Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Fwd: Janes Defence Headlines

Expand Messages
  • MGC
    ... US military considers new counter-insurgency aircraft unit Senior US defence officials say they believe the time has come to create new air commando units
    Message 1 of 28 , Aug 9 6:49 AM
      --- In LWJF@yahoogroups.com, "MGC" <max_g_cunningham@...> wrote:

      US military considers new counter-insurgency aircraft unit
      Senior US defence officials say they believe the time has come to create
      new air commando units to fight counter-insurgencies. Questions about
      the size and capabilities of the force will be addressed in the Obama
      administration's upcoming Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR). Michael
      Vickers, the leading civilian in charge of co-ordinating US military
      special operations, told reporters on 23 July that he believes there is
      a need for new light air capabilities for strike, reconnaissance and
      mobility that would be optimised for counter-insurgency (COIN)
      operations

      [first posted to http://jdw.janes.com
      <http://info.janes.com/c/1HrkNcvwZgbDlXd> - 24 July 2009]

      NATO and Russia take new steps to stronger relationship
      NATO-Russia co-operation is set to improve after a long hiatus of frigid
      relations following Moscow's short but sharp war with Georgia in August
      2008. A meeting of the NATO Russia Council (NRC) on 22 July saw a
      cautious spirit of reconciliation emerge between the two sides, with
      Moscow saying it would welcome joint operations with the alliance to
      combat piracy off the Horn of Africa and other military initiatives

      [first posted to http://jdw.janes.com
      <http://info.janes.com/c/1HrlY4oOxvZu4v4> - 24 July 2009]

      B-2 passes modernisation milestones
      The Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit stealth bomber has recently successfully
      completed two milestones that should significantly increase its
      capability as a frontline strike platform over the coming years, the
      company has announced. On 22 July Northrop Grumman declared that it had,
      in conjunction with the US Air Force (USAF), recently demonstrated that
      the new radar developed for the B-2 can fulfil the performance
      requirements for its designated missions, both conventional and
      strategic

      Rolls-Royce completes engine trials in pursuit of Indian Jaguar
      contract
      Rolls-Royce recently installed and tested its Adour Mk 821 turbofan in a
      Sepecat Jaguar combat aircraft as part of its bid to win a contract to
      re-engine the Indian Air Force's (IAF's) fleet of 120 aircraft. The IAF
      is looking to improve the performance of its IS/IM variant Jaguars, with
      a particular emphasis on increasing the aircraft's hot and high
      characteristics as well as its fuel economy and time between overhauls

      --- End forwarded message ---
    • gamisa3@aol.com
      What is wrong with them. AH-64 and A-10 tactical units are perfect for that kind of operation. What do they want to do fly around armed ultralights
      Message 2 of 28 , Aug 9 7:22 AM
        What is wrong with them.  AH-64  and  A-10  tactical  units are perfect for that kind of operation.  What do they want to do fly around armed  ultralights  and  CIA  ucavs.  Stupid  idea.
      • Douglas Anderson
        The A-10 is too fast and helicopters lack endurance. This was a lesson that the USAF learned the hard way in Vietnam, and are now relearning. They have an
        Message 3 of 28 , Aug 9 7:48 AM
          The A-10 is too fast and helicopters lack endurance. This was a lesson that the USAF learned the hard way in Vietnam, and are now relearning.
           
          They have an option with the AC-130, but here I think it comes down to cost, which could also be an argument against the A-10, hence the need to relook at 'traditional' COIN aircraft. One of the chief aspects of COIN aircraft is flexibility; being used for casualty evacuation, troop insertion, visual recon, ground attack and psychological operations. The USAF in Vietnam ended up with the Skyraider, and designed the Bronco, both aircraft totally suitable for the job. The Cessna Skymaster and Dragonfly preoved equally adept at this new role.
           
          The US are using unmanned drones, which, due to their small size, afford them a degree of stealth and survivability in the face of small-arms fire. They, however, do lack the flexibility of traditional COIN aircraft, hence the need to fill the gap.
           
          At least that is my understanding of the situation.
           
           


          From: "gamisa3@..." <gamisa3@...>
          To: CombatAircraft@yahoogroups.com
          Sent: Sunday, August 9, 2009 4:22:21 PM
          Subject: Re: [CombatAircraft] Fwd: Janes Defence Headlines

           

          What is wrong with them.  AH-64  and  A-10  tactical  units are perfect for that kind of operation.  What do they want to do fly around armed  ultralights  and  CIA  ucavs.  Stupid  idea.

        • MGC
          ... that the USAF learned the hard way in Vietnam, and are now relearning. Fair analysis throughout Doug, you obviously have some background on the topic.
          Message 4 of 28 , Aug 9 12:25 PM
            --- In CombatAircraft@yahoogroups.com, Douglas Anderson
            <djandersonza@...> wrote:
            >
            > The A-10 is too fast and helicopters lack endurance. This was a lesson
            that the USAF learned the hard way in Vietnam, and are now relearning.

            Fair analysis throughout Doug, you obviously have some background
            on the topic. I invite and encourage you to
            subscribe to
            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LWJF/

            Where we dive into much further detail.

            MGC
            Owner/Operator
          • Douglas Anderson
            Nope, no background, just thought. Thankk-you for the invite, I shall indeed join. ________________________________ From: MGC To:
            Message 5 of 28 , Aug 9 12:31 PM
              Nope, no background, just thought.
              Thankk-you for the invite, I shall indeed join.


              From: MGC <max_g_cunningham@...>
              To: CombatAircraft@yahoogroups.com
              Sent: Sunday, August 9, 2009 9:25:36 PM
              Subject: [CombatAircraft] Re: Fwd: Janes Defence Headlines

               


              --- In CombatAircraft@ yahoogroups. com, Douglas Anderson
              <djandersonza@ ...> wrote:

              >
              > The A-10 is too fast and helicopters lack endurance. This was a lesson
              that the USAF learned the hard way in Vietnam, and are now relearning.

              Fair analysis throughout Doug, you obviously have some background
              on the topic. I invite and encourage you to
              subscribe to
              http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/LWJF/

              Where we dive into much further detail.

              MGC
              Owner/Operator


            • Douglas Anderson
              I am actually ex-Navy, served on Daphne class submarines ________________________________ From: MGC To:
              Message 6 of 28 , Aug 9 12:31 PM
                I am actually ex-Navy, served on Daphne class submarines


                From: MGC <max_g_cunningham@...>
                To: CombatAircraft@yahoogroups.com
                Sent: Sunday, August 9, 2009 9:25:36 PM
                Subject: [CombatAircraft] Re: Fwd: Janes Defence Headlines

                 


                --- In CombatAircraft@ yahoogroups. com, Douglas Anderson
                <djandersonza@ ...> wrote:

                >
                > The A-10 is too fast and helicopters lack endurance. This was a lesson
                that the USAF learned the hard way in Vietnam, and are now relearning.

                Fair analysis throughout Doug, you obviously have some background
                on the topic. I invite and encourage you to
                subscribe to
                http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/LWJF/

                Where we dive into much further detail.

                MGC
                Owner/Operator


              • Rob
                I have to agree with Doug, an aircraft along the lines of the OV-10 Bronco with upgraded sensors and weapons would fill the slot nicely, with advantage of
                Message 7 of 28 , Aug 9 3:57 PM
                  I have to agree with Doug, an aircraft along the lines of the OV-10 Bronco with upgraded sensors and weapons would fill the slot nicely, with advantage of having an aircrew aboard to make final attack decisions instead of a high tech video gamer thousands of miles away deciding to zap a wedding.

                  --- On Sun, 8/9/09, Douglas Anderson <djandersonza@...> wrote:

                  From: Douglas Anderson <djandersonza@...>
                  Subject: Re: [CombatAircraft] Re: Fwd: Janes Defence Headlines
                  To: CombatAircraft@yahoogroups.com
                  Date: Sunday, August 9, 2009, 2:31 PM

                   
                  I am actually ex-Navy, served on Daphne class submarines


                  From: MGC <max_g_cunningham@ yahoo.com>
                  To: CombatAircraft@ yahoogroups. com
                  Sent: Sunday, August 9, 2009 9:25:36 PM
                  Subject: [CombatAircraft] Re: Fwd: Janes Defence Headlines

                   

                  --- In CombatAircraft@ yahoogroups. com, Douglas Anderson
                  <djandersonza@ ...> wrote:
                  >
                  > The A-10 is too fast and helicopters lack endurance. This was a lesson
                  that the USAF learned the hard way in Vietnam, and are now relearning.

                  Fair analysis throughout Doug, you obviously have some background
                  on the topic. I invite and encourage you to
                  subscribe to
                  http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/LWJF/

                  Where we dive into much further detail.

                  MGC
                  Owner/Operator



                • Half Assed Astronaut
                  Rob,  you ve hit on a major,  very serious,  and excallating issue with armed RPVs. As a serious student of the topic,  I have many favorite quotes, 
                  Message 8 of 28 , Aug 9 5:45 PM
                    Rob,  you've hit on a major,  very serious,  and excallating issue with armed RPVs.

                    As a serious student of the topic,  I have many favorite quotes,  here's
                    one for this situation from the Great Joe Galloway commenting on US
                    bombing policy in the Vietnam era,  that made many more enemies and a lot
                    quicker than friends.

                    "You bomb some guy's rice paddy, and kill his oxen (tractor)  how's he supposed
                    to farm without his tractor (oxen) ?  You bomb the same guy's hooch and kill his
                    family, and you've just made an instant Vietcong."

                    You might also enjoy and benefit by subscribing here;

                    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LWJF/

                    Regards.
                    M













                    --- On Sun, 8/9/09, Rob <lostcause72568@...> wrote:

                    From: Rob <lostcause72568@...>
                    Subject: Re: [CombatAircraft] Re: Fwd: Janes Defence Headlines
                    To: CombatAircraft@yahoogroups.com
                    Date: Sunday, August 9, 2009, 6:57 PM

                     

                    I have to agree with Doug, an aircraft along the lines of the OV-10 Bronco with upgraded sensors and weapons would fill the slot nicely, with advantage of having an aircrew aboard to make final attack decisions instead of a high tech video gamer thousands of miles away deciding to zap a wedding.


                  • len gryphon
                    The biggest problem I ( and anyone ) should have with RPV s is this: If you take the man out of the equation, there is no longer any deterent for war. Although
                    Message 9 of 28 , Aug 9 7:46 PM
                      The biggest problem I ( and anyone ) should have with RPV's is this:
                      If you take the man out of the equation, there is no longer any deterent for war.
                      Although these vehicles would indeed save American lives ( this is the biggest selling
                      point for these vehicles ) , without the fear of loss of those same lives where is the reason for AVOIDING war in the first place? If we could go to war against any non-nuclear country in the world without loss of American lives, how long till we become that which we preach
                      loudest against?
                      Don't get me wrong, there ARE legitimate reasons to go to war and we should do so with as little loss to life as possible, but how long till we just send machines in to wipe out
                      entire countries just because there is little to no cost of loss of human life on our side?
                      If we continue down this road of RPV's that is exactly what will happen despite all our good intentions and promises to ourselves not to do so.
                      Send up an RPV to take pics? Sure. Arm it? NO. That takes us down the road to push button warfare. A road in which we are no longer fighting for a cause that we believe is just
                      but a road where we do away with our enemy simply because we can.
                      A war in which you are not willing to lay down your life in order to win, but send in a machine in your stead, is a war that should never have been fought in the first place.
                      Argue all you want on this point, but I will take the high ground on this one and rest easy at night knowing that I am right.
                      So, for those of you who missed it the first time;
                      Without the fear of loss of human life, there is NO deterent to war.
                       
                       
                       


                      --- On Sun, 8/9/09, Rob <lostcause72568@...> wrote:

                      From: Rob <lostcause72568@...>
                      Subject: Re: [CombatAircraft] Re: Fwd: Janes Defence Headlines
                      To: CombatAircraft@yahoogroups.com
                      Date: Sunday, August 9, 2009, 5:57 PM

                       
                      I have to agree with Doug, an aircraft along the lines of the OV-10 Bronco with upgraded sensors and weapons would fill the slot nicely, with advantage of having an aircrew aboard to make final attack decisions instead of a high tech video gamer thousands of miles away deciding to zap a wedding.

                      --- On Sun, 8/9/09, Douglas Anderson <djandersonza@ yahoo.com> wrote:

                      From: Douglas Anderson <djandersonza@ yahoo.com>
                      Subject: Re: [CombatAircraft] Re: Fwd: Janes Defence Headlines
                      To: CombatAircraft@ yahoogroups. com
                      Date: Sunday, August 9, 2009, 2:31 PM

                       
                      I am actually ex-Navy, served on Daphne class submarines


                      From: MGC <max_g_cunningham@ yahoo.com>
                      To: CombatAircraft@ yahoogroups. com
                      Sent: Sunday, August 9, 2009 9:25:36 PM
                      Subject: [CombatAircraft] Re: Fwd: Janes Defence Headlines

                       

                      --- In CombatAircraft@ yahoogroups. com, Douglas Anderson
                      <djandersonza@ ...> wrote:
                      >
                      > The A-10 is too fast and helicopters lack endurance. This was a lesson
                      that the USAF learned the hard way in Vietnam, and are now relearning.

                      Fair analysis throughout Doug, you obviously have some background
                      on the topic. I invite and encourage you to
                      subscribe to
                      http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/LWJF/

                      Where we dive into much further detail.

                      MGC
                      Owner/Operator




                    • MGC
                      ... ____ Good analysis. Taking the next step, This is very much a manifistation of the US based Military Industrial, come Military, Industrial, Congressional,
                      Message 10 of 28 , Aug 10 6:11 AM
                        --- In CombatAircraft@yahoogroups.com, len gryphon <lordgryphon66@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > The biggest problem I ( and anyone ) should have with RPV's is this:
                        > If you take the man out of the equation, there is no longer any
                        > deterent for war.
                        ____
                        Good analysis.

                        Taking the next step,
                        This is very much a manifistation of the US based Military Industrial,
                        come Military, Industrial, Congressional, Thinktank, Wellfare State.

                        Where we spend unbelievable sums of money ($ trillion(s) =
                        1000 x 1 billion++) in order to make the prosecution of war as risk
                        free (for our side) as possible and at literally any cost
                        what-so-ever.

                        "When war becomes this profitable, I guarantee, you're going to
                        see a lot more of it."*
                        *Chalmers Johnson

                        4th Generational elements with grievance against the West (principly
                        lead by the USA) will invariably circumvent and effectively mitigate and bypass these areas of concentrated strengths and capabilities and will seek out postitions of acute vunerability.

                        As we have experienced on 9-11, the London underground attacks, Bali,
                        rocket attacks against Isreal, along with the best example roadside bombs & IEDs in Iraq and Afganistan that have killed
                        thousands.

                        Follow the links,
                        http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/01302009/watch.html
                        http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/08152008/watch.html

                        Here endeth the lesson.
                        Max
                      • Douglas Anderson
                        I think that generally speaking, what you say is true; the continued use of RPV s will make it cheaper to go war in terms of the lives of military personal,
                        Message 11 of 28 , Aug 10 6:29 AM
                          I think that generally speaking, what you say is true; the continued use of RPV's will make it 'cheaper' to go war in terms of the lives of military personal, but the civilians will always bare the brunt of the casualties, which is why the military have the lovely, dehumanising term, collateral damage.
                           
                          And, of course, the ultimate "RPV" is the inter-continental ballistic nuclear-missile, which is meant to do no more than wipe out civilians.


                          From: len gryphon <lordgryphon66@...>
                          To: CombatAircraft@yahoogroups.com
                          Sent: Monday, August 10, 2009 4:46:00 AM
                          Subject: Re: [CombatAircraft] Re: Fwd: Janes Defence Headlines

                           

                          The biggest problem I ( and anyone ) should have with RPV's is this:
                          If you take the man out of the equation, there is no longer any deterent for war.
                          Although these vehicles would indeed save American lives ( this is the biggest selling
                          point for these vehicles ) , without the fear of loss of those same lives where is the reason for AVOIDING war in the first place? If we could go to war against any non-nuclear country in the world without loss of American lives, how long till we become that which we preach
                          loudest against?
                          Don't get me wrong, there ARE legitimate reasons to go to war and we should do so with as little loss to life as possible, but how long till we just send machines in to wipe out
                          entire countries just because there is little to no cost of loss of human life on our side?
                          If we continue down this road of RPV's that is exactly what will happen despite all our good intentions and promises to ourselves not to do so.
                          Send up an RPV to take pics? Sure. Arm it? NO. That takes us down the road to push button warfare. A road in which we are no longer fighting for a cause that we believe is just
                          but a road where we do away with our enemy simply because we can.
                          A war in which you are not willing to lay down your life in order to win, but send in a machine in your stead, is a war that should never have been fought in the first place.
                          Argue all you want on this point, but I will take the high ground on this one and rest easy at night knowing that I am right.
                          So, for those of you who missed it the first time;
                          Without the fear of loss of human life, there is NO deterent to war.
                           
                           
                           


                          --- On Sun, 8/9/09, Rob <lostcause72568@ yahoo.com> wrote:

                          From: Rob <lostcause72568@ yahoo.com>
                          Subject: Re: [CombatAircraft] Re: Fwd: Janes Defence Headlines
                          To: CombatAircraft@ yahoogroups. com
                          Date: Sunday, August 9, 2009, 5:57 PM

                           
                          I have to agree with Doug, an aircraft along the lines of the OV-10 Bronco with upgraded sensors and weapons would fill the slot nicely, with advantage of having an aircrew aboard to make final attack decisions instead of a high tech video gamer thousands of miles away deciding to zap a wedding.

                          --- On Sun, 8/9/09, Douglas Anderson <djandersonza@ yahoo.com> wrote:

                          From: Douglas Anderson <djandersonza@ yahoo.com>
                          Subject: Re: [CombatAircraft] Re: Fwd: Janes Defence Headlines
                          To: CombatAircraft@ yahoogroups. com
                          Date: Sunday, August 9, 2009, 2:31 PM

                           
                          I am actually ex-Navy, served on Daphne class submarines


                          From: MGC <max_g_cunningham@ yahoo.com>
                          To: CombatAircraft@ yahoogroups. com
                          Sent: Sunday, August 9, 2009 9:25:36 PM
                          Subject: [CombatAircraft] Re: Fwd: Janes Defence Headlines

                           

                          --- In CombatAircraft@ yahoogroups. com, Douglas Anderson
                          <djandersonza@ ...> wrote:
                          >
                          > The A-10 is too fast and helicopters lack endurance. This was a lesson
                          that the USAF learned the hard way in Vietnam, and are now relearning.

                          Fair analysis throughout Doug, you obviously have some background
                          on the topic. I invite and encourage you to
                          subscribe to
                          http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/LWJF/

                          Where we dive into much further detail.

                          MGC
                          Owner/Operator





                        • Rob
                          This discussion brings to mind an episode of the original Star Trek . Two planets fought wars for centuries with computers deciding which missle got through
                          Message 12 of 28 , Aug 10 9:18 AM
                            This discussion brings to mind an episode of the original "Star Trek". Two planets fought wars for centuries with computers deciding which missle got through and what the casualties were, and the people simply accepting that they were casualties and walking into death chambers. As soon as their computer were destroyed and the ruling council realized that they were going to be faced with the true horrors of war, they made peace. 9/11 brought home the horrors to America and the Iraqis and Afghani people have it brought to them with Predators. Why do we keep forgetting that even push button wars have devastating effects. Sure a pilot can make a bad call, but at least he can bring situational  awareness into play. Maybe he would see something that would lead him to hold off 15 min. and take the shot when the "collateral" damage would be reduced or removed. Keep weapons under live control where they belong. 

                            --- On Mon, 8/10/09, Douglas Anderson <djandersonza@...> wrote:

                            From: Douglas Anderson <djandersonza@...>
                            Subject: Re: [CombatAircraft] Re: Fwd: Janes Defence Headlines
                            To: CombatAircraft@yahoogroups.com
                            Date: Monday, August 10, 2009, 8:29 AM

                             
                            I think that generally speaking, what you say is true; the continued use of RPV's will make it 'cheaper' to go war in terms of the lives of military personal, but the civilians will always bare the brunt of the casualties, which is why the military have the lovely, dehumanising term, collateral damage.
                             
                            And, of course, the ultimate "RPV" is the inter-continental ballistic nuclear-missile, which is meant to do no more than wipe out civilians.


                            From: len gryphon <lordgryphon66@ yahoo.com>
                            To: CombatAircraft@ yahoogroups. com
                            Sent: Monday, August 10, 2009 4:46:00 AM
                            Subject: Re: [CombatAircraft] Re: Fwd: Janes Defence Headlines

                             
                            The biggest problem I ( and anyone ) should have with RPV's is this:
                            If you take the man out of the equation, there is no longer any deterent for war.
                            Although these vehicles would indeed save American lives ( this is the biggest selling
                            point for these vehicles ) , without the fear of loss of those same lives where is the reason for AVOIDING war in the first place? If we could go to war against any non-nuclear country in the world without loss of American lives, how long till we become that which we preach
                            loudest against?
                            Don't get me wrong, there ARE legitimate reasons to go to war and we should do so with as little loss to life as possible, but how long till we just send machines in to wipe out
                            entire countries just because there is little to no cost of loss of human life on our side?
                            If we continue down this road of RPV's that is exactly what will happen despite all our good intentions and promises to ourselves not to do so.
                            Send up an RPV to take pics? Sure. Arm it? NO. That takes us down the road to push button warfare. A road in which we are no longer fighting for a cause that we believe is just
                            but a road where we do away with our enemy simply because we can.
                            A war in which you are not willing to lay down your life in order to win, but send in a machine in your stead, is a war that should never have been fought in the first place.
                            Argue all you want on this point, but I will take the high ground on this one and rest easy at night knowing that I am right.
                            So, for those of you who missed it the first time;
                            Without the fear of loss of human life, there is NO deterent to war.
                             
                             
                             


                            --- On Sun, 8/9/09, Rob <lostcause72568@ yahoo.com> wrote:

                            From: Rob <lostcause72568@ yahoo.com>
                            Subject: Re: [CombatAircraft] Re: Fwd: Janes Defence Headlines
                            To: CombatAircraft@ yahoogroups. com
                            Date: Sunday, August 9, 2009, 5:57 PM

                             
                            I have to agree with Doug, an aircraft along the lines of the OV-10 Bronco with upgraded sensors and weapons would fill the slot nicely, with advantage of having an aircrew aboard to make final attack decisions instead of a high tech video gamer thousands of miles away deciding to zap a wedding.

                            --- On Sun, 8/9/09, Douglas Anderson <djandersonza@ yahoo.com> wrote:

                            From: Douglas Anderson <djandersonza@ yahoo.com>
                            Subject: Re: [CombatAircraft] Re: Fwd: Janes Defence Headlines
                            To: CombatAircraft@ yahoogroups. com
                            Date: Sunday, August 9, 2009, 2:31 PM

                             
                            I am actually ex-Navy, served on Daphne class submarines


                            From: MGC <max_g_cunningham@ yahoo.com>
                            To: CombatAircraft@ yahoogroups. com
                            Sent: Sunday, August 9, 2009 9:25:36 PM
                            Subject: [CombatAircraft] Re: Fwd: Janes Defence Headlines

                             

                            --- In CombatAircraft@ yahoogroups. com, Douglas Anderson
                            <djandersonza@ ...> wrote:
                            >
                            > The A-10 is too fast and helicopters lack endurance. This was a lesson
                            that the USAF learned the hard way in Vietnam, and are now relearning.

                            Fair analysis throughout Doug, you obviously have some background
                            on the topic. I invite and encourage you to
                            subscribe to
                            http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/LWJF/

                            Where we dive into much further detail.

                            MGC
                            Owner/Operator






                          • MGC
                            This thread has produced the most activity on this forum of the last 19 months ! M
                            Message 13 of 28 , Aug 10 5:24 PM
                              This thread has produced the most activity on this forum
                              of the last 19 months !
                              M


                              --- In CombatAircraft@yahoogroups.com, Rob <lostcause72568@...> wrote:
                              >
                              > This discussion brings to mind an episode of the original "Star Trek".
                            • MGC
                              Len Provides here a superior piece of critical analysis. I ll add only that remote push button warfare, and the indescriminate and seemingly inane use of
                              Message 14 of 28 , Aug 10 6:44 PM
                                "Len" Provides here a superior piece
                                of critical analysis.

                                I'll add only that remote push button warfare, and the indescriminate and seemingly inane use of this technology, further enrages
                                certian foes, and re-enforces their perception of the west
                                as being exeedingly cowardly and decadent.

                                This only furthers their determination, to strike back, by use
                                of any means what-so-ever, at targets of opportunity, and vunerability, and furthers their recruitment efforts to no end.

                                A vicious circle that the US would do well to concert
                                it's efforts to avoid.

                                http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/as_afghanistan_airstrikes

                                M

                                --- In CombatAircraft@yahoogroups.com, len gryphon <lordgryphon66@...> wrote:
                                >
                                > The biggest problem I ( and anyone ) should have with RPV's is this:
                                > If you take the man out of the equation, there is no longer any deterent for war.
                              • Parazo Jerico
                                Well, you still will need boots on the ground right?  Besides, RPV s, at this moment usually UCAVs, are cheaper (unless the US Army is recuiting ASIMO, the
                                Message 15 of 28 , Aug 11 9:43 AM
                                  Well, you still will need boots on the ground right?  Besides, RPV's, at this moment usually UCAVs, are cheaper (unless the US Army is recuiting ASIMO, the humanoid robot by Honda, in secret).  A soldier's job is to make the other guy/gal die for his/her cause/country, etc, right?   It's the other sides's problem if they think the good old USA is cowardly in the use of such technology.  Besides, hiding behind civilians, attacking civilian buildings like hotels, and always running away from a fight can be said to be as "cowardly", right? 
                                   


                                  --- On Tue, 8/11/09, MGC <max_g_cunningham@...> wrote:

                                  From: MGC <max_g_cunningham@...>
                                  Subject: [CombatAircraft] Re: Fwd: Janes Defence Headlines
                                  To: CombatAircraft@yahoogroups.com
                                  Date: Tuesday, August 11, 2009, 9:44 AM

                                   
                                  "Len" Provides here a superior piece
                                  of critical analysis.

                                  I'll add only that remote push button warfare, and the indescriminate and seemingly inane use of this technology, further enrages
                                  certian foes, and re-enforces their perception of the west
                                  as being exeedingly cowardly and decadent.

                                  This only furthers their determination, to strike back, by use
                                  of any means what-so-ever, at targets of opportunity, and vunerability, and furthers their recruitment efforts to no end.

                                  A vicious circle that the US would do well to concert
                                  it's efforts to avoid.

                                  http://news. yahoo.com/ s/ap/as_afghanis tan_airstrikes

                                  M

                                  --- In CombatAircraft@ yahoogroups. com, len gryphon <lordgryphon66@ ...> wrote:
                                  >
                                  > The biggest problem I ( and anyone ) should have with RPV's is this:
                                  > If you take the man out of the equation, there is no longer any deterent for war.


                                • Douglas Anderson
                                  True, but the problem is that these bad guys do perform acts of cowardice which does lead to civilian deaths, and that is where the anger turns against
                                  Message 16 of 28 , Aug 11 10:04 AM
                                    True, but the problem is that these bad guys do perform acts of cowardice which does lead to civilian deaths, and that is where the anger turns against countries like the US.


                                    From: Parazo Jerico <jericoparazo@...>
                                    To: CombatAircraft@yahoogroups.com
                                    Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2009 6:43:11 PM
                                    Subject: Re: [CombatAircraft] Re: Fwd: Janes Defence Headlines

                                     

                                    Well, you still will need boots on the ground right?  Besides, RPV's, at this moment usually UCAVs, are cheaper (unless the US Army is recuiting ASIMO, the humanoid robot by Honda, in secret).  A soldier's job is to make the other guy/gal die for his/her cause/country, etc, right?   It's the other sides's problem if they think the good old USA is cowardly in the use of such technology.  Besides, hiding behind civilians, attacking civilian buildings like hotels, and always running away from a fight can be said to be as "cowardly", right? 
                                     


                                    --- On Tue, 8/11/09, MGC <max_g_cunningham@ yahoo.com> wrote:

                                    From: MGC <max_g_cunningham@ yahoo.com>
                                    Subject: [CombatAircraft] Re: Fwd: Janes Defence Headlines
                                    To: CombatAircraft@ yahoogroups. com
                                    Date: Tuesday, August 11, 2009, 9:44 AM

                                     
                                    "Len" Provides here a superior piece
                                    of critical analysis.

                                    I'll add only that remote push button warfare, and the indescriminate and seemingly inane use of this technology, further enrages
                                    certian foes, and re-enforces their perception of the west
                                    as being exeedingly cowardly and decadent.

                                    This only furthers their determination, to strike back, by use
                                    of any means what-so-ever, at targets of opportunity, and vunerability, and furthers their recruitment efforts to no end.

                                    A vicious circle that the US would do well to concert
                                    it's efforts to avoid.

                                    http://news. yahoo.com/ s/ap/as_afghanis tan_airstrikes

                                    M

                                    --- In CombatAircraft@ yahoogroups. com, len gryphon <lordgryphon66@ ...> wrote:
                                    >
                                    > The biggest problem I ( and anyone ) should have with RPV's is this:
                                    > If you take the man out of the equation, there is no longer any deterent for war.



                                  • Douglas Anderson
                                    I should ve added that the deaths are seen and judged to be the result of American military lack of compassion, or stupidity, or gung ho attitude. This
                                    Message 17 of 28 , Aug 11 10:20 AM
                                      I should've added that the deaths are seen and judged to be the result of American military lack of compassion, or stupidity, or gung ho attitude. This isn't just a problem oif the US, but all forces facing terrorists. Hence the need for extra care and caution. I am sure that you would all agree with me on this point; if you lost a loved one, a child or wife in military action, your anger would be directed against the people who dropped the bomb, not the terrorist who hid in your building.


                                      From: Douglas Anderson <djandersonza@...>
                                      To: CombatAircraft@yahoogroups.com
                                      Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2009 7:04:24 PM
                                      Subject: Re: [CombatAircraft] Re: Fwd: Janes Defence Headlines

                                       

                                      True, but the problem is that these bad guys do perform acts of cowardice which does lead to civilian deaths, and that is where the anger turns against countries like the US.


                                      From: Parazo Jerico <jericoparazo@ yahoo.com>
                                      To: CombatAircraft@ yahoogroups. com
                                      Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2009 6:43:11 PM
                                      Subject: Re: [CombatAircraft] Re: Fwd: Janes Defence Headlines

                                       

                                      Well, you still will need boots on the ground right?  Besides, RPV's, at this moment usually UCAVs, are cheaper (unless the US Army is recuiting ASIMO, the humanoid robot by Honda, in secret).  A soldier's job is to make the other guy/gal die for his/her cause/country, etc, right?   It's the other sides's problem if they think the good old USA is cowardly in the use of such technology.  Besides, hiding behind civilians, attacking civilian buildings like hotels, and always running away from a fight can be said to be as "cowardly", right? 
                                       


                                      --- On Tue, 8/11/09, MGC <max_g_cunningham@ yahoo.com> wrote:

                                      From: MGC <max_g_cunningham@ yahoo.com>
                                      Subject: [CombatAircraft] Re: Fwd: Janes Defence Headlines
                                      To: CombatAircraft@ yahoogroups. com
                                      Date: Tuesday, August 11, 2009, 9:44 AM

                                       
                                      "Len" Provides here a superior piece
                                      of critical analysis.

                                      I'll add only that remote push button warfare, and the indescriminate and seemingly inane use of this technology, further enrages
                                      certian foes, and re-enforces their perception of the west
                                      as being exeedingly cowardly and decadent.

                                      This only furthers their determination, to strike back, by use
                                      of any means what-so-ever, at targets of opportunity, and vunerability, and furthers their recruitment efforts to no end.

                                      A vicious circle that the US would do well to concert
                                      it's efforts to avoid.

                                      http://news. yahoo.com/ s/ap/as_afghanis tan_airstrikes

                                      M

                                      --- In CombatAircraft@ yahoogroups. com, len gryphon <lordgryphon66@ ...> wrote:
                                      >
                                      > The biggest problem I ( and anyone ) should have with RPV's is this:
                                      > If you take the man out of the equation, there is no longer any deterent for war.




                                    • MGC
                                      ... As do MOST violent criminals. which does lead to civilian deaths, and that is where the anger turns against countries like the US. These should be dealt
                                      Message 18 of 28 , Aug 11 11:38 AM
                                        --- In CombatAircraft@yahoogroups.com, Douglas Anderson <djandersonza@...> wrote:
                                        >
                                        > True, but the problem is that these bad guys do perform acts of
                                        > cowardice

                                        As do MOST violent criminals.

                                        which does lead to civilian deaths, and that is where the anger turns against countries like the US.

                                        These should be dealt with, severely, but as CRIMINALS.
                                        Exactly as we dealt with McViegh and Nicols.

                                        We did not bomb and raise N. Dakota or Montana and hang thier
                                        govorners.

                                        Go after the CRIMINALS, do what ever it takes, competently
                                        and thoughly and only.

                                        But the problem with that is, the MIWS dosn't make a killing
                                        $$$$$, pun int.

                                        M
                                      • Parazo Jerico
                                        Hey, I got hold of a back issue of Pop. Sci article on the 2018 bomber.  Seems to be a waste of time and money. Hey, I got hold of a back issue of Pop. Sci
                                        Message 19 of 28 , Aug 15 8:40 AM
                                          Hey, I got hold of a back issue of Pop. Sci article on the 2018 bomber.  Seems to be a waste of time and money.

                                        • Parazo Jerico
                                          Hey, if they need a new bomber, here it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concorde ... From: Parazo Jerico Subject: [CombatAircraft]
                                          Message 20 of 28 , Aug 15 8:49 AM
                                            Hey, if they need a new bomber, here it is:
                                            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concorde

                                            --- On Sat, 8/15/09, Parazo Jerico <jericoparazo@...> wrote:

                                            From: Parazo Jerico <jericoparazo@...>
                                            Subject: [CombatAircraft] 2018 Bomber
                                            To: CombatAircraft@yahoogroups.com
                                            Date: Saturday, August 15, 2009, 11:40 PM

                                             
                                            Hey, I got hold of a back issue of Pop. Sci article on the 2018 bomber.  Seems to be a waste of time and money.


                                          • P38eddie@aol.com
                                            The Pentagon often seems to be interested in wastes of time and money. Many argue that the JSF program and the Raptor are examples of that. In the former
                                            Message 21 of 28 , Aug 15 11:33 AM
                                              The Pentagon often seems to be interested in wastes of time and money.  Many argue that the JSF program and the Raptor are examples of that.  In the former case, we might start to see them become operational around 2018.  Just my two cents.
                                               
                                              In a message dated 8/15/2009 11:41:55 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, jericoparazo@... writes:


                                              Hey, I got hold of a back issue of Pop. Sci article on the 2018 bomber.  Seems to be a waste of time and money.

                                            • MGC
                                              ... money. ... This is very much a systemic phenomina. Whereby the B-2 bomber, the F-22, or JSF would have suppliers, components, softwere, tools or
                                              Message 22 of 28 , Aug 16 5:00 PM
                                                --- In CombatAircraft@yahoogroups.com, P38eddie@... wrote:
                                                >
                                                > The Pentagon often seems to be interested in wastes of time and
                                                money.
                                                > Many argue that the JSF program and the Raptor are examples of that.

                                                This is very much a systemic phenomina. Whereby the B-2 bomber, the
                                                F-22,
                                                or JSF would have suppliers, components, softwere, tools or support
                                                equipment, made in almost every state of the CONUS, thus spreading
                                                the vested interests,
                                                politicaly, economicaly, scocialy, and as Eisenhower
                                                mentioned, "even spiritual implications."

                                                In as much as the American way of life is treasured, held sacred,
                                                and depends on gamefull lucrative employment.

                                                It's a sad reality that today, the US dosn't make a whole lot of
                                                anything
                                                anymore, except the implements of war, and so no wonder we find
                                                ourselves
                                                now perpetually so engadged.
                                                M

                                                "When war becomes this profitable, I gurantee you you're going
                                                to see a lot more of it."*

                                                "As we found out after 9-11, the Department Of Defence has nothing
                                                what-so-ever to do with the defence of the country, they instead busy
                                                themselves with war in space, or similar lucrative, if useless
                                                activities."*

                                                * The incomperable Chalmers Johnson.
                                              • Parazo Jerico
                                                You know Max, it might be even more logical to use the money for the stealth planes for NASA, at least the scientific experiments can enrich knowledge in the
                                                Message 23 of 28 , Aug 16 5:59 PM
                                                  You know Max, it might be even more logical to use the money for the stealth planes for NASA, at least the scientific experiments can enrich knowledge in the short term.  Thought, in these times of global crisis,it might be best to save up and cut costs for warfare.  
                                                   
                                                  In another subject, I was amazed when I opened a book on computer modeling of fluid flows using finite elements and I saw a dicussion on using the said methods to calculate electromagnetic radiation scatering from surfaces...aka, how to calculate the radar cross-section on complicated shapes.  Seems to make the costs of these stealth planes laughable since anyone with rudimentary programming skills, a freeware compiler, a cheap laptop and a good text book can design a stealthy shape.  I guess the skins are expensive but, from another thread, plywood is stealthy, right?

                                                  --- On Mon, 8/17/09, MGC <max_g_cunningham@...> wrote:

                                                  From: MGC <max_g_cunningham@...>
                                                  Subject: [CombatAircraft] Re: 2018 Bomber
                                                  To: CombatAircraft@yahoogroups.com
                                                  Date: Monday, August 17, 2009, 8:00 AM

                                                   
                                                  --- In CombatAircraft@ yahoogroups. com, P38eddie@... wrote:
                                                  >
                                                  > The Pentagon often seems to be interested in wastes of time and
                                                  money.
                                                  > Many argue that the JSF program and the Raptor are examples of that.

                                                  This is very much a systemic phenomina. Whereby the B-2 bomber, the
                                                  F-22,
                                                  or JSF would have suppliers, components, softwere, tools or support
                                                  equipment, made in almost every state of the CONUS, thus spreading
                                                  the vested interests,
                                                  politicaly, economicaly, scocialy, and as Eisenhower
                                                  mentioned, "even spiritual implications. "

                                                  In as much as the American way of life is treasured, held sacred,
                                                  and depends on gamefull lucrative employment.

                                                  It's a sad reality that today, the US dosn't make a whole lot of
                                                  anything
                                                  anymore, except the implements of war, and so no wonder we find
                                                  ourselves
                                                  now perpetually so engadged.
                                                  M

                                                  "When war becomes this profitable, I gurantee you you're going
                                                  to see a lot more of it."*

                                                  "As we found out after 9-11, the Department Of Defence has nothing
                                                  what-so-ever to do with the defence of the country, they instead busy
                                                  themselves with war in space, or similar lucrative, if useless
                                                  activities." *

                                                  * The incomperable Chalmers Johnson.


                                                • MGC
                                                  ... stealthy, right? http://tinyurl.com/qwpclf The First Stealth Fighter: The De Havilland Mosquito Originally designed as a bomber, the Mosquito proved its
                                                  Message 24 of 28 , Aug 17 5:40 AM
                                                    --- In CombatAircraft@yahoogroups.com, Parazo Jerico <jericoparazo@...> wrote:
                                                    > I guess the skins are expensive but, from another thread, plywood is stealthy, right?

                                                    http://tinyurl.com/qwpclf

                                                    The First Stealth Fighter: The De Havilland Mosquito


                                                    Originally designed as a bomber, the Mosquito proved its salt in multiple non-bomber applications. After initial testing and deployment as a bomber and fighter-bomber, its characteristics as a pure fighter plane were markedly clear. This was due in part to a few characteristics the Mosquito bore that made it markedly different from other fighters.

                                                    RADAR-PROOF STEALTH

                                                    Of the several unplanned strategic benefits the Mosquito fighter provided was its capability as a "Stealth Fighter". By using metal only for the engines, and non-magnetic brass screws as reinforcement at critical points in the airframe, the De Havilland Mosquito was virtually invisible to German radar.




                                                    http://dhmosquito.com/

                                                    de Havilland Mosquito

                                                    deHavilland's wooden wonder

                                                    The de Havilland Mosquito distinuished itself as both the worlds fastest operational piston engine aircraft, and the most versatile combat aircraft - built during World War II.

                                                    The Mosquito excelled in a variety of roles during World War II, including as day or night fighter, strike fighter-bomber, photo-reconnaissance, pathfinder, intruder, maritime strike, and surprisingly, a few BOAC mailplane variants flew regular nightly services over Nazi-occupied Europe!

                                                    It was conceived as a fast twin engined day bomber that could outrun all contemporary fighters.
                                                    With no heavy defensive armament to man, the crew was reduced to pilot and navigator so the aircraft was lighter, faster and overall more efficient.
                                                    <SNIP>
                                                    The Mosquito ended the war with the lowest loss rate of any aircraft in RAF Bomber Command service during WWII.
                                                    <SNIP>

                                                    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeHavilland_Mosquito

                                                    The aircraft served with the Royal Air Force (RAF) and many other air forces during the Second World War and postwar. The Mosquito was known affectionately as the "Mossie" to its crews[6] and was also known as "The Wooden Wonder" or "The Timber Terror" as the bulk of the aircraft was made of laminated plywood.[7]

                                                    <SNIP>
                                                    Post war, the RAF found that when finally applied to bombing, in terms of useful damage done, the Mosquito had proved 4.95 times cheaper than the Lancaster[30];
                                                    <SNIP>




                                                  • MGC
                                                    ... Stealth is a competition between physical airframe hardwere material implementations and adpatation, and electronics/computer processing and memory
                                                    Message 25 of 28 , Aug 17 6:06 PM
                                                      --- In CombatAircraft@yahoogroups.com, Parazo Jerico <jericoparazo@...> wrote:
                                                      >
                                                      > You know Max, it might be even more logical to use the money for the stealth planes

                                                      "Stealth" is a competition between physical airframe hardwere material implementations and adpatation, and electronics/computer processing and memory technologies.

                                                      Think about Boyd, think OODA loop,
                                                      Ask yourself which is cheaper, easier, and more
                                                      quickly adaptable ? Which technology is advancing
                                                      more quicky, and more quickly than any in recorded
                                                      history ?

                                                      Think about the advancement in computing and
                                                      signal processing technology in the last 10-20 years.

                                                      You're now and Engineer, or getting very close, the answer
                                                      is obvious.

                                                      Max
                                                    • Parazo Jerico
                                                      I think I was careless in my email grammar, this might be a better version of what I typed:   You know Max, it might be even more logical to divert the
                                                      Message 26 of 28 , Aug 18 3:52 AM
                                                        I think I was careless in my email grammar, this might be a better version of what I typed:
                                                         
                                                        "You know Max, it might be even more logical to divert the money for the stealth planes to NASA, at least the scientific experiments can enrich knowledge in the short term.  Thought, in these times of global crisis,it might be best to save up and cut costs for warfare"
                                                         
                                                        Yes, I also should have said "low-observable".    Yup, maybe diverting money to a sector that could (and has proven many times) to help advance technology might be better.  Though, there's the political aspect.  Unfortunately, paraphrasing a Clint Eastwood movie "I don't know jacks***t about politics".
                                                         
                                                        I guess with the focus on guerilla warfare, I think an armed and armored chopper might be the most useful combat aircraft these days. 
                                                         
                                                        -Jerico


                                                        --- On Tue, 8/18/09, MGC <max_g_cunningham@...> wrote:

                                                        From: MGC <max_g_cunningham@...>
                                                        Subject: [CombatAircraft] Re: 2018 Bomber
                                                        To: CombatAircraft@yahoogroups.com
                                                        Date: Tuesday, August 18, 2009, 9:06 AM

                                                         
                                                        --- In CombatAircraft@ yahoogroups. com, Parazo Jerico <jericoparazo@ ...> wrote:
                                                        >
                                                        > You know Max, it might be even more logical to use the money for the stealth planes

                                                        "Stealth" is a competition between physical airframe hardwere material implementations and adpatation, and electronics/ computer processing and memory technologies.

                                                        Think about Boyd, think OODA loop,
                                                        Ask yourself which is cheaper, easier, and more
                                                        quickly adaptable ? Which technology is advancing
                                                        more quicky, and more quickly than any in recorded
                                                        history ?

                                                        Think about the advancement in computing and
                                                        signal processing technology in the last 10-20 years.

                                                        You're now and Engineer, or getting very close, the answer
                                                        is obvious.

                                                        Max


                                                      • MGC
                                                        ... Understood, the rant was as much for the benefit of any and all interested parties, rather than actually intended for you personely.
                                                        Message 27 of 28 , Aug 18 5:27 AM
                                                          --- In CombatAircraft@yahoogroups.com, Parazo Jerico <jericoparazo@...> wrote:
                                                          >
                                                          > I think I was careless in my email grammar, this might be a better version of what I typed:

                                                          Understood, the rant was as much for the benefit of any
                                                          and all interested parties, rather than actually intended
                                                          for you personely.

                                                          <M>
                                                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.