Are humvees really death wagons?

[SunTracker]

He was a Colonel in the army during Vietnam.  He began as an elisted man after WW2.  He was drummed out of the Army in 1970 after going on camera and saying Vietnam was unwinnable.  Hes also Americas highest decorated living soldier.

Maybe your right Grunherz.  Those migs keep shooting down our planes over Iraq, better buy some more F-22s!

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by SunTracker


Maybe your right Grunherz.  Those migs keep shooting down our planes over Iraq, better buy some more F-22s!

Suntracker do you honestly beleive that Iraq is the ONLY conflict we will ever face.  Can you honestly sit there and tell me that other countries wich may be potential rivals just Gave their airplanes away or simply don't fly them anymore.

Can you seriously tell me that we will not need some type of next gen. fighter over the next 30 years?

[GRUNHERZ]

Sun Tracker you still have no answered my question, if now is not the time to replace the 30+ year old F15 and nearly 30 year old F16, when is the time?

In 10 years?

In 20 more years?

30?

More?

And when we finally do eecide to replace them by your mysterious schedule, how long do you think the development should be? 10 years?

So what, when does the AF get new fighters by your wishes, 2050?

And gunslinger is right,  how come you are so prescient in your view that we will never need fully dominant fighters again?  The F15C is at best on a par with the latest Sukhois and the Eurofighter. Maybe we should tell the worlds other air forces to stop developing new planes or stop the soviets from developing new long range AA missles so the F15C can be the ne plus ultra fighter it was in the 1980s and 1990s for years to come...

Our ground forces have the best body armor, the best tank, one of the best infantry fighting vehicles, the best nightsights and plenty have them, new communication gear is there too, in 2005 they will get the best assault rifle system, soon they will get a new light 50cal, a new 25mm grenade/heavy MG. New helicopters are here soon too.  A new generation of transort and combat wheeleled vehicles is in the works etc etc etc...

But you just gripe...

And I know who Hackworth is, that was never the issue.  His constant doom and gloom negativity about seemingly everything is the issue.

Let me ask you something, do you support the Iraq war?   My guess is that you are just using this as camouflage to gripe about the war and not the real issues.

[Pongo]

"Sun Tracker you still have no answered my question, if now is not the time to replace the 30+ year old F15 and nearly 30 year old F16, when is the time? "

what % of the components on a current production F16 are 30 years old?

What is the current average age of an operational F16 airframe in the USAF inventory?

I mean. Dont be dishonest. They are not like the B52s. The planes are not 30 years old. The orginal design. With different engines, Radars, missles every thing but the basic airframe is 30 years old.

How old is the 50 cal GH?
How old is the M16?


You make it sound like there has been no procurment dollars on US fighters in 30 years.

Its like the USAF came out of vietnam and decided that success was now defined as not loseing an aircraft.

The absolute truth is that the US Army went into Iraq with the troops ability to win a huge long insurgency way down in the priorities from the USAFs ability to fight a non existant air war.

The strategy of pre emption would work just fine with 1980s aircraft if the USAF was willing to take 10 % casualties to accomplish it. But they are not.

So the troops hammer it out on the ground in over grown jeeps.

Mine and blast resistant wheeled vehicles have been in operational service for decades.

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by Pongo
"Sun Tracker you still have no answered my question, if now is not the time to replace the 30+ year old F15 and nearly 30 year old F16, when is the time? "

what % of the components on a current production F16 are 30 years old?

What is the current average age of an operational F16 airframe in the USAF inventory?

I mean. Dont be dishonest. They are not like the B52s. The planes are not 30 years old. The orginal design. With different engines, Radars, missles every thing but the basic airframe is 30 years old.

How old is the 50 cal GH?
How old is the M16?


You make it sound like there has been no procurment dollars on US fighters in 30 years.

Its like the USAF came out of vietnam and decided that success was now defined as not loseing an aircraft.

The absolute truth is that the US Army went into Iraq with the troops ability to win a huge long insurgency way down in the priorities from the USAFs ability to fight a non existant air war.

The strategy of pre emption would work just fine with 1980s aircraft if the USAF was willing to take 10 % casualties to accomplish it. But they are not.

So the troops hammer it out on the ground in over grown jeeps.

Mine and blast resistant wheeled vehicles have been in operational service for decades.

the newest F16 I've seen was a 2001.  The oldest is a 1978.  You can put all the newest bestest avionics and engines in an older air frame but the air fram will eventually break on you from fatigue.  This isn't exactly applicable on a B52 because they aren not flyin the same (IE pulling G's).

The F16 was orriginally designed to be a throw away Air Frame 10 years or 1000 hours and Bye Bye.  

F15s are the same way  The air frames are getting old.  Now the USAF can keep procuring these fine air craft over the next 30 years or they can move on and develop the next generation (F22)

To think that invasions of 3rd world countries and fighting insurgancys is going to be the only wars we fight over the next 30 years is lunacy at best.  Somone once said the bigest threat to pearl harbor was sabatage and that the harbor was unsuitable for torpedo use.....they were wrong.  When CHina and russia are still developing next gen fighters we should be ahead of them.

[GRUNHERZ]

M16 and M2HB can all have the same argument Pongo, thy arent all afrom 1917 or 1960... New ones are made. This is especilally true with M16/M4 considering all the new high tech rail mounted gadgets they all seem to have now, not to mention the various other specops mods like 6.8mm.

Interstingly enough the M16 is getting replaced next year by the all new M8 and M2 is getting the boot very soon to be replaced my m312..

So today is certainly not the time to comp[lain about not enough ground force procurement of new stuff...

[xHaMmeRx]

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Why pick on JSF?  Its a big survivability and capability jump over F16, which despite it fighter roots is now mostly a ground attacker.

F/A-22  is also a multi mission plane note the A. When the new small precision bombs come online it will be able to carry 8 of them and defensive armament all internally while enjoying a lot of stealth features..

The F15 and 16 are 30+ years old. They are due for replacement.  Thankfully we are getting them in this next decade.

Curious, you have no given us a date when you think the F15 and F16 should be replaced with new planes?

The other issues I covered in my post before, new rifles, new vehicles, new transports etc...

I still think you are just griping...

F/A-22 is not the JSF. The F-35 is the JSF.

For most of its development, the F/A-22 was referred to as simply the F-22 and was advertised as an air superiority fighter. From the Boeing web-site:

"Mission
The F/A-22’s primary mission is to establish absolute control of the skies over any battlefield – a must-have in modern warfare. It provides first-look, first-shot, first-kill capability. The F/A-22 is an air superiority fighter with much improved capability over current Air Force aircraft. Its stealth, supercruise ability, integrated avionics and other features will make it the most potent fighter in the world."

Kind of leaves out the attack role! The "A" is kind of an after-thought, but necessary when fighting for budget dollars. Don't get me wrong, the Raptor will have a significant air-to-ground capability due to its ability to carry the smart weapons available to just about any U.S. combat airframe these days. The true strike aircraft, though, is the F-35 JSF. From the JSF website:

"The Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Program, formerly the Joint Advanced Strike Technology (JAST) Program, is the Department of Defense's focal point for defining affordable next generation strike aircraft weapon systems for the Navy, Air Force, Marines, and our allies. The focus of the program is affordability -- reducing the development cost, production cost, and cost of ownership of the JSF family of aircraft. Prior to the start of System Design and Development (SDD) in Fall 2001, the program facilitated the Services' development of fully validated, affordable operational requirements, and it lowered risk by investing in and demonstrating key leveraging technologies and operational concepts. Upon SDD contract award to Lockheed Martin on 26 October 2001, the program embarked on full development of three affordable and effective JSF variants.

The JSF will fulfill stated Service needs as follows:

U. S. Navy First day of war, survivable strike fighter aircraft to complement F/A-18E/F

U.S. Air Force Multirole aircraft (primary-air-to-ground) to replace the F-16 and A-10 and complement the F-22A

U.S. Marine Corps STOVL aircraft to replace the AV-8B and F/A-18 as their only strike fighter "

You see "strike" in there a lot!

Do we need these aircraft? Here's an interesting article from Reuters: U.S. warned it could lose air supremacy. You be the judge.

[GRUNHERZ]

Why pick on JSF? Its a big survivability and capability jump over F16, which despite it fighter roots is now mostly a ground attacker.

F/A-22 is also a multi mission plane note the A. When the new small precision bombs come online it will be able to carry 8 of them and defensive armament all internally while enjoying a lot of stealth features..

I know f22 is not jsf. Thats why I talk about  f22 jsf in seperate paragraphs.I know jsf is the strike fighter, thats why I emphasize f16 shift to ground attack.

[Rude]

Originally posted by Nilsen
No we dont like when someone attacks you and you retaliate against someone else.

You're right....we should have waited for you to help us instead.

[Yeager]

No we dont like when someone attacks you and you retaliate against someone else.
====
This president doesnt need to your permission to defend his  country.

[Nod]

From a third world country?

Their is plenty of bigger threats out there North Korea, Saudi Arabia (supports terrorits), Iran (supports terrorists). Hell, now we have to keep up with Russia/China in a technology and arms race. Iraq was a threat compered to these guys???????

[rpm]

The reason you have to replace the F-15 & F-16 is old old age. Some of those airframes are 20+ years old. After all those years of pulling high G's metal fatigue is creeping in. Maintenance becomes cost prohibative. If you have to replace the plane anyway, does it not make sense to replace it with an overall better aircraft?

The US has done very well in air superiority development. Maybe we should pull a few people from that area and let them run ground vehicle development for a while.

[wulfie]

I think Hackworth's soul is in the right place. Valhalla bless any guy who uses a media voice to look out for the little guys who actually do the shooting.

But as much as I hate (in this case only) to say it, eagl is spot on. Hackworth has been 'slipping' for a few years now, the 'slipping' having started in the late 1990s.

He was awesome in his determination to bring command failures to light after the brawl in Somalia.

But I saw him print things as 'fact' - supposed 'failures' in Afghanistan which were related to him from 1 or 2 of his close personal sources which were absolutely dead wrong. In 1 case I even wrote to the guy and explained in great (first hand) detail that what he was told was not what happened, and I had photographs and a job title that at the very least should have warranted him checking with other sources.

No action, no change in his 'printed revelation', etc.

I think the decline and fall described by eagl is caused by him now having to find something to say on everything, on a consistent basis, week-in-week-out. And the bottom line is if you are a whistleblower who points out stupidity that gets guys killed in wartime and you do a good job of it, eventually you are going to whistleblow yourself out of a job unless no one is listening to you.

He did some great things in years past and he served the U.S. in a great way as a soldier and a leader of soldiers. But he didn't have any more clue about how things were going to be done in Iraq than any other guy who wasn't being briefed for the the fight. And for guys in his line of work things have changed more in the past 4 years than they had in the previous 10.

Everyone who bags on our guys in the sky and the air dominance they provide needs to read up a little on history, (topic specific) military theory, etc. The day we think we don't need to spend for it is the day 5 years in advance of when we will need it and not have it, and it's not something you can 'ramp up' in even a year.

The -16 and the -4 are good tools. They do the job well. The -8 is on the way and it is an improvement but not because the -16 family is a bad design. The -8 is just 'newer' and it's design takes advantage of lessons learned.

Give me my M4 and the knolwedge that everything that flies is a Friend and anyone who tries to shoot real artillery at me will be dead inside of an hour any day of the week. Hackworth is either unaware or ignoring the fact that CAS is a huge factor in saving the lives of the guys he champions, and the next time (and there will be a next time) someone big decides to take issue with something that results in the U.S. having shooters plying their trade there will be some serious scheming on the part of the enemy to deny U.S. and Allied shooters that lovely '24/7, We Delivery Anywhere for Free' CAS that is such a great thing to have at your disposal. Smart enemy planners understand that if they cede control of the air today it's a heck of a lot more telling that it was in the past. 'Back then' it meant your truck convoys might get hit even if they were moving at night. Now it means that a bomb is going to hit within a few meters of the worst place possible, every single time.

As for M113s - I'll let the Army mech-types do the talking they know from experience. The M113 is pretty big though. If I had to ambush a vehicle with an AT-4 I'd rather have my target be an M113 that's big and that I could hear coming from further away.

As for rolling Hummers - driving fast at night over rough unfamiliar terrain is dangerous. Most groups that use Hummers for this type of work put a great deal of time in when it comes to training their drivers. But you are always going to have situations in bigger more conventional units where the guy doing the driving is not the most experienced or best driver. People make mistakes even when they are trained well. Add in vehicles at high speed, poor lighting conditions, etc. and you are going to get accidents. This is not a case of policy or procurement error.

Mike/wulfie

[YTSSGTD]

Originally posted by Gunslinger
Almost all of the news footage I've seen shows troops using the newest version of the M16.  I can't remeber the nomenclature for it but it is the shorter version designed for CQC.  Almost all of them have the cool Special forces goodies like improved sight/scope and attachments for flashlight ect.  

The newest rifle that is being field tested is probably just another expensive toy that the DOD will buy en mass and realize later in life that they were wrong.

Thay are the M-16A3 then we've got the M-4 and M-5car's too

[TheDudeDVant]

Mike/wulfie, did you fly a kc-135?