Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: 2bighorn on December 21, 2004, 06:56:41 PM
-
In the first reported crash of the military's next generation fighter jet, an F/A-22 Raptor slammed into the ground and exploded during takeoff at Nellis Air Force Base Monday afternoon...
more at: http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2004/Dec-21-Tue-2004/news/25519701.html
-
According to KVBC, Raptors are grounded nationwide
http://www.kvbc.com/Global/story.asp?S=2719097&nav=15MVURfA
-
Knew there was a reason I didn't wanna work this bird. Glad the pilot ejected safely. Wonder which ship it was considering Nellis has gotten some straight from the factory and some from Edwards.
-
The prototype crashed at least once.
Crash video of the prototype. (http://www.linienmc.dk/video/crash-plane/1%20-%20f22_plane_carrier_crash.mpg)
-
$250 000 000 gone.
how many buffalos is that? 1000? How many troops does that protect
10,000?
-
Lol, at the same time they are wondering how to finance the up-armoring of humvees in Iraq..Estimated cost is 100 million, it would be CRAZY to spend that much money on a low-fun factor ride!
-
Totally useless plane IMHO. You allready have some of the best fighters in the world. Coupled with the best command and control system they are unbeatable. Sure the F-15 is at the end of it's service life, but you could have come up with a much cheaper alternative.
-
but you could have come up with a much cheaper alternative.
====
I believe you are not qualified to do anything greater than make a really uneducated and ignorant statement. I could be wrong...
-
Why do you resort to attacking the person instead of his opinion?
-
The only thing this thread is missing is Staga chiming in with a :lol.
-
EEET is ALL fault of EVeyil BOOSH! Deth to Bush!
Also fault of devil Rumsfeld. DEth to Rumsfeld, DETH!
Relax guys.. we'll still uparmor the humvees, we'll probably buy a bunch of Buffalo's and Cougars.
And we'll replace the Raptor while we're at it. Because the day will come when we'll need those too; and they'll save lots and lots of lives then.
Go patch your canoes. :)
-
I bet the thrust vectorers got jammed.
-
I still say they need to bring back the P-38 ....
:)
-
All the guys that are missing legs are reassured by your support Toad.
-
mora, I am sorry if I hurt your feelings. I was angry at the my dog, who insists on setting next to me and farting while I am at the computer. I think my wife must have changed brands of dogfood again because this dogs farts are actually more intense and repulsive then steaming fresh dogsh*t mounds out on the lawn.
I apologise for misplacing my anger on your statment, which I still find uneducated and made out of ignorance but I would not want that to come off as a condemnation of you. I think you are swell overall. However, you might want to achieve a better understanding of the huge cost of developing, testing, manufacturing and implimenting a fleet of machines as complex as the F-22 over a time period of twenty years and why continuing to maintain a fighting force of advanced jet fighters is still in the best interest of my country.
I would wish you a merry christmas but lately I have started to downplay my holiday cheer for fear of hurting the feelings of athiests and others who deride Christ and his birthday.....:aok
====
Merry Christmas Pongo, Im glad you have elected yourself to represent all those guys who have lost their legs. No doubt they will be very appreciative of your efforts.
-
Everyone is freaking out because 1 Raptor crashed on takeoff. I guess these guys forgot how many F-14's and F-111's crashed early in their development. Yes, the Raptor has some cutting edge technology and still has some bugs to be worked out. Does anyone remember the uproar about swing-wing technology? There was plenty of "It will never work" going on in the 60's and 70's. Funny, it seems to work just dandy today.
-
They DO have my support, Pongo.
I give them far more than empty words on a BBS, too.
How much have YOU dontated to CAUSE so far? Here, let me help ya, they take pay pal.
http://www.cause-usa.org/donate.asp
As for the lack of armored vehicles, yeah they obviously didn't anticipate the need they were going to have for them. They screwed up.
Go ahead, make a big deal about it all over again. Make the case for every one that in EVERY war, EVERY OTHER command structure has had 20/20 FORESIGHT, that every needed item was in plentiful supply and no weapons systems were ever found lacking.
rolleyolleyeyesthingamabobby
After you get done riding your high horse, go ahead an contribute to CAUSE. I already have, of course; possibly even while you were indignantly typing something about Rumsfeld's incompetence.
-
Send your money there..
Maybe send the tax credit mr Bush got for you when he should have been thinking of the men that would fight his little war.
-
Originally posted by Pongo
Send your money there..
Maybe send the tax credit mr Bush got for you when he should have been thinking of the men that would fight his little war.
Pongo, I don't understand what you are saying.
-
pongo thinks bush is fighting his own little dirty war (aka mike moore type mentality). who knows, pongo may be right but I guarantee you it would be by pure chance :aok
-
Totally useless plane IMHO. You allready have some of the best fighters in the world. Coupled with the best command and control system they are unbeatable. Sure the F-15 is at the end of it's service life, but you could have come up with a much cheaper alternative.
the excersise in india demonstrated that their flankers (SU-27 and other modernized variants) and migs are SUPERIOR to our current "teen" series fighter/bombers
btw, whatever happened to the new MiG fighter and Rafale?
-
You guys REALLY want to support the troops? Read my sig. I've sent $100 worth already and plan to send more. This goes DIRECTLY to wounded soldiers, no bureaucrats or politicians involved. How much have YOU sent?
-
RPM, I'm in triple digits to CAUSE.
Pongo, the tax cuts had nothing to do with it. We're spending the money... we just didn't spend when you wanted us to spend it. But it's all getting done.
They made a mistake. Dang good thing that's never happened with Canada's military, right?
Oh, yeah... how's that sub investigation going?
-
Toad, I was'nt addressing you directly. I ment it to the entire board. My apologies if it came out wrong. CAUSE is a good group.
-
Wow Toad, you just used a tragic incident to take a pot shot a Pongo.
-
Wow, Thrawn... just wondering where his outrage was over that incident.
I mean, that's HIS military that went to sea in a boat that had a history of safety concerns, cracks, leaks, engineer malfunctions, rust problems that restricted it from diving deep. It was the the oldest of four subs bought from Britain and the last to be deemed sea-worthy.
Cripes, ANYONE could have seen that these old boats had serious problems.
The Canadian military establishment should easily have foreseen this problem. Especially after the sister ship sister ship, HMCS Victoria, experienced motor failures, hydraulic and electronic problems on its maiden voyage. Seems like there was a lack of foresight on this one.
But... no outrage from the all-seeing one. Maybe he made a donation to the family though. Who knows.
-
toad, I request that you give the canadian military, or what passes as a canadian military, a break here. The intent was good and thats what we should be focusing on.
I for one am pleased that the canadians think enough of world peas to send some boats runnig deep to........to.........to.....p reserve world peace.
I will sleep better tonight knowing that there is a canadian diesel sub out there, somewhere.....doing.......... .......something, anything....to preserve world peace in spite of heir bush.
Gop bless Kanada!
-
Yes, the Raptor has some cutting edge technology and still has some bugs to be worked out.
HAHAHAHA, the Raptor program started (1981) before I was even born, and its just now coming into service. Cutting edge technology, yeah right!
The F-22 was designed to counter SOVIET aircraft. Well, war has changed. We dont train to fight the Soviets anymore. So, 23 years in the making, we have the most expensive weapons system in the history of the U.S.
So, for better or worse, we have a new fighter. Well, two, counting the F-35. Hope the Army is doing well with its cutting edge 1959 technology M-16.
-
Planes do sometimes go down, nothing new.
Just too bad when the plane is four times more expensive than the typical fighter.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
mora, I am sorry if I hurt your feelings. I was angry at the my dog, who insists on setting next to me and farting while I am at the computer. I think my wife must have changed brands of dogfood again because this dogs farts are actually more intense and repulsive then steaming fresh dogsh*t mounds out on the lawn.
What is with dogs? mine likes to do the same thing !
-
Originally posted by SunTracker
HAHAHAHA, the Raptor program started (1981) before I was even born, and its just now coming into service. Cutting edge technology, yeah right!
The F-22 was designed to counter SOVIET aircraft. Well, war has changed. We dont train to fight the Soviets anymore. So, 23 years in the making, we have the most expensive weapons system in the history of the U.S.
So, for better or worse, we have a new fighter. Well, two, counting the F-35. Hope the Army is doing well with its cutting edge 1959 technology M-16.
well if you havnt heard there is this little term called "upgrades" It often happens even before something goes into full scale production (wich the raptr hasn't) as they say measure 12 times and cut once vrs. measuring 1 times and cutting 12!
In addition, the Army is getting a new rifle next year. Most people I've heard say the thing is "bad ass"
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Wow Toad, you just used a tragic incident to take a pot shot a Pongo.
Oh I dont know thrawn. I think his comparison if missguided is fair and equitable. Cant say its inappropriate, just stupid and about a totaly different issue.
How he equates a mistake by the new comanders of that sub with gross negligence by the pentagon and white house is a bit beyond me.
Canada buys 4 subs at a bargain and has lots of trouble with them. Dam good thing we are not relying on them to defend our country, agreed.
But at the very same time dumb old canada has equiped its forces(for 20 years) with vehicles that are perfect for Iraq or any other low intensity low troop density confict. Stressing the safety of the troops while enabling them to most efficiently(and cost effectivly) perform thier dangerous missions.
ya dumb old canada.
smart old toad.
My statement when I first saw a Grizzly APC in 1983 during basic training. "Nice vehicle to defend a goverment from its population, not much use in the fulda gap".
Well that is the mission in Iraq. Defend the goverment(and the occupation forces) from the people.
Ya the grizzly or its replacements costs alot more then a Hummer. But you can buy 6 of them for the price of a Bradley or probably 250 for the price of a raptor. Its decendents are in service in the US as the LAV and Styker. From what I understand its working great. So the question remains. Why where troops sent into a predictable situation while trillions where wasted getting ready to contest space with Darth Bin Ladin?
Or if you really must know. And here is a kicker for you...
All those trillions are spent to try to avoid ever haveing to fight a war like they are fighting in Iraq. All the force multiplying, air superiority, Fire and forget, Stealth, C3, MIRV dollars are spent so that the US wont have to get into a situation where they are exchanging hang grenades with tribesmen or doing house to house fighting through citys that predate Christ.
Yet Bush and Ruhmsfeld just marched the most advanced military the world has known into a slogging match with a country full of the best armed rabid tribesmen in the world. Exposing the soft logistical core of the US Army(and any army) to the enemy.
its not stupid in hind sight it was stupid in forsight, present sight and any sight. But what is really really really stupid. Was sending them in equiped for absolutly every thing but the war they where in. The war that Bush and Ruhmsfeld had picked.
-
Originally posted by Pongo
Cant say its inappropriate, just stupid and about a totaly different issue.
[/b]
You forgot "inconvenient". Comparisons that parallel your little hissy-fit about the US leadership/military procurement and make Canada's leadership/military procurement look similarly incompetent are "inconvenient" when you are in mid "anti-Bush diatribe".
Canada buys 4 subs at a bargain and has lots of trouble with them.
You'd think it'd be stupid in hind sight, stupid in forsight, present sight and any sight at all to buy those mothballed subs thinking they could be made ocean-ready for that amount of money. Wonder why the Brits retired them. Duh!
Then to put the oldest and roughest of them through the same repair process that resulted in HMCS Victoria experiencing motor failures, hydraulic and electronic problems on its maiden voyage (and the other two as well apparently having serious problems) and expect Chicoutimi not to have serious problems. Wow. What governmental/military incompetence.
But at the very same time dumb old canada has equiped its forces(for 20 years) with vehicles that are perfect for Iraq or any other low intensity low troop density confict.
Wow. What insight. Let's see.... with a military the size of yours and a defense budget the size of yours..... what other type of conflict could you possibly prepare to fight?
The Canadian Air Force has 118 F-16's; just what major conflict were you planning to win with that as your air element?
Canada has assumed a "National Guard" role in the world, not a primary war-fighting role.
I wonder if that had any influence on the equipment procured by Canada versus the equipment procured by the USA? Ya think?
smart old toad.
I take no credit for the structure/equipment of the armed forces of the USA. OTOH, I'm am smart enough to realize that the difference in global committment between Canada and the US would result in vastly different procurement.
All those trillions are spent to try to avoid ever haveing to fight a war like they are fighting in Iraq. All the force multiplying, air superiority, Fire and forget, Stealth, C3, MIRV dollars are spent so that the US wont have to get into a situation where they are exchanging hang grenades with tribesmen or doing house to house fighting through citys that predate Christ.
Wow, another great insight! No kidding? Let's see... given our role in NATO and the Far East, is it possible that we prepared/procured to fight a different war than we're fighting now?
Pongo, how would we have done if we'd equipped EXACTLY like Canada and had a showdown at Fulda with the Russians back in the day? What would you be slamming us about then?
Can't have it both ways, buddy.
Yet Bush and Ruhmsfeld just marched the most advanced military the world has known into a slogging match with a country full of the best armed rabid tribesmen in the world. Exposing the soft logistical core of the US Army(and any army) to the enemy.
You forget the war-fighting part; the most advanced military in the world rolled up the opposition in about three weeks with minimal casualties.
Now, was that advanced military designed for extended occupation duties against folks whose primary.... nearly only... weapons are the IED and the suicide bomber?
Nope. However, what you will see is that the advanced military will adapt. It won't be cost free. The School of Hard Knocks is the best teacher but not the most inexpensive. What will emerge from this, however, is an even more advanced military that maintains it's capability to roll up an enemy in short order AND a military that IS prepared for extended occupation duty if necessary.
Clearly, they weren't ready for the IED/suicide bomber tactics during this occupation. Just like they weren't ready for Pearl Harbor or WW2 even though the handwriting had been on the wall for two year prior. However, we have a history of overcoming and we'll overcome this.
On the otherside of this painful lesson, there will be an even better overall advanced military.
I think that must be what really bothers you.
-
Out of all that you come up with I'm bothered by how much this will improve the US military? Are you getting enough oxegen toad? Really..that is just stupid..lol
If people dont like seeing young americans die for bad reasons its because they are jealous of the US! thats it....
Its far more simple then that. As an ex infanteer that served with the US Army in training from Panama to Ft Lewis. It pisses me off to see lives thrown away with such a horrible oversight. I know, it doenst bother you and you will say the absolutly most assinine things to avoid the obvios and justify the USAF budget, no matter the cost to the troops. Better to have 2000 grunts dead and 10000 crippled then to have a scratch on the bellybutton of some fly boy. Heaven forbid you have to wage war in the air with a chance of the enemy seeing you..lol
Merry Xmas Toady..lol
-
Originally posted by Pongo
I know, it doenst bother you
Clearly, you don't know anything then.
and you will say the absolutly most assinine things
[/b]
Nah, I just leave that stuff to you. When you see a master, you just sit back and admire him.
to avoid the obvios and justify the USAF budget, no matter the cost to the troops. Better to have 2000 grunts dead and 10000 crippled then to have a scratch on the bellybutton of some fly boy.[/b]
See? Who can compete with that masterpiece right there?
Heaven forbid you have to wage war in the air with a chance of the enemy seeing you..lol
Merry Xmas Toady..lol [/B]
The F-22 has it's place in our military. It's not useful in Iraq right now but, given the history of the world, I expect the day will come when people from many countries all over the world will be glad we built it.
I had to laugh at your allusion to the F-22's cowardly way of fighting. Of for the days of the Knights of the Air, eh? The manly Flying Circus and salutes to the fallen foe! Yeah, maybe Canada can stop the march of technology... you go boys.
Not every conflict is going to be a low-intensity conflict that 100 odd F-16's can resolve. Some countries can and do prepare to fight a wide range of military conflicts.
-
Did I mention that the F-22s successors are already in development? The USAF has 30 unmanned aerial vehicles in R&D right now.
-
Yeah, I hope they're working on the successor
It was in 1981 they started looking at the Advanced Tactical Fighter as a new air superiority fighter.
Northrop/McDonnell-Douglas and Lockheed/Boeing/General Dynamics were selected in October 1986 for the initial 50 month demonstration/validation phase flyoff; the dem/val program was completed in December 1990. Assembly of the first operational F-22 Raptor fighter began in March 2001.
Jeez, twenty years from starting to look at it until rolling one out. Do you think they knew the EXACT needs of the USAF 20 years beforehand? I hope they have 20 year foresight.
Sun, you think the UAV's will be exactly what we need and work perfectly in any conflict when they finally become a significant part of the operational force? Do we know they'll be worth the money right now? Is it possible they won't be exactly what we need when we need them?
I mean.... we do have a perfect crystal ball, don't we?
-
Originally posted by Pongo
$250 000 000 gone.
how many buffalos is that? 1000? How many troops does that protect
10,000?
Do you mean Bisons?
http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/lf/English/2_0_26_1.asp?uSubSection=26&uSection=1
They don't do our soldiers much good when we deploy ****ing Matchbox(tm) Iltis instead.
http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/lf/English/2_0_16_1.asp?uSubSection=16&uSection=1
Now there is a comparison to what's happening in Iraq.
Toad,
Wow, Thrawn... just wondering where his outrage was over that incident.
I'm not saying you're wrong, it just seemed out of character.
The Canadian Air Force has 118 F-16's; just what major conflict were you planning to win with that as your air element?
You probably mean CF-18s.
http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/equip/cf-18/intro_e.asp
Of of the 118, only 60 are operational. And honestly I would be surprised and impressed if we could get 36 in the air at the same time.
-
no the Buffalo is a dedicated mine resitistent logistics and utility type vehicle, not an APC like the Bison.
-
Ah, thanks.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Toad, I'm not saying you're wrong, it just seemed out of character.
The submarine investigation comment was not meant or written as a "pot shot at Pongo". It was written and intended to highlight that EVERY governmental military establishment makes tragic mistakes in planning and/or procurement. Even Canada.
Unfortunately, if one is a student of military history, it's obvious that these mistakes are not rare or uncommon nor are they the specific province of any particular country. By the nature of the beast, military establishments prepare to fight the last war. As a result, particularly with the longer development times that are now common, troops find themselves with the wrong equipment for the job.
Thanks for the correction on the aircraft type. I went to the Canadian Armed Forces site to get the numbers but my fingers typed F-16 instead of CF-18. At least I got the number from the site correct. ;)
-
1K3 I'm just curious as to how you think any 4 ship can take on a 10 to 12 ship with a command and contol flight and expect to live more than 90% of time? The Indian Air Force was flying Mirage 2000s, MiG 21s,SU 27s, MiG 29s, and SU 30Ks. All of this against 4 F-15Cs from Alaska.
If you read up on the excersize you'll also find out that the enforced limitations on certain capabilities during the engagements. This isn't surprising at all considering we are limited during Red Flag excersizes also.
I also don't see how people aren't seeing through the smoke cloud put up by the US Government on this. This excersize was well planned and thought out when it comes to showing what they want everyone to see. That is an "outdated" weapons platform that requires replacement. This isn't surprising considering they were hacking away at the amount of F/A 22s that would be purchased to replace the F-15. What better way than to show our "top of the line" fighter being less than capable to deal with threats around the world. Makes it easier for the folks approving the F/A 22 purchases even though the price tag keeps rising.
Oh and about the whole Raptor thing. The current Raptor design is far from what it's original prototype was. Put the 2 next to each other and there are very few similiarities.
Suntraker you might wanna catch up on the times too. Yes we are not fighting the Soviet Union but yes we are still aimed at fighting their designs. Last time I checked the SU and MiG are infact Soviet weapons platforms. You also may want to do some research on small arms developement considering your so quick to slam the M-16 variants. I'll even give you some names to look up. XM8 LAR, XM29 OICW, XM307,and XM312. I bet you also think there is no fail safe for the thrust vectoring system on the F/A 22 either. The first YF 22 crash was due to pilot induced oscillations. He failed to follow steps in a test card and caused the crash. His thrust vectoring wasn't locked in place as it should have been in the aircrafts configuration at the time of the accident.
-
anyone heard of Israeli's new Python series? can $1/4 billion fighter evade that?
-
"Unfortunately, if one is a student of military history, it's obvious that these mistakes are not rare or uncommon nor are they the specific province of any particular country. By the nature of the beast, military establishments prepare to fight the last war. As a result, particularly with the longer development times that are now common, troops find themselves with the wrong equipment for the job. "
Typically invaders have the advantage of training and equiping to fight the war they are going to start. Only idiot invaders start a war they are not ready for.
-
Originally posted by Pongo
"Unfortunately, if one is a student of military history, it's obvious that these mistakes are not rare or uncommon nor are they the specific province of any particular country. By the nature of the beast, military establishments prepare to fight the last war. As a result, particularly with the longer development times that are now common, troops find themselves with the wrong equipment for the job. "
Typically invaders have the advantage of training and equiping to fight the war they are going to start. Only idiot invaders start a war they are not ready for.
its interesting you mention this pong because this war is the one we've been training to fight for the last 10 years. What's amazing is that we don't learn our lessons.
I can't speak for the Army but I know that the Marines have been pounding out the Urban warfare training like there's no tomorrow for a long time now. Some genious actually had the foresite to consider that most of tomorrows conflicts will be faught in an Urban environment among mass civilian populations.
With that said it just seems to me that we didn't learn a thing from somalia. I don't think its the "troops not having the right gear" it's all tactics. If the tactics are flawed no gear in the world is going to save you.
-
1K3 even though the Python 5 is almost a medium range missile you still have to pick up the target in the first place. If you've read the Israeli site that talks about the weapon you'd know that. Even with a "lock on after launch" capability it's other sensors have to detect the other weapons platform before it can scan a specific area in order to get a lock. That means again you have to have the ability to track a target in some way or have another system to know the target is there.
Advanced LPI capabilities of an aircraft such as the F/A 22 will allow it to be tracking its target but remain undetected to conventional RWR and ESM packages employed by a target. This will negate the "other sensors" using passive radar detection systems to pickup the aircraft. Now it comes down to you illuminating a plane such as the F/A 22 and getting a lock and launch before the F/A 22 does it to you. Considering previous tests that the F/A 22 has done against the F-15 and F-16 it's gonna be a difficult task to accomplish. The F/A 22 had the 15s and 16s killed before they ever knew it was there. To be more specific they never knew where the Raptors were at all.
Great weapon compared to anything out there currently but it still has its drawbacks just like any other device. Does that mean someones going to go out and do a test to try and blast 100 million dollar plane out of the sky? No. Guess we'll just have to wait till someday that the two can meet each other on the battle field.
Gunslinger after reading alot about Somalia I wouldn't say the troops lacked the right tactics. Had they equipped themselves for worst case scenario then that would have helped. The execution of a plan doesn't always turn out as it was planned in the first place. They expected it to be quick and somewhat easy. Mistakes on the insertion and extraction killed them. Had they also been given the gunships they requested it would have also helped. Had their leaders ensured that everyone in the AOR knew what was going to happen and had an emergency plan it would have helped. Had they not been so forgiving when it came to the civilians that were clearly assisting in the fighting it would have helped. That has alot to do with ROE. When the civilians blatantly helped the militia they should have been immediately recognized as a combatant (man, woman or child). Problem is now it would be the US Governments word against the media as to why so many women and children died. Media would claim it was unlawful use of force and our government would claim it was necessary due to the actions being taken by the civilians. That kind of situation becomes a political nightmare.
-
Oh, I think history shows the US military was more than ready for the war fighting phase.
It's also clear that the command structure was not ready for an occupation of this nature. Their post-war expectations were wrong and, as a result, their plan was wrong. They've been behind the power curve because of that and it has definitely had a high cost in lives.
I doubt anyone is really in disagreement with that.
-
Have to aggree. It honestly was amazing. Modern day prussians.
The problem with this is secuing your logisitics echelon. That is what we would have to highlight as the over sight, how do you secure it in that sitution.
-
Originally posted by Cobra412
Gunslinger after reading alot about Somalia I wouldn't say the troops lacked the right tactics. Had they equipped themselves for worst case scenario then that would have helped. The execution of a plan doesn't always turn out as it was planned in the first place. They expected it to be quick and somewhat easy. Mistakes on the insertion and extraction killed them. Had they also been given the gunships they requested it would have also helped. Had their leaders ensured that everyone in the AOR knew what was going to happen and had an emergency plan it would have helped. Had they not been so forgiving when it came to the civilians that were clearly assisting in the fighting it would have helped. That has alot to do with ROE. When the civilians blatantly helped the militia they should have been immediately recognized as a combatant (man, woman or child). Problem is now it would be the US Governments word against the media as to why so many women and children died. Media would claim it was unlawful use of force and our government would claim it was necessary due to the actions being taken by the civilians. That kind of situation becomes a political nightmare.
I forgot to mention "the best military plans don't survive the first shots fired"
Also in reguards to somalia, the other mistake they made is the fact that they did the SAME exact mission the previous day/week. Again, tactics. But you'd think we'd learn from that battle just what an RPG can do to an unarmored vehicle and blackhawk.
-
Originally posted by Pongo
The problem with this is secuing your logisitics echelon. That is what we would have to highlight as the over sight, how do you secure it in that sitution.
Well, first they should have prepared for "worst case" instead of "best case". They didn't plan on much post-war opposition.
I'd say they should have planned for the worst, flooded the country with troops on every streetcorner like we did in post-war Germany and Japan and then drawn down if and when warranted. They tried to go for a PC warm and fuzzy "occupation lite" and it bit them hard.
Exaggerating, (for example) I think 1 million post-war combat troops in Iraq would have slowed the insurgency quite a bit and probably done much to secure the logistics echelon. ;)