H&I* Fires, 12 JAN 2007

Open post for those with something to share, updated through the day. New, complete posts come in below this one. Note: If trackbacking, please acknowledge this post in your post. That's only polite. [Admittedly, I'm fibbing. Trackbacks are still broken]

You're advertising here, we should get an ad at your place...

************************
This is something John�s covered before. But it was prominently on The Keith Olberman Show last night and I found another report on it today: Reactive armor to beat RPG and ATGM, and more specifically the TROPHY system developed by Israel, that the Army refuses to buy and deploy in Iraq.

Yeah, throwing material in the way of oncoming missiles is a good idea. That's the idea behind the CIWS the Navy uses. In the right circumstances it�s a great idea. Is a Striker or Bradley MICV in a market full of people and with a bunch of dismounted infantry walking patrol such a circumstance? Doesn�t the utility of something like this in the current conflict have to be decided with that as a factor? Just blindly saying �We want the best for The Troops� is not actually doing what is best for the troops.

It also makes a lot of a very old problem. If it wasn�t designed and built by �Muricans we ain�t buying. Was ever thus. There�s some good reasons, and some terrible ones, for doing it this way. But that�s for another day.
______________________________________
I think we have a new job for the old F-14s. Why ugly up an F-15 by putting a huge missile under her when the Tomcat was already designed to carry something monstrous and provide area defense?
Putting a PAC-3 (Patriot, advanced capability---meaning it has, among other refinements, an anti-ballistic missile capability) missile on a plane for CM and TBM defense? Brilliant. Putting it on an F-15? Not so sure it�s brilliance even if they were the vehicle of choice for the old ASAT system.

Now, would we really need such defense? That�s another post for another day, or at least to be argued in the comments.
______________________________
Something to think about from the boys (and at least one girl last time I checked) over at Crooked Timber. Again, I go so you don�t have to.

Don�t agree with it. The simple Prisoner�s Dilemma from game theory comes to mind---with a modification for small group benefit against large group benefit. Or, say, you know the other guy is limited to bargaining and are therefore being a royal pain getting more than you could otherwise? Wouldn�t it be nice for the other guy to have a trump card to make you play fair? Or how about simply not being able to compromise, which, while speculation only, may be the problem with �reconciliation� in Iraq right now? Those situations DO come up in real life and in international relations.

But it never hurts to question yourself about biases you carry.
ry
*********************************
Klingenschmitt, the Navy Chaplain who insisted on pray 'In Jesus' Name', is out of the Navy.
ry
************************

Email today: starting tomorrow I shut up again. Hope your week wasn't that bad, Boss

My week was fine, thank you. And initiating H&I Fires is now your *job*, night owl. -the Armorer

************************

Ry,

I think the Patriot-on-a-Mudhen vs. a Tomcat has to do with the level of sophistication of the launch platform. The F-14 is (or was) years behind the A/C model Eagles, to say nothing of the E models. That's one of the reasons the 'Cat had two seats--it takes two to fly the jet and run the systems thanks to their design, not necessarily their sophistication (less user-friendly equals more hands/eyeballs required).

The Eagle started with the premise that a one-man jet needed a cosmic system to allow one guy to fly AND fight AND maximize the system's capabilities, which are formidable, and made even more so by the digital "backbone" in the jet that allows for rapid and frequent upgrades, software changes and capability expansion. The E-model went to two seats not due to design but due to capability--the radar/sensor/multi-weapon choice suite is beyond the ability of one guy to FULLY exploit.

Now, the F-14 may have been re-wired over the years to approach the F-15C/E's abilities, but I doubt it. That said, the F/A-18 is a design whose philosophy much more closely mimics that of the Eagle. However, the Mudhen, I think, has a greater payload capacity and is thus better for hauling a Patriot to the launch parameters the engineers are considering.

So, to cut to the chase, I think the Eagles offer both a more modern system that is easier to integrate with another system never originally considered for air launch and the aerodynamic capability (thrust-to-weight ratio, sufficiently structurally robust to carry large payloads, etc.) to get it to where the users need it to be effective. -Instapilot

************************

I got a job!!!!!!! - FbL

************************

Another "Macho Dem." (see here for context) - FbL

************************

Ry - on the issue of TROPHY, I've got some sources. IIRC, we are quietly buying Israeli kit (not just ammuntion, either) but we aren't buying Israeli kit that doesn't do what we need. We've got people who looked closely at TROPHY, and it didn't pass muster for a number of reasons, not least the unfortunate characteristic of collateral damage to exposed troops and nearby civilians, a subject already mentioned by MajMike, I believe. There is plenty to indicate now that the manufacturer is trying to win politically, via PR, what they were unable to accomplish on the merits. -the Armorer

***********************