Comments for This one's for you, Kirk, and you, too, Casey.

This one's for you, Kirk, and you, too, Casey.

Sun, 10 May 2009 06:19:36 -0600

The F-15 Eagle West Coast Demonstration Team and a pair of P-51 Mustangs fly in formation as part of the Heritage Flight during their final demonstration May 1 at Eglin Air Force Base, Fla. The Air Combat Command F-15 demo team has performed more than 150 times to spectators around the globe over the final two years. This is the final demonstration for the F-15C, completing a 26-year career that began in 1983. (U.S. Air Force photo/Staff Sgt. Mike Meares) And, since there was some whinging about no love for Corsairs... But I have to admit, when it comes to...

Comment from Casey on 2009-05-14

Thu, 14 May 2009 00:03:39 -0600

Grumpy, when people ask me about "which computer?," my response similar to yours, but proceeds more as a dialog. So I ask: what do you want it for? What are the five most common things you'll do with the computer? Will you watch a lot of movies (DVDs) on it? Will you rip more than a few CDs or DVDs to your hard drive for more convenient enjoyment? Do you intend to do any serious programming, image manipulation (i.e. photoshop), or animation?

As you say, the old stuff is quite sufficient for most folks. I've run WinXP on a 667Mz Pentium III system with 512Mb of RAM, and an old Voodoo 3 3000 video card. It ran like a champ, with the exception that I never installed a DVD drive on that box. Ended up giving it to a friend who needed a system, quick.

Heck, back in the day (when Win95 was just released) I ran an NT-console BBS program (Opus) in the background, and played Quake while folks were online to my BBS. That was on a 486-66DX system with a whopping 8Mb of RAM. Mind you, they could tell when I was playing Quake since there were some obvious pauses while they read messages and such, but the system still worked cleanly and efficiently. No blue screens of death or locked-up machines.

The question here is: how well does this scale up to military applications? Certainly COTS systems have become more prevalent the past 20 years in the Army. While they might not be as state-of-the-art as the purely military designs, they seem to be doing the job quite nicely. There's also the question of reliability; while Spitfires and Mustangs would be cheaper, by the historical record they were also far less reliable than modern designs. So the question becomes: can we develop a design with both modern reliability and effective simplicity?

Despite all the table-thumping about the need for the F-22 and B-2, the historical record shows that the United States has traditionally won wars with lower-tech, more-plentiful weapons systems used by (eventually) well-trained troops. The latter part is why some of our wars have fairly high body counts. Until the early 70s, the tradition was to have a tiny standing Army which was supported by mass civilian conscription in the face of war, which resulted in mass-produced units of poor quality. These units eventually learned (on the battlefield) how to fight a war, but not until many of their comrades died unnecessarily.

"High-tech" vs. "low-tech" questions are mostly a 20th-century phenomenon. Let's look at WW2. Most aircraft in service in 1939 never served in a combat theatre. The most-recent B-17 was the B model! Note that the Fortress was not considered combat-ready until the E model. The first P-37Y wasn't delivered until late 1940. At least we had the Garand by then. (BTW, John, will you PLEASE explain why Garand and the U.S. government thought that the "en-bloc" clip was such a great idea!?)

During the war, the Garand was eventually superseded by the German StG-44, we never matched the 88, both the Germans and (especially) the Soviets had better tank designs, the Brits had better amphibious tanks, and the Luftwaffe consistently developed more advanced designs during the war, including the FW-190 and the Me-262. Japan's "long lance" torpedo was (to my knowledge) never matched during the war, and their naval optical instruments consistently beat US Navy forces during night battles until the destruction of Imperial Japanese Navy aviation assets.

Heck, the M-4 Sherman was totally outclassed by later panzers, although the former were far more reliable. One could argue that the US Army relied more on "quantity" than did the Soviets, in this case.

In the Pacific, America generally relied more on superior tactics and "brute engineering" than superior technology. Both US Navy and Army Air Force planes had stronger engines, more armor, stronger frames, and self-sealing fuel tanks. Most pilots tried to avoid actual dogfighting, while demonstrating a preference for quick-in, quick-out, "zoom" attacks where the higher terminal speeds of US aircraft competed well with the more-manueverable, but unboosted, controls of the Japanese aircraft, which tended to "stiffen up" at high speed.

In both theatres, it was effective training using appropriate technology which won the war; not higher-tech, with the exception of the atomic bomb.

I'll even state that as a principle: high-tech does NOT win wars, but it does save lives. Better training and logistical support generally trumps higher tech.

Comment from Boquisucio on 2009-05-11

Mon, 11 May 2009 13:06:22 -0600

Oh I may add that the Brasilians currently use them in counterinsurgency efforts as well. Very little publicity goes to The Brasilian Special Operations' effort to stabilize both their Colombian and Peruvian Border Regions. It seems that "foreign" trouble-makers are fond of using the Brasilian jungles as R-n-R/Staging areas, to cool down their feet, when the heat gets too warm for comfort in Colombia and Perú.

Granted, those areas in Brasil are sparsly populated, but still, a pain and real danger for those small communities along the border regions.

Comment from Boquisucio on 2009-05-11

Mon, 11 May 2009 12:56:55 -0600

I personally know the individual who sold the Super Tucanos to the Colombian Air Force. He's an ex Chilean Army Tanker, whose codename is: "Cowboy". Known for being somewhat of a loose cannon, in the bidnez; but from time to time pulls-out a $15Million Dollar Coup such as that sale.

Comment from Cannonshop on 2009-05-11

Mon, 11 May 2009 04:32:48 -0600

Damn it! the USAF already HAS the Piper Enforcer-all they have to do, is put it into production!

Comment from Grumpy on 2009-05-10

Sun, 10 May 2009 19:13:20 -0600

@Old Blue,

Now, that's not nice, you have put your foot in it. "It" is defined as lower than their wallet (money) but more centered. You have caused two problems, one, for yourself and one, for them. The first is a problem for them, you've caused brain damage. The second is a problem for yourself, how do you get your foot out?

Have a *great* week!

Comment from Old Blue on 2009-05-10

Sun, 10 May 2009 16:58:31 -0600

The only thing nicer than air cover is air cover that stays around for a long time with lots of scary stuff hanging.

Always hated the looks of the SLUF; loved the way that it kept winning air-to-ground competitions right up to the end.

I've heard whispers that there is a guerrilla group of Air Force junior officers who keep pointing out that they can buy a squadron of a scaled-down twin engined Spectres (including crews) for the same price as a single F-22.

Comment from Grumpy on 2009-05-10

Sun, 10 May 2009 16:44:03 -0600

John, First of all, outstanding photography. The article reminds me of the old question raised to many of the smart old geeks. It sounds something like this, "I'm thinking of buying a computer, but which one should I buy?" The old-timer I talked with, explained it this way, "First, understand the approach is bass-ackwards. Second, why are you buying it or what is the mission? Third, What is the best hardware/software match to accomplish the mission? Fourth, do you really need all of the bells and whistles? The simpler something is means the less chance of something going wrong. "Murphy's Law" applies here, If something goes wrong, it *must* happen at the worst possible time and place. This is reason for good maintenance or support. Many, but not all, times the older technologies have the bugs worked out. This is the reason the old-timers say, "If it works well, *don't screw with it!*

Comment from Kirk on 2009-05-10

Sun, 10 May 2009 15:06:23 -0600

Thanks for all the Corsair shots John. Like you, I enjoy the look of the A-7...sort of a slightly shorter, stubbier F-8 that gives the appearance of being able to take just as much as it dishes out.

I like the thought of the SOF community getting its hands on some Embraer Tucanos...we certainly have roles/missions for it. Embraer is definitely a leader in the aviation industry today. I believe they control market share for the regional jet class of aircraft, although that might belong to Bombardier. Also, their smaller regional jets (145s) are being used as ISR platforms.

Comment from Chris Byrne on 2009-05-10

Sun, 10 May 2009 14:33:28 -0600

Affirm your last on the Skyraider. Rarely in history has one airplane done so much to save so many lives.

Comment from Casey on 2009-05-10

Sun, 10 May 2009 14:07:32 -0600

Thanks for the shot, John! (You sure do got a purty plane, mister)

And, yes, the Corsair II was a great bird.

I had heard vague rumors about the Super Tucano, but this seems the firmest so far. The first time I saw a photo I thought of the Cavalier Mustang/Piper Enforcer.