Credo
"Sign on, young man, and sail with me. The stature of our homeland is no more than the measure of ourselves. Our job is to keep her free. Our will is to keep the torch of freedom burning for all. To this solemn purpose we call on the young, the brave, the strong, and the free. Heed my call, Come to the sea. Come Sail with me." -- John Paul Jones
"Pardon him, Theodotus; he is a barbarian, and thinks that the customs of his tribe and island are the laws of nature" --George Bernard Shaw, "Caesar and Cleopatra"
"And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music."--Friedrich Nietzsche
"A kind Providence has placed in our breasts a hatred of the unjust and cruel, in order that we may preserve ourselves from cruelty and injustice. They who bear cruelty, are accomplices in it. The pretended gentleness which excludes that charitable rancour, produces an indifference which is half an approbation. They never will love where they ought to love, who do not hate where they ought to hate."--Edmund Burke
“You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours.”--General Sir Charles Napier
"Μολὼν λαβέ" -- Leonidas
"Blogito Ergo Sum" -- Neptunus Lex
Well, it can fly off of a carrier, which is what makes it really useful.
All I see is a buncha letters. I’ll have to sit down and dissect that when have more time.
And patience.
Which, knowing me and my red-headed tendencies, might take a while.
Lex,
Actually, the important variable in any such equation is the Naval Aviator, which, when expressed as (NA), increases the viability of any system by an order of magnitude amplified by the seniority of the NA plus the availability of quality alcohol, bodacious babes and rock&roll.
Thus, (any system) X (NA+AA+BB+RR) = Godzot-based pain upon the selected target.
respects,
Ow! My head hurts.
Like HFS, maybe I’ll come back to it later… maybe not.
Oh, so THAT’S what happened to the YF-17. Friggin’ Air Force castoff. I’m just sayin’…
DH 98 Mosquito FBVI
Cheers
Better than a K-ship from a ZP squadron, I guess.
What class are you currently taking, again?
So, to sum, “If we can see it we can kill it. And we’re bringing a whole six-pack of whup-all.”
Lex, did ya ever stop to wonder if the ground-pounders ever had the same kind of confidence a well-trained naval aviator has in that regard?
I mean, I’m no slouch with a rifle but even I draw the line at shooting still game of the larger variety at about 400 yards in perfect conditions. Even a hint of movement, or poor weather, and that drops to 200 yards. Running shots just don’t happen — I don’t need meat bad enough to cripple an animal.
Were I shooting at an enemy I suppose 600 yards would be my maximum in perfect conditions — I don’t mind him being wounded or just nicked, but beyond that I’m just giving my position away. And I’m probably not going to kill him, best I can hope for is to get him out of the fight.
Yet you aviators sit five miles above the earth, target with sub-MOA precision, and can sight-shoot-and-scoot at speeds that only a half-century ago were beyond comprehension. If you can see it, you can kill it. Missiles may fly and flak may rain, Gomer may spray a few rounds in your general direction, but it’s a big sky and you’ve a few tricks up your sleeve too.
That’s sort of, you know, confidence-inspiring. I suspect it’s sort of demoralizing to some guy in a robe with an AK-47 trying to hide behind a rock or under a scrub brush when he hears that jet. He knows he’s only hearing it because you hadn’t seen him. That time. He probably thinks you’re a coward, flying around outside his reach and jabbing from outside his range. But that’s what jealously does to people.
And I thank God you, you esteemed few, are on our side.
– Max
Neat! Kind of aggressive looking, though. Do they make any in pink or teddybear blue?
Yes, but could you deer hunt with a strafe pass, JDAM or LGB?
ELP, that’s why God created Rockeye.
Ummmm… said what?
Mind. Can’t. Decipher. Migraine forthcoming.
Max,
FWIW, the effective range of the M-16 is 300 yards. In fact, every rifle with iron sights has an effective range of 300 yards.
The limitation is based upon the human eye, NOT the weapon itself. Up to 300 yards a normal human can still detect and engage a single target. Beyond that, you begin to require optics to remain effective.
Now, by effective, I mean the ability to engage with accuracy and a siginificant chance to hit the target. certainly weapons can reach out and touch someone beyond those ranges, and certainly some individuals will have much better eyesight than others, etc.
For example, the M1861 Sprongfield rifle-musket can penetrate 3.5 inches of seasoned white pine at 1000 yards. THAT’S impressive, but it’s only EFFECTIVE out to 300 yards. Beyond that, volley fire was used to increase the odds of hitting by increasing the number of rounds downrange towards the mass of the target. Like a shotgun.
Respects,
Tim,
I’m not sure how you would define “effective” but every Marine is required to fire the service rifle annually for requalification at ranges up to 500 yards. I know a vast number of Marines who regularly shoot “possibles” at that range. That’s ten out of ten rounds all in the X ring.
You might not find that “effective” but it will kill you deader than a run-over rattler every time.
But is always needs a tanker….and soon.
Oh and by the way, the F-14 D could do all of those things and in a much more elegant way with a 2 man crew. For that matter so could the F-18 F.
Give it up. Your excitment, like mine will be found else where. Yours will come from aerobatics over the california coast; mine wil come from the sights to to be seen on Jaffe road in Wanchai……..
They ar both exciting, just not as much fun as running down a Bear-F …working together. Your bogie is 044 at 80 miles…expedite! Now that’s what fun is!
Your bogie is 044 at 80 miles…expedite! Now that’s what fun is!
Is that BRA or BULL? You need to go back to school there KoHi.
Nose, I’d say it’s definately a BRA…but then again I’ve always been partial to BRAs … that said …suggest you air gomers knock of the fly-boy frat party … you’re scaring the Lex Babes. Best
AW1 Tim – Sorry, I have to disagree with you… the max effective range for an M16A2 is 550 meters for a point target and 800 meters for an area target. (per FM3-22.9) The weakness is not the sights, it’s the ammo. With match ammo it’s accurate out to 1000 yds, although that wouldn’t be practical in the field due to the amount of adjustment necessary on the sights. The Army only qualifies out to 300 meters normally, but the Marines go out to 500. My wife just took “high woman” at the Arizona State High Power Championships with a service rifle (AR-15, actually) out to 600 yards. Sadly, I had something of a train wreck but thats another story… While you’re no doubt safe from us National Guard types, I suggest you not pi$$ off a Marine marksman and think you’re safe at 400 yards.
…and how many miles can it go before it starts looking for an available gas station?
Marine6,
Oh, I agree with your assesment of training. My comments are based upon US Army studies from 1855 up to the present that almost universally show an effective range for small arms of 300 meters in combat conditions.
Certainly firearms from the first percussion rifle up through the M16A2 can sling lead in excess of a mile, and with optics and training can extend the kill zone farther into the beaten zone.
I’m not saying that Marines, or anyone else can’t reach out and smack comebody at 500 meters. However, there is, as we all know, a significant difference between the range and the front line, between sillouette targets and a moving adversary who is also returning fire.
respects,
For those of you wanting a Rosetta Stone, I’ll take the liberty to throw my $0.02 in:
Lot XV: Aircraft can be upgraded, same as with computers. One lot may give the aircraft the ability to employ a new weapon, another may replace obsolete equipment with modern gear. What explicity goes into a Lot XV upgrade (other than what OHS illustrates), I don’t know.
AIM-120: Medium-range Air-to-Air missile. Replaced the old AIM-7 Sparrow, which required the aircraft to maintain a radar lock on the target until the missile hit. That gives the enemy’s wingman the chance to smack you while your busy getting the Sparrow where you want it to go. Once you tell the AIM-120 which aircraft to attack, it does what it needs to on its own; this is often referred to as “fire and forget.” This allows the aircrew to fire at one bad guy and then immediately convince his wingman that he really doesn’t want to be there, either.
AIM-9X: Latest version of the AIM-9 Sidewinder, a short range air-to-air missile that is just one step farther out from the “knife fight in a phone booth.” This version gives the aircraft the ability to shoot at bad guys who are not in front.
Helmet Mounted Sight: Instead of the Head-Up-Display being on a window atop the instrument panel, it is put on the aircrew’s visor, so as to allow them to look over their shoulder at aircraft while still seeing airspeed, altitude, targeting info, etc. If you’ve seen Nick Cage’s Army move Firebirds, you’ve seen the basics. The only difference is that if you shoot at someone over your shoulder, the AIM-9x launches straight ahead and then does a bat-turn to run the bad guy down.
GPS-AINS: Navigation system. Combines a nav system allowing the aircraft to know where it is without any contact with the outside world with a GPS nav system.
ATFLIR: Combined Infrared (heat) sensor and TV camera to allow visual targeting in low-light/no-light conditions. Also has a laser to provide targeting for laser guided bombs (LGB).
JDAM: Joint Direct Attack Munition. Modern bomb; also why you don’t want engineers naming ordnance (and I are one)
Rockeye: Crowd pleaser. Drop one bomb, it splits into many, rains on the parade for tanks, artillery, infantry. Much more personable name than JDAM (q.v.)
Hope this helps.
Bruce Jones;
Thanks for that. Really!
OK, I’ll take the bait. It always comes down to the same thing dammit…
Goods- Great nav system, great wep system decent EO/IR. My analysis shows SNIPR with XTR is better than AT-FLIR-measurably.
Others- Only problem with it, despite the improved engines (LqOL), is that, unrefueled by USAF big wing tankers , it only has a combat radius of what, 225-250 nm if that?
Basically, to echo Skippy, not quite deep strike capable, even by attack helo standards.
b2
All this talk of aircraft and rifles is fascinating, but I’m still kinda curious what spurred OHS to make his assertion in the first place. I know it’s a blog, but it still strikes me as a non sequiter. Did I miss a related comment on another thread?
The JHMCS sounds pretty neat. The idea of being able to look over your shoulder and still be able to see attitude, airspeed, and such…
Jim C
Bruce ~ you are my HERO!
I was gonna write, “But, did they make the fuel tanks bigger?”
I see that that question has already been addressed, so I won’t do that.
Tim, I do agree to a large extent. With my eyes iron sights have a maximum effective range of the driveway, and even scoped there’s enough variance in ammunition, weapon, ambient conditions, and the like to make 300 yards effective a good all-around distance. No argument there.
However, I was trying to focus more on how advanced aviation has become at delivering ordinance on target than it has in the infantry, or any other branch for that matter. The rifle hasn’t been much improved in the past 100 years, there having been only one John Moses Browning in all that time. Yet aviation has gone from guys in biplanes dropping grenades to the subject matter at hand.
Historically, this has not been the case until an ultimate weapon overcame the technology capable of defending against it. The flint rock was stopped with quilted clothing, the bronze sword with bronze armor, the steel sword with chain mail, the longbow with chain mail over quilted linen, until finally the bullet with kevlar.
Absolutely none of that helps against modern air assets and their weapons.
To top it off, the weapons used by soldiers haven’t advanced that much either. Sword, bow, musket, rifle… And that’s pretty much where they sit today.
It is a decidedly poor point in history to be an infantryman with a rifle against a man flying the aircraft. I was hoping for a few thoughts on that.
– Max
Like the oft-referred-to dog, we develop and produce airborne weapon systems not so much from a real need, but mostly just because “we can”…regardless of their expense or utility. That and because these systems are sexy and perpetuate the military-industrial complex.
As lex so aptly portrays in his later “Things I won’t so much miss” post, the need for exotic machinery seems to trump the greater need for basic but essential manpower (aka warriors). The fact too often ignored is that manpower and boots win wars, not some excessively expensive and mostly irrelevant high-tech airborne machinery.
Because of our expensive, overwhelming, and perennial air superiority, no ground-pounder has ever been attacked by enemy aircraft since Korea. But we still lost in Vietnam. While potential aerial threats are obviously growing somewhat in certain countries, why are we wasting precious defense dollars on exotic airborne machinery that far exceeds any potential threat or need, and are short-changing our current and basic, warfighting capability – those whom win wars…. Ground-pounders?
I know why. And the answer is unacceptable to me…as it should be to most all.
Fliter,
You seem to be missing the point, the doctrine of American air power is that we maintain the ability to completely and utterly dominate any air force that threatens us. This means simply that “good enough” is not. It is not acceptable to the American fighter community to maintain losses of 1-1 or even 5-1 in combat. The more of them we shoot down before losing one of our own the better. The more we spend as a country on R&D and upgrades the less we spend on new aircraft, fuel, ordinance, and coffins. For this reason the US constantly strives to push the envelope in fighter technology.
In terms of WVR engagements this however is not the case. Russia beat us to the development of newer better close range weapon systems, and the utilization of HOBS. Right now in WVR engagements we would lose and have lost (Cope India).
Fortunately thanks to the “exotic airborne machinery” that our “wasted precious defense dollars” have purchased (F-22 and F-35) we maintain superiority in the fights that really matter now. Thank God for the military industrial complex.
The Strike Fighter,” Cures All That Ails Yah” paradigm is beginning to remind me ever so much of Flatland….
My pleasure.
And HFS? I bet you say that to all the GIBs (Guys In Back) ICSWAFTH
Fliterman, I question your assumptions. Send in two million boots without arms against a small Marine batallion. Tell me who wins that wargame, but I’m guessing it’s not the boots.
Send one million armed soldiers against that same batallion and you migh have a point, but you didn’t specify that now did ya?
The fact of the matter is we use technology to overcome our weakness in numbers, because last I heard the Chinese and Indians and pretty much everybody else had numbers on their side. We have technology that allows a strike pilot to drop ordinance and hit within meters, so we counters their numbers with precision.
There is a reason no ground-pounder of ours has been attacked by enemy aircraft since Korea. That is because no enemy air force has been able to compete in the skies against us.
I’m not a ground-pounder, but from my armchair that would seem to me to be a Good Thing. Might even be worh a few of those holy dollars that we would have otherwise spent solely on widows, orphans, and the like.
Now don’t get me wrong — were I not married I’d be all fired up to make another series of cannon fodder wearing boots, doing so for God and Country as it were, and hopefully with Nice Girls with doting parents who still understand what a dowry is.
Unfortunately, our birth rate is dropping and with fewer numbers we can’t
As I was saying before I was so rudely interrupted…
Unfortunately, our birth rate is dropping and with fewer numbers we simpl don’t have the people to win in a boots-on-boots clash.
Guess we’ll have to find another method if we want to prevail.
— Max
Yeah, but, to quote Ian Hogg (he was talking about mortars, IIRC),
“Please, Sir, could we have a little more range?”