F-35's Costs Climb Along With Concerns

Ed Rasimus wrote in
:

SNIP


My point was the unusual nature of taking a general conclusion from a
very limited anecdotal sampling and one that was arguably not an
expert observer. It would be similar to taking testimony regarding an
individual who has been shot and extrapolating their experience to
some level of expertise in firearms.


I'm in trail with your point - and I agree with it, but in the absence
of everything else, you go with what you've got. The last few exchanges
have been an education. I disagree with your discounting a non-"expert
observer" in this case. I drive submarines for a living, and I'm certain
I can tell the difference between dive bombing and high altitude level
bombing when I see it; no reason to expect anything different from
anyone else.


If you were in attendance at "the US Army's General Staff College"
(can I assume you mean C&GSC?), then I would further assume a
professional military background and some exposure during your
educational background to some coverage of the Battle of Britain, the
blitz, and the bombing of London.

The Battle of Britain was not covered at CGSC in any great detail as
part of the general course - you had to take an elective to get that,
one I was not able to take due to other requirements. The course is
joint oriented, and therefore is very effects based centric, especially
for those working out of rate, ie: a Navy guy like me working on an Army
staff in a traditionally green suiter role. We didn't really discuss the
technical aspects of various types of bomb delivery, and the effects of
the bombing, regardless of type, were more relevant to our discussions.
One of the lessons learned from Vietnam is that those kinds of details
are best left to the experts. During exercises/war-games, while acting
as the S3 of a joint staff, I wouldn't dream of requesting a certain
type of bomb delivery. I would discuss the effect I was trying to
achieve with the Strike Cell. The pilots, missileers and artillerymen
assigned to the cell would put the details together to create the
effect. While I can do the math and physics on a wide variety of
ordnance targeting and delivery, I don't have a good feel for what it
takes for the crews (at least air crews) to make it happen. While I'd
like to learn some of those details simply for professional development,
I much prefer the effects based planning, and I bet you would as well.
How would you like to be leading a squadron of your 105s on a strike
that had been planned by somebody who's complete exposure to the details
of air warfare included being certified as a private pilot, and had
numerous briefings and rides in a variety of tactical aircraft over the
course of his career?




One could go a step further and, as Harry Andreas has pointed out,
"high speed/low altitude" is probably not the best characterization of
dive bombing either. Lay-down or skip-bombing display those attributes
more accurately.

Agreed.



Other than the oral history aspect of seeing a real live WW II British
Tommy, what was the point of his presentation at C&GSC? Was this part
of some larger program? Inquiring minds, etc. . . .

It was one part of a larger program - but one involving military history
- the recording of and study of, rather than any strategic, operational
or tactical application. The US Army has a rather rigorous approach to
history. They even have an officer skill designator for 'historian'.

DS





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