Zell Miller should do his research

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: f95toli
Since this is a domestic issue I would normaly not get involved, but I noticed something in the orignal quote: The person who wrote it does not SEEM to know much about military hardware.

As far as I can tell most if the programs listed are failures in the sense that most of them are either too exive or was designed for the cold war.
The B1b and B2 are strategic bombers, they are extremely expensive (the price of a B2 is insane) and were never meant to be used in a "regular" war with conventional bombs.
The Apache is a very nice machine but was designed for service in wester Europe (west-Germany), sure you can use it in a desert but helicopters are much more efficient if they can find cover.

The F-14 is still a good aircraft but it is ancient.

And about the SDI: Is he serious? A program that AFAIK was only meant to scare the soviets, most of the techology has STILL not been developed (and some of the proposalt where Sci-fi at most)

The B1 and B2 are useful now because the US doesn't really even use 'conventional' bombs. We use non-nuclear, if that's what you mean by conventional, but the bombs are much more sophisticated than simple fire-and-forget bombs used in the past. Using complex bombers like the B1 and B2, which were already built at the end of the cold war (may as well use em if we have em), allows precision strikes like those in Baghdad at the start of the invasion. As one US general put it, the cruise missiles, bombs and bombers that we have allow us not to choose which building we want to hit, but what window. This is how so much destruction was carried out with such little collateral damage. Yes, there was considerable collateral damage, but not relative to any other bombing campaign in history.

Regarding the Apache and other helicopters, our problem is not usually with them being shot down, but with them crashing due to mechanical failure. This is primarily due to the newer fuels: the fuels we use are now more 'environmentally friendly' but therefore do not contain certain compouns (aromatics) that swell rubber seals. This results in hydraulic fluid contamination, which causes loss of control. The Apache is maneuverable enough that cover isn't really necessary, particularly when you can strike from 10 miles away.

The F-14, like the Apache, B1, and B2, is already available and in extremely good repair. Software and hardware upgrades for all of these units have kept them at the forefront of technology. For example, the Apache Longbow is simply a software upgrade for the targetting system from the original Apache. We already spent the billions to build these things ($2 billion a pop for the 20 B2 bombers), so we may as well use them. Each may only fill a niche application, but it's still more cost-effective than starting from scratch. 😛

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Yes, that ad was wrong as well. If he said that overall jobs are down due to the Bush Adminsitration, that would hold more water.

That would still be misleading, but I guess a half-assed cover is better than no cover at all.

 

[Crimson]

Originally posted by: Todd33

Originally posted by: Crimson
I also love the libs here going gaga over Ronald Reagan speaking at the Democratic Convention (A liberal speaking at a liberal convention).. but a DEMOCRAT speaking at the Republican convention is just simply a liar.. Imagine if Zell Miller spoke AGAINST Bush, the left in here would be taughting it as the 2nd coming of Christ.. 'See!!! A conservative is against Bush! Blah blah blah'..

I have absolutly no problem with Miller talking there, he is a conservative, his official party is not important. I had an issue with the content, espcially with Cheney talking after him. We all know the RNC has to approve and probably wrote the Miller speech, so it's the official party line to lie about Kerry and defense? That's the point I'm trying to make.

When are you guys going to get it? There is often more than 1 way to look at things. Some see Kerry's record on defense as good, others don't.. It doesn't mean EITHER side is LYING. Its called perspective. You are so filled with hate that you can't possibly accept that someone can have a different perspective than you. Some see Kerry's Purple Heats as him being heroic, others see it as an attempt to get an early exit from Vietnam that he did not deserve.. Is either side LYING in their analysis? No.. they just see things differently. The truth probably lies somewhere in between.. Kerry is neither a War Hero or a Chickenhawk.. He got forced into Vietnam and decided to probably embelish some of his injuries to get out sooner than he otherwise would have. The swiftboat vets who saw this feel cheated, those who were against the war see it as a smart thing Kerry did to get out of an 'unjust' war.

 

[Todd33]

Great, now we have armchair Pentagon specialist 🙂

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: preslove
Howard Kurtz shows that no one with any credibility consider's Zell's rants within the realm of good tast. Text

My favorite critique of Miller comes from the CONSERVATIVE Andrew Sullivan. Text

I like the last part of Sullivan's post:

What's remarkable about the Republicans is their utter indifference to fairness in their own attacks. Smearing opponents as traitors to their country, as unfit to be commander-in-chief, as agents of foreign powers (France) is now fair game. Appealing to the crudest form of patriotism and the easiest smears is wrong when it is performed by the lying Michael Moore and it is wrong when it is spat out by Zell Miller. Last night was therefore a revealing night for me. I watched a Democrat at a GOP Convention convince me that I could never be a Republican. If they wheel out lying, angry old men like this as their keynote, I'll take Obama. Any day.

:thumbsup:

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Todd33
Great, now we have armchair Pentagon specialist 🙂

Nah, just worked for the Air Force for two years. I bring up the hydraulic problem every chance I get because it illustrates the priorities - troops die when a helicopter goes down, but people are willing to make that sacrifice to keep the environment a little cleaner. That, and I spent 18 months developing a test to check the cleanliness of hydraulic fluid using gravimetric analysis - the most boring 18 months of my life. :x

 

[JoLLyRoGer]

If anyone is interested in Kerry's voting record (or anyone else for that matter)...

Go here and take a look for yourself.

 

[Infohawk]

Anyone else agree that he looks like the evil hateful emperor palpatine in star wars movies?

 

[preslove]

Originally posted by: Crimson

Originally posted by: Todd33

Originally posted by: Crimson
I also love the libs here going gaga over Ronald Reagan speaking at the Democratic Convention (A liberal speaking at a liberal convention).. but a DEMOCRAT speaking at the Republican convention is just simply a liar.. Imagine if Zell Miller spoke AGAINST Bush, the left in here would be taughting it as the 2nd coming of Christ.. 'See!!! A conservative is against Bush! Blah blah blah'..

I have absolutly no problem with Miller talking there, he is a conservative, his official party is not important. I had an issue with the content, espcially with Cheney talking after him. We all know the RNC has to approve and probably wrote the Miller speech, so it's the official party line to lie about Kerry and defense? That's the point I'm trying to make.

When are you guys going to get it? There is often more than 1 way to look at things. Some see Kerry's record on defense as good, others don't.. It doesn't mean EITHER side is LYING. Its called perspective. You are so filled with hate that you can't possibly accept that someone can have a different perspective than you. Some see Kerry's Purple Heats as him being heroic, others see it as an attempt to get an early exit from Vietnam that he did not deserve.. Is either side LYING in their analysis? No.. they just see things differently. The truth probably lies somewhere in between.. Kerry is neither a War Hero or a Chickenhawk.. He got forced into Vietnam and decided to probably embelish some of his injuries to get out sooner than he otherwise would have. The swiftboat vets who saw this feel cheated, those who were against the war see it as a smart thing Kerry did to get out of an 'unjust' war.

There is one truth, and you have no idea how to find it. KERRY VOLUNTEERED FOR VIETNAM YOU ASSHOLE!

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: preslove

Originally posted by: Crimson

Originally posted by: Todd33

Originally posted by: Crimson
I also love the libs here going gaga over Ronald Reagan speaking at the Democratic Convention (A liberal speaking at a liberal convention).. but a DEMOCRAT speaking at the Republican convention is just simply a liar.. Imagine if Zell Miller spoke AGAINST Bush, the left in here would be taughting it as the 2nd coming of Christ.. 'See!!! A conservative is against Bush! Blah blah blah'..

I have absolutly no problem with Miller talking there, he is a conservative, his official party is not important. I had an issue with the content, espcially with Cheney talking after him. We all know the RNC has to approve and probably wrote the Miller speech, so it's the official party line to lie about Kerry and defense? That's the point I'm trying to make.

When are you guys going to get it? There is often more than 1 way to look at things. Some see Kerry's record on defense as good, others don't.. It doesn't mean EITHER side is LYING. Its called perspective. You are so filled with hate that you can't possibly accept that someone can have a different perspective than you. Some see Kerry's Purple Heats as him being heroic, others see it as an attempt to get an early exit from Vietnam that he did not deserve.. Is either side LYING in their analysis? No.. they just see things differently. The truth probably lies somewhere in between.. Kerry is neither a War Hero or a Chickenhawk.. He got forced into Vietnam and decided to probably embelish some of his injuries to get out sooner than he otherwise would have. The swiftboat vets who saw this feel cheated, those who were against the war see it as a smart thing Kerry did to get out of an 'unjust' war.

There is one truth, and you have no idea how to find it. KERRY VOLUNTEERED FOR VIETNAM YOU ASSHOLE!

Hey Crimson! Jim Jones is calling. He has the special mystery flavor for you now.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
Anyone else agree that he looks like the evil hateful emperor palpatine in star wars movies?

ROFL! I will agree with that.

 

[0roo0roo]

The F-14, like the Apache, B1, and B2, is already available and in extremely good repair. Software and hardware upgrades for all of these units have kept them at the forefront of technology. For example, the Apache Longbow is simply a software upgrade for the targetting system from the original Apache. We already spent the billions to build these things ($2 billion a pop for the 20 B2 bombers), so we may as well use them. Each may only fill a niche application, but it's still more cost-effective than starting from scratch.

well your wrong for atleast the f14, which was only good for the movie top gun. as a weapon it was comparitively poor. too big, too heavy... an experiement in variable wing geometry gone bad. i think they've been retired as of now to boot. look at future craft like the f22 etc. no swing wing.

 

[preslove]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: f95toli
Since this is a domestic issue I would normaly not get involved, but I noticed something in the orignal quote: The person who wrote it does not SEEM to know much about military hardware.

As far as I can tell most if the programs listed are failures in the sense that most of them are either too exive or was designed for the cold war.
The B1b and B2 are strategic bombers, they are extremely expensive (the price of a B2 is insane) and were never meant to be used in a "regular" war with conventional bombs.
The Apache is a very nice machine but was designed for service in wester Europe (west-Germany), sure you can use it in a desert but helicopters are much more efficient if they can find cover.

The F-14 is still a good aircraft but it is ancient.

And about the SDI: Is he serious? A program that AFAIK was only meant to scare the soviets, most of the techology has STILL not been developed (and some of the proposalt where Sci-fi at most)

The B1 and B2 are useful now because the US doesn't really even use 'conventional' bombs. We use non-nuclear, if that's what you mean by conventional, but the bombs are much more sophisticated than simple fire-and-forget bombs used in the past. Using complex bombers like the B1 and B2, which were already built at the end of the cold war (may as well use em if we have em), allows precision strikes like those in Baghdad at the start of the invasion. As one US general put it, the cruise missiles, bombs and bombers that we have allow us not to choose which building we want to hit, but what window. This is how so much destruction was carried out with such little collateral damage. Yes, there was considerable collateral damage, but not relative to any other bombing campaign in history.

Regarding the Apache and other helicopters, our problem is not usually with them being shot down, but with them crashing due to mechanical failure. This is primarily due to the newer fuels: the fuels we use are now more 'environmentally friendly' but therefore do not contain certain compouns (aromatics) that swell rubber seals. This results in hydraulic fluid contamination, which causes loss of control. The Apache is maneuverable enough that cover isn't really necessary, particularly when you can strike from 10 miles away.

The F-14, like the Apache, B1, and B2, is already available and in extremely good repair. Software and hardware upgrades for all of these units have kept them at the forefront of technology. For example, the Apache Longbow is simply a software upgrade for the targetting system from the original Apache. We already spent the billions to build these things ($2 billion a pop for the 20 B2 bombers), so we may as well use them. Each may only fill a niche application, but it's still more cost-effective than starting from scratch. 😛

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Yes, that ad was wrong as well. If he said that overall jobs are down due to the Bush Adminsitration, that would hold more water.

That would still be misleading, but I guess a half-assed cover is better than no cover at all.

Dude, that was just about the most useless military technology post I've ever read in AT.

F-14 is being or has been totally retired.
B1, B2 aren't particularly needed because they were designed to enter air space that had not already been cleared of hostile aircraft and Anti-aircraft weapon systems and drop precision payloads i.e. go into USSR airspace and drop bombs. With the fall of the USSR the focus has shifted from the above scenario to one where the air superiority is established over a rogue state and then B-52's are brought in to drop heavy and precision bombs. B-52's can drop any bomb/missile the B1's and B2's can.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: f95toli
Since this is a domestic issue I would normaly not get involved, but I noticed something in the orignal quote: The person who wrote it does not SEEM to know much about military hardware.

As far as I can tell most if the programs listed are failures in the sense that most of them are either too exive or was designed for the cold war.
The B1b and B2 are strategic bombers, they are extremely expensive (the price of a B2 is insane) and were never meant to be used in a "regular" war with conventional bombs.
The Apache is a very nice machine but was designed for service in wester Europe (west-Germany), sure you can use it in a desert but helicopters are much more efficient if they can find cover.

The F-14 is still a good aircraft but it is ancient.

And about the SDI: Is he serious? A program that AFAIK was only meant to scare the soviets, most of the techology has STILL not been developed (and some of the proposalt where Sci-fi at most)

The B1 and B2 are useful now because the US doesn't really even use 'conventional' bombs. We use non-nuclear, if that's what you mean by conventional, but the bombs are much more sophisticated than simple fire-and-forget bombs used in the past. Using complex bombers like the B1 and B2, which were already built at the end of the cold war (may as well use em if we have em), allows precision strikes like those in Baghdad at the start of the invasion. As one US general put it, the cruise missiles, bombs and bombers that we have allow us not to choose which building we want to hit, but what window. This is how so much destruction was carried out with such little collateral damage. Yes, there was considerable collateral damage, but not relative to any other bombing campaign in history.

Regarding the Apache and other helicopters, our problem is not usually with them being shot down, but with them crashing due to mechanical failure. This is primarily due to the newer fuels: the fuels we use are now more 'environmentally friendly' but therefore do not contain certain compouns (aromatics) that swell rubber seals. This results in hydraulic fluid contamination, which causes loss of control. The Apache is maneuverable enough that cover isn't really necessary, particularly when you can strike from 10 miles away.

The F-14, like the Apache, B1, and B2, is already available and in extremely good repair. Software and hardware upgrades for all of these units have kept them at the forefront of technology. For example, the Apache Longbow is simply a software upgrade for the targetting system from the original Apache. We already spent the billions to build these things ($2 billion a pop for the 20 B2 bombers), so we may as well use them. Each may only fill a niche application, but it's still more cost-effective than starting from scratch. 😛

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Yes, that ad was wrong as well. If he said that overall jobs are down due to the Bush Adminsitration, that would hold more water.

That would still be misleading, but I guess a half-assed cover is better than no cover at all.

No, that's proven fact.

 

[nutxo]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
How many 'the Bush campaign is misleading' threads can you start? You could just bump an existing one, as there are at least three others just from the last few days.

It's okay to do that if you're one of the liberal sheep, don't even think about it if you don't lean far left though.

 

[f95toli]

Cyclowizard: I agree, both the B1 and B2 are good aircraft and since you have them you might as well use them.
My point was simply that the B1, B2 and the Apache are not really suited for the kinds of mission they faced in Iraq and Afghanistan, they were designed for a different type of war. All their missions could have been handled by other -less expensive- types of aircraft (one of the best aircraft in the airforce is the A-10, cheap but very well suited for the war in Iraq).

It is not for me to say how you spend your tax dollars, but to say that the B2 was a success because it was used in Afghanistan is simply not accurate.

 

[preslove]

Originally posted by: f95toli
Cyclowizard: I agree, both the B1 and B2 are good aircraft and since you have them you might as well use them.
My point was simply that the B1, B2 and the Apache are not really suited for the kinds of mission they faced in Iraq and Afghanistan, they were designed for a different type of war. All their missions could have been handled by other -less expensive- types of aircraft (one of the best aircraft in the airforce is the A-10, cheap but very well suited for the war in Iraq).

It is not for me to say how you spend your tax dollars, but to say that the B2 was a success because it was used in Afghanistan is simply not accurate.

:thumbsup: Yeah, they should just scrap the damn apache and buy A-10's.

 

[Genx87]

well your wrong for atleast the f14, which was only good for the movie top gun. as a weapon it was comparitively poor. too big, too heavy... an experiement in variable wing geometry gone bad. i think they've been retired as of now to boot. look at future craft like the f22 etc. no swing wing.

What are you walking about? The targeting systems in the F-14 were lightyears ahead of anything we had. Even in recent trials the thing still had the ability to knock out several aircraft before they were even in range to be shot down.

The wing itself is a rather interesting design. Allows for high manueverability at low speeds and a high top end at top speeds.

The only downfall of the thing was the fact it had to have two crew which means double the training and double the loss of life whem one goes down. In the military they expend vast amounts of resources to keep their casualty list low. This is why the F-18 is replacing the aging F-14. I dont think the weapon systems are much different but it only reqs a single pilot.

 

[Genx87]

Cyclowizard: I agree, both the B1 and B2 are good aircraft and since you have them you might as well use them.
My point was simply that the B1, B2 and the Apache are not really suited for the kinds of mission they faced in Iraq and Afghanistan, they were designed for a different type of war. All their missions could have been handled by other -less expensive- types of aircraft (one of the best aircraft in the airforce is the A-10, cheap but very well suited for the war in Iraq).

Not quite. I dont believe an F-16,F-15, or F-18 can carry the amount and types of armaments the B1 and B2 bombers carry. Also they would require a military base that is fully staffed within a few hundred miles of your target. With the B1 or B2 you can carry high precision weapons, fly at 40,000 feet, and fly from a base in the United States which is relatively safe from harms way. Once over the target they can circle for hours while the guys on the ground call in laser precision attacks on targets.

The only thing the A-10 can do over the B1 and B2 is make precision strikes on tanks and infantry. Two totally different roles. I doubt you would have found an A-10 over baghdad dropping 2500 pound precision bombs because it would have been low and slow and not suited for that mission.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: JoLLyRoGer
If anyone is interested in Kerry's voting record (or anyone else for that matter)...

Go here and take a look for yourself.

Only read a few pages but that is the most damning evedence of all.

 

[f95toli]

I never meant that the A-10 can replace a B1 or a B2, I just used the warthog as an example of an aircraft built for the type of missions it saw in Iraq.

The annual procurment cost of the B2 would have been $8 billion whcih is the reason the original planes were changed dit to the cost and only something like 20 or so were ever built (I don't know hoe many are operational, but I think most of them are assigned to SAC).
It can not carry heavy loads (I don't know the details, I think it is still classified) because of its shape (it is a stealth bomber after all) but that is by design. it is a strategic bomber, the primary objective was to carry a few tactical nukes and intimidate the Sovied Union.

The B1b is also a long range strategic bomber. it can only carry 8 ALCM and and 8 SRAM (or something like 20 SRAM without the ALCM) it is less costly then the B2 but still very expensive.

Again, these are great aircrafts, but they were never intended for this type of war and they are way too expensive.
A cheaper long-range non-stealth bomber with a capabilty to carry a heavier load would probably have been better.

Of course this is easy to say in retrospect but as I have already written: My main point is that saying that the B2 has been a success because of what it did in Afghanistan is a bit silly, you can of course argue that it is needed in SAC but that was not the example used.

 

[preslove]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Cyclowizard: I agree, both the B1 and B2 are good aircraft and since you have them you might as well use them.
My point was simply that the B1, B2 and the Apache are not really suited for the kinds of mission they faced in Iraq and Afghanistan, they were designed for a different type of war. All their missions could have been handled by other -less expensive- types of aircraft (one of the best aircraft in the airforce is the A-10, cheap but very well suited for the war in Iraq).

Not quite. I dont believe an F-16,F-15, or F-18 can carry the amount and types of armaments the B1 and B2 bombers carry. Also they would require a military base that is fully staffed within a few hundred miles of your target. With the B1 or B2 you can carry high precision weapons, fly at 40,000 feet, and fly from a base in the United States which is relatively safe from harms way. Once over the target they can circle for hours while the guys on the ground call in laser precision attacks on targets.

The only thing the A-10 can do over the B1 and B2 is make precision strikes on tanks and infantry. Two totally different roles. I doubt you would have found an A-10 over baghdad dropping 2500 pound precision bombs because it would have been low and slow and not suited for that mission.

Uh, dude, he was talking about the A-10 replacing the Apache, since they have the exact same tankbuster roles and the A-10 is almost impossible to shoot down with small arms fire. The B1's and B2's have nothing to do with fighters. B52's fill their roles better in Iraq and Afghanistan because they are cheaper and have larger payloads.

Also, about your previous post, some Fa-18's have 2 man crews, though I'm not sure about which version.

 

[Genx87]

I can agree with you on those points. The only thing to say is in the early parts of the war where some surprise and ability to not be detected by the Iraqi air defense is where they were needed. B-52s after the air defense of the country was decimated will do the job just fine.

 

[Infohawk]

Epliogue: It looks like now that the dust's settled, Miller is seen as a nutjob. From his apparent alzheimer's to anachronistic challenge of Chris Mathews to a dual (like Burr), Zell is seen in the eyes of millions of Americans as a farce because of his performance in the convention.

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: Genx87

well your wrong for atleast the f14, which was only good for the movie top gun. as a weapon it was comparitively poor. too big, too heavy... an experiement in variable wing geometry gone bad. i think they've been retired as of now to boot. look at future craft like the f22 etc. no swing wing.

What are you walking about? The targeting systems in the F-14 were lightyears ahead of anything we had. Even in recent trials the thing still had the ability to knock out several aircraft before they were even in range to be shot down.

The wing itself is a rather interesting design. Allows for high manueverability at low speeds and a high top end at top speeds.

The only downfall of the thing was the fact it had to have two crew which means double the training and double the loss of life whem one goes down. In the military they expend vast amounts of resources to keep their casualty list low. This is why the F-18 is replacing the aging F-14. I dont think the weapon systems are much different but it only reqs a single pilot.

what are you talking about. the earliest versions were underpowered overweight jokes. and with pilots of equal skill, other planes like the f15/16 always win. and this is what Boyd thought. the swing is indeed interesting, but it doesn't make for a great fighter. with its swinging ability you also loose fuel storage capacity, you complicate the external weapon mounts which now have to swivel. its being abandoned should tell you something.



http://sftt.org/dwa/2003/1/1/2.html

the book Boyd: The Fighter Pilot Who Changed the Art of War
Robert Coram

http://search.barnesandnoble.c...&ean=9780316881463
From the Publisher
"John Boyd may be the most remarkable unsung hero in all of American military history. Some remember him as the greatest U.S. fighter pilot ever - the man who, in simulated air-to-air combat, defeated every challenger in less than forty seconds. Some recall him as the father of our country's most legendary fighter aircraft - the F-15 and F-16. Still others think of Boyd as the most influential military theorist since Sun Tzu. They know only half the story." Boyd, more than any other person, saved fighter aviation from the predations of the Strategic Air Command. His manual of fighter tactics changed the way every air force in the world flies and fights. He discovered a physical theory that forever altered the way fighter planes were designed. Later in life, he developed a theory of military strategy that has been adopted throughout the world and even applied to business models for maximizing efficiency. And in one of the stories of modern military history, the Air Force fighter pilot taught the U.S. Marine Corps how to fight war on the ground. His ideas led to America's swift and decisive victory in the Gulf War and foretold the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001."

 

[0roo0roo]

The B-1 bomber, that Senator Kerry opposed, dropped 40 percent of the bombs in the first six months of Operation Enduring Freedom.

and the b1 is an another matter. over priced gold plated plane that sucked the militarys resources dry. failed all requirements for ecm, radar cross section, range etc. it couldn't even fly over some mt ranges when carrying bombs. mt ranges even civilian airliners of that time could fly over. its ability to drop bombs was hampered by its release mechanisms which were required because of the way air flowed around the plane. dropping bombs slowly, destroying ability to carpet bomb and requiring dangerous 2nd passes over targets. when called to duty in gulf 1, it was the one plane not ready for duty. it wasn't until the clinton admin that the b1 was ever in a war at all.

it was quite rightly canceled by the carter administration. wasting resources because of pride and stuborness is not patriotism, its stupidity.