sherpa
-
Posts
3,454 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by sherpa
-
-
None of our military shortcomings have been due to the military or a lack of air craft carriers, but the Commander in Chief(s). Somehow I think we can limp by with the air craft carriers we have. As far as Commander in Chief, that's a whole other deal.
If you are claiming that none of our military failures were due to inadequate material being available, you are grossly mistaken. There have been many such instances in our past.
-
Billy Shaw
Paul McGuire
Robert James
Daryl Talley
Steve Tasker
OJ
Thurman Thomas
Jim Kelly
Andre Reed
-
You guys are clearly avoiding R. J. Archer.
Down on the Seahawks QB depth chart, but dismiss him at your peril.
-
This gets resolved.
Their depth chart at his position is not impressive at all.
-
I saw a lot of him at Virginia Tech.
The first thing I noticed was how perfect his mechanics were. As an ex pitching coach, I notice those things.
The other thing that was obvious is how he made huge mistakes and did not see the entire field.
I remember one play in particular. His outside guy ran a go route and was wide open. At least 20 yards.
Taylor threw to an underneath route and the throw resulted in a pick. At that instant I remember stating to my Va. Tech son that I really hope the Bills don't draft him.
Time and time again he made poor decisions.
-
The word on the street in the DC area was that Kyle Shanahan was very well thought of throughout the league.
Mike is done.
I wouldn't be surprised if the Bills were his first HC gig. I'm certain he is going to get one.
-
This is getting out of control, and I've had enough.
The Administration needs to appoint a pizza czar.
-
That said, I never understand the OJ hate. The dude put the Bills on the map before going on to amuse and entertain us in numerous classic comedy movies. The dude has one bad day and everybody's in his schitt.
What happens in Vegas.........Stays in Vegas.
-
Slot guys need to have that combination of athleticism and toughness or to fight off being jammed at the line. So far that's what I like about Hogan. He's got enough size and strength (I don't think Woods does) to get into those seams, and enough athleticism to turn it up field every now and then. Not saying he's great, but a reliable slot guy is critical, particularly with a struggling run game.
And Hogan was wide open on the Sammy touchdown, running a slant from the right.
Not sure Orton could have got it through the D-line, but Hogan was wide open and had the goal line.
-
Two points.
There isn't any chance you are going to get live video, and almost none that you'll get live audio on the very narrow bandwidth that same airlines have. You can, maybe, get a bit of gametracker, but I'd bet even that would be very spotty.
Second, if you are going to be at 10000 feet, per your claim, on an airliner, you have other, far more serious problems to consider.
-
Going to war without the French is like going deer hunting without an accordion.
-
Regarding the F-4, they were part of the USS Midway's group (as it couldn't handle the F-14), and were replaced by the F/A-18.
The Midway's deck was far too small too handle an F-14 squadron, but in a strategic sense, the F-18 did not replace the F-4.
The F-4 was gone from every US carrier ex Midway, and presented huge disadvantages. That's why Kitty Hawk and Nimitz were sent to the Indian Ocean after US Embassy in Tehran was seized.
There is simply no comparison between the capability of the F-18 and the F-4.
Regarding the F4, I will relate an experience that occurred when the F-18 was brand new.
It's first detachment away from its Lemoore California home base was in the very early 80's at Yuma. Good winter weather and the TACTS Range, (the range used for the movie TopGun).
Anyway, I was one of the adversaries going to fight it. The real mission was for the initial cadre of F-18 RAG, (RTU) instructors for Air Force guys, to come up with the air combat portion of what was to be the syllabus for new F-18 guys.
Anyway, the Sunday night prior to starting, we were in the O club going over schedules and operating area stuff and a Marine F-4 guy walks in. The Marines had their F-4 RAG at Yuma. Anyway, he comes over and starts indicating that he isn't a believer in the F-18 and blah blah blah.
So between the three of us guys doing a 9am sortie, we agree that I will fight the F-18 in the first two engagements , which are simple one v one setups, and going to be day two training for new guys.
At some point this Marine F-4 guy is going to show up.
The deal is made for two F-4 v F-18 engagements.
The first is a setup where the F-18 is in the lead, and the F-4 is 1000 feet dead six at the F-4's corner speed of 450kts. (For the uninitiated, corner speed is, basically, the indicated airspeed where the airplane can generated a maximum rate of turn or pitch change), in other words the sweet spot.
The second is going to be a line abreast set up at one mile at the F-18's corner of about 320 kts. Standard neutral setup..
So we do our thing and the F-4 shows up, and sets himself up at 1000' dead six.
3...2...1...go.
The F-18, in the lead, an ungodly bad position, goes to idle, pulls straight up. The F-4 starts up and overshoots badly. The F-18 in about 270 degrees of vertical turn, completely reverses the advantage and guns the F-4.
Second setup. One mile abeam, 320 kts.
3...2...1...go.
F-18 pulls inside as they both turn at each other Withing 90 degrees, the F-18 has already reversed and is starting a tracking solution on the F-4. By 150 degrees of turn the F-18 looks like a nicotine patch attached to the F-4's thigh..
End of exercise. F-4 goes home.
While we are debriefing our part at the TACTS range, the F-4 major shows up and simply states "I have no questions," then leaves.
-
Missed that post, sorry.
The F/A-18 was significantly less effective, given that replaced the A-7, A-6, and F-4, all of which were far better suited to their missions - better loads, better range, the F-4 was faster, the A-7 was more maintainable. The F-18 had the A-7 and F-4 beat on avionics - maybe the A-6, too, but I'm not sure. And while avionics aren't trivial, they become so when you can't reach the target with a meaningful payload - having the best dual-mode synthetic aperture radar available in 2001 doesn't mean much if you can't reach Afghanistan. The F/A-18C was a light, maneuverable bird with short legs and a light payload that was unsuited to replace the aircraft it actually replaced.
I guess this is where we cordially part then Tom.
I flew the A7E for three years; two cruises. I then went to TopGun and served as an adversary fighting against pretty much everything you have mentioned, and have flown the F-18.
To claim that the F-18 is "significantly less effective" than those airplanes that you claim it replaced is a view I have never heard from the hundreds of people I've know over the years I served. Never heard a single person make such a claim.
F-18 vastly superior to the A7 in every single regard, except range, and we tank for that. Never participated in a single detachment, and there were scores, where the F-18 mission readiness did not exceed the A7, per your maintenance claim.
Your F-4 inclusion is a non player. The F-4 was not replaced by the F-18. It was long gone. You could have made a point about the F-18 not replacing the F-14's fleet air defense role, valid and arguable, but a decent trade given the invisible nature of a fleet threat.
But the F-4?
Please.
The A-6? Avionics be damned. The airplane was g limited for years and nowhere near a fight in fight out machine.
Good luck in your further discussions here, but know ye this:
Range is not everything, and with air superiority at sea, it can be easily handled.
With air supremacy inland, as we have enjoyed, it is a total non player, as has been demonstrated over the past three conflicts.
Not saying range is undesirable, just saying that claiming the F-18 is not a successful replacement for the airplanes you mentioned is not a valid point.
-
You have not replied to what I questioned in post 71.
Again, how is the F-18 "significantly less effective in all rolls than the aircraft replaced," and, per your claim, do you really think the F-35 is an A-10 replacement?
I'm not one for internet warfare/insults, and they seem to permeate here-just a newguy observation, so please don't do that.
Just a simple question in response to your post.
-
In the interest of ease of reading, I'm going to ask you to defend this post line by line.
"Given that the early F/A-18s were seriously handicapped by range and payload limits, and that they were significantly less effective than the aircraft they replaced in all roles, I'd question calling it "tremendously successful."
Defend this,as I don't see it as being "significantly less effective than the aircraft," it replaced.
Next.
"Again, my point. The A-10 was designed to do a specific task, and excel at it. And it did so, and did so reliably and cheaply (originally $6M a plane, maybe $20M in today's costs. And we're replacing it with a plane with a unit cost of about $150M, that's less capable and survivable in the same role. That makes sense how, exactly?) "
The A-10 was designed as a tank killer. Nothing more. Of course it has performed well, given that it has done so without any credible air defense opposition. We will never design such an aircraft again, because there is no need. You can have a multi mission capable airplane that does the same thing without being completely useless in any reasonable defense.
Comparing its efficacy to the capability of the F-35 is senseless, as is comparing its cost. You could do the same thing with a helicopter or a C-130 gunship.
-
How do you test before you have all the requirements?
That's my point. When the thing is done, its tested, and flight testing seems to going very well.
-
A few points on DC Tom's lengthy but well constructed post.
Responding to the first sentence,
"If flight testing were going that well, the program wouldn't be seven years behind," is a logical fallacy.
The program has evolved over the years until each service has its near final requirements. The fact that flight testing is going well has nothing to do with how long it took to get there.
1. Regarding the F-22. There is simply no air to air machine on earth with its capability. None. it has proven in exercise after exercise that it is what it is supposed to be. In a decidedly negative review published by ABC News, it was reported that its decided advantage was lost at the "merge," which is air to combat speak for the fly by resulting in a dogfight. What they mention, in passing, is that nobody gets to the merge unless the F-22 lets it. In other words, adversaries an destroyed beyond visual range by its passive sensors and missile capability which allow it to detect, identify and destroy an adversary before that adversary is aware of its existence.
If you are a US fighter and you ever get to the merge, there has been some failure along the way. Further, what happens after the merge is most dependent on training and experience, along with airplane and weapons capability. Tough to predict, but not supposed to happen, and if it did, I would bet everything on the training and experience of US guys against any current adversary.
Still, in my recollection, the last time US fighters had to engage at the merge was when two F-14's eliminated two Libyan Migs in 1981. The thought of spending that much money on an airplane and waiting until the merge is ancestor worship, and to my knowlege, has not occurred in over 30 years.
The fight doesn't occur because the fight is over way before that.. I am unaware of any such fight in Iraq 1 or 2, or Afghanistan.
The entire TopGun curriculum, as well as US Air Force fighter weapons school is directed towards getting the kill before the merge-way before the merge.
As pointed out, there was a "mission creep" component to its development, (there always is), but its proven stealth capability and the added on ability to deliver air to ground weapons, albeit just a few, but very effective, is a net plus.
2. The A-10. There is a reason that the airplane was built with a titanium bathtub surrounding the cockpit, and the reason is that it needs one.
The A-10 was an airplane built around a gun, the 30mm GAU 8. Initially designed as nothing but a tank killer, it is an extremely slow gun platform. Works great when you have air supremacy. Not so much when you have to fight your way in and out. Has served well when there is no real anti air threat, either from the ground or the air, but has never been in a real air to air threat environment. A close air support in a "we own the sky" airplane, and the ground for that matter, only environment.
Regarding multi mission platforms, the more I think about it the more I realize that the evolution of the F-18, a tremendously successful airplane that the Navy did not initially want, points out that such worries are unfounded.
The F-35 is not perfect, but its going to be really good at what it does, and it can do a lot.
Back to the rpv question. What I think will happen is that a number of such things will carry offensive air to air weapons, or close air support weapons and be deployed in classic mission profiles. When a threat is detected, or a ground asset requires support, they will be called in and provide the same services that manned fighters do. I think its inevitable. Not for a bit, but inevitable..
-
Or it will be tremendously capable, if it ever actually works. And when it does, it'll hardly be cost-effective.
And even if it does work..."one size fits all" weapons systems have a history of being poorly fit to most of the missions they're required to perform.
Flight testing is going well, from what I've seen. The first Navy version has landed at sea both day and night.
Regarding multi purpose air frames, as I recall the last one attempted was the F-111, and that failure was in the very early 60's.
We are far more capable now, given advances on materials and software.
But, back to the subject of rpv's, the Joint Strike Fighter may well be the last manned fighter.
Wouldn't surprise me at all.
-
First, the F-35 is a tremendously capable airplane. Not the perfect air to air machine like the F-22, but an extremely capable air to air and more capable air to ground platform. Hopefully, it will be a successful replacement to the F-16/F-18 family.
Regarding the question of drones, there are some extremely problematic issues when you consider using one in a dynamic air to air or air to ground engagement. As of now, there is no effective way to communicate in real time at the speed necessary in such an engagement, and as has been pointed out the uplink security is a very big issue.
Speed is not an issue. You can build them to fly just as fast. The "G" thing isn't a really tough issue, because the biggest part of the G requirement is placed on the missile or whatever other offensive component is placed on the delivery platform.
But....A very strong case can be made for using them if these very serious limitations are elliminated or reduced, since so much money is spent on each manned aircraft in strictly non mission realities of adequate life support, and search and rescue capability. Even existing manned aircraft, the F-22 for example have been grounded because of serious O2 problems.
Has the last fighter pilot been born already? For the US, maybe.
-
On the national level, the most underrated was Robert James.
Other teams simply avoided him.
When you are truly exceptional, they make rule changes. Bob Gibson-lowering the mound.
Robert James. Eviscerate the bump and run.
-
What I concluded from the Sapp comment was that he threw out an obvious justification, (it takes time), for a question he was not prepared for.
I doubt preparation is his strength.
His participation was a waste of time.
-
Because everything I learned about responsibility, perseverance, effort determines outcome and a host of other important life disciplines I learned from quiet moments alone, delivering the Courier Express in every imaginable weather situation for three years at 6am without ever missing a day from age 12-15.
And, when I go back, people look you in the eye when they talk to you.
-
Every time I vote they ask to see ID
Yes they do, but you are not required to show it, at least in the state of Virginia.
Almost any id will suffice, and if you refuse to show any, you simply sign an affirmation of identity.
Showing ID speeds up the process tremendously.
What kills me is the folks who want to give a political opinion sermon on the issue while others are waiting.
The fact is, I don't really give a damn about what a voter thinks about existing law. I just want to get my 5am to 8pm volunteer work done and get out.
-
I voted in last weeks Virginia primary.
I had to present my Virginia drivers license.
I had to confirm that the address on my license was current.
Come to think of it, I've had to do that as long as I've been voting. Not just in Virginia either.....
That is not true. I am an election official in Virginia and very familiar with ID requirements. A driver license, any gov id, a registration card, SS card or nearly any id will suffice.
If you don't want to provide one, merely signing an affidavit claiming you are who you say you are will do.
US soldiers opposed to war now find Canada less hospitable
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
If you are going to put a time line on it, you should have done it in your original claim, and not agreed to the point on an issue that is well beyond ten years ago.
You are quite correct. in your post claiming Eagle Claw was directly the result of inadequate equipment and training .
That post is in direct conflict with your original claim, that no such example existed.
Further, the entire nonsense in the Middle East in that time frame was the direct result of the US military being weakened.
Failure is a relative term. The US military was woefully under supplied under Carter, and it took years to fix. Even Grenada shows limitations and cost lives.
DC Tom is quite correct in his assessment.