Yowsa - sunset time

[Michael Emrys]

That's a start, but what else can go? High altitude?

Not much need to fly above 30,000 feet if you are doing CAS, and then only when transiting between base and battle most likely.

Airborne threat receivers? Data links?

You'd probably want to keep both of those, at least in some form.

Airborne radar?

Probably not necessary. The A-10 seems to get along fine without it.

Manoeuvrability?

All else being equal (a big if, I know) a slower plane is usually more maneuverable.

The GAU?

I don't know. The GAU is lovely to have along, but just how necessary is it? The A-10 was designed around it because at the time it was being speced up, its mission had evolved from A-1 replacement in Viet Nam to tank buster in Europe. I think first we need to define the mission, and then decide on how the plane will be armed.

Any and all air to air capability?

Fair question. USAF expects to operate in environments where it already has air supremacy, or at least air superiority, but is that always going to be true? A situation where it isn't would be one of those where it would be nice to have some of those fast strike fighters around.

Stealth?

Seems like stealth has become just another part of the package. I don't know how much a CAS aircraft needs. If you are buzzing around a battlefield dropping things on the enemy, he's going to have a pretty good idea you are there. I don't know that you need stealth, but you would need a good countermeasures suite.

I sometimes wonder if a C-130 of C-17 with racks and racks and racks of precision guided bombs of various sizes that can be pushed out the back door wouldn't make for a good CAS platform.

That's basically what the B-52 has been doing for a while. With the ability to carry an ungodly huge amount of goods, and the electronics to make it all happen already, it does that job pretty well I hear. But it's a 60+ year old design and doubtlessly the service would like to replace it. I wonder if the next step for Airbus is to start producing bombers...

Michael

[Affentitten]

That's basically what the B-52 has been doing for a while. With the ability to carry an ungodly huge amount of goods, and the electronics to make it all happen already, it does that job pretty well I hear. But it's a 60+ year old design and doubtlessly the service would like to replace it. I wonder if the next step for Airbus is to start producing bombers...

Michael

Turnaround time for a Buff is huge too. I know that yes, it makes up for it by carrying loads more stuff, but if you're flying from Diego Garcia or Beale, you ain't going to be there in a timely fashion. This is especially the case when something malfunctions and you have to fly back to base to get it fixed.

[Stalins Organ]

Remember the B-1 self-defence concept? with 3 rotary weapon bays 1 was going to hold AIM-120's or AMRAAMS or whaterver they were called, 1 PGMs of some sort and the 3rd PGMs of some other sort - maybe bigger or smaller to provide a different capability or something like that.

For Air Superiority all 3 bays were going to hold A-A missiles!

I vaguely recall it from a decade or more ago & ther are a few hints on google...nothing much substantive tho.

[Michael Emrys]

SO:

No, I never heard about that, but then ten-fifteen years ago was about the time I stopped following current developments closely. That was about the time when it seemed there weren't many to follow. The end of the Cold War meant that a lot of programs were shut down, and those that remained often proceeded at a glacial pace. What with the rising cost of publishing, the journals were costing more than they were worth to me.

Michael

[Wicky]

Navy Captain in for the chop....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-11605365

[Michael Emrys]

If it was a technical glitch, it might not have been the captain's fault.

Speaking to the BBC last month, HMS Astute's commanding officer, Commander Andy Coles, said: "We have a brand new method of controlling the submarine, which is by platform management system, rather than the old conventional way of doing everything of using your hands.

"This is all fly-by-wire technology including only an auto pilot rather than a steering column."

Michael

[Wicky]

Buck still stops ultimately with the Cap'n.

"Two senior commanders were reprimanded after admitting that their negligence caused the incident."

This made me chuckle

HMS Astute ... Described as the stealthiest ever built in the UK ... Eye-witness Ross McKerlich said the submarine was about a mile from his home and appeared slightly tilted.

He said: "When I woke up this morning and looked out my bedroom window I could see the submarine.

[Michael Emrys]

Buck still stops ultimately with the Cap'n.

Sure, but the question in the case of a malfunction of equipment, especially if it is a new type, is how much was it the fault of the captain. In other words, was it something he could have foreseen and should have taken precautions for? Or do you file it under Act of God and exonerate him?

Michael

[Wicky]

The Prestige, Privilege and the Burden of Command - Joseph Conrad

In each ship there is one man who, in the hour of emergency or peril at sea, can turn to no other man. There is one who alone is ultimately responsible for the safe navigation, engineering performance, accurate gun firing and morale of his ship. He is the Commanding Officer. He is the ship.

an example: 2009 USS Port Royal grounding

The ship's commander, John Carroll, was relieved of duty and disciplined.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_USS_Port_Royal_grounding

okay Supping tea is a reasonable British excuse

Commander supped tea as his destroyer headed for catastrophe

Officers are dismissed from ships for negligence that led to £39m repair bill - but Commander Farrington, who is now budget planning at naval personnel headquarters, escapes with a reprimand.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/commander-supped-tea-as-his-destroyer-headed-for-catastrophe-579646.html

[Michael Emrys]

As I recall, Mountbatten had two ships shot out from under him and still made admiral. Of course, it probably didn't hurt that he was the king's cousin.

Michael

[Affentitten]

Shot out from under him is one thing. That's part of the Nelsonian tradition of engaging the enemy more closely. But running them aground in a calm loch is rather poor form.

Wicky, the HMS Nottingham captain only received a low grade reprimand because he was off the ship at the time. Or rather he had just set foot on the ship after returning from shore. The course that ran her aground had been set by his subordinates. The captain was therefore disciplined for improper delegation. ie. leaving idiots in command. Bit harsh because he didn't exactly have a choice at who he left in command. He could hardly bring up a couple of stokers to be in charge.

[Other Means]

I wonder if, as he couldn't control it, they ran aground on purpose.

Lesser of 2 evils kind-of-thing.

[Affentitten]

It could be. But if you run aground on purpose, that implies some control.

Fly-by-wire......reminds me of those early days with the Airbus and the pilots fighting against the computer that was trying to save them.

[Michael Emrys]

Fly-by-wire......reminds me of those early days with the Airbus and the pilots fighting against the computer that was trying to save them.

That was kind of my point. Radically new kinds of control systems can take some getting used to. The personnel actually operating them may not understand why they are behaving the way they are and try to get them to do something they aren't really supposed to do. Well, the inquiry may bring something out. Just good they bottomed out on soft ground and probably did little or no damage to the hull. Not like the case of the US sub that was way off course a couple of years ago and smashed the nose when it hit a reef.

Michael

[Boeman]

Yep - and it's pretty understnadable - the general public mostly dosen't actually think that this war is worth people dying for - or at least not their own people!

It seems wherever you go in the western world, budget cuts to the military are popular trends. If anything, it certainly helps to explain the massive resurgence of mercenaries in recent years. During the economic downturn, virtually everything saw decreased levels of investment - except in private security contractors.

Although costing more up front than what it would ordinarily take to keep regular trained infantry in the field when dealing with top tier security firms, they offer a number of advantages:

1. Private contractors relieve the burden of logistics on a government as they handle the internal supply of everything from arms to toilet paper for their employees;

2. Political expediency. If a mercenary dies, no one outside of immediately family members will care - making them highly expendable. Therefore, no civilian protests to bring our troops home, no contemplation of the draft or other political hot potatoes need to be dealt with other than justifying the presence of said private contractors (a much easier job to handle than the former two);

3. Deferral of accountability. If a criminal act is committed by a member of a private security firm and is subsequently uncovered by the civilian media, the buck is passed to the company in question who will simply terminate the employment of the alleged perpetrators;

4. No moral divide. Many private security firms are given complete immunity such that their actions go unnoticed due to the lack of any effective laws governing their operations. They can achieve mission objectives through methods that would otherwise mar governments in scandalous episodes. Remember, that not a single private interrogator within Abu Ghraib was indicted while 64 military personnel alone were charged with murder-related activity.

5. Endless pool of recruitment. Not enough boots on the ground? Just hire more mercenaries. The number of impoverished warriors looking for better pay from across the globe is infinite. Whether their home country opposes the war you're waging is immaterial to a starving man with a gun.

Given that the largest impediment for democratic nations to wage war stems from domestic casualties, private contractors seem to be the answer.

I suppose the only question now is, who will be running the war in the future? The government or Walmart?

[ironbar]

Good point, but just remember the historic drawback; suddenly you've been outbidded by your enemy, your troops really have no choice but to take the more lucrative contract. Even if it turns their coat.

[Affentitten]

And the fact that you are eating your own body. You can't retain troops in your state forces because the corporations are headhunting them away to fill your own contracts. So you end up paying twice.

[Wicky]

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/NIMROD-MRA4-/190458901355?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_3&hash=item2c583c336b

Item specifics

Condition:

New: A brand-new, unused, unopened and undamaged item. See the seller's listing for full details. See all condition definitions- opens in a new window or tab

RELISTED DUE TO COMPLETE TIMEWASTERS (GOVERMENT PULLED OUT OF DEAL)

FOR SALE DUE TO FORSEEN CIRCUMSTANCES NINE RAF NIMROD MRA4 AIRCRAFT

BOUGHT NEW FROM BAE SYSTEMS SHOWROOM AT WOODFORD

THESE AIRCRAFT DONT EVEN HAVE DELIVERY MILES ON THEM AS THEY WERE NEVER DELIVERED

CANT BE GUARANTEED TO WORK BUT BAE WONT CHARGE MUCH TO SORT THEM OUT FOR YOU

IDEAL FOR A TALKING POINT AT PARTIES OR TO USE AS A STATIC DISPLAY ON THE EMPTY AIRCRAFT CARRIER WHICH I WILL HAVE FOR SALE SOON (ANOTHER ONE FROM BAE)

PLEASE DO NOT BID IF YOU HAVE FEEDBACK OF LESS THAN 5 CANNOT GUARANTEE DELIVERY TIME BUT THATS PART OF THE DEAL WITH THIS AIRCRAFT

MAY PART EXCHANGE FOR A BACKBONE FOR THE PRIME MINISTER AND HIS FELLOW MPS

I HAVE HAD A LOT OF QUESTIONS ABOUT PROBLEMS WITH STORAGE DONT WORRY I WILL HAVE SEVERAL HANGARS LISTED SOON

NO OVERSEAS BIDDERS

BUYER MUST COLLECT BY WHENEVER

[costard]

It seems wherever you go in the western world, budget cuts to the military are popular trends. If anything, it certainly helps to explain the massive resurgence of mercenaries in recent years. During the economic downturn, virtually everything saw decreased levels of investment - except in private security contractors.

Although costing more up front than what it would ordinarily take to keep regular trained infantry in the field when dealing with top tier security firms, they offer a number of advantages:

1. Private contractors relieve the burden of logistics on a government as they handle the internal supply of everything from arms to toilet paper for their employees;

2. Political expediency. If a mercenary dies, no one outside of immediately family members will care - making them highly expendable. Therefore, no civilian protests to bring our troops home, no contemplation of the draft or other political hot potatoes need to be dealt with other than justifying the presence of said private contractors (a much easier job to handle than the former two);

3. Deferral of accountability. If a criminal act is committed by a member of a private security firm and is subsequently uncovered by the civilian media, the buck is passed to the company in question who will simply terminate the employment of the alleged perpetrators;

4. No moral divide. Many private security firms are given complete immunity such that their actions go unnoticed due to the lack of any effective laws governing their operations. They can achieve mission objectives through methods that would otherwise mar governments in scandalous episodes. Remember, that not a single private interrogator within Abu Ghraib was indicted while 64 military personnel alone were charged with murder-related activity.

5. Endless pool of recruitment. Not enough boots on the ground? Just hire more mercenaries. The number of impoverished warriors looking for better pay from across the globe is infinite. Whether their home country opposes the war you're waging is immaterial to a starving man with a gun.

Given that the largest impediment for democratic nations to wage war stems from domestic casualties, private contractors seem to be the answer.

I suppose the only question now is, who will be running the war in the future? The government or Walmart?

Hmmm...

1. The private contracting of shooters sprang from the vertical integration of "military services" from a base of logistics support. The first pickup was Intelligence after the decentralisation of the CIA, it was to be expected that specialists in wet work and training followed closely behind. So you had the establishment of a private army - under contract. The taxpayer still foots the bill, s/he just doesn't have the wherewithal to inspect the terms of the contract.

2. All troops are expendable. A person prepared to sell his life for a flag is more reliably called upon to do just that than someone who believes he will be used by whichever politician to further that politician's career. See 3 and 4.

3. This is a moral duckshove to be expected from a class of person who would abdicate moral responsibility whilst claiming moral superiority. Line the whole lot up against a wall and see how their arguments about moral responsibility develop. If they're still arguing for the burden to be someone else's, shoot 'em: they're not prepared to take responsibility for their actions and certainly don't deserve to be in positions of power.

4. You are relying on the same person who has no legal responsibility with regard to their actions to perform military missions with definable outcomes of a set standard. No ****ing way.

5. If massive armies of poorly trained and motivated soldiers were the way to success in military adventure, we wouldn't have the circumstance where the opposite has been shown to be true. e.g. the US wouldn't be the world leader in military technology and its applications.

The largest impediment to any nation's ability to wage successful war is the number of casualties it takes. The moral standing of the cause behind the troops is one of the greatest determinants of the political willingness to sustain casualties. If the populace of a democratic state understands that they are funding the lining of some rich arms/oil/logistics shareholders pockets through the adventure they are asked to believe in, and they have the understanding that no-one is to be held responsible for the outcome (apart from themselves, if they're halfway decent human beings), then they are not at all willing to have their loved ones killed and will vote for the candidate most likely to end the war.

[dieseltaylor]

5. If massive armies of poorly trained and motivated soldiers were the way to success in military adventure, we wouldn't have the circumstance where the opposite has been shown to be true. e.g. the US wouldn't be the world leader in military technology and its applications.

!!

I thought well motivated small armies with relatively primitive weapons have shown that the US army's technology does not win wars. Or am I misunderstanding something?

BUT, should there ever be a distinction between "war" and eliminating an "enemy" leader then the US has been batting pretty good since 1945. I mention this because it is an important distinction in what democracies are capable of.

The downside is that leaders can take countries into wars that are wrong either through machismo, stupidity, bad analysis, public pressure [orchestrated] and the military industries seeking to make super-profits. Also to be considered is whether another country has orchestrated incidents to ensure problems between its enemies and the US.

[costard]

!!

I thought well motivated small armies with relatively primitive weapons have shown that the US army's technology does not win wars. Or am I misunderstanding something?

BUT, should there ever be a distinction between "war" and eliminating an "enemy" leader then the US has been batting pretty good since 1945. I mention this because it is an important distinction in what democracies are capable of.

The downside is that leaders can take countries into wars that are wrong either through machismo, stupidity, bad analysis, public pressure [orchestrated] and the military industries seeking to make super-profits. Also to be considered is whether another country has orchestrated incidents to ensure problems between its enemies and the US.

Nice point diesel. I meant the "poorly" to relate to the training and the motivation.

Enemies of the US have suffered hugely for the gap in technology and training since WW2: where this price has been willingly paid (i.e. where the motivation of the enemy was (presumably) not measured in terms of money and has been sustained by superior leadership) the US has not prevailed.

[Tero]

By costard

Nice point diesel. I meant the "poorly" to relate to the training and the motivation.

Enemies of the US have suffered hugely for the gap in technology and training since WW2: where this price has been willingly paid (i.e. where the motivation of the enemy was (presumably) not measured in terms of money and has been sustained by superior leadership) the US has not prevailed.

Speaking of armed conflict how many wars (in a broad sense) has the US actually won since WWII ? Korea was a draw, Vietnam loss, Grenade a resounding success, Iraq I a draw, Iraq II winding down towards loss, Afganistan leaning towards loss.

By my count the US has won only non-fighting political Mexican stand-off type conflicts. Wars by proxy have resulted US technolygy emerging as better but them bones have little or no meat around them.

[dieseltaylor]

I disagree with Iraq 1. I think that was a win - BECAUSE - the US was constrained by its Allies from over-reaching itself.

Kuwait was freed and Iraq isolated to a reasonable degree and written down as a regional super-power. One has to wonder though at what signals the US had been giving to Saddam that they would be comfortable with him invading Kuwait ... or why they were innocent of his intent.

However from a world view and for the people of the USA the limited objectives achieved was a resounding success.

[Michael Emrys]

Speaking of armed conflict how many wars (in a broad sense) has the US actually won since WWII ? Korea was a draw, Vietnam loss, Grenade a resounding success, Iraq I a draw, Iraq II winding down towards loss, Afganistan leaning towards loss.

Your list omits Panama, which I think should be counted as a success. It is troubling however that except possibly Korea and Viet Nam, all our matchups have been against foes who should be counted as militarily inferior, often by a wide margin. Which again reveals that the military side of the equation is only a part of the story.

Michael

[Affentitten]

One has to wonder though at what signals the US had been giving to Saddam that they would be comfortable with him invading Kuwait ... or why they were innocent of his intent.

"We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960s, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America."

- April Glaspie, US Ambassador to Iraq in a meeting with Saddam Hussein and Tariq Azziz, 25 July 1990.