zumwalt, USN.

[William Black[_1_]]

"Michael Shirley" > wrote in message
news:op.ucwkbqu5ra3qj7@schooner-blue...
> On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 02:56:13 -0700, William Black
> > wrote:
>
>>
>> "Michael Shirley" > wrote in message
>> news:op.uctgnu05ra3qj7@schooner-blue...
>>> On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 23:59:33 -0700, Zombywoof >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>> I saw some footage of one of GM's plants in China a few weeks back and
>>> when I saw the level of automation and the high throughput, my stomach
>>> went into a knot. It won't take much to retool for military production.
>>
>> But it'll probably take a level of project management and technical
>> sophistication that isn't available in great quantities in China.
>
> Today, no, but that state of affairs won't last for long.
>
>>
>> The factories may be in China but they're designed in the West, and the
>> skills for designing such a factory, and the management of the processes
>> used, aren't available to the Chinese in any great quantity.
>>
>> That's why they're making Blu Ray players and not top of the range
>> avionics
>> for export.
>>
>> The technologies aren't that different.
>
> That'll change. As it is, when Rockwell-Garmin sold em modern GPS
> technology back during the Clinton Administration and Boeing did the same
> with the ring laser gyro autopilot during the same time frame, that made
> me sick too. It buys the Chinese time to get good at things, while
> extending the usefulness of weapons that might not otherwise be up to
> scratch. Both of those avionics systems went into the Qing-5, a 1958
> design for a tactical nuclear strike fighter that was supposed to be able
> to do what the early model F-105s could. That plane was utterly obsolete
> until we upgraded their NAV/ATTACK systems for them.

It's not the technologies.

They don't actually matter.

It's the project management techniques that allow you to change direction in
a reasonable time frame.

These are skills is very short supply just about everywhere, and look like
remaining so for the next decade or so.

Indian project managers leave India after graduation in droves, mainly to
work in the USA.

Indian companies hire US companies to do this sort of work for them because
they can't recruit any people locally. This leads to the rather odd
situation where Indian engineers leave India for a few months and then
return, but working for a foreign company at foreign wages.

China will get the same problem.

--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

[eatfastnoodle]

On Jun 17, 10:51*pm, "Michael Shirley" > wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 22:08:18 -0700, eatfastnoodle > *
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >> * * * * Look at their defense agreements, military history and joint *
> >> defense *
> >> programs, to include that nice new port the Peoples Liberation *
> >> Army-Navy's *
> >> building there. China and Pakistan are closer to each other than the US *
> >> *
> >> and Germany was in the Cold War. And if you look closely at that, what *
> >> you *
> >> see is that they're defacto members of SCO. And any professional order *
> >> of *
> >> battle in that coalition will include Pakistan in China's column, not *
> >> ours.
>
> > That's because Chinese has been on their side ever since the Pakistani
> > independence, both countries has undergone major political and
> > economic changes ever since. Yet no matter who is in charge in
> > Pakistan, generals, politicians, good guy, bad guy, crooks, whatever,
> > China always stands with Pakistan in their fight with India. Their
> > relation is fundamentally in line with their strategic interests.
> > That's why it's so strong. As for the US, I guess everybody agrees
> > that in the eyes of US government, Pakistan is nothing more than a
> > convenient ally at best, a tool I would say. As for average joes, the
> > image of Pakistan isn't that much better than Taliban.
>
> * * * * Yup, that isn't gonna change ever since the Chinese provided weapons *
> after the West embargoed them back in the 60's.
>
>
>
> > One change of approach I would like to say is for the US to give up on
> > its obsession to stick its noses into other people's business. US used
> > to be far better a friend during the cold war when Soviet Union used
> > to send tanks into any of its ally who dared to think about leaving
> > the Warsaw pact, France kicked American troops out and opened pursued
> > its own path, US accepted it and worked with France still. *Seriously,
> > the kind of "Manifest Destiny" attitude ****es off everybody.
>
> * * * * Yup. I think that they do it out of habit. For the most part, not a lot *
> of thought goes into our foreign policy at the Government level. Mostly *
> it's farmed out to think tanks and Beltway Bandits and a lot of those are *
> financed by various tax exempt foundations that front for various moneyed *
> interests.
>
> * * * * Your typical politician tends to be ignorant of everything except *
> fundraising and media relations. He's overdependant on staff and the staff *
> is overdependant on whomever takes them to lunch and gives them some piece *
> of research that they're not all that competent to make assessments of.
>
>
>
> > I'm not an expert on the nitty-gritty details, but please elect
> > somebody who knows what he's doing and who has at least a little
> > common sense. WMD issue aside, whether or not the military is
> > "winning" in Iraq now aside, anybody who has common sense would hope
> > for the best but plan for the worst even though you are 100% sure the
> > best case scenario would happen because any sane people would know
> > that there isn't 100% sure thing. instead, this administration based
> > its plan on the assumption that US soldiers would be welcomed as
> > liberators. That's beyond dumb.
>
> * * * * You'll never see it here. Our system selects for the lowest common *
> denominator of politician and thus the lowest common denominator is what *
> we get. Anybody with real principles or any kind of actual knowledge will *
> get filtered out before he can run for city council, let alone Congress or *
> the Senate. Structurally, this country is totally incapable of producing *
> somebody like Winston Churchill.
>
> * * * * And it gets worse. Most government policy is an outsourced product. That *
> worked sort of, in the 50's because the universities were actually *
> producing diciplined intellectuals who could apply a little skepticism and *
> critically assess information. We're no longer able to produce guys like *
> James Schlesinger anymore, because our university systems have lost the *
> ability to do that. We ceded the college campuses to the radical left in *
> the 60's and 70's and now, as far as producing the technicians who *
> actually can create viable policy and administer it goes, they can't. They *
> do a remarkably good job of producing fair copies of the New Soviet Man *
> though. My youngest is in college now, and she's planning on a career as *
> an attorney. When I got a look at what they're demanding that she take as *
> core curriculium, I was appalled. A college education these days have *
> costs ranging from five to six significant digits and looking at what *
> they're being asked to pay for, I can tell you that a modern university *
> education in this country is a fraud and things are deteriorating from *
> there. Critical thinking skills are out and courses based on the most *
> schizoid ideology I've ever seen, predominate.
>
> * * * * The end result is that the formation of policy is in the hands of an *
> increasingly incompetent group of people. And the end result of that will *
> be that the policies in question will be schizoid, self contradictory, and *
> in general, destructive to the continued maintenance of our national *
> security.
>
> * * * * My guess is that the future is going to be replete with ever more *
> instances of us shooting ourselves in the ass. And anybody who has to *
> determine what their relationship is to our government needs to take that *
> into account. I'm an American. I've lived here my entire life except for *
> some travel as a member of the military. And I can't predict what our *
> policy establishment or our politicians will do, simply because they're *
> too ignorant to come up with a consistant policy on anything. You have *
> some individuals who are competent, but you'll find that Gresham's Law *
> applies to government as much as it does anything else-- the bad will *
> drive out the good and we're seeing that here.
>
> * * * * So, if anybody's planning on doing anything to preserve Post Renaissance *
> Western Civilization in the world, they can expect to do it in spite of *
> Washington at least as often as they do because of it.
>
> --
> "Implications leading to ramifications leading to shenanigans"-- Admiral *
> Elmo Zumwalt, USN.


The kind of the attitude reminded me of a Survivor episode from the
“social experiment" season (in actuality, they just set up 4 different
tribes: Asian, White, Hispanic and Black), the eventual winner, a
Korean guy, tried to recruit one member of a former White tribe by
blackmailing him using immunity idol (there were two groups, one was
made up of former white tribe members, another was made up of remnants
of former Asian and Hispanic tribes, the white has the numbers, so
they could vote out their biggest target: the Korean guy, in a clever
strategic move designed to keep his immunity idol for late use and
reverse their disadvantage in numbers, the Korean guy just told his
target for recruitment: since I got the immunity idol, when it came to
the actual vote, white group's number wouldn't hurt me, and according
to the rule, if the person who got the most vote had immunity idol,
the person who got the second most vote would go home, which would be
you since I would tell my group to vote for you in unanimity.) Not
sure what he should do, the white guy returned to his group and tried
to hint to his group about the situation by telling them: Yes, he is
the biggest threat, but WHAT IF he has the immunity idol, what should
we do? The other three just told him: no, he has no idol, he again
tried to hint them: but we don't know, WHAT IF.... for multiple times,
his tribe mates just refused to even consider the possibility,
disappointed, that guy decided to jump to the other side, end of
story.

This administration and certain ids on this group are exactly like
these three "tribe mates". Every time you tell them Iraq is costing
America trillions of dollars, causing the dollar to tank, causing all
kinds of economic ills, they will just look at you blankly and repeat
the same line: but we are killing terrorists, it's better to kill them
there than waiting for the mushroom cloud here. They have a laser like
fixation on what this administration tell them to the exclusion of
everything else. They will talk about security, security, security for
a whole year without giving a thought to how to pay for the security,
what will be the negative effect on the economy and how it would
impact constitutionally guaranteed freedom this country is founded
upon. I simply can't understand the mindset. Maybe that's why George
Bush was elected twice, because he has zero doubt about the absolute
correctness of his actions. Maybe lack of consideration for
alternative course actions has become the most important quality
people look for. I dunno.

[Michael Shirley]

On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 21:18:15 -0700, eatfastnoodle >
wrote:


> The kind of the attitude reminded me of a Survivor episode from the
> “social experiment" season (in actuality, they just set up 4 different
> tribes: Asian, White, Hispanic and Black), the eventual winner, a
> Korean guy, tried to recruit one member of a former White tribe by
> blackmailing him using immunity idol (there were two groups, one was
> made up of former white tribe members, another was made up of remnants
> of former Asian and Hispanic tribes, the white has the numbers, so
> they could vote out their biggest target: the Korean guy, in a clever
> strategic move designed to keep his immunity idol for late use and
> reverse their disadvantage in numbers, the Korean guy just told his
> target for recruitment: since I got the immunity idol, when it came to
> the actual vote, white group's number wouldn't hurt me, and according
> to the rule, if the person who got the most vote had immunity idol,
> the person who got the second most vote would go home, which would be
> you since I would tell my group to vote for you in unanimity.) Not
> sure what he should do, the white guy returned to his group and tried
> to hint to his group about the situation by telling them: Yes, he is
> the biggest threat, but WHAT IF he has the immunity idol, what should
> we do? The other three just told him: no, he has no idol, he again
> tried to hint them: but we don't know, WHAT IF.... for multiple times,
> his tribe mates just refused to even consider the possibility,
> disappointed, that guy decided to jump to the other side, end of
> story.

Interesting. I've worked hard to avoid watching that program. I never did
like most television anyway. Most people don't do a very good job of
gaming their situations and that situation you describe is a good example
of it. Our schools don't teach people to assess their situations and deal
with tradeoffs and the result is that we wind up with a population that
mostly can't do that.

>
> This administration and certain ids on this group are exactly like
> these three "tribe mates". Every time you tell them Iraq is costing
> America trillions of dollars, causing the dollar to tank, causing all
> kinds of economic ills, they will just look at you blankly and repeat
> the same line: but we are killing terrorists, it's better to kill them
> there than waiting for the mushroom cloud here. They have a laser like
> fixation on what this administration tell them to the exclusion of
> everything else. They will talk about security, security, security for
> a whole year without giving a thought to how to pay for the security,
> what will be the negative effect on the economy and how it would
> impact constitutionally guaranteed freedom this country is founded
> upon. I simply can't understand the mindset. Maybe that's why George
> Bush was elected twice, because he has zero doubt about the absolute
> correctness of his actions. Maybe lack of consideration for
> alternative course actions has become the most important quality
> people look for. I dunno.

I agree. They can't examine tradeoffs and the guys who can are getting
into their 80's now. I kinda suspect that Bush's getting into Afghanistan
was more about Hussein's attempt to have his father assassinated after he
left office than it ever was about anything else. And the funny thing was
that Iraq was our defacto ally until April Glaspie set Hussein for a fall.

The people who are fixated on Iraq tend to forget that we propped Hussein
up and quietly supported him in his war against the Iranians as an attempt
to contain the Islamic Revolution-- something that was, until Bush's
father screwed it up, fairly successful as a policy.

Now we've blown our own containment policy, you've got the Mullahs making
a breakout, China's got strong allies on the Persian Gulf and in the
meantime, Bush II is, as always, more about vindicating the regime of his
father, than he is about actually governing this country with an eye
towards it's future. He's literally taking this country and running it
into the ground, and he's not gonna be here when it hits the wall with the
bang that it will either. His family's bought a ninety five thousand acres
of Gran Chaco in Paraguay and that's where he's gonna retire.

I suspect that Paraguay was a second choice too. He had his recently
married daughter, Jenna, down in Buenos Aries playing the debutante and
acting as her father's proxy. My guess is that the Ausdeutche in
Argentina's Lakes District told him that they didn't want him as a
neighbor. Those folks like it quiet and he would have brought a traveling
circus, complete with freakshow with him, so it's off to Gran Chaco he
goes. Kinda sad, Gran Chaco was a kinda nice place.

The saddest thing of all, however, is that no matter who wins the
election, incompetents will rule, and the only new constant we can count
on, is that it'll get far worse long before it gets any better-- if it
ever does.

The writing was on the wall when Hutchisson-Wampoa got control of the
Panama Canal, but the current bunch of decision makers think in terms of
video games, the preceeding bunch thought in terms of Poker, and the old
guys like Schlesinger were mostly Chess Players. And most of em have never
heard of Weiqi, let alone learned how to play it, even though most
cultural constants at conflict resolution resemble the games that people
play-- and the Chinese play Weiqi, (or as the Japanese call it, Go.)

Industrially, we're in decline, logistically, we're broken and
strategically we're hopeless. The whole thing is starting to resemble a
******* cross between the worst aspects of the Austro-Hungarians crossed
with the Ottomans, and that's not something to aspire to, especially since
most of our policy can be best described as Imperial Overreach.

I pity the kids who are Field Grade officers now and who'll be General
Officers in another ten years, because they're inheriting the most screwed
up security picture since John Cantacuzene was Emperor of the Byzantine
Empire-- one which quickly shrunk to the city limits of Constantinople.

History happens, and it's getting set to happen to us and when it does,
it's gonna land with a bang.



--
"Implications leading to ramifications leading to shenanigans"-- Admiral
Elmo Zumwalt, USN.

[Michael Shirley]

On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 13:42:42 -0700, William Black
> wrote:


>> That'll change. As it is, when Rockwell-Garmin sold em modern GPS
>> technology back during the Clinton Administration and Boeing did the
>> same
>> with the ring laser gyro autopilot during the same time frame, that made
>> me sick too. It buys the Chinese time to get good at things, while
>> extending the usefulness of weapons that might not otherwise be up to
>> scratch. Both of those avionics systems went into the Qing-5, a 1958
>> design for a tactical nuclear strike fighter that was supposed to be
>> able
>> to do what the early model F-105s could. That plane was utterly obsolete
>> until we upgraded their NAV/ATTACK systems for them.
>
> It's not the technologies.
>
> They don't actually matter.

They do. At least for guys like me who used to be on the sharp end of
things, and that's a fact.

>
> It's the project management techniques that allow you to change
> direction in
> a reasonable time frame.

They're learning. The Japanese didn't know either until they started
listening to Deming back in the late forties. And that milleau produced
guys like Akio Morita, who were truly formidible. Care to imagine Morita
managing a defense firm the way that he did Sony?

The Chinese used to send their guys to school here as science and
engineering guys. Now they're studying business courses. Twenty years ago,
you couldn't find one of those guys who understood how to do a business
case, but now, they're picking it right up.

>
> These are skills is very short supply just about everywhere, and look
> like
> remaining so for the next decade or so.

Depends. They're turning out some great engineers and some of them will
show talent just like Kelly Johnson and Ed Heinemann did. You just watch
the successful ones and promote em when they're right, and keep em in
competition. My guess is that Shenyang and Chengdu have guys who can
manage at least as well as Ben Rich did. It's just a matter of letting em
develop, and the Chinese seem to be doing that.

>
> Indian project managers leave India after graduation in droves, mainly
> to
> work in the USA.

I don't blame em. I used to know this one Indian girl who was a fairly
good engineer. Her theory is that the country turns out so many of them,
because going to college is the only way that they can get away from their
parents. It's something to consider.

>
> Indian companies hire US companies to do this sort of work for them
> because
> they can't recruit any people locally. This leads to the rather odd
> situation where Indian engineers leave India for a few months and then
> return, but working for a foreign company at foreign wages.

Yup.
>
> China will get the same problem.

I'm not so sure. The Chinese learn fast and Ford and GM used to have
in-house management training programs that were pretty good.
>



--
"Implications leading to ramifications leading to shenanigans"-- Admiral
Elmo Zumwalt, USN.

[eatfastnoodle]

On Jun 18, 2:09*pm, "Michael Shirley" > wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 13:42:42 -0700, William Black *
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> >> That'll change. As it is, when Rockwell-Garmin sold em modern GPS
> >> technology back during the Clinton Administration and Boeing did the *
> >> same
> >> with the ring laser gyro autopilot during the same time frame, that made
> >> me sick too. It buys the Chinese time to get good at things, while
> >> extending the usefulness of weapons that might not otherwise be up to
> >> scratch. Both of those avionics systems went into the Qing-5, a 1958
> >> design for a tactical nuclear strike fighter that was supposed to be *
> >> able
> >> to do what the early model F-105s could. That plane was utterly obsolete
> >> until we upgraded their NAV/ATTACK systems for them.
>
> > It's not the technologies.
>
> > They don't actually matter.
>
> * * * * They do. At least for guys like me who used to be on the sharp end of *
> things, and that's a fact.
>
>
>
> > It's the project management techniques that allow you to change *
> > direction in
> > a reasonable time frame.
>
> * * * * They're learning. The Japanese didn't know either until they started *
> listening to Deming back in the late forties. And that milleau produced *
> guys like Akio Morita, who were truly formidible. Care to imagine Morita *
> managing a defense firm the way that he did Sony?
>
> * * * * The Chinese used to send their guys to school here as science and *
> engineering guys. Now they're studying business courses. Twenty years ago, *
> you couldn't find one of those guys who understood how to do a business *
> case, but now, they're picking it right up.
>
>
>
> > These are skills is very short supply just about everywhere, *and look *
> > like
> > remaining so for the next decade or so.
>
> * * * * Depends. They're turning out some great engineers and some of them will *
> show talent just like Kelly Johnson and Ed Heinemann did. You just watch *
> the successful ones and promote em when they're right, and keep em in *
> competition. My guess is that Shenyang and Chengdu have guys who can *
> manage at least as well as Ben Rich did. It's just a matter of letting em *
> develop, and the Chinese seem to be doing that.
>
>
>
> > Indian project managers leave India after graduation in droves, *mainly *
> > to
> > work in the USA.
>
> * * * * I don't blame em. I used to know this one Indian girl who was a fairly *
> good engineer. Her theory is that the country turns out so many of them, *
> because going to college is the only way that they can get away from their *
> parents. It's something to consider.
>
>
>
> > Indian companies hire US companies to do this sort of work for them *
> > because
> > they can't recruit any people locally. *This leads to the rather odd
> > situation where Indian engineers leave India for a few months and then
> > return, *but working for a foreign company at foreign wages.
>
> * * * * Yup.
>
>
>
> > China will get the same problem.
>
> * * * * I'm not so sure. The Chinese learn fast and Ford and GM used to have *
> in-house management training programs that were pretty good.
>
>
>
> --
> "Implications leading to ramifications leading to shenanigans"-- Admiral *
> Elmo Zumwalt, USN.

Actually, China has huge internal problem to overcome before it can go
out and compete with the US on a global scale. If the US and China
could work something out on Taiwan, I don't think conflict between
China and the US is inevitable. (assuming Korean peninsula doesn't
blow). The thorny issue is always Taiwan, for China, giving up Taiwan
is simply a political impossibility, for the US, allow China to take
over Taiwan would mean the beginning of the end of American dominance
in East Asia. (anybody controls Taiwan would also control Japan's oil
lifeline, if China took over Taiwan, the foundation of American Asian
strategy: US-Japanese alliance would be shaken to its very core).

[Daryl Hunt[_3_]]

"Raymond O'Hara" > wrote in message
...
>
> "tankfixer" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In article >, raymond-
>> says...
>>>
>>> "tankfixer" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>> > In article >, raymond-
>>> > says...
>>> >>
>>> >> "Typhoon502" > wrote in message
>>> >> ...
>>> >> On Jun 11, 6:51 am, "Roger Conroy" >
>>> >> wrote:
>>> >> > "Tiger" > wrote in message
>>> >> >
>>> >> > ...
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> > > Raymond O'Hara wrote:
>>> >> > >> "Ian B MacLure" > wrote in message
>>> >> > .. .
>>> >> >
>>> >> > >>>"Raymond O'Hara" > wrote in
>>> >> > :
>>> >> >
>>> >> > >> we are in two wars now{which we are losing} and you're worried
>>> >> > >> about
>>> >> > >> an
>>> >> > >> imaginary war against an imaginary opponent.
>>> >> > >> russia is not a credible threat. and it is decades away from
>>> >> > >> being
>>> >> > >> one.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > > Losing? Lose to whom? Current events don't seem be anywere close.
>>> >> > > As
>>> >> > > for
>>> >> > > Russia? They have in the last year expanded their military
>>> >> > > activity.
>>> >> > > They
>>> >> > > are flying Bears again, opposed our missile defence plans, and
>>> >> > > Nato
>>> >> > > expansions. Decades may be a bit much.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Russia is not the only possible future technologically advanced
>>> >> > enemy -
>>> >> > don't take your eyes of China, or a possible Arab alliance.- Hide
>>> >> > quoted
>>> >> > text -
>>> >>
>>> >> >Not to mention Venezuela...
>>> >>
>>> >> we don't need F-22s to fight venezuela.
>>> >
>>> > You are one of those who believe in fair fights ?
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>> it still won't be a fair fight.
>>
>> So ?
>>
>> If technical superiority will allow my country to prevail with fewer
>> casualties then I vote for the fancy tech.
>>
>
> if the fancy tech results in bankruptcy and the cancelations of needed
> things i'll pass on that tech for a while,

High Tech is what the Army wants but they don't want to spend anything for
it in terms of People, Money, Cutting back, etc.. The simple fact still
remains, sooner or later, a boot on the ground must go in and secure things.
At that point, it doesn't matter if you have an AK47 that is decades old,
the newest shiny M-16 variant, the XM-8 or your brand spanking new lazer
rifle. The AK to the Lazer Rifle is just the weapon and it's not such a
huge leap from one to the other nor is it such a leap between the operation
of both. It still requires for the boots on the ground to be there.

tinkerbell never set foot in that kind of situation and still believes John
Wayne movies were taken directly from the history books. Next, he will be
saying all war movies by Chuck Norriss are believable as well.


** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

[Daryl Hunt[_3_]]

"Zombywoof" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 20:16:45 -0700, tankfixer
> > wrote:
>
>>In article >, raymond-
says...
>>>
>>> "tankfixer" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>> > In article >, raymond-
>>> > says...
>>> >
>>> >> are they just going to magically appear in 10 years, full blown,
>>> >> armed to
>>> >> the teeth with ultra-fighters?
>>> >
>>> > Yes.
>>> >
>>> > Example: German 1930 to 1940.
>>> >
>>>
>>> the germans didn't have the best stuff. and there was plenty of warning.
>>> the french built the maginot linebefore the german threat was known.
>>> you want to do the same today.
>>> we started then too.
>>> the u.s. built a tank factory and it was producing tanks in less than a
>>> year.
>>
>>In 1930 Germany was a semi stable democracy that was no danger to her
>>neighbors.
>>No one really believe she would be a danger again.
>>Over the next ten years she build up her airforce and army to the point
>>that by 1940 she had taken Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, France,
>>Belgium and the Netherlands.
>>Back then a fighter or tank could be designed and produced in under a
>>year.
>>To suggest that any country can do that now is absurd.
>>
> Did you mean CAN or Can't.
>
> Given enough resources an awful lot can be accomplished. We take an
> awful long time doing things right now over all sorts of debates over
> money.
>
> In another scrape for survival I think the US could do a whole bunch
> of things very quickly, although we would have to ramp up a lot of our
> manufacturing capability first though, or out-source the actual
> building to the Chinese or somebody.

Z, save your breath. tinkerbell will never listen. He's never been
involved in a forced project like we used to have once inawhile and the WWII
folks operated at al times. When you Federalize the US Industry, things
happen extremely fast. Like when GM started to build tanks. As the Line
kept going, they retooled as the last car came by. There were cars and
suddenly, there were tanks rolling out the same door without much of a
hiccup. Ford and Chrysler were doing the same things for the same and
different war materials. It took a matter of days, not months since the
plans to do so were already on hand as well as the tools, equipment and
people.


** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

[Daryl Hunt[_3_]]

"Zombywoof" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 11:50:55 GMT, "Arved Sandstrom"
> > wrote:
>
>
>>
>>When analyzed this way, yes, most reasonable folks would agree - these
>>days
>>in real-life you do need - minimum - an upgraded A-10 or equivalent to
>>realistically stand a chance of being survivable, operating in
>>night/adverse
>>weather, and being able to use smart weapons.
>>
> I'm fairly reasonable and would not agree that upgraded "Close Air
> Support" airframe could or even should be "upgraded" into the role of
> an "Air Superiority" fighter. At best the A-10 can be used in a
> limited air interdiction role. It is absolutely 100% the wrong tool
> for the wrong job in the role of "Air Superiority". The A-10 operates
> under the "Low & Slow" method of operation which makes it great for
> the Close Air Support Mission fro which it was created, but the entire
> design of the Airframe means it will never be a "Go-Fast" fighter.
>
> Up until it actually provided its mission effectiveness (killing tanks
> dead) during DS/DS the A-10 was headed out of the Active Duty fleet.

In DS1, the main tank killer was the Buff. Today, the F-16, F-18, F-15E and
soon, the F-35 are much more of an affective armor killer than the A-10.
They are less of a target since they are NOT low and slow. The A-10 is
going out because it's running out of airframe time. The reason it hasn't
already is that it's paid for. But the payment begins to come higher and
higher to keep it in service. When the payment to keep it in services is
exceeded by the cost to get rid of it then it's gone. It's getting very,
very close. Whereas, the B-52 costs less to keep in service than it costs
to replace it.

>
>>I think what turns most critics' cranks is the sheer obscene cost of the
>>advanced fighters. The unit cost for A-10's is quoted at roughly US $10-15
>>million on the sites I found. All I know is that the F-22 unit cost is
>>somewhere north of US $100 million (the Air Force says $142 million on
>>their
>>factsheet but who knows which unit cost that is) and the F-35 unit cost is
>>also over US $100 million. Neither is as optimized for CAS as the A-10 is
>>(criticisms of the F-35 in that role include that it is less able than the
>>A-10 to find ground targets independently, has less survivability, doesn't
>>persist/loiter nearly as well as the A-10, and doesn't have a Honking Big
>>Cannon).
>>
>>I don't think anyone with a clue is saying please bring back the
>>Skyraider.
>>But it's a legit complaint to quibble about servicing the ground forces
>>CAS
>>needs with super-expensive fighter-bombers.
>>
>>It is of course as much of an issue in Canada as it is elsewhere. There
>>will
>>always be a camp that favours planes along the lines of the retired
>>CF-5/CF-116, others who can stomach prices in the CF-18 range, and any
>>number who are keen to see F-35's replace the CF-18. I myself just can't
>>see
>>something like a CF-35 (or whatever they call it) as being available in
>>enough numbers to support a CF deployment similar to Afghanistan...what'll
>>they have, a couple of ac available in theatre at any given time? The
>>problem for Canada is we cannot easily support two different fleets. Me,
>>I'd
>>go with a Saab Gripen NG.
>>
> Exactly how long do you think a Fighter can not only be kept in
> production, but in any type of viable readiness operational capacity.
> There will come a point in time that more of the fleet is down for
> repairs then operationally capable. The maintenance costs will also
> skyrocket as it gets older & older.
>
> To me the absolute most brilliant part of the F-35 is the number of
> countries that will have them in operational use, and if they ever
> work out the technology transfer issues -- production. This
> could/would mean that a F-35 from Canada operating in a joint theater
> could be maintained by & have its spares provided for by any other of
> the other nations operating the aircraft and participating in the same
> theater of operations. This could/should lead to just one set of
> maintenance personnel needing to be in the field in a joint operation.
> Hell even the pilots could be interchangeable.
>
> To me everything about the F-35 screams lower production & operating
> costs because of commonality across all of an allied Air Fleet. Even
> the Carrier version is 80% compatible with the land based version. It
> is about time that the members of NATO and other treaties got their
> collective act together and started using equipment 100% in common.
> While Canada may have the intellectual & production ability to design
> & build its own native fighter, the costs would be huge, and the
> simple question of "Why?" would have to be asked.
> --
> "Everything in excess! To enjoy the flavor of life, take big bites.
> Moderation is for monks."

** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

[Michael Shirley]

On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 02:19:11 -0700, eatfastnoodle >
wrote:

>
> Actually, China has huge internal problem to overcome before it can go
> out and compete with the US on a global scale. If the US and China
> could work something out on Taiwan, I don't think conflict between
> China and the US is inevitable. (assuming Korean peninsula doesn't
> blow). The thorny issue is always Taiwan, for China, giving up Taiwan
> is simply a political impossibility, for the US, allow China to take
> over Taiwan would mean the beginning of the end of American dominance
> in East Asia. (anybody controls Taiwan would also control Japan's oil
> lifeline, if China took over Taiwan, the foundation of American Asian
> strategy: US-Japanese alliance would be shaken to its very core).

Very true. I also think that the Chinese are running against a clock that
makes them think that exporting problems on bayonets is easier than
solving them at home. Their water's polluted, their arable land is
shrinking, desertification is growing, they've got a failure of the One
Child Policy and they're overproducing males out of balance with females
as a result. The economic growth curve is outstripping the population
curve and they're starting to see what a paradigm/reality mismatch is all
about as they discover the limitations of a highly centralised government
in a dynamic society where change happens faster than they can get the
reports on what happened yesterday.

If I were on the Standing Committee of the Politburo, that would scare
the living crap out of me. And the number of really big projects like the
Three Gorges Dam that isn't even finished yet but which is starting to
suffer from silting, has got to be causing some panic. Hu Jintao started
out as a civil engineer specializing in water projects and dams and even
with that kind of expert knowledge at the top, the problems are
increasingly insoluable for the guys in Beijing.

So increasingly, external military policies, (something that has always
wound up being ruinous to the Chinese in the end) are looking better and
better, while the local problems become something that they'd just as soon
avoid. So, I think that we're going to see a period of optional
adventurism in Beijing's future and that's bad for us, especially since we
really can't afford a war with those people. Even if our overdependant on
Chinese trade economy would survive it, the fact of the matter is that
neither our industrial base nor our education system will support it.

We need to go tactical defensive/strategic offensive in our actions, and
a lot of that needs to revolve around soft power while being militarily
unprovocative. We don't, in the crude vernacular of our times, need our
politicians to be writing a check with their elephant mouths that our
humming bird asses can't cash.

In short, we need to change the game, because the one we're playing is
gonna get our nose bloodied. All the Chinese need to do in order to win is
simply not lose, and our own best option is not to play.

Lets let Beijing expend their capital, both economic and political for
awhile while we rebuild our industrial base, clean out our universities
and other schools and generally start behaving like we still want to be
around in 2050, by which time the Adventurists in Beijing will have spent
their capital. If they want to have fun trying to police an empire in
Africa, lets let them bleed to death doing it. Things might even improve a
little bit over there.





--
"Implications leading to ramifications leading to shenanigans"-- Admiral
Elmo Zumwalt, USN.

[Jack Linthicum]

On Jun 19, 2:24 am, "Michael Shirley" > wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 02:19:11 -0700, eatfastnoodle >
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Actually, China has huge internal problem to overcome before it can go
> > out and compete with the US on a global scale. If the US and China
> > could work something out on Taiwan, I don't think conflict between
> > China and the US is inevitable. (assuming Korean peninsula doesn't
> > blow). The thorny issue is always Taiwan, for China, giving up Taiwan
> > is simply a political impossibility, for the US, allow China to take
> > over Taiwan would mean the beginning of the end of American dominance
> > in East Asia. (anybody controls Taiwan would also control Japan's oil
> > lifeline, if China took over Taiwan, the foundation of American Asian
> > strategy: US-Japanese alliance would be shaken to its very core).
>
> Very true. I also think that the Chinese are running against a clock that
> makes them think that exporting problems on bayonets is easier than
> solving them at home. Their water's polluted, their arable land is
> shrinking, desertification is growing, they've got a failure of the One
> Child Policy and they're overproducing males out of balance with females
> as a result. The economic growth curve is outstripping the population
> curve and they're starting to see what a paradigm/reality mismatch is all
> about as they discover the limitations of a highly centralised government
> in a dynamic society where change happens faster than they can get the
> reports on what happened yesterday.
>
> If I were on the Standing Committee of the Politburo, that would scare
> the living crap out of me. And the number of really big projects like the
> Three Gorges Dam that isn't even finished yet but which is starting to
> suffer from silting, has got to be causing some panic. Hu Jintao started
> out as a civil engineer specializing in water projects and dams and even
> with that kind of expert knowledge at the top, the problems are
> increasingly insoluable for the guys in Beijing.
>
> So increasingly, external military policies, (something that has always
> wound up being ruinous to the Chinese in the end) are looking better and
> better, while the local problems become something that they'd just as soon
> avoid. So, I think that we're going to see a period of optional
> adventurism in Beijing's future and that's bad for us, especially since we
> really can't afford a war with those people. Even if our overdependant on
> Chinese trade economy would survive it, the fact of the matter is that
> neither our industrial base nor our education system will support it.
>
> We need to go tactical defensive/strategic offensive in our actions, and
> a lot of that needs to revolve around soft power while being militarily
> unprovocative. We don't, in the crude vernacular of our times, need our
> politicians to be writing a check with their elephant mouths that our
> humming bird asses can't cash.
>
> In short, we need to change the game, because the one we're playing is
> gonna get our nose bloodied. All the Chinese need to do in order to win is
> simply not lose, and our own best option is not to play.
>
> Lets let Beijing expend their capital, both economic and political for
> awhile while we rebuild our industrial base, clean out our universities
> and other schools and generally start behaving like we still want to be
> around in 2050, by which time the Adventurists in Beijing will have spent
> their capital. If they want to have fun trying to police an empire in
> Africa, lets let them bleed to death doing it. Things might even improve a
> little bit over there.
>
> --
> "Implications leading to ramifications leading to shenanigans"-- Admiral
> Elmo Zumwalt, USN.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2008/06/ousted_air_force_chief_cites_d.php

CoS USAF, Gates differ

[Michael Shirley]

On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 13:14:40 -0700, Jack Linthicum
> wrote:


> CoS USAF, Gates differ

I saw that. Still, I hope that the contract isn't rebid. Boeing has been
behaving rather badly lately, doing everything from bribes to transferring
sensitive
technologies to the Chinese. They really don't deserve that Tanker
contract.

We wouldn't be having these problems if the merger between Boeing and
McDonnell-Douglas had been denied as it should have been. Boeing's the
only domestic maker of large airframes. Absent inviting EADS in, there's
no quick way to get some competetion in that area of manufacture. And
that's serving us badly.

If McDonnell-Douglas were still a separate company, we could do a
conversion of the C-17 airframe to a tanker as plan B. Replace the rear
door with an afterbody carrying a boom and a station for the boomer and a
hose reel for supporting planes that use the Flight Refueling Probe &
Drogue method. Leave the front cargo door in place for secondary cargo
deployment. That would be a great tanker, but we can't do that either
without rewarding Boeing for behaving like a firm that deserves to be cut
off from further contracts pending a major shakeup and maybe even spinning
off assets to reform McDonnell-Douglas since that merger was a lethal
mistake.



--
"Implications leading to ramifications leading to shenanigans"-- Admiral
Elmo Zumwalt, USN.

[Mike Kanze]

>If McDonnell-Douglas were still a separate company, we could do a conversion of the C-17 airframe to a tanker as plan B.

Personal opinion: If MD had not merged with Boeing, it would likely be bankrupt today, or teetering on the edge, or seeking the sale of its more profitable units (which would NOT include production of "heavies"), or seeking a different merger partner.

Today's global economics of "heavies" manufacture boil down to only three players: Boeing, EADS, and the output of Russian industry. (China may be a future player.) MD's "heavies" business would have made it the fourth horse in a three-horse race.

--
Mike Kanze

"Life isn't about how to survive the storm, but how to dance in the rain."

- Anonymous

"Michael Shirley" > wrote in message news:op.uc28ilh2ra3qj7@schooner-blue...
On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 13:14:40 -0700, Jack Linthicum
> wrote:


> CoS USAF, Gates differ

I saw that. Still, I hope that the contract isn't rebid. Boeing has been
behaving rather badly lately, doing everything from bribes to transferring
sensitive
technologies to the Chinese. They really don't deserve that Tanker
contract.

We wouldn't be having these problems if the merger between Boeing and
McDonnell-Douglas had been denied as it should have been. Boeing's the
only domestic maker of large airframes. Absent inviting EADS in, there's
no quick way to get some competetion in that area of manufacture. And
that's serving us badly.

If McDonnell-Douglas were still a separate company, we could do a
conversion of the C-17 airframe to a tanker as plan B. Replace the rear
door with an afterbody carrying a boom and a station for the boomer and a
hose reel for supporting planes that use the Flight Refueling Probe &
Drogue method. Leave the front cargo door in place for secondary cargo
deployment. That would be a great tanker, but we can't do that either
without rewarding Boeing for behaving like a firm that deserves to be cut
off from further contracts pending a major shakeup and maybe even spinning
off assets to reform McDonnell-Douglas since that merger was a lethal
mistake.



--
"Implications leading to ramifications leading to shenanigans"-- Admiral
Elmo Zumwalt, USN.

[Michael Shirley]

On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 12:49:23 -0700, Mike Kanze >
wrote:

>> If McDonnell-Douglas were still a separate company, we could do a
>> conversion of the C-17 airframe to a tanker as plan B.
>
> Personal opinion: If MD had not merged with Boeing, it would likely be
> bankrupt today, or teetering on the edge, or seeking the sale of its
> more profitable units (which would NOT include production of "heavies"),
> or seeking a different merger partner.

Maybe, but that merge & RIF trend that started in 47 is one that has left
us without a lot of alternatives and it leaves us with no technical
defense in depth when a designer or design team hit's it's slump. When
Donovan Berlin, (P-40) started turning out turkeys, guys like Kelly
Johnson and Lee Atwood were there to take up the load. There's nothing
like that now, especially since instead of experienced designers, you have
twenty plus year product development cycles which means that the guy who
designs an airplane maybe gets to complete one in his career. That whole
trend is suicidal for us.

>
> Today's global economics of "heavies" manufacture boil down to only
> three players: Boeing, EADS, and the output of Russian industry. (China
> may be a future player.) MD's "heavies" business would have made it the
> fourth horse in a three-horse race.

True, but a fourth horse would have made us a lot better off. As it is, I
really hate to reward Boeing. They didn't respect their customer because
they figured that the Air Force had no real choice in the matter. They've
been outsourcing a lot of prime technology to China, and that's gonna come
back, and nail us right where it hurts.

At the rate things are going, we might be smarter to just buy surplus
747s that are in storage at Mojave and put fuel cells and a boom on those
and declare it a supplemental interim system while we encourage somebody
else to get into the large airframe business.

The whole thing makes me wish that I had a time machine so that I could
go back and strangle Stewart Symington, because he's the one that started
this disaster. We should have stuck to the open market system we had in
the 20's & 30's rather than letting Symington and the Air Force pretty
much apply Mussolini's economic theories to the defense sector and
especially to aircraft production.

Either way though, rewarding Boeing and it's pack of crooked politicians,
leaves an extremely bad taste, and it encourages a system where we've got
no viable options if one of the designated hitters screws up.

It's no accident that most of the real innovation you see in aviation
right now is being done by the guys who do pilotless aircraft. The big
companies really didn't fight to monopolize that market and the Air Force
wasn't paying enough attention to rationalize them by merge & RIF as a
result of the Air Force being the sole buyer and sales agent for what they
produce.
We're lucky that the Air Force lost it's bid to become the sole executive
agency for unmanned aircraft because that merge & RIF policy would have
been imposed on them next.

If we want to really fix things, we need to step away from the current
suicidal policy and go back to an open market in military systems.
Symington's creation is gonna leave us with an Aviation Industry every bit
as extinct as Britain's. And why we chose to copy the Brits industrial
policies as far as military systems go, eludes me. They merged & RIFed
until they got down to one major company, Hawker Siddley and one
specialist helicopter producer, Agusta-Westland, and now, as nearly as I
can tell, it's all EADS and their ability to produce the kind of
innovation that leads to a viable military capability is suspect. When
their prime design team hit's it's slump, they've got,............Nothing!

And I hate looking down the muzzles of a resurgent and revanchist China
with as thin of an industrial base as we've got and that's especially when
you consider aircraft.
>



--
"Implications leading to ramifications leading to shenanigans"-- Admiral
Elmo Zumwalt, USN.

[tankfixer]

In article >,
says...
>
> "Raymond O'Hara" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "tankfixer" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> In article >, raymond-
> >> says...
> >>>
> >>> "tankfixer" > wrote in message
> >>> ...
> >>> > In article >, raymond-
> >>> > says...
> >>> >>
> >>> >> "Typhoon502" > wrote in message
> >>> >> ...
> >>> >> On Jun 11, 6:51 am, "Roger Conroy" >
> >>> >> wrote:
> >>> >> > "Tiger" > wrote in message
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> > ...
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> > > Raymond O'Hara wrote:
> >>> >> > >> "Ian B MacLure" > wrote in message
> >>> >> > .. .
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> > >>>"Raymond O'Hara" > wrote in
> >>> >> > :
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> > >> we are in two wars now{which we are losing} and you're worried
> >>> >> > >> about
> >>> >> > >> an
> >>> >> > >> imaginary war against an imaginary opponent.
> >>> >> > >> russia is not a credible threat. and it is decades away from
> >>> >> > >> being
> >>> >> > >> one.
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> > > Losing? Lose to whom? Current events don't seem be anywere close.
> >>> >> > > As
> >>> >> > > for
> >>> >> > > Russia? They have in the last year expanded their military
> >>> >> > > activity.
> >>> >> > > They
> >>> >> > > are flying Bears again, opposed our missile defence plans, and
> >>> >> > > Nato
> >>> >> > > expansions. Decades may be a bit much.
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> > Russia is not the only possible future technologically advanced
> >>> >> > enemy -
> >>> >> > don't take your eyes of China, or a possible Arab alliance.- Hide
> >>> >> > quoted
> >>> >> > text -
> >>> >>
> >>> >> >Not to mention Venezuela...
> >>> >>
> >>> >> we don't need F-22s to fight venezuela.
> >>> >
> >>> > You are one of those who believe in fair fights ?
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>> it still won't be a fair fight.
> >>
> >> So ?
> >>
> >> If technical superiority will allow my country to prevail with fewer
> >> casualties then I vote for the fancy tech.
> >>
> >
> > if the fancy tech results in bankruptcy and the cancelations of needed
> > things i'll pass on that tech for a while,
>
> High Tech is what the Army wants but they don't want to spend anything for
> it in terms of People, Money, Cutting back, etc.. The simple fact still
> remains, sooner or later, a boot on the ground must go in and secure things.
> At that point, it doesn't matter if you have an AK47 that is decades old,
> the newest shiny M-16 variant, the XM-8 or your brand spanking new lazer
> rifle. The AK to the Lazer Rifle is just the weapon and it's not such a
> huge leap from one to the other nor is it such a leap between the operation
> of both. It still requires for the boots on the ground to be there.
>
> tinkerbell never set foot in that kind of situation and still believes John
> Wayne movies were taken directly from the history books. Next, he will be
> saying all war movies by Chuck Norriss are believable as well.

As you can see Daryl has issues...


--

"Oh Norman, listen! The loons are calling!"
- Katherine Hepburn, "On Golden Pond"