From the Great White Up:
Because of their sheer numbers, I have had the opportunity to work closely with U.S. forces on each of my deployments to Afghanistan. I know there are some Canadians who view the U.S. military and foreign policy with suspicion. But from my own experiences, I am wholeheartedly thankful to call them allies and brothers-in-arms…
At one point, after having done over a month of mostly uneventful convoys, we ran into a Taliban ambush a few hours outside of Kabul. It was a November evening with a light rain coming down and the ambush was a quick and dirty attack with small arms and rocket-propelled grenades.
As I called in the information on the radio, I was surprised to find out that U.S. planes were already on their way: two Apache attack helicopters and a B-52 bomber on call.
Now I know that was probably overkill and that the insurgents would be long gone before any coalition forces arrived on the scene, but it was reassuring to know that another nation cared enough about its allies to send their own people into harm’s way to help us.
Least we could do.
There’s no such thing. If you always bring a gun to a knife fight the other guy will eventually get discouraged and go home. And you won’t get stabbed much.
Too bad this guy won’t be on the Nightly News.
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3954204&c=AME&s=TOP
Looking like there may be slightly older and less capable air support in a go-forward posit. But we don’t need any more Super Hornets or F-22s cuz Afghani is gonna be the last use of military forces by The Peacemaker. Iran? North Korea? Clintonion Diplomacy will give away those stores so no need for this “overkill”. And all the Allies can go home all safe and snuggly like. Maybe. Not.
As I look at this, Joe, I think we are going to continue with a vision of “mission adapting” or “adapting the mission” according to some of the old conventional platforms of weapon system. I’m not saying everything, but there some good adaptations for specific situations. For example, the B-52H, deployed by mid 1961, the A-10 (1977), ugly as sin and about as forgiving as sin. “Hey,’Spooky’, we have some people who need a ‘radical attitude adjustment’. Could you assist?”
You get the picture. It changes the whole spirit of the theatre of operations.
Grumpy
Grumpy … If more of us had only voted for McCain, we might have had a chance to put these great weapons in the field on our side. And we might have had enough money to pay for them. Now I wonder who will get them first. You can be sure someone will.
Marianne
Yeah, but the problem is that we are now sending up young men to defend our country in planes that are twice or even 3 times older than they are. How long can a 48 year old plane be kept flying before it becomes cheaper to build a new one? And is that what you want to trust to carry nuclear weapons in?
Marianne, it doesn’t really matter who is in the “Oval Office”, there are no real choices. Either man would be facing the same challenges. I think we will be OK or better than the alternative. There is a great deal going on behind the scenes. I believe you have been around for a few years and have some history, possibly with a few grey hairs. I can’t talk, my hair is grey and white, what little I have, including my beard. You have the wisdom of years, use it, don’t believe everything you read.
RonF, some of the old weapon platforms are better for all of the missions. You ask, when does it become cheaper to build new? Did you consider the concept of replication of an old version? We can always use the new technologies, such as UAV. As you notice, my center focus is on the mission, not the technology. We are in a very complex world, any answer will be equally complex, no easy answers.
Grumpy
Grumpy, there have always been, and are, real choices made in the Oval Office. Not sure what history you have read that would lead you to think otherwise.
It is not only the person in the Oval Office that makes choices and influence events, it is also the people that the President places in high office.
Trying to find where on the Integrity Scale the Democratic Leaders are: Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Dodd, Franks, not looking so good.
Example: I’m SURE that OBH / Rahm Emanuel and their ilk want the Census under their control, for, like, the Good of the Country.
It does matter who is in the White House. It does matter who is in charge of the Senate. It does matter who is in charge of the House of Representatives.
Regards,
As long as we’re talking about things like the 52Hs being used as flying dump trucks, I advocated as far back as a young 1/lt in Vietnam the de-mothballing of the old B-36 to be used to roam around the countryside and drop as needed–day and night. Will haul a helluva lot more ordnance with a helluva lot more loiter time.
(And that was before GPS–makes even more sense now from the technology standpoint–of course you can only do that if you have the air superiority/supremacy the F-22 gives you–GOT to have those as well to make it work)
You’re welcome.
Loved the food at your DFAC, BTW.
Virgil, I always heard the the B-36 only landed when it was time for the crew to reenlist. I’ll have to check but I suspect that by the time things in Nam got sticky in the mid-to-late sixties most of that Peacemaker fleet had been scrapped. But you have a point – a few of them loitering with 80,000 lbs of bombs would have given the gomers reason to pause, I suspect.
Rivetjoint/
Yeah, my point is so logical that it got me 4 stars and promoted to Chief of Staff, right? Just color me an unappreciated SUPER GENIUS clone of Wylie E. (LOL)
BTW, we had an old B-36 Maj. Nav in my F-4 squadron in England. “Wanna know just how ‘sophisticated’ our techniques were in those days,” he said. “The main TGT I sat while in SAC was Beijing.” he informed this young Capt. fresh from DaNang, “and we simply drew a giant X (crosshairs) on the exact geographical center of the city with the appropriate airburst fusing for the old B-61Y3 city busters we had….. Just that complicated/simple.” LOL!!!
VX,
You’re going to have to remind me how many of our brave pilots and aviators have been gunned down by superior air superiority fighters in the last 30 years. Just let her rip and give me the bad news up front so I can assimilate the numbers, pity the pilots and regret their sacrifice.
Perhaps you meant to attribute all of those losses to GBADS which eat bombers for lunch. They’re an equal opportunity aircraft killer.
Curtis:
Guess the reason we’ve had such few losses is the same reason that thanks to the “Peace Is Our Profession” guys (GOD, As a TAC guy I never thought I’d say that) we never had a nuke war–the deterrence factor. The bad guys mostly don’t want to come out and play. Hell, Saddam’s AF ended up burying the damn things or flying them to Iran during Gulf I. Somehow I don’t think that would have happened if we had still been flying Sopwith Camels at the end of the 20th Century. The 15s, 16s and 18s were fine for Saddam, but not so sure about a decade down the road.
Trust me, I don’t think the 22 is the be all and end all to the exclusion of everything else–but I refuse to believe we can’t have both–especially as we are currently throwing around trillions we know not where worth of “stimulus.”
Sure, air superiority is the total pkg. Take away the 22′s–or the 18, 15s, 16s–and the support systems don’t mean much. Reverse the equation and the result is the same. Still, if the other guys leapfrog us with some combo of better electronics, airframes and support systems–tankers, SAMs, etc.,–we are going to be worse off rather than better w.o. the 22s. Now obviously if the thing’s so damned expensive you can afford only one, that doesn’t get you very far–but IMO we are reaching the point of diminishing returns in shoe-horning in improved electronics and hanging on better missiles/pods w.o. improving the airframe. What is REALLY dragging the 22 down is the damn 35 JSF. Let’s make THAT go away–but FAT CHANCE.
Curtis
I’m sure you know that our most challenging adversary today is not a Sukhoi or Chinese spin-off. It is time. Aircraft are designed for a limited number of flight hours, takeoffs, landings, etc. We’ve got helos with 6000 hr airframe design life flying into the 18-20,000 hr range. They are talking about extending Hornet airframe life. When you spare a program you calculate how many flt hrs per year, how many phases, how many SDLMs, and that all = $$$. Gets real expensive to support airframes manufactured 25 or more years ago- both in spares dollars and in human support costs. If I recall for the A-6 the figure was something like 50+ maintenance man-hours per flt hour when they left Atsugi.
Money aside, I hope our country – or our President – never has to begin a conversation with grieving parents with “we’re sorry we didn’t provide the best …”
Hey …the main point of this post ,as I understand it…was to pass on a heartfelt thank you from a greatful ally from the Great Whith North (alas… nary a mention of that in 14 comments) … such thank you’s are indeed rare and should be aknowledged … so from me to him… I say a heartfelt… your welcome. Best
PS, You Gomers are suffering from aircraft discussion tunnel vision demintia.
Heh, I’m glad to see that I wasn’t the only one who noticed that. I was thinking that it seemed like things got a bit sidetracked there.
Good point, Snake, Michelle. Mention things involving flying–even in passing–and were off and running. Occupational “hazard” I guess.
VX, I suppose it’s a reason…but hardly an excuse. Best
PS, Correction…Danger at comment # 9 above did say your welcome..thats some acknowledgement