Steve Davies

I really liked Bowden's book, Killing Pablo. Rodriguez's assertion that the AIM-7 photo came from the MiG-29 he downed is mistaken – it is actually from a US drone. In addition, he might not know that the MiG-29 VTRS doesn’t record through the combining glass; it records down into the actual combining lens: MiG-29 VTRS doesn’t show what was out of the window, only the raster and stroke symbology that was in the HUD.

Thanks. added to the list of errata. Thanks to all for the kind words, and to Brick for the SAFO plug.

Is it only the Air Force that issues ear muffs? Or do the Marines use them, too? And do you Air Force guys also get issued these?

They don't if they want to maintain as much operational and financial independence as possible. You seem to have a problem grasping this point. Who's arguing otherwise? That was a rant?

Since the F-35 will replace the AV-8B in Marine Corps service, it has no choice but to field the STOVL variant. Unless you know something I do not, being able to operate from the boat is a key element in the Marines' littoral duties - shore-based operations may not always be possible or adviseable. Right, so you understand that they need to land on the boat? In which case, you recognise that they have no choice but to get the STOVL variant. Indeed - the US Navy has arrestor wires and angled decks. The British Royal Navy, which is also responsible for carrying the Royal Marines, is getting the F-35B because its carriers are more like an AAS than a CVN.

Gents Stoleit has nicely summarised why the B-model variant's STOVL is needed - without it, you cannot get back on the boat. At the moment there are three customers that want the F-35B (USMC, Royal Navy, Italian Navy), and there are no wires or angled decks on any of their carriers. Looking forward, and considering additional export potential, India, Brazil and others may also purchase the type, and they will also require STOVL to get the jet back on the boat. It's as simple as that. As for the idea that landing at a FARP is a notion that made sense only during the Cold War, I believe that USMC AV-8Bs were doing exactly that - vertically - during OIF. They certainly did it in 1991, as did the A-10.

I am not convinced that no one is interested; I think that it is more the case that there is little factual information to talk about. Militarycorruption.com's pitiful coverage of the saga serves to reinforce that point, whilst simultaneously discrediting the very valid questions that people hold regarding the whole Metzger affair.

Of all the counter 'buy more F-22' arguments put forth so far in this thread, yours is by far the most compelling, IMO. I am still going to try and pick holes in it, however :) I think that this is a particularly insightful remark. There is more than enough ancedotal and documented evidence to suggest that the US has been developing and, in some cases, actually fielding still-classified UCAVs, for decades. Equally, there are some very strong pointers that indicate the US has developed demonstrators of manned fighters that eclipse even the F-22. The picture you talk about will have a significant 'black' element to it that is certainly worth considering. The very black nature of both the F-117 and (defunct) A-12 programme are historical pointers that can be used to support the theory that what the majority of us see - even those with the highest security clearances and need to know - is very rarely the same as what the decision makers are going on. I think that if you look at the pure numbers that a Chinese IADS would present, then that assertion is contestable. Whether you win or lose is directly tied to how many assets are attrited by the enemy, and what you hope to accomplish - it could be only 25 per cent of your forces, but if the remaining 75 per cent is insufficient to get the job done, then you have lost. That's fine if you have really, really good FME, espionage and counter-espionage capes. The US certainly has the first, might have the second, but so far has a less-than-stellar record in the third. With this in mind, the 'buy as many as we can afford' philosophy should apply. I don't agree. No generation of stealth will ever be a 'cure-all', yet you make it sound as though it might one day be so. It's not as though Lockmart or Boeing will be able to design a forever stealthy fighter in 25 years' time. The reality is that military procurement programmes are expensive and *cyclical*; buying UCAVs is not going to change that reality. I think that this is the most important point of the entire discussion... it is also the one that undermines, in my view, the suggestion that more F-22s are not being bought because UCAVs are being considered the way forward. I would like to assume that the Air Force bases its purchasing requirements on the possibility that it may be required to perform in any war zone at any time. If that is correct, then the major limfac with UCAVs - bandwidth - is not going to go away anytime soon. So, you can design a fantastic UCAV, but if you dont have the bandwidth or the bandwidth security to operate them in sufficient numbers to break down the IADS and clear a path for the F-22, F-35 and 4th Gen fighters, then the solution does not lie with unmanned aircraft... today. It may well in five or ten years time, but what if war with China breaks out in two years' time? I think that you have to be cautious and work on the basis that by that time the Chinese will have long had the capability to deny you the bandwidth you need to operate them: it'll be able to score hard kills against your satellites. As of now, the US still supports the Star Wars ban, so I hope that your passive counter capes are being developed in earnest! And this suggestion that you can simply allow the technology to become obsolete - and to revert to the Communists' numbers vs quality argument - doesn't make complete sense to me. Building more obsolete UCAVs that you can't fly in sufficient numbers because you can't get the bandwidth is not going to win the war for you. Of course, by then the US will have its manned (and unmanned) new long range bomber, so perhaps it is a moot point? But what happens in 50 years' time, when the new bomber is obsolete? Again, just as throughout history, you end up back in an expensive procurement programme. It matters not whether it is manned or unmanned. I agree. But I suspect that they are coming at it from a slightly different perspective to you. I don't think so. There is much more about the F-22 that is intrinsic - such as netcentric capes - than is immediately obvious. Even I know that, and I don't even have SIPRNET!

If those facts are so solid, then why have these people not all been charged and convicted? Your view is not substantiated by either a) the number of detainees America has released without charge, or b) the number you have actually sentenced. The official stats show that there have been 775 detainees... 420 of whom have been released them without charge. Even assuming that they are all killers, holding them in a cell for eight years and then releasing them without charge is just a stupid thing to do. And you wonder why these people - who were already radical, or in the process of being radicalised, before they went in - come out and actually do kill Americans? If you need to ponder why the Gitmo 're-offenders rate' is something that nobody talks about, then you will find the answer in all of the above. I don't have a problem with locking up shit bag terrorists and their sympathisers, but it needs to be done properly.

A show that could be vastly improved with the introduction of thongs and reverse camera angles.

Good job, Gearpig. The last one is my top bet so far for the men and women of the Fightin' Flamingos. What say these three ladies get made honorary squadron commanders?

Indeed. Come up with your own Fightin' Flamingo pics, people!

CH Which Historian are we talking about? The USAF Historian, or the Nellis Historian? The current USAF Historian is an F-4 Patch Wearer. Getting rid of the division patches doesn't sound like something he'd do.

Why are there two U-2s? Or is one of them meant to be Global Hawk?

A very crusty old fighter pilot recently sent me an email in which he espoused the use of several of the "eight great lies". The five were: 1) "I'll respect you in the morning" 2) "I'll only put the head in" 3) "I promise I won't come in your mouth" 4) "Parts plus two hours" 5) "I'm not the regular crew chief" So, who can say what the missing three are? And do you have any of your own to contribute? I had heard "the cheque's in the post" was one, but I can't be sure... Ideas?

CH You dig topless black chicks, huh?

I see. But, with respect, I think you have missed the subtle nuance in the question Swingin asked. I don't think he was discussing the realities of who does and does not follow the GC, but rather the moral implications behind failing to recognise combatants held in Guantanamo as PWs. And he's perfectly correct that this may well have ramifications in the future that the US finds unpalatable...

If you are going to take to the world stage claiming the moral high ground, then it cannot matter how your enemies do or do not behave.

I don't know if anyone else has seen these, but they are incredible. They were taken mostly in 1942, before the days of auto focus and built in light meters, by a very talented photog . The quality of the Kodachrome transparencies is so good that it's hard to believe these images are almost 70 years old. Here's the Gallery And here's a couple of tasters:

There's a pretty good section in the recently-released 'A Passion for Flying', by Group Captain (ret.) Tom Eeles, RAF, that dovetails nicely with the TR-3 rumours. Eeles is a highly experienced fast jet pilot (read: credible). He recalls in his book that one night in the early 1990s he was awoken at 0100 hours on a Sunday morning by an unusual-sounding aircraft passing low over his house (located on the extended centrline at RAF Mildenhall. When he looked out of the window, he saw a large, triangular shaped aircraft and noted that noise it made was unlike anything he'd heard before. When Eeles called his RAF contact at Mildenhall the following day to enquire about the type of a/c he had seen, it turned out that the activity log for the entire weekend was blank - USAFE officials had said the field was closed and that nothing had been in or out after 1100 hours on Saturday. Eeles pushed the matter futher, explaining that he had seen something land in the early hours of Sunday morning; further investigation by his colleague amounted to nought and no answer was forthcoming. A short while later, he gets a call telling him to stop asking questions and keep his mouth shut. Interesting stuff.

Flare He and I exchanged a few PMs before he decided that I was a total knob. He explained that his participation at Baseops could be seen to conflict with unofficial work he did occasionally for the Air Force - the A-10 community would read him in on somehthing, get the benefit of his wisdom, then read him out of it. He mentioned that he was considering a full-time role working as a consultant on those special programmes. When he dissapeared, I surmised that this potential conflict ('never talk to the media' and the usual Rainman OPSEC) was the principle reason. I don't believe he had gone full-time as a consultant, but I can imagine that his ever-increasing profile here was something that may have contributed to his decision to move on. And for the record, Rainman still visits this site from time to time; he just doesn't post anymore.

In this country, the Labour government does whatever it wants, whenever it wants. The people can go whistle. We went to war in 2003 despite more than half the population saying we shouldn't; we banned hand guns because of one incident, but gun crime is on the increase because the criminals don't care about the law (duh!); contrary to most peoples' wishes, they passed a law to allow pubs to stay open 24-hours and now alcohol-related violent crime has increased (did someone say 'duh!'?); the list goes on...

I understand that his public participation here was not compatible with some of the consultancy work that he was doing for the Air Force.

I take it that there are no sustained negative and 0g restrictions in the Dash-1 that relate to that particular problem, then? If not, then they must have fixed it; it was the reason the Aggressors moved from the T-38 to the F-5E/F back in the day.

MD Does the T-38 still have a gear door delamination problem under negative G conditions?