Article

2005-06-10 Iraq-Jordan

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve 2005-06-10 09:08|| || Front Page|| [10 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Same old sh*t, different day. The Army discovered that you don't need to be an officer to drive a helo years ago. A big shock to the Air Force.

Posted by Chuck Simmins">Chuck Simmins 2005-06-10 09:26|| http://blog.simmins.org]">[http://blog.simmins.org] 2005-06-10 09:26|| Front Page Top

#2 This "turf war" needs to be nipped off in the bud NOW.

Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2005-06-10 10:01|| 2005-06-10 10:01|| Front Page Top

#3 ....and lets not forget the most deadly of all UAVs - the ones the CIA flies. At least they have Hellfires attached. All the major kills in Afghanistan and Pakistan and even in Iraq (I believe)have been CIA operated.

Posted by Jack is Back!">Jack is Back! 2005-06-10 10:10|| 2005-06-10 10:10|| Front Page Top

#4 I'd go for a stray Spooky run into Syria while cleaning the roaches from the border...better than any one UAV

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2005-06-10 11:14|| 2005-06-10 11:14|| Front Page Top

#5 As the man says, the same old sh$$. I used to do radar nav checks on pilots as a Staff Sergeant - E5. They hated it, especially when I plotted them as much as 3000 meters off course. The equipment I was using and the scale of maps allowed me to plot their courses to within 10 meters. Acceptable limits were 500 meters.

As a 26-year veteran of the Air Force, I hate to badmouth my alma mater, so to speak, but there are a lot of things that need changing. The problem is, the people with the position to make the changes are too set in their ways to allow them. It's going to take a Donald Rumsfeld equivalent as Sec/AF to impose those changes, and to enforce them. The only way to guarantee success is to fire a bunch of three- and four-star generals.

Posted by Old Patriot">Old Patriot 2005-06-10 13:55|| http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/]">[http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/] 2005-06-10 13:55|| Front Page Top

#6 USAF is the only service that doesn't have warrant officers, as a matter of fact. Hmmm...

Posted by 11A5S 2005-06-10 14:21|| 2005-06-10 14:21|| Front Page Top

#7 echo the previous same sh!t, different day. the USAF prima donnas are becoming very obvious. Had an interesting discussion at the local VFW the other day: seems that since the USAF was split off from the Army, the US has never won a war. Truces, maybe. maybe we need to combine all armed forces (at least it would end turf wars and also shed some redundant overhead).

Posted by USN, ret. 2005-06-10 14:38|| 2005-06-10 14:38|| Front Page Top

#8 As we say in the Navy...the USAF is the only country club that makes everyone wear the same clothes.

Posted by anymouse">anymouse 2005-06-10 16:38|| 2005-06-10 16:38|| Front Page Top

#9 The Army is ahead of the power curve in TTP's when it come to UAV missions. The Army takes the high risk ones because they can get it done. As Jack said the Agency has armed UAV's, the combat aircraft of the future. I think the air force can see the future and they are fighting for their very existance. Why send a 40 million dollar aircraft with a Captain or Major when a good buck SGT with a laptop can do the same thing with a 200,000 dollar UAV and not put himself at risk. If they lose to the Army, and I hope they do, they will be relagated to being just a ride into theater, sort of like the Navy. Just think of the tax dollars we will all save.

Posted by 49 pan 2005-06-10 20:51|| 2005-06-10 20:51|| Front Page Top

#10 If that's then mission then buy more, lots more C-17s.

Posted by Shipman 2005-06-10 21:09|| 2005-06-10 21:09|| Front Page Top

#11 I think y'all need to check out the price of a Predator setup lately. YES, they have longer duration, and YES, they have a neato pair of hellfire missiles... but they cost about as much as A-10's. And if they ever got around to doing those A-10 upgrades, they'd have longer endurance and better sensors.

A lot of the recent stuff with the UAV's got done because it's more politically possible to get them built ("We're not risking a pilot, therefore there's no risk for President Clinton in using one!") than to upgrade the A-10, or even the fast-mover aircraft like the F-16 and -18, with better sensors and the equipment needed to relay those sensor pictures to the ground.

Remember that article about the new F-18 sensor pod being used in Iraq? They have five of them for the Carrier's air wing, and AFAIK it can't relay its images to the troops.

Posted by Phil Fraering 2005-06-10 22:28|| http://newsfromthefridge.typepad.com]">[http://newsfromthefridge.typepad.com] 2005-06-10 22:28|| Front Page Top

#12 The next logical devs are unmanned air superiority fighter-bombers and startegic bombers per se - the time is looming when the Air Force may have to return full control of air-based TACTICAL capabilities to the Army, from tacair wings to missle units. For a long long while during the US-USSR Cold War, the Army had more aircraft and ships than either the USAF or the Navy. As both the USA and its enemies move towards resolution of the battle for control of the future Global Empire and OWG, simple budget accounting will induce the necess changes.

Posted by JosephMendiola">JosephMendiola 2005-06-10 22:47|| n/a]">[n/a] 2005-06-10 22:47|| Front Page Top

23:55 Ricky bin Ricardo (Abu Babaloo)
23:44 mojo
23:43 Lurker
23:42 mojo
23:39 mojo
23:35 DMDF
23:24 JosephMendiola
23:23 DMDF
23:02 JosephMendiola
22:59 JosephMendiola
22:47 JosephMendiola
22:40 JAB
22:29 Pappy
22:28 Phil Fraering
22:23 Rex Mundi
22:20 49 pan
22:13 john
21:56 Matt
21:55 49 pan
21:48 49 pan
21:40 49 pan
21:39 Alaska Paul
21:36 Seafarious
21:33 WITT