Page 47 of 47 FirstFirst ... 37454647
Results 461 to 469 of 469

Thread: Pentagon Concerned Russia Cultivating Sympathy Among US Troops

  1. #461
    defected to kekistan
    beerftw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    kekistan
    Last Seen
    01-19-20 @ 11:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    16,905

    Re: Pentagon Concerned Russia Cultivating Sympathy Among US Troops

    Quote Originally Posted by Oozlefinch View Post
    I was explaining the evolution, not any kind of justification or denial. Just giving facts, without any politics.

    And since when does a piece of equipment like a submarine only work against one enemy and not another? A vehicle works only in one place, and not another. Our tanks in WWII worked in deserts, jungles, and the forests of Europe. Shops made for use against Germany also worked perfectly well against Japan.

    You keep concentrating on how things are different, yet never seem to mention what is so different that what works against one does not work against another.

    Case in point, the A-10 was designed as a "Tank Buster", to be used for destroying tanks in Europe. Yet the same aircraft is also an outstanding CAS platform in the deserts in Asia. A very different enemy, a very different location.

    So please remove the politics, and explain why equipment made for one conflict do not work in another. You throw out buzzwords, but have yet to actually explain why.
    jedbaron96 already said it better than I can, pointing out mraps were designed for a specific warfare.

    The seawolf was designed for combat against soviet subs, it does not mean it can not be repurposed or the tech used in future subs, but rather it's own design was obsolete by production due to being designed against an enemy that no longer exists.

    Many designs can be altered, for example the seawolf became the virginia class. You mention the a-10 but it is relevant today, and fyi tankbuster was not ever in it's intended design, it was designed from the ground up as cas not as a tankbuster, it just happened to fill that role nicely. The predecessor to the a-10 the a-1 was designed as a torpedo launcher and bomber to take out aircraft, it's own design too was obsolete as ww2 ended before it was ready, but due to it's high weight capacity was redesigned into a cas aircraft, the tech proved valid but it's original purpose not, so itwas turned into one of the most feared cas aircraft known.

    The point of the argument was against braindrain arguing we have russia as a top priority then him pointing to a sub class that was shelved and the f-22 which is in use but started design when the soviet union existed, both of those ideas were from the soviet era cold war and not a good argument to claim america never stopped viewing russia as a top threat, as those designs started before the russian federation was even a country not after.
    Proposition 65 warning- my posts are known to the state of California to cause cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm.

  2. #462
    Sage
    Oozlefinch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    State of Jefferson
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    12,950

    Re: Pentagon Concerned Russia Cultivating Sympathy Among US Troops

    Quote Originally Posted by beerftw View Post
    jedbaron96 already said it better than I can, pointing out mraps were designed for a specific warfare.
    I stopped reading his posts a long time ago. Because of dishonesty in posting.

    And what about the MRAP makes it incapable of operating in another environment? What is it about this vehicle that prevents it from working in say Germany or South Korea?

    In fact, the 173rd Brigade in Germany has been using the MRAP for over a decade now.

    And in case you were not aware, the MRAP is already on the way out. It was intended purely as a temporary vehicle, to be used until a better replacement could be designed. And that is the M-ATV. And has been purchased by a great many countries, including Uzbekistan, Croatia, and South Africa.

    Once again, you throw out a claim that it is unsuitable, and provide absolutely no evidence stating why it is unsuitable.

    Quote Originally Posted by beerftw View Post
    The seawolf was designed for combat against soviet subs, it does not mean it can not be repurposed or the tech used in future subs, but rather it's own design was obsolete by production due to being designed against an enemy that no longer exists.
    No, that is wrong. It was designed to combat enemy ballistic missile subs. And do you know who else has ballistic missile subs?

    China.

    Now exactly what about the Seawolf makes it great against Soviet subs, but completely worthless against Chinese subs. Is there something magical in that sub that makes it completely ignore it? Can it not shoot one because it is not Soviet?

    Once again, you just make a claim, but in absolutely no way to you even attempt to validate your claim.
    War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. - John Stuart Mill

  3. #463
    Sage
    Oozlefinch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    State of Jefferson
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    12,950

    Re: Pentagon Concerned Russia Cultivating Sympathy Among US Troops

    Quote Originally Posted by beerftw View Post
    You mention the a-10 but it is relevant today, and fyi tankbuster was not ever in it's intended design, it was designed from the ground up as cas not as a tankbuster, it just happened to fill that role nicely. The predecessor to the a-10 the a-1 was designed as a torpedo launcher and bomber to take out aircraft, it's own design too was obsolete as ww2 ended before it was ready, but due to it's high weight capacity was redesigned into a cas aircraft, the tech proved valid but it's original purpose not, so itwas turned into one of the most feared cas aircraft known.
    OK, got ya. OK, now a little history lesson.

    When the Air Force put out a call for a replacement Attack aircraft (something they do not even want to do, but they are mandated to provide one by the Key West Agreement), they created the A-X project. And there were 2 designs submitted. That is the Northrup YA-9, and the Fairchild YA-10. Both aircraft were remarkably similar, and if you set both of them at 100 meters and block off the view of the nose most would likely be unable to tell them apart.

    But the difference between the 2 was the GAU-8 cannon. In fact, a weapon that is remarkably lousy in use for a CAS aircraft. The Army actually preferred the YA-9 with the smaller 20mm Vulcan cannon, as it had almost double the ammo capacity of the 30mm GAU-8. But the Air Force had the final say, so the YA-10 won and the YA-9 lost.

    It assumed the role of "Tankbuster" because in the then battle plans for a NATO-Warsaw Pact conflict, it was realized that the main threat would be Soviet tanks and not infantry. And our own forces would be conducting a fighting withdrawal and not actually conducting the kind of defensive actions where CAS would be of any great use (beyond what the Army's own rotary wing aircraft could provide). You call in CAS when you really need to hold a location. Otherwise you simply slip away. That is what the entire battle plan for WWIII in Europe was. No big fights, little attacks then running away.

    Remember, the A-10 is by it's designation an "Attack" aircraft. Not an F for Fighter, or B for Bomber. And attack means going after ground targets. If it was only intended for CAS, then they would have selected the YA-9, not the YA-10. The 9 was a much better CAS aircraft, but the 10 was much better at taking out other ground targets (like tanks,something the 9 really could not do well).

    Under that order of battle, the A-10 was tasked with 3 main roles. Taking out tanks, taking out logistics trains, and taking out command and control centers. Notice, those are all "Attack" roles, as the designation of the aircraft mandates. But they re not really CAS roles. It would however slip back into it's CAS role when NATO went back on the offensive once the Warsaw logistics lines had been stretched to their limit, and the number of tanks thinned.

    But no, it was not really a CAS aircraft. Notice how early on I stated that the Air Force was mandated to provide an Attack aircraft. Not a CAS aircraft. CAS is a role in an Attack aircraft, but not their only role. Their actual role is to focus almost exclusively upon ground targets and not air targets But it was always intended in the role of taking out ground targets, more specifically tanks and not troops in the open. And in the traditional CAS role, it does not rely upon it's canon so much. Instead it primarily uses it's rocket launchers.

    The only branch that really has it's own CAS aircraft is the Marines. The AV-8B is really the only fixed wing CAS aircraft the US really fields. It's air defense capabilities are very limited, and it's ground attack is also limited. But because it operates much like a rotary wing aircraft in many ways it is an excellent CAS platform.

    But those are being retired in a few years, and replaced by another similar aircraft, the F-35B.
    War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. - John Stuart Mill

  4. #464
    Finite and Precious
    Jredbaron96's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    With you.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:07 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    12,172
    Blog Entries
    3

    Re: Pentagon Concerned Russia Cultivating Sympathy Among US Troops

    Quote Originally Posted by Oozlefinch View Post
    I stopped reading his posts a long time ago. Because of dishonesty in posting.

    And what about the MRAP makes it incapable of operating in another environment? What is it about this vehicle that prevents it from working in say Germany or South Korea?
    Because in those environments the main problem isn't going to be IEDs, it's going to by anti-tank mines (which the MRAP does not protect against) or actual enemy armor like tanks or IFVs; which will pierce the MRAP's thin side armor with ease, or ATGMs which will crack it open like a fiery can of sardines.

    Sure, you can *use* them; they're just not good for a conventional environment; they don't protect against likely threats since they weren't designed for them, they have a high center of gravity and tall profile which makes them easy to spot. They're an APC that is overly vulnerable to conventional threats not to mention more expensive than a normal battle taxi.

    Also, the iron of you complaining about dishonest posting when you refuse to back down on any claim you make regardless of how often it has been shown to be false.
    “We were all of us cogs in a great machine which sometimes rolled forward, nobody knew where, sometimes backwards, nobody knew why.”

    ― Ernst Toller

  5. #465
    Finite and Precious
    Jredbaron96's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    With you.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:07 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    12,172
    Blog Entries
    3

    Re: Pentagon Concerned Russia Cultivating Sympathy Among US Troops

    It's also worth noting that in repeated testings the A-10 was barely able to achieve a 50% hit rate on stationary armor with it's GAU. It was designed to whittle down columns of Soviet armor but would have spent most of it getting blown out of the sky since it was designed to survive Soviet 23mm AA shells, but by the time it was introduced the Soviets had equipped their tactical air defense units with SAMs, which the A-10 doesn't protect against.
    “We were all of us cogs in a great machine which sometimes rolled forward, nobody knew where, sometimes backwards, nobody knew why.”

    ― Ernst Toller

  6. #466
    Sage
    Fledermaus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Peoples Republic of California AKA Taxifornia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    58,165

    Re: Pentagon Concerned Russia Cultivating Sympathy Among US Troops

    Quote Originally Posted by Tangmo View Post
    The OP highlights the nexus of Putin-Trump & Rowers and too many Republicans, Conservatives and almost all Libertarian Rightists in the armed forces lower enlisted ranks to include their families, as various surveys cited in the thread show.

    It is excellent indeed to see retired flag officers of the US armed forces speaking up to counter Trump's negative influence and persuasion over certain elements of the US military both at home and abroad, as noted in the OP.



    Retired four-star Army general: Trump 'serious threat to US national security'

    03/16/18




    A retired four-star Army general said that he believes that President Trump is a “serious threat to US national security.”

    Retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey tweeted Friday that he reached the conclusion about Trump because the president “is refusing to protect vital US interests from active Russian attacks.”

    “It is apparent that he is for some unknown reason under the sway of [Russian President Vladimir] Putin,” he added.

    McCaffrey has also worked as an adjunct professor [of strategy] at the U.S. Military Academy and led the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy for five years.

    Trump has come under fire for his response to Russian interference in the U.S. election. The president has repeatedly hit the probe into Russia's election meddling as a "witch hunt."

    Retired four-star Army general: Trump 'serious threat to US national security' | TheHill



    McCaffrey is immensely respected by generals and admirals active duty and retired. He is in continuing contact with 'em. As a division commander in Desert Storm McCaffrey devised the famous "Left Hook" maneuver that destroyed dozens of Iraqi divisions in one vast sweep that brought comparisons to Caesar in Gaul. After his retirement McCaffrey taught strategy at USMA for six years.

    During the campaign Trump bellowed he'd "fire the generals" yet he hasn't fired a general or an admiral. In the instance of Trump as Potus it would be provocative and Trump know this. Nor are any generals or admirals going anywhere.
    Have you anything to say about your rather obvious dishonesty?
    'All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others.'

    Douglas Adams

  7. #467
    defected to kekistan
    beerftw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    kekistan
    Last Seen
    01-19-20 @ 11:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    16,905

    Re: Pentagon Concerned Russia Cultivating Sympathy Among US Troops

    Quote Originally Posted by Oozlefinch View Post
    I stopped reading his posts a long time ago. Because of dishonesty in posting.

    And what about the MRAP makes it incapable of operating in another environment? What is it about this vehicle that prevents it from working in say Germany or South Korea?

    In fact, the 173rd Brigade in Germany has been using the MRAP for over a decade now.

    And in case you were not aware, the MRAP is already on the way out. It was intended purely as a temporary vehicle, to be used until a better replacement could be designed. And that is the M-ATV. And has been purchased by a great many countries, including Uzbekistan, Croatia, and South Africa.

    Once again, you throw out a claim that it is unsuitable, and provide absolutely no evidence stating why it is unsuitable.



    No, that is wrong. It was designed to combat enemy ballistic missile subs. And do you know who else has ballistic missile subs?

    China.

    Now exactly what about the Seawolf makes it great against Soviet subs, but completely worthless against Chinese subs. Is there something magical in that sub that makes it completely ignore it? Can it not shoot one because it is not Soviet?

    Once again, you just make a claim, but in absolutely no way to you even attempt to validate your claim.
    The mrap becomes incapable in state warfare as it was designed to fight improvised insurgency warfare which it much different that state level warfare. This is not to say it is useless however it was designed for a specific type of warfare and without major changes would stay relegated to that specific type of warfare.

    The seawolf was specifically designed to combat the typhoon and akula class soviet missile subs,

    The Seawolf design was intended to combat the threat of advanced Soviet ballistic missile submarines such as the Typhoon class, and attack submarines such as the Akula class in a deep-ocean environment. Seawolf-class hulls are constructed from HY-100 steel, which is stronger than the HY-80 steel employed in previous classes, in order to withstand water pressure at greater depths.[6][7]

    Seawolf-class submarine - Wikipedia
    Proposition 65 warning- my posts are known to the state of California to cause cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm.

  8. #468
    defected to kekistan
    beerftw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    kekistan
    Last Seen
    01-19-20 @ 11:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    16,905

    Re: Pentagon Concerned Russia Cultivating Sympathy Among US Troops

    Quote Originally Posted by Oozlefinch View Post
    OK, got ya. OK, now a little history lesson.

    When the Air Force put out a call for a replacement Attack aircraft (something they do not even want to do, but they are mandated to provide one by the Key West Agreement), they created the A-X project. And there were 2 designs submitted. That is the Northrup YA-9, and the Fairchild YA-10. Both aircraft were remarkably similar, and if you set both of them at 100 meters and block off the view of the nose most would likely be unable to tell them apart.

    But the difference between the 2 was the GAU-8 cannon. In fact, a weapon that is remarkably lousy in use for a CAS aircraft. The Army actually preferred the YA-9 with the smaller 20mm Vulcan cannon, as it had almost double the ammo capacity of the 30mm GAU-8. But the Air Force had the final say, so the YA-10 won and the YA-9 lost.



    But no, it was not really a CAS aircraft. Notice how early on I stated that the Air Force was mandated to provide an Attack aircraft. Not a CAS aircraft. CAS is a role in an Attack aircraft, but not their only role. Their actual role is to focus almost exclusively upon ground targets and not air targets But it was always intended in the role of taking out ground targets, more specifically tanks and not troops in the open. And in the traditional CAS role, it does not rely upon it's canon so much. Instead it primarily uses it's rocket launchers.

    The only branch that really has it's own CAS aircraft is the Marines. The AV-8B is really the only fixed wing CAS aircraft the US really fields. It's air defense capabilities are very limited, and it's ground attack is also limited. But because it operates much like a rotary wing aircraft in many ways it is an excellent CAS platform.

    But those are being retired in a few years, and replaced by another similar aircraft, the F-35B.
    The ya-9 and ya-10 looked completely different, the fact the ya-9 has engines under the wing and a completely different tail end makes it obvious enough.

    You should read the airforces demands as well as the armies and the designer of the program, they specifically list cas as the primary goal and it is the only aircraft designed from the ground up with cas as a priority.


    On 8 September 1966, General John P. McConnell, Chief of Staff of the USAF, ordered that a specialized CAS aircraft be designed, developed, and obtained. On 22 December, a Requirements Action Directive was issued for the A-X CAS airplane,[14] and the Attack Experimental (A-X) program office was formed.[15] On 6 March 1967, the Air Force released a request for information to 21 defense contractors for the A-X. The objective was to create a design study for a low-cost attack aircraft.[11] In 1969, the Secretary of the Air Force asked Pierre Sprey to write the detailed specifications for the proposed A-X project; Sprey's initial involvement was kept secret due to his earlier controversial involvement in the F-X project.[11] Sprey's discussions with Skyraider pilots operating in Vietnam and analysis of aircraft used in the role indicated the ideal aircraft should have long loiter time, low-speed maneuverability, massive cannon firepower, and extreme survivability;[11] possessing the best elements of the Ilyushin Il-2, Henschel Hs 129, and Skyraider. The specifications also demanded that each aircraft cost less than $3 million (equivalent to $20.9 million today).[11] Sprey required that the biography of World War II Luftwaffe attack pilot Hans-Ulrich Rudel be read by people on the A-X program.[16]

    In May 1970, the USAF issued a modified, more detailed request for proposals for the aircraft. The threat of Soviet armored forces and all-weather attack operations had become more serious. The requirements now included that the aircraft would be designed specifically for the 30 mm rotary cannon. The RFP also specified a maximum speed of 460 mph (400 kn; 740 km/h), takeoff distance of 4,000 feet (1,200 m), external load of 16,000 pounds (7,300 kg), 285-mile (460 km) mission radius, and a unit cost of US$1.4 million ($9.2 million today).[17] The A-X would be the first USAF aircraft designed exclusively for close air support.[18] During this time, a separate RFP was released for A-X's 30 mm cannon with requirements for a high rate of fire (4,000 round per minute) and a high muzzle velocity.[19] Six companies submitted aircraft proposals, with Northrop and Fairchild Republic selected to build prototypes: the YA-9A and YA-10A, respectively. General Electric and Philco-Ford were selected to build and test GAU-8 cannon prototypes.[20]


    Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II - Wikipedia
    Proposition 65 warning- my posts are known to the state of California to cause cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm.

  9. #469
    Sage
    Oozlefinch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    State of Jefferson
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    12,950

    Re: Pentagon Concerned Russia Cultivating Sympathy Among US Troops

    Quote Originally Posted by beerftw View Post
    The mrap becomes incapable in state warfare as it was designed to fight improvised insurgency warfare which it much different that state level warfare. This is not to say it is useless however it was designed for a specific type of warfare and without major changes would stay relegated to that specific type of warfare.

    The seawolf was specifically designed to combat the typhoon and akula class soviet missile subs,

    The Seawolf design was intended to combat the threat of advanced Soviet ballistic missile submarines such as the Typhoon class, and attack submarines such as the Akula class in a deep-ocean environment. Seawolf-class hulls are constructed from HY-100 steel, which is stronger than the HY-80 steel employed in previous classes, in order to withstand water pressure at greater depths.[6][7]

    Seawolf-class submarine - Wikipedia
    And what is it about the M-113, M-2, and HMMWV that lets it operate in Europe, yet the MRAP can not? And why were they able to operate in the Middle East?

    But I guess for some reason the MRAP can not do the same job of transporting troops and equipment in Europe or anywhere else in the world... just because?

    And the same with the Seawolf I guess. Somehow it just magically turns itself off, and can not track or engage Chinese submarines. For some reason these submarines are absolutely incapable of tracking and attacking any submarines that China uses. Because they are not Russian?

    You should know by now that intended is often thrown away after the first of a class of anything is first used. Nobody when the F-14 was introduced expected it to be turned into a fighter-bomber. Nobody when the C-130 was introduced expected them to be turned into attack aircraft, let alone used to launch ICBMs. And certainly nobody with Raytheon when they were building the first PATRIOT system (or even the last of the original systems) would have expected it to become our main ABM system.

    So talking about "intended" as opposed to "capable of doing" is a fools errand. Just because a system was not intended for a mission is in no way the same as saying it is incapable of accomplishing other missions.

    Including using submarines to resupply forward bases with supplies and personnel.
    War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. - John Stuart Mill

Page 47 of 47 FirstFirst ... 37454647

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •