USAF waits for USN to clear harms way over Libya.

[hcobb]

Note complete absence of F-22s in the air to ground campaign, because
the only sensors onboard the F-22 Raptor that can spot a ground target
are the eyeballs of the pilot.

-HJC

[Mike]

On 19/03/2011 5:33 PM, hcobb wrote:
> Note complete absence of F-22s in the air to ground campaign, because
> the only sensors onboard the F-22 Raptor that can spot a ground target
> are the eyeballs of the pilot.
>
> -HJC
>
A F-22 really isn't needed against; 9 Mirage III, 22 MiG-17, 40 MiG-19,
68 MiG-25,and 90 Su-22, around 40 Su-22M3, & Su-22UM3K.

[Dan]

On 3/19/2011 4:33 PM, hcobb wrote:
> Note complete absence of F-22s in the air to ground campaign, because
> the only sensors onboard the F-22 Raptor that can spot a ground target
> are the eyeballs of the pilot.
>
> -HJC

Once again you ignore reality. Obama has declared the U.S. will not
employ ground forces or combat aircraft. So, instead reality, you have
decided to trot out your anti USAF obsession.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Daryl]

On 3/19/2011 4:12 PM, Dan wrote:
> On 3/19/2011 4:33 PM, hcobb wrote:
>> Note complete absence of F-22s in the air to ground campaign,
>> because
>> the only sensors onboard the F-22 Raptor that can spot a ground
>> target
>> are the eyeballs of the pilot.
>>
>> -HJC
>
> Once again you ignore reality. Obama has declared the U.S. will
> not employ ground forces or combat aircraft. So, instead reality,
> you have decided to trot out your anti USAF obsession.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

There are enough air to ground assets already within reach that
the F-22 isn't needed. There are also enough Air to Air Assets
to handle the 1960s AF that Libya has.

[Rob Arndt]

On Mar 19, 2:44 pm, Daryl <***@nospami70west2.com> wrote:
> On 3/19/2011 4:12 PM, Dan wrote:
>
> > On 3/19/2011 4:33 PM, hcobb wrote:
> >> Note complete absence of F-22s in the air to ground campaign,
> >> because
> >> the only sensors onboard the F-22 Raptor that can spot a ground
> >> target
> >> are the eyeballs of the pilot.
>
> >> -HJC
>
> > Once again you ignore reality. Obama has declared the U.S. will
> > not employ ground forces or combat aircraft. So, instead reality,
> > you have decided to trot out your anti USAF obsession.
>
> > Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
> There are enough air to ground assets already within reach that
> the F-22 isn't needed.  There are also enough Air to Air Assets
> to handle the 1960s AF that Libya has.

The US and UK have launched 110 missiles to attack Gadhafi's radar
network and some AA sites... but has so far left the ABs and a/c
hangars + runways clear for the LARAF to still operate. SPAAGs and
should-fired AA launchers also remain with Libyan ground forces which
are proceeding to attack Benghazi.

The only ATA activity has been with the French Rafales, so far...

I don't think the USAF will be sending any F-22s to do anything. I
would expect US naval a/c or a/c in Italy to attack. Does the F-22 as
produced even have any real ATG capability b/c Gadhafi will almost
certainly mix his ground assets into civilian population centers for
protection.

Rob

[WaltBJ]

Mr. Cobb - once again your comments betray gross unfamiliarity with
strategy and tactis. What, pray tell, is your experince with military
affairs, let alone tactical air.

Walt BJ

[Daryl]

On 3/19/2011 5:44 PM, Rob Arndt wrote:
> On Mar 19, 2:44 pm, Daryl<***@nospami70west2.com> wrote:
>> On 3/19/2011 4:12 PM, Dan wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/19/2011 4:33 PM, hcobb wrote:
>>>> Note complete absence of F-22s in the air to ground campaign,
>>>> because
>>>> the only sensors onboard the F-22 Raptor that can spot a ground
>>>> target
>>>> are the eyeballs of the pilot.
>>
>>>> -HJC
>>
>>> Once again you ignore reality. Obama has declared the U.S. will
>>> not employ ground forces or combat aircraft. So, instead reality,
>>> you have decided to trot out your anti USAF obsession.
>>
>>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>>
>> There are enough air to ground assets already within reach that
>> the F-22 isn't needed. There are also enough Air to Air Assets
>> to handle the 1960s AF that Libya has.
>
> The US and UK have launched 110 missiles to attack Gadhafi's radar
> network and some AA sites... but has so far left the ABs and a/c
> hangars + runways clear for the LARAF to still operate. SPAAGs and
> should-fired AA launchers also remain with Libyan ground forces which
> are proceeding to attack Benghazi.
>
> The only ATA activity has been with the French Rafales, so far...
>
> I don't think the USAF will be sending any F-22s to do anything. I
> would expect US naval a/c or a/c in Italy to attack. Does the F-22 as
> produced even have any real ATG capability b/c Gadhafi will almost
> certainly mix his ground assets into civilian population centers for
> protection.

The idea of a No Fly Zone is to keep the air assets on the
ground. It is also to make sure that no ground assets can
jeopardize the air assets. This is exactly what they are doing.
You paint a NFZ Aircraft with your ground installation, you get
bagged. Keep your AC on the ground and they are not targets and
neither are your buildings on that installation. You lift off
the runway, you are a target and will be bagged.

Simple as that.

[Mike]

On 19/03/2011 7:54 PM, Daryl wrote:
>
> The idea of a No Fly Zone is to keep the air assets on the ground. It is
> also to make sure that no ground assets can jeopardize the air assets.
> This is exactly what they are doing. You paint a NFZ Aircraft with your
> ground installation, you get bagged. Keep your AC on the ground and they
> are not targets and neither are your buildings on that installation. You
> lift off the runway, you are a target and will be bagged.
>
> Simple as that.
>
Turn on your AD targeting RADAR will put you in HARM's way!

[Rob Arndt]

On Mar 19, 3:54 pm, Daryl <***@nospami70west2.com> wrote:
> On 3/19/2011 5:44 PM, Rob Arndt wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 19, 2:44 pm, Daryl<***@nospami70west2.com>  wrote:
> >> On 3/19/2011 4:12 PM, Dan wrote:
>
> >>> On 3/19/2011 4:33 PM, hcobb wrote:
> >>>> Note complete absence of F-22s in the air to ground campaign,
> >>>> because
> >>>> the only sensors onboard the F-22 Raptor that can spot a ground
> >>>> target
> >>>> are the eyeballs of the pilot.
>
> >>>> -HJC
>
> >>> Once again you ignore reality. Obama has declared the U.S. will
> >>> not employ ground forces or combat aircraft. So, instead reality,
> >>> you have decided to trot out your anti USAF obsession.
>
> >>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
> >> There are enough air to ground assets already within reach that
> >> the F-22 isn't needed.  There are also enough Air to Air Assets
> >> to handle the 1960s AF that Libya has.
>
> > The US and UK have launched 110 missiles to attack Gadhafi's radar
> > network and some AA sites... but has so far left the ABs and a/c
> > hangars + runways clear for the LARAF to still operate. SPAAGs and
> > should-fired AA launchers also remain with Libyan ground forces which
> > are proceeding to attack Benghazi.
>
> > The only ATA activity has been with the French Rafales, so far...
>
> > I don't think the USAF will be sending any F-22s to do anything. I
> > would expect US naval a/c or a/c in Italy to attack. Does the F-22 as
> > produced even have any real ATG capability b/c Gadhafi will almost
> > certainly mix his ground assets into civilian population centers for
> > protection.
>
> The idea of a No Fly Zone is to keep the air assets on the
> ground.  It is also to make sure that no ground assets can
> jeopardize the air assets.  This is exactly what they are doing.
>   You paint a NFZ Aircraft with your ground installation, you get
> bagged.  Keep your AC on the ground and they are not targets and
> neither are your buildings on that installation.  You lift off
> the runway, you are a target and will be bagged.
>
> Simple as that.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

What is simple is that the "Coalition" has chosen the weakest NFZ they
could which is just the north Libyan cities at a cost of $100 million
a week. So far, there is little air activity and Gadhafi still is
building ground forces to take Benghazi- he has SPAAGs and should-
launched weapons still available. He should be nailed BEFORE he gets
into the city and mixes in with the civil population which will
partially-nullify any western air assets. Gadhafi will be counting on
collateral damage to turn world opinion and Arab opinion.

While the US and UK have hit Libyan AA and radar sites with a barrage
of 110 missiles from ships, no assessment has been made and all the
ABs with LARAF a/c and runways remain untouched. What's the logic
behind that? Or do we have to wait for wave #2?

Rob

p.s. This is the first coalition war where expenses were considered up
front to form a battle plan. You gotta love capitalism :)

[Daryl]

On 3/19/2011 6:05 PM, Rob Arndt wrote:
> On Mar 19, 3:54 pm, Daryl<***@nospami70west2.com> wrote:
>> On 3/19/2011 5:44 PM, Rob Arndt wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Mar 19, 2:44 pm, Daryl<***@nospami70west2.com> wrote:
>>>> On 3/19/2011 4:12 PM, Dan wrote:
>>
>>>>> On 3/19/2011 4:33 PM, hcobb wrote:
>>>>>> Note complete absence of F-22s in the air to ground campaign,
>>>>>> because
>>>>>> the only sensors onboard the F-22 Raptor that can spot a ground
>>>>>> target
>>>>>> are the eyeballs of the pilot.
>>
>>>>>> -HJC
>>
>>>>> Once again you ignore reality. Obama has declared the U.S. will
>>>>> not employ ground forces or combat aircraft. So, instead reality,
>>>>> you have decided to trot out your anti USAF obsession.
>>
>>>>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>>
>>>> There are enough air to ground assets already within reach that
>>>> the F-22 isn't needed. There are also enough Air to Air Assets
>>>> to handle the 1960s AF that Libya has.
>>
>>> The US and UK have launched 110 missiles to attack Gadhafi's radar
>>> network and some AA sites... but has so far left the ABs and a/c
>>> hangars + runways clear for the LARAF to still operate. SPAAGs and
>>> should-fired AA launchers also remain with Libyan ground forces which
>>> are proceeding to attack Benghazi.
>>
>>> The only ATA activity has been with the French Rafales, so far...
>>
>>> I don't think the USAF will be sending any F-22s to do anything. I
>>> would expect US naval a/c or a/c in Italy to attack. Does the F-22 as
>>> produced even have any real ATG capability b/c Gadhafi will almost
>>> certainly mix his ground assets into civilian population centers for
>>> protection.
>>
>> The idea of a No Fly Zone is to keep the air assets on the
>> ground. It is also to make sure that no ground assets can
>> jeopardize the air assets. This is exactly what they are doing.
>> You paint a NFZ Aircraft with your ground installation, you get
>> bagged. Keep your AC on the ground and they are not targets and
>> neither are your buildings on that installation. You lift off
>> the runway, you are a target and will be bagged.
>>
>> Simple as that.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> What is simple is that the "Coalition" has chosen the weakest NFZ they
> could which is just the north Libyan cities at a cost of $100 million
> a week. So far, there is little air activity and Gadhafi still is
> building ground forces to take Benghazi- he has SPAAGs and should-
> launched weapons still available. He should be nailed BEFORE he gets
> into the city and mixes in with the civil population which will
> partially-nullify any western air assets. Gadhafi will be counting on
> collateral damage to turn world opinion and Arab opinion.

The Coalition is there to protect civilian lives that Kadafi has
totally disregarded. We are not there to fight the Rebels war.
If they want it bad enough, they are going to have to do the
heavy lifting. If they don't, then they deserve Kadafi. Freedom
isn't free.


>
> While the US and UK have hit Libyan AA and radar sites with a barrage
> of 110 missiles from ships, no assessment has been made and all the
> ABs with LARAF a/c and runways remain untouched. What's the logic
> behind that? Or do we have to wait for wave #2?

Again, don't generate your AC and those assets are not going to
be hit. Generate them and all hell breaks loose and you are
short one Air Force quickly.


>
> Rob
>
> p.s. This is the first coalition war where expenses were considered up
> front to form a battle plan. You gotta love capitalism :)

As long as it works and the civilian populace is spared what a
civil war usually brings about. In this case, it's the
Government doing the attrocities instead of the Rebels.

[Dean]

On Mar 19, 8:05 pm, Rob Arndt <***@aol.com> wrote:
> On Mar 19, 3:54 pm, Daryl <***@nospami70west2.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 3/19/2011 5:44 PM, Rob Arndt wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 19, 2:44 pm, Daryl<***@nospami70west2.com>  wrote:
> > >> On 3/19/2011 4:12 PM, Dan wrote:
>
> > >>> On 3/19/2011 4:33 PM, hcobb wrote:
> > >>>> Note complete absence of F-22s in the air to ground campaign,
> > >>>> because
> > >>>> the only sensors onboard the F-22 Raptor that can spot a ground
> > >>>> target
> > >>>> are the eyeballs of the pilot.
>
> > >>>> -HJC
>
> > >>> Once again you ignore reality. Obama has declared the U.S. will
> > >>> not employ ground forces or combat aircraft. So, instead reality,
> > >>> you have decided to trot out your anti USAF obsession.
>
> > >>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
> > >> There are enough air to ground assets already within reach that
> > >> the F-22 isn't needed.  There are also enough Air to Air Assets
> > >> to handle the 1960s AF that Libya has.
>
> > > The US and UK have launched 110 missiles to attack Gadhafi's radar
> > > network and some AA sites... but has so far left the ABs and a/c
> > > hangars + runways clear for the LARAF to still operate. SPAAGs and
> > > should-fired AA launchers also remain with Libyan ground forces which
> > > are proceeding to attack Benghazi.
>
> > > The only ATA activity has been with the French Rafales, so far...
>
> > > I don't think the USAF will be sending any F-22s to do anything. I
> > > would expect US naval a/c or a/c in Italy to attack. Does the F-22 as
> > > produced even have any real ATG capability b/c Gadhafi will almost
> > > certainly mix his ground assets into civilian population centers for
> > > protection.
>
> > The idea of a No Fly Zone is to keep the air assets on the
> > ground.  It is also to make sure that no ground assets can
> > jeopardize the air assets.  This is exactly what they are doing.
> >   You paint a NFZ Aircraft with your ground installation, you get
> > bagged.  Keep your AC on the ground and they are not targets and
> > neither are your buildings on that installation.  You lift off
> > the runway, you are a target and will be bagged.
>
> > Simple as that.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> What is simple is that the "Coalition" has chosen the weakest NFZ they
> could which is just the north Libyan cities at a cost of $100 million
> a week. So far, there is little air activity and Gadhafi still is
> building ground forces to take Benghazi- he has SPAAGs and should-
> launched weapons still available. He should be nailed BEFORE he gets
> into the city and mixes in with the civil population which will
> partially-nullify any western air assets. Gadhafi will be counting on
> collateral damage to turn world opinion and Arab opinion.
>
> While the US and UK have hit Libyan AA and radar sites with a barrage
> of 110 missiles from ships, no assessment has been made and all the
> ABs with LARAF a/c and runways remain untouched. What's the logic
> behind that? Or do we have to wait for wave #2?
>
> Rob
>
> p.s. This is the first coalition war where expenses were considered up
> front to form a battle plan. You gotta love capitalism :)

Those Libyan airbases are hardly untouched after a B-2 strike.

[Dan]

On 3/20/2011 7:08 AM, Dean wrote:
> On Mar 19, 8:05 pm, Rob Arndt<***@aol.com> wrote:
>> On Mar 19, 3:54 pm, Daryl<***@nospami70west2.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 3/19/2011 5:44 PM, Rob Arndt wrote:
>>
>>>> On Mar 19, 2:44 pm, Daryl<***@nospami70west2.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 3/19/2011 4:12 PM, Dan wrote:
>>
>>>>>> On 3/19/2011 4:33 PM, hcobb wrote:
>>>>>>> Note complete absence of F-22s in the air to ground campaign,
>>>>>>> because
>>>>>>> the only sensors onboard the F-22 Raptor that can spot a ground
>>>>>>> target
>>>>>>> are the eyeballs of the pilot.
>>
>>>>>>> -HJC
>>
>>>>>> Once again you ignore reality. Obama has declared the U.S. will
>>>>>> not employ ground forces or combat aircraft. So, instead reality,
>>>>>> you have decided to trot out your anti USAF obsession.
>>
>>>>>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>>
>>>>> There are enough air to ground assets already within reach that
>>>>> the F-22 isn't needed. There are also enough Air to Air Assets
>>>>> to handle the 1960s AF that Libya has.
>>
>>>> The US and UK have launched 110 missiles to attack Gadhafi's radar
>>>> network and some AA sites... but has so far left the ABs and a/c
>>>> hangars + runways clear for the LARAF to still operate. SPAAGs and
>>>> should-fired AA launchers also remain with Libyan ground forces which
>>>> are proceeding to attack Benghazi.
>>
>>>> The only ATA activity has been with the French Rafales, so far...
>>
>>>> I don't think the USAF will be sending any F-22s to do anything. I
>>>> would expect US naval a/c or a/c in Italy to attack. Does the F-22 as
>>>> produced even have any real ATG capability b/c Gadhafi will almost
>>>> certainly mix his ground assets into civilian population centers for
>>>> protection.
>>
>>> The idea of a No Fly Zone is to keep the air assets on the
>>> ground. It is also to make sure that no ground assets can
>>> jeopardize the air assets. This is exactly what they are doing.
>>> You paint a NFZ Aircraft with your ground installation, you get
>>> bagged. Keep your AC on the ground and they are not targets and
>>> neither are your buildings on that installation. You lift off
>>> the runway, you are a target and will be bagged.
>>
>>> Simple as that.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> What is simple is that the "Coalition" has chosen the weakest NFZ they
>> could which is just the north Libyan cities at a cost of $100 million
>> a week. So far, there is little air activity and Gadhafi still is
>> building ground forces to take Benghazi- he has SPAAGs and should-
>> launched weapons still available. He should be nailed BEFORE he gets
>> into the city and mixes in with the civil population which will
>> partially-nullify any western air assets. Gadhafi will be counting on
>> collateral damage to turn world opinion and Arab opinion.
>>
>> While the US and UK have hit Libyan AA and radar sites with a barrage
>> of 110 missiles from ships, no assessment has been made and all the
>> ABs with LARAF a/c and runways remain untouched. What's the logic
>> behind that? Or do we have to wait for wave #2?
>>
>> Rob
>>
>> p.s. This is the first coalition war where expenses were considered up
>> front to form a battle plan. You gotta love capitalism :)
>
> Those Libyan airbases are hardly untouched after a B-2 strike.

So much for the U.S. not using combat aircraft. Supposedly F-15 and
F-16 were also involved. I suppose Obama can split a hair and say it's
not part of enforcing a no fly zone, just setting one up.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[vaughn]

"Rob Arndt" <***@aol.com> wrote in message
news:bae28c36-7ba2-4813-b3b0-***@b13g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> This is the first coalition war where expenses were considered up
>front to form a battle plan.

I would cordially invite you to prove that. Virtually everything in government
has a budget.

Vaughn

[hcobb]

On Mar 19, 3:44 pm, Daryl <***@nospami70west2.com> wrote:
> There are enough air to ground assets already within reach that
> the F-22 isn't needed.  There are also enough Air to Air Assets
> to handle the 1960s AF that Libya has.

So everybody agrees that it is a total lie that the F-22 can operate
with impunity against SAMs that threaten other aircraft?

-HJC

[Dan]

On 3/20/2011 11:04 AM, hcobb wrote:
> On Mar 19, 3:44 pm, Daryl<***@nospami70west2.com> wrote:
>> There are enough air to ground assets already within reach that
>> the F-22 isn't needed. There are also enough Air to Air Assets
>> to handle the 1960s AF that Libya has.
>
> So everybody agrees that it is a total lie that the F-22 can operate
> with impunity against SAMs that threaten other aircraft?
>
> -HJC

Cobb, can you name ONE competent authority that ever said F-22 can
"operate with impunity" anywhere?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[hcobb]

On Mar 20, 11:11 am, Dan <***@AOL.COM> wrote:
> On 3/20/2011 11:04 AM, hcobb wrote:
>
> > On Mar 19, 3:44 pm, Daryl<***@nospami70west2.com>  wrote:
> >> There are enough air to ground assets already within reach that
> >> the F-22 isn't needed.  There are also enough Air to Air Assets
> >> to handle the 1960s AF that Libya has.
>
> > So everybody agrees that it is a total lie that the F-22 can operate
> > with impunity against SAMs that threaten other aircraft?
>
> > -HJC
>
>    Cobb, can you name ONE competent authority that ever said F-22 can
> "operate with impunity" anywhere?
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

http://www.f22-raptor.com/about/history.html
As a result, the Raptor can fly very high, very far and very fast with
little risk of detection or intercept and strike with near-impunity
against both airborne and ground-based targets.
...
© Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company

I'm not so sure about LockMart being any sort of "competent authority"
of course. ;-)

-HJC

[Ed Rasimus]

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 12:39:28 -0700 (PDT), hcobb <***@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Mar 20, 11:11 am, Dan <***@AOL.COM> wrote:
>> On 3/20/2011 11:04 AM, hcobb wrote:
>>
>> > On Mar 19, 3:44 pm, Daryl<***@nospami70west2.com>  wrote:
>> >> There are enough air to ground assets already within reach that
>> >> the F-22 isn't needed.  There are also enough Air to Air Assets
>> >> to handle the 1960s AF that Libya has.
>>
>> > So everybody agrees that it is a total lie that the F-22 can operate
>> > with impunity against SAMs that threaten other aircraft?
>>
>> > -HJC
>>
>>    Cobb, can you name ONE competent authority that ever said F-22 can
>> "operate with impunity" anywhere?
>>
>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
>http://www.f22-raptor.com/about/history.html
>As a result, the Raptor can fly very high, very far and very fast with
>little risk of detection or intercept and strike with near-impunity
>against both airborne and ground-based targets.
>...
> © Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company
>
>I'm not so sure about LockMart being any sort of "competent authority"
>of course. ;-)
>
>-HJC

Is English your first language?

Can you see a difference between "little risk" and no risk? When
someone describes a stealth platform they use the terminology "Low
Observable" that doesn't mean unobservable or invisible. A low radar
cross-section (RCS) is not a zero RCS.

Do you have any familiarity with intercept geometry? Detect, assign,
launch and direct to a point of conjuction for weapons employment.
When detection distances are significantly reduced and speeds are
significantly increased it become a much more complicated task to
intercept.

Can you see a modifier in the phrase "near-impunity" which makes it
different than the unmodified "operate with impunity"?

A modern IADS is a difficult system to deal with. Even a 20 year old
system is hazardous. But a stealthy, fast platform with extensive data
fusion from multiple sources and precision stand-off weapons becomes
one which can very readily operate with "near-impunity".

If you need help with some of this try to get an older
English-speaking person to translate for you.
Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

[hcobb]

On Mar 20, 2:11 pm, Ed Rasimus <***@verizon.net> wrote:
> A modern IADS is a difficult system to deal with. Even a 20 year old
> system is hazardous. But a stealthy, fast platform with extensive data
> fusion from multiple sources and precision stand-off weapons becomes
> one which can very readily operate with "near-impunity".
>
> If you need help with some of this try to get an older
> English-speaking person to translate for you.
> Ed Rasimus
> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)www.thundertales.blogspot.com

But given the choice between "stealth" and "sensors, jamming and a
wide selection of stand off weapons", the Pentagon chooses the Growler
over the Raptor.

Why do you think that is Ed? Especially since more F-22As have been
built than F/A-18Gs.

-HJC

[150flivver]

On Mar 20, 4:48 pm, hcobb <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 20, 2:11 pm, Ed Rasimus <***@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > A modern IADS is a difficult system to deal with. Even a 20 year old
> > system is hazardous. But a stealthy, fast platform with extensive data
> > fusion from multiple sources and precision stand-off weapons becomes
> > one which can very readily operate with "near-impunity".
>
> > If you need help with some of this try to get an older
> > English-speaking person to translate for you.
> > Ed Rasimus
> > Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)www.thundertales.blogspot.com
>
> But given the choice between "stealth" and "sensors, jamming and a
> wide selection of stand off weapons", the Pentagon chooses the Growler
> over the Raptor.
>
> Why do you think that is Ed?  Especially since more F-22As have been
> built than F/A-18Gs.
>
> -HJC

Are the Growlers that Cobb keeps ranting about being used in an Air-to-
Air role or are they being used to suppress enemy air defense radars
and missile systems? Heck, we bought this expensive hammer called the
F-22 so gosh darn it, let's use it to drive some screws! Let's hose
off some AMRAAMs on ground targets while we're at it. We can save the
HARMs to fire at Libyan submarines. Trust me, anything's reasonable
in Cobb's world if it highlights the missions that the F-22 is not
designed for and for which legacy Navy aircraft are.

[Jeff Dougherty]

On Mar 20, 6:47 pm, 150flivver <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 20, 4:48 pm, hcobb <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 20, 2:11 pm, Ed Rasimus <***@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > A modern IADS is a difficult system to deal with. Even a 20 year old
> > > system is hazardous. But a stealthy, fast platform with extensive data
> > > fusion from multiple sources and precision stand-off weapons becomes
> > > one which can very readily operate with "near-impunity".
>
> > > If you need help with some of this try to get an older
> > > English-speaking person to translate for you.
> > > Ed Rasimus
> > > Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)www.thundertales.blogspot.com
>
> > But given the choice between "stealth" and "sensors, jamming and a
> > wide selection of stand off weapons", the Pentagon chooses the Growler
> > over the Raptor.
>
> > Why do you think that is Ed?  Especially since more F-22As have been
> > built than F/A-18Gs.
>
> > -HJC
>
> Are the Growlers that Cobb keeps ranting about being used in an Air-to-
> Air role or are they being used to suppress enemy air defense radars
> and missile systems?  Heck, we bought this expensive hammer called the
> F-22 so gosh darn it, let's use it to drive some screws!

Indeed. As a taxpayer, I'm actually pretty happy to see that the
Pentagon is sending the right tools for the job at hand, and not
deploying their latest and greatest weapons systems regardless of
whether they fit the mission or not. Growlers add something to the
Coalition that nobody else has- a dedicated jamming platform and SEAD
machine. There are already plenty of Rafales, Typhoons, Harriers,
Eagles, and Falcons buzzing around up there that can more than deal
with anyone the Libyans send up to play.

-JTD

[Matt Wiser]

On Mar 20, 2:47 pm, 150flivver <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 20, 4:48 pm, hcobb <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 20, 2:11 pm, Ed Rasimus <***@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > A modern IADS is a difficult system to deal with. Even a 20 year old
> > > system is hazardous. But a stealthy, fast platform with extensive data
> > > fusion from multiple sources and precision stand-off weapons becomes
> > > one which can very readily operate with "near-impunity".
>
> > > If you need help with some of this try to get an older
> > > English-speaking person to translate for you.
> > > Ed Rasimus
> > > Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)www.thundertales.blogspot.com
>
> > But given the choice between "stealth" and "sensors, jamming and a
> > wide selection of stand off weapons", the Pentagon chooses the Growler
> > over the Raptor.
>
> > Why do you think that is Ed?  Especially since more F-22As have been
> > built than F/A-18Gs.
>
> > -HJC
>
> Are the Growlers that Cobb keeps ranting about being used in an Air-to-
> Air role or are they being used to suppress enemy air defense radars
> and missile systems?  Heck, we bought this expensive hammer called the
> F-22 so gosh darn it, let's use it to drive some screws!  Let's hose
> off some AMRAAMs on ground targets while we're at it.  We can save the
> HARMs to fire at Libyan submarines.  Trust me,  anything's reasonable
> in Cobb's world if it highlights the missions that the F-22 is not
> designed for and for which legacy Navy aircraft are.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Growlers likely going in on IRON HAND (Navy term) or WILD WEASEL (AF).
Either way, it's SAM-suppression. Those who gladly do such things need
to have their wills probated and sins confessed, as it can be very
hazardous to one's health. Not as dangerous as it used to be, but
still....

[Ed Rasimus]

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 20:02:00 -0700 (PDT), Matt Wiser
<***@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Mar 20, 2:47 pm, 150flivver <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mar 20, 4:48 pm, hcobb <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Mar 20, 2:11 pm, Ed Rasimus <***@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > A modern IADS is a difficult system to deal with. Even a 20 year old
>> > > system is hazardous. But a stealthy, fast platform with extensive data
>> > > fusion from multiple sources and precision stand-off weapons becomes
>> > > one which can very readily operate with "near-impunity".
>>
>> > > If you need help with some of this try to get an older
>> > > English-speaking person to translate for you.
>> > > Ed Rasimus
>> > > Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)www.thundertales.blogspot.com
>>
>> > But given the choice between "stealth" and "sensors, jamming and a
>> > wide selection of stand off weapons", the Pentagon chooses the Growler
>> > over the Raptor.
>>
>> > Why do you think that is Ed?  Especially since more F-22As have been
>> > built than F/A-18Gs.
>>
>> > -HJC
>>
>> Are the Growlers that Cobb keeps ranting about being used in an Air-to-
>> Air role or are they being used to suppress enemy air defense radars
>> and missile systems?  Heck, we bought this expensive hammer called the
>> F-22 so gosh darn it, let's use it to drive some screws!  Let's hose
>> off some AMRAAMs on ground targets while we're at it.  We can save the
>> HARMs to fire at Libyan submarines.  Trust me,  anything's reasonable
>> in Cobb's world if it highlights the missions that the F-22 is not
>> designed for and for which legacy Navy aircraft are.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>Growlers likely going in on IRON HAND (Navy term) or WILD WEASEL (AF).
>Either way, it's SAM-suppression. Those who gladly do such things need
>to have their wills probated and sins confessed, as it can be very
>hazardous to one's health. Not as dangerous as it used to be, but
>still....

Probate is done after demise. Weaseling done right doesn't involve
your own demise. (SOWW #2488 said).

Minor issue: Weaseling and Iron Hand are attacking of SAM sites,
generally done today with HARM. The Growler is an ECM jamming
platform. Weasels kills, ECM jams radar.

The USAF system is F-16CJ for that mission.

Meanwhile when it absolutely, positively has to be there overnight,
send some Spirit...
Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

[hcobb]

On Mar 21, 6:20 am, Ed Rasimus <***@verizon.net> wrote:
> Minor issue: Weaseling and Iron Hand are attacking of SAM sites,
> generally done today with HARM. The Growler is an ECM jamming
> platform. Weasels kills, ECM jams radar.
>
> The USAF system is F-16CJ for that mission.
>
> Meanwhile when it absolutely, positively has to be there overnight,
> send some Spirit...
> Ed Rasimus
> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)www.thundertales.blogspot.com

Growler carries HARM and does DEAD. Raptor does not.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/EA18-112309.xml&headline=Navy
Eyes 2010 Deployment For Growler&next=20
During operational evaluation, officials conducted live-fire trials of
the AGM-88 HARM and AIM-120C Amraam. The Amraam will give the Growler
some self-defense, whereas the Prowler employed only anti-radar
weapons. Eventually, the Navy will equip the Growler with the AGM-88E
Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile—a HARM with an improved
guidance kit.

The Navy must do it all. They can not allow silly gaps in their
capabilities and remain a global force for good.

-HJC

[Daryl]

On 3/21/2011 8:33 AM, hcobb wrote:
> On Mar 21, 6:20 am, Ed Rasimus<***@verizon.net> wrote:
>> Minor issue: Weaseling and Iron Hand are attacking of SAM sites,
>> generally done today with HARM. The Growler is an ECM jamming
>> platform. Weasels kills, ECM jams radar.
>>
>> The USAF system is F-16CJ for that mission.
>>
>> Meanwhile when it absolutely, positively has to be there overnight,
>> send some Spirit...
>> Ed Rasimus
>> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)www.thundertales.blogspot.com
>
> Growler carries HARM and does DEAD. Raptor does not.

So what. The Growler is a lousy Interdiction Fighter. Too slow,
too heavy, can't turn, even dives slow, can't climb, and doesn't
have the various air to air weapons. It's a sitting duck if a
pure fighter show up and visually sees it.


>
> http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/EA18-112309.xml&headline=Navy
> Eyes 2010 Deployment For Growler&next=20
> During operational evaluation, officials conducted live-fire trials of
> the AGM-88 HARM and AIM-120C Amraam. The Amraam will give the Growler
> some self-defense, whereas the Prowler employed only anti-radar
> weapons. Eventually, the Navy will equip the Growler with the AGM-88E
> Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile—a HARM with an improved
> guidance kit.
>
> The Navy must do it all. They can not allow silly gaps in their
> capabilities and remain a global force for good.

If that is the case, they need the F-35 fast. But so does the AF
and Marines.

You know you didn't make a point here.

[Dan]

On 3/21/2011 9:33 AM, hcobb wrote:
> The Navy must do it all.

OK, how would the Navy get an Army asset from Ft. Knox to Italy in 24
hours from presidential notification? What needs to be moved, who needs
to be moved and why is no at all relevant to the hypothetical.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[hcobb]

On Mar 21, 8:20 am, Dan <***@AOL.COM> wrote:
> On 3/21/2011 9:33 AM, hcobb wrote:
>
> > The Navy must do it all.
>
>    OK, how would the Navy get an Army asset from Ft. Knox to Italy in 24
> hours from presidential notification? What needs to be moved, who needs
> to be moved and why is no at all relevant to the hypothetical.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

The Navy moves a heck of a lot more Army gear than The Force does.
Each C-17 can only carry one tank, and not into combat.

The Navy does not need to land an Army force, as they have their own
ground force handy. In fact there's quite a number of these troops
just off shore from Libya at this moment, and ready to move in at a
moment's notice.

-HJC

[Daryl]

On 3/21/2011 8:19 PM, hcobb wrote:
> On Mar 21, 8:20 am, Dan<***@AOL.COM> wrote:
>> On 3/21/2011 9:33 AM, hcobb wrote:
>>
>>> The Navy must do it all.
>>
>> OK, how would the Navy get an Army asset from Ft. Knox to Italy in 24
>> hours from presidential notification? What needs to be moved, who needs
>> to be moved and why is no at all relevant to the hypothetical.
>>
>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
> The Navy moves a heck of a lot more Army gear than The Force does.
> Each C-17 can only carry one tank, and not into combat.
>
> The Navy does not need to land an Army force, as they have their own
> ground force handy. In fact there's quite a number of these troops
> just off shore from Libya at this moment, and ready to move in at a
> moment's notice.
>
> -HJC

Cobb, it carries 170,900 lb of cargo in just about every
conceivable setup you can imagine. And some you can't.

The C-5B can carry over 200,000 lbs of cargo. It can carry 2 M-1
Abrams.

The Navy does a nice job of hauling the Tanks around. But they
suck at moving day to day cargo into an area.

As for combat, The C-117 can land on unimproved Fields as well
as can the C-5B. Just give it a smooth, grassy, long field or
give it a nice Desert Field.

The last time I checked, both Heavies haul as much cargo as 3 to
4 loaded 19 wheelers and they can get it there in a matter of
hours, not days, not weeks.

You keep demanding we field apples when it's oranges that are needed.

[Dan]

On 3/21/2011 9:19 PM, hcobb wrote:
> On Mar 21, 8:20 am, Dan<***@AOL.COM> wrote:
>> On 3/21/2011 9:33 AM, hcobb wrote:
>>
>>> The Navy must do it all.
>>
>> OK, how would the Navy get an Army asset from Ft. Knox to Italy in 24
>> hours from presidential notification? What needs to be moved, who needs
>> to be moved and why is no at all relevant to the hypothetical.
>>
>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
> The Navy moves a heck of a lot more Army gear than The Force does.
> Each C-17 can only carry one tank, and not into combat.
>
> The Navy does not need to land an Army force, as they have their own
> ground force handy. In fact there's quite a number of these troops
> just off shore from Libya at this moment, and ready to move in at a
> moment's notice.
>
> -HJC

The Navy moves Army equipment in ships. Now answer my question. I gave
you all the information you need to answer.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Schiffner]

On Mar 21, 8:41 pm, Dan <***@AOL.COM> wrote:
> On 3/21/2011 9:19 PM, hcobb wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 21, 8:20 am, Dan<***@AOL.COM>  wrote:
> >> On 3/21/2011 9:33 AM, hcobb wrote:
>
> >>> The Navy must do it all.
>
> >>     OK, how would the Navy get an Army asset from Ft. Knox to Italy in 24
> >> hours from presidential notification? What needs to be moved, who needs
> >> to be moved and why is no at all relevant to the hypothetical.
>
> >> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
> > The Navy moves a heck of a lot more Army gear than The Force does.
> > Each C-17 can only carry one tank, and not into combat.
>
> > The Navy does not need to land an Army force, as they have their own
> > ground force handy.  In fact there's quite a number of these troops
> > just off shore from Libya at this moment, and ready to move in at a
> > moment's notice.
>
> > -HJC
>
>   The Navy moves Army equipment in ships. Now answer my question. I gave
> you all the information you need to answer.


some army equipment...currently the army has more active sea going
vessles (active and moth balled than the navy) and they own all the
RORO ships currently afloat last I checked. I will grant you that this
could have changed in the last 5 years. 8^)

--
Keith

[Jeff Dougherty]

On Mar 21, 10:19 pm, hcobb <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 21, 8:20 am, Dan <***@AOL.COM> wrote:
>
> > On 3/21/2011 9:33 AM, hcobb wrote:
>
> > > The Navy must do it all.
>
> >    OK, how would the Navy get an Army asset from Ft. Knox to Italy in 24
> > hours from presidential notification? What needs to be moved, who needs
> > to be moved and why is no at all relevant to the hypothetical.
>
> > Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
> The Navy moves a heck of a lot more Army gear than The Force does.
> Each C-17 can only carry one tank, and not into combat.

Okay then, bonus round. How would the Navy get that same asset from
Ft. Knox to Afghanistan?

Hint: Check a map before answering. Ideally one of Earth.

-JTD

[Jeff Crowell]

hcobb wrote:
> The Navy must do it all. They can not allow silly gaps in their
> capabilities and remain a global force for good.

I'm going on record here to say that the USN's newest
advertising tagline has got to be one of the dumbest/lamest
things I have heard in a long time.

But Cobb, you're coming close.


Jeff
--
Peace through overwhelming superiority of firepower.

[Matt Wiser]

On Mar 22, 7:16 am, Jeff Crowell <***@hp.com> wrote:
> hcobb wrote:
> > The Navy must do it all.  They can not allow silly gaps in their
> > capabilities and remain a global force for good.
>
> I'm going on record here to say that the USN's newest
> advertising tagline has got to be one of the dumbest/lamest
> things I have heard in a long time.
>
> But Cobb, you're coming close.
>
> Jeff
> --
> Peace through overwhelming superiority of firepower.

What else should one expect from Clueless Cobb? He's living in his
fantasy world and nowhere else.

[Airyx]

On Mar 21, 8:20 am, Ed Rasimus <***@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 20:02:00 -0700 (PDT), Matt Wiser
>
>
>
>
>
> <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On Mar 20, 2:47 pm, 150flivver <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Mar 20, 4:48 pm, hcobb <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > On Mar 20, 2:11 pm, Ed Rasimus <***@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >> > > A modern IADS is a difficult system to deal with. Even a 20 year old
> >> > > system is hazardous. But a stealthy, fast platform with extensive data
> >> > > fusion from multiple sources and precision stand-off weapons becomes
> >> > > one which can very readily operate with "near-impunity".
>
> >> > > If you need help with some of this try to get an older
> >> > > English-speaking person to translate for you.
> >> > > Ed Rasimus
> >> > > Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)www.thundertales.blogspot.com
>
> >> > But given the choice between "stealth" and "sensors, jamming and a
> >> > wide selection of stand off weapons", the Pentagon chooses the Growler
> >> > over the Raptor.
>
> >> > Why do you think that is Ed?  Especially since more F-22As have been
> >> > built than F/A-18Gs.
>
> >> > -HJC
>
> >> Are the Growlers that Cobb keeps ranting about being used in an Air-to-
> >> Air role or are they being used to suppress enemy air defense radars
> >> and missile systems?  Heck, we bought this expensive hammer called the
> >> F-22 so gosh darn it, let's use it to drive some screws!  Let's hose
> >> off some AMRAAMs on ground targets while we're at it.  We can save the
> >> HARMs to fire at Libyan submarines.  Trust me,  anything's reasonable
> >> in Cobb's world if it highlights the missions that the F-22 is not
> >> designed for and for which legacy Navy aircraft are.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> >Growlers likely going in on IRON HAND (Navy term) or WILD WEASEL (AF).
> >Either way, it's SAM-suppression. Those who gladly do such things need
> >to have their wills probated and sins confessed, as it can be very
> >hazardous to one's health. Not as dangerous as it used to be, but
> >still....
>
> Probate is done after demise. Weaseling done right doesn't involve
> your own demise. (SOWW #2488 said).
>
> Minor issue: Weaseling and Iron Hand are attacking of SAM sites,
> generally done today with HARM. The Growler is an ECM jamming
> platform. Weasels kills, ECM jams radar.
>
> The USAF system is F-16CJ for that mission.
>
> Meanwhile when it absolutely, positively has to be there overnight,
> send some Spirit...
> Ed Rasimus
> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)www.thundertales.blogspot.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

The -18G is till the primary HARM launcher for the navy. They have the
choice of hard or soft kill depending on the situation.

[Matt Wiser]

"Ed Rasimus" <***@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:***@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 20:02:00 -0700 (PDT), Matt Wiser
> <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >On Mar 20, 2:47 pm, 150flivver <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Mar 20, 4:48 pm, hcobb <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > On Mar 20, 2:11 pm, Ed Rasimus <***@verizon.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> > > A modern IADS is a difficult system to deal with. Even a 20 year
old
> >> > > system is hazardous. But a stealthy, fast platform with extensive
data
> >> > > fusion from multiple sources and precision stand-off weapons
becomes
> >> > > one which can very readily operate with "near-impunity".
> >>
> >> > > If you need help with some of this try to get an older
> >> > > English-speaking person to translate for you.
> >> > > Ed Rasimus
> >> > > Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)www.thundertales.blogspot.com
> >>
> >> > But given the choice between "stealth" and "sensors, jamming and a
> >> > wide selection of stand off weapons", the Pentagon chooses the
Growler
> >> > over the Raptor.
> >>
> >> > Why do you think that is Ed? Especially since more F-22As have been
> >> > built than F/A-18Gs.
> >>
> >> > -HJC
> >>
> >> Are the Growlers that Cobb keeps ranting about being used in an Air-to-
> >> Air role or are they being used to suppress enemy air defense radars
> >> and missile systems? Heck, we bought this expensive hammer called the
> >> F-22 so gosh darn it, let's use it to drive some screws! Let's hose
> >> off some AMRAAMs on ground targets while we're at it. We can save the
> >> HARMs to fire at Libyan submarines. Trust me, anything's reasonable
> >> in Cobb's world if it highlights the missions that the F-22 is not
> >> designed for and for which legacy Navy aircraft are.- Hide quoted
text -
> >>
> >> - Show quoted text -
> >
> >Growlers likely going in on IRON HAND (Navy term) or WILD WEASEL (AF).
> >Either way, it's SAM-suppression. Those who gladly do such things need
> >to have their wills probated and sins confessed, as it can be very
> >hazardous to one's health. Not as dangerous as it used to be, but
> >still....
>
> Probate is done after demise. Weaseling done right doesn't involve
> your own demise. (SOWW #2488 said).
>
> Minor issue: Weaseling and Iron Hand are attacking of SAM sites,
> generally done today with HARM. The Growler is an ECM jamming
> platform. Weasels kills, ECM jams radar.
>
> The USAF system is F-16CJ for that mission.
>
> Meanwhile when it absolutely, positively has to be there overnight,
> send some Spirit...
> Ed Rasimus
> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
> www.thundertales.blogspot.com

EA-18Gs pack HARM as well as jammers. Hard kill or soft kill: dealer's
choice in this regard. Hard kill on any SA-10s (which Libya is reported to
have), soft kill on the SA-2s,-3s, and -6s.
>

[150flivver]

On Mar 22, 12:24 am, "Matt Wiser" <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Ed Rasimus" <***@verizon.net> wrote in message
>
> news:***@4ax.com...
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 20:02:00 -0700 (PDT), Matt Wiser
> > <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > >On Mar 20, 2:47 pm, 150flivver <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >> On Mar 20, 4:48 pm, hcobb <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> > On Mar 20, 2:11 pm, Ed Rasimus <***@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > >> > > A modern IADS is a difficult system to deal with. Even a 20 year
> old
> > >> > > system is hazardous. But a stealthy, fast platform with extensive
> data
> > >> > > fusion from multiple sources and precision stand-off weapons
> becomes
> > >> > > one which can very readily operate with "near-impunity".
>
> > >> > > If you need help with some of this try to get an older
> > >> > > English-speaking person to translate for you.
> > >> > > Ed Rasimus
> > >> > > Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)www.thundertales.blogspot.com
>
> > >> > But given the choice between "stealth" and "sensors, jamming and a
> > >> > wide selection of stand off weapons", the Pentagon chooses the
> Growler
> > >> > over the Raptor.
>
> > >> > Why do you think that is Ed? Especially since more F-22As have been
> > >> > built than F/A-18Gs.
>
> > >> > -HJC
>
> > >> Are the Growlers that Cobb keeps ranting about being used in an Air-to-
> > >> Air role or are they being used to suppress enemy air defense radars
> > >> and missile systems? Heck, we bought this expensive hammer called the
> > >> F-22 so gosh darn it, let's use it to drive some screws! Let's hose
> > >> off some AMRAAMs on ground targets while we're at it. We can save the
> > >> HARMs to fire at Libyan submarines. Trust me, anything's reasonable
> > >> in Cobb's world if it highlights the missions that the F-22 is not
> > >> designed for and for which legacy Navy aircraft are.- Hide quoted
> text -
>
> > >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > >Growlers likely going in on IRON HAND (Navy term) or WILD WEASEL (AF).
> > >Either way, it's SAM-suppression. Those who gladly do such things need
> > >to have their wills probated and sins confessed, as it can be very
> > >hazardous to one's health. Not as dangerous as it used to be, but
> > >still....
>
> > Probate is done after demise. Weaseling done right doesn't involve
> > your own demise. (SOWW #2488 said).
>
> > Minor issue: Weaseling and Iron Hand are attacking of SAM sites,
> > generally done today with HARM. The Growler is an ECM jamming
> > platform. Weasels kills, ECM jams radar.
>
> > The USAF system is F-16CJ for that mission.
>
> > Meanwhile when it absolutely, positively has to be there overnight,
> > send some Spirit...
> > Ed Rasimus
> > Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
> >www.thundertales.blogspot.com
>
> EA-18Gs pack HARM as well as jammers. Hard kill or soft kill: dealer's
> choice in this regard. Hard kill on any SA-10s (which Libya is reported to
> have), soft kill on the SA-2s,-3s, and -6s.
>
>

HARMs are hardly hard kill. They suppress sites from emitting by
instilling a fear of losing antennae (and if your antennae are in
proximity to the SAM crew...). If you want to hard kill a site, you
bomb it or send a cruise missile at it or if you're Cobb, an Abrams
tank.

[H. Wilker]

In article
<0e64f76e-29cd-47d7-bb0b-***@z3g2000prz.googlegroups.com>,
150flivver <***@hotmail.com> wrote:

> If you want to hard kill a site, you
> bomb it or send a cruise missile at it or if you're Cobb, an Abrams
> tank.

Wait - which USAF aircraft are certified for Abrams drops? I haven't
heard about that capability before.

What is the aiming mode - are they laser guided? If so, how are they
steered? Or will they be crewed? By whom - AF personnel or Army? Would
they have to be aviators? Do they get to escape the Abrams before
impact? What happens to them afterwards?

I suspect GTU-(M)1(A2) is a follow-on to the practice of dropping
exercise bombs (concrete) on Iraqi air defense positions in Operation
Southern Watch...


Cheers

Helge

[Dean]

On Mar 22, 9:57 am, 150flivver <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 22, 12:24 am, "Matt Wiser" <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Ed Rasimus" <***@verizon.net> wrote in message
>
> >news:***@4ax.com...
>
> > > On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 20:02:00 -0700 (PDT), Matt Wiser
> > > <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > >On Mar 20, 2:47 pm, 150flivver <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> On Mar 20, 4:48 pm, hcobb <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > >> > On Mar 20, 2:11 pm, Ed Rasimus <***@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > >> > > A modern IADS is a difficult system to deal with. Even a 20 year
> > old
> > > >> > > system is hazardous. But a stealthy, fast platform with extensive
> > data
> > > >> > > fusion from multiple sources and precision stand-off weapons
> > becomes
> > > >> > > one which can very readily operate with "near-impunity".
>
> > > >> > > If you need help with some of this try to get an older
> > > >> > > English-speaking person to translate for you.
> > > >> > > Ed Rasimus
> > > >> > > Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)www.thundertales.blogspot.com
>
> > > >> > But given the choice between "stealth" and "sensors, jamming and a
> > > >> > wide selection of stand off weapons", the Pentagon chooses the
> > Growler
> > > >> > over the Raptor.
>
> > > >> > Why do you think that is Ed? Especially since more F-22As have been
> > > >> > built than F/A-18Gs.
>
> > > >> > -HJC
>
> > > >> Are the Growlers that Cobb keeps ranting about being used in an Air-to-
> > > >> Air role or are they being used to suppress enemy air defense radars
> > > >> and missile systems? Heck, we bought this expensive hammer called the
> > > >> F-22 so gosh darn it, let's use it to drive some screws! Let's hose
> > > >> off some AMRAAMs on ground targets while we're at it. We can save the
> > > >> HARMs to fire at Libyan submarines. Trust me, anything's reasonable
> > > >> in Cobb's world if it highlights the missions that the F-22 is not
> > > >> designed for and for which legacy Navy aircraft are.- Hide quoted
> > text -
>
> > > >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > > >Growlers likely going in on IRON HAND (Navy term) or WILD WEASEL (AF).
> > > >Either way, it's SAM-suppression. Those who gladly do such things need
> > > >to have their wills probated and sins confessed, as it can be very
> > > >hazardous to one's health. Not as dangerous as it used to be, but
> > > >still....
>
> > > Probate is done after demise. Weaseling done right doesn't involve
> > > your own demise. (SOWW #2488 said).
>
> > > Minor issue: Weaseling and Iron Hand are attacking of SAM sites,
> > > generally done today with HARM. The Growler is an ECM jamming
> > > platform. Weasels kills, ECM jams radar.
>
> > > The USAF system is F-16CJ for that mission.
>
> > > Meanwhile when it absolutely, positively has to be there overnight,
> > > send some Spirit...
> > > Ed Rasimus
> > > Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
> > >www.thundertales.blogspot.com
>
> > EA-18Gs pack HARM as well as jammers. Hard kill or soft kill: dealer's
> > choice in this regard. Hard kill on any SA-10s (which Libya is reported to
> > have), soft kill on the SA-2s,-3s, and -6s.
>
> HARMs are hardly hard kill.  They suppress sites from emitting by
> instilling a fear of losing antennae (and if your antennae are in
> proximity to the SAM crew...).  If you want to hard kill a site, you
> bomb it or send a cruise missile at it or if you're Cobb, an Abrams
> tank.

That all depends on your definition of "hard kill". I'd think a 66 kg
warhead studded with little tungsten cubes would not be something to
take lightly. Interestingly, I just read that during the Gulf War, a
B-52 had it's tail shredded by a HARM from an F4-G that had mistaken
the tail gun radar for an Iraqi SAM radar. Not a hard kill but I am
sure the B-52 went "ouch". Interstingly, the B-52 was renamed "In
HARM'S Way".

[150flivver]

On Mar 22, 10:01 am, Dean <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 22, 9:57 am, 150flivver <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 22, 12:24 am, "Matt Wiser" <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > "Ed Rasimus" <***@verizon.net> wrote in message
>
> > >news:***@4ax.com...
>
> > > > On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 20:02:00 -0700 (PDT), Matt Wiser
> > > > <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > >On Mar 20, 2:47 pm, 150flivver <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >> On Mar 20, 4:48 pm, hcobb <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > >> > On Mar 20, 2:11 pm, Ed Rasimus <***@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > > >> > > A modern IADS is a difficult system to deal with. Even a 20 year
> > > old
> > > > >> > > system is hazardous. But a stealthy, fast platform with extensive
> > > data
> > > > >> > > fusion from multiple sources and precision stand-off weapons
> > > becomes
> > > > >> > > one which can very readily operate with "near-impunity".
>
> > > > >> > > If you need help with some of this try to get an older
> > > > >> > > English-speaking person to translate for you.
> > > > >> > > Ed Rasimus
> > > > >> > > Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)www.thundertales.blogspot.com
>
> > > > >> > But given the choice between "stealth" and "sensors, jamming and a
> > > > >> > wide selection of stand off weapons", the Pentagon chooses the
> > > Growler
> > > > >> > over the Raptor.
>
> > > > >> > Why do you think that is Ed? Especially since more F-22As have been
> > > > >> > built than F/A-18Gs.
>
> > > > >> > -HJC
>
> > > > >> Are the Growlers that Cobb keeps ranting about being used in an Air-to-
> > > > >> Air role or are they being used to suppress enemy air defense radars
> > > > >> and missile systems? Heck, we bought this expensive hammer called the
> > > > >> F-22 so gosh darn it, let's use it to drive some screws! Let's hose
> > > > >> off some AMRAAMs on ground targets while we're at it. We can save the
> > > > >> HARMs to fire at Libyan submarines. Trust me, anything's reasonable
> > > > >> in Cobb's world if it highlights the missions that the F-22 is not
> > > > >> designed for and for which legacy Navy aircraft are.- Hide quoted
> > > text -
>
> > > > >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > >Growlers likely going in on IRON HAND (Navy term) or WILD WEASEL (AF).
> > > > >Either way, it's SAM-suppression. Those who gladly do such things need
> > > > >to have their wills probated and sins confessed, as it can be very
> > > > >hazardous to one's health. Not as dangerous as it used to be, but
> > > > >still....
>
> > > > Probate is done after demise. Weaseling done right doesn't involve
> > > > your own demise. (SOWW #2488 said).
>
> > > > Minor issue: Weaseling and Iron Hand are attacking of SAM sites,
> > > > generally done today with HARM. The Growler is an ECM jamming
> > > > platform. Weasels kills, ECM jams radar.
>
> > > > The USAF system is F-16CJ for that mission.
>
> > > > Meanwhile when it absolutely, positively has to be there overnight,
> > > > send some Spirit...
> > > > Ed Rasimus
> > > > Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
> > > >www.thundertales.blogspot.com
>
> > > EA-18Gs pack HARM as well as jammers. Hard kill or soft kill: dealer's
> > > choice in this regard. Hard kill on any SA-10s (which Libya is reported to
> > > have), soft kill on the SA-2s,-3s, and -6s.
>
> > HARMs are hardly hard kill.  They suppress sites from emitting by
> > instilling a fear of losing antennae (and if your antennae are in
> > proximity to the SAM crew...).  If you want to hard kill a site, you
> > bomb it or send a cruise missile at it or if you're Cobb, an Abrams
> > tank.
>
> That all depends on your definition of "hard kill".  I'd think a 66 kg
> warhead studded with little tungsten cubes would not be something to
> take lightly.  Interestingly, I just read that during the Gulf War, a
> B-52 had it's tail shredded by a HARM from an F4-G that had mistaken
> the tail gun radar for an Iraqi SAM radar.  Not a hard kill but I am
> sure the B-52 went "ouch".  Interstingly, the B-52 was renamed "In
> HARM'S Way".

A successful HARM sortie is one in which SAM operators are suppressed,
in other words, they don't ever turn on their radars. If the site
doesn't emit, the HARM is rather stupid (at least early marks were)
and the HARM hits nothing but it is still considered successful if no
friendly asset gets engaged. It's not a hard kill as the site is
still operational. Hard Kill means the effect you plan to achieve is a
permanent disabling of the system or in other words, that site goes by-
by for good and you can strike it off the Order of Battle. To hard
kill a site, you destroy the power vans, the launchers, the command
vehicle, the missiles, the mess tent, etc. To do hard kill, you use
bombs and guided missiles, not HARMs which although they blow up and
go boom, are not optimized for anything other than stopping the site
from emitting. Even if the HARM successfully detonates above the
antenna, some systems will plug in a spare and be operational quite
soon after. USAF F-16CJs carrying HARMs often pair with F-16s
carrying JDAMS or GBUs. The Weasel CJs fire the HARMs to suppress,
while the killer F-16s obliterate the site.

[Ed Rasimus]

On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 17:24:47 -0700 (PDT), 150flivver
<***@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Mar 22, 10:01 am, Dean <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mar 22, 9:57 am, 150flivver <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Mar 22, 12:24 am, "Matt Wiser" <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > "Ed Rasimus" <***@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>
>> > >news:***@4ax.com...
>>
>> > > > On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 20:02:00 -0700 (PDT), Matt Wiser
>> > > > <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > >On Mar 20, 2:47 pm, 150flivver <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > >> On Mar 20, 4:48 pm, hcobb <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > >> > On Mar 20, 2:11 pm, Ed Rasimus <***@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > > >> > > A modern IADS is a difficult system to deal with. Even a 20 year
>> > > old
>> > > > >> > > system is hazardous. But a stealthy, fast platform with extensive
>> > > data
>> > > > >> > > fusion from multiple sources and precision stand-off weapons
>> > > becomes
>> > > > >> > > one which can very readily operate with "near-impunity".
>>
>> > > > >> > > If you need help with some of this try to get an older
>> > > > >> > > English-speaking person to translate for you.
>> > > > >> > > Ed Rasimus
>> > > > >> > > Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)www.thundertales.blogspot.com
>>
>> > > > >> > But given the choice between "stealth" and "sensors, jamming and a
>> > > > >> > wide selection of stand off weapons", the Pentagon chooses the
>> > > Growler
>> > > > >> > over the Raptor.
>>
>> > > > >> > Why do you think that is Ed? Especially since more F-22As have been
>> > > > >> > built than F/A-18Gs.
>>
>> > > > >> > -HJC
>>
>> > > > >> Are the Growlers that Cobb keeps ranting about being used in an Air-to-
>> > > > >> Air role or are they being used to suppress enemy air defense radars
>> > > > >> and missile systems? Heck, we bought this expensive hammer called the
>> > > > >> F-22 so gosh darn it, let's use it to drive some screws! Let's hose
>> > > > >> off some AMRAAMs on ground targets while we're at it. We can save the
>> > > > >> HARMs to fire at Libyan submarines. Trust me, anything's reasonable
>> > > > >> in Cobb's world if it highlights the missions that the F-22 is not
>> > > > >> designed for and for which legacy Navy aircraft are.- Hide quoted
>> > > text -
>>
>> > > > >> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> > > > >Growlers likely going in on IRON HAND (Navy term) or WILD WEASEL (AF).
>> > > > >Either way, it's SAM-suppression. Those who gladly do such things need
>> > > > >to have their wills probated and sins confessed, as it can be very
>> > > > >hazardous to one's health. Not as dangerous as it used to be, but
>> > > > >still....
>>
>> > > > Probate is done after demise. Weaseling done right doesn't involve
>> > > > your own demise. (SOWW #2488 said).
>>
>> > > > Minor issue: Weaseling and Iron Hand are attacking of SAM sites,
>> > > > generally done today with HARM. The Growler is an ECM jamming
>> > > > platform. Weasels kills, ECM jams radar.
>>
>> > > > The USAF system is F-16CJ for that mission.
>>
>> > > > Meanwhile when it absolutely, positively has to be there overnight,
>> > > > send some Spirit...
>> > > > Ed Rasimus
>> > > > Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
>> > > >www.thundertales.blogspot.com
>>
>> > > EA-18Gs pack HARM as well as jammers. Hard kill or soft kill: dealer's
>> > > choice in this regard. Hard kill on any SA-10s (which Libya is reported to
>> > > have), soft kill on the SA-2s,-3s, and -6s.
>>
>> > HARMs are hardly hard kill.  They suppress sites from emitting by
>> > instilling a fear of losing antennae (and if your antennae are in
>> > proximity to the SAM crew...).  If you want to hard kill a site, you
>> > bomb it or send a cruise missile at it or if you're Cobb, an Abrams
>> > tank.
>>
>> That all depends on your definition of "hard kill".  I'd think a 66 kg
>> warhead studded with little tungsten cubes would not be something to
>> take lightly.  Interestingly, I just read that during the Gulf War, a
>> B-52 had it's tail shredded by a HARM from an F4-G that had mistaken
>> the tail gun radar for an Iraqi SAM radar.  Not a hard kill but I am
>> sure the B-52 went "ouch".  Interstingly, the B-52 was renamed "In
>> HARM'S Way".
>
>A successful HARM sortie is one in which SAM operators are suppressed,
>in other words, they don't ever turn on their radars. If the site
>doesn't emit, the HARM is rather stupid (at least early marks were)
>and the HARM hits nothing but it is still considered successful if no
>friendly asset gets engaged. It's not a hard kill as the site is
>still operational. Hard Kill means the effect you plan to achieve is a
>permanent disabling of the system or in other words, that site goes by-
>by for good and you can strike it off the Order of Battle. To hard
>kill a site, you destroy the power vans, the launchers, the command
>vehicle, the missiles, the mess tent, etc. To do hard kill, you use
>bombs and guided missiles, not HARMs which although they blow up and
>go boom, are not optimized for anything other than stopping the site
>from emitting. Even if the HARM successfully detonates above the
>antenna, some systems will plug in a spare and be operational quite
>soon after. USAF F-16CJs carrying HARMs often pair with F-16s
>carrying JDAMS or GBUs. The Weasel CJs fire the HARMs to suppress,
>while the killer F-16s obliterate the site.

And, it has been so since the first days of SAM suppression.
Donovan/Lamb's first SAM kill in an F-100F Wild Weasel (1965) was done
with a flight of four F-105Ds armed with LAU-3A rocket pods.

We flew three 105D's with F-100F Weasels then with a F-105F. Later we
flew pairs of F-105G Weasels with pairs of F-4Es in Hunter/Killer
teams.

The ARM is generally a radar-kill mechanism that essentially destroys
the antenna. It ideally provides adequate signature for the heavy
metal Killer element to do the "hard kill".

Keeping a site down for the duration of a strike package is often
adequate for mission accomplishment. For the long haul campaign,
however, you want to start reducing the air defense OOB significantly.
Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

[Paul F Austin]

On 3/23/2011 9:15 AM, Ed Rasimus wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 17:24:47 -0700 (PDT), 150flivver
> <***@hotmail.com> wrote:

>>>
>>>> HARMs are hardly hard kill. They suppress sites from emitting by
>>>> instilling a fear of losing antennae (and if your antennae are in
>>>> proximity to the SAM crew...). If you want to hard kill a site, you
>>>> bomb it or send a cruise missile at it or if you're Cobb, an Abrams
>>>> tank.
>>>
>>> That all depends on your definition of "hard kill". I'd think a 66 kg
>>> warhead studded with little tungsten cubes would not be something to
>>> take lightly. Interestingly, I just read that during the Gulf War, a
>>> B-52 had it's tail shredded by a HARM from an F4-G that had mistaken
>>> the tail gun radar for an Iraqi SAM radar. Not a hard kill but I am
>>> sure the B-52 went "ouch". Interstingly, the B-52 was renamed "In
>>> HARM'S Way".
>>
>> A successful HARM sortie is one in which SAM operators are suppressed,
>> in other words, they don't ever turn on their radars. If the site
>> doesn't emit, the HARM is rather stupid (at least early marks were)
>> and the HARM hits nothing but it is still considered successful if no
>> friendly asset gets engaged. It's not a hard kill as the site is
>> still operational. Hard Kill means the effect you plan to achieve is a
>> permanent disabling of the system or in other words, that site goes by-
>> by for good and you can strike it off the Order of Battle. To hard
>> kill a site, you destroy the power vans, the launchers, the command
>> vehicle, the missiles, the mess tent, etc. To do hard kill, you use
>> bombs and guided missiles, not HARMs which although they blow up and
>> go boom, are not optimized for anything other than stopping the site
>>from emitting. Even if the HARM successfully detonates above the
>> antenna, some systems will plug in a spare and be operational quite
>> soon after. USAF F-16CJs carrying HARMs often pair with F-16s
>> carrying JDAMS or GBUs. The Weasel CJs fire the HARMs to suppress,
>> while the killer F-16s obliterate the site.
>
> And, it has been so since the first days of SAM suppression.
> Donovan/Lamb's first SAM kill in an F-100F Wild Weasel (1965) was done
> with a flight of four F-105Ds armed with LAU-3A rocket pods.
>
> We flew three 105D's with F-100F Weasels then with a F-105F. Later we
> flew pairs of F-105G Weasels with pairs of F-4Es in Hunter/Killer
> teams.
>
> The ARM is generally a radar-kill mechanism that essentially destroys
> the antenna. It ideally provides adequate signature for the heavy
> metal Killer element to do the "hard kill".
>
> Keeping a site down for the duration of a strike package is often
> adequate for mission accomplishment. For the long haul campaign,
> however, you want to start reducing the air defense OOB significantly.

Ed, with the growing number of phased array antennae, HARMs get to be
harder-kill weapons since for (USian) instance, an MPQ-53 integrates the
antenna proper with the TWTA and an active array embeds the
transmit/receive modules in the antenna face. Mechanically scanned
antennae are cheap enough that you can afford a number of unpowered
spares around the site but I suspect that is less true for phased arrays.

Paul

[Ed Rasimus]

On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 11:38:26 -0400, Paul F Austin
<***@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>On 3/23/2011 9:15 AM, Ed Rasimus wrote:
>> On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 17:24:47 -0700 (PDT), 150flivver
>> <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>>
>>>>> HARMs are hardly hard kill. They suppress sites from emitting by
>>>>> instilling a fear of losing antennae (and if your antennae are in
>>>>> proximity to the SAM crew...). If you want to hard kill a site, you
>>>>> bomb it or send a cruise missile at it or if you're Cobb, an Abrams
>>>>> tank.
>>>>
>>>> That all depends on your definition of "hard kill". I'd think a 66 kg
>>>> warhead studded with little tungsten cubes would not be something to
>>>> take lightly. Interestingly, I just read that during the Gulf War, a
>>>> B-52 had it's tail shredded by a HARM from an F4-G that had mistaken
>>>> the tail gun radar for an Iraqi SAM radar. Not a hard kill but I am
>>>> sure the B-52 went "ouch". Interstingly, the B-52 was renamed "In
>>>> HARM'S Way".
>>>
>>> A successful HARM sortie is one in which SAM operators are suppressed,
>>> in other words, they don't ever turn on their radars. If the site
>>> doesn't emit, the HARM is rather stupid (at least early marks were)
>>> and the HARM hits nothing but it is still considered successful if no
>>> friendly asset gets engaged. It's not a hard kill as the site is
>>> still operational. Hard Kill means the effect you plan to achieve is a
>>> permanent disabling of the system or in other words, that site goes by-
>>> by for good and you can strike it off the Order of Battle. To hard
>>> kill a site, you destroy the power vans, the launchers, the command
>>> vehicle, the missiles, the mess tent, etc. To do hard kill, you use
>>> bombs and guided missiles, not HARMs which although they blow up and
>>> go boom, are not optimized for anything other than stopping the site
>>>from emitting. Even if the HARM successfully detonates above the
>>> antenna, some systems will plug in a spare and be operational quite
>>> soon after. USAF F-16CJs carrying HARMs often pair with F-16s
>>> carrying JDAMS or GBUs. The Weasel CJs fire the HARMs to suppress,
>>> while the killer F-16s obliterate the site.
>>
>> And, it has been so since the first days of SAM suppression.
>> Donovan/Lamb's first SAM kill in an F-100F Wild Weasel (1965) was done
>> with a flight of four F-105Ds armed with LAU-3A rocket pods.
>>
>> We flew three 105D's with F-100F Weasels then with a F-105F. Later we
>> flew pairs of F-105G Weasels with pairs of F-4Es in Hunter/Killer
>> teams.
>>
>> The ARM is generally a radar-kill mechanism that essentially destroys
>> the antenna. It ideally provides adequate signature for the heavy
>> metal Killer element to do the "hard kill".
>>
>> Keeping a site down for the duration of a strike package is often
>> adequate for mission accomplishment. For the long haul campaign,
>> however, you want to start reducing the air defense OOB significantly.
>
>Ed, with the growing number of phased array antennae, HARMs get to be
>harder-kill weapons since for (USian) instance, an MPQ-53 integrates the
>antenna proper with the TWTA and an active array embeds the
>transmit/receive modules in the antenna face. Mechanically scanned
>antennae are cheap enough that you can afford a number of unpowered
>spares around the site but I suspect that is less true for phased arrays.
>
>Paul

You are still faced with the immutable laws of physics which restrict
the warhead size of the ARM. We've made great progress in kill
mechanisms but packing it all in a missile that carries the sensors,
discrimination software, guidance, propulsion, etc.is a complex task.

It remains a chess game with move and counter-move.

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

[150flivver]

On Mar 23, 10:38 am, Paul F Austin <***@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On 3/23/2011 9:15 AM, Ed Rasimus wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 17:24:47 -0700 (PDT), 150flivver
> > <***@hotmail.com>  wrote:
>
> >>>> HARMs are hardly hard kill.  They suppress sites from emitting by
> >>>> instilling a fear of losing antennae (and if your antennae are in
> >>>> proximity to the SAM crew...).  If you want to hard kill a site, you
> >>>> bomb it or send a cruise missile at it or if you're Cobb, an Abrams
> >>>> tank.
>
> >>> That all depends on your definition of "hard kill".  I'd think a 66 kg
> >>> warhead studded with little tungsten cubes would not be something to
> >>> take lightly.  Interestingly, I just read that during the Gulf War, a
> >>> B-52 had it's tail shredded by a HARM from an F4-G that had mistaken
> >>> the tail gun radar for an Iraqi SAM radar.  Not a hard kill but I am
> >>> sure the B-52 went "ouch".  Interstingly, the B-52 was renamed "In
> >>> HARM'S Way".
>
> >> A successful HARM sortie is one in which SAM operators are suppressed,
> >> in other words, they don't ever turn on their radars.   If the site
> >> doesn't emit, the HARM is rather stupid (at least early marks were)
> >> and the HARM hits nothing but it is still considered successful if no
> >> friendly asset gets engaged.  It's not a hard kill as the site is
> >> still operational. Hard Kill means the effect you plan to achieve is a
> >> permanent disabling of the system or in other words, that site goes by-
> >> by for good and you can strike it off the Order of Battle. To hard
> >> kill a site, you destroy the power vans, the launchers, the command
> >> vehicle, the missiles, the mess tent,  etc.  To do hard kill, you use
> >> bombs and guided missiles, not HARMs which although they blow up and
> >> go boom, are not optimized for anything other than stopping the site
> >>from emitting.  Even if the HARM successfully detonates above the
> >> antenna, some systems will plug in a spare and be operational quite
> >> soon after.  USAF F-16CJs carrying HARMs often pair with F-16s
> >> carrying JDAMS or GBUs.  The Weasel CJs fire the HARMs to suppress,
> >> while the killer F-16s obliterate the site.
>
> > And, it has been so since the first days of SAM suppression.
> > Donovan/Lamb's first SAM kill in an F-100F Wild Weasel (1965) was done
> > with a flight of four F-105Ds armed with LAU-3A rocket pods.
>
> > We flew three 105D's with F-100F Weasels then with a F-105F. Later we
> > flew pairs of F-105G Weasels with pairs of F-4Es in Hunter/Killer
> > teams.
>
> > The ARM is generally a radar-kill mechanism that essentially destroys
> > the antenna. It ideally provides adequate signature for the heavy
> > metal Killer element to do the "hard kill".
>
> > Keeping a site down for the duration of a strike package is often
> > adequate for mission accomplishment. For the long haul campaign,
> > however, you want to start reducing the air defense OOB significantly.
>
> Ed, with the growing number of phased array antennae, HARMs get to be
> harder-kill weapons since for (USian) instance, an MPQ-53 integrates the
> antenna proper with the TWTA and an active array embeds the
> transmit/receive modules in the antenna face. Mechanically scanned
> antennae are cheap enough that you can afford a number of unpowered
> spares around the site but I suspect that is less true for phased arrays.
>
> Paul

Y'all just don't seem to get the point. HARM is not a hard kill
munition even though it "might" cause damage and it "might" even
destroy the radar. It all has to do with the effect you want to
achieve. If you decide to destroy (hard kill) a SAM, you don't plan
on using HARM unless it is planned to be used as an enabler to allow
you to get in with the proper munition to destroy the target. If the
effect you want to achieve is to protect a strike or recon or rescue
package from SAM radar engagements, you frag a HARM shooter. Whether
or not the HARM does any damage whatsoever to the SAMs it is fired
against is irrelevant. All the SAM system has to do is not emit and
the HARM has nothing to home in on. That is the HARM's purpose--stop
the radar from emitting and engaging friendly aircraft. Any damage
done by a HARM is an unplanned for, bonus. Some may think I'm just
splitting hairs but I used to be an EW planner in a previous life and
anyone who understands effects based planning would understand the
distinction.

[W.A. Baker]

On Mar 24, 8:40 am, 150flivver <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
> ...All the SAM system has to do is not emit and
> the HARM has nothing to home in on.  That is the HARM's purpose--stop
> the radar from emitting and engaging friendly aircraft.  Any damage
> done by a HARM is an unplanned for, bonus.  Some may think I'm just
> splitting hairs but I used to be an EW planner in a previous life and
> anyone who understands effects based planning would understand the
> distinction.

Nope, nope, I get your point exactly. But, IIRC, contemporary top-
line HARM's have an inertial targeting mode whereby they continue to
aim for the last known location of an emitter even if it shuts down,
no? So unless the system is highly mobile there's a good chance the
HARM is going to take out the emitter anyway.

Now if I were the overall AA commander of a wealthy oil nation, well-
versed in SEAD tactics and the capabilities of HARM's and other AA
suppression munitions I might well stockpile extra radar arrays for my
SAM systems. But if I were that smart I doubt I'd be serving as the
military lackey of some half-mad despot, right?

So probably I'm not so smart and I'm operating these systems per the
manual as they were manufactured in Pinsk or wherever. And so now I'm
likely sitting on the outskirts of Tripoli with my cup of mint tea
rattling against it's saucer surveying all of my radars and control
vans blown to shit and realizing that these triplets of SA-6's on
their launchers might as well be skyrockets. And night is falling
again, which means they are coming again, and this time they are
coming for my missiles. With their bombs. Their bombs, which ride
witchcraft upon to our very souls. Which never miss. And as the dusk
fades to dark, and I feel the warm piss pooling in my boot, I pray
that I were anywhere else. Because if there is one truism in the
universe, it is that...though they may screw up many other roles, and
lose track of nuclear weapons...and lounge around on base golf
courses, and fuck each others wives, and prang airplanes stupidly all
too often...if you are the oppo. and the United States Air Force is
coming for you with a dedicated SEAD
campaign...you...are...totally...fucked.

[150flivver]

On Mar 24, 9:58 pm, "W.A. Baker" <***@gmail.com> wrote:

>...But, IIRC, contemporary top-
> line HARM's have an inertial targeting mode whereby they continue to
> aim for the last known location of an emitter even if it shuts down,
> no?  So unless the system is highly mobile there's a good chance the
> HARM is going to take out the emitter anyway.

I wouldn't call it a good chance. Maybe slightly better than before
(ie. slightly better than nil) but the Pk is still very low. Deriving
an accurate location from a site that has stopped emitting early after
HARM launch is problematic. A few meters off and those tungsten
cubes rain down on nothing of value.

[W.A. Baker]

On Mar 25, 7:29 am, 150flivver <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 24, 9:58 pm, "W.A.Baker" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >...But, IIRC, contemporary top-
> > line HARM's have an inertial targeting mode whereby they continue to
> > aim for the last known location of an emitter even if it shuts down,
> > no?  So unless the system is highly mobile there's a good chance the
> > HARM is going to take out the emitter anyway.
>
> I wouldn't call it a good chance.  Maybe slightly better than before
> (ie. slightly better than nil) but the Pk is still very low. Deriving
> an accurate location from a site that has stopped emitting early after
> HARM launch is problematic.   A few meters off and those tungsten
> cubes rain down on nothing of value.

Really? That low? Interesting. I assume you know what you're
talking about, because I'm just making layman's guesses about how
quick you could scoot your emitters versus the engagement speed of a
HARM coming in hot. But having some sense of the missile technology
involved, I think I see what you mean about "a few meters off."

[Ed Rasimus]

On Fri, 25 Mar 2011 15:39:26 -0700 (PDT), "W.A. Baker"
<***@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Mar 25, 7:29 am, 150flivver <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mar 24, 9:58 pm, "W.A.Baker" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >...But, IIRC, contemporary top-
>> > line HARM's have an inertial targeting mode whereby they continue to
>> > aim for the last known location of an emitter even if it shuts down,
>> > no?  So unless the system is highly mobile there's a good chance the
>> > HARM is going to take out the emitter anyway.
>>
>> I wouldn't call it a good chance.  Maybe slightly better than before
>> (ie. slightly better than nil) but the Pk is still very low. Deriving
>> an accurate location from a site that has stopped emitting early after
>> HARM launch is problematic.   A few meters off and those tungsten
>> cubes rain down on nothing of value.
>
>Really? That low? Interesting. I assume you know what you're
>talking about, because I'm just making layman's guesses about how
>quick you could scoot your emitters versus the engagement speed of a
>HARM coming in hot. But having some sense of the missile technology
>involved, I think I see what you mean about "a few meters off."

Keep in mind that the warhead of a HARM, Sparrow, AMRAAM, Shrike,
Sidewinder or similar class of missile is in the area of less than 25
pounds or with Sidewinder less than 10. The "kill" mechanism is
usually expanding rod or shrapnel cubes. Missing by a few meters means
a miss.

The technology to continue on trajectory to last known location has
been around since Standard and later Shrikes. It has never been very
good but it does offer some chance after emitter shutdown.

Still, forcing the emitter to shut-down can be an effective
suppression for mission accomplishment.
Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

[W.A. Baker]

On Mar 26, 7:04 am, Ed Rasimus <***@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Mar 2011 15:39:26 -0700 (PDT), "W.A. Baker"
>
>
>
> <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Mar 25, 7:29 am, 150flivver <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Mar 24, 9:58 pm, "W.A.Baker" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >...But, IIRC, contemporary top-
> >> > line HARM's have an inertial targeting mode whereby they continue to
> >> > aim for the last known location of an emitter even if it shuts down,
> >> > no? So unless the system is highly mobile there's a good chance the
> >> > HARM is going to take out the emitter anyway.
>
> >> I wouldn't call it a good chance. Maybe slightly better than before
> >> (ie. slightly better than nil) but the Pk is still very low. Deriving
> >> an accurate location from a site that has stopped emitting early after
> >> HARM launch is problematic. A few meters off and those tungsten
> >> cubes rain down on nothing of value.
>
> >Really?  That low?  Interesting.  I assume you know what you're
> >talking about, because I'm just making layman's guesses about how
> >quick you could scoot your emitters versus the engagement speed of a
> >HARM coming in hot.  But having some sense of the missile technology
> >involved, I think I see what you mean about "a few meters off."
>
> Keep in mind that the warhead of a HARM, Sparrow, AMRAAM, Shrike,
> Sidewinder or similar class of missile is in the area of less than 25
> pounds or with Sidewinder less than 10. The "kill" mechanism is
> usually expanding rod or shrapnel cubes. Missing by a few meters means
> a miss.
>
> The technology to continue on trajectory to last known location has
> been around since Standard and later Shrikes. It has never been very
> good but it does offer some chance after emitter shutdown.
>
> Still, forcing the emitter to shut-down can be an effective
> suppression for mission accomplishment.
> Ed Rasimus
> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)www.thundertales.blogspot.com

Thanks for the professional insight, Ed. Yep, I should have realized
the significant lethality delta between a HARM warhead and, say, a Mk.
82.

All too easy for a layman who never served to kibbitz over what is, in
reality, a very deadly chess match for our boys and girls in the
cockpits.

[Dweezil Dwarftosser]

***@gmail.com wrote...
>
> Thanks for the professional insight, Ed. Yep, I should have realized
> the significant lethality delta between a HARM warhead and, say, a Mk.
> 82.

To expand just a bit, the AIM-7 sparrow warhead
was about 40 lbs. - the largest of these medium-
size missiles. The huge AGM-78 Standard ARM
was, of course, considerably larger - but I don't
know just how much larger, off hand.

[Andrew Chaplin]

Dweezil Dwarftosser <***@yahoo.com> wrote in news:4d8eeabd$0$28298
$***@news.felx.com:

> To expand just a bit, the AIM-7 sparrow warhead
> was about 40 lbs. - the largest of these medium-
> size missiles. The huge AGM-78 Standard ARM
> was, of course, considerably larger - but I don't
> know just how much larger, off hand.

If Wikipedia is to be believed, 215 pounds, so five times the size.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

[Schiffner]

On Mar 22, 7:57 am, 150flivver <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 22, 12:24 am, "Matt Wiser" <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Ed Rasimus" <***@verizon.net> wrote in message
>
> >news:***@4ax.com...
>
> > > On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 20:02:00 -0700 (PDT), Matt Wiser
> > > <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > >On Mar 20, 2:47 pm, 150flivver <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> On Mar 20, 4:48 pm, hcobb <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > >> > On Mar 20, 2:11 pm, Ed Rasimus <***@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > >> > > A modern IADS is a difficult system to deal with. Even a 20 year
> > old
> > > >> > > system is hazardous. But a stealthy, fast platform with extensive
> > data
> > > >> > > fusion from multiple sources and precision stand-off weapons
> > becomes
> > > >> > > one which can very readily operate with "near-impunity".
>
> > > >> > > If you need help with some of this try to get an older
> > > >> > > English-speaking person to translate for you.
> > > >> > > Ed Rasimus
> > > >> > > Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)www.thundertales.blogspot.com
>
> > > >> > But given the choice between "stealth" and "sensors, jamming and a
> > > >> > wide selection of stand off weapons", the Pentagon chooses the
> > Growler
> > > >> > over the Raptor.
>
> > > >> > Why do you think that is Ed? Especially since more F-22As have been
> > > >> > built than F/A-18Gs.
>
> > > >> > -HJC
>
> > > >> Are the Growlers that Cobb keeps ranting about being used in an Air-to-
> > > >> Air role or are they being used to suppress enemy air defense radars
> > > >> and missile systems? Heck, we bought this expensive hammer called the
> > > >> F-22 so gosh darn it, let's use it to drive some screws! Let's hose
> > > >> off some AMRAAMs on ground targets while we're at it. We can save the
> > > >> HARMs to fire at Libyan submarines. Trust me, anything's reasonable
> > > >> in Cobb's world if it highlights the missions that the F-22 is not
> > > >> designed for and for which legacy Navy aircraft are.- Hide quoted
> > text -
>
> > > >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > > >Growlers likely going in on IRON HAND (Navy term) or WILD WEASEL (AF).
> > > >Either way, it's SAM-suppression. Those who gladly do such things need
> > > >to have their wills probated and sins confessed, as it can be very
> > > >hazardous to one's health. Not as dangerous as it used to be, but
> > > >still....
>
> > > Probate is done after demise. Weaseling done right doesn't involve
> > > your own demise. (SOWW #2488 said).
>
> > > Minor issue: Weaseling and Iron Hand are attacking of SAM sites,
> > > generally done today with HARM. The Growler is an ECM jamming
> > > platform. Weasels kills, ECM jams radar.
>
> > > The USAF system is F-16CJ for that mission.
>
> > > Meanwhile when it absolutely, positively has to be there overnight,
> > > send some Spirit...
> > > Ed Rasimus
> > > Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
> > >www.thundertales.blogspot.com
>
> > EA-18Gs pack HARM as well as jammers. Hard kill or soft kill: dealer's
> > choice in this regard. Hard kill on any SA-10s (which Libya is reported to
> > have), soft kill on the SA-2s,-3s, and -6s.
>
> HARMs are hardly hard kill.  They suppress sites from emitting by
> instilling a fear of losing antennae (and if your antennae are in
> proximity to the SAM crew...).  If you want to hard kill a site, you
> bomb it or send a cruise missile at it or if you're Cobb, an Abrams
> tank.

heh, if you are 1st CAV or 2AD you send yoru Apaches.

[W.A. Baker]

On Mar 20, 2:48 pm, hcobb <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 20, 2:11 pm, Ed Rasimus <***@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > A modern IADS is a difficult system to deal with. Even a 20 year old
> > system is hazardous. But a stealthy, fast platform with extensive data
> > fusion from multiple sources and precision stand-off weapons becomes
> > one which can very readily operate with "near-impunity".
>
> > If you need help with some of this try to get an older
> > English-speaking person to translate for you.
> > Ed Rasimus
> > Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)www.thundertales.blogspot.com
>
> But given the choice between "stealth" and "sensors, jamming and a
> wide selection of stand off weapons", the Pentagon chooses the Growler
> over the Raptor.
>
> Why do you think that is Ed?  Especially since more F-22As have been
> built than F/A-18Gs.
>
> -HJC

[Jeff Dougherty]

On Mar 20, 5:48 pm, hcobb <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> But given the choice between "stealth" and "sensors, jamming and a
> wide selection of stand off weapons", the Pentagon chooses the Growler
> over the Raptor.
>
> Why do you think that is Ed?  Especially since more F-22As have been
> built than F/A-18Gs.

Hmmm. Could it be that:

a) F/A-18Gs are forward-deployed in Europe, making them available for
a short-notice operation in the Med, whereas F-22s are not? [Nb:
Aviation Leak reports that the 1st FW is being prepped for possible
deployment to the Med]

b) F/A-18Gs fill a hole in the Coalition order of battle by providing
a dedicated ECM platform, whereas there's no shortage of fighters
already present that have the chops to take on anything in the Libyan
Air Force?

c) Growlers can help protect other aircraft from an IADS, which is
more useful in a Coalition environment than stealth which only
protects one aircraft?

d) All of the above?

Nah, couldn't be. The fact that we're using the Growler instead of
the F-22 proves that the F-22 is inferior to the Growler in every
possible situation, not that we're using the right tool for the job at
hand. Why, the F-22 should be the perfect solution for every
situation! Cobb demands an end to the tyranny of design trade-offs!

Face it, Mr. Cobb, if and when the USAF does deploy F-22s to the
theater you'll be posting about how the USAF is "scrambling to find a
role for them in the operation", and all the money they're wasting by
deploying the system. The Air Force just can't win with you, can it?

-JTD

[hcobb]

On Mar 20, 5:31 pm, Jeff Dougherty <***@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Face it, Mr. Cobb, if and when the USAF does deploy F-22s to the
> theater you'll be posting about how the USAF is "scrambling to find a
> role for them in the operation", and all the money they're wasting by
> deploying the system.  The Air Force just can't win with you, can it?
>
> -JTD

The F-22 is not ready for combat yet.

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/
It's also possible that the Libya war comes a year too early for the
Raptor. True, the F-22 fleet can drop two joint direct attack
munitions or eight small diameter bombs. However, six years after
declaring initial operational capability, the F-22 is still waiting
for a radar that picks up targets on the ground. The air-to-ground
mode for the Northrop Grumman APG-77 radar is nearing the end of a
long testing phase, and retrofits for the fleet should start at the
end of this year. Until then, the F-22's primary targeting sensor is
effectively blind to ground targets after the aircraft takes off.

-HJC

[Dan]

On 3/21/2011 10:16 AM, hcobb wrote:
> On Mar 20, 5:31 pm, Jeff Dougherty<***@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> Face it, Mr. Cobb, if and when the USAF does deploy F-22s to the
>> theater you'll be posting about how the USAF is "scrambling to find a
>> role for them in the operation", and all the money they're wasting by
>> deploying the system. The Air Force just can't win with you, can it?
>>
>> -JTD
>
> The F-22 is not ready for combat yet.
>
> http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/
> It's also possible that the Libya war comes a year too early for the
> Raptor. True, the F-22 fleet can drop two joint direct attack
> munitions or eight small diameter bombs. However, six years after
> declaring initial operational capability, the F-22 is still waiting
> for a radar that picks up targets on the ground. The air-to-ground
> mode for the Northrop Grumman APG-77 radar is nearing the end of a
> long testing phase, and retrofits for the fleet should start at the
> end of this year. Until then, the F-22's primary targeting sensor is
> effectively blind to ground targets after the aircraft takes off.
>
> -HJC


The F-22 isn't ready for combat? Get real, it's been air to air
capable for years.


Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Daryl]

On 3/21/2011 9:16 AM, hcobb wrote:
> On Mar 20, 5:31 pm, Jeff Dougherty<***@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> Face it, Mr. Cobb, if and when the USAF does deploy F-22s to the
>> theater you'll be posting about how the USAF is "scrambling to find a
>> role for them in the operation", and all the money they're wasting by
>> deploying the system. The Air Force just can't win with you, can it?
>>
>> -JTD
>
> The F-22 is not ready for combat yet.
>
> http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/
> It's also possible that the Libya war comes a year too early for the
> Raptor. True, the F-22 fleet can drop two joint direct attack
> munitions or eight small diameter bombs. However, six years after
> declaring initial operational capability, the F-22 is still waiting
> for a radar that picks up targets on the ground. The air-to-ground
> mode for the Northrop Grumman APG-77 radar is nearing the end of a
> long testing phase, and retrofits for the fleet should start at the
> end of this year. Until then, the F-22's primary targeting sensor is
> effectively blind to ground targets after the aircraft takes off.

Cobb, you Cherry Picked once again.

Or it's possible that the old adage to not bring a knife to a gun
fight works in reverse. As in, don't bring an F-22 to a fight
when you have B-2s, F-15s, F-16s, Tomahawks and a host of
coalition aircraft, and they seem to be doing the job just fine.


Now, why would we need to put the F-22 in that area? To give you
more ammo about the waste of putting them into that area? I
don't think so.

Besides, there are enough assets already there. You will note
that the USAF isn't using it's F-15s and F-16s either. Oh, there
are F-15s and F-16s there but the majority of them are from other
countries that are close enough to get them there. The USAF
doesn't need to have a single fighter over Libya. Just from the
piece meal from other countries, the Libyan AF is very, very over
matched already. If the USAF needs to host any AC other than
tankers, look for it to be bombers.

[Matt Wiser]

On Mar 21, 7:31 am, Daryl <***@nospami70west2.com> wrote:
> On 3/21/2011 9:16 AM, hcobb wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 20, 5:31 pm, Jeff Dougherty<***@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >> Face it, Mr. Cobb, if and when the USAF does deploy F-22s to the
> >> theater you'll be posting about how the USAF is "scrambling to find a
> >> role for them in the operation", and all the money they're wasting by
> >> deploying the system.  The Air Force just can't win with you, can it?
>
> >> -JTD
>
> > The F-22 is not ready for combat yet.
>
> >http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/
> > It's also possible that the Libya war comes a year too early for the
> > Raptor. True, the F-22 fleet can drop two joint direct attack
> > munitions or eight small diameter bombs. However, six years after
> > declaring initial operational capability, the F-22 is still waiting
> > for a radar that picks up targets on the ground. The air-to-ground
> > mode for the Northrop Grumman APG-77 radar is nearing the end of a
> > long testing phase, and retrofits for the fleet should start at the
> > end of this year. Until then, the F-22's primary targeting sensor is
> > effectively blind to ground targets after the aircraft takes off.
>
> Cobb, you Cherry Picked once again.
>
> Or it's possible that the old adage to not bring a knife to a gun
> fight works in reverse. As in, don't bring an F-22 to a fight
> when you have B-2s, F-15s, F-16s, Tomahawks and a host of
> coalition aircraft, and they seem to be doing the job just fine.
>
> Now, why would we need to put the F-22 in that area?  To give you
> more ammo about the waste of putting them into that area?  I
> don't think so.
>
> Besides, there are enough assets already there.  You will note
> that the USAF isn't using it's F-15s and F-16s either.  Oh, there
> are F-15s and F-16s there but the majority of them are from other
> countries that are close enough to get them there.  The USAF
> doesn't need to have a single fighter over Libya.  Just from the
> piece meal from other countries, the Libyan AF is very, very over
> matched already.  If the USAF needs to host any AC other than
> tankers, look for it to be bombers.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Remember that you're dealing with Clueless Cobb. He cherry picks stuff
to fit his fantasy world, and ignores everything else. Even when
reality bites him, he ignores it, or spins it to fit his dreamland.

[Schiffner]

On Mar 21, 9:16 am, hcobb <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 20, 5:31 pm, Jeff Dougherty <***@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Face it, Mr. Cobb, if and when the USAF does deploy F-22s to the
> > theater you'll be posting about how the USAF is "scrambling to find a
> > role for them in the operation", and all the money they're wasting by
> > deploying the system.  The Air Force just can't win with you, can it?
>
> > -JTD
>
> The F-22 is not ready for combat yet.
>
> http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/
> It's also possible that the Libya war comes a year too early for the
> Raptor. True, the F-22 fleet can drop two joint direct attack
> munitions or eight small diameter bombs. However, six years after
> declaring initial operational capability, the F-22 is still waiting
> for a radar that picks up targets on the ground. The air-to-ground
> mode for the Northrop Grumman APG-77 radar is nearing the end of a
> long testing phase, and retrofits for the fleet should start at the
> end of this year. Until then, the F-22's primary targeting sensor is
> effectively blind to ground targets after the aircraft takes off.
>
> -HJC

ROTFLMAO...obviously you and the writer are not too terribly smart. I
can think of several ways that an F22 can see the ground and that is
BEFORE using a mark I eyeball. You stupid people are so fun to poke
with a sharp stick.

[Daryl]

On 3/21/2011 8:16 PM, Schiffner wrote:
> On Mar 21, 9:16 am, hcobb<***@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mar 20, 5:31 pm, Jeff Dougherty<***@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Face it, Mr. Cobb, if and when the USAF does deploy F-22s to the
>>> theater you'll be posting about how the USAF is "scrambling to find a
>>> role for them in the operation", and all the money they're wasting by
>>> deploying the system. The Air Force just can't win with you, can it?
>>
>>> -JTD
>>
>> The F-22 is not ready for combat yet.
>>
>> http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/
>> It's also possible that the Libya war comes a year too early for the
>> Raptor. True, the F-22 fleet can drop two joint direct attack
>> munitions or eight small diameter bombs. However, six years after
>> declaring initial operational capability, the F-22 is still waiting
>> for a radar that picks up targets on the ground. The air-to-ground
>> mode for the Northrop Grumman APG-77 radar is nearing the end of a
>> long testing phase, and retrofits for the fleet should start at the
>> end of this year. Until then, the F-22's primary targeting sensor is
>> effectively blind to ground targets after the aircraft takes off.
>>
>> -HJC
>
> ROTFLMAO...obviously you and the writer are not too terribly smart. I
> can think of several ways that an F22 can see the ground and that is
> BEFORE using a mark I eyeball. You stupid people are so fun to poke
> with a sharp stick.

When the F-15A was first introduced, the only way it could hit
the ground was to crash into it. That certainly changed during
the many, many TCTOs that were done on the bird.

[Schiffner]

On Mar 21, 8:27 pm, Daryl <***@nospami70west2.com> wrote:
> On 3/21/2011 8:16 PM, Schiffner wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 21, 9:16 am, hcobb<***@gmail.com>  wrote:
> >> On Mar 20, 5:31 pm, Jeff Dougherty<***@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> Face it, Mr. Cobb, if and when the USAF does deploy F-22s to the
> >>> theater you'll be posting about how the USAF is "scrambling to find a
> >>> role for them in the operation", and all the money they're wasting by
> >>> deploying the system.  The Air Force just can't win with you, can it?
>
> >>> -JTD
>
> >> The F-22 is not ready for combat yet.
>
> >>http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/
> >> It's also possible that the Libya war comes a year too early for the
> >> Raptor. True, the F-22 fleet can drop two joint direct attack
> >> munitions or eight small diameter bombs. However, six years after
> >> declaring initial operational capability, the F-22 is still waiting
> >> for a radar that picks up targets on the ground. The air-to-ground
> >> mode for the Northrop Grumman APG-77 radar is nearing the end of a
> >> long testing phase, and retrofits for the fleet should start at the
> >> end of this year. Until then, the F-22's primary targeting sensor is
> >> effectively blind to ground targets after the aircraft takes off.
>
> >> -HJC
>
> > ROTFLMAO...obviously you and the writer are not too terribly smart. I
> > can think of several ways that an F22 can see the ground  and that is
> > BEFORE using a mark I eyeball. You stupid people are so fun to poke
> > with a sharp stick.
>
> When the F-15A was first introduced, the only way it could hit
> the ground was to crash into it.  That certainly changed during
> the many, many TCTOs that were done on the bird.

Indeed, you probally guessed the multiple ways I was thinking of yes?

[W.A. Baker]

On Mar 20, 2:48 pm, hcobb <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 20, 2:11 pm, Ed Rasimus <***@verizon.net> wrote:

[...]

> But given the choice between "stealth" and "sensors, jamming and a
> wide selection of stand off weapons", the Pentagon chooses the Growler
> over the Raptor.

They did nothing of the kind! Jesus, you sad buffoon, when someone
like me who actually reads your postings does a complete face-slap of
incredulity, you should know you're completely out to lunch. There is
only a tenuous budgeting linkage between the two programs. That's all
that your original cite proves.

Gah, I give up.

[Ed Rasimus]

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 14:48:48 -0700 (PDT), hcobb <***@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Mar 20, 2:11 pm, Ed Rasimus <***@verizon.net> wrote:
>> A modern IADS is a difficult system to deal with. Even a 20 year old
>> system is hazardous. But a stealthy, fast platform with extensive data
>> fusion from multiple sources and precision stand-off weapons becomes
>> one which can very readily operate with "near-impunity".
>>
>> If you need help with some of this try to get an older
>> English-speaking person to translate for you.
>> Ed Rasimus
>> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)www.thundertales.blogspot.com
>
>But given the choice between "stealth" and "sensors, jamming and a
>wide selection of stand off weapons", the Pentagon chooses the Growler
>over the Raptor.
>
>Why do you think that is Ed? Especially since more F-22As have been
>built than F/A-18Gs.
>
>-HJC

Why I think that is is because the Navy has a different mission than
the USAF. I think air dominance is significant to joint operations
where US ground forces need to operate without being subject to enemy
air attack. I think that reaching beyond the littoral to the 85% of
the globe's land areas that carrier based aircraft can reach without
heavy tankers is critical.

I think I've flown combat missions both with and without ECM and have
considerable experience in SEAD (note that is SUPPRESSION and not
ELIMINATION). We have a lot of capability in electronic warfare and in
assignment of the roles and missions among the services, that mission
is given to the Navy for R&D.

I also know that EW is essentially defensive in nature and it is
impossible to win a war by out-defending your opponent.

Send a Growler flight to Ghat and see how they make out.

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

[Jim Yanik]

Ed Rasimus <***@verizon.net> wrote in
news:***@4ax.com:

> On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 14:48:48 -0700 (PDT), hcobb <***@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On Mar 20, 2:11 pm, Ed Rasimus <***@verizon.net> wrote:
>>> A modern IADS is a difficult system to deal with. Even a 20 year old
>>> system is hazardous. But a stealthy, fast platform with extensive data
>>> fusion from multiple sources and precision stand-off weapons becomes
>>> one which can very readily operate with "near-impunity".
>>>
>>> If you need help with some of this try to get an older
>>> English-speaking person to translate for you.
>>> Ed Rasimus
>>> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)www.thundertales.blogspot.com
>>
>>But given the choice between "stealth" and "sensors, jamming and a
>>wide selection of stand off weapons", the Pentagon chooses the Growler
>>over the Raptor.
>>
>>Why do you think that is Ed? Especially since more F-22As have been
>>built than F/A-18Gs.
>>
>>-HJC
>
> Why I think that is is because the Navy has a different mission than
> the USAF. I think air dominance is significant to joint operations
> where US ground forces need to operate without being subject to enemy
> air attack. I think that reaching beyond the littoral to the 85% of
> the globe's land areas that carrier based aircraft can reach without
> heavy tankers is critical.
>
> I think I've flown combat missions both with and without ECM and have
> considerable experience in SEAD (note that is SUPPRESSION and not
> ELIMINATION). We have a lot of capability in electronic warfare and in
> assignment of the roles and missions among the services, that mission
> is given to the Navy for R&D.
>
> I also know that EW is essentially defensive in nature and it is
> impossible to win a war by out-defending your opponent.
>
> Send a Growler flight to Ghat and see how they make out.
>
> Ed Rasimus
> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
> www.thundertales.blogspot.com
>
>

the US military probably went with what assets they had in the area,and the
F-22A may not have been one of those assets in the area.(how many of them
are in current service anyways?)

I note the papers said we used B2 bombers over Libya.
perhaps from Diego Garcia.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

[Dean]

On Mar 21, 1:25 pm, Jim Yanik <***@abuse.gov> wrote:
> Ed Rasimus <***@verizon.net> wrote innews:***@4ax.com:
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 14:48:48 -0700 (PDT), hcobb <***@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> >>On Mar 20, 2:11 pm, Ed Rasimus <***@verizon.net> wrote:
> >>> A modern IADS is a difficult system to deal with. Even a 20 year old
> >>> system is hazardous. But a stealthy, fast platform with extensive data
> >>> fusion from multiple sources and precision stand-off weapons becomes
> >>> one which can very readily operate with "near-impunity".
>
> >>> If you need help with some of this try to get an older
> >>> English-speaking person to translate for you.
> >>> Ed Rasimus
> >>> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)www.thundertales.blogspot.com
>
> >>But given the choice between "stealth" and "sensors, jamming and a
> >>wide selection of stand off weapons", the Pentagon chooses the Growler
> >>over the Raptor.
>
> >>Why do you think that is Ed?  Especially since more F-22As have been
> >>built than F/A-18Gs.
>
> >>-HJC
>
> > Why I think that is is because the Navy has a different mission than
> > the USAF. I think air dominance is significant to joint operations
> > where US ground forces need to operate without being subject to enemy
> > air attack. I think that reaching beyond the littoral to the 85% of
> > the globe's land areas that carrier based aircraft can reach without
> > heavy tankers is critical.
>
> > I think I've flown combat missions both with and without ECM and have
> > considerable experience in SEAD (note that is SUPPRESSION and not
> > ELIMINATION). We have a lot of capability in electronic warfare and in
> > assignment of the roles and missions among the services, that mission
> > is given to the Navy for R&D.
>
> > I also know that EW is essentially defensive in nature and it is
> > impossible to win a war by out-defending your opponent.
>
> > Send a Growler flight to Ghat and see how they make out.
>
> > Ed Rasimus
> > Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
> >www.thundertales.blogspot.com
>
> the US military probably went with what assets they had in the area,and the
> F-22A may not have been one of those assets in the area.(how many of them
> are in current service anyways?)
>
> I note the papers said we used B2 bombers over Libya.
> perhaps from Diego Garcia.
>
> --
> Jim Yanik
> jyanik
> at
> localnet
> dot com

The B-2s flew from and returned to Missouri.

[Peter Stickney]

On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 13:14:18 -0700, Dean wrote:

> On Mar 21, 1:25 pm, Jim Yanik <***@abuse.gov> wrote:
>> Ed Rasimus <***@verizon.net> wrote
>> innews:***@4ax.com:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 14:48:48 -0700 (PDT), hcobb
>> > <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>On Mar 20, 2:11 pm, Ed Rasimus <***@verizon.net> wrote:
>> >>> A modern IADS is a difficult system to deal with. Even a 20 year
>> >>> old system is hazardous. But a stealthy, fast platform with
>> >>> extensive data fusion from multiple sources and precision stand-off
>> >>> weapons becomes one which can very readily operate with
>> >>> "near-impunity".
>>
>> >>> If you need help with some of this try to get an older
>> >>> English-speaking person to translate for you. Ed Rasimus
>> >>> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)www.thundertales.blogspot.com
>>
>> >>But given the choice between "stealth" and "sensors, jamming and a
>> >>wide selection of stand off weapons", the Pentagon chooses the
>> >>Growler over the Raptor.
>>
>> >>Why do you think that is Ed?  Especially since more F-22As have been
>> >>built than F/A-18Gs.
>>
>> >>-HJC
>>
>> > Why I think that is is because the Navy has a different mission than
>> > the USAF. I think air dominance is significant to joint operations
>> > where US ground forces need to operate without being subject to enemy
>> > air attack. I think that reaching beyond the littoral to the 85% of
>> > the globe's land areas that carrier based aircraft can reach without
>> > heavy tankers is critical.
>>
>> > I think I've flown combat missions both with and without ECM and have
>> > considerable experience in SEAD (note that is SUPPRESSION and not
>> > ELIMINATION). We have a lot of capability in electronic warfare and
>> > in assignment of the roles and missions among the services, that
>> > mission is given to the Navy for R&D.
>>
>> > I also know that EW is essentially defensive in nature and it is
>> > impossible to win a war by out-defending your opponent.
>>
>> > Send a Growler flight to Ghat and see how they make out.
>>
>> > Ed Rasimus
>> > Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
>> >www.thundertales.blogspot.com
>>
>> the US military probably went with what assets they had in the area,and
>> the F-22A may not have been one of those assets in the area.(how many
>> of them are in current service anyways?)
>>
>> I note the papers said we used B2 bombers over Libya. perhaps from
>> Diego Garcia.
>>
>> --
>> Jim Yanik
>> jyanik
>> at
>> localnet
>> dot com
>
> The B-2s flew from and returned to Missouri.

Takes a while, though.
While a B-2 may not have bunks, it's got enough space in the cockpit
to set up a folding chaise lounge for one or the other of the crew to stretch out
for a nap.
(Seems they originally designed for 4 crew stations, like the B-1, but advances
in avionics & systems integration allow that to be halved.

Can't do that in a fighter.

--
Pete Stickney
Failure is not an option
It comes bundled with the system

[hcobb]

On Mar 22, 9:03 pm, Peter Stickney <***@verizon.net> wrote:
> While a B-2 may not have bunks, it's got enough space in the cockpit
> to set up a folding chaise lounge for one or the other of the crew to stretch out
> for a nap.
> (Seems they originally designed for 4 crew stations, like the B-1, but advances
> in avionics & systems integration allow that to be halved.
>
> Can't do that in a fighter.
>
> --
> Pete Stickney
> Failure is not an option
> It comes bundled with the system

Advances in "avionics & systems integration" allow Navy electronic
warfare platforms to halve their crew size with each generation.

Prowler: 4 crew.

Growler: 2 crew.

Screeching Baby Seal: 1 crew.

The reduction in manpower is balanced with additional communications
channels so that the smaller crew can be distracted by more
conversations.

-HJC

[150flivver]

On Mar 23, 4:24 am, hcobb <***@gmail.com> wrote:

> Advances in "avionics & systems integration" allow Navy electronic
> warfare platforms to halve their crew size with each generation.
>
> Prowler: 4 crew.
>
> Growler: 2 crew.
>
> Screeching Baby Seal: 1 crew.
>
> The reduction in manpower is balanced with additional communications
> channels so that the smaller crew can be distracted by more
> conversations.
>
> -HJC

What utter BS. The EA-18G has two crew because the airframe can only
hold two crew and the Navy wanted to simplify logistics aboard
carriers and wanted the F-18s flight/fight capability over its jamming
capability. EF-111s had two crew, F-4Gs had two crew, etc etc. The
F-16 which the F-35 will replace has one crew. Once again you
cherrypick facts to come up with BS.

[Matt Wiser]

On Mar 23, 4:00 am, 150flivver <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 23, 4:24 am, hcobb <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Advances in "avionics & systems integration" allow Navy electronic
> > warfare platforms to halve their crew size with each generation.
>
> > Prowler: 4 crew.
>
> > Growler: 2 crew.
>
> > Screeching Baby Seal: 1 crew.
>
> > The reduction in manpower is balanced with additional communications
> > channels so that the smaller crew can be distracted by more
> > conversations.
>
> > -HJC
>
> What utter BS.  The EA-18G has two crew because the airframe can only
> hold two crew and the Navy wanted to simplify logistics aboard
> carriers and wanted the F-18s flight/fight capability over its jamming
> capability.  EF-111s had two crew, F-4Gs had two crew, etc etc.  The
> F-16 which the F-35 will replace has one crew.  Once again you
> cherrypick facts to come up with BS.

Cobb's cherrypicking is legendary. But then again, he has to twist the
real world to fit his fantasy one.

[Schiffner]

On Mar 23, 1:40 pm, Matt Wiser <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mar 23, 4:00 am, 150flivver <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 23, 4:24 am, hcobb <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Advances in "avionics & systems integration" allow Navy electronic
> > > warfare platforms to halve their crew size with each generation.
>
> > > Prowler: 4 crew.
>
> > > Growler: 2 crew.
>
> > > Screeching Baby Seal: 1 crew.
>
> > > The reduction in manpower is balanced with additional communications
> > > channels so that the smaller crew can be distracted by more
> > > conversations.
>
> > > -HJC
>
> > What utter BS.  The EA-18G has two crew because the airframe can only
> > hold two crew and the Navy wanted to simplify logistics aboard
> > carriers and wanted the F-18s flight/fight capability over its jamming
> > capability.  EF-111s had two crew, F-4Gs had two crew, etc etc.  The
> > F-16 which the F-35 will replace has one crew.  Once again you
> > cherrypick facts to come up with BS.
>
> Cobb's cherrypicking is legendary. But then again, he has to twist the
> real world to fit his fantasy one.


Maybe he's a Chubby Checker fan?

[Matt Wiser]

On Mar 23, 4:05 pm, Schiffner <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 23, 1:40 pm, Matt Wiser <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 23, 4:00 am, 150flivver <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 23, 4:24 am, hcobb <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Advances in "avionics & systems integration" allow Navy electronic
> > > > warfare platforms to halve their crew size with each generation.
>
> > > > Prowler: 4 crew.
>
> > > > Growler: 2 crew.
>
> > > > Screeching Baby Seal: 1 crew.
>
> > > > The reduction in manpower is balanced with additional communications
> > > > channels so that the smaller crew can be distracted by more
> > > > conversations.
>
> > > > -HJC
>
> > > What utter BS.  The EA-18G has two crew because the airframe can only
> > > hold two crew and the Navy wanted to simplify logistics aboard
> > > carriers and wanted the F-18s flight/fight capability over its jamming
> > > capability.  EF-111s had two crew, F-4Gs had two crew, etc etc.  The
> > > F-16 which the F-35 will replace has one crew.  Once again you
> > > cherrypick facts to come up with BS.
>
> > Cobb's cherrypicking is legendary. But then again, he has to twist the
> > real world to fit his fantasy one.
>
> Maybe he's a Chubby Checker fan?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Maybe. Or his anti-USAF tirade has its origins in him getting bitch-
slapped by a female AF officer or enlisted airman that he tried to hit
on.

[Daryl]

On 3/23/2011 7:42 PM, Matt Wiser wrote:
> On Mar 23, 4:05 pm, Schiffner<***@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mar 23, 1:40 pm, Matt Wiser<***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Mar 23, 4:00 am, 150flivver<***@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> On Mar 23, 4:24 am, hcobb<***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> Advances in "avionics& systems integration" allow Navy electronic
>>>>> warfare platforms to halve their crew size with each generation.
>>
>>>>> Prowler: 4 crew.
>>
>>>>> Growler: 2 crew.
>>
>>>>> Screeching Baby Seal: 1 crew.
>>
>>>>> The reduction in manpower is balanced with additional communications
>>>>> channels so that the smaller crew can be distracted by more
>>>>> conversations.
>>
>>>>> -HJC
>>
>>>> What utter BS. The EA-18G has two crew because the airframe can only
>>>> hold two crew and the Navy wanted to simplify logistics aboard
>>>> carriers and wanted the F-18s flight/fight capability over its jamming
>>>> capability. EF-111s had two crew, F-4Gs had two crew, etc etc. The
>>>> F-16 which the F-35 will replace has one crew. Once again you
>>>> cherrypick facts to come up with BS.
>>
>>> Cobb's cherrypicking is legendary. But then again, he has to twist the
>>> real world to fit his fantasy one.
>>
>> Maybe he's a Chubby Checker fan?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Maybe. Or his anti-USAF tirade has its origins in him getting bitch-
> slapped by a female AF officer or enlisted airman that he tried to hit
> on.

Is that what that "Slap heard round the world" was?

[Matt Wiser]

"Daryl" <***@nospami70west2.com> wrote in message
news:***@news.x-privat.org...
> On 3/23/2011 7:42 PM, Matt Wiser wrote:
> > On Mar 23, 4:05 pm, Schiffner<***@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Mar 23, 1:40 pm, Matt Wiser<***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> On Mar 23, 4:00 am, 150flivver<***@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>> On Mar 23, 4:24 am, hcobb<***@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>>> Advances in "avionics& systems integration" allow Navy electronic
> >>>>> warfare platforms to halve their crew size with each generation.
> >>
> >>>>> Prowler: 4 crew.
> >>
> >>>>> Growler: 2 crew.
> >>
> >>>>> Screeching Baby Seal: 1 crew.
> >>
> >>>>> The reduction in manpower is balanced with additional communications
> >>>>> channels so that the smaller crew can be distracted by more
> >>>>> conversations.
> >>
> >>>>> -HJC
> >>
> >>>> What utter BS. The EA-18G has two crew because the airframe can only
> >>>> hold two crew and the Navy wanted to simplify logistics aboard
> >>>> carriers and wanted the F-18s flight/fight capability over its
jamming
> >>>> capability. EF-111s had two crew, F-4Gs had two crew, etc etc. The
> >>>> F-16 which the F-35 will replace has one crew. Once again you
> >>>> cherrypick facts to come up with BS.
> >>
> >>> Cobb's cherrypicking is legendary. But then again, he has to twist the
> >>> real world to fit his fantasy one.
> >>
> >> Maybe he's a Chubby Checker fan?- Hide quoted text -
> >>
> >> - Show quoted text -
> >
> > Maybe. Or his anti-USAF tirade has its origins in him getting bitch-
> > slapped by a female AF officer or enlisted airman that he tried to hit
> > on.
>
> Is that what that "Slap heard round the world" was?
>
>
Probably. Whoever she was, she did it hard and loud.

[Schiffner]

On Mar 23, 3:24 am, hcobb <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 22, 9:03 pm, Peter Stickney <***@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > While a B-2 may not have bunks, it's got enough space in the cockpit
> > to set up a folding chaise lounge for one or the other of the crew to stretch out
> > for a nap.
> > (Seems they originally designed for 4 crew stations, like the B-1, but advances
> > in avionics & systems integration allow that to be halved.
>
> > Can't do that in a fighter.
>
> > --
> > Pete Stickney
> > Failure is not an option
> > It comes bundled with the system
>
> Advances in "avionics & systems integration" allow Navy electronic
> warfare platforms to halve their crew size with each generation.
>
> Prowler: 4 crew.
>
> Growler: 2 crew.
>
> Screeching Baby Seal: 1 crew.
>
> The reduction in manpower is balanced with additional communications
> channels so that the smaller crew can be distracted by more
> conversations.
>
> -HJC

Shows what you know bubba....one radio and even I could keep track of
6+ conversations, then again my mind isn't fossilized.

[Matt Wiser]

"Schiffner" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c70bce82-dfe5-44db-96ff-***@q12g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 23, 3:24 am, hcobb <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 22, 9:03 pm, Peter Stickney <***@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > While a B-2 may not have bunks, it's got enough space in the cockpit
> > to set up a folding chaise lounge for one or the other of the crew to
stretch out
> > for a nap.
> > (Seems they originally designed for 4 crew stations, like the B-1, but
advances
> > in avionics & systems integration allow that to be halved.
>
> > Can't do that in a fighter.
>
> > --
> > Pete Stickney
> > Failure is not an option
> > It comes bundled with the system
>
> Advances in "avionics & systems integration" allow Navy electronic
> warfare platforms to halve their crew size with each generation.
>
> Prowler: 4 crew.
>
> Growler: 2 crew.
>
> Screeching Baby Seal: 1 crew.
>
> The reduction in manpower is balanced with additional communications
> channels so that the smaller crew can be distracted by more
> conversations.
>
> -HJC

Shows what you know bubba....one radio and even I could keep track of
6+ conversations, then again my mind isn't fossilized.

And Cobb's is...fossilized in his fantasy world and that's it.

[Schiffner]

On Mar 23, 11:07 pm, "Matt Wiser" <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Schiffner" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:c70bce82-dfe5-44db-96ff-***@q12g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 23, 3:24 am, hcobb <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 22, 9:03 pm, Peter Stickney <***@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > While a B-2 may not have bunks, it's got enough space in the cockpit
> > > to set up a folding chaise lounge for one or the other of the crew to
> stretch out
> > > for a nap.
> > > (Seems they originally designed for 4 crew stations, like the B-1, but
> advances
> > > in avionics & systems integration allow that to be halved.
>
> > > Can't do that in a fighter.
>
> > > --
> > > Pete Stickney
> > > Failure is not an option
> > > It comes bundled with the system
>
> > Advances in "avionics & systems integration" allow Navy electronic
> > warfare platforms to halve their crew size with each generation.
>
> > Prowler: 4 crew.
>
> > Growler: 2 crew.
>
> > Screeching Baby Seal: 1 crew.
>
> > The reduction in manpower is balanced with additional communications
> > channels so that the smaller crew can be distracted by more
> > conversations.
>
> > -HJC
>
> Shows what you know bubba....one radio and even I could keep track of
> 6+ conversations, then again my mind isn't fossilized.
>
> And Cobb's is...fossilized in his fantasy world and that's it.

hey, I was using sincgars at the time! Now in 90' aww shit...still had
the PRC7 vehicle mount, barely have on conversation on that crap.

[Matt Wiser]

"Jim Yanik" <***@abuse.gov> wrote in message
news:***@216.168.3.44...
> Ed Rasimus <***@verizon.net> wrote in
> news:***@4ax.com:
>
> > On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 14:48:48 -0700 (PDT), hcobb <***@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>On Mar 20, 2:11 pm, Ed Rasimus <***@verizon.net> wrote:
> >>> A modern IADS is a difficult system to deal with. Even a 20 year old
> >>> system is hazardous. But a stealthy, fast platform with extensive data
> >>> fusion from multiple sources and precision stand-off weapons becomes
> >>> one which can very readily operate with "near-impunity".
> >>>
> >>> If you need help with some of this try to get an older
> >>> English-speaking person to translate for you.
> >>> Ed Rasimus
> >>> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)www.thundertales.blogspot.com
> >>
> >>But given the choice between "stealth" and "sensors, jamming and a
> >>wide selection of stand off weapons", the Pentagon chooses the Growler
> >>over the Raptor.
> >>
> >>Why do you think that is Ed? Especially since more F-22As have been
> >>built than F/A-18Gs.
> >>
> >>-HJC
> >
> > Why I think that is is because the Navy has a different mission than
> > the USAF. I think air dominance is significant to joint operations
> > where US ground forces need to operate without being subject to enemy
> > air attack. I think that reaching beyond the littoral to the 85% of
> > the globe's land areas that carrier based aircraft can reach without
> > heavy tankers is critical.
> >
> > I think I've flown combat missions both with and without ECM and have
> > considerable experience in SEAD (note that is SUPPRESSION and not
> > ELIMINATION). We have a lot of capability in electronic warfare and in
> > assignment of the roles and missions among the services, that mission
> > is given to the Navy for R&D.
> >
> > I also know that EW is essentially defensive in nature and it is
> > impossible to win a war by out-defending your opponent.
> >
> > Send a Growler flight to Ghat and see how they make out.
> >
> > Ed Rasimus
> > Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
> > www.thundertales.blogspot.com
> >
> >
>
> the US military probably went with what assets they had in the area,and
the
> F-22A may not have been one of those assets in the area.(how many of them
> are in current service anyways?)
>
> I note the papers said we used B2 bombers over Libya.
> perhaps from Diego Garcia.
>
> --

Spirits flew from Whiteman AFB in Missouri, there and back. They must not be
planning any more B-2 missions, otherwise they'd recover at RAF Fairford.

[Matt Wiser]

On Mar 20, 1:11 pm, Ed Rasimus <***@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 12:39:28 -0700 (PDT), hcobb <***@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Mar 20, 11:11 am, Dan <***@AOL.COM> wrote:
> >> On 3/20/2011 11:04 AM, hcobb wrote:
>
> >> > On Mar 19, 3:44 pm, Daryl<***@nospami70west2.com> wrote:
> >> >> There are enough air to ground assets already within reach that
> >> >> the F-22 isn't needed. There are also enough Air to Air Assets
> >> >> to handle the 1960s AF that Libya has.
>
> >> > So everybody agrees that it is a total lie that the F-22 can operate
> >> > with impunity against SAMs that threaten other aircraft?
>
> >> > -HJC
>
> >> Cobb, can you name ONE competent authority that ever said F-22 can
> >> "operate with impunity" anywhere?
>
> >> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
> >http://www.f22-raptor.com/about/history.html
> >As a result, the Raptor can fly very high, very far and very fast with
> >little risk of detection or intercept and strike with near-impunity
> >against both airborne and ground-based targets.
> >...
> >   Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company
>
> >I'm not so sure about LockMart being any sort of "competent authority"
> >of course. ;-)
>
> >-HJC
>
> Is English your first language?
>
> Can you see a difference between "little risk" and no risk? When
> someone describes a stealth platform they use the terminology "Low
> Observable" that doesn't mean unobservable or invisible. A low radar
> cross-section (RCS) is not a zero RCS.
>
> Do you have any familiarity with intercept geometry? Detect, assign,
> launch and direct to a point of conjuction for weapons employment.
> When detection distances are significantly reduced and speeds are
> significantly increased it become a much more complicated task to
> intercept.
>
> Can you see a modifier in the phrase "near-impunity" which makes it
> different than the unmodified "operate with impunity"?
>
> A modern IADS is a difficult system to deal with. Even a 20 year old
> system is hazardous. But a stealthy, fast platform with extensive data
> fusion from multiple sources and precision stand-off weapons becomes
> one which can very readily operate with "near-impunity".
>
> If you need help with some of this try to get an older
> English-speaking person to translate for you.
> Ed Rasimus
> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)www.thundertales.blogspot.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Ed, remember that it's Clueless Cobb we're dealing with here. He's
stuck in his fantasy world, and anything that contradicts it is either
ignored or spun to fit it somehow.

[Schiffner]

On Mar 20, 1:39 pm, hcobb <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 20, 11:11 am, Dan <***@AOL.COM> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 3/20/2011 11:04 AM, hcobb wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 19, 3:44 pm, Daryl<***@nospami70west2.com>  wrote:
> > >> There are enough air to ground assets already within reach that
> > >> the F-22 isn't needed.  There are also enough Air to Air Assets
> > >> to handle the 1960s AF that Libya has.
>
> > > So everybody agrees that it is a total lie that the F-22 can operate
> > > with impunity against SAMs that threaten other aircraft?
>
> > > -HJC
>
> >    Cobb, can you name ONE competent authority that ever said F-22 can
> > "operate with impunity" anywhere?
>
> > Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
> http://www.f22-raptor.com/about/history.html
> As a result, the Raptor can fly very high, very far and very fast with
> little risk of detection or intercept and strike with near-impunity
> against both airborne and ground-based targets.
> ...
>   © Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company
>
> I'm not so sure about LockMart being any sort of "competent authority"
> of course


and madam Cobb you would be caught out lying/misunderstanding yet
again. I'll let you use that fossilized brain of yours to parse your
qoute to find out why you have made a liar of yourself....

It's so obvious a cave man could spot it.

[webpa]

On Mar 19, 2:33 pm, hcobb <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> Note complete absence of F-22s in the air to ground campaign, because
> the only sensors onboard the F-22 Raptor that can spot a ground target
> are the eyeballs of the pilot.
>
> -HJC

Note the complete absence of accuracy in the OP's facts. The only
weapon needed for initial SEAD is the -109 cruise missile, developed
by the JCMPO (Joint Cruise Missile Project Office), led by a USN flag
officer, staffed by 95% USAF engineers, managing (per congressional
rules) the "House that Atlas Built" on Kearny Mesa, flight tested
until it worked on Wendover Range. Was there. Did That. Stuff it
hcobb; you are an idiot. out

[Matt Wiser]

On Mar 19, 3:37 pm, webpa <***@aol.com> wrote:
> On Mar 19, 2:33 pm, hcobb <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Note complete absence of F-22s in the air to ground campaign, because
> > the only sensors onboard the F-22 Raptor that can spot a ground target
> > are the eyeballs of the pilot.
>
> > -HJC
>
> Note the complete absence of accuracy in the OP's facts.  The only
> weapon needed for initial SEAD is the -109 cruise missile, developed
> by the JCMPO (Joint Cruise Missile Project Office), led by a USN flag
> officer, staffed by 95% USAF engineers, managing (per congressional
> rules) the "House that Atlas Built" on Kearny Mesa, flight tested
> until it worked on Wendover Range.  Was there.  Did That.  Stuff it
> hcobb; you are an idiot. out

What do you expect from Clueless Cobb, anyway? He's still on his one-
man crusade to get the AF back under Army control (which will happen
when hell freezes over and pigs fly).

[Dan]

On 3/19/2011 8:57 PM, Matt Wiser wrote:
> On Mar 19, 3:37 pm, webpa<***@aol.com> wrote:
>> On Mar 19, 2:33 pm, hcobb<***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Note complete absence of F-22s in the air to ground campaign, because
>>> the only sensors onboard the F-22 Raptor that can spot a ground target
>>> are the eyeballs of the pilot.
>>
>>> -HJC
>>
>> Note the complete absence of accuracy in the OP's facts. The only
>> weapon needed for initial SEAD is the -109 cruise missile, developed
>> by the JCMPO (Joint Cruise Missile Project Office), led by a USN flag
>> officer, staffed by 95% USAF engineers, managing (per congressional
>> rules) the "House that Atlas Built" on Kearny Mesa, flight tested
>> until it worked on Wendover Range. Was there. Did That. Stuff it
>> hcobb; you are an idiot. out
>
> What do you expect from Clueless Cobb, anyway? He's still on his one-
> man crusade to get the AF back under Army control (which will happen
> when hell freezes over and pigs fly).

It gets even funnier when you challenge his assertions the Navy can
do anything the USAF can do and better. Like how the Navy can instantly
cross an ocean while the USAF can't cross the same ocean. His thinking
is surreal.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Matt Wiser]

"Dan" <***@AOL.COM> wrote in message
news:***@giganews.com...
> On 3/19/2011 8:57 PM, Matt Wiser wrote:
> > On Mar 19, 3:37 pm, webpa<***@aol.com> wrote:
> >> On Mar 19, 2:33 pm, hcobb<***@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Note complete absence of F-22s in the air to ground campaign, because
> >>> the only sensors onboard the F-22 Raptor that can spot a ground target
> >>> are the eyeballs of the pilot.
> >>
> >>> -HJC
> >>
> >> Note the complete absence of accuracy in the OP's facts. The only
> >> weapon needed for initial SEAD is the -109 cruise missile, developed
> >> by the JCMPO (Joint Cruise Missile Project Office), led by a USN flag
> >> officer, staffed by 95% USAF engineers, managing (per congressional
> >> rules) the "House that Atlas Built" on Kearny Mesa, flight tested
> >> until it worked on Wendover Range. Was there. Did That. Stuff it
> >> hcobb; you are an idiot. out
> >
> > What do you expect from Clueless Cobb, anyway? He's still on his one-
> > man crusade to get the AF back under Army control (which will happen
> > when hell freezes over and pigs fly).
>
> It gets even funnier when you challenge his assertions the Navy can
> do anything the USAF can do and better. Like how the Navy can instantly
> cross an ocean while the USAF can't cross the same ocean. His thinking
> is surreal.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Surreal? Yes. Personally, I think he's on his anti-USAF rant for one of two
reasons: first, he tried getting into the AF (officer or enlisted) and was
rejected. second, he tried picking up a female AF officer or airman, and got
bitch-slapped. (I'd go for #2 in this case)

No wonder two Senators have their staff monitor what Clueless Cobb says: and
they always vote against what Cobb's fantasy world says.

[W.A. Baker]

On Mar 19, 2:33 pm, hcobb <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> Note complete absence of F-22s in the air to ground campaign, because
> the only sensors onboard the F-22 Raptor that can spot a ground target
> are the eyeballs of the pilot.
>
> -HJC

How do you know that F-22's haven't been in Apache territory yet? It
would not surprise me if the Air Force later announced that F-22's
escorted the B-2's on that strike package that hit Libyan air
bases...yesterday? Day before? There are good tactical reasons why
they would withhold that information initially.

Why would anyone with a pittance of military knowledge expect our F-22
fleet to be doing air-to-ground work? That's insane.

[hcobb]

On Mar 21, 7:37 pm, Daryl <***@nospami70west2.com> wrote:
> You keep demanding we field apples when it's oranges that are needed.

It's the USAF that's delivering lemons, but at least they can (more or
less) safely operate wherever there are Navy carrier groups to provide
Growlers to protect them from radars and Marine ARG/ESGs to provide
Ospreys to pick them up after mechanical failures.

-HJC