Jump to content
ARC Discussion Forums

Sign in to follow this  
fulcrum1

Phasing out the A-10

Recommended Posts

Yeah and the article notes how the Canadian govt. is looking at private contracting its tanking. This will cost more in the long run as the private corp. needs to make a profit. As to using USAF tanking, nothing new but is it wise to only keep it's tanking assets (BTW these are dwindling numbers too for even US service) as our only real crutch?

Oh trust me too our govt. and DnD will talk of buying Boom style tanking but it will likely not come to any real result. We will be out of the RCAF tanking business in most any role it provides within 10 or so years, just you watch. The the USAF can then rip us a new one each time we need to secure USAF tanking then and worse in our NORAD role (behind the lines) the private contractors will also be able to bend us over and do us without lube too. Just you wait and see.

And watch as the USAF eventually moves to more private contract tanking too. WAIT AND SEE BUB!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have not seen this proposed in the US.

http://www.cdainstitute.ca/en/blog/entry/issues-analysis-aerial-refueling-northern-defence-and-the-f-35

read and learn.

Yes it will be just like that. The USAF will wait for the Canadians to take off and then jack up the price of refueling as the tanks continue to get lower. The Canadian pilot will tank up and flash his Gas credit card to the boom operator who will jot down the numbers and bill the pilot. then the pilot will take out the difference in petty cash when he gets back to base. Because this is how governments work.

I'm also very confused because you tried to say that contract tankers will over charge and rip canada off, and now you are saying that government tankers will over charge and rip canada off. believe me the USAF isn't trying to "turn a profit" off anything. In fact I don't think the USAF has ever "made money" in its history, just spent more or less.

If the USAF knows it's gonna be the sole tanker to the RCAF (at least for now in and near and possible combat zone) why would it not make us pay a premium to use em? After all it's not that they do not have enough work especially tanking US military aircraft. Why should they be so kind to us and what will be our military aid in any combat zone we may choose to go to? Oh don't get me wrong POTUS and the US govt as a whole loves it when Canada supports any US actions, it optically and politically looks good but POTUS and DoD really could not care if we especially send jets or not. Our handful of military provided will be professional and punch above their weight but militarily matter not much in the big picture. So USAF tanking RCAF jets will be more a courtesy than a need for USAF operations in any combat zone. Now maybe thinking as such they wont price a premium for our participation in combat, but tanking us to fly our arctic patrol is not a political windfall to the US govt. and as such if they know the RCAF can't tank our own why not bump up the price a bit?

Private tankers (BTW are being used for one in the US today) won't fly anywhere near a combat zone without wanting LOTS OF CASH for the risk too.

Edited by Les / Creative Edge Photo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah and the article notes how the Canadian govt. is looking at private contracting its tanking. This will cost more in the long run as the private corp. needs to make a profit. As to using USAF tanking, nothing new but is it wise to only keep it's tanking assets (BTW these are dwindling numbers too for even US service) as our only real crutch?

Yes and the USAF is not the RCAF, the USAF has no plans to privatize as you speculated.

Oh trust me too our govt. and DnD will talk of buying Boom style tanking but it will likely not come to any real result. We will be out of the RCAF tanking business in most any role it provides within 10 or so years, just you watch. The the USAF can then rip us a new one each time we need to secure USAF tanking then and worse in our NORAD role (behind the lines) the private contractors will also be able to bend us over and do us without lube too. Just you wait and see.

The USAF will be negotiating contracts with the Canadian government on a daily basis? It sure is funny to watch someone rail against governments without understanding of how they work apparently. If its that important to Canada, free up the funds from other areas (cough cough) and buy what you want.

And watch as the USAF eventually moves to more private contract tanking too. WAIT AND SEE BUB!

source needed

Oh no, they have learned lessons, better to how to continue to corporatize war and better yet the fear of war and of a war that is undefeatable as its really been a war against a weapon not against persons or groups, but can be sold as a credible fight indefinitely for ones' own and nation's survival.

You are always more entertaining when you rail aboot facebook.

If the USAF knows it's gonna be the sole tanker to the RCAF (at least for now in and near and possible combat zone) why would it not make us pay a premium to use em? After all it's not that they do not have enough work especially tanking US military aircraft. Why should they be so kind to us and what will be our military aid in any combat zone we may choose to go to? Oh don't get me wrong POTUS and the US govt as a whole loves it when Canada supports any US actions, it optically and politically looks good but POTUS and DoD really could not care if we especially send jets or not. Our handful of military provided will be professional and punch above their weight but militarily matter not much in the big picture. So USAF tanking RCAF jets will be more a courtesy than a need for USAF operations in any combat zone. Now maybe thinking as such they wont price a premium for our participation in combat, but tanking us to fly our arctic patrol is not a political windfall to the US govt. and as such if they know the RCAF can't tank our own why not bump up the price a bit?

That is so stupid its comical. I am literally embarrassed for you. I seriously hope that a Canadian with some knowledge on the subject can explain in your delusional paranoid state that the USAF is not going to jack up the price on Canada, just like how it didn't when they refueled all of your northern patrols for over a decade straight as the Article I posted mentioned.

Nevermind that the USAF does not "charge" anything, as it is not a business, nor is it a contract negotiator on the behalf of the American Government. the USAF can't set the price of an F-16 and sell it someone. :rolleyes:

if anything the American government should have charged Canada more for having to provide hose and drogue type refueling along with the pilots qualified to fly those missions. And yet we didn't why? because we aren't trying to turn a profit on selling gas to canada one fighter at a time.

Edited by TaiidanTomcat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The the USAF can then rip us a new one each time we need to secure USAF tanking then and worse in our NORAD role (behind the lines) the private contractors will also be able to bend us over and do us without lube too. Just you wait and see.

How did this guy find out about our master plan to secure additional funding to purchase more F-35's? I thought I was one of the few folks who were read into it?

Don't worry Les, if a Canuk F-35 tanks to one of our shiny new KC-46's they will get a $0.10/gal (pound?) discount if they use their "USAF Frequent Fueler Visa Card". They can also use this rebate to get a free plane wash on Weds.

It's all good.

This is turning out to be a fun thread.

Edited by 11bee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

better to how to continue to corporatize war

I successfully privatized world peace.

- Sent from my sPhone

tonystark_phone.png

and better yet the fear of war and of a war that is undefeatable as its really been a war against a weapon not against persons or groups, but can be sold as a credible fight indefinitely for ones' own and nation's survival.

I wouldn't say it was undefeatable.

image.jpg

avengers-damage.jpg

ironman.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes and the USAF is not the RCAF, the USAF has no plans to privatize as you speculated.

The USAF will be negotiating contracts with the Canadian government on a daily basis? It sure is funny to watch someone rail against governments without understanding of how they work apparently. If its that important to Canada, free up the funds from other areas (cough cough) and buy what you want.

source needed

You are always more entertaining when you rail aboot facebook.

That is so stupid its comical. I am literally embarrassed for you. I seriously hope that a Canadian with some knowledge on the subject can explain in your delusional paranoid state that the USAF is not going to jack up the price on Canada, just like how it didn't when they refueled all of your northern patrols for over a decade straight as the Article I posted mentioned.

Nevermind that the USAF does not "charge" anything, as it is not a business, nor is it a contract negotiator on the behalf of the American Government. the USAF can't set the price of an F-16 and sell it someone. :rolleyes:/>

if anything the American government should have charged Canada more for having to provide hose and drogue type refueling along with the pilots qualified to fly those missions. And yet we didn't why? because we aren't trying to turn a profit on selling gas to canada one fighter at a time.

I think I hear the sound of Charlie Brown's teacher voice "Wah, Wah, Wah."

But more seriously, try more tact in you replies ok?

Try to see a bigger picture in my points. Step outside the discussion box. Try thinking a bit more and not just blathering your usual caustic blather.

Try not being such jackass with every reply you make here at ARC.

Adults converse, ******** kids mouth off.

BTW again, much I said here, just wait and see. That said, if Canada lacks any ability to tank for the RCAF it will then be held over a barrel. It's only common business to think so. We will have little wriggle room to negotiate fair costs in tanking via using USAF (already stretched assets) or worse private corps providing tankers.

Hey! I hope I'm wrong and that in 10 year or so the RCAF will have fully operable tankers in useful numbers to fuel any of our air assets as needed and as such will not have to DEPEND solely on the USAF or worse a likely gouging private contractor. But I know long enough with our govts work and as such am more pessimistic than optimistic for the armed forces and it won't be a surprise me if the RCAF is out of the tanking business in 10 or so years.

If so, do I trust the US govt. through the USAF to not hold us over a barrel? NOPE! I learned not to outwardly trust any damn govt. especially those who are in bed and or beholden with and to the military industrial complex and its cronies. Govts have to prove otherwise to me. You, well you can believe what you want and you certainly and often rudely lip off such beliefs often here at ARC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I hear the sound of Charlie Brown's teacher voice "Wah, Wah, Wah."

But more seriously, try more tact in you replies ok?

Try to see a bigger picture in my points. Step outside the discussion box. Try thinking a bit more and not just blathering your usual caustic blather.

Try not being such jackass with every reply you make here at ARC.

Adults converse, ******** kids mouth off.

Ironic_Fry_zpsaf296389.jpg

- Sent from my sPhone

tonystark_phone.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ironic_Fry_zpsaf296389.jpg

- Sent from my sPhone

tonystark_phone.png

Plugging up the thread with posts of silly images and cartoons does not serve you well.

But nothing I said was being a jerk or rude to any other poster here so I don't see the point in your pasting of silly images here.

I merely pointed out to Taiiden that he often comes across as a bit of a jerk and a rude blowhard. Maybe he should learn to post here more as an adult. It's ok to debate and disagree as such but to do it all too often as a jerk fails to elevate one's points in a discussion. Also as you have demonstrated here, posting all too often images and cartoons can be equally as silly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Plugging up the thread with posts of silly images and cartoons does not serve you well.

I didn't want to confuse you by using big words.

But nothing I said was being a jerk or rude to any other poster here so I don't see the point in your pasting of silly images here.

This:

Try not being such jackass with every reply you make here at ARC.

I merely pointed out to Taiiden that he often comes across as a bit of a jerk and a rude blowhard. Maybe he should learn to post here more as an adult. It's ok to debate and disagree as such but to do it all too often as a jerk fails to elevate one's points in a discussion. Also as you have demonstrated here, posting all too often images and cartoons can be equally as silly.

tumblr_mbcldb5IqU1r9xkz5o8_250.gif

- Sent from my sPhone, using the "Phubbing" app, download it today!

tonystark_phone.png

Edited by Tony Stark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the USAF knows it's gonna be the sole tanker to the RCAF (at least for now in and near and possible combat zone) why would it not make us pay a premium to use em? After all it's not that they do not have enough work especially tanking US military aircraft. Why should they be so kind to us and what will be our military aid in any combat zone we may choose to go to? Oh don't get me wrong POTUS and the US govt as a whole loves it when Canada supports any US actions, it optically and politically looks good but POTUS and DoD really could not care if we especially send jets or not. Our handful of military provided will be professional and punch above their weight but militarily matter not much in the big picture. So USAF tanking RCAF jets will be more a courtesy than a need for USAF operations in any combat zone. Now maybe thinking as such they wont price a premium for our participation in combat, but tanking us to fly our arctic patrol is not a political windfall to the US govt. and as such if they know the RCAF can't tank our own why not bump up the price a bit?

It might surprise you to know that we've never had an effective tanking system into the north... and for a good stretch of time (after the CC-137 was retired to when we received our Polaris aircraft) our tanking capabilities were non-existent (the -130H (t) are limited in their capability). Even then the Polaris haven't been able to tank in the north because of their outdated nav systems. Consequently the vast majority of tanking has been and is currently done by the US already... and its never been a big issue or subject to the extortion you claim. Its covered under the NORAD treaty, which both of our countries have reaffirmed as a steadfast part of our security relationship.

Moreover its almost certain that Canada will procure a replacement aircraft to the Polaris, since they are critical for our expeditionary operations. Like the Polaris before it, its likely to get a boom refueling installed ( if the F-35 gets selected.)

Edited by -Neu-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whoomp- there it is! :sunrevolves:/>/>/>/>/>

The million-dollar question (which has already been somewhat discussed here) is what is the next war we need to prepare for?

Next one, China/Russia vs The World...and we're toast.

They'll roll on all of Asia and Southwest Asia, Taiwan, both Koreas (yeah, they'll toss the N. Koreans out front to bullet catch but once they're all dead N. Korea no longer exists)and Japan. They'll roll into the Mid East and devour those they look upon with distain and annihilate them once and for all and secure the oil sources. Even Arab nations will ally themselves with Israel but prove too weak after nearly a century of warfare between themselves.

The United States, it's military a shell of its former self after a decade and a half of deployments in the "War on Terror", troops and equipment exhausted and apathetic to the Worlds problems anymore, lead by Pentagon Officers trained in the Clinton era, propped up under the Bush years, achieving Flag status post Obama and now under the command of President Hillary Clinton are not fit to fight a grueling land war against an actual trained military. They are run over in Korea and Japan. Years of empty threats and a non supportive public leaves the U.S. powerless to stop the Russo/China advance. Africa could be next. But they'll be content to control the World's economy. Old friends in South America will join the Russia/China allies in exchange for trade and natural resources. A nuke option is not even considered, Hillary does not want that to be her legacy and the American public does not have the stomach for it.

Europe won't intervene as long as Russia promises not to advance west of it's current border, they are content.

North America pretty much becomes reliant on itself, closes it's borders and starts using its own natural resources until they start running out, the economy collapses and we need to rely on Russia and China for our existence.

Edited by 82Whitey51

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Next one, China/Russia vs The World...and we're toast.

They'll roll on all of Asia and Southwest Asia, Taiwan, both Koreas (yeah, they'll toss the N. Koreans out front to bullet catch but once they're all dead N. Korea no longer exists)and Japan. They'll roll into the Mid East and devour those they look upon with distain and annihilate them once and for all and secure the oil sources. Even Arab nations will ally themselves with Israel but prove too weak after nearly a century of warfare between themselves.

The United States, it's military a shell of its former self after a decade and a half of deployments in the "War on Terror", troops and equipment exhausted and apathetic to the Worlds problems anymore, lead by Pentagon Officers trained in the Clinton era, propped up under the Bush years, achieving Flag status post Obama and now under the command of President Hillary Clinton are not fit to fight a grueling land war against an actual trained military. They are run over in Korea and Japan. Years of empty threats and a non supportive public leaves the U.S. powerless to stop the Russo/China advance. Africa could be next. But they'll be content to control the World's economy. Old friends in South America will join the Russia/China allies in exchange for trade and natural resources. A nuke option is not even considered, Hillary does not want that to be her legacy and the American public does not have the stomach for it.

Europe won't intervene as long as Russia promises not to advance east of it's current border, they are content.

North America pretty much becomes reliant on itself, closes it's borders and starts using its own natural resources until they start running out, the economy collapses and we need to rely on Russia and China for our existence.

Not the worst Tom Clancy novel at all. We shall call it "Red Panda Bear Rising" :cheers:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not the worst Tom Clancy novel at all. We shall call it "Red Panda Bear Rising" :cheers:/>

I kinda liked the one where Japan comes back into power!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's very interesting that you would paint the A-10 as a result of a battle hardened veterans applying smart lessons after a long tramautic war like Vietnam, and yet think that post Global War on Terror veteran military has no combat experience and is more for show, and takes nothing seriously, and learned no lessons...

Let's define: "military".

I think that the military is full of enlisteds and NCOs and junior officers who are greatly sensible people and who have learned tremendous lessons from the last dozen years of combat.

I also think that has nothing to do with the people who work in the Capitol or in the Five-Sided Wind Tunnel on the Potomac or in the management of vast defense contractor conglomerates. Who, incidentally, are the ones making the big decisions.

Only the dead have seen the end of war...

True enough, but there's also a very wide variance in what "war" might look like. Nobody says it has to be huge nation-states sending supersonic whiz-boomers at each other. In a couple of hundred years - or less - "war" could mean here what it does in a lot of the world: teenagers with AKs riding around in the back of a Toyota Hilux with a recoilless rifle bolted to the bed, fighting over a usable water supply or the last working generator for a hundred miles. No, I'm not saying that will definitely happen (twenty years ago I would have called that idea ridiculous and impossible - now I just say it's not likely for the immediate future), but I am trying to say that the idea that wars will go away altogether in the future is a very different proposition than the idea that wars in the future might look very different from the ones we saw in the 20th century.

Next one, China/Russia vs The World...and we're toast.

It won't happen. It was mutually-assured suicide for two nuclear-armed nations to step off on each other 50 years ago, and it still is today. Our leadership may suffer from a severe lack of grownups, but I doubt they're so delusional that they don't understand that at least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Let's define: "military".

I think that the military is full of enlisteds and NCOs and junior officers who are greatly sensible people and who have learned tremendous lessons from the last dozen years of combat.

its absolutely foolish to think that people of certain ranks have it completely together and people of other ranks have no clue what the hell is going on. I have met brilliant Colonels and absolutely stupid Captains. I've met incredible sergeants, and yet First Sgts who's sole qualification was not letting the place completely burn down on their watch. (Their "watch" ending promptly at 1300 after a 2 hour lunch)You have to be extremely careful about making grand sweeping remarks like this.

I also think that has nothing to do with the people who work in the Capitol or in the Five-Sided Wind Tunnel on the Potomac or in the management of vast defense contractor conglomerates. Who, incidentally, are the ones making the big decisions.

I also have to ask you, just who was responsible for the A-10 in this case, as I promise it wasn't fathered by a bunch of kids fresh from the 'Nam that started calling the shots. Please tell me all about how defense contractors were just good honest fellas back in the 1970's, the pentagon was brilliant, and the Oval office contained our best leaders (which IIRC was Nixon, Ford, and then Carter...) And thanks to that we have the A-10 because all the young upstarts worked them and made it happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think that the military is full of enlisteds and NCOs and junior officers who are greatly sensible people and who have learned tremendous lessons from the last dozen years of combat.

I also think that has nothing to do with the people who work in the Capitol or in the Five-Sided Wind Tunnel on the Potomac or in the management of vast defense contractor conglomerates. Who, incidentally, are the ones making the big decisions.

As TT points out above, stupidity and/or brilliance knows no rank, and there is an equal percentage of each scattered throughout the entire rank structure. Those at the extremes are also completely outnumbered by the vast, uncommented upon, middle average, who quietly and professionally just get their jobs done without finding a way to distinguish themselves in either way. "The military" runs on their backs, thankfully.

I'd also point out your astute observation that it has been a dozen or so years of nearly constant deployments, combat, and tactical "lessons learned." I'd argue it's been even longer than that, as the Air Force and the Navy have been continuously enforcing no-fly zones, interdictions, and reprisal strikes non-stop since 1991. So aerial enforcement in the post-Desert Storm era has been continuous, and placed a marked strain on the tactical air forces (both USAF and USN) at large.

Point being is, if there were junior enlisted/NCOs and junior officers who started on this train, in the trenches, on the front lines, and working TICs over the last dozen years, they're no longer junior enlisted/NCOs and junior officers. If they were a hard charging O-3 when this started, they most assuredly are an O-5, quite likely an O-6 now. And they're very likely the folks who have been moved primarily out of the tactical execution line of work and into staff, requirements, acquisitions, and strategy positions in the Five-Sided Wind Tunnel or other higher headquarters. Who, incidentally, are the ones making the big decisions.

Sometimes, as you move up, it's not about making the decisions that you raged about when you were younger. It's about realizing everything can't be a priority, somebody has to make the hard calls, and you have to find the balance between the "most important" and "most essential" priorities forwarded up by subordinates and dictated to you in a list of "must do" from above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think I hear the sound of Charlie Brown's teacher voice "Wah, Wah, Wah."

Very grown up, I bet this is followed with a response about maturity and being a polite poster.

But more seriously, try more tact in you replies ok?

Try to see a bigger picture in my points. Step outside the discussion box. Try thinking a bit more and not just blathering your usual caustic blather.

Try not being such jackass with every reply you make here at ARC.

Adults converse, ******** kids mouth off.

well I admit "Stupid" is a strong word, thats why I used it. What you said was stupid. Allow me to explain. You asserted something, that was no true or correct. I then provided evidence as to why you weren't correct. I then pointed out the USAF does not negotiate with foreign governments, nor does it set the price of fuel. That's 3 strikes.

Ignoring this, and adding a little paranoia along with a small does of inferiority complex, you went on to say that the USAF was going to screw Canada on fuel for northern patrols, apparently just because it could even though it has never done so in the past, is not doing so currently, and had zero incentive to do in the future as it never has had the authority or ability to do so ever. Even the logistics of what you propose makes zero sense. There are actually rules and laws about American Military personnel extorting allies for profit, far fetched though it may seem. You also seem to have a hard time understanding that many of these agreements are negotiated well in advance, Fighter jets don't "pay at the pump" for reasons that should be so frighteningly obvious I can't believe I have to even type this.

You might as well be talking about how the USAF is going to threaten to bomb Canada unless they are paid "protection money" yes, thats how stupid what you said was. BTW the USAF has no plans to do such a thing. (don't need to add fuel to the fire)

You, well you can believe what you want and you certainly and often rudely lip off such beliefs often here at ARC.

the problem here though it wasn't a "belief"-- I actually provided a source, and others here have backed me on the reality of the Canadian/American tanker operations. It was explained why you weren't correct in your assumption. Not surprisingly, you then "doubled down" on it. When called on it again, you got upset and started to point to me personally because you didn't like the syle in which I pointed out you were wrong. This is apparently more important than actually learning about the problem, and using that education to understand the nature of what is actually happening.

Let me reiterate: There is no American Rule or Law that prevents Canada from providing its own Tanker Aircraft. You are welcome to buy as many as you want and completely cut the American's out if you desire. We could probably use the rest. You can buy 3,000 Rafales to go with them if you so choose, you can become the world's most powerful air force if you want. You just have to convince Canadians to pony up the funds first. Good luck! No one is stopping Canada from having a fleet of refuelers with whatever configuration you like, except Canada.

In the future I will post this:

220px-Smiley.svg.png

What you said is untrue, and persisting that it is despite all evidence to the contrary, is stupid.

Edited by TaiidanTomcat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You might as well be talking about how the USAF is going to threaten to bomb Canada unless they are paid "protection money" yes, thats how stupid what you said was. BTW the USAF has no plans to do such a thing.

We don't? Oh...uh, right. WE DON'T.

move-along-now-nothing-to-see-here.png

I merely pointed out to Taiiden that he often comes across as a bit of a jerk and a rude blowhard. Maybe he should learn to post here more as an adult. It's ok to debate and disagree as such but to do it all too often as a jerk fails to elevate one's points in a discussion.

Is....is this where I post my duck face selfies?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It looks like pedobear rising!

That cracked me up!! :woot.gif:/>

There is also a fine line of course. If some "military" O-3 comes out of Iraqistan with some brilliant aircraft ideal for the terrain and situation of those two conflicts, (and after years and billions of dollars and hundreds of units) suddenly war breaks out in Korea and the aircraft suffers heavy loses or is useless, critics will happily blame the "Five-Sided Wind Tunnel on the Potomac" for "fighting the last war"

not that something like that would happen:

http://www.stripes.com/news/pacific/mrap-no-good-for-korea-2id-decides-1.235725

Edited by TaiidanTomcat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

its absolutely foolish to think that people of certain ranks have it completely together and people of other ranks have no clue what the hell is going on. I have met brilliant Colonels and absolutely stupid Captains. I've met incredible sergeants, and yet First Sgts who's sole qualification was not letting the place completely burn down on their watch. (Their "watch" ending promptly at 1300 after a 2 hour lunch)You have to be extremely careful about making grand sweeping remarks like this.

Oh, come now. We both know that people who make it to the top in the military get there because they know how to play politics. And yes, I will take the word of a sergeant who actually walked the streets of Fallujah over that of a Pentagon General whose idea of a bad day is PowerPoint crashing, his golf date with the SecDef getting rained out, or the Starbucks in Georgetown running out of whipped cream.

I also have to ask you, just who was responsible for the A-10 in this case, as I promise it wasn't fathered by a bunch of kids fresh from the 'Nam that started calling the shots. Please tell me all about how defense contractors were just good honest fellas back in the 1970's, the pentagon was brilliant, and the Oval office contained our best leaders (which IIRC was Nixon, Ford, and then Carter...) And thanks to that we have the A-10 because all the young upstarts worked them and made it happen.

Who was responsible? Guys like John Boyd and Pierre Sprey, who made themselves very unpopular by 1) knowing what the hell they were talking about and 2) not being afraid to say so.

There is also a fine line of course. If some "military" O-3 comes out of Iraqistan with some brilliant aircraft ideal for the terrain and situation of those two conflicts, (and after years and billions of dollars and hundreds of units) suddenly war breaks out in Korea and the aircraft suffers heavy loses or is useless, critics will happily blame the "Five-Sided Wind Tunnel on the Potomac" for "fighting the last war"

Erm... what? That doesn't even make any sense. Yes, Generals do get the blame - and the credit. That's why they get the corner office and the big bucks. Responsibility comes with the job.

Secondly, I just don't get this attitude of "We can't know with 100% certainty what the next war will look like, so let's spend astronomical sums of money preparing for one specific scenario even though we haven't fought a war that looks like that in 70 years, and there's not much reason to think that that specific scenario is a highly likely one in the future". The logic of this - especially at a time when the head of the JCS has said that the biggest threat to this country's national security is the national debt - escapes me.

not that something like that would happen:

http://www.stripes.c...ecides-1.235725

So this proves... what, exactly? MRAP's are wrong for Korea. And? Not every piece of equipment is right for every battlefield. Winter coats are wrong for Kuwait - does that mean that the military shouldn't have any? "Sorry, Private - I know guard duty at Elmendorf is kind of cold in February, but we didn't buy any cold weather gear because it just wouldn't make any sense at Ali al Salem". Crazy as a soup sandwich.

Edited by Antonov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh, come now. We both know that people who make it to the top in the military get there because they know how to play politics. And yes, I will take the word of a sergeant who actually walked the streets of Fallujah over that of a Pentagon General whose idea of a bad day is PowerPoint crashing, his golf date with the SecDef getting rained out, or the Starbucks in Georgetown running out of whipped cream.

I like that you are ignoring what 2 people who have both served are saying with first hand knowledge. I will remember this the next you have a rant about:

we are ever-more an unserious nation full of unserious people

Do yourself a favor and listen to those who know. Seriously.

BTW, I know multiple sergeants that have served in both Iraq and Afghanistan who are feverishly working on the F-35 because "Its an incredible aircraft" (their words) by your own standard of proof, you must now take their word on the F-35. There is Major in VMFA-121 who was a former Navy SEAL. I don't know if Major is one of those ranks that is considered "politically tainted" to you, but he has also been very complimentary.

I hope this meets your "burden of proof." the next time the JSF or pentagon spending comes up.

Who was responsible? Guys like John Boyd and Pierre Sprey, who made themselves very unpopular by 1) knowing what the hell they were talking about and 2) not being afraid to say so.

Boyd was extremely popular, Especially in the USMC who embraced the OODA loop in a huge way.

Sprey never saw combat, and in order to keep the A-10 "simple" as he always preached, wanted to give it a single engine. He was overruled by others who realized the single engine would not increase battlefield survivability the way two would (the right call obviously). The F-16 in the form he wanted never existed. This has never stopped him from taking full credit for both designs. He was also proved horribly terribly wrong about nearly everything system he was critical of, The F-15 (the F-16s rival in his eyes), the Abrams tank, the Bradley IFV, He said the F-22 wouldn't be maneuverable because of its wing loading... the list goes on and on.

why is Pierre Sprey famous then? Well he is famous because he was excellent at being a self promoter, like one of those political officers you rail against above. The Military was remade in large part to the "silent majority" that Waco mentioned, the average joes that are too busy working to mug for the camera and rebuilt the US Military over many long years at a time where it was not popular in the slightest.

So just to review: Sprey, never served in combat, was an insufferable loud mouth to those who had, and never declined taking as much attention for himself as humanly possible, and seem to fit the exact mold of the starbucks drinking powerpoint zampolit you don't like. I can't believe this guy wasn't more popular in the USAF!

Secondly, I just don't get this attitude of "We can't know with 100% certainty what the next war will look like, so let's spend astronomical sums of money preparing for one specific scenario even though we haven't fought a war that looks like that in 70 years, and there's not much reason to think that that specific scenario is a highly likely one in the future".

I know from your internet chair, having never served a day in the military and taking wild guesses about how you think it all runs, this stuff can be really confusing.

So this proves... what, exactly? MRAP's are wrong for Korea. And? Not every piece of equipment is right for every battlefield. Winter coats are wrong for Kuwait - does that mean that the military shouldn't have any? "Sorry, Private - I know guard duty at Elmendorf is kind of cold in February, but we didn't buy any cold weather gear because it just wouldn't make any sense at Ali al Salem". Crazy as a soup sandwich.

yes, its just like that.

Weren't you just saying we shouldn't be spending "astronomical sums" on stuff for specific scenarios? What are MRAPs for other than COIN and Policing? the question of "what the hell do we do with all these MRAPs now?" is one that has been coming up a lot lately believe it or not.

The bottom line antonov is that you decided a long time ago what was or wasn't going to take place in the future, (there won't be a war with China, because its nuclear, and if we go to war with China it will go nuclear) So you can't figure out why the military doesn't trust your theory and continues to buy things you think are incorrect, for what you think it does now and what you think it will do in future. prepare to be continually disappointed as an organization you don't understand continues to do things "its own way" for reasons that make sense if you are in the know.

I'm shocked that an organization you don't understand, love stereotyping, ignore the first hand accounts about, and cherry pick press clippings on, doesn't do things the way you think it should. Shocked I tell you. Shocked.

tumblr_lr0hwnYiWs1qlyxsm.gif

my shocked face^

Edited by TaiidanTomcat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, come now. We both know that people who make it to the top in the military get there because they know how to play politics. And yes, I will take the word of a sergeant who actually walked the streets of Fallujah over that of a Pentagon General whose idea of a bad day is PowerPoint crashing, his golf date with the SecDef getting rained out, or the Starbucks in Georgetown running out of whipped cream.

Since you know, how does someone make it past O6? Please, tell me the process.

FWIW, my boss a few years ago (General type) was a Col on ground during the second go at Fallujah. You're painting a picture with stereotypes that may have been true years ago and may be true a decade or two from now. However, our current crop of Commanders are battle tested and their careers forged at war. The problem facing the Army and Marines now is these Commanders know war, not the Garrison military we'll become again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...