"F-35 Test Flight Deemed a Success"

Ed is spot-on with this - the new SAM's are a factor that we have to deal
with and I see putting our energy into the F-22 first then the JSF (just my
point of view because of the present war). The stealth that we have now
still ain't enough - and it will take a whole lot of new stuff to deal. But
like everything else and as I said before, if you start targeting the SAM
operators and their mothers they get a quick change in attitude fast so we
could asymmetrically, as they say, add some diddles to the equation. It is
perhaps then a "full spectrum" fight (stealing from the Army)

Also look at it this way - the treasury we are dumping down the whole with
this war is preventing us from building the kit to deal with all this
super-stuff coming down the pike - and the dilemma is that we show ourselves
that the "new stuff" really can't be effectively used in this war - so it is
choices again







"eponymous cowherd" wrote in message
...
In article , "TV"
wrote:

. Absolutely no dire
need for F-22 or -35, no matter who says it. Period. Ain't no one in a
place to challenge the US military on conventional grounds.

I disagree. The new Russian SAMs are very good and are being sold to
everyone.
This makes it very hard for non-stealthed aircraft to survive. We need to
fly
over Turd World countries to destroy their current or future ability to
nuke us.

I think the -22 and the -35 are two of the most pressing needs for america
in
today's world. The most pressing would be space based boost-phase missile
defense, but the voters won't go for it.

On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 23:44:15 GMT, eponymous cowherd
wrote:

In article ,
Ed Rasimus wrote:

If you are only happy by ascribing "failure" to the military
operation, far be it from me to disabuse you of the notion. We aren't
dealing here with changing operational conditions. This isn't fluidity
of a front or unforeseen maneuvering of enemy forces. It isn't
resistance efforts by an occupied nation to an imperialist force--it
is cultural, tribal and ethnic dissonance very similar to the Balkans.
Absent a unifying (and often oppressive) leader like Tito or even
Sadaam, the underlying animosity resurfaces and the national construct
fractures.

That's all true, but you are leaving out Gen. Abizaid giving Bush the big speech
about how he understand Arabs cuz he's one and he knows its all going to work
because their is no civil war. It's not the DOD's fault that bringing Western
political systems to the muslims is a waste of time, but the Abizaid types at
the top who refuse to call a spade a spade in front of the big man have blood on
their hands.

I think you're doing a bit of lib-media sound-biting on this.

Abizaid is fluent in Arabic. That gives him a big leg up on
understanding what is going on in theater. He can interact with local
leadership and not suffer the mis-understandings inherent in
interpreters. That's a good thing.

Whether or not the activity in Iraq is called "civil war" is
irrelevant. What it is called isn't important. You like insurgency,
revolution, civil war, rebellion, internecine strife, resistance to
occupation or whatever terminology, go for it.

The fact is that the US military has been given a mission. It is one
that is non-traditional and one for which they are not optimized.
Police training, security, infrastructure restoration, civil affairs,
etc. are all things which the military CAN do, but also things which
are only tangential to the primary role. If one really wants to open a
bucket of worms, consider that the roles required to stabilize Iraq
are, at least nominally, the charter described roles of the UN. (But,
we all know that isn't a starter.)


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

On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 00:07:23 GMT, "Ski"
wrote:

all so true - but if the manpads is not just IR guided, say a digital beam
rider flying a laser, radar, or optical beam or with a sophisticated heads
so that it can shoot head on, then it gets tougher which is why surprise
helps and low noise does a lot there

Flying low and fast, that is nape of the earth and near sonic the JSF going
from A to B will do very well and in that case unless something warns the
ground defenses. The world is now a place where the second you taxi or
leave the ship the gomers are on their cell phones calling in the launch -
again this brings up how the Israeli's dealt with the IADS put up in the
Bekaa and how they tried to convince the US Navy not to go low in the
strikes conducted around Beirut in 1983. The idea being if you suppress the
radar SAMS (SA-2/3/6/8 etc.) then you kind of carve out the area above
15,000 feet and the AAA or manpads can not effectively shoot you there even
though they could reach the height kinematically. This goes on and on...
so going low or going high depends upon surprise, if it can be obtained, and
what you are trying to do. One thing for sure however, once you target the
SAM operators their attitude changes.

The very essence of Weaseling!


In the 90's the new Defense Minister of Lithuania was a missile officer who
served a tour with the Russians as an advisor in Hanoi during the Vietnam
war and was at the site off of Haiphong that would pick off so many of our
jets egressing. I had to take the son of a bitch to lunch as a favor to a
NATO person and got to like him, he introduced himself with "I think we met
before" - a good ice breaker. Since we are on war stories - the following
year I was dropped off at the Polish AF academy (Deblin) to help in the
transition and decided in all my good vision to convince the Chief of Staff
to allow us to commandeer his YAK and take the high grades in the senior
class to the Farnborough Air Show with an actual agenda to do some learning.
Well after a lot of hassle he agreed as long as he could go and then I
couldn't get any budget from the US but BAe became a great helper - nice
guys. Long story short in the process BAe insisted that the Polish pilots
get the Queen's tour of Warton and the Hawk & Eurofighter so we all tramp
over their shuttle plane for the flight to Warton and the class conspired
with the Brits to sit me next to the commander of the Vietnamese Air Force -
Gen Dong something - a guy with nine kills and looked and talked like a
fighter pilot in anybody's first rate air force. Never trust Lieutenants.
I felt about as big as you know what but he was entertaining knowing every
detail about his missions and kills - "what did you do in the war ole ski"
blurted his interpreter, well let's see, I bombed a lot of trees, damaged a
couple of jets, got blown out of a helicopter and basically was a miserable
noload for too long. Ahso and the fast talking interpreter was laughing up
a storm so I said - "well at least I got to kill a lot of folks like this
guy" Interpreter shuts up abruptly - General looks at me, smiles and in
perfect English says "me too". We drank all the way to Warton and talked
about the F-16 - I hope he gets his F-16's thinks the Su-27 is a pig - so
much for the enemy.

I love it! Absolutely love it!

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

The stealth that we have now still ain't enough - and it will take a whole
lot of new stuff to deal. But like everything else and as I said before,
if you start targeting the SAM operators and their mothers they get a
quick change in attitude fast so we could asymmetrically, as they say, add
some diddles to the equation. It is perhaps then a "full spectrum" fight
(stealing from the Army)

The B-2, F-117, and F-22 already give a tremendous first day stealth
capability, especially with precision stand-off munitions. Enough to take
out any 3rd world and their SAMs. Especially given Weasel countermeasures.
As far as I know, SAMs are still highly allergic to anti-radiation missiles!
In my fictitious China/Russia scenario, there would be many more elements
besides airplanes targeting SAMs! UAVs, cruise missiles, special ops, etc.
Finally, Russian SAMs might be very good (who knows until they're used in
battle?), but I'm betting most of their for-sale operators aren't.

At the bigger picture, anyone using those weapons and seriously hurting the
US with them is going to prompt a US-Russia talk like the Britain-France
talk during the Falklands. Russia isn't going to want to trash US relations
over Kurzikstan or Somalia, so there goes their effectiveness (assuming that
US Intel doesn't already know about their capabilities and potential
counters). As Ed commented on my comments, I think the emphasis really
needs to be on winning the war of the media just as much (if not more so)
than the actual war. I believe that the US is on another generation of
operational capability compared to any other army in the world. I'd bet good
money that the US could sit idle for the next 30 years and still be on par
with anything coming out of Russia or China with the current arsenal. But
they don't want to be on par, or just win wars, they want (i.e., the public)
to win wars faster, cleaner, and easier than ever! It's the media, and
public perception, that are (and have been since the end of WW2, and
especially the end of the Cold War) the limiting factors on US military
success. So the trick becomes how to best prosecute a war that pleases the
public? Make it as humane, bloodless, and fast as possible. That, IMO, is
the biggest strategic reason for pushing technology forward. Not enemy
weapon/defense developments. Even if all other countries ceased developing
weapons, and went back to using spears and rocks, this reason alone would
still drive US weapons development just as much as it is being driven now
IMO.

On Sun, 7 Jan 2007 10:54:53 -0500, "TV" wrote:

The stealth that we have now still ain't enough - and it will take a whole
lot of new stuff to deal. But like everything else and as I said before,
if you start targeting the SAM operators and their mothers they get a
quick change in attitude fast so we could asymmetrically, as they say, add
some diddles to the equation. It is perhaps then a "full spectrum" fight
(stealing from the Army)

The B-2, F-117, and F-22 already give a tremendous first day stealth
capability, especially with precision stand-off munitions. Enough to take
out any 3rd world and their SAMs. Especially given Weasel countermeasures.
As far as I know, SAMs are still highly allergic to anti-radiation missiles!
In my fictitious China/Russia scenario, there would be many more elements
besides airplanes targeting SAMs! UAVs, cruise missiles, special ops, etc.
Finally, Russian SAMs might be very good (who knows until they're used in
battle?), but I'm betting most of their for-sale operators aren't.

At the bigger picture, anyone using those weapons and seriously hurting the
US with them is going to prompt a US-Russia talk like the Britain-France
talk during the Falklands. Russia isn't going to want to trash US relations
over Kurzikstan or Somalia, so there goes their effectiveness (assuming that
US Intel doesn't already know about their capabilities and potential
counters). As Ed commented on my comments, I think the emphasis really
needs to be on winning the war of the media just as much (if not more so)
than the actual war. I believe that the US is on another generation of
operational capability compared to any other army in the world. I'd bet good
money that the US could sit idle for the next 30 years and still be on par
with anything coming out of Russia or China with the current arsenal. But
they don't want to be on par, or just win wars, they want (i.e., the public)
to win wars faster, cleaner, and easier than ever! It's the media, and
public perception, that are (and have been since the end of WW2, and
especially the end of the Cold War) the limiting factors on US military
success. So the trick becomes how to best prosecute a war that pleases the
public? Make it as humane, bloodless, and fast as possible. That, IMO, is
the biggest strategic reason for pushing technology forward. Not enemy
weapon/defense developments. Even if all other countries ceased developing
weapons, and went back to using spears and rocks, this reason alone would
still drive US weapons development just as much as it is being driven now

That's a not bad at all expression of the cost side, and the cost
side is important but the US has never been limited by the cost
side. USains are as brave as anybody else, and as willing to
accept neccessary pain.

The US won its last war (GWI, this one isn't over so it doesn't
count yet) because the public understood the need, and accepted
the cost. Their leader expressed attainable goals to meet ral and
worthwhile needs, got the necessary suppport (hell he even got
someone else to foot the bill) achieved his goals, and got out,
or as out as one can in the real world. In his youth, he fought
bravely in a war where the president of the day had an eye on the
same factors.

It lost the war before that (Nam), not because of the cost, but
because the reasons for fighting couldn't stand the light of day.
There was no democracy to support, South East Asia was not going
to collapse like a pile of dominos etc. When the public figured
that out, the leadership tried the we've invested so much and
it's almost won bit. That turned out to be sending good money
after bad, which the public figured out too. Embarassing.

I'd cheerfully bet that the Shrub would be some kind of great
hero today if some of his "let's pretend" had turned out to be
true. What would we think of him now if it had cost 30,000 troops
to take out Iraq, but they'd found 50 hydrogen bombs and tons of
CBW weapons with credible delivery plans? and documentation
enabling you to roll up AQ like a filthy rug? and the folks in
the area were grateful? (if you found that, I suspect Iran,
Jordan, Syria and Turkey might have a passing twinge of
gratitude., governments, population and clerics included)

People forget the price pretty fast if quality goods are
delivered.


Peter Skelton

Peter Skelton wrote:

...South East Asia was not going
to collapse like a pile of dominos....

You knew that then, I suppose?

And how do you know even now that it wouldn't have?

SEA didn't collapse because of what we did there -- though I'll agree we
could have gotten better results with less investment through different
means.

Isn't hindsight wonderful?


Jack

On Sun, 07 Jan 2007 22:37:42 GMT, Jack
wrote:

Peter Skelton wrote:

...South East Asia was not going
to collapse like a pile of dominos....

You knew that then, I suppose?

SE Asia did not collapse when China fell, the dictatorships we
supported were not democracies. The Viet Nam war came from the
1956 decision not to hold elections because Uncle Ho would have
won.

The argument was spurious.


Peter Skelton

On Mon, 08 Jan 2007 14:49:27 -0500, Peter Skelton
wrote:

On Sun, 07 Jan 2007 22:37:42 GMT, Jack
wrote:

Peter Skelton wrote:

...South East Asia was not going
to collapse like a pile of dominos....

You knew that then, I suppose?

SE Asia did not collapse when China fell, the dictatorships we
supported were not democracies. The Viet Nam war came from the
1956 decision not to hold elections because Uncle Ho would have
won.

It should go without saying that condensing forty or fifty years of
history dealing with complex international relationships, not just
between one or two countries but between forty or fifty into a single
short paragraph will inevitably be WRONG.

SE Asia did not collapse when China fell. But that wasn't what Kennan
was talking about when he recommended to Truman that he establish a
series of alliances globally to contain (not confront) the spread of
Communism. And, it doesn't relate to Dulles' pronouncement of the
Domino metaphor.

The war came from the recruitment and training in the Comintern of Ho
Chi Minh. His resistance of the French colonials led to partition by
the Geneva Accords of 1954. Support of insurgents in the South by Ho's
movement led to instability which reasonably led to the conclusion
that holding elections might not be very workable or result in a
government that would meet US policy goals.

Let's be sure to note that from 1954 until late in the '60s there were
several rounds of elections held in SVN. (And to be fair, lets also
note that culturally the SVN people were about as ready for
Jeffersonian democracy as the Shia' and Sunnis.)

The argument was spurious.

I think you mean specious. Of course it does appear to be
extemporaneous and thence somewhat spurious. It's definitely
suspicious, but not too precocious.

Peter Skelton

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

"TV" wrote in message ...
The stealth that we have now still ain't enough - and it will take a whole
lot of new stuff to deal. But like everything else and as I said before,
if you start targeting the SAM operators and their mothers they get a
quick change in attitude fast so we could asymmetrically, as they say, add
some diddles to the equation. It is perhaps then a "full spectrum" fight
(stealing from the Army)

The B-2, F-117, and F-22 already give a tremendous first day stealth
capability, especially with precision stand-off munitions. Enough to take
out any 3rd world and their SAMs. Especially given Weasel countermeasures.
As far as I know, SAMs are still highly allergic to anti-radiation missiles!
In my fictitious China/Russia scenario, there would be many more elements
besides airplanes targeting SAMs! UAVs, cruise missiles, special ops, etc.
Finally, Russian SAMs might be very good (who knows until they're used in
battle?), but I'm betting most of their for-sale operators aren't.

Not sure what 1st day stealth means any more, but for sure the standoff weapons play a big role but on the other side of the coin if the enemy invests in a proper IADS there should be enough overlap that soner or later numbers come up and bite you again - so knocking down your air force and Navy from 30 to 40 wings to less then half that number implies that you are getting down to the fine line. UAV's are likewise nice but stealth UAV's are big projects (my like of moving JSF to manned and unmanned options) and on and on. Price tag is enormous - we need to spend it - but think about all the choices and schedules that must be made to accurately define where we want to go on this. But as you suggest it must be done and I agree.

At the bigger picture, anyone using those weapons and seriously hurting the
US with them is going to prompt a US-Russia talk like the Britain-France
talk during the Falklands. Russia isn't going to want to trash US relations
over Kurzikstan or Somalia, so there goes their effectiveness (assuming that
US Intel doesn't already know about their capabilities and potential
counters). As Ed commented on my comments, I think the emphasis really
needs to be on winning the war of the media just as much (if not more so)
than the actual war. I believe that the US is on another generation of
operational capability compared to any other army in the world. I'd bet good
money that the US could sit idle for the next 30 years and still be on par
with anything coming out of Russia or China with the current arsenal. But
they don't want to be on par, or just win wars, they want (i.e., the public)
to win wars faster, cleaner, and easier than ever! It's the media, and
public perception, that are (and have been since the end of WW2, and
especially the end of the Cold War) the limiting factors on US military
success. So the trick becomes how to best prosecute a war that pleases the
public? Make it as humane, bloodless, and fast as possible. That, IMO, is
the biggest strategic reason for pushing technology forward. Not enemy
weapon/defense developments. Even if all other countries ceased developing
weapons, and went back to using spears and rocks, this reason alone would
still drive US weapons development just as much as it is being driven now
IMO.

The psychological side of war - our will or their determination - is much of the fight as we are finding out in this war - the enemy reads our population's and government's ability to cope and last....

"Ski" wrote message
news:ViDoh.1065$Cn3.204@trnddc02...

.... in HTML.

Ski, would you please post in plain text rather than HTML?
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)