sci.military.naval - 25 new messages in 6 topics - digest
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.military.naval?hl=en
sci.military.naval@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Israeli submarine sails Suez canal - 20 messages, 7 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.military.naval/t/b5ff117c46b556dc?hl=en
* "Premier U.S. Fighter Jet Has Major Shortcomings F-22's" - 1 messages, 1
author
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.military.naval/t/450fd332b1e79983?hl=en
* the good ol days in the Navy... - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.military.naval/t/a906b50859eebb9e?hl=en
* Franklin Expedition search called off - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.military.naval/t/2d8660c193ef77da?hl=en
* Toy Catalog: Aircraft carrier and Spy set - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.military.naval/t/c67b11d75a311a4b?hl=en
* Updated Issue Regulations:The Purple Heart Medal - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.military.naval/t/cf7967128f38a118?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Israeli submarine sails Suez canal
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.military.naval/t/b5ff117c46b556dc?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 20 ==
Date: Fri, Jul 10 2009 6:48 am
From: Andre Lieven
On Jul 10, 4:24 am, Alan Lothian <alanloth...@mac.com> wrote:
> In article
> <2826fae9-e1ad-4f6f-bd14-60931e1aa...@b15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> <snippaggio>
>
> > Air Forces back then couldn't conquer enemy nations.
>
> You mean they can now?
See "Bosnia". Note that "conquer" doesn't quite mean "empire" in
the classical sense any more.
One can also point out that the air war in Desert Storm went on for
40ish days, which made the land war so *relatively* doable, that the
latter only took 100 hours.
Andre
== 2 of 20 ==
Date: Fri, Jul 10 2009 6:58 am
From: Andre Lieven
On Jul 10, 4:58 am, Alan Lothian <alanloth...@mac.com> wrote:
> In article
> <a9c5bd93-7eef-4d2e-804a-a1d183c2e...@b15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> <snippaggio, except on points of disagreement>
>
> > > Which had about, at best, 20 mins endurance over the fighting area.
>
> > The RAF fighters didn't have been endurance; It's only that they were
> > fighting over their own soil that made that difference.
>
> Fighter Command was designed, led, brought-up-from-birth with the
> purpose of defending British airspace. Which led to later problems, as
> you are about to point out:
So ? The Luftwaffe was designed for one purpose, and the RAF for
a different one. But, the fact remains that the bulk of the Luftwaffe
fighter force was superior to the bulk of the RAF fighter force.
> > Not a lot of Spits or Hurris got used to escort B-17s over Berlin...
>
> True enough, but almost a corollary of my previous point. And it took
> until 1944 to get P-51s and P-47s up to snuff for that particular job.
Once again, not relevant to my actual point.
> > > World's most aggressive airforce strikes world's best defended
> > > airspace. Hurricane pilots, interestingly, were quite vexed by what
> > > they considered "Spitfire snobbery": any shot-down German claimed to
> > > have been the victim of a Spit. Big thuggish fabric-covered
> > > steel-framed easy-to-maintain rock-solid gunplatform Hurricanes paid
> > > their way.
>
> > They did, but more as anti bomber aircraft, than mix it up with the
> > enemy fighter aircraft.
>
> That was the theory, certainly, but a masterplan that was frequently
> confounded by enemy action. Spits take the fighters, Hurris the
> bombers... but we only have 11 Hurris on this interception, and...
> cue fabled FIghter Command radio intercept: "Skipper, haven't you seen
> them?" "Of course I've f-f-f-ucking seen the f-f-f-fucking f-f-fuckers.
> I'm j-j-ust trying to w-w-w-ork out what the f-f-f-uck to do."
Also not relevant to my point.
> > > > So, right there, Germany was ahead in technology fielded to it's
> > > > units.
>
> > > For the wrong war.
>
> > That's a different issue. An Ipod would not be useful as a weapon in
> > 1940, but it IS superior technology to anything comparable in 1940.
>
> Arguably a better parallel would have been devoting huge resources to
> producing iPods when something a little less supercool would have been
> much more useful. M-1s to all troops today are worth a lot more than a
> superb automatic rifle available all-round in five years' time. Didn't
> take Alexei Kalashnikov too long to work that one out.
Which alters nothing of the fact that the Ipod is still
technologically
superior.
> > > V-2 (or as we old space cadets prefer, A-4)
>
> > > fabulously expensive (including tech people, a shrinking resource given
> > > Wehrmacht conscription policies) way of inaccurately delivering about a
> > > ton of explosives with a range of roughly 200 klicks. Waste of
> > > everything. V-1 much smarter idea, but not cool enough to appeal to
> > > Jew-murderer-in-chief Adolf and his gangster pals.
>
> > Once again, that's a different issue. As a matter of the level of
> > technology,
> > it was in advance of anything that any other power had in that field.
>
> Indeed it was, hence all those early space race jokes about our/your
> German scientists are better than yours/ours. Still a colossal waste of
> resources. "Sir, sir, the Allies are wiping out our oil resources with
> primitive bombers!" "Never fear, Sturmbannfuehrer, our secret weapon
> has just taken out a street in West London." (Chiswick, by the way, and
> it was only a couple of houses.)
Once again, nothing to do with the actual point of which is the higher
technology.
You are trying to refute the issue of which is a higher tech, with
issues of
which technology is operationally superior.
Apples. Buicks.
> > > Me-262: nice airframe, pity about the engines. Gloster Meteor,
> > > admittedly a little later, was a much better piece of kit. Engines
> > > rarely flamed out, and when one did, it was fairly possible to land, or
> > > complete take-off. How unlike the supercool Me-262, which killed a lot
> > > of pilots in a one-engined manner. NB lack of tungsten wasn't so much
> > > bad for the turbine blades (seriously major failure point) but in the
> > > machine tools that were supposed to build them.
>
> > However, since one common and mostly accurate criticism of much
> > of German production decisions was that, as good as some kit was,
> > it was well outproduced by The Other Side. Panthers V/ T-34/85s,
> > and so on.
>
> This is really the whole point, of course; Richard Overy in "Why the
> Allies Won" puts it better than I could, but essentially the Allies
> milked late-30s tech to the limit, while the Germans invested what they
> didn't have on 50s tech. I oversimplify, but that's what it boils down
> to.
You do oversimplify. Eisenhower suggested that the most important
keys to victory were trucks, jeeps, and so on. The western Allies had
sufficient quality of kit, superior numbers, and greatly superior
logistics.
> > Yet, the ME-262 was the most numerous jet fighter of the war.
>
> And how many kills (other than its own pilots) did that wonder plane
> achieve/ Not very many at all. Of course, if all your Me262 bases have
> 20 or 30 P-51s hovering over them, you're likely to have the odd little
> problem.
Once again, you confuse Apples & Buicks.
> > > Tiger tank: too big, too heavy, too mechanically unreliable.
>
> > Um... I did say Tiger *II*. AKA King Tiger...
>
> Of which just how many were produced? At the cost of how many long-75
> Mk IVs?
Ibid Apples V. Buicks.
> > > Oh, and too slow.
>
> > Compared to a Valentine or a Matilda ?
>
> Apples and oranges, Andre, and you know it. These were pre-war tanks.
No, the Valentine went into service during the war. Ditto for the
Crusader.
> Now, you can very easily argue (and rightly, at least I wouldn't stand
> against you) that British tank design was an utter disgrace throughout
> most of the war. But the big prob with Vals and Matildas was their
> shocking lack of HE armament; note how they managed to scare the shit
> out of the Germans at Arras in 1940 when they shed 37mm PAK shells like
> a wet dog sheds water.
Yet, the KV-1 did that a whole lot better, while also having HE to
fire.
> > > An attempt by the very strange German armaments industries to
> > > avoid building what they were told to build, which was a replica T-34.
>
> > Well, that ended up being the Panther...
>
> True enough, but my point still stands. "Please build us a T-34
> equivalent." "Nah, German engineering can do much better, you'll really
> love this baby. When eventually it works. When eventually we can
> deliver it. Turret traverse is brilliant, so is the suspension. Lovely
> gun, too. Spares? Not on my list, Herr Feldmarschall.'
Yet, a superior tank to the Ronson...
> <cut to U-boats>
>
> > > Fancy U-boats: way too little, way too late. Not a single XXI or XXIII
> > > fired a torpedo in anger. While allowing typical Nazi production
> > > bullshit to go ahead, Doenitz continued to order his loyal troops (and
> > > by God they were loyal, worse casualty rate of any outfit short of
> > > kamikazes) to die in Type VIIs. Including his own son, of course: say
> > > what you like about Doenitz, but he put his money where his mouth was.
>
> > That is all well and good, but it remains that, on a technological
> > level, the XXI was the most advanced sub of the war.
>
> Hmm. A bit like the current silly story of the Nazi stealth fighter.
> (The Horden flying wing.) The XXI was the most advanced sub in any
> dockyard, and was of no conceivable value to Nazi Germany.
Once again: Apples. Buicks.
The original statement was NOT about which kit was operationally
more useful. It was which kit was technologically superior.
Please do not confuse the two very different measures. Else, you
are likely to have an intellectual Gimli Glider incident...
> > That's all that the original claim spoke of, and, on balance, it was
> > correct.
>
> War is the domain not of technology per se, but of applied technology.
Which is not what was as stated.
> I doubt we have any serious disagreements. "Second best today" and all
> that.
Ibid Gimli Glider... <g>
Andre
== 3 of 20 ==
Date: Fri, Jul 10 2009 7:00 am
From: Andre Lieven
On Jul 10, 6:21 am, William Black <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> Andre Lieven wrote:
> > On Jul 9, 6:18 pm, William Black <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk>
> > flubbed:
> >> Andre Lieven wrote:
> >>> On Jul 9, 3:56 pm, "Paul J. Adam"
> >>> <paulNOT.jTHESE.adamB...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >>>> Andre Lieven wrote:
> >>>>> On Jul 9, 2:52 pm, "Paul J. Adam"
> >>>>> <paulNOT.jTHESE.adamB...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> Richard Casady wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Mon, 06 Jul 2009 00:45:58 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
> >>>>>>> <paulNOT.jTHESE.adamB...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> It's hard to avoid the obvious question.
> >>>>>>>> If they were so smart, so technologically advanced, so much better than
> >>>>>>>> all the lesser races...
> >>>>>>>> ...then how did they manage to lose?
> >>>>>>> It is hard to avoid the obvious answer. They were outnumbered
> >>>>>> In 1940 and 1941?
> >>>>> Well, in 1940, they weren't outnumbered, or outproduced, so they
> >>>>> weren't losing.
> >>>> Yet with this supposedly amazing technological advantage, and parity in
> >>>> numbers, they weren't winning and could only manage a stalemate.
> >>>> Doesn't say much for their fabled technologies...
> >>> No, it actually doesn't say much for such a blinkered view.
> >>> One thing saved the UK in 1940: The English Channel.
> >> You mean they couldn't fly over it?
>
> > ME-109s make lousy tanks...
>
> > No, "they" couldn't fly over it; which implies that they can then land
> > and do various things on the other side that they want to.
>
> > Rather, some of their planes could "fly over it" for brief periods of
> > time, carrying little in the way of a land army...
>
> > Really, try using a history book for another purpose other than
> > leveling your couch...
>
> >> Look, a 26 mile wide barrier isn't a barrier for an airforce in 1940,
>
> > Air Forces back then couldn't conquer enemy nations.
>
> >> if it was they wouldn't have tried...
>
> > ... And failed...
>
> I wonder why they bothered?
Get yourself an actual factual history book on the topic, and
learn...
> It's all well and good saying it was all an ego trip by Fatso Herman but
> nobody actually believes this any more.
>
> Someone with a brain must have said 'Let's do this, we can win'...
And, they came pretty close to winning...
Many more modern nations have started much stupider military
actions, whose non-winning took a lot longer...
Andre
Andre
== 4 of 20 ==
Date: Fri, Jul 10 2009 7:02 am
From: Fred J. McCall
Alan Lothian <alanlothian@mac.com> wrote:
:In article
:<a9c5bd93-7eef-4d2e-804a-a1d183c2e620@b15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
:Andre Lieven <andrelieven@yahoo.ca> wrote:
:>
:> Yet, the ME-262 was the most numerous jet fighter of the war.
:>
:
:And how many kills (other than its own pilots) did that wonder plane
:achieve/ Not very many at all.
:
Franz Schall - 17 kills
Kurt Welter - 29 kills
Heinrich Barr - 16 kills
Total Me-262 kills - 509
Total Me-262 losses - around 100
:
:Of course, if all your Me262 bases have
:20 or 30 P-51s hovering over them, you're likely to have the odd little
:problem.
:
So totally outnumbered and under the worst possible conditions with
poor ROE and quality control problems in construction, the Me-262 was
achieving a 5:1 kill ratio.
--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson
== 5 of 20 ==
Date: Fri, Jul 10 2009 7:03 am
From: Jack Linthicum
On Jul 10, 9:48 am, Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> On Jul 10, 4:24 am, Alan Lothian <alanloth...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <2826fae9-e1ad-4f6f-bd14-60931e1aa...@b15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > <snippaggio>
>
> > > Air Forces back then couldn't conquer enemy nations.
>
> > You mean they can now?
>
> See "Bosnia". Note that "conquer" doesn't quite mean "empire" in
> the classical sense any more.
>
> One can also point out that the air war in Desert Storm went on for
> 40ish days, which made the land war so *relatively* doable, that the
> latter only took 100 hours.
>
> Andre
Saddam had sent his Air Force away to Iran, never trusted them. The
100 hours was about 20 minutes playing shock and awe and the rest
trying to fill out the medal forms.
== 6 of 20 ==
Date: Fri, Jul 10 2009 7:07 am
From: Andre Lieven
On Jul 10, 10:03 am, Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net>
wrote:
> On Jul 10, 9:48 am, Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 10, 4:24 am, Alan Lothian <alanloth...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> > > In article
> > > <2826fae9-e1ad-4f6f-bd14-60931e1aa...@b15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > > Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > > <snippaggio>
>
> > > > Air Forces back then couldn't conquer enemy nations.
>
> > > You mean they can now?
>
> > See "Bosnia". Note that "conquer" doesn't quite mean "empire" in
> > the classical sense any more.
>
> > One can also point out that the air war in Desert Storm went on for
> > 40ish days, which made the land war so *relatively* doable, that the
> > latter only took 100 hours.
>
> > Andre
>
> Saddam had sent his Air Force away to Iran, never trusted them. The
> 100 hours was about 20 minutes playing shock and awe and the rest
> trying to fill out the medal forms.
Um, no. There was some tough fighting in that 100 hours. Given that I
have over 30 books on the 90-91 Iraq-Kuwait campaign, I would say that
the facts don't really support your statement.
Andre
== 7 of 20 ==
Date: Fri, Jul 10 2009 7:34 am
From: Mark Borgerson
In article <854d2a87-e712-462b-9f2b-8eca3436d174
@h11g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, andrelieven@yahoo.ca says...
> On Jul 9, 8:52 pm, Mark Borgerson <mborger...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > In article <2826fae9-e1ad-4f6f-bd14-60931e1aa496
> > @b15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, andrelie...@yahoo.ca says...
> >
> > > On Jul 9, 6:18 pm, William Black <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk>
> > > flubbed:
> > > > Andre Lieven wrote:
> > > > > On Jul 9, 3:56 pm, "Paul J. Adam"
> > > > > <paulNOT.jTHESE.adamB...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > > >> Andre Lieven wrote:
> > > > >>> On Jul 9, 2:52 pm, "Paul J. Adam"
> > > > >>> <paulNOT.jTHESE.adamB...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > > >>>> Richard Casady wrote:
> > > > >>>>> On Mon, 06 Jul 2009 00:45:58 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
> > > > >>>>> <paulNOT.jTHESE.adamB...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>> It's hard to avoid the obvious question.
> > > > >>>>>> If they were so smart, so technologically advanced, so much better than
> > > > >>>>>> all the lesser races...
> > > > >>>>>> ...then how did they manage to lose?
> > > > >>>>> It is hard to avoid the obvious answer. They were outnumbered
> > > > >>>> In 1940 and 1941?
> > > > >>> Well, in 1940, they weren't outnumbered, or outproduced, so they
> > > > >>> weren't losing.
> > > > >> Yet with this supposedly amazing technological advantage, and parity in
> > > > >> numbers, they weren't winning and could only manage a stalemate.
> > > > >> Doesn't say much for their fabled technologies...
> >
> > > > > No, it actually doesn't say much for such a blinkered view.
> >
> > > > > One thing saved the UK in 1940: The English Channel.
> >
> > > > You mean they couldn't fly over it?
> >
> > > ME-109s make lousy tanks...
> >
> > > No, "they" couldn't fly over it; which implies that they can then land
> > > and do various things on the other side that they want to.
> >
> > > Rather, some of their planes could "fly over it" for brief periods of
> > > time, carrying little in the way of a land army...
> >
> > > Really, try using a history book for another purpose other than
> > > leveling your couch...
> >
> > > > Look, a 26 mile wide barrier isn't a barrier for an airforce in 1940,
> >
> > > Air Forces back then couldn't conquer enemy nations.
> >
> > I don't think they can do it very well now, either. You can
> > bomb them into submission, but I don't think you can really
> > conquer a nation without boots on the ground. As Vietnam, Bosnia and
> > Baghdad have demonstrated, even the 'bomb into submission' part
> > is no easy task.
>
> If one can get a nation to do as one wills, then on the ground
> conquering
> may not be necessary. Bosnia more or less accomplished that goal by
> air alone.
You're right. I checked the definition of 'conquer' and it doesn't
include any requirement for occupation--- only a defeat by force of
arms. Bombing was sufficient in Bosnia---but apparently not in Vietnam,
Iraq, or Afghanistan. I suppose it depends on the size and distribution
of the opposing military and the political goal of the conquest.
>
> > As the Allies showed on D-Day, a cross-channel invasion is
> > best done with near complete air and sea superiority.
> > I don't think the Germans ever managed that to the extent
> > they could cover several days of amphibious landings.
>
> Sometimes local air supremacy can substitute for naval
> command.
That's certainly true with modern weapons and sensors. I think it
wasn't true to the same extent during WWII, when E-Boats
were effective in night time attacks. Without sea superiority,
D-Day might have turned out differently.
I suppose that with definitive air superiority over a range
exceeding that of a night-time E-boat foray, you could
eventually eliminate the threat to an invasion fleet. IIRC,
the hardened E-boat pens were a tough target. But that may
have been a priorities issue, with coastal defenses getting
a larger share of air attack assets.
>
> In any case, you're the doofus who thought that Gorbachev
> was GenSec of the USSR during the 1962 October Crisis...
I definitely mixed up my 'chevs in that message. I remember
watching the news commentators discussing Kruschev's shoe
pounding incident in 1960. I was a freshman in high school
then, and my parents watched the news every evening before
dinner. Those were tense times. For the most part, I
was not too tuned in to politics and world events---being
more content to read Analog and Galaxy magazines. (I still
have some full years of those in the attic.) I do remember
that there was a lot of tension about the Cold war during
my high school years. However, there we no military targets within
a hundred miles and the Northern California coast was upwind
of most of the possible targets, so we didn't do a lot of
'Duck and Cover' drills. We were more concerned about
earthquake damage than atomic bombs.
>
> > > > if it was they wouldn't have tried...
> >
> > > ... And failed...
>
Mark Borgerson
== 8 of 20 ==
Date: Fri, Jul 10 2009 7:35 am
From: Jack Linthicum
On Jul 10, 10:07 am, Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> On Jul 10, 10:03 am, Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 10, 9:48 am, Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 10, 4:24 am, Alan Lothian <alanloth...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> > > > In article
> > > > <2826fae9-e1ad-4f6f-bd14-60931e1aa...@b15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > > > Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > > > <snippaggio>
>
> > > > > Air Forces back then couldn't conquer enemy nations.
>
> > > > You mean they can now?
>
> > > See "Bosnia". Note that "conquer" doesn't quite mean "empire" in
> > > the classical sense any more.
>
> > > One can also point out that the air war in Desert Storm went on for
> > > 40ish days, which made the land war so *relatively* doable, that the
> > > latter only took 100 hours.
>
> > > Andre
>
> > Saddam had sent his Air Force away to Iran, never trusted them. The
> > 100 hours was about 20 minutes playing shock and awe and the rest
> > trying to fill out the medal forms.
>
> Um, no. There was some tough fighting in that 100 hours. Given that I
> have over 30 books on the 90-91 Iraq-Kuwait campaign, I would say that
> the facts don't really support your statement.
>
> Andre
Cite?
== 9 of 20 ==
Date: Fri, Jul 10 2009 7:45 am
From: Andre Lieven
On Jul 10, 10:34 am, Mark Borgerson <mborger...@comcast.net> wrote:
> In article <854d2a87-e712-462b-9f2b-8eca3436d174
> @h11g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, andrelie...@yahoo.ca says...
>
> > On Jul 9, 8:52 pm, Mark Borgerson <mborger...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > In article <2826fae9-e1ad-4f6f-bd14-60931e1aa496
> > > @b15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, andrelie...@yahoo.ca says...
>
> > > > On Jul 9, 6:18 pm, William Black <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk>
> > > > flubbed:
> > > > > Andre Lieven wrote:
> > > > > > On Jul 9, 3:56 pm, "Paul J. Adam"
> > > > > > <paulNOT.jTHESE.adamB...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >> Andre Lieven wrote:
> > > > > >>> On Jul 9, 2:52 pm, "Paul J. Adam"
> > > > > >>> <paulNOT.jTHESE.adamB...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >>>> Richard Casady wrote:
> > > > > >>>>> On Mon, 06 Jul 2009 00:45:58 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
> > > > > >>>>> <paulNOT.jTHESE.adamB...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>> It's hard to avoid the obvious question.
> > > > > >>>>>> If they were so smart, so technologically advanced, so much better than
> > > > > >>>>>> all the lesser races...
> > > > > >>>>>> ...then how did they manage to lose?
> > > > > >>>>> It is hard to avoid the obvious answer. They were outnumbered
> > > > > >>>> In 1940 and 1941?
> > > > > >>> Well, in 1940, they weren't outnumbered, or outproduced, so they
> > > > > >>> weren't losing.
> > > > > >> Yet with this supposedly amazing technological advantage, and parity in
> > > > > >> numbers, they weren't winning and could only manage a stalemate.
> > > > > >> Doesn't say much for their fabled technologies...
>
> > > > > > No, it actually doesn't say much for such a blinkered view.
>
> > > > > > One thing saved the UK in 1940: The English Channel.
>
> > > > > You mean they couldn't fly over it?
>
> > > > ME-109s make lousy tanks...
>
> > > > No, "they" couldn't fly over it; which implies that they can then land
> > > > and do various things on the other side that they want to.
>
> > > > Rather, some of their planes could "fly over it" for brief periods of
> > > > time, carrying little in the way of a land army...
>
> > > > Really, try using a history book for another purpose other than
> > > > leveling your couch...
>
> > > > > Look, a 26 mile wide barrier isn't a barrier for an airforce in 1940,
>
> > > > Air Forces back then couldn't conquer enemy nations.
>
> > > I don't think they can do it very well now, either. You can
> > > bomb them into submission, but I don't think you can really
> > > conquer a nation without boots on the ground. As Vietnam, Bosnia and
> > > Baghdad have demonstrated, even the 'bomb into submission' part
> > > is no easy task.
>
> > If one can get a nation to do as one wills, then on the ground
> > conquering may not be necessary. Bosnia more or less
> > accomplished that goal by air alone.
>
> You're right. I checked the definition of 'conquer' and it doesn't
> include any requirement for occupation--- only a defeat by force of
> arms. Bombing was sufficient in Bosnia---but apparently not in Vietnam,
> Iraq, or Afghanistan. I suppose it depends on the size and distribution
> of the opposing military and the political goal of the conquest.
Indeed. And, I was right... That's a point worth recalling...
> > > As the Allies showed on D-Day, a cross-channel invasion is
> > > best done with near complete air and sea superiority.
> > > I don't think the Germans ever managed that to the extent
> > > they could cover several days of amphibious landings.
>
> > Sometimes local air supremacy can substitute for naval
> > command.
>
> That's certainly true with modern weapons and sensors. I think it
> wasn't true to the same extent during WWII, when E-Boats
> were effective in night time attacks. Without sea superiority,
> D-Day might have turned out differently.
Yet, while Commodore Clapp and Admiral Woodward had to
run ships in and out of the Falklands lodgement at night so as
to avoid exposing them to Argie air, given that the cross Channel
distance is so short, German convoys could have made the return
trip in one night.
> I suppose that with definitive air superiority over a range
> exceeding that of a night-time E-boat foray, you could
> eventually eliminate the threat to an invasion fleet. IIRC,
> the hardened E-boat pens were a tough target. But that may
> have been a priorities issue, with coastal defenses getting
> a larger share of air attack assets.
Even WW2 airpower did pretty well in preventing naval ops in
high threat waters, such as the area near to Malta, circa 1941-
1942.
> > In any case, you're the doofus who thought that Gorbachev
> > was GenSec of the USSR during the 1962 October Crisis...
>
> I definitely mixed up my 'chevs in that message. I remember
> watching the news commentators discussing Kruschev's shoe
> pounding incident in 1960. I was a freshman in high school
> then, and my parents watched the news every evening before
> dinner. Those were tense times. For the most part, I
> was not too tuned in to politics and world events---being
> more content to read Analog and Galaxy magazines. (I still
> have some full years of those in the attic.) I do remember
> that there was a lot of tension about the Cold war during
> my high school years. However, there we no military targets within
> a hundred miles and the Northern California coast was upwind
> of most of the possible targets, so we didn't do a lot of
> 'Duck and Cover' drills. We were more concerned about
> earthquake damage than atomic bombs.
None of that covers why you claimed that Gorby was GenSec
in 1962...
> > > > > if it was they wouldn't have tried...
>
> > > > ... And failed...
Andre
== 10 of 20 ==
Date: Fri, Jul 10 2009 8:06 am
From: "Paul J. Adam"
Fred J. McCall wrote:
> "Paul J. Adam" <paulNOT.jTHESE.adamBITS@googlemail.com> wrote:
> :There were two to start with and the gunman still couldn't win, on that
> :analogy. Sounds like the technology really wasn't all that great.
>
> But still superior, despite your now attempting to move the goalposts.
So superior they failed in the war they got to plan, prepare and
organise for.
If that's "superior" what do you call "inferior"?
--
He thinks too much, such men are dangerous.
== 11 of 20 ==
Date: Fri, Jul 10 2009 8:08 am
From: "Paul J. Adam"
Fred J. McCall wrote:
> "Paul J. Adam" <paulNOT.jTHESE.adamBITS@googlemail.com> wrote:
> :In 1940 and 1941?
>
> If not for the moat and the US you were licked, son.
Good thing for us that we surprised them with the Channel, then. I mean,
who'd have seen that coming?
> Germany didn't lose the war in 1940 or 1941. They lost it in 1945.
In 1940 and the first half of 1941 they only had Britain to fight. They
didn't win. So where's the "superior technology" that's supposed to be
so impressive?
>
> But you keep trying to move those goalposts.
It's your game, Fred, you placed them; don't complain that you put them
in the wrong place.
--
He thinks too much, such men are dangerous.
== 12 of 20 ==
Date: Fri, Jul 10 2009 8:11 am
From: "Paul J. Adam"
Fred J. McCall wrote:
> "Paul J. Adam" <paulNOT.jTHESE.adamBITS@googlemail.com> wrote:
> :Yet with this supposedly amazing technological advantage, and parity in
> :numbers, they weren't winning and could only manage a stalemate. Doesn't
> :say much for their fabled technologies...
>
> They weren't winning? That's going to be news to, well, pretty much
> anyone with a clue.
Curiously, we didn't seem to be beating German hordes off our shores, or
having to fight them in the fields and in the hills.
So what's the path to a German victory look like in 1941?
--
He thinks too much, such men are dangerous.
== 13 of 20 ==
Date: Fri, Jul 10 2009 8:19 am
From: Jack Linthicum
On Jul 10, 10:35 am, Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net>
wrote:
> On Jul 10, 10:07 am, Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 10, 10:03 am, Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 10, 9:48 am, Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jul 10, 4:24 am, Alan Lothian <alanloth...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > In article
> > > > > <2826fae9-e1ad-4f6f-bd14-60931e1aa...@b15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > > > > Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > > > > <snippaggio>
>
> > > > > > Air Forces back then couldn't conquer enemy nations.
>
> > > > > You mean they can now?
>
> > > > See "Bosnia". Note that "conquer" doesn't quite mean "empire" in
> > > > the classical sense any more.
>
> > > > One can also point out that the air war in Desert Storm went on for
> > > > 40ish days, which made the land war so *relatively* doable, that the
> > > > latter only took 100 hours.
>
> > > > Andre
>
> > > Saddam had sent his Air Force away to Iran, never trusted them. The
> > > 100 hours was about 20 minutes playing shock and awe and the rest
> > > trying to fill out the medal forms.
>
> > Um, no. There was some tough fighting in that 100 hours. Given that I
> > have over 30 books on the 90-91 Iraq-Kuwait campaign, I would say that
> > the facts don't really support your statement.
>
> > Andre
>
> Cite?
Coalition Aircraft Losses: 75 (63 U.S., 12 Allied)
* Fixed wing, 37 combat, 15 noncombat
o U.S. losses, 28 combat, 12 noncombat
o No U.S. losses in air-to-air engagements
* Helicopters, 23 (all U.S.): 5 combat, 18 noncombat
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=45404
and
Iraqi antiaircraft defenses, including shoulder-launched ground-to-air
missiles, were surprisingly effective against coalition aircraft and
the coalition suffered 75 aircraft losses. In particular, RAF and U.S.
Navy aircraft which flew at low altitudes to avoid radar were
particularly badly hit, since Iraqi defenses relied very little on
radar, and to a large extent on small scale weapons which were well
targeted against low-flying aircraft.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War
== 14 of 20 ==
Date: Fri, Jul 10 2009 8:30 am
From: Andre Lieven
On Jul 10, 11:08 am, "Paul J. Adam"
<paulNOT.jTHESE.adamB...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Fred J. McCall wrote:
> > "Paul J. Adam" <paulNOT.jTHESE.adamB...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > :In 1940 and 1941?
>
> > If not for the moat and the US you were licked, son.
>
> Good thing for us that we surprised them with the Channel, then. I mean,
> who'd have seen that coming?
Seeing it, and having all the gear and tactics to get across are two
different things...
After all, wasn't the most powerful modern army going to be greeted
as liberators ? Did that "plan" fail ?
> > Germany didn't lose the war in 1940 or 1941. They lost it in 1945.
>
> In 1940 and the first half of 1941 they only had Britain to fight. They
> didn't win. So where's the "superior technology" that's supposed to be
> so impressive?
Free Note: The terms "superior technology" and "operationally
overwhelming kit" are not synonyms.
It is very easy to have superior technology and lose a war with it.
See Arthur Clarke short story "Superiority" for the explanation.
> > But you keep trying to move those goalposts.
>
> It's your game, Fred, you placed them; don't complain that you put them
> in the wrong place.
Andre
== 15 of 20 ==
Date: Fri, Jul 10 2009 8:41 am
From: Jim Yanik
Israel's goal is to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons.
Their task would be to destroy nuclear facilities,and to do that,destroy
air defenses.The main problem is the deeply buried facilities.
Israel doesn't want to "take" Iran,nor to kill large numbers of Iranian
citizens.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net
== 16 of 20 ==
Date: Fri, Jul 10 2009 8:45 am
From: Fred J. McCall
"Paul J. Adam" <paulNOT.jTHESE.adamBITS@googlemail.com> wrote:
:Fred J. McCall wrote:
:> "Paul J. Adam" <paulNOT.jTHESE.adamBITS@googlemail.com> wrote:
:> :There were two to start with and the gunman still couldn't win, on that
:> :analogy. Sounds like the technology really wasn't all that great.
:>
:> But still superior, despite your now attempting to move the goalposts.
:
:So superior they failed in the war they got to plan, prepare and
:organise for.
:
:If that's "superior" what do you call "inferior"?
:
Let's go back to that analogy that you twisted. You have a 6-shot
revolver. The other side has spears and knives. You lose (because
there are more than 6 of them).
By your reasoning above, this proves that firearms are not a superior
technology to spears and knives...
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
== 17 of 20 ==
Date: Fri, Jul 10 2009 8:49 am
From: Fred J. McCall
"Paul J. Adam" <paulNOT.jTHESE.adamBITS@googlemail.com> wrote:
:Fred J. McCall wrote:
:> "Paul J. Adam" <paulNOT.jTHESE.adamBITS@googlemail.com> wrote:
:> :In 1940 and 1941?
:>
:> If not for the moat and the US you were licked, son.
:
:Good thing for us that we surprised them with the Channel, then. I mean,
:who'd have seen that coming?
:
:> Germany didn't lose the war in 1940 or 1941. They lost it in 1945.
:
:In 1940 and the first half of 1941 they only had Britain to fight. They
:didn't win. So where's the "superior technology" that's supposed to be
:so impressive?
:>
:> But you keep trying to move those goalposts.
:
:It's your game, Fred, you placed them; don't complain that you put them
:in the wrong place.
No, Paul. You're not only trying to move the goalposts, you're
changing from a football field to a cricket field in a totally
different country on another planet.
Superior technology doesn't necessarily mean you win, Paul, despite
your attempts to pretend that it must. It needn't even be involved in
weapons at all. It certainly needn't be applicable to a particular
problem.
But you keep squirming. It's stupid, but it's mildly (but only
mildly) amusing to watch in the (very) short term.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
== 18 of 20 ==
Date: Fri, Jul 10 2009 8:51 am
From: Fred J. McCall
"Paul J. Adam" <paulNOT.jTHESE.adamBITS@googlemail.com> wrote:
:Fred J. McCall wrote:
:> "Paul J. Adam" <paulNOT.jTHESE.adamBITS@googlemail.com> wrote:
:> :Yet with this supposedly amazing technological advantage, and parity in
:> :numbers, they weren't winning and could only manage a stalemate. Doesn't
:> :say much for their fabled technologies...
:>
:> They weren't winning? That's going to be news to, well, pretty much
:> anyone with a clue.
:
:Curiously, we didn't seem to be beating German hordes off our shores, or
:having to fight them in the fields and in the hills.
:
But they sure ran your ass out of France. You lot deny it these days,
but back in the day there was a LOT of concern about whether you were
going to get starved out due to submarine blockade.
:So what's the path to a German victory look like in 1941?
Who cares? That's never been the issue, despite your trying to move
the goalposts.
--
"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the
soul with evil."
-- Socrates
== 19 of 20 ==
Date: Fri, Jul 10 2009 8:53 am
From: Andre Lieven
On Jul 10, 11:45 am, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Paul J. Adam" <paulNOT.jTHESE.adamB...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> :Fred J. McCall wrote:
>
> :> "Paul J. Adam" <paulNOT.jTHESE.adamB...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> :> :There were two to start with and the gunman still couldn't win, on that
> :> :analogy. Sounds like the technology really wasn't all that great.
> :>
> :> But still superior, despite your now attempting to move the goalposts.
> :
> :So superior they failed in the war they got to plan, prepare and
> :organise for.
> :
> :If that's "superior" what do you call "inferior"?
>
> Let's go back to that analogy that you twisted. You have a 6-shot
> revolver. The other side has spears and knives. You lose (because
> there are more than 6 of them).
>
> By your reasoning above, this proves that firearms are not a superior
> technology to spears and knives...
Exactly.
Andre
== 20 of 20 ==
Date: Fri, Jul 10 2009 9:50 am
From: Chris
On Jul 10, 4:24 am, Alan Lothian <alanloth...@mac.com> wrote:
> In article
> <2826fae9-e1ad-4f6f-bd14-60931e1aa...@b15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> <snippaggio>
>
>
>
> > Air Forces back then couldn't conquer enemy nations.
>
> You mean they can now?
"You may fly over a land forever, you may bomb it, atomize it,
pulverize it and wipe it clean of life -- but if you desire to defend
it, protect it and keep it for civilization, you must do this on the
ground, the way the Roman legions did, by putting your young men into
the mud."
-T.R. Fehrenbach, _This Kind of War_ (one of my absolute favorite
books- read it so much that I had to buy a new copy because the
binding gave way on my old one).
Chris Manteuffel
==============================================================================
TOPIC: "Premier U.S. Fighter Jet Has Major Shortcomings F-22's"
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.military.naval/t/450fd332b1e79983?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Jul 10 2009 6:55 am
From: nada <@wild.il>
Mike wrote:
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/09/AR2009070903020.html?hpid=topnews
>
> Premier U.S. Fighter Jet Has Major Shortcomings
> F-22's Maintenance Demands Growing
> By R. Jeffrey Smith
> Washington Post Staff Writer
> Friday, July 10, 2009
>
> The United States' top fighter jet, the Lockheed Martin F-22, has
> recently required more than 30 hours of maintenance for every hour in
> the skies, pushing its hourly cost of flying to more than $44,000, a
> far higher figure than for the warplane it replaces, confidential
> Pentagon test results show.
>
> The aircraft's radar-absorbing metallic skin is the principal cause of
> its maintenance troubles, with unexpected shortcomings -- such as
> vulnerability to rain and other abrasion -- challenging Air Force and
> contractor technicians since the mid-1990s, according to Pentagon
> officials, internal documents and a former engineer.
>
> While most aircraft fleets become easier and less costly to repair as
> they mature, key maintenance trends for the F-22 have been negative in
> recent years, and on average from October last year to this May, just
> 55 percent of the deployed F-22 fleet has been available to fulfill
> missions guarding U.S. airspace, the Defense Department acknowledged
> this week. The F-22 has never been flown over Iraq or Afghanistan.
>
> Sensitive information about troubles with the nation's foremost air-
> defense fighter is emerging in the midst of a fight between the Obama
> administration and the Democrat-controlled Congress over whether the
> program should be halted next year at 187 planes, far short of what
> the Air Force and the F-22's contractors around the country had
> anticipated.
>
> "It is a disgrace that you can fly a plane [an average of] only 1.7
> hours before it gets a critical failure" that jeopardizes success of
> the aircraft's mission, said a Defense Department critic of the plane
> who is not authorized to speak on the record. Other skeptics inside
> the Pentagon note that the planes, designed 30 years ago to combat a
> Cold War adversary, have cost an average of $350 million apiece and
> say they are not a priority in the age of small wars and terrorist
> threats.
>
> But other defense officials -- reflecting sharp divisions inside the
> Pentagon about the wisdom of ending one of the largest arms programs
> in U.S. history -- emphasize the plane's unsurpassed flying abilities,
> express renewed optimism that the troubles will abate and say the
> plane is worth the unexpected costs.
>
> Votes by the House and Senate armed services committees last month to
> spend $369 million to $1.75 billion more to keep the F-22 production
> line open were propelled by mixed messages from the Air Force --
> including a quiet campaign for the plane that includes snazzy new
> Lockheed videos for key lawmakers -- and intense political support
> from states where the F-22's components are made. The full House
> ratified the vote on June 25, and the Senate is scheduled to begin
> consideration of F-22 spending Monday.
>
> After deciding to cancel the program, Defense Secretary Robert M.
> Gates called the $65 billion fleet a "niche silver-bullet solution" to
> a major aerial war threat that remains distant. He described the
> House's decision as "a big problem" and has promised to urge President
> Obama to veto the military spending bill if the full Senate retains
> F-22 funding.
>
> The administration's position is supported by military reform groups
> that have long criticized what they consider to be poor procurement
> practices surrounding the F-22, and by former senior Pentagon
> officials such as Thomas Christie, the top weapons testing expert from
> 2001 to 2005. Christie says that because of the plane's huge costs,
> the Air Force lacks money to modernize its other forces adequately and
> has "embarked on what we used to call unilateral disarmament."
>
> David G. Ahern, a senior Pentagon procurement official who helps
> oversee the F-22 program, said in an interview that "I think we've
> executed very well," and attributed its troubles mostly to the
> challenge of meeting ambitious goals with unstable funding.
>
> A spokeswoman for Lockheed added that the F-22 has "unmatched
> capabilities, sustainability and affordability" and that any problems
> are being resolved in close coordination with the Air Force.
>
> 'Cancellation-Proof'
> Designed during the early 1980s to ensure long-term American military
> dominance of the skies, the F-22 was conceived to win dogfights with
> advanced Soviet fighters that Russia is still trying to develop.
>
> Lt. Gen. Harry M. Wyatt III, director of the Air National Guard, said
> in a letter this week to Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) that he likes
> the F-22 because its speed and electronics enable it to handle "a full
> spectrum of threats" that current defensive aircraft "are not capable
> of addressing."
>
> "There is really no comparison to the F-22," said Air Force Maj. David
> Skalicky, a 32-year-old former F-15 pilot who now shows off the F-22's
> impressive maneuverability at air shows. Citing the critical help
> provided by its computers in flying radical angles of attack and tight
> turns, he said "it is one of the easiest planes to fly, from the
> pilot's perspective."
>
> Its troubles have been detailed in dozens of Government Accountability
> Office reports and Pentagon audits. But Pierre Sprey, a key designer
> in the 1970s and 1980s of the F-16 and A-10 warplanes, said that from
> the beginning, the Air Force designed it to be "too big to fail, that
> is, to be cancellation-proof."
>
> Lockheed farmed out more than 1,000 subcontracts to vendors in more
> than 40 states, and Sprey -- now a prominent critic of the plane --
> said that by the time skeptics "could point out the failed tests, the
> combat flaws, and the exploding costs, most congressmen were already
> defending their subcontractors' " revenues.
>
> John Hamre, the Pentagon's comptroller from 1993 to 1997, says the
> department approved the plane with a budget it knew was too low
> because projecting the real costs would have been politically
> unpalatable on Capitol Hill.
>
> "We knew that the F-22 was going to cost more than the Air Force
> thought it was going to cost and we budgeted the lower number, and I
> was there," Hamre told the Senate Armed Services Committee in April.
> "I'm not proud of it," Hamre added in a recent interview.
>
> When limited production began in 2001, the plane was "substantially
> behind its plan to achieve reliability goals," the GAO said in a
> report the following year. Structural problems that turned up in
> subsequent testing forced retrofits to the frame and changes in the
> fuel flow. Computer flaws, combined with defective software
> diagnostics, forced the frequent retesting of millions of lines of
> code, said two Defense officials with access to internal reports.
>
> Skin problems -- often requiring re-gluing small surfaces that can
> take more than a day to dry -- helped force more frequent and time-
> consuming repairs, according to the confidential data drawn from tests
> conducted by the Pentagon's independent Office of Operational Test and
> Evaluation between 2004 and 2008.
>
> Over the four-year period, the F-22's average maintenance time per
> hour of flight grew from 20 hours to 34, with skin repairs accounting
> for more than half of that time -- and more than half the hourly
> flying costs -- last year, according to the test and evaluation
> office.
>
> The Air Force says the F-22 cost $44,259 per flying hour in 2008; the
> Office of the Secretary of Defense said the figure was $49,808. The
> F-15, the F-22's predecessor, has a fleet average cost of $30,818.
>
> 'Compromises'
> Darrol Olsen, a specialist in stealth coatings who worked at
> Lockheed's testing laboratory in Marietta, Ga., from 1995 to 1999,
> said the current troubles are unsurprising. In a lawsuit filed under
> seal in 2007, he charged the company with violating the False Claims
> Act for ordering and using coatings that it knew were defective while
> hiding the failings from the Air Force.
>
> He has cited a July 1998 report that said test results "yield the same
> problems as documented previously" in the skin's quality and
> durability, and another in December that year saying, "Baseline
> coatings failed." A Lockheed briefing that September assured the Air
> Force that the effort was "meeting requirements with optimized
> products."
>
> "When I got into this thing . . . I could not believe the compromises"
> made by Lockheed to meet the Air Force's request for quick results,
> said Olsen, who had a top-secret clearance. "I suggested we go to the
> Air Force and tell them we had some difficulties . . . and they would
> not do that. I was squashed. I knew from the get-go that this material
> was bad, that this correcting it in the field was never going to
> work."
>
> Olsen, who said Lockheed fired him over a medical leave, heard from
> colleagues as recently as 2005 that problems persisted with coatings
> and radar absorbing materials in the plane's skin, including what one
> described as vulnerability to rain. Invited to join his lawsuit, the
> Justice Department filed a court notice last month saying it was not
> doing so "at this time" -- a term that means it is still investigating
> the matter, according to a department spokesman.
>
> Ahern said the Pentagon could not comment on the allegations. Lockheed
> spokeswoman Mary Jo Polidore said that "the issues raised in the
> complaint are at least 10 years old," and that the plane meets or
> exceeds requirements established by the Air Force. "We deny Mr.
> Olsen's allegations and will vigorously defend this matter."
>
> There have been other legal complications. In late 2005, Boeing
> learned of defects in titanium booms connecting the wings to the
> plane, which the company, in a subsequent lawsuit against its
> supplier, said posed the risk of "catastrophic loss of the aircraft."
> But rather than shut down the production line -- an act that would
> have incurred large Air Force penalties -- Boeing reached an accord
> with the Air Force to resolve the problem through increased
> inspections over the life of the fleet, with expenses to be mostly
> paid by the Air Force.
>
> Sprey said engineers who worked on it told him that because of
> Lockheed's use of hundreds of subcontractors, quality control was so
> poor that workers had to create a "shim line" at the Georgia plant
> where they retooled badly designed or poorly manufactured components.
> "Each plane wound up with all these hand-fitted parts that caused huge
> fits in maintenance," he said. "They were not interchangeable."
>
> Polidore confirmed that some early parts required modifications but
> denied that such a shim line existed and said "our supplier base is
> the best in the industry."
>
> The plane's million-dollar radar-absorbing canopy has also caused
> problems, with a stuck hatch imprisoning a pilot for hours in 2006 and
> engineers unable to extend the canopy's lifespan beyond about 18
> months of flying time. It delaminates, "loses its strength and
> finish," said an official privy to Air Force data.
>
> In the interview, Ahern and Air Force Gen. C.D. Moore confirmed that
> canopy visibility has been declining more rapidly than expected, with
> brown spots and peeling forcing $120,000 refurbishments at 331 hours
> of flying time, on average, instead of the stipulated 800 hours.
>
> There has been some gradual progress. At the plane's first operational
> flight test in September 2004, it fully met two of 22 key requirements
> and had a total of 351 deficiencies; in 2006, it fully met five; in
> 2008, when squadrons were deployed at six U.S. bases, it fully met
> seven.
>
> "It flunked on suitability measures -- availability, reliability, and
> maintenance," said Christie about the first of those tests. "There was
> no consequence. It did not faze anybody who was in the decision loop"
> for approving the plane's full production. This outcome was hardly
> unique, Christie adds. During his tenure in the job from 2001 to 2005,
> "16 or 17 major weapons systems flunked" during initial operational
> tests, and "not one was stopped as a result."
>
> "I don't accept that this is still early in the program," Christie
> said, explaining that he does not recall a plane with such a low
> capability to fulfill its mission due to maintenance problems at this
> point in its tenure as the F-22. The Pentagon said 64 percent of the
> fleet is currently "mission capable." After four years of rigorous
> testing and operations, "the trends are not good," he added.
>
> Pentagon officials respond that measuring hourly flying costs for
> aircraft fleets that have not reached 100,000 flying hours is
> problematic, because sorties become more frequent after that point;
> Ahern also said some improvements have been made since the 2008
> testing, and added: "We're going to get better." He said the F-22s are
> on track to meet all of what the Air Force calls its KPP -- key
> performance parameters -- by next year.
>
> But last Nov. 20, John J. Young Jr., who was then undersecretary of
> defense and Ahern's boss, said that officials continue to struggle
> with the F-22's skin. "There's clearly work that needs to be done
> there to make that airplane both capable and affordable to operate,"
> he said.
>
> When Gates decided this spring to spend $785 million on four more
> planes and then end production of the F-22, he also kept alive an $8
> billion improvement effort. It will, among other things, give F-22
> pilots the ability to communicate with other types of warplanes; it
> currently is the only such warplane to lack that capability.
>
> The cancellation decision got public support from the Air Force's top
> two civilian and military leaders, who said the F-22 was not a top
> priority in a constrained budget. But the leaders' message was muddied
> in a June 9 letter from Air Combat Cmdr. John D.W. Corley to Chambliss
> that said halting production would put "execution of our current
> national military strategy at high risk in the near to mid-term." The
> right size for the fleet, he said, is 381.
>
> Fatal Test Flight
> One of the last four planes Gates supported buying is meant to replace
> an F-22 that crashed during a test flight north of Los Angeles on
> March 25, during his review of the program. The Air Force has declined
> to discuss the cause, but a classified internal accident report
> completed the following month states that the plane flew into the
> ground after poorly executing a high-speed run with its weapons-bay
> doors open, according to three government officials familiar with its
> contents. The Lockheed test pilot died.
>
> Several sources said the flight was part of a bid to make the F-22
> relevant to current conflicts by giving it a capability to conduct
> precision bombing raids, not just aerial dogfights. The Air Force is
> still probing who should be held accountable for the accident.
Sounds like Pilots have more to fear from a falling apart aircraft than
the enemy. Going into combat wit the latest hot rod where one or two
weapons systems might work simply means the force will not complete its
mission. It is the same as taking a shiny state of the art knife to a
gun fight.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: the good ol days in the Navy...
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.military.naval/t/a906b50859eebb9e?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Jul 10 2009 7:10 am
From: Fred J. McCall
"vaughn" <vaughnsimonHATESSPAM@gmail.FAKE.com> wrote:
:
:"Jim Yanik" <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote in message
:news:Xns9C44560312064jyanikkuanet@74.209.136.87...
:> Suggestions for ex-navy people who miss "the good old days."
:.
:>
:> 13. Wake up at midnight and have a peanut butter and jelly sandwich
:> on stale bread. (Optional: cold canned ravioli or soup.)
:
: Stale bread? Not!
:
:I actually have fond memories of midrats. They baked at night, so that was
:the only time you could get oven-fresh bread. I was known to bury a whole
:stick of butter in an entire loaf of hot bread and "chow down".
:
Midrats was the best meal of the day. Breakfast to order PLUS various
choices for dinner PLUS fresh bread and rolls.
:
: No wonder I weighed 100 pounds more then than today!
:
Yeah. One ship I was on assigned a new kid to be 'midnight baker'. He
did a bunch of cinnamon rolls and then asked people to try them and
brought them around to watch stations. They were incredible! He was
so happy to be doing something that people liked that he started
making about twice as much as he needed for the next day so that he
could feed all the midnight watchstanders with fresh, warm, pastries.
When you're trapped where no one can hear you scream, even the simple
pleasures are wonderful....
--
"Adrenaline is like exercise, but without the excessive gym fees."
-- Professor Walsh, "Buffy the Vampire Slayer"
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Franklin Expedition search called off
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.military.naval/t/2d8660c193ef77da?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Jul 10 2009 10:24 am
From: Jack Linthicum
Pics of the artifacts discovered 9 years ago at the citation.
Franklin Expedition search called off
Last Updated: Friday, July 10, 2009 | 11:09 AM CT
CBC News
Artifacts discovered nine years ago of the ill-fated Franklin
Expedition.Artifacts discovered nine years ago of the ill-fated
Franklin Expedition. (CBC)
A government-sponsored search for Sir John Franklin's missing ships in
the High Arctic has been scrubbed this summer, but private
entrepreneurs hope to score an archeological coup by conducting their
own search in late August.
Ottawa announced last August it was mounting an effort to find
Franklin's two ships, the Erebus and Terror, which went missing more
than 160 years ago.
Some graves of the crew members have been discovered over the years
and relics have been uncovered.
But the search for the missing ships has become a potential prize —
made even bigger when then Federal Environment Minister John Baird
announced Ottawa was backing a search and that experts would be
relying on Inuit knowledge to aid the search.
On Thursday, Parks Canada's senior marine archeologist, Ryan Harris,
confirmed the official search for the Franklin ships has been called
off for this summer.
Harris said Parks Canada had asked the navy for ship time but there
won't be a Canadian Forces ship in the vicinity and the search team
was unable to get time aboard one of the Canadian Coast Guard's
icebreakers.
"Unfortunately this particular season, Coast Guard had other
scientific programs that they had to prioritize. But we intend to
continue with the survey next year. The Coast Guard remains a very
important partner for us in this three-year project."
Gjoa Haven historian Louis Kamookak, who is part of Parks Canada's
Franklin team, says it was a three-year project and is disappointed
that it is on hold this year.
"Briefly I talked with the guy from Parks [Canada] and what I'm
hearing is that this summer the icebreaker has some other
commitments."
Nine years ago, Kamookak approached the crew of the the RCMP ship St.
Roch II. He invited the skipper, RCMP Sgt. Ken Burton, to see some
remains from the Franklin Expedition on the shores of one of the Todd
Islands.
Locating ships would be big news
Unlike other remains found over the years, the Todd Islands graves
were located quite far south from where Franklin's two ships were
believed to have been stuck in the ice.
Other sites showed signs of cannibalism, and that the 128 members of
Franklin's crew died of disease and lead poisoning soon after they
abandoned their ships.
The Inuit say they have known about this site since the 19th century,
but Kamookak thinks others could well find Franklin's ships first.
For example, Rob Rondeau, a marine archeologist with Alberta-based
ProCom Diving Services, has teamed up with a British archeologist to
conduct their own search for Erebus and Terror in late August.
"We're quite confident based on the research that we've done that we
have a pretty good idea of where the remains of the two ships are,"
said Rondeau. "We'll actually be using some state-of-the-art sonar
equipment."
Rondeau said Britain remains fascinated with the Franklin story and
locating the ships would be big news in the United Kingdom and in
Nunavut.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/north/story/2009/07/09/north-franklin.html
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Toy Catalog: Aircraft carrier and Spy set
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.military.naval/t/c67b11d75a311a4b?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Jul 10 2009 10:31 am
From: Jack Linthicum
$34.95 31 inch CVN (None) with 6 aircraft, working elevator and best
of all the island is one the port side so the British can use it.
$49.95 Top Secret Spy Gear with two walkie talkies, rear view spy
glasses, invisible ink, a high-tech listenting device and "brief
Congress without fear" card.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Updated Issue Regulations:The Purple Heart Medal
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.military.naval/t/cf7967128f38a118?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Jul 10 2009 10:42 am
From: Otis Willie PIO The American War Library
Updated Issue Regulations:The Purple Heart Medal
Established by General George Washington as the "Badge of Military Merit" on 7 Aug 1782. Revived as the Purple Heart in 1932 by General Douglas MacArthur. Awarded to any member of the Armed Forces of the United States or any civilian
national of the US who, while serving under competent authority in any capacity with one of the U.S. Armed Forces has been wounded, killed, or who has died or may hereafter die of wounds received under any of the following circumstances...
Issue Regulations: http://www.amervets.com/replacement/ph.htm#isr
Common Myths about the Purple Heart medal:
http://www.americanwarlibrary.com/theheart.htm
Purple Heart Recipient Search: http://www.amervets.com/library.htm
Purple Heart Discussion and Info-Sharing Forum:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/purple-heart/
NOTE: Eligible personnel should ensure this Service Period acknowledgment is listed on your current 201A Military Award Report:
http://www.amervets.com/201areq.htm (or... amervets.com/201a)
Contact Person for this posting: Roger Simpson, PIO
Public Information Office: http://www.13105320634.com
The American War Library: http://www.amervets.com/
16907 Brighton Avenue
Gardena CA 90247-5420
Phone / Fax: 1-310-532-0634
-- Otis Willie (Ret.)
Military News and Information Editor (http://www.13105320634.com)
The American War Library, Est. 1988 (http://www.amervets.com)
16907 Brighton Avenue
Gardena CA 90247
1-310-532-0634
Military Personnel Database
http://www.amervets.com/library.htm
Military and Vet Info-Exchange/Discussion Groups
http://www.amervets.com/share.htm
Public Information Office
http://www.13105320634.com
==============================================================================
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sci.military.naval"
group.
To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/sci.military.naval?hl=en
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sci.military.naval+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.military.naval/subscribe?hl=en
To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com
==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en
posted by The Captain at
10:43 AM
0 Comments
