Comments on: “You’re Grounded for Life, Mister!”

By: Vercingetorix

Vercingetorix — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 03:33:56 +0000

Cole, if your military plan is to avoid war, versus fight it, man, that’s just a bad, bad idea. Granted, we should not be PURSUING war with China, but they are no bigger threat than the USSR and we still maintained a much more aggressive defense budget with them. We have a 10 trillion dollar/year economy. We’re talking about 100’s of billions of dollars over almost a decade, proportionally equal to the initial expenditure for the F-15 program. It costs more because it is a more powerful weapon system.
And the F-22 doesn’t just replace the F-15, it basically replaces the F-117 as well, which is another legacy airframe rapidly losing effectiveness. Has someone just neutralized stealth while I have been sleeping? We need these aircraft, they are fantastic and AND they are already in production.
You want to spend that money on WIC or Pell grants or body armor or Masadas for the grunts, great, good for you, but defense programs are geared for the next war, not the last. If we have an advantage, protect it. Parity is garbage.

By: Vercingetorix

Vercingetorix — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 23:51:14 +0000

Cole, your counter proves ADyer’s point, not your own. We had to invade another country and spend years in war to figure out a COIN strategy that works. Some lessons from Iraq are universal, many are not. We may or may not be able to reproduce it at will.
So your point that we should invest every lawless region or terrorist breeding ground and apply COIN is fanciful at best. An Iraq is a once every generation type of thing.
So the air strike will be a major tool for the foreseeable future. Indeed, it is one of the reasons that we have 4000 dead, not tens of thousands.

By: Cole

Cole — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 23:36:36 +0000

ADyer,
Hope you are joking. The success of the surge and gains made by practicing COIN in Iraq would go out the window if we did as you suggest. Can you say Anbar Snoozing or more appropriately, a return to the grasp of Al Qaeda.
We could get into the ethics of firebombing German and Japanese cities. Could use it and the Blitz as examples that bombs don’t win wars, along with a whole bunch of other historical examples. Yeah nukes worked in Japan…but it’s different when both side have them.
But let’s just stick with the fact that we’ve finally seen the light and realize that it does not help your cause to harm innocent civilians, infrastructure if avoidable, and religious/medical/cultural sites.
Not sure what the 40,000 lbs of bombs dropped yesterday accomplished, but I’m confident that their targets were carefully planned to minimize collateral damage.
I would argue instead of the CBU-58, the Air Force has seen the light with the Small Diameter Bomb. Although perhaps they used the former yesterday if the intent was to burn down orchards where insurgents might be hiding or where caches/IEDs were buried. That was impressive with the few aircraft used. The B-1 is a beast.

By: DC2 Jennings

DC2 Jennings — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 22:53:27 +0000

Cole,
How many tanks does it take to defeat an insurgent with an AK-47?
We have new build H-60s, H-47s, and AH-64s coming off the line every day. Not so for the F-15.
DC2

By: Rip

Rip — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 21:45:45 +0000

ADyer.….
Ah! Indeed, that’s why God made the CBU-58.

By: ADyer

ADyer — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 21:13:22 +0000

It’s a testament to their shortsightedness that so many people argue that building fighters is needless due to paucity of air to air combat in recent years. We aren’t challenged in air to air combat because we have maintained such dominance that our enemies usually just don’t bother trying. If we allow that dominance to lapse, our enemies will take advantage of it.
The same short sighted people who argue against building fighters seem to be the same folks who get upset over our casualty rate in the current war, despite the fact that we are losing soldiers at a historically unprecedented low rate. A marine at Iwo Jima, or an airman in the 8th air Force, not to mention an infantryman at Antietam, would happily trade for even the most hazardous position in Iraq. Ironically, allowing our air dominance to lapse would put our current loss rate in perspective by demonstrating just how bad things can be. Airplanes are surprisingly good at making things on the ground disintegrate, especially when piloted by people who don’t give a rat’s ass about collateral damage.
Which brings me to my next point. Part of the reason why air power seems less important than it used to be is that our self imposed rules of engagement have limited our ability to leverage it in effective ways. The fact is we go to a lot of trouble to deal with problems in a sensitive matter when we could, with far less expense, simply annihilate the problem from the air. Unfortunately a misguided sense of compassion prevents us from waging that kind of war any more, despite the fact that it was extremely effective in World War II and the fact that our enemies would jump at the chance to do it to us.
Is it mean to use our air force to pummel an enemy into submission? Hell yes, but war is a mean thing. Perhaps if the consequences of attacking the US or supporting said attackers were massive retaliation that left one’s military and industrial capabilities utterly smashed, those people would be less apt to initiate a conflict. Our current hyper sensitive system rewards the enemy for intentionally putting civilians at risk. Why bother building an air force when you can just put your missile factory inside an orphanage? Good bet the US won’t attack the factory from the air, and even if they do you just go to the international media and make a big stink over excessive force and civilian casualties, which the US will take to heart rather than ignoring as it generally should.
Which brings us back to short sightedness. Honestly, how many lives are really saved by doing the feel good thing and sending in our ground forces when you factor in the negative hit to our deterrent factor? How many battles will we have that we could have avoided if our enemies were actually scared that we would use the full might of our military forces against them?

By: Cole

Cole — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 20:40:38 +0000

DC2,
I mentioned that about 20 had yet to be inspected, implying that some of them may be flyable as well…say about 8? Today it is 19 (6th paragraph down)uninspected aircraft:
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ga1mSJGW4BfFiO6Dn01Hd4hwusSgD8U35FTO0
I like this article where when it says it would cost about $500K to repair each aircraft, Loren Thompson quips that something else might break…implying we should spend $160 million each instead.
That is kind of like buying a new $24K car because you don’t want to make a $75 repair. Geez, that is a 320:1 expense ratio. How hard is it to fly air-to-air against an airliner or Bear bomber, ;)

By: Drew

Drew — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 20:17:18 +0000

Air Combat Command clears selected F-15s for flight
Link:http://www.defencetalk.com/news/publish/airforce/Air_Combat_Command_clears_selected_F-15s_for_flight100014745.php

By: DC2 Jennings

DC2 Jennings — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 19:58:42 +0000

Actually a news article at military.com indicates that the F-15 has now been cleared. Well, with the exception of the 160+ that failed inspection.
But apparently we can repair those pretty cheaply according to someone’s post. Of course another poster said that only 20 aircraft failed inspection.
DC2

By: Cranky Observer

Cranky Observer — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 19:45:44 +0000

> I live here in St. Louis MO, on my way to work
> today I saw 2 F-15’s screaming out of Lambert
> International almost full burners on. Couldn’t
> tell the specific model because I was doing mach 1
> on the highway myself but aren’t all versions for
> Air Nation Guard grounded?
Most likely F-15Ks for the Korea order.
Cranky