Lawman

Ok… Couple points to make here because like so many things it’s been destroyed as a term and turned into something perversely not reality because OIF/OEF…. 24 hour ops… That does not mean continuous attack on all axis or more specifically 24 hours of continuous coverage by assets. Yes it is extremely beneficial if we can continue to make things go boom in an enemies support zone without rest, but reality is no force to include the ground force you guys exist to prepare the way for can maintain operation indefinitely. Munitions consumption would be extreme… You’d have aircraft and crews servicing targets of a lower priority vs taking a tactical pause in the cycle to prioritize and build robust packages so you can achieve greater effect against stuff higher up on the HPTL… This idea of “get big gun, go forward, reign hell” = effective CAS is just mind numbing from the perspective of the ground element you’re supposed to be supporting. I’ll say this out loud for the people in the back… We Can Kill Tanks! In fact we really don’t need that done for us because we are pretty damn good at it. And we can straight up murder BTR/BMP… What we can’t do, is set ground conditions favorable to the offense/defense to do that under rounds of artillery and heavy rocket fire. No you killing 3-4 armored vehicles advancing on line in a pass doesn’t make or break for effecting the fight, because by prioritizing assets and dollars to that fight you’ve ceded a point where you could have prevented it and the need to stop and dig in entirely! You guys want to talk about old Cold War tactics and requirements and why we needed Hawg and Apache to stem the armor, it wasn’t because of us it was because of our allies in the Fulda scenario. Penetration was talked about earlier (STS)…. There is the often quoted “855 rounds of artillery” from the Joint Firepower courts… Yeah thanks for reminding us that HE point detonating fuse 155 is the least effective way to engage tanks in the maneuver. We appreciate that….Well when the air delivered tank killing requirement was determined the primary tank gun in NATO armies was the rifled 105 L7. NATO acknowledged that across the board even Chieftain not adequate parity to what the Russians seemed to be developing as far as Armor. With the 105 you can kill plenty and deliver it very accurately. What you can’t do is reliably shoot in the face and kill a T-64/72 unless you use DU from within the effective range of their 125mm… So acknowledging that nobody wants to do that an on top of it most of our allies won’t use DU, that’s gonna be at problem. Enter the Reinmetal 120mm…. Well 73 Easting kind showed what that will do to a tank. Regardless though, Tanks aren’t the big problem for us. Tanks won’t produce the MASCAL event that will shape the battlefield and politics unfavorably for us. The Russians and armies modeled after it have fire support as their center of gravity, not armor. Kill his artillery, get into the support zone and eliminate that threat, and the ground force will deal with the Armor. If you can kill their fire support they lose their most effective enabler to attacking our ground force or resisting counter attack. And considering artillery assets will be further back and staged under more robust defense and ideally in their own revetments requiring more deliberate high angle targeting, suddenly the survivability argument presented earlier changes drastically. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

As one of the Gunships primary customers, that’s an epically retarded idea… And I could give you a list of ARSOA flight leads that would tell him that to his face. The J model AC and the EC are the single most effective enablers in the stack for a HAF. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes but will it be “Fully Acrobatic?” (Actually heard this asked in an FMS meeting on selling this to an ally) Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This thing is going to be critical as the ground mission keeps expanding in AFRICOM but being kept on a shoestring budget of actual assets. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Oh now he and others are upset by what a bunch of us were already telling them… https://apple.news/AD7zsvHxkS4a42WNVSFzHgg It’s like they didn’t care if you were a good ally or a bad ally, because you’re really just a useful idiot to them Adam. But hey thanks for the help in what the real goal of all this lending your name to justice was, setting up their long term campaign plan because they never actually cared about that. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I can guarantee you the ground side of this discussion just assumes air will be there and make their problems go away. They do not believe anything can stop aviation and act shocked as hell when suddenly the threat causes even a pause much less losses (reference the SA-6 launch in Syria last spring and resultant restrictions that went in place). I’ve routinely had to 3rd grade explain to a GFC who doesn’t want to apportion anything to SEAD, “No I can’t just kill the ADA… he’s designed to murder me. So I’m gonna need some of those big boom boom guns to make him at least put his head down for a minute.” Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So… what do you think the stock portfolios of certain in the know members gets of Congress looked like say 4 days ago… Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

From the Army side, we could not have maintained the constant deployed footing we did without the C-17…. Unless we had some sort of doubling of the 5’s we would never have been able to meet the movement requirement of width of cargo with the 141 or other platforms. The entire maintenance model for ARSOA is built around the fact we have a wide body stratair platform that can support a theatre requirement to move airframes back for major maintenance. Not arguing that everything is a trade off… but we would have been solidly F’d on numerous occasions without something fat wide and capable in between the 5 and 130. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I think a lot of our belief in the effectiveness of CAS is misconstrued by the success of what we can do with AirPower in COIN fights we’ve been in. Even in the opening phases of OIR we didn’t face the kind of threat systems out there, nor did we try and execute against an enemy that enjoyed camouflage and terrain advantage (because it’s the wide open desert). This scenario provides extremely limited opportunity to develop the situation and game plan with a ground force because you can’t risk the exposure and they don’t have the datalinks and 10 digit grids we’ve grown comfortably accustomed to. So if anything your limited ordnance would be best spent on trying to hit those HPTL items that the GMLRs can’t get to. That’s gonna require mission planning and support that probably doesn’t exist in any robust fashion on either side over there anymore. Either that or you keep them back as an augmentation to your ground fires hurling ordnance the way we’ve seen some of their aviation doing with toss bombing and massed rocket salvos…. Or you’re a permanent reserve to counter attack the Russians doing some sort of uncoordinated element thrust. Great.. we don’t need a Hawg to do that, I’m fact its probably a logistical intensive way to do that compared to other means. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Yes but unfortunately the baby of what we have allowed for a while it’s somehow in the last 20 years or so (really starting with WTO) become the acceptable and even fashionable form of protest. It used to just be called riots… then somewhere that word became too racially charged for polite company so we started labeling what was a riot in any other means with a word that should have been held more sacred. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

While simultaneously clutching their pearls as Kinzinger reads letters from loons and claiming the Republican Party is full of extremist terrorists and crap… These idiots don’t get it both ways. You can’t advocate for violence and threats and then be upset when it happens to your side. They and every other idiot saying “enough talk” or “you can’t reason with the other side” own this crap. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

“Make them uncomfortable” is a ridiculous perversion of the point of civil disobedience by some Instagram level wanna be revolutionary. It’s meant to mean force a society to be introspective in whether they really want to live “this way” because suddenly your employees stop showing up to work after they’ve been arrested doing things like sitting in a bus seat. Suddenly business owners and civic leaders with a voice from their position have skin in the game. Now you effect change. It is not beating in the doors and windows of a law maker or judge’s home or chasing them out of stores like we live in some god damned banana republic. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

“Europe isn’t racist against black people!” “Ok well you’ve clearly never been there, but also they are really busy focusing on the Turks.” Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

This time…. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

If it wasn’t for the massive hidden profit schemes and selective acceptance to a lot of the mitigation ideas, most of the argument for change made by climate activists could gain much wider marketability in how presented. You could sell it much better as wider species adaptation and resource husbandry. Something that is really necessary regardless of what the climate is doing as more people and countries gain wealth and industrialize. Instead it’s BS like “drive an electric car if you don’t want all the Seals and Pilar Bears to die!” Or what them wholesale sell the necessities of reducing carbon, and lobby for a massive movement of government money toward a given populist industry like wind power and simultaneously lambast any investment in Nuclear which generates far shorter timelines for effect at curbing carbon emission. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not really… For all the “it’s the death of Tanks” nonsense, there is nothing on the ground that can replicate or replace the Tank. More to the point, just because you are watch the Russians ignore the most basic tactics and make it easy for the defender doesn’t mean it’s a reasonable assumption to say tanks can’t attack an ATGM equipped defender. And while I’m sure somebody will bring up Israel in Lebanon getting a company of Merk’s torn up, a more thorough examination of that battle shows it was not something you can apply as a universal or even normal outcome to the match up of forces. Advanced ATGMs like Javelin didn’t do as much to make the tank go extinct as they allowed light/airborne/air assault infantry a capability to actually survive in the defense, which was something it didn’t organically possess before. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I watched a C-130 leave the Clark in the Philippines pretty much full of Yeti Coolers…. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

A little Humor in this fight… https://www.facebook.com/23305435/posts/10111839615901854/?d=n Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

First damn question in every Phil military interaction… “Have you had the Balut yet!?!” Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Considering the number of plans calling for ARSOAC and AFSOC to provide leverage of capes to PR the Air Force is realizing what it already knew 20 years ago when it tried to acquire 47s. The greatest LimFac to PR being provided by H-60s is the H-60. The second greatest being the 130 they need to drag with them to get anywhere useful in a fight against a foe with IADS and long range precision fires capability. That’s a reality to the challenge if you’re talking China, or going deep into a Middle Eastern country roughly 3-4 times the size of Iraq to pick up those 2 dudes in the middle of nowhere. With the timeline to Future Vertical Lift, the Air Force is likely doing exactly what the Marines did when they passed on E/F Hornets. They are gonna slug along with what they got, and let the big revolutionary change be the real procurement target vs spend a lot of money on a new but marginal capabilities improvement and then have to justify replacing “new helicopters” in a decade when there really is something better. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It’s funny given the level of OPSEC and secrecy the Israeli’s are known for, they were so willing to provide plenty of film footage for a bad 80s action movie. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Another up vote for Jon and his team at Trident… VA loan completed, from a deployed locations and outside the normal but not required 60 day move in from Close requirement. Great all around work by his team. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

It’ll be “personal” for them if they come through this feeling that unification through force is an acceptable option in Latvia or Estonia…. Only in that case this will be an open ended conflict with NATO. Yes there are risks in this course of action with regards to what will Vlad and his inner circle do from their perspective. That said we all know damn well what NATO and our forces will do should Iskanders start landing in Tallinn instead of Kyiv. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Especially when there is an internal push to start prioritizing certain Hornet E/F guys to SEAD/DEAD as an acknowledgment that it’s a highly skill intensive specialization and not something you can just generate on an ATO line. There is a reason we are simultaneously seeing news articles about how great the paring of 35C and 18G are as a strategic collections package, but also talk of just shitcanning a couple squadrons. It’s like your wife implying you how much more sex you’ll be having if you buy her this _____. It’s a trap. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Oh there is no doubt the Navy is setting up its position for the big budget pie share fight. They’re proposing this, retiring Nimitz, folding up all its Cruiser force in a matter of a few years (which form a big chunk of ABLM shield)… The Navy is selling the idea that it will have to hit its self because they’ve seen the proposed budgets. They can’t afford the replace the Ohios, build the ships they wanted to build, get the FFX to replace LCS, etc. They want the congressional reps that need those programs to argue to cut back on things the Air Force wants like modernized nuclear triad, less B-21s, etc. But don’t anybody suggest retiring the A10… that thing will be flying when we retire the 35 just because of nostalgia. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk