Spy plane recons over Iran; Guess who's next?

POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Monday, July 20, 2026 16:44
VIEWED: 6287
PAGE 5 of 7

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT PAGE

GUNRUNNER

Wednesday, July 6, 2005 1:32 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by GunRunner:
the current administration is cutting funding to the navy, closing its most important bases, slashing ship building programs, reconfiguring sub-hunting aircraft to other duties (And welding their sonar buoy hatches shut!!), and totaly getting rid of carrier based interceptor aircraft.

I read about some of this. WTF sence does this make at a time of escalating fronts? Are they producing unmanned drones to do the work of conventional Naval forces without telling us?
Or is this thing with Iraq gonna be the last real conflict, then we're done?
Is that in the interest of national security??
(Hey, I may hate war, but as Bruce Willis said, "Always be prepared, son. Always be prepared.")

NO CLUE Chrisisall

Simply put Bush supports the Air Force (as he’s a former Air Force Reservist). Know all the bad press the USAF’s missile defense system has been getting, well the US Navy has a already operational (and in tests successful) system call the SM-1, 2 and 3 Standard Missiles that can take down a variety Ballistic Missiles (From tactical missiles like the SS-N-16 or SCUD to big @$$ Nuclear ICBMs) and sea skimming cruise missiles and even attack LAND TARGETS!! Yet the current administration is buying a lightly armed Destroyer (really a over rated Frigate) one at a time and at a slower rate than they are decoming current Cruisers, Destroyers and Frigates, the same goes for the POS Virginia class submarines. (For crying out loud they basically want a nuclear sub that can operated in areas that smaller Diesel subs excel in and still it must operate as a Hunter Killer, and Carrier Escort. Buy a nucs for the open ocean and a smokeboats for the littorals, but Rickover’s ghost is still giving orders in the USN.)

Also President Clinton kept funding for navy projects like the Seawolf class SSN, and bases like Groton and Portsmouth are in blue states so…

Personally I think Bush Jr. wasn’t listening when daddy was telling him how the submarine USS Finback pulled him out of the ice cold Pacific after he bailed out of his aircraft in WWII.

EV Nova Firefly mod Message Board:
http://s4.invisionfree.com/GunRunner/index.php?act=idx

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, July 6, 2005 2:07 AM

Thanks GunRunner, very informative.

Learnin' new stuff all the time Chrisisall

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Wednesday, July 6, 2005 3:13 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
Your points are goods ones, but probably not in the way you intended. It is more a statement of why the UN doesn't work, as this nice article discusses

Actually I think they are goods points exactly as I intended them. The UN’s corrupt and inept handling of affairs like Iraq is, in my mind, one of the strongest arguments in favor of the US/UK lead coalition invasion of Iraq.

Arguing that UN resolutions concerning Israel are tantamount to those concerning Iraq since 1991 is a product of either ignorance or pretense. Many people are probably unaware of the difference between the two resolutions or that even two different types of UN resolutions exist. So it is important information to be aware of. On the other hand, intentionally confusing the two types of resolutions is intellectually dishonest.

As far as Israel having nukes, so does France. In fact France has one of the largest nuclear arsenals on the planet, larger certainly then Israel’s.

Quote:
Originally posted by GunRunner:
Simply put Bush supports the Air Force (as he’s a former Air Force Reservist). Know all the bad press the USAF’s missile defense system has been getting, well the US Navy has a already operational (and in tests successful) system call the SM-1, 2 and 3 Standard Missiles that can take down a variety Ballistic Missiles (From tactical missiles like the SS-N-16 or SCUD to big @$$ Nuclear ICBMs) and sea skimming cruise missiles and even attack LAND TARGETS!!

The SM system is an area defense, designed to protect ships from air attack. It’s similar to the PAC. It’s effectiveness in intercepting ICBMs is a part of the integration of national and theater missile defense. Essentially, Navy Midcourse is part of Missile Defense.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

RUE

Wednesday, July 6, 2005 3:17 AM

Quote:
and the bio-active s#*t to destroy the world needs less room to store than an average house has, so it could be anywhere

The problem with biologicals is that once released, one way or another (either through person to person transmission or environmental contamination, depending on the organism) they hit everyone (assuming you have not vaccinated your population en masse). They are truly the option of last resort. Chemicals are easier to control, but harder to deploy correctly, not something you do on the run and expect to work. Both the nuclear 'a' option (a bona fide bomb) and nuclear 'b' option (dirty bomb) on home soil would leave significant areas uninhabitable or unworkable.

OTOH, if you have them, and you have nothing left to lose, they make sense. If you use them, the country becomes in effect a poison pill the victor can't swallow. Or, even worse, the invader launches massive (CBN or conventional) retaliation, which makes the real estate value go down even more.

Before the US attacked Iraq, what convinced me there were no WMDs, was that if WMDs really were there in the quantities claimed, Bush was sending tens of thousands of US troops to certain death. (And without adequate sensing, protective gear, decontamination and medical capacity - ALL were lacking.) That would certainly have been unsupportable militarily, economically, and politically.

But say he was crazy enough to gamble that WMDs were there in vast quantities, and that they wouldn't be used for some reason. You'd THINK he'd put a high priority on finding and neutralizing them. But he didn't do that. He had to be goaded (belatedly) into sparing a few folks to look for them by the international and internal murmuring of the question - what about the WMDs?

It calls to mind Afghanistan. Remember that Bush fingered al Qaeda as the culprit within a couple of weeks. And in fact he said they had proof. It was only months afterward, when US troops were searching for documentary evidence, that they found a video of al Qaeda members celebrating the attack. I remember at the time the news agencies quite innocently reporting the news as given them by the military, that the US FINALLY had 'proof' al Qaeda was responsible. No one seemed to remember Bush claimed to have had proof months before.

What I surmise (which I've said before, so pardon the repetition) is that Bush went to Afghanistan on a hunch, and was lucky to be able to back it up after the fact. And that he expected the same thing of Iraq. He assumed he would find SOMETHING, somewhere, somehow, in order to justify his claims which he knew going in were substantially false. But it didn't work that way. And after some retroactive shifting of rationale (it was programs, or perhaps intentions ..... does it matter now that they're free?) they finally realized they didn't need to deny, explain, or excuse ... they'd gotten away with it. No on cared.

What's scary is how easily it happened. Somehow the reason to attack another country became a non-issue. As serious sociopaths, I'm sure this success will only embolden the administration.

My only question is - how unhinged are they? Iran doesn’t look do-able at the time. As badly as things are going at the moment, Iraq was actually an easy military target, and internationally politically isolated. Iran is anything but. Plus, it may be possible to whip the US into another war-lather by playing on fear and the promise you can provide certainty, but it won't make any US war-allies. The rest of the world ain't that stoopid - they've seen this once before. Plus there is no legal pretense that can be brought before the UN. (BTW, the US attack of Iraq was illegal, as no country can attack another country under the banner of the UN without a specific resolution allowing it. General resolutions don’t count.) The US is trying to provoke Iran, but Iran isn't biting. So, while I'm sure the administration is just itching to go after Iran, I don’t think they've found the means just yet.

RUE

Wednesday, July 6, 2005 3:19 AM

GunRunner,

I too appreciate the information.

I'm curious - it's been claimed that only the army is falling short of recruitment goals, that the other branches of the military are doing just fine. Does that square with what you know?

Thanks ahead of time,
Rue

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, July 6, 2005 3:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
As serious sociopaths, I'm sure this success will only embolden the administration.

rue, while I agree totally with the bulk of what you said, don't you think the term 'sociopaths' is a little strong?
I prefer 'Highly motivated Capitalist Fundementalist Extremists".

That which we call a rose Chrisisall

GUNRUNNER

Wednesday, July 6, 2005 5:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by lynchaj:
You should check your facts. True, the USAF has a piece of NMD like the ABL, etc but NMD is NOT an USAF program. It is a DOD level program with pieces in all the services and DOD management.

I was not talking about the DOD level system I was talking about the USAF's ‘Stage Three’ Interceptor AKA The ABL. But the basic facts are that the Navy can take out ballistic missiles earlier and during the more vulnerable stages of launch (1 and 2), yet are receiving fewer ships to do this.

Quote:
You are asserting President Bush is somehow biased toward the USAF but I don't see anything backing that up either.

What about the Joint Strike Fighter program? The Air Force got basically what it wanted- a single engine air superiority fighter while the Navy is forced to use it in place of its twin engine Strike Fighters and relegate its F/A-18 Super Hornets to the interception role, which are slower, have less range and can't carry the AIM-54 compared to the F-14.

How about the "Downgrade" of the Oliver Hazard Perry class Frigates? Their MK 13 Mod 4 (SM-1 Missile/Harpoon) launchers are removed and replaced with nothing. So basically every battle group that has a force of FFG-7s (Which is almost all of them) has 40 less Standard missiles for fleet air defense while the current AEGIS ships need to carry more SM-3s for anti-ballistic missile duty.

Or the Navy is receiving less funding to operate their carrier force while special political considerations are being made so the Air Force can have air bases in nations that are less than upstanding members of the international community.

Large numbers of sailors are now being told they either need to take a discharge or join the ARMY because the damn funding isn’t there to maintain our current force levels.

Oh but the Navy gets purdy new uniforms so the current administration can’t be against the Navy.

EV Nova Firefly mod Message Board:
http://s4.invisionfree.com/GunRunner/index.php?act=idx

GUNRUNNER

Wednesday, July 6, 2005 5:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
GunRunner,

I too appreciate the information.

I'm curious - it's been claimed that only the army is falling short of recruitment goals, that the other branches of the military are doing just fine. Does that square with what you know?

Thanks ahead of time,
Rue

I heard that the USMC is also short of its recruiting goals.

Well I don't have any hard numbers in front of me but the Navy's personnel levels are being lowered so recruiting could be down but on paper they look to be doing ok.

EV Nova Firefly mod Message Board:
http://s4.invisionfree.com/GunRunner/index.php?act=idx

GUNRUNNER

Wednesday, July 6, 2005 6:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by lynchaj:
Quote:
Originally posted by GunRunner:
What about the Joint Strike Fighter program? The Air Force got basically what it wanted- a single engine air superiority fighter while the Navy is forced to use it in place of its twin engine Strike Fighters and relegate its F/A-18 Super Hornets to the interception role, which are slower, have less range and can't carry the AIM-54 compared to the F-14.

I find it strange you should bring up the JSF. That is essentially a Navy run program. The management does rotate between USAF and Navy every two years but the heart and guts of the program are run by Navy. Yes, it is single engine design but technological changes have made them more reliable than the two engine models it is replacing -- and then there is the cost and LCC aspects to deal with. As I recall the last twin engine Navy aircraft program didn't turn out so great either. Life ain't perfect.

Just because the Navy managed it doesn’t mean the USAF didn't lay down the law on the engine issue. The Navy was the only branch that had a need for a twin-engine system and it came down to no aircraft or one engine. Anyways a single reliable engine doesn’t matter much when you have to fly it home with a dozen 20mm holes through it.

Which is the "last twin engine Navy aircraft program" your talking about? The F/A-18? I didn't realize that turned out bad?

Quote:
As for carrying the Phoenix, well, every service has taken its share of cut backs over the years. I thought the AIM-120 was supposed to replace it. Practically speaking, Phoenix is an old system and expensive to maintain. Sorry, that is just the way it works. No one said it was going to be fair. Ask the B-2 folks what they think of a 21 aircraft fleet. For a service whose entire mission is offensive air power that represents a major cut in capability.

The AIM-120 is meant to replace the AIM-7, if its meant to replace the Phoenix its totally the wrong system for it, it lacks he range and can't be carried on the same launchers. It maybe old but its still one of the best systems to intercept strike aircraft with.

Quote:
However, I highly doubt that the administration is "against the Navy". Its called Transformation to move to a lighter more flexible and responsive force. Some systems are going to have to change and it is painful.

It may not be against it but its certainly ignorant of it. "Lighter", "Flexible" and "More Responsive" are common buzz words they say when their are going to screw you on something. Everyone is saying the Cold War is over and we don't need all these warships but they fail to realize that all those submarines the Russians were going to flood the North Atlantic with are just changing hands and going to China, Iran ETC and nations like France, Russia, Germany, and Sweden are selling cutting edge submarines to anyone with deep pockets. The Swedish submarine HMS Gotland just arrived in San Diego so we can do some ASW training with it, one of the US Navy Admirals responsible for arranging the transfer was quoted as saying “He’s glad they are on our side”. Russia is starting a program to build a small SSG (Guided Missile Submarine) for export called the Amur Project 950, its capable of carrying 10 land attack and or anti-ship cruise missiles- basically anyone with sufficient money can get a little carrier killer submarine. Simply put we need to go up against greater numbers of highly advanced boats while doing it with less numbers in every department.

EV Nova Firefly mod Message Board:
http://s4.invisionfree.com/GunRunner/index.php?act=idx

RUE

Wednesday, July 6, 2005 8:22 PM

Quote:
You also should check your facts. The US military has prepared for NBC conflicts since WWII. We were anticipating an Iraqi NBC attack in Mar 2003.

Was everything perfect? Of course not but neither was President Bush sending "tens of thousands of US troops to certain death" in case they did encounter WMD. A few unanticipated shortfalls does not "ALL were lacking" make.

As a scientist in part tasked with WMD detection and protection, and backgrounded in deployment, I KNOW what the state of the art was at the time the US attacked Iraq. Even IF the troops had 'state of the art' it would not have been sufficient. But rather than state of the art, they had inferior left-overs in vastly insufficient quantities (bought at top-notch cost).
Preparations were a farce.

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT PAGE