previous post next post  

Doing our bit to help the Department of Homeland Security.

I want to make sure they've got their eye on this group of highly-trained and skilled military veterans who are clearly sliding into dangerous militia-style attitudes and probably bad right-wing politics, too.

Just look - they *openly* display the sentiments of the Gadsden Flag, which is a well known and documented (just ask Potok at the Southern Poverty Law Center) indicia of Bad and Dangerous Thinking.  Hopefully this group is under constant surveillance.

U.S. Navy Petty Oficer 3rd Class Joshua Brock cleans an F/A18C Hornet aboard the aircraft carrier USS Nimitz in the Pacific Ocean, Aug. 19, 2009. Nimitz and embarked Carrier Air Wing 11 are on a scheduled deployment to the western Pacific Ocean. Brock is assigned to the Sidewinders of Strike Fighter squadron of 86. U.S. Navy photo by Petty Oficer 2nd Class Gregory A. Streit

U.S. Navy Petty Oficer 3rd Class Joshua Brock cleans an F/A18C Hornet aboard the aircraft carrier USS Nimitz in the Pacific Ocean, Aug. 19, 2009. Nimitz and embarked Carrier Air Wing 11 are on a scheduled deployment to the western Pacific Ocean. Brock is assigned to the Sidewinders of Strike Fighter squadron of 86. U.S. Navy photo by Petty Oficer 2nd Class Gregory A. Streit.

Oh, and Sailor?  Check the oil while you're at it, too, please?

16 Comments

...feeding the same kind of white-hot popular anger that animated the militia movement of the 1990s, with all its violence.

Mmmmmmm -- refresh my memory. Comparing the Lefty movements of the late '60s and early '70s with the militia movement of the '90s, wasn't there more real, live, *actual* violence associated with the Lefties? Yanno, the side that the current Dem leadership earned its political chops with?

Y-e-e-e-a-a-a-h, I thought so.

But then, history isn't exactly the for-*tay* of the current crop of Lefty pundits. Veracity, either, come to think of it...
 

  Yes indeed, Bill. I have a special type of loathing for the willfully ignorant.
 

Hmmmm, didn't know they made "swiffers" for F/A18Cs.


 
Those scrub pads are awesome. you can get baked in dirt and exhaust grit thats been there for 6 months off quick and easy with those things. love em.
 
The MSM makes fluffers for the DNC, so why shouldn't someone make swiffers for Hornets?
 
Hmmm. Brightly colored squadron markings. Looks like the Navy isn't expecting a shooting war on that patch of turf for a while. :)

 
I prefer the Gonzales flag myself. As a proud Texan I make it a point to fly it here in the People's Republic of Illinois a few times a year.

www.galleryoftherepublic.com/txflags/gonzales.htm
 
Texans couldn't spell " Μολὼν λαβέ "?
 
 As I recall, those guys were flying A-7s on the first Nimitz deployment in 76.
 
Casey, the Navy is planning on fighting at a long enough range so the pretty colors won't matter. Of course, that was the plan in Vietnam, too. I heard somewhere about plans and first contact with the enemy, or words to that effect.
 
Look, Unk, just 'cause you and Leonidas went for a drink and you gave him the slogan to use at Thermopylae doesn't mean you get to rub others noses in it. 

And, hey, speaking of BVR combat, has anyone actually checked the performance of the missiles and systems involved?  And it isn't just USN/USAF either---as PLAN/AF, former Sovs, and the ISraelis are all doing it.  Going thru my folios(since I've got nothing to do for a coupla) it looks like the US might actually be behind the curve a tad---with things like LINK 16 and the data sharing between F-22s making up the difference, in theory, if we keep the platforms that make up for the better missiles on foreign platforms. 

It's one thing to point at Vietnam and the technocratic attitude of the day, and it's quite another thing to live with the current reality.  Sure, no fighter should be without a gun and and dogfighting skills should still be taught.  But BVR is a reality, it's deadly, and woe onto the commander who pretends it ain't.  He's likely to find himself in the positiong of Gen Lee any time he went onto the offensive with Napoleonic tacticswhile ignoring the change in technology leading to higher accuracy and lethality:  losing.   
 
Um, yeah, Ry, BVR has been the next best thing since the mid-1950s, kinda like AI.

And, yes, the missiles have gotten better, but not as good as the pencil-pushers think. You do remember how the Phantom II was designed without an internal gun, since guns were obsolete, yes? As you say, at the time "everyone was doing it."

After that I'll worry about theoretical foreign superior-tech when it actually happens. After that, I might begin considering that tech a challenge when backed up by equally effective doctrine, training, and tactics. Remember the Mitsubishi A6M? In 1941 it was -without doubt- the finest carrier fighter in the world, yet the relatively obsolete US NAVY F4 Wildcat (originally a biplane design) still managed a 6-1 kill ratio. Why? Better training and tactics. Same thing with the P-38 in the Southwest Pacific, and even the relatively old P-40.

One can find similar situations in the European Theatre, including the time Robert Johnson (of Thunderbolt! fame) took out a Spitfire Mk V in mock combat while flying the the lowly Jug. It all goes back to pilot training and readiness. When someone can present irrefutable evidence that ChiCom or other forces have matched our training regimen, I might become concerned.

I'll also point out that Lee won far more often than he lost, and that was mostly due to strategic and logistic challenges he could never overcome. Did Malvern Hill offset Cold Harbor? Were these battles the result of improper comprehension of modern lethality, or just bad decisions based on poor contemporary intelligence? Certainly Lee's greatest defeat was the result of (as Churchill said) that the man failed to differentiate between poor troops, and good troops poorly lead. In fact, I would say that Lee's methods during the 1863 campaign reflected not only an unconscious disdain for Union infantry, but provides an excellent example of Victory Disease, which goes back to the above Churchill quote.

Contra Ry's position, even a casual perusal of the history of the time will reveal that infantry on both sides frequently resorted to field entrenchment on a regular basis after 1862. I'll go even further. Contra the Conventional Wisdom that the American Civil War predicated the wasteful nature of WW1, the majority of generals on both sides reflected a Napoleonic view of movement, fire, and celerity. Not to mention that (again) contra Ry's position, generals such as Sheridan, Sherman, Jackson, and Forrest accurately presaged 20th century concepts such as blitzkrieg and/or AirLand Battle. Their intellectual father: Dennis Mahan.

With the exception of the Wilderness Campaign, most Northern and Southern successes reflected the Napoleonic concepts such as celerity, movement, and concentration of superior force at a specific point.

 
LINK 16 and the data sharing between F-22s making up the difference

They'd better start thinking about the F-22 as a National Asset, then, because we already have all the F-22s we'll ever have. Lockheed's already shut down the program and begun the layoffs.
 
Ah.  Talk about stuff pre-missile age.  That sounds like a busted analogy.  Training does matter, of that there is no doubt(using C-2 "Humming Birds" or C-3 Sentry is part of that chain and one in which training matters).  Note:  I'm not saying that it's all BVR all the time and guns are dinosaurs(actually read what I wrote, please)  But, I can point to something, far more recent, that shows I'm right.  The Falklands.  BVR, baby.  Exocet mission killing surface combatants from over the horizon.  And lets not forget that a couple of aces from 'Nam were RIO('dead weight') who killed stuff they never saw with their Mk1 Mod0.  That would be proof of BVR too, me thinks.(Looks at the Ref)

I side with Bevin Alexander on this one.  Lee had many a phyric victory.  He lost men in attacks he couldn't afford to make, and lost thereby.  'THe King of Spades' couldn't be unseated while on the defensive, but wasted his army again and again on the offensive.  Example:  Pickett's Charge.  The men he lost in his offensives left him depleted for when Grant showed up to continuously slide onto the flank.  Tech had moved around to the tactical defensive, Lee ignored it, and gutted his army thereby.  Longstreet was right.  THe key to Napoleonic warfare was strategic aggressiveness coupled with assuming the tactical defensive(bringing the enemy to you, on ground of your choosing, and fighting from prepared positions, or using his movement to cause confusion which you use to beat the snot out of one segment---ala Jackson and Nappy himself).  Lee ignored his 'Old Warhorse' and, thank God, the South went down in flames.  Lee ignored the increased lethality, just as his Union opponents did(and did they lose heavily or not?), and paid for it.  Which is all to the good as far as i'm concerned.  

Wildcat.  So, having boucou armor plating while its opponent had zero, pun unintended, had no effect in this?  How convenient.  The Lightning used hit and run tactics to accrue its kill tallies.  High speed intecepts, then blowing on past the slower Zero to disengage, and make another pass while RTB.  THat's utilizing the plane, not training.  THey didn't develop turning tactics with the Lightning to deal with the Zero, as they did with the Corsair and others.     

Unk.  Yeah, I know.  It's still a stupid decision.  Unless we go with UCAV en masse, which we haven't got and aren't likely to have in the near term, not having something like the 22 in numbers is a bad decision.  It might make sense fiscally, but not in dealing with potential threats in the near term. 

Returning to BVR.  There's a reason why people are moving to it.  Dogfighting is hard.  Everyone's developed look and shoot systems.  We're behind on that score.  You don't climb into a knife fight in a phone booth when the other guy has major advantages on you, like agility.  Look at one of the exercises from a couple of years ago agains the Indian Air Force.  F-15/F-16 tandem got it's head handed to it.  Why?  No C-3 Sentry in the exercise.  No BVR.  India used their look and shoot system while our nascent system was nowhere near as effective.  India trounced us, dogfitting, with the US having TONS more flight hours and training per pilot(note, this doesn't say that tech ultimately always wins, it doesn't, but it does put you at a major disadvantage if you aren't on the same level.  Not to mention that the 'training and spirit' sounds exactly like the Black Dragon crowd, and we know how that turned out.).  If you hadn't noticed people WANT us up close and personal. It plays to their advantages. 
 
But BVR is a reality, it's deadly, and woe onto the commander who pretends it ain't.

BVR has been a *capability* since the late 1960s. The *reality* is dictated by the ROE.

If the ROE dictates visual ID before firing, that'll be the reality.

If the ROE dictates anything not electronically IDed as a friendly must be treated as "unknown," then *that'll* be the reality.

If the ROE dictates anything not electronically IDed as a friendly is a hostile, then *that'll* be the reality.

Or, that will be until the first cases of fratricide occur...


 
I don't dispute that, Unk.  Though ROE will change after the first shots are fired.  Though, that's a topic for a later time since it talks about having a Military for War and a Military for Peacetime, and more specifically where the two don't coincide. 

I'm just tired of the ideological scoffers who reflexively deride failures during McNamara's era somehow creates an eternal truism of that it's a stupid idea that can't work.  It ain't.  It didn't work up to the hype, but it did work.  Look at the RIOs who are aces.  Look at the HMS Sheffield for crying out loud.  BVR ain't BS.  For crying out loud, look at the history of SAM.

There were failures.  Plenty of failures.  NWS China Lake spent oodles of money and time working out the problem of the early Sparrow heat seeking sensor being just one(and that was just for the dogfighting missile!).  Early Sidewinder had terrible flaws that limited its use and made F-4 pilots at times defenseless.  But saying that such an instance is true today is like saying the problems with the F-14 radar mean all airborne radar sets are problematic.  Never mind there's been at least two technological advancements since then to improve both radar and missiles themselves(microprocessors and metallurgical, at least) that make the arguments false.

But also look at what I said, Unk.  BVR exists, and acting like it's the only game in town is stooooped because everything that flies in anger should carry a gun system of some sort since it's likely to find itself in a close-up encounter or a situation where such an encounter is advantageous is just as stooped as pretending it doesn't.  "Sure, no fighter should be without a gun and and dogfighting skills should still be taught.  But BVR is a reality, it's deadly, and woe onto the commander who pretends it ain't."---kinda interesting how that first part gets overlooked. 

Remember my role, Unk, keeping some of the Ossified (and the Ossified Ossifers) intellectually honest by challenging assumptions and 'truisms'.  Which is why it's damn annoying when you all act like I pissed on your dog and lit your truck on fire.  I'm just doing my job.  Which is why it's really funny listening to you lecture me about thin skin when you've got folks seething that I challenged a cherished theory every now and again. 

Now I know why the guys trained to be Red Team on staffs feel like their careers got short changed.