Jump to content

US Air Force planners want irreguar warfare wing


Recommended Posts

If the Pentagon acted on the advice of every armchair who had an opinion on these matters, we'd all end up with a bunch of B-52s powered by outboard motors.

You mean like Robert McNamara? :)

Larry

Link to post
Share on other sites

wow long thread, good read. In Rusty's earlier post he says,

The need for a COIN bird has never been far from the USAF's memory...I sat at DM for years watching the OA-37's do their thing. Now, we need to do it again. Hopefully, some general with more sense than the political kind, will dust off the papers and re-validate the whole concept.

I was at the Pima Air Museum once and peaked at the A-10's doin their thing. :cheers:

A_10_1.jpg

(pic from Oshkosh Air Show, I think it was 2005(same year as the whiteknight/spaceshipone))

Point being, this isn't a CAS war, its a PR battle....and we are getting smoked by some motivated and savy people.

agreed.

Take care,

Austin

Link to post
Share on other sites
Check their new video. Shirley Manson as a high class hooker in lingerie!

Yeah, I watched it again....

and again...

and again...

Keith- dude- you can't post something like that and not post a link.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Check their new video. Shirley Manson as a high class hooker in lingerie! :explode:

Yeah, I watched it again....

and again...

and again... :D

Speaking seriously, I prefer this Tucano pic you posted earlier

No linky???

William G

Link to post
Share on other sites
Dude, seriously. You're outclassed, outgunned and out of arguments here.

Curses! Whatever shall I do?

Are you seriously arguing that training to fight a very likely scenario is utterly pointless? How old are you? I'm not even 24, and even I remember living during the cold war.

No, I'm just calling another World War II style conventional war between nuclear armed industrial powers unlikely to the point of ridiculousness. Or do you think that the Chinese would let us march an armored column into Bejing a la Bradley in 1944 while their nukes sat doing zilch?

Preparing to fight only todays war, and not todays and tomorrows is too absurd to even consider.

How about considering the idea that the next war may follow the pattern of ever major war we - and every other major power - have had for the last 50 years? The French in Indochina. The British in Malaysia. The Dutch in Indonesia. The French in Algeria. The US in Vietnam. The Soviets in Afghanistan. The US in Iraq and Afghanistan. The proof that you guys are stretching is that you keep having to go to the well of Serbia - a three week war involving no ground troops in which we proved our aerial superiority by bombing from 30,000 feet. Forget Nam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, conflicts in which high tech supersonic jets did next to nothing to assure victory. Serbia is the signal conflict of the next century.

Sorry, but conventional big-army Pattonesque engagements like the Six Day War and Iraq 1991 have, in the latter part of the 20th Century, been very much the exception and not the rule.

There is no guarantee that nuclear weapons would be used in a war.

You mean other than the fact that the Chinese have told us point-blank repeatedly that they would?

So wait, you argue earlier that if war erupts with China or Russia (which I'm surprised you'd even deny that even a slight possibility exists) nuclear war is certain, but here you argue it's not???

No, RTFP. What I said was that if a war erupts with China and Russia, it will turn into a nukefest immediately, which we know and they know, which is why such a war erupting is not in the cards. It's called Mutually Assured Destruction, and it's precisely what made that Kursk-style tank showdown in the Fulda Gap and that Midwayesque naval battle off Cuba not ever happen.

Nukes keep peace. That's the awful truth, and why I've never been a nuclear disrmament nut. Two nuclear powers are unlikely to the point of negligible odds to ever go to war with each other, because neither wants to end up as a radioactive wasteland. If we never rolled tanks on Russia over putting tactical nukes 90 miles off our shores, what makes you think that we'd be likely to do such a thing now? If we wouldn't even invade North Vietnam because we didn't want to risk a Russian or Chinese nuclear retaliation, what makes you think we'd fight a conventional war against the PLA itself?

Even if nuclear weapons were used during an opening assault, would you seriously argue that it is pointless to prepare for a post nuclear engagement. After the nuclear assault, do you honestly believe that there is nothing left to fight for?

Uhm... yeah, actually, I do. After 30 or so American cities are vaporized, I think Americans will be fighting for little except food that doesn't glow in the dark. To go on about how glorious a job your F-22s will do after New York, Washington, Seattle, Los Angeles, Chicago, Philadelphia, and Dallas are turned into glowing ash frankly seems to me to be a little nutty.

With the cultural and political differences that exist between Russia and the US, it is not unreasonable to believe that a major event could shake ties between the two.

So again, you think we'll roll tanks into Moscow and Putin will sit on his nuclear arsenal and do nothing? You've got to be kidding me.

First off, the 200 million figure is greatly exaggerated.

Actually, if you divide the program cost by the number of airplanes ordered, it's grossly understated.

Everyone is saying that, the F-22 needs to clear the skies, blow **** up, let the other aircraft do their jobs

And what I'm saying is that in Iraq and Afghanistan, F-22s are worth jack. As they would have been against the Viet Cong. In all three wars we had unquestioned air superiority, and it didn't do a damn bit of good.

I keep wondering what basis Negrol you have for this as an analyst?

I wonder what in specific you're talking about, William? Though I will tell you that I draw a lot of my thinking from William S. Lind, Martin van Creveld, John Robb, and Gary Brecher, with a little Fred Reed thrown in for fun.

(just for ***** and giggles)

Laugh at me when your million-dollar toys actually win the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Edited by Nergol
Link to post
Share on other sites

SSSSSSHHHHHHH!!!!

Stay quiet everyone. Maybe if he thinks the room is empty he'll go back under the bridge.

When he leaves, we can all get back to laughing at him

Keith- dude- you can't post something like that and not post a link.
No linky???

William G

sorry I forgot the link guys ;) I saw it on their myspace page.

Link to post
Share on other sites

fishing_troll.gif

Not biting.

I've learned my lesson of arguing with someone who argues just for the sake of arguing.

... still laughing at you...

along with everyone else...

while watching Shirley Manson getting all sexy on my computer screen

Link to post
Share on other sites
fishing_troll.gif

Not biting.

I've learned my lesson of arguing with someone who argues just for the sake of arguing.

... still laughing at you...

along with everyone else...

while watching Shirley Manson getting all sexy on my computer screen

So... everyone who disagrees with you is a troll? Interesting.

Considering the state of affairs in Iraq and Afghanistan, I'm not sure what room the US military has to laugh at critics. To say that the win/loss record of the US military in the last half-century is mixed is being charitable. In Iraq and Afghanistan, too, it's looking very much like the Pentagon will not have the last laugh.

Edited by Nergol
Link to post
Share on other sites

Nergol, I respect your opinion, but I disagree strongly. Why are you so pessemistic about the war in Iraq and Afghanistan? What makes you think we are losing? Why should I believe the arguements you are making (I know that I don't have too, but it seems that you are going on a hunch)?

-Austin

Edited by arkhunter2002
Link to post
Share on other sites
Why are you so pessemistic about the war in Iraq and Afghanistan? What makes you think we are losing?

In a war like this, the insurgent side wins by not losing. It wins by not being crushed, and not going away. It runs the occupier (a term which here I use as a literal, but not a moral term) out of will, which is inevitable. The Iraqis, after all, won't and can't pack up and go home - they already are home. It is we who will eventually throw up our hands and leave. You may criticize this strategy as unsporting, cowardly, unfair, cheating, or unworthy of your favorite hero Generals if you like, and you may be quite right. But the one thing this strategy is is effective. Again, France in Indochina, the US in Vietnam, the French in Algeria, the Soviets in Afghanistan, so on and so on... the truth is that it has a very good track record. Generally wars like this last about 6-8 years before the Away team takes their ball and goes home.

Looked at this way, CNN is as much a battleground as the streets of Fallujah. Woodstock represented a major battle of the Vietnam War. Again, you may think it's a sucky, sneaky, low-down way to gain a victory, but the Home team doesn't care - they want the Away team out of their country more than they want statues built for them or documentaries made about them by the Ken Burnses of the future.

We've now been at war in Iraq longer than we were against Nazi Germany. The Iraqi insurgency isn't going away, nor are there many signs that it will. In Afghanistan, it now looks like the Taliban simply went to ground in 2002, and activity there is on the upswing instead of dying down. By simply not losing, the insurgencies there are winning - results have begun to show. The 2004 election was all about the American people saying that they weren't ready to give up yet on the Iraq War. The 2006 election was all about the fact that now they were. Keep in mind, I don't say this as a value judgement as to wether they should or should not feel that way - but that interperetation is the conventional wisdom, and one I agree with. The polls on the popularity of the Iraq War - 2/3 or so of the people opposed and growing - are bleak. Key Senators from the President's own party, either through principle or fear for their political futures (for our purposes it doesn't matter which), are beginning to break with the President on the war. There ain't much time left on the "Washington clock".

Inside Iraq and Afghanistan, we're seeing the ARVN redux - the locals don't seem to have the will to fight hard for the cause we want them to fight for. For their tribe or their Imam, they'll fight. For Uncle Sam's middle eastern democracy experiment, not so much. Which leaves us with no one to hand the fight to, and time running out to win it ourselves.

This part is just speculative, but frankly, I get the feeling the Iranian-backed Shia political parties that our democracy crusdade put in charge of Iraq are using the US military as unpaid Hessians to weaken their Sunni rivals to the point where they won't provide any threat to the Shia dominance of the country, then once the Sunnis are sufficiently mopped up they'll probably pass a resolution through their Parliament asking our forces to leave (You don't really think that Iranian puppets like SCIRI - or whatever they call themselves these days - and Dawa will let us have permanent military bases in their country, do you?). That'll leave us in a heckuva bind - if we refuse and stay, we destroy whatever shred of legitimacy we have left by ignoring the democracy that we created, and show ourselves to be every bit the old-school colonial occupier. But wether we will or won't will depend on who takes office in January, 2009. If it's a Democrat (which it most likely will be) and they have two brain cells to rub together, they'll be praying to high heaven for the "out" of the Iraqi Parliament asking us to leave. One last chance at "Peace With Honor", or at least an unreasonable facsimile. This, rather than either "victory" (whatever that means) or a Saigon Ending, would seem to me to be the most likely scenario.

Edited by Nergol
Link to post
Share on other sites
So... everyone who disagrees with you is a troll? Interesting.

Oh, if you just knew! :D

Not referring to Keith, but to the certain "majority" here. One truth applies.

Nergol, I respect your opinion, but I disagree strongly. Why are you so pessemistic about the war in Iraq and Afghanistan? What makes you think we are losing?

:blink: Doesn't it look quite bad?

IBTL! :woot.gif:

Link to post
Share on other sites
In a war like this, the insurgent side wins by not losing. It wins by not being crushed, and not going away. It runs the occupier (a term which here I use as a literal, but not a moral term) out of will, which is inevitable. The Iraqis, after all, won't and can't pack up and go home - they already are home. It is we who will eventually throw up our hands and leave. You may criticize this strategy as unsporting, cowardly, unfair, cheating, or unworthy of your favorite hero Generals if you like, and you may be quite right. But the one thing this strategy is is effective. Again, France in Indochina, the US in Vietnam, the French in Algeria, the Soviets in Afghanistan, so on and so on... the truth is that it has a very good track record. Generally wars like this last about 6-8 years before the Away team takes their ball and goes home.

Looked at this way, CNN is as much a battleground as the streets of Fallujah. Woodstock represented a major battle of the Vietnam War. Again, you may think it's a sucky, sneaky, low-down way to gain a victory, but the Home team doesn't care - they want the Away team out of their country more than they want statues built for them or documentaries made about them by the Ken Burnses of the future.

We've now been at war in Iraq longer than we were against Nazi Germany. The Iraqi insurgency isn't going away, nor are there many signs that it will. In Afghanistan, it now looks like the Taliban simply went to ground in 2002, and activity there is on the upswing instead of dying down. By simply not losing, the insurgencies there are winning - results have begun to show. The 2004 election was all about the American people saying that they weren't ready to give up yet on the Iraq War. The 2006 election was all about the fact that now they were. Keep in mind, I don't say this as a value judgement as to wether they should or should not feel that way - but that interperetation is the conventional wisdom, and one I agree with. The polls on the popularity of the Iraq War - 2/3 or so of the people opposed and growing - are bleak. Key Senators from the President's own party, either through principle or fear for their political futures (for our purposes it doesn't matter which), are beginning to break with the President on the war. There ain't much time left on the "Washington clock".

Inside Iraq and Afghanistan, we're seeing the ARVN redux - the locals don't seem to have the will to fight hard for the cause we want them to fight for. For their tribe or their Imam, they'll fight. For Uncle Sam's middle eastern democracy experiment, not so much. Which leaves us with no one to hand the fight to, and time running out to win it ourselves.

This part is just speculative, but frankly, I get the feeling the Iranian-backed Shia political parties that our democracy crusdade put in charge of Iraq are using the US military as unpaid Hessians to weaken their Sunni rivals to the point where they won't provide any threat to the Shia dominance of the country, then once the Sunnis are sufficiently mopped up they'll probably pass a resolution through their Parliament asking our forces to leave (You don't really think that Iranian puppets like SCIRI - or whatever they call themselves these days - and Dawa will let us have permanent military bases in their country, do you?). That'll leave us in a heckuva bind - if we refuse and stay, we destroy whatever shred of legitimacy we have left by ignoring the democracy that we created, and show ourselves to be every bit the old-school colonial occupier. But wether we will or won't will depend on who takes office in January, 2009. If it's a Democrat (which it most likely will be) and they have two brain cells to rub together, they'll be praying to high heaven for the "out" of the Iraqi Parliament asking us to leave. One last chance at "Peace With Honor", or at least an unreasonable facsimile. This, rather than either "victory" (whatever that means) or a Saigon Ending, would seem to me to be the most likely scenario.

I don't know, but I think at least these arguments hold pretty well and to outgun them you need really big guns.

Link to post
Share on other sites

All I have to say for this crap (where did the Mods go?) is this: The "war", if you want to call it that (looks like a GD "police action" to me), aint over yet. Since someone brought up WWII, its only fair to say that it took awhile for the Allies to get off the defensive and back on the offense. Now if you want to play the numbers game, we've lost roughly 4,000 troops in Irag (no one has said much about the 'Stan figures), compare that to the roughly 59,000 the US alone lost in 'Nam and you should see (unless my glasses are screwed up) that the 2 figures are way unequal.

Having said all of that, I believe that Irag & Afghanistan are not lost causes by a long shot, especially when you've got a bunch of the local ethnic groups (the Kurds come to mind) actually thanking us for coming in and getting rid of the former regemes (most of which you dont hear because of the media anti-war slant).

Ves :woot.gif:

Link to post
Share on other sites

This has been political crap right from the start. Unfortunately.

especially when you've got a bunch of the local ethnic groups (the Kurds come to mind) actually thanking us for coming in and getting rid of the former regemes (most of which you dont hear because of the media anti-war slant).

Kurdis are a very minor group...

If even 2/3 of the Americans are against the war, it can't be just the "media anti-war slant".

Sorry that I interfered. Shouldn't have... Way too political subject.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually, if you divide the program cost by the number of airplanes ordered, it's grossly understated.

And what I'm saying is that in Iraq and Afghanistan, F-22s are worth jack. As they would have been against the Viet Cong. In all three wars we had unquestioned air superiority, and it didn't do a damn bit of good.

Unquestioned air superiority in Vietnam? 76 aircraft lost to MiGs, 3,339 aircraft lost in total (2,317 to direct enemy action). So, aerial superiority air-to-air wise, maybe, with 196 MiGs having been shot sown. But in the grand sheme, hell, no! Flying over Vietnam was dangerous ALL the time!

Remember that the F-22s capabilities not only protect (to a certain degree) them from fighters, but from ground fire as well. Their stealth features protect against radar-guided SAMs, while their sensors allow them to operate from higher up, thus staying out of the ground fire envelope.

I don't know, but I think at least these arguments hold pretty well and to outgun them you need really big guns.

Well, maybe that's because he has made no coments on aerial warfare in the part you quoted....

Kurdis are a very minor group...

5 million (with 27 in the region) isn't what I would call "minor".

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think that the issue of air superiority over Iraq or Afghanistan was ever in question...I would imagine that most airforces in the world would be able to maintain this now based on the fact that the Iraqi airforce has always been useless and the Taliban/Al Qaeda airforce is....non-existant? Thank God for the F-22!!!!! :blink:

On the issue of Nergol's main point...and I am hesitant of entering a political flame war... :banana:

He is mostly correct in my opinion. The American media will lose the war for them simply by making the war unpopular to the point of a lost election for the party in charge. Insurgents do not have this issue to worry about, as they are fanatical towards their cause beyond what most of us would consider rational.

All the airpower and technology doesn't mean s**t if the will to win is not behind it. The troops have the will to win and we should support them as long as they are in harms way....BUT the political will to win is still, in the end, governed by the voting public (read democracy) and the voting public is "controlled" by the idiotic American media. Just one Canadian's $0.02. :thumbsup:

Edited by zebra
Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, maybe that's because he has made no coments on aerial warfare in the part you quoted....

Yeah, I know and that's what I also meant.

This conversasion had already run its course a long time ago and I really don't know a sh*t about the USAF policies. Some of the Nergol's points still seem pretty reasonable. As do some of his opponents' points as well. Interesting conversation.

5 million (with 27 in the region) isn't what I would call "minor".

Of 26 million total in Iraq that's not a majority either. "Minor" was a wrong word here.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...