ClearedHot

Two guys died (one translator and a British Commando), I wonder if he will wrap himself in the 1st amendment and publish photos of the guys who died so that he could live? Story here. KABUL – British commandos freed a New York Times reporter early Wednesday from Taliban captives who kidnapped him over the weekend in northern Afghanistan, but one of the commandos and a Times translator were killed in the rescue, officials said. Reporter Stephen Farrell was taken hostage along with his translator in the northern province of Kunduz on Saturday. German commanders had ordered U.S. jets to drop bombs on two hijacked fuel tankers, causing a number of civilian casualties, and reporters traveled to the area to cover the story. One British service member died during the early morning raid, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown said, while the Times reported that Farrell's Afghan translator, Sultan Munadi, 34, also was killed. Brown said that "we send his family our condolences." Farrell was unhurt. Gunfire rang out from multiple sides during the rescue, and a Taliban commander who was in the house was killed, along with the owner of the house and a woman, said Mohammad Sami Yowar, a spokesman for the Kunduz governor. Munadi was killed in the midst of the firefight, he said. Afghan officials over the weekend said about 70 people died when U.S. jets dropped two bombs on the tankers, igniting them in a massive explosion. There were reports that villagers who had come to collect fuel from the tankers were among the dead, and Farrell wanted to interview villagers. The Times reported that while Farrell and Munadi were interviewing Afghans near the site of the bombing, an old man approached them and warned them to leave. Soon after, gunshots rang out and people shouted that the Taliban were approaching. Police had warned reporters who traveled to the capital of Kunduz to cover the tanker strike that the village in question was controlled by the Taliban and it would be dangerous to go there. The Times kept the kidnappings quiet out of concern for the men's safety, and other media outlets, including The Associated Press, did not report the abductions following a request from the Times. A story posted on the Times' Web site quoted Farrell saying he had been "extracted" by a commando raid carried out by "a lot of soldiers" in a firefight. British special forces dropped down from helicopters early Wednesday onto the house where the two were being kept, and a gunbattle broke out, Yowar said. Farrell, 46, a dual Irish-British citizen, told the Times that he saw Munadi step forward shouting "Journalist! Journalist!" but he then fell in a volley of bullets. Farrell said he did not know if the shots came from militants or the rescuing forces. "I dived in a ditch," said Farrell. Moments later, he said he heard British voices and shouted, "British hostage!" The British voices told him to come over. As he did, Farrell said he saw Munadi. "He was lying in the same position as he fell," Farrell told the Times. "That's all I know. I saw him go down in front of me. He did not move. He's dead. He was so close, he was just two feet in front of me when he dropped." The British prime minister said the operation was carried out after "extensive planning and consideration," and that those involved knew the high risks they faced. Brown called the mission "breathtaking heroism." "As we all know, and as last night once again demonstrated, our armed forces have the skill and courage to act. They are truly the finest among us, and all of us in Britain pay tribute to them, and to the families and communities who sustain them in their awesome responsibilities," Brown said. Munadi was first employed by The New York Times in 2002, according to his colleagues. He left the company a few years later to work for a local radio station. He left Afghanistan last year to study for a master's degree in Germany. He came back to Kabul last month for a holiday and to see his family, and agreed to accompany Farrell to Kunduz on a freelance basis. He was married and had two young sons. In a New York Times Web blog this month, Munadi wrote that he would never leave Afghanistan permanently and that "being a journalist is not enough; it will not solve the problems of Afghanistan. I want to work for the education of the country, because the majority of people are illiterate." "And if I leave this country, if other people like me leave this country, who will come to Afghanistan?" he wrote. "Will it be the Taliban who come to govern this country? That is why I want to come back, even if it means cleaning the streets of Kabul. That would be a better job for me, rather than working, for example, in a restaurant in Germany." Though much of military effort in Afghanistan is focused on the volatile south, Kunduz and some other northern provinces have been increasingly hit by attacks over the past year, and officials say the security situation appears to be deteriorating there. Farrell joined the Times in 2007 in Baghdad. He has covered both the Afghan and Iraq conflicts for the paper. He was briefly held hostage with a group of journalists traveling in Iraq in 2004, when he was working for The Times of London. Militants questioned him and the others for about 10 hours before letting them go, he told CNN afterward. Farrell was the second Times journalist to be kidnapped in Afghanistan in a year. In June, Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter David Rohde and his Afghan colleague Tahir Ludin escaped from their Taliban captors in northwestern Pakistan. They had been abducted Nov. 10 south of Kabul and were moved across the border.

Sorry fellas, it was wrong to hit the dude (even though he was provoked), but the cops stay out of football games.

huh? Did you actually read it? Several different versions, only one has a turbo prop, the rest are regular jet.

When we did the assessment we operated out of a civilian airport in Virginia for a month with a single crew chief and never lost a sortie.

All platforms can hang out high until they need to shoot the gun, going down into the threat is in the job description but smart employment can limi he amount of time doing that. As for the passive aggressive UAV comment, you are missing the basic premise of COIN which is to give the capability to the Partner Nation so they can provide for their own defense and security. As to your last sentence, you are saying they don't have them in Afghanistan or Iraq? HUH!!! Are you still in ROTC?

The conversion cost is minimal. Total flyaway cost for a new airframe modified to AT-6B is less than $10 Million. As for the maintenance infrastructure I am referring to the depot level maintenance capability. For many countries we support with foreign sales we include depot level maintenance in the package. I remember my dad flying to Egypt to pick up F-4s and bring them home for depot. Also, we are not going to give all 100 away at the same time, we will retain a large number in our squadrons so being able to lean on the current stateside T-6 maintenance capability will save a lot of money. Again, too expensive and we are not making them anymore. Absolutely untrue. Why does everyone assume a COIN aircraft is going to be down in the mud. With the sensors and weapons we have today it is simply not necessary to loiter at 500'. With an even moderately priced sensor ball the AT-6B could easily loiter unobserved at medium altitude. Add something like SDB and it might never drop below 10K. By the way, MANPDS are everywhere to assume otherwise could be a fatal mistake.

I'd say with hundreds of T-6II's in AETC, they are fairly prevalent as well. Additionally, we already have huge maintenance infrastructure set up for the AT-6B. You are exactly correct on the second part.

Not....please think with your brain and not your heart. The A-10 is a great airplane, but far to expensive and complicated for the COIN roll. Remember the objective is to spend a finite amount of time deployed to the Parter Nation teaching them how to fly and maintain the aircraft, then leave it with them to fly and MAINTAIN on their own.

I flew the AT-6B and did an assessment for the USAF, performance is truly excellent. In the clean configuration the aircraft will do positive energy loops up 10 16K, as I recall I was able to gain 300' doing a loop at 12K. Adding weapons (rockets, .50 Cal guns, and bombs), as well as a sensor pod will increase the weight and drag, but in my opinion the AT-6B still has plenty of performance even for Afghanistan. Already done, the AT-6B has 1400 SHP. The increased power as well as the weapons load does require a mod to the wing spar, but that was an easy fix. I would post the entire assessment but I don't want to bore you to tears but in summary I found it extremely easy to fly with mostly very forgiving traits, easy to see why it is a trainer. I did identify roll rate as a small issue and I was likely being overly sensitive since I could find little else wrong with the plane or the avionics. I don't like to fly straight and level, especially in combat, as a result I do a lot of belly checks. I found that at slower speeds, especially when setting up a perch that the roll rate was less than what I expected. It was not gross, just not what I expected and actually perfectly normal given a straight wing trainer. Overall, I would fly the plane in combat tomorrow.

Blasphemer...I mean Beerman, Sadly, the answer comes from doctrine and it is all about money. The AT-6B for the COIN mission gives you the ability to train a "Partner Nation" (PN), pilot how to provide fires in support of his own nation. In concept the USAF would take a few airplanes to country X, fly with them for a few months, leave the AT-6B with the Air Force from Country X, then take a commercial flight home. The AT-6B costs less $10 Million a copy, costs less than $500.00 to operate, it is very easy to fly (hell I flew it), and does not require a complex maintenance, computer or satellite backbone.

Let the food fight begin. My guess is an epic power-struggle has already begun between multiple communities. The A-10 vs F-16 fight will focus on BRACed units wanting this platform, each claiming they are more suited for the role. ACC already has a death grip on the program, but for all the wrong reasons. Publicly they will claim tremendous interest in the COIN mission when in reality they see this as a way maintain cockpits and season dudes for other platforms. The Reserve and Guard will also use the BRAC argument to keep UAS' off their ramp and as always they will over-promise their ability to deliver qualified people. AFSOC should have the airplane and the COIN mission, but they are too busy RECAPing the fleet and building a cadre of pilots for other systems. I've flown the AT-6 and prefer it over the Super Tucano. Yes the Super Tucano has slightly better performance in a few areas, equal in others, but from a business model perspective the AT-6 makes more sense given the USAF has been flying and maintaining them for almost 10 years.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The Pentagon is seeking to speed deployment of an ultra-large "bunker-buster" bomb on the most advanced U.S. bomber as soon as July 2010, the Air Force said on Sunday, amid concerns over perceived nuclear threats from North Korea and Iran. The non-nuclear, 30,000-pound Massive Ordnance Penetrator, or MOP, which is still being tested, is designed to destroy deeply buried bunkers beyond the reach of existing bombs. If Congress agrees to shift enough funds to the program, Northrop Grumman Corp's radar-evading B-2 bomber "would be capable of carrying the bomb by July 2010," said Andy Bourland, an Air Force spokesman. "The Air Force and Department of Defense are looking at the possibility of accelerating the program," he said. "There have been discussions with the four congressional committees with oversight responsibilities. No final decision has been made." The precision-guided weapon, built by Boeing Co, could become the biggest conventional bomb the United States has ever used. Carrying more than 5,300 pounds of explosives. it would deliver more than 10 times the explosive power of its predecessor, the 2,000-pound BLU-109, according to the Pentagon's Defense Threat Reduction Agency, which has funded and managed the seed program. Chicago-based Boeing, the Pentagon's No. 2 supplier by sales, could be put on contract within 72 hours to build the first MOP production models if Congress signs off, Bourland said. The threat reduction agency is working with the Air Force to transition the program from "technology demonstration" to acquisition, said Betsy Freeman, an agency spokeswoman. Both the U.S. Pacific Command, which takes the lead in U.S. military planning for North Korea, and the Central Command, which prepares for contingencies with Iran, appeared to be backing the acceleration request, said Kenneth Katzman, an expert on Iran at the Congressional Research Service, the research arm of Congress. "It's very possible that the Pentagon wants to send a signal to various countries, particularly Iran and North Korea, that the United States is developing a viable military option against their nuclear programs," Katzman said. But he cautioned against concluding there was any specific mission in mind at this time. BIGGEST BOMB The MOP would be about one-third heavier than the 21,000-pound (9.5 million kg) GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast bomb -- dubbed the "mother of all bombs" -- that was dropped twice in tests at a Florida range in 2003. The 20-foot-long (6-meter) MOP is built to be dropped from either the B-52 or the B-2 "stealth" bomber. It is designed to penetrate up to 200 feet underground before exploding, according to the U.S. Air Force. The suspected nuclear facilities of Iran and North Korea are believed to be largely buried underground to escape detection and boost their chances of surviving attack. During a visit to Jerusalem last week, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates sought to reassure Israel that a drive by President Barack Obama to talk Iran into giving up its nuclear work was not "open-ended." Iran says its uranium enrichment -- a process with bomb-making potential -- is for energy only and has rejected U.S.-led demands to curb the program. For its part, North Korea responded to new United Nations sanctions, imposed after it detonated a second nuclear device, by vowing in June to press the production of nuclear weapons and act against international efforts to isolate it.

Typical...here is a clue, don't read my posts...very simple and your problem solved.

Perhaps you can FYI all the other dudes for me as well...UFB.

Guess you did not read the question...I said Hurlburt. Cannon is brand new and the first CC there was a Pavelow guy. After 30+ years we finally got a guy at Cannon and one dude hardly qualifies as a mafia.

You are kidding right? 1. When was the last time Hurlburt (you know the only base that has had gunships for the last 30 years), had a gunship Wing Commander or Ops Group Commander...answer - NEVER 2. When was the last time AFSOC had a Gunship Commander...answer - almost never, Holland had one tour in gunpigs and he was agnostic with regard to platforms. 3. Who is in charge of AFSOC right now...answer - a Pavelow guy. 4. Who set MC-130 RECAP as the AFSOC priority...answer - AFSOC/CC. The only senior gunship guy in the food chain moved to another base, (hopefully a holding pattern to bring him back as the CC), but still the senior gunship dude in AFSOC is an O-6. Ever notice how they move all the gunship dudes with potential to other places?

Two words...range and speed. Been banging this drum for years...There may be another opportunity next August.

Unfortunately this type of "motivation" will be seen by some senior folks as a great leadership treat and ultimately rewarded. Looking back I can remember an officer who sent some very similar e-mails and made very similar comments in public many years ago. That person was just selected BPZ to O-6 .

Well played...no I m not retiring, although I should. Got picked up for SDE in DC.

Long story short...PCSing and the truck was supposed to show up this morning to load my house. Driver calls around 0730 to tell me he has a flat tire, will b fixed shortly and will proceed to my house. Call back around 0900, tire almost fixed, will be in an hour. Calls me around 1100 to tell me dispatch has sent him to pick up a small load then come to my house. Calls around 1500 asking for directions, I figure out he drove 16 miles past my house. Arrives at 1530 and begins to load my house. When they open the trailer I notice 1/3 of truck is full and I have a lot of crap. I specifically ask if they will get it al on the trailer "no problem". At 0200 ....yes 0200 they are still loading, not even close to being done when the driver comes to tell me, "we can't get it all on the trailer. We have to go get another trailer tomorrow. Nice guys but in the process they have gouged my new wood floors and a few other things. What are my options? Never had issues like this before. I did my final out today with the intent of leaving early Sunday, but I will be cleaning and crap into Sunday now with the late load. I guess I can call the TMO folks and bitch, but this is out of control and it needs to hurt when the are held accountable. Anyone with experience, ideas, or knowledge?

Yes, we do.

Perhaps in the Strike Eagle community, but not necessarily true in other platforms. SCAR is far more similar to Killer Scout in other communities.

Iran...China....North Korea....Syria. Why do we need to divert funds? The liberals are handing out cash as fast as they can print it, but cut the defense budget. Why not print enough for more F-22's that actually do something AND produce high-tech jobs? WRONG....what the article shows is more of the same old rice bowl syndrome. He is arguing that the F-22 production line serves only the Air Force, yet it is important to keep the F-18 line open so we can still produce front line fighters...FOR WHO?...The Navy and the Marine Corps of course, what crap....notice how he shifts the theme to advanced versions of the F-18 beyong the Growler....I truly thought you were smart enough to see through the Jedi Mind Trick. Sorry but his comments were oxymoronic and typical service centric bullshit. I am not hear to argue the F-22 is a wonder weapon, but the article could just as easily be turned on it's nugget and say if we kept making F-22's we might need FEWER Growlers...oh the humanity! As for trading Air Dominance for purchasing power...I hope you plan on buying body bags with all your savings.

A few pictures from the museum collection on one of Dad's old F-4 Squadrons.

It takes a special kind of scumbag to steal from a fellow American Solider. Lets just hope karma gives this douche-nozzle a kick in the junk.