Posted on 09/11/2008 6:24:33 AM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
It is big fat idiots like you who think that calling folks communists or communist sympathizers is a valid way of dealing with folks taht disagree with your idiotic positions, which you can only defend by calling folks communists.
This not just about acquisition problems but your heroes, CDI, usually taking strong anti-American positions on every issue.
Another trait of you namecalling knee jerk idiots is that you put words in the mouths of others to beat them over the head with.
That is to avoid dealing with the fact that the JSF problems are huge acqusition system problems caused by an out of control Air Force that cannot even keep track of where its nukes are and that thinks that supported its bloated contractor base is more important than supporting the wars that we are actually fighting on the ground today.
I have spent almost none of my life paying any attention to CDI. Chuck Spinney on the other hand can hardly be tarred with the communist brush, and trying to do so, you just prove that you are a mindless namecalling idiot.
LaRoque was a screwball. On the other hand, our brilliant strategic thinkers in the Pentagon did not exactly cover themselves in glory in Vietnam, and it is the lessons of our military planning and execution failures that have lead to any succcess since then. In fact, we tried our hardest to forget those lessons in Iraq and almost managed to snare a big defeat as a consequence. We are back on track, but that is not the fault of your heroes in Versailles sur Potomac.
I respect the technology, but I put my faith in tech/pilot combintion. It’s called close air support for a reason; shooting up an armored column or supporting infantry on a modern, quickly-changing battlefield requires more than pickling in precision-guided munitions from 30,000 feet. Moreover, the amount of AGM munitions than the A-10 can carry, coupled with the 30mm and the plane’s ability to loiter and fight for extended periods of time, make it a perfect match for the role it was designed for.
Likewise, getting in close requires that your aircraft be able to withstand a tremendous amount of punishment, from small arms to ZSU carriers to SAMs. There is no modern fighter that can take anything close to that kind of punishment and still bring the plane and aircrew home safely. We just don’t have anything that can replace the A-10, and although every budget cycle the military talks about turning over the CAS role to fighter aircraft, it still hasn’t been done because the record of success of the ‘Hog speaks for itself.
>>>> Another idiot [IQ 153] on this forum who loves namecalling {I haven't called anyone any names] rather than debating a postion [I have debated many positions, (but never a postion) including yours.]
>>>> It is big fat [No, not fat] idiots [IQ 153] like you who think that calling folks communists [I called no one a communist] or communist sympathizers [I called no one a communist sympathizer] is a valid way of dealing with folks taht [that] disagree with your idiotic [you really like that word root, don't you?] positions, which you can only defend by calling folks communists [please remember, I called no one a communist.]
Captain (?) You have an excellent talent for taking what people say,,,, and turning it 180 degrees to fit your own thought process..... such as it is. I know remembering things for more than a few moments may seem to be a problem, but please try.
Come to think of it.... is reality really that much of a problem for you?
Just another reminder, which may or may not apply in your case. If you are too tipsy to drive, you're too tipsy to post.
Have a GREAT day.
P.S. Were you in charge of FEMA’s response to Katrina, by chance?
You are the one who started calling me a communist for taking exception to you calling other noble Americans communists because of another screwed up pentagon acquistion.
Hello, Mr IQ 153 - whoah like I am so impressed - when did the cold war end?
And finally if the decade and a half ago reqired Adm LaRoque were a communist that has no bearing on whether or not the not JSF which is not yet in production is a dog or not, especially when the guys who developed modern air warfare doctrine are calling it a dog.
Or, of course, you could post that you are wrong.............
Or, of course, you could post that you are wrong.............
Sprey, with Boyd, invented the RMA.
you are the one with the 153 IQ. You go figure it out.
PS a negative of a negative is what, Mr IQ 153?
Secretary Gates when he fired a couple of guys recently for Air Force arrogance and incomptence? Remember?
Talk about something that got bad press with a lot of misinformation. The project was killed because of cost overruns, but what nobody ever mentions is that the specs on the fuselage and wing from the government changed 12 months into the project without any adjustment in the contract. The contractor had to start over and had to start over again 6 months later when the government changed the specs in the cockpit. That's called setting the contractor up to fail. Said contractor was sued by the AIR FORCE (not the Navy) and successfully defended the suit twice in claiming breach of contract by the AIR FORCE.
The AF is plain and simply top heavy, really political and all the way around plays favorites. It's been that way for decades and it's in the culture. There is no way in the real world that Lockheed would ever have won the F-22. There was an F-23 prototype ready to fly and Lockheed asked for more time - twice - and they get the contract? Huh?
I have a relative in a squadron where the birds are Vietnam-era and they are canabalizing half the birds to repair the other half because the parts aren't made anymore. Plain and simply, it's time for some major investment in equipment WITHOUT the politics and with no thought as to who's district said equipment is made.
I don't think so.
This article by William S. Lind describes Sprey and Boyd as reformers, not RMA guys, and says they are opposite camps. http://www.counterpunch.org/lind05292008.html
This article also calls them reformers, not RMA guys. http://www.afa.org/magazine/feb2008/0208reformers.asp. It is a good overview of the movement, and of the history of the debate between simplicity + numbers v. comlexity + capability, although it is written by one of the antagonists in that argument.
The reformers advocated cheaper simpler systems in large numbers, and made the arguments Sprey makes in the article against gold plated, expensive, low unit production systems.
Some of their prognostications did not pan out:
It was high tide for the Reformers. Also in 1983, Gary Hart sought to force the cancellation of a host of programs, including the F-15, improved versions of the F-16, the radar guided AMRAAM missile, the LANTIRN night targeting system, and an infrared version of the Maverick ground-attack missile. The effort failed, but Reformism was rippling through Washington.The thrust of the article is that in subsequent conflicts the reformers arguments have been decisively refuted. The Gulf War and the invasion of Iraq are pretty strong evidence of this refutation.The Reformers, though they focused on the Air Force’s tactical airpower, also targeted some Army and Navy systems. One of Sprey’s “expensive losers” was the M1 tank. The older M60 was cheaper and more effective, he said.
Boyd's OODA loop construct is true genius, and is a big driver for the RMA, so there is some irony in this quite interesting history.
Regards,
Gee, we were doing that in 1978 when I was at Mtn. Home AFB working on F-111As. We had a 25% mission capable rate due to a lack of spares. And at that time the aircraft were only 11-12 years old (manufactured in 66 and 67.)
It's pretty standard practice to take three parts off of one aircraft that already is down, in order to make three others fly, instead of having four aircraft down with four different parts on backorder.
Yeah, but when you're cannabalizing four birds just to get the other four to fly in an eight bird squadron with no plans to replace any of them in the near future and no manufacturer making the parts? THAT is not a good thing.
>>>>You go figure it out.
Knew you couldn’t do it! You love to make false allegations, then run away when asked to back them up. Just like kids who can “dish it out but can’t take it!”
Hey, all. This guy’s a big time phony. A retired Navy Captain (?) who can’t spell. Has no sense of logic or truth. Wonder if he wears any medals he is not entitled to.
Who is it here on FR who checks out the phony military vets?
I know, you are going to invoke the Obama defense. It wasn't me you were calling a pig while you were trying to put more lipstick on the DoD acquisition trough.
Now, since we are grading phonies, tell me, genius, what mathematical algorithm and what technical innovation revolutionized anti-submarine warfare and made possible us tactical dominance basically driving the Soviet Submarine force from the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans prior to the collapse of the Soviet Union?
The debate over who "owned" the revolution in military affairs is like arguing who is the most holy christian defender of the faith. At ths point the issue is an interesting historical one. The 5 rings strategy which is sort of the forerunner of "shock and awe" is Waerden's development with a lot of help drawing on Boyd. Netwar, using a large number of independent affordable systems rather than putting all one's eggs in one basket is the product of a lot of that thinking.
I am waiting genius.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.