Lawman

I have a 1 year old son... and plans are in the works to have another something in the coming years. If and when my son(s) or future daughter tells me he/she/they want(s) to join the Army and be like his dad.... I may hold them under water until they change their mind. Specifically if they intended to enlist in the Army so they can "earn their way" later on I would definitely water board my child until that mech/civil engineering degree looked like a better idea. Or I could just have the pull everything out of the garage and write down what was in it... then throw away the list and make them do it again. After a couple of incidents of that, they may understand exactly why not all the years of service their dad did is accurately represented in the plaques and pictures hanging in the "Me room." Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Meh, We're dropping multiple GBUs/Hellfires to kill a dude getting paid 200 dollars to dig a hole and bury HME. A GBU-10 for a MI series is probably a bargain by comparison. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Auto correct. You know what I meant.

On Clarks theme.... That needs to be the white paper somebody publishes. Give me a year long study evaluating the total cost of two scenarios. Scenario 1: the minimum participation, arm the "good guys," train and advise model of COIN. We are gonna be there, we are gonna stay there, let's not pretend it's gonna be a thankful job. Scenario 2: the kick his teeth and skull in shock and awe massive killing spree where we leave the bodies and burned out hilux's in the street throwing some money for rebuild on our way out like some businessman leaving an escorts hotel room. This model means no G.A.F. except to know we will have to come back in 10 years later. If they both result in the same thing, i.e. They keep their little holy war in the holy land, I'd like to see a real cost comparison between them. Cheaper model gets to be the "winning model," because God know we never seem to get to leave any of these places in reality.

This thread.... It's good to know the one universal in all branches of the military when it comes to aviation is reminding everybody how your selection was the right one and theirs was stupid.

The chemical strike Mosul shaping operation could have just as well been done with bombers out of CONUS or strike aircraft based well outside of theatre. Or for that matter non aircraft delivered fires (MLRS/Tomahawk/etc). It didn't require an A specific "all we do is CAS/interdiction" type airplane effects and capes, so it doesn't really move the needle for getting an A-10 specific replacement. Most importantly to the discussion of pushing live feeds... nothing about that strike involved a true dynamic targeting situation where a small element GFC had to make time sensitive decisions to give clearance that could have strategic after effects. There was no threat pressure or a ground element in danger. You don't have troops in maneuver to worry about danger close ranges or flying an ingress to avoid the 60mm mortars GTL. And the entire targeting process was built around getting pattern of life and acceptable CDE for the 3 letter driven strategic mission (whatever the hell that is this week) from you guessed it... ISR. Believe me I'd love to get people the hell out of my cockpit and go back to a system of trust in your crews training to do the right thing. But having participated in the targeting/decision process in a non centcom brush fire war... the decision process is so strategic risk driven over combat needs it's not going away. The danger you guys really risk if you don't get onboard with some of this tech is having what happened to a lot of Apache units in the gap between VUIT2 and MUMT. You get benched for the platform that has a rover code. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What about any of the fights we are in that you guys are calling the justification for low cost light strike resembles "overwhelming force?" Africa? The Philippines? Iraq/Afghanistan? If you need overwhelming force, or more specifically if our bosses even let us engage in a fight with overwhelming force the firepower on the ground and in the air will look like it did when we crossed the berm in 03. For that type of war the flight hour costs argument won't really matter because we get all our starters for that one. Anywhere else you aren't allowed overwhelming force. When you've got ground commanders pushing for lower and lower CDE and more importantly congress letting us do the same brush fire war with 1/8th the troops and 1/5th the money having a 21st century A-10 that does nothing but "CAS" all day every day isn't the solution. I put CAS in parenthesis because what you and I are doing isn't what that term was made for. There aren't lines of effort or a main effort to delegate that element too in coordinated planning. You aren't massing fires with combined armed maneuver to achieve an objective. We aren't worried about a company of BMPs counter attacking our infantry while they consolidate the objective. The requirement of making X-CAS on the ATO overlap like a bus schedule and having stuff in the air for whatever TIC comes up is nothing more than aerial QRF. But if you want the attention and more importantly the money that goes with it in this fight you had better get on board with the ability to be an ISR platform and cycle that feed into the decision process. There is a reason the Army keeps wanting to deploy Heavy Attack Recon squadrons over standard Attack battalions to Iraq. None of the ABs have gotten their grey eagle up and running yet and the ARS shows up with 12 Shadows (which they have) to give the GFC. Guess which one the powers that be keep asking for. The genie is out of the bottle on active feed TOC porn. The only way we are ever going to get off that crutch is going to be when we fight a real war against a real enemy who can either hard or soft kill our ability to conduct that link. Until then stamping your feet on the ground and screaming "get out of my cockpit!" Is just going to result in you being benched in favor of the platforms that can push. We fought that battle in the Apache... And we lost.

Aggressiveness is exactly what the GFC and 3 letter agencies driving these COIN wars don't want. It's more important to them to not kill the wrong people or do something with 2nd/3rd order effects than it is to find, identify, and prosecute targets. Tactical patience is the buzz word of the day. Not only that but overreaching the level of approval for "immediate" CAS is just a standard. Do you really think that Infantry Captain on the ground is empowered to make the decision? Short of some they're in the wire!" Battle of Wanat type scenario he/she has to call mom for permission. The second you accept that and can push feed the quicker that process becomes, especially in a War that lacks the constant TOC porn of PGSS balloons those senior commanders grew up depending on to make decisions. Real war, real CAS, real phase lines, real threat... That will not be an issue. But for COIN fight, you're an ISR platform whether you like it or not. Along with that, since we only seem to have more issue getting actual ISR because there are only so many to go around, you increase the legitimacy for the need if this low cost strike aircraft can do that job for the 97% of the time where it's just boring holes in the sky waiting for the 911 call.

You know... I hate myself for it a little, But "Shadow Fortress" sounds pretty damn cool. If not for a bomber than for the name of some Norwegian Metal band. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well done Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Agreed IG and ICE. Both of those get civilian run departments full of check the box answer green/blue suiters off their ass in a hurry. Go ugly early to avoid the run around of "we can't make that decision/approval without..." complaints to IG or ICE get the person that is authorized to make that decision on the phone because it's not Airmen/Specialist Snuffy that has to just ignore the fire anymore. My personal rule is if the person in talking to has spent less time in the military than the number of stripes on their sleeve (IE anybody but an NCOIC or OIC) I'm going up the chain immediately to that person when I get anything but a "yes sir" to correcting problems. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I wonder if you could do with the Hawk what the Navy did with the A-4s with the big hot rod motor. It wasn't after-burning, but it allowed that plane to be a perfectly good ACM training adversary. If possible that seems like it would make the Hawk the low risk option for a trainer since they already have a logistics system in place in the US. Won't help Boeing or Lockheed maintain market stock prices or constituency jobs though so that's probably out. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Completely on the ground of aesthetics.... They screwed up not locking the tails in a neutral position. Doesn't really mean anything to people familiar with aircraft but from a showmanship standpoint it dirties up that "going fast while standing still" look that a marketing department would be wanting to push. Sorta the same reason you park airplanes with missiles and cool stuff not just wing tanks hanging all over them at arms fairs. It appeals to subconscious elements in potential customers. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There's a reason we paint all our TH helos Orange and White. Even then it's still like talking to retards some days trying to get a guy to spot traffic.

That's some cool stuff right there. Kinda reminds me of the early mothership fighter concepts that were tried in the early days of the Cold War. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They'll die off in the first few weeks. Without a lot of gas saved for this exact reason you won't get out of the region of the US where you need water, food , and arguably AC available just to survive. What's left down there will consume it's self for survival. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree I just don't think we will have the capability or in a lot of ways the focus to operate as a National Military. I think what you are more likely to see is some sort of marriage of small units and regionally defined commands so that we function as more a modern version of the colonial militias of old. Something like a basic formation of regional government combined with a military functioning on the idea of a police/stability role. That's gonna eat all or most of the combat power leaving any kind of "North vs South" function woefully under supported. If anything something like this might be what leads to a reset of States Rights. Without an outside threat of say a China or Russia rolling in to conquer the fractured whole I doubt any regional group would want to spend precious resources to try and unify and support areas around the country. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hey I can tell you right now, I love my country.... But when the day comes where I've gotta pick between supporting a government I can't even see/didn't elect/etc while my kid(s) go hungry and my wife is sitting in the house day by day hoping this isn't the day some band of raiders/criminals pick my neighborhood to rape and pillage.... Sorry but I've got places and people that need me.

I think it would be a lot like exercises where they randomly kill key leaders to see you function.... Ok let's do that with logistics and communications too. My guess is it would lead to a reevaluation on what we are allowed to keep "on hand" since having stuff you have to pull forward to then meet your OR rate works great in peacetime. At the same time I think a lot of commanders would fail to take a good hard look at maintaining a sustaibable OR status and would push stuff out early in a furious "get after it" approach which would piss away combat power they are gonna need latter. Now the unit is on its ass, the situation is deteriorating, it's not clear who is giving orders, and Joe has not been paid or heard from his family (or has and it's bad). Cases of MREs are gone, trucks aren't in the motor pool, and the Armory is suddenly sans a lot of rifles and ammo.... "1SG we need an accountability of our people and equipment!.... 1SG?" It would be an interesting study to see that's for sure. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think a large part that is missed in this theorized scenario... How long before the Military command structure (like the civilian one) and more importantly the support structures completely fractures. Personally I see a lot of mass defections with government property going on in a real post major break up of the country. Especially if it has to do wi a mass attack/crises like some EMP knocking out the power or terror strike that beheads the government resulting in regional fracturing. People are gonna stop getting paid. Some may be doing this for God and country and all but a lot of troopers, airmen, etc are not going to go marching into work to fix he strategic problems when civil disorder abounds and they can't get money to buy diapers and groceries. I think you'll see stuff in the Armories that can be carried off by hand disappearing quick, and the bigger stuff breaking down fast and being left where it sits for lack of logistics. Essentially our military capability would look like a lot of our 3rd/2nd world partners who buy nice stuff but can't seem to keep it running.

Looked like a hull strike or a hit on the track and drive wheel assembly themselves. No massive cook off since the spall and penetration would have been concentrated in the hull and not the turret ammo storage. All that fire is constant and save for one small secondary which since it didn't shoot straight up in a concentrated stream appeared to be something mounted or stored outside. Fire rapidly looses intensity probably fuel storage mounted on the outside hull for extended field ops. If it did hit drive wheels or power pack that'll eat a lot of the explosive effect since it's now effectively having to penetrate layered metals dissipating/misdirecting the chemical form penetrator. Probably why 2 crew members survived. All of Turkeys tanks are Western style builds (US M series and Leo types). No doubt had that been a Soviet build T series that would have been a whole lot worse and more spectacular since all the rounds sit down in the bottom of the hull. Definitely a firepower kill but not nearly as catastrophic as some of the TOW/HF vs T-72 kills from desert storm. Either way, don't park a tank exposed and stationary on the front slope of a terrain feature in full view of an anti tank team. That's just asking for them to try it. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That place really is trying to be the Portland of the South.

I know armed Mohawks in Vietnam were basically the "let congress sort it out" reason for the Key West fights that ended armed Army fixed wing for the next 3 decades. It's a great plane from talking to old guys that worked with it. Stupidly simple and using the same engines as the Huey when they were literally everywhere so parts were easy. I could see it being an easy plane for a lot of our partner nations to keep and feed but they haven't been used in nearly 30 years so they aren't like the Bronco or others that enjoyed a life after the US military. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's funny that singular argument of a scenario is used as a justification for a line of funding COA and usually ignores the exact same logic with the 5th gen argument of "what do you do for CAS in an SA-2X environment." If we are planning for every contingency and money is no object, hey great let's have all the airplanes. We unfortunately don't/can't live in that world though so 80-90% solutions have to be adopted with leaders who have the understanding and forethought that they leverage their operations to stay inside that 80-90% as best they are able.

You aren't the only means for fires out there. TTPs and mission criteria on the ground can and do evolve. Nobody is saying you can completely take the fighters or rotary wing CAS out of the Coin fight, but doing something like this takes the pain and suffering out of those communities of participating in that 99% of the time where they legitimately don't need to be there. If you can get away with 3-4 Hawgs or Viper where we used to need whole squadrons because the stacks are much more self sufficient it'll still be bigger savings than trying to add what is essentially a less effective (TOS/speed/armament/etc) lower cost airplane where you still have 3-4+ aircraft where you could get away with 1-2 almost all of the time. And I get it the Hawg guys keep leveraging that card of "what about if" with weather eyc, but to get down that low you are well into the RW envelope anyway. And if we can get out of wasting time in stacks that don't need is we can be more places when called. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk