Transformation of the US Military - Wish List
ssn...@earthlink.net
four services that make up the US military. Much of the
rhetoric involves things such as substituting civilian
contractors for military personnel in service and support
roles, the introduction of "high tech" solutions and
elimination of duplicative processes in the military to
solve the problems of warfighting.
The first problem here is whether or not a single point of
view on how to fight wars may be less costly, but, will it
ultimately be more effective.
Frankly, here's my wish list for "transformation"
1. Coordinated Combined and Joint Training Centers: JRTC,
JNTC are all well and good but, what we really need is a
true Joint Training capability with the inclusion of Naval
and Marine Corps personnel, tactics and strategies in the
mix.
The next problem is where can we have realistic trainging
for all four services with enough space to use the combat
and manuever elements of all four services jointly and in
combination.
2. Coordinated and combined approach to battle doctrine for
all four services: In order to have a military force that
can be used in a joint and modular fashion tailored to any
given mission, all four services should have a core of
common doctrine and training that allow coordinated and
joint approaches to problems at the tactical and strategic
levels.
3. C4ISR: All Command, Control, Communications,Computers,
Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance systems must
be fully interoperable and fully integrated across all four
services. Anyone who's worked in a Joint Command where
these are used across all four services regularly (like
CinCPAC) there are big holes between theory and practice.
4. Coordination of Occupational Specialty schools and
courses: While this exist in several career fields, the job
of, (e.g., a medic. hospital corpsmen and the USAF
equivalents) should be standardized where duties and
functions are similar, thus allowing personnel in a given
career field to have common training and standards that
would allow them to provide their skills as part of a joint
and combined force.
5. Coordinated and Joint management of acquisitions: Right
now, the Navy would prefer to have sea based combat power,
the Air Force, tactical fighter/bombers, the Marine Corps
specialized light fast assault systems, the Army it's
warfighter systems along with variants on specialized light
fast combat systems. This results in constraints on all
four services and systems that are less then optimized for a
joint effort on the battlefield. A light fast assault
system may not be able to maintain a sustained effort in a
high threat environment while a "light" fast combat system
may not be useable in an amphibious assault operation.
Tactical fighter/bombers while sleek, fast and deadly may
not be as cost effective in certain situations as ground
based Artillery systems including missiles and rockets and
may restrict the procurement of transport aircraft needed to
sustain the other three services.
That's my list and it might be interested for people in all
services and military occupations to add their ideas and
pick apart these and other ideas with the idea of learning
more about what it is that the people who will be most
affected want "transformation" for the US military to look
like in the end.
Snark
Admin
"ssn...@bangserver.na" <ssn...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:5eG5c.24156$%06.1...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> There is a lot of talk about the "Transformation" of the
Is your bunch going to behave itself for a change? That would be a nice
change but I don't see if forthcoming. Suprise me.
edward ohare
>1. Coordinated Combined and Joint Training Centers: JRTC,
>JNTC are all well and good but, what we really need is a
>true Joint Training capability with the inclusion of Naval
>and Marine Corps personnel, tactics and strategies in the
>mix.
Could it be that the USMC might resist such a thing, viewing it as the
Army stepping on "their" mission?
>Tactical fighter/bombers while sleek, fast and deadly may
>not be as cost effective in certain situations as ground
>based Artillery systems including missiles and rockets and
>may restrict the procurement of transport aircraft needed to
>sustain the other three services.
You're sure taking on a big one here! <G>
Germany failed to conquer USSR largely due to inadequate transport.
Rumors abound that the Gulf War would have been impossible had it not
been for the good fortune of the area of action having an indigenous
fuel supply under friendly control. Japan fought an entire war with
inadquate transport capability. Napoleon's comment about an army
fighting on its stomach has not be taken to heart even now.
la n.
- nilita
Snark, I'm thinking of soldier morale ... :)
ssn...@earthlink.net
in message
news:8q9f5099n2vt5podq...@4ax.com
> On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 16:49:05 GMT, "ssn...@bangserver.na"
> <ssn...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>> 1. Coordinated Combined and Joint Training Centers:
JRTC,
>> JNTC are all well and good but, what we really need is a
>> true Joint Training capability with the inclusion of
Naval
>> and Marine Corps personnel, tactics and strategies in the
>> mix.
>
>
> Could it be that the USMC might resist such a thing,
viewing it as the
> Army stepping on "their" mission?
>
elements of the US Army to build commons skills and to
demonstrate and learn various techniques used by each
service. However, does it go far enough. When a force of
2.2 million is being asked to do the job that it once took
5.2 million to perform, there's not a lot of room for
artificially created "turf battles" when there's more than
enough turf to go around. Besides the Marines still haven't
taught the Army how to do the PR job that they do. :-)
>
>
>
>> Tactical fighter/bombers while sleek, fast and deadly may
>> not be as cost effective in certain situations as ground
>> based Artillery systems including missiles and rockets
and
>> may restrict the procurement of transport aircraft needed
to
>> sustain the other three services.
>
>
> You're sure taking on a big one here! <G>
>
> Germany failed to conquer USSR largely due to inadequate
transport.
> Rumors abound that the Gulf War would have been impossible
had it not
> been for the good fortune of the area of action having an
indigenous
> fuel supply under friendly control. Japan fought an
entire war with
> inadquate transport capability. Napoleon's comment about
an army
> fighting on its stomach has not be taken to heart even
now.
Precisely! Amateurs study tactics, but professionals study
logistics. The quote attributed to General Nathan Bedford
Forrest in the war of Yankee aggression says it all, "Git
there the Fustest with the Mostest." In order for us to
properly project power throughout the world 24/7/365 in all
weather and climates we need to stress logistical support
both Sea, Air and Land lift capabilities. Immediately after
9-11-2001 we could only respond in the manner we did because
we lacked the ability to project sufficient forces to take,
secure and hold an "airbridge" from the US to Afghanistan,
and the ability to re-supply a force large and strong enough
to oust the Taliban and hunt down Al Qaeda, fortune smiled
upon the efforts of the Special Operations and two Brigade
sized forces we did manage to insert and half support. But,
in the words of another tactical wizard, "Fortune is a
fickle ally. I make it a habit not to count on her."
Snark
Tank Fixer
on Tue, 16 Mar 2004 16:49:05 GMT,
ssn...@bangserver.na ssn...@earthlink.net attempted to say .....
> There is a lot of talk about the "Transformation" of the
> four services that make up the US military. Much of the
> rhetoric involves things such as substituting civilian
> contractors for military personnel in service and support
> roles, the introduction of "high tech" solutions and
> elimination of duplicative processes in the military to
> solve the problems of warfighting.
>
> The first problem here is whether or not a single point of
> view on how to fight wars may be less costly, but, will it
> ultimately be more effective.
>
> Frankly, here's my wish list for "transformation"
>
> 1. Coordinated Combined and Joint Training Centers: JRTC,
> JNTC are all well and good but, what we really need is a
> true Joint Training capability with the inclusion of Naval
> and Marine Corps personnel, tactics and strategies in the
> mix.
> The next problem is where can we have realistic trainging
> for all four services with enough space to use the combat
> and manuever elements of all four services jointly and in
> combination.
Finding that amount of area will be difficult. NTC is large and there is a
proposal to enlarge it but it suffers from being too far inland to really
involve the Navy other than Naval Air.
>
> 2. Coordinated and combined approach to battle doctrine for
> all four services: In order to have a military force that
> can be used in a joint and modular fashion tailored to any
> given mission, all four services should have a core of
> common doctrine and training that allow coordinated and
> joint approaches to problems at the tactical and strategic
> levels.
While progress has been made finishing the job will be difficultt.
See the distrust the USMC and Army have of relying on the USAF
to provide CAS.
> 3. C4ISR: All Command, Control, Communications,Computers,
> Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance systems must
> be fully interoperable and fully integrated across all four
> services. Anyone who's worked in a Joint Command where
> these are used across all four services regularly (like
> CinCPAC) there are big holes between theory and practice.
Commo commo commo.
I hope the monies saved by canceling the Comanche to buy radios and to
finish developing BFT.
> 4. Coordination of Occupational Specialty schools and
> courses: While this exist in several career fields, the job
> of, (e.g., a medic. hospital corpsmen and the USAF
> equivalents) should be standardized where duties and
> functions are similar, thus allowing personnel in a given
> career field to have common training and standards that
> would allow them to provide their skills as part of a joint
> and combined force.
This is one area where I think the services have done a good job. I'm not
sure there are many specialties left that could be "commonized".
> 5. Coordinated and Joint management of acquisitions: Right
> now, the Navy would prefer to have sea based combat power,
> the Air Force, tactical fighter/bombers, the Marine Corps
> specialized light fast assault systems, the Army it's
> warfighter systems along with variants on specialized light
> fast combat systems. This results in constraints on all
> four services and systems that are less then optimized for a
> joint effort on the battlefield. A light fast assault
> system may not be able to maintain a sustained effort in a
> high threat environment while a "light" fast combat system
> may not be useable in an amphibious assault operation.
> Tactical fighter/bombers while sleek, fast and deadly may
> not be as cost effective in certain situations as ground
> based Artillery systems including missiles and rockets and
> may restrict the procurement of transport aircraft needed to
> sustain the other three services.
One area where DOD should take the lead.
First step, tell the USAF they are not getting the new "Hawaiian Blue"
BDU's
> That's my list and it might be interested for people in all
> services and military occupations to add their ideas and
> pick apart these and other ideas with the idea of learning
> more about what it is that the people who will be most
> affected want "transformation" for the US military to look
> like in the end.
--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.
ssn...@earthlink.net
news:0OP5c.236610$Hy3.118097@edtnps89
> Base bars that permit lap dancing?
>
> - nilita
>
> Snark, I'm thinking of soldier morale ... :)
LOL!
I once commented during the Reagan years that if they quit
carrying girlie magazines in the PX half the lower enlisted
wouldn't have a sex life. :-)
Snark
ssn...@earthlink.net
message
news:MPG.1ac17da25...@news.west.earthlink.net
Clemente Island into the NTC web? It wouldn't be contiguous
but, or better yet tell California that in exchange for Ft.
Ord the military gets a corridor from NTC to Pendleton?
After all, there is such a thing as imminent domain and we
are at war.
>
>
>>
>> 2. Coordinated and combined approach to battle doctrine
for
>> all four services: In order to have a military force
that
>> can be used in a joint and modular fashion tailored to
any
>> given mission, all four services should have a core of
>> common doctrine and training that allow coordinated and
>> joint approaches to problems at the tactical and
strategic
>> levels.
>
> While progress has been made finishing the job will be
difficultt.
> See the distrust the USMC and Army have of relying on the
USAF
> to provide CAS.
>
Is USAF CAS the best answer? Or are there better or more
cost effective answers? For instance is it cheaper to fly
an LGBU to a target or to bring a 155mm howitzer and
ammunition to the AO and use "smart" or even "dumb" howitzer
rounds? Which one is more available at the lower cost?
Which has less likelihood of producing "corollary damage".
>
>
>> 3. C4ISR: All Command, Control,
Communications,Computers,
>> Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance systems
must
>> be fully interoperable and fully integrated across all
four
>> services. Anyone who's worked in a Joint Command where
>> these are used across all four services regularly (like
>> CinCPAC) there are big holes between theory and practice.
>
>
> Commo commo commo.
> I hope the monies saved by canceling the Comanche to buy
radios and to
> finish developing BFT.
>
Actually, I've heard that money will stay with Aviation, and
will be used to upgrade ARNG and USAR CH-47s with the wiring
for countermeasures and to upgrade other aircraft and
systems. Allegedly the supplemental appropriation passed by
Congress is supposed to fund the upgrade of USAR and ARNG
forces to at least SINCGARS.
>
>
>> 4. Coordination of Occupational Specialty schools and
>> courses: While this exist in several career fields, the
job
>> of, (e.g., a medic. hospital corpsmen and the USAF
>> equivalents) should be standardized where duties and
>> functions are similar, thus allowing personnel in a given
>> career field to have common training and standards that
>> would allow them to provide their skills as part of a
joint
>> and combined force.
>
> This is one area where I think the services have done a
good job. I'm
> not sure there are many specialties left that could be
"commonized".
>
What I'd like to see is that all common training be done at
a single training site (or two) to increase the efficiency
and decrease the manpower requirements for training while
building inter-service relationships. It would also free up
some areas and bases for additional training areas and
housing.
Yes, but where should the priorities be set? Tactical
fighters, robot tanks and Special Warfare or in other places
and things that allow true force projection?
>
> First step, tell the USAF they are not getting the new
"Hawaiian Blue"
> BDU's
>
LMAO!!! I've seen some at Randolph and Lackland. They
might work, kind of in an urban setting in the dark under
very specific lighting conditions (no sodium or halogen
lights). AFAIK, otherwise they are about as camouflaged as
my Aloha Shirt in North Star Mall, San Antonio in the middle
of January.
Snark
edward ohare
>enough turf to go around. Besides the Marines still haven't
>taught the Army how to do the PR job that they do. :-)
It was the ads that ran after the US went to an all volunteer
military. The "we do more by 6AM than most people do all day" didn't
appeal to people who like to sleep in. <G> Meanwhile, the USMC made
their dress sword famous in "the few, the proud" commercials.
>Precisely! Amateurs study tactics, but professionals study
>logistics. The quote attributed to General Nathan Bedford
>Forrest in the war of Yankee aggression says it all, "Git
>there the Fustest with the Mostest." In order for us to
>properly project power throughout the world 24/7/365 in all
>weather and climates we need to stress logistical support
>both Sea, Air and Land lift capabilities. Immediately after
>9-11-2001 we could only respond in the manner we did because
>we lacked the ability to project sufficient forces to take,
>secure and hold an "airbridge" from the US to Afghanistan,
Swartzkoff pushed for more transport after the Gulf War and didn't get
it. However, if you're talking about primary supply by air, I believe
that's impractical. Its appropriate to look at the choices industry
makes concerning transport. Small and high value per volume and
weight is what goes by air. Other things go by ship, truck, and/or
rail.
>in the words of another tactical wizard, "Fortune is a
>fickle ally. I make it a habit not to count on her."
The military's current sillyvillian bosses don't believe in that.
edward ohare
<paul.deek...@us.army.mil> wrote:
>While progress has been made finishing the job will be difficultt.
>See the distrust the USMC and Army have of relying on the USAF
>to provide CAS.
Why of course. The USAF still believes the theories of Billy
Mitchell, Curtis LeMay, and Bomber Harris. CAS is something it only
does reluctantly.
Since the USAF was formed based on there being a separate strategic
mission for it, it should only have gotten the aircraft needed for
that mission. The rest should have remained under Army control.
Actually, in my opinion, the theory of a separate strategic mission
should have been rejected.
ssn...@earthlink.net
in message
> On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 03:46:25 GMT, "ssn...@bangserver.na"
> <ssn...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>> enough turf to go around. Besides the Marines still
haven't
>> taught the Army how to do the PR job that they do. :-)
>
>
> It was the ads that ran after the US went to an all
volunteer
> military. The "we do more by 6AM than most people do all
day" didn't
> appeal to people who like to sleep in. <G> Meanwhile,
the USMC made
> their dress sword famous in "the few, the proud"
commercials.
>
work hard or just look good. :-)
In a landlocked country like Afghanistan where there are few
allies willing to aid in the efforts, the only choice is an
"airbridge" from the US. However both Air and Sea (which
are the only known methods of intercontinental travel at
this time) transport assets are sadly lacking. Schwartzkopf
was right to want more transport assets, too bad he didn't
convince the policymakers to look at that. It was,
transport superiority and the ability to mass men and
supplies against the Confederacy that enabled the Union to
defeat the Confederates.
>
>> in the words of another tactical wizard, "Fortune is a
>> fickle ally. I make it a habit not to count on her."
>
>
> The military's current sillyvillian bosses don't believe
in that.
One of the saddest things about having them.
Snark
ssn...@earthlink.net
in message
> On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 05:14:10 GMT, Tank Fixer
> <paul.deek...@us.army.mil> wrote:
>
>
>> While progress has been made finishing the job will be
difficultt.
>> See the distrust the USMC and Army have of relying on the
USAF
>> to provide CAS.
>
>
> Why of course. The USAF still believes the theories of
Billy
> Mitchell, Curtis LeMay, and Bomber Harris. CAS is
something it only
> does reluctantly.
>
by Mitchell and practiced by Harris and "improved upon" by
LeMay has limitations when dealing in Low Intensity Conflict
versus Total War and is utterly unusable against a
non-national enemy like Al Qaeda. Tactics must change to
suit a changing environment and keeping a B1 or B2 or even a
B52 circling overhead to drop single bombs on small targets
is an expensive proposition. What did it cost during the
operations at Tora Bora for example, for a B1 to orbit until
we spotted and designated a likely ingress/egress point from
the complex for them to bomb?
> Since the USAF was formed based on there being a separate
strategic
> mission for it, it should only have gotten the aircraft
needed for
> that mission. The rest should have remained under Army
control.
> Actually, in my opinion, the theory of a separate
strategic mission
> should have been rejected.
That's a good question. Maybe even a good thread starter.
Is the Air Force an obsolete concept?
Snark
David Casey
us.military.army,us.military,us.military.navy,alt.military:
> LOL!
> I once commented during the Reagan years that if they quit
> carrying girlie magazines in the PX half the lower enlisted
> wouldn't have a sex life. :-)
Wow, things in Germany sure have improved since then. ;-)
Dave
--
You can talk about us, but you can't talk without us!
US Army Signal Corps!!
http://www.geocities.com/davidcasey98
Remove "IH8SPAM" to reply!
David Casey
us.military.army,us.military,us.military.navy,alt.military:
> One area where DOD should take the lead.
>
> First step, tell the USAF they are not getting the new "Hawaiian Blue"
> BDU's
Next step, one BDU uniform for all branches like before. I don't see why
everyone has to have something different when we're all working
side-by-side.
edward ohare
The US military has been involved in sex before.
During WWII, the Army found itself, due to martial law, as the
authority over the ladies of the evening in Oahu. Previously, when
the Union took Nashville TN, it instituted licensing of entertainers
requiring medical checks every two weeks.
ssn...@earthlink.net
message
news:gix8v2ro...@sgtcaseycableone.net
> On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 13:48:39 GMT, ssn...@bangserver.na
wrote in
>
us.military.army,us.military,us.military.navy,alt.military:
>
>> LOL!
>> I once commented during the Reagan years that if they
quit
>> carrying girlie magazines in the PX half the lower
enlisted
>> wouldn't have a sex life. :-)
>
> Wow, things in Germany sure have improved since then. ;-)
>
dollar I wonder if they've gone back into decline?
Snark
Douglas Berry
called by some "ssn...@bangserver.na" <ssn...@earthlink.net> came
forth and told this tale in us.military.army
Feh. During the Reagan years I dated strippers, I'll have you know!
Doug.. still walking funny after all these years.. :P
--
Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
WE *ARE* UMA
Lemmings 404 Local
ssn...@earthlink.net
message
> On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 05:14:10 GMT, Tank Fixer wrote in
>
us.military.army,us.military,us.military.navy,alt.military:
>
>> One area where DOD should take the lead.
>>
>> First step, tell the USAF they are not getting the new
"Hawaiian
>> Blue" BDU's
>
> Next step, one BDU uniform for all branches like before.
I don't see
> why everyone has to have something different when we're
all working
> side-by-side.
>
That would make sense from a procurement standpoint. I
wonder why the Army didn't go with the "digitized pattern"?
Snark
ssn...@earthlink.net
in message
There are more recent examples than that. Although, I
remember the licensed brothels on Hotels Street from the
many stories that sailors and officers coming to see my
grandfather had.
Snark
ssn...@earthlink.net
message
news:aj3h50p4kvh4hi0c2...@4ax.com
> Lo, many moons past, on Wed, 17 Mar 2004 13:48:39 GMT, a
stranger
> called by some "ssn...@bangserver.na"
<ssn...@earthlink.net> came
> forth and told this tale in us.military.army
>
>> "la n." <nilit...@yahoo.comNOSPAM> wrote in message
>> news:0OP5c.236610$Hy3.118097@edtnps89
>>> Base bars that permit lap dancing?
>>>
>>> - nilita
>>>
>>> Snark, I'm thinking of soldier morale ... :)
>>
>> LOL!
>> I once commented during the Reagan years that if they
quit
>> carrying girlie magazines in the PX half the lower
enlisted
>> wouldn't have a sex life. :-)
>
> Feh. During the Reagan years I dated strippers, I'll have
you know!
>
the same Chemistry and Biology courses. Does that count?
> Doug.. still walking funny after all these years.. :P
I thought you only started walking funny after you got out.
:-p
Snark
David Casey
us.military.army,us.military,us.military.navy:
>> Next step, one BDU uniform for all branches like before. I don't see why
>> everyone has to have something different when we're all working
>> side-by-side.
>
> That would make sense from a procurement standpoint. I
> wonder why the Army didn't go with the "digitized pattern"?
I thought the Army was working on their own new version? Perhaps whoever
came up with that idea should take a look and decide that maybe spending
that few millions of dollars it took to design a new and "improved" uniform
could have been better used elsewhere.
ssn...@earthlink.net
message
> On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 17:45:38 GMT, ssn...@bangserver.na
wrote in
> us.military.army,us.military,us.military.navy:
>
>>> Next step, one BDU uniform for all branches like before.
I don't
>>> see why everyone has to have something different when
we're all
>>> working side-by-side.
>>
>> That would make sense from a procurement standpoint. I
>> wonder why the Army didn't go with the "digitized
pattern"?
>
> I thought the Army was working on their own new version?
Perhaps
> whoever came up with that idea should take a look and
decide that
> maybe spending that few millions of dollars it took to
design a new
> and "improved" uniform could have been better used
elsewhere.
>
coordinated and made a common task across all four services.
Any system including uniforms that could be used commonly by
all four services should be standardized and procured
through a single point in order to assure uniformity,
quality and best pricing.
Snark
edward ohare
>True. But, in a time when "Strategic Bombing" as espoused
>by Mitchell and practiced by Harris and "improved upon" by
>LeMay has limitations when dealing in Low Intensity Conflict
>versus Total War
I think it had its limitations in Total War. I think it only mattered
in TOTAL WAR, that is, a nuclear exchange between the US and USSR.
> and is utterly unusable against a
>non-national enemy like Al Qaeda. Tactics must change to
>suit a changing environment and keeping a B1 or B2 or even a
>B52 circling overhead to drop single bombs on small targets
>is an expensive proposition. What did it cost during the
>operations at Tora Bora for example, for a B1 to orbit until
>we spotted and designated a likely ingress/egress point from
>the complex for them to bomb?
Don't know.
However, it seems many of the arguments of the 20's anti BB crowd
apply.
>That's a good question. Maybe even a good thread starter.
>Is the Air Force an obsolete concept?
So.... I'm supposed to start a thread on this? If so, I'd best
apologize to Yeff in advance, eh?
ssn...@earthlink.net
in message
> On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 16:57:26 GMT, "ssn...@bangserver.na"
> <ssn...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> True. But, in a time when "Strategic Bombing" as
espoused
>> by Mitchell and practiced by Harris and "improved upon"
by
>> LeMay has limitations when dealing in Low Intensity
Conflict
>> versus Total War
>
>
> I think it had its limitations in Total War. I think it
only mattered
> in TOTAL WAR, that is, a nuclear exchange between the US
and USSR.
>
effectiveness of Strategic bombing since the concept was
introduced.
>
>> and is utterly unusable against a
>> non-national enemy like Al Qaeda. Tactics must change
to
>> suit a changing environment and keeping a B1 or B2 or
even a
>> B52 circling overhead to drop single bombs on small
targets
>> is an expensive proposition. What did it cost during the
>> operations at Tora Bora for example, for a B1 to orbit
until
>> we spotted and designated a likely ingress/egress point
from
>> the complex for them to bomb?
>
>
> Don't know.
>
I need to find out somehow.
> However, it seems many of the arguments of the 20's anti
BB crowd
> apply.
>
Yes, and no. There are some arguments that are similar but,
the presence of Soldiers on the ground is the part that is
most like a BB's presence offshore. So, the arguments line
up a bit differently.
>
>
>> That's a good question. Maybe even a good thread
starter.
>> Is the Air Force an obsolete concept?
>
>
> So.... I'm supposed to start a thread on this? If so, I'd
best
> apologize to Yeff in advance, eh?
LOL! You can. It really is a good debate. I believe there
was a similar debate in uma regarding the Army.
Snark
Tank Fixer
on Wed, 17 Mar 2004 14:04:03 GMT,
I've seen some of the same things.
Engines are something else getting upgraded on the CH47's.
If they use it to upgrade teh capabilities of Army aviation in the AR and
NG then it's money well spent.
> >> 4. Coordination of Occupational Specialty schools and
> >> courses: While this exist in several career fields, the
> job
> >> of, (e.g., a medic. hospital corpsmen and the USAF
> >> equivalents) should be standardized where duties and
> >> functions are similar, thus allowing personnel in a given
> >> career field to have common training and standards that
> >> would allow them to provide their skills as part of a
> joint
> >> and combined force.
> >
> > This is one area where I think the services have done a
> good job. I'm
> > not sure there are many specialties left that could be
> "commonized".
> >
> What I'd like to see is that all common training be done at
> a single training site (or two) to increase the efficiency
> and decrease the manpower requirements for training while
> building inter-service relationships. It would also free up
> some areas and bases for additional training areas and
> housing.
The other thing is to distribute some training. There is no reason an
active troop needs to go TDY for 8 or 10 weeks to Ft Lee or APG when there
are TATs approved BNCOC and ANCOC near where they may be stationed. And
the TATS courses are shorter. From what I've heard many of the current
BNCOC and ANCOC's spend lots of time on details. I know how to wax floors
already, thank you very much. Teach me the finer points of Maintenance
Management or whatever and get me back to my unit to put it in pratice.
I see NO reason BNCOC or ANCOC need to be more than 4 weeks, total.
My choices ? Were I SecDef.
1) Airlift.
Nuf said.
2) Commo, like I said.
Our higher HQ for AT this year still is using -12 series radios. Not an
issue since we will co-locate now due to other constraints but still...
And more long range Commo. SINCGARS is good, until you string a division
300km across the landscape. Then you need reliable HF radios.
3) Blue Force Tracker.
4) Ground transport,
i.e. trucks. Guard units are still using M35's.
And I've seen a point in an AAR about Guard units showing up with MOGAS
powered equipment !
If they can't get enough LMTV/FMTV for the NG and AR then get to work
rebuilding and issuing M925's. At least then the trucks won't be damn near
as old as I am.
5) Take a good HARD look at MTOE's.
Actually solicit input from the field instead of the "oh, here is the TY0X
draft. I need it back in 4 days"
CS and CSS units need to be plused up with vehicle, radio's and crew
served weapons.
Things to kill,
1) XM-8 rifle.
We are going to spend how much to replace small arms ? To what gain ?
2) Goofy air tanker leasing idea. Just buy the damn aircraft.
3) Take a long hard look at the F22.
> >
> > First step, tell the USAF they are not getting the new
> "Hawaiian Blue"
> > BDU's
> >
> LMAO!!! I've seen some at Randolph and Lackland. They
> might work, kind of in an urban setting in the dark under
> very specific lighting conditions (no sodium or halogen
> lights). AFAIK, otherwise they are about as camouflaged as
> my Aloha Shirt in North Star Mall, San Antonio in the middle
> of January.
That's why I called it that. I saw one news photo and they looked just
like a cheep Hawaiian shirt.
Very Tacky for a "military" uniform.
Tank Fixer
on Wed, 17 Mar 2004 11:17:44 -0500,
edward ohare edward...@nospam.yahoo.com.invalid attempted to say .....
I like that idea, it leaves them with .....
ICBM's...
Tank Fixer
on Wed, 17 Mar 2004 17:45:38 GMT,
> "David Casey" <sgtc...@cableoneIH8SPAM.net> wrote in
The NIH syndrome...
ssn...@earthlink.net
> In article
<nVY5c.25744$%06.1...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> on Wed, 17 Mar 2004 14:04:03 GMT,
> ssn...@bangserver.na ssn...@earthlink.net attempted to
say .....
<snip>
>> Actually, I've heard that money will stay with Aviation,
and
>> will be used to upgrade ARNG and USAR CH-47s with the
wiring
>> for countermeasures and to upgrade other aircraft and
>> systems. Allegedly the supplemental appropriation passed
by
>> Congress is supposed to fund the upgrade of USAR and ARNG
>> forces to at least SINCGARS.
>
> I've seen some of the same things.
> Engines are something else getting upgraded on the CH47's.
> If they use it to upgrade teh capabilities of Army
aviation in the AR
> and NG then it's money well spent.
>
Agreed. All Army Aviation should be interoperable and using
the same basic equipment. It's more expensive but, if
Reserve and NG units are to be used regularly as part of
Army deployments then it must be done.
Up that a little bit and aside from leadership development
it should include basic service related skills and then the
CMF specific skills that would make it work. Perhaps CMF
schools for NCO and advanced NCO training?
I'm partial to having the AF design and build a replacement
for C-141 and C-5 airframes which we need for long range
strategic lift capability. Design them to work off of steel
mat runways and we can probably handle another Afghanistan
type deployment a _lot_ more effectively.
Add medium speed and high speed Sealift too! We're woefully
of adequate Sealift capability still especially high and
medium speed vessels. A lot more Sealift that doesn't
require a port facility would be good too.
> 2) Commo, like I said.
> Our higher HQ for AT this year still is using -12 series
radios. Not
> an issue since we will co-locate now due to other
constraints but
> still... And more long range Commo. SINCGARS is good,
until you
> string a division 300km across the landscape. Then you
need reliable
> HF radios.
>
The supplemental defense appropriation and the current
budget are supposed to have funds set aside to get SINCGARS
fielded to all components. Thereafter, I don't know if they
will be working on fielding more SATCOM systems for use at
theater level or other alternatives.
> 3) Blue Force Tracker.
That's a good idea. I wonder if it can be expedited?
>
> 4) Ground transport,
> i.e. trucks. Guard units are still using M35's.
> And I've seen a point in an AAR about Guard units showing
up with
> MOGAS powered equipment !
> If they can't get enough LMTV/FMTV for the NG and AR then
get to work
> rebuilding and issuing M925's. At least then the trucks
won't be damn
> near as old as I am.
>
I've seen that the supplemental defense appropriations bill
that was passed recently is supposed to equip AR and NG
units with at least the 9xx series of trucks among other
things.
> 5) Take a good HARD look at MTOE's.
> Actually solicit input from the field instead of the "oh,
here is the
> TY0X draft. I need it back in 4 days"
> CS and CSS units need to be plused up with vehicle,
radio's and crew
> served weapons.
>
Yep, although we need to look at it from a joint service POV
and make sure that all units have the ability to move and
survive in the field.
> Things to kill,
>
> 1) XM-8 rifle.
> We are going to spend how much to replace small arms ? To
what gain ?
>
We do need a newer rifle. But I'd rather a US made product
(it is for defense after all and you never know who
tomorrows foe might be). But, it needs a ground up look.
Technologies have changed a lot since the AR-15 design. We
need a lightweight assault rifle with interchangeable
capabilities and a cartridge with a bit more reach while
still being able to defeat most body armor.
> 2) Goofy air tanker leasing idea. Just buy the damn
aircraft.
>
Absolutely!
> 3) Take a long hard look at the F22.
>
Agreed!
>>>
>>> First step, tell the USAF they are not getting the new
>> "Hawaiian Blue"
>>> BDU's
>>>
>> LMAO!!! I've seen some at Randolph and Lackland. They
>> might work, kind of in an urban setting in the dark under
>> very specific lighting conditions (no sodium or halogen
>> lights). AFAIK, otherwise they are about as camouflaged
as
>> my Aloha Shirt in North Star Mall, San Antonio in the
middle
>> of January.
>
> That's why I called it that. I saw one news photo and they
looked just
> like a cheep Hawaiian shirt.
> Very Tacky for a "military" uniform.
Yep! But the USAF has been jokingly referred to by the
other three services as the "Country Club that occasionally
wears a uniform".
Snark
edward ohare
<paul.deek...@us.army.mil> wrote:
>I like that idea, it leaves them with .....
>ICBM's...
Right.
Being formed on an allegation of a separate strategic mission, the
USAF at that time should have gotten only large bombers and the
fighters necessary to protect its bomber bases and the US. When ICBMs
came along, the large bombers should have been scrapped.
But they got to keep the bombers due to successfully promoting the
Holy Trinity... er... well, "nuclear triad", which amounts to the same
thing.
Zippy the Pinhead
>AFAIK, otherwise they are about as camouflaged as
>my Aloha Shirt in North Star Mall, San Antonio in the middle
>of January.
Ah, geez. That was YOU?
I shoulda come up and said hey.
ssn...@earthlink.net
in message
news:pjlj505eblh7ca7ss...@4ax.com
> On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 14:04:03 GMT, "ssn...@bangserver.na"
> <ssn...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> AFAIK, otherwise they are about as camouflaged as
>> my Aloha Shirt in North Star Mall, San Antonio in the
middle
>> of January.
>
> Ah, geez. That was YOU?
If it was a big ugly Mongolian fellow who looked like he'd
woke up on the wrong side of the bed permanently and walked
like he was "on a mission" that was me. :-)
Snark
<Still in San Antonio>
Tank Fixer
on Thu, 18 Mar 2004 09:13:59 GMT,
> "Tank Fixer" <paul.deek...@us.army.mil> wrote in
> message
> >
And keep the course length to two or three weeks tops ?
> > My choices ? Were I SecDef.
> > 1) Airlift.
> > Nuf said.
> >
> I'm partial to having the AF design and build a replacement
> for C-141 and C-5 airframes which we need for long range
> strategic lift capability. Design them to work off of steel
> mat runways and we can probably handle another Afghanistan
> type deployment a _lot_ more effectively.
> Add medium speed and high speed Sealift too! We're woefully
> of adequate Sealift capability still especially high and
> medium speed vessels. A lot more Sealift that doesn't
> require a port facility would be good too.
Hmm, did you just describe the C-17 ? ;')
And for sealift I have heard the Army was pleased with the tests of that
Austrailian boat.
Is there a place for rigid airships as stratic airlift assets ?
> > 2) Commo, like I said.
> > Our higher HQ for AT this year still is using -12 series
> radios. Not
> > an issue since we will co-locate now due to other
> constraints but
> > still... And more long range Commo. SINCGARS is good,
> until you
> > string a division 300km across the landscape. Then you
> need reliable
> > HF radios.
> >
> The supplemental defense appropriation and the current
> budget are supposed to have funds set aside to get SINCGARS
> fielded to all components. Thereafter, I don't know if they
> will be working on fielding more SATCOM systems for use at
> theater level or other alternatives.
>
> > 3) Blue Force Tracker.
>
> That's a good idea. I wonder if it can be expedited?
From what I hear they are outfitting units now preparing to deploy so
perhaps the Rapid Fielding Inititive is working.
> >
> > 4) Ground transport,
> > i.e. trucks. Guard units are still using M35's.
> > And I've seen a point in an AAR about Guard units showing
> up with
> > MOGAS powered equipment !
> > If they can't get enough LMTV/FMTV for the NG and AR then
> get to work
> > rebuilding and issuing M925's. At least then the trucks
> won't be damn
> > near as old as I am.
> >
> I've seen that the supplemental defense appropriations bill
> that was passed recently is supposed to equip AR and NG
> units with at least the 9xx series of trucks among other
> things.
Good, I hadn't looked at the details of the pending bills but that is a
step in the right direction.
> > 5) Take a good HARD look at MTOE's.
> > Actually solicit input from the field instead of the "oh,
> here is the
> > TY0X draft. I need it back in 4 days"
> > CS and CSS units need to be plused up with vehicle,
> radio's and crew
> > served weapons.
> >
> Yep, although we need to look at it from a joint service POV
> and make sure that all units have the ability to move and
> survive in the field.
That's the point. Right now the CS/CSS units can't move with the manuver
forces.
The MST I used to run didn't even have the mobility to keep up with the
CAV unit we suppoerted and didn't have the commo to operate more than one
crew seperate from the MST proper.
And that was in an "Enchanted" brigade.
> > Things to kill,
> >
> > 1) XM-8 rifle.
> > We are going to spend how much to replace small arms ? To
> what gain ?
> >
>
> We do need a newer rifle. But I'd rather a US made product
> (it is for defense after all and you never know who
> tomorrows foe might be). But, it needs a ground up look.
> Technologies have changed a lot since the AR-15 design. We
> need a lightweight assault rifle with interchangeable
> capabilities and a cartridge with a bit more reach while
> still being able to defeat most body armor.
You mean the Stoner ?
In 6mm perhaps instead of 5.56mm.
la n.
"ssn...@bangserver.na" <ssn...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:rIk6c.27650$%06....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> "Zippy the Pinhead" <the_corpo...@hotmail.com> wrote
> in message
> news:pjlj505eblh7ca7ss...@4ax.com
> > On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 14:04:03 GMT, "ssn...@bangserver.na"
> > <ssn...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> >> AFAIK, otherwise they are about as camouflaged as
> >> my Aloha Shirt in North Star Mall, San Antonio in the
> middle
> >> of January.
> >
> > Ah, geez. That was YOU?
>
> If it was a big ugly Mongolian fellow who looked like he'd
> woke up on the wrong side of the bed permanently and walked
> like he was "on a mission" that was me. :-)
Sooo.... what does "big ugly and mongolian" look like? ... :)
I don't think I've even ever seen a mongolian ... :)
>
> Snark
> <Still in San Antonio>
Hey. Seems to me I know somebody who works at
some University in San Antonio.
> >
> > I shoulda come up and said hey.
>
- nilita
mebbe i'll come up and say hey when i ever get
a day off work ... :)
ssn...@earthlink.net
> "ssn...@bangserver.na" <ssn...@earthlink.net> wrote in
message
>
news:rIk6c.27650$%06....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net..
.
>> "Zippy the Pinhead" <the_corpo...@hotmail.com>
wrote
>> in message
>> news:pjlj505eblh7ca7ss...@4ax.com
>>> On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 14:04:03 GMT, "ssn...@bangserver.na"
>>> <ssn...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> AFAIK, otherwise they are about as camouflaged as
>>>> my Aloha Shirt in North Star Mall, San Antonio in the
middle
>>>> of January.
>>>
>>> Ah, geez. That was YOU?
>>
>> If it was a big ugly Mongolian fellow who looked like
he'd
>> woke up on the wrong side of the bed permanently and
walked
>> like he was "on a mission" that was me. :-)
>
> Sooo.... what does "big ugly and mongolian" look like? ...
:)
> I don't think I've even ever seen a mongolian ... :)
>
hair. I sort of look like his pictures only uglier. Then
put him in an Aloha (Hawaiian) shirt and dockers.
>> <Still in San Antonio>
>
> Hey. Seems to me I know somebody who works at
> some University in San Antonio.
>
There are only three or four of those here. :-)
>>>
>>> I shoulda come up and said hey.
>>
>
> - nilita
> mebbe i'll come up and say hey when i ever get
> a day off work ... :)
I may be gone by then. I'm just waiting now, for my medical
board to convene and decide whether they want to waive all
the physical defects.
Snark
<no profile except for lack of stereoscopic vision and
nearsightedness, 100% APFT 17-21, Expert Qual M-4 why
wouldn't they waive me>
la n.
Dockers are way cool pants. And I bet you're not ugly ... :)
>
> >> <Still in San Antonio>
>
> >>>
> >>> I shoulda come up and said hey.
> >>
> >
> > - nilita
> > mebbe i'll come up and say hey when i ever get
> > a day off work ... :)
>
> I may be gone by then. I'm just waiting now, for my medical
> board to convene and decide whether they want to waive all
> the physical defects.
Well, at the very least you can send me a postcard from
wherever you're going m'kay?
I'm wondering how many of you regulars have actually
met in RL.
>
> Snark
> <no profile except for lack of stereoscopic vision and
> nearsightedness, 100% APFT 17-21, Expert Qual M-4 why
> wouldn't they waive me>
>
>
... that's what *I* say ... I think.
- n'a
~Nins~
|| Dockers are way cool pants. And I bet you're not ugly ... :)
He isn't ugly. He's a cutie, the cuddly kind, actually. Call him
"Cuddles".
la n.
"~Nins~" <nin...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:QyF6c.41198$_w.607792@attbi_s53...
I bet he's cute. He writes like he's cute.
One of my favourite doctors is Asian, and
he tends towards wearing Dockers pants,
and I like to tease him how they accent his
nice tush ... heh ....
So, Cuddles, ... erm ... Snark, make sure
you send a postcard wherever you go, eh?
- nilita
ssn...@earthlink.net
I don't know about not being ugly, I've heard tell that
where some folks got hit with an "ugly stick" I must have
dropped through the whole tree. :-)
As to the other comments, I've been called worse, I guess.
Snark
ssn...@earthlink.net
be one of those, "they also serve... behind a desk". So,
I'll have e-mail access most of the time.
Snark
~Nins~
Not to worry, it was not I calling you anything. I merely suggested to 1an
that she call you that....heh-heh. >;-D Actually, a 'thank you' would have
been in order, but hey....
ssn...@earthlink.net
True, thank you. Albeit, your assessment is a bit shall we
say, "wrong". "Uglier than sin" is usually the description
used by people describing me. Except for those who think I
look "mean". :-)
Snark
la n.
Well, personally I prefer the "mean ugly" look to so-called
"pretty boys" ... :) But I'm guessin' there aren't too many
pretty boys in the military? (apart from little *r* red, I
mean?)
- nilita "la gitana fea"
~Nins~
|| True, thank you. Albeit, your assessment is a bit shall we
|| say, "wrong". "Uglier than sin" is usually the description
|| used by people describing me. Except for those who think I
|| look "mean". :-)
I've seen a photo of you, so it's my call, okay? You have a cuddly cute
about you. Take it and go with the flow of it, savor it, enjoy. lol....it
seems everyone is home today.
ssn...@earthlink.net
deep pockets.
Snark
Le Bete
la n.
Yes, Yeff is *very* pretty .... you get no argument from
me there ... :)
>
> Snark
> Le Bete
Speaking of Le Bete, do you remember the teevee show
of many years ago, "Beauty and the Beast", featuring
Catherine a New York attoryney who fell in love with
"The Beast", Vincent who lived in the tunnels below
the City? I still continue to think that Vincent is the
most romantic male character of all times.
- n'a ("la fea")
Yeff
> Well, Yeff's a real "lady-killer". :-)
That was never proven! No body, no crime. I'm sure Tommel has some neat
Latin phrase that describes this.
> Looks and those USAF deep pockets.
The unofficial motto of my last unit was "Carpe Per Diem". I guess you had
to be there.
> Snark
> Le Bete
Have you been listening to Stevie Nicks lately?
-Jeff B. (her "Beauty and the Beast" being one of my favorites)
yeff at erols dot com
Yeff
> Speaking of Le Bete, do you remember the teevee show
> of many years ago, "Beauty and the Beast", featuring
> Catherine a New York attoryney
Linda Hamilton, cashing in on her "Terminator" success, but before she
bulked up for "Terminator 2".
> "The Beast", Vincent who lived in the tunnels below
> the City?
Ron Pearlman, coming soon to a theater near you as "Hellboy".
-Jeff B. (prettyboy movie critic)
ssn...@earthlink.net
>> Le Bete
>
> Speaking of Le Bete, do you remember the teevee show
> of many years ago, "Beauty and the Beast", featuring
> Catherine a New York attoryney who fell in love with
> "The Beast", Vincent who lived in the tunnels below
> the City? I still continue to think that Vincent is the
> most romantic male character of all times.
>
I kind of liked Linda Hamilton myself. :-) Yes, I watch
"chick flicks" in preference to "action adventure".
Snark
<who knows better>
ssn...@earthlink.net
news:6592uetr...@lemming.militia.com
> On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 22:40:31 GMT, ssn...@bangserver.na
wrote:
>
>> Well, Yeff's a real "lady-killer". :-)
>
> That was never proven! No body, no crime. I'm sure
Tommel has some
> neat Latin phrase that describes this.
>
>> Looks and those USAF deep pockets.
>
> The unofficial motto of my last unit was "Carpe Per Diem".
I guess
> you had to be there.
>
>> Snark
>> Le Bete
>
> Have you been listening to Stevie Nicks lately?
>
Blackhearts and Heart with a little Joan Baez and Joni
Mitchell to soften it a bit.
> -Jeff B. (her "Beauty and the Beast" being one of my
favorites)
> yeff at erols dot com
Ah, then you and my ex-brother-in-law have something in
common although his tongue still lolls when he sees Stevie
Nicks much to the chagrin of his Filipina wife.
Snark
Yeff
> Ah, then you and my ex-brother-in-law have something in
> common although his tongue still lolls when he sees Stevie
> Nicks much to the chagrin of his Filipina wife.
A Filipina wife *and* he's smitten with Stevie? Wow, we do have a lot in
common. <g>
One of my "I must be growing up" moments came when I saw her on the Chris
Isaak show on Showtime. She was overweight, over 50, and I *still* wanted
to invite her out to dinner and a movie.
I was but a young man stationed in Japan when I first heard her do "I Sing
for the Things". There's a slight catch in her voice as she sings,
I'll take off my cape for you
I'll take down my hair for you
Anything you want me to do...my love
Well, I'll sit home and wait for you
Oh, darling there's nothing that I'd rather do
Anything you want me to do...my love
To this day I'm sure she wrote those lyrics just for me. And no, I've
never been convicted of stalking.
-Jeff B. (who walks like a cat in the dark)
~Nins~
|| On Sat, 20 Mar 2004 00:17:39 GMT, ssn...@bangserver.na wrote:
||
||| Ah, then you and my ex-brother-in-law have something in
||| common although his tongue still lolls when he sees Stevie
||| Nicks much to the chagrin of his Filipina wife.
||
|| A Filipina wife *and* he's smitten with Stevie? Wow, we do have a
|| lot in common. <g>
She's old and wrinkled now. Do you two have a geriatric fetish or wrinkle
fetish or something? <just being mischievous>
|| One of my "I must be growing up" moments came when I saw her on the
|| Chris Isaak show on Showtime. She was overweight, over 50, and I
|| *still* wanted to invite her out to dinner and a movie.
Ever see that movie about the guy who was hypnotized and saw an outward
beauty, or at least he thought, but actually he saw the inner beauty?
|| -Jeff B. (who walks like a cat in the dark)
Stealth mode?
Yeff
>| A Filipina wife *and* he's smitten with Stevie? Wow, we do have a
>|| lot in common. <g>
>
> She's old and wrinkled now. Do you two have a geriatric fetish or wrinkle
> fetish or something? <just being mischievous>
If love made sense my life would be *so* much different... (you'll note
that I didn't say better)
>|| One of my "I must be growing up" moments came when I saw her on the
>|| Chris Isaak show on Showtime. She was overweight, over 50, and I
>|| *still* wanted to invite her out to dinner and a movie.
>
> Ever see that movie about the guy who was hypnotized and saw an outward
> beauty, or at least he thought, but actually he saw the inner beauty?
"Shallow Hal" with Jack Black. Just recently watched him in "School of
Rock" and I thought it was pretty good.
>|| -Jeff B. (who walks like a cat in the dark)
>
> Stealth mode?
Nope, like Rhiannon.
-Jeff B.
ssn...@earthlink.net
> On Sat, 20 Mar 2004 00:17:39 GMT, ssn...@bangserver.na
wrote:
>
>> Ah, then you and my ex-brother-in-law have something in
>> common although his tongue still lolls when he sees
Stevie
>> Nicks much to the chagrin of his Filipina wife.
>
> A Filipina wife *and* he's smitten with Stevie? Wow, we
do have a
> lot in common. <g>
>
like Filipinos or Filipinas but this gal basically stalked
him whenever he was in Dago (San Diego) until he made Line
grade and pretty much *had* to re-marry.
> One of my "I must be growing up" moments came when I saw
her on the
> Chris Isaak show on Showtime. She was overweight, over
50, and I
> *still* wanted to invite her out to dinner and a movie.
>
I can see that. :-)
> I was but a young man stationed in Japan when I first
heard her do "I
> Sing for the Things". There's a slight catch in her voice
as she
> sings,
>
> I'll take off my cape for you
> I'll take down my hair for you
> Anything you want me to do...my love
>
> Well, I'll sit home and wait for you
> Oh, darling there's nothing that I'd rather do
> Anything you want me to do...my love
>
> To this day I'm sure she wrote those lyrics just for me.
And no, I've
> never been convicted of stalking.
>
You haven't huh? But you've also got your three years of
unpunished criminality award (Good Conduct) medal too I'll
wager. :-p
> -Jeff B. (who walks like a cat in the dark)
> yeff at erols dot com
But would you love to love her?
Snark
ssn...@earthlink.net
> Yeff wrote:
>>> On Sat, 20 Mar 2004 00:17:39 GMT, ssn...@bangserver.na
wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ah, then you and my ex-brother-in-law have something in
>>>> common although his tongue still lolls when he sees
Stevie
>>>> Nicks much to the chagrin of his Filipina wife.
>>>
>>> A Filipina wife *and* he's smitten with Stevie? Wow, we
do have a
>>> lot in common. <g>
>
> She's old and wrinkled now. Do you two have a geriatric
fetish or
> wrinkle fetish or something? <just being mischievous>
>
ssn...@earthlink.net
> In article
<rLd6c.27263$%06....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> on Thu, 18 Mar 2004 09:13:59 GMT,
> ssn...@bangserver.na ssn...@earthlink.net attempted to
say .....
>
>> Up that a little bit and aside from leadership
development
>> it should include basic service related skills and then
the
>> CMF specific skills that would make it work. Perhaps CMF
>> schools for NCO and advanced NCO training?
>
> And keep the course length to two or three weeks tops ?
>
>
>>> My choices ? Were I SecDef.
>>> 1) Airlift.
>>> Nuf said.
>>>
>> I'm partial to having the AF design and build a
replacement
>> for C-141 and C-5 airframes which we need for long range
>> strategic lift capability. Design them to work off of
steel
>> mat runways and we can probably handle another
Afghanistan
>> type deployment a _lot_ more effectively.
>> Add medium speed and high speed Sealift too! We're
woefully
>> of adequate Sealift capability still especially high and
>> medium speed vessels. A lot more Sealift that doesn't
>> require a port facility would be good too.
>
> Hmm, did you just describe the C-17 ? ;')
No, the C17 was supposed to be for Intra-theater transport
and as a potential replacement for some C-130 and C-141
missions but we really need something that will lift a C-5's
load for long distances and a wide bodied version of the
C-141 that lifts more than a C-17 but less than a C-5.
> And for sealift I have heard the Army was pleased with the
tests of
> that Austrailian boat.
Which one? The HSS designs seem to be doing well and some of
the medium speed ro-ro systems seem to do ok. But we don't
have enough of them (note how during OIF we were constrained
because of the port facilities available in Kuwait. Perhaps
we also need LCACs like the USMC to bring our gear ashore?
> Is there a place for rigid airships as stratic airlift
assets ?
>
I don't think airships are a good answer, low speed being
one problem (max true airspeed <100 knots, IIRC)
>
>
>>> 2) Commo, like I said.
>>> Our higher HQ for AT this year still is using -12 series
>> radios. Not
>>> an issue since we will co-locate now due to other
>> constraints but
>>> still... And more long range Commo. SINCGARS is good,
>> until you
>>> string a division 300km across the landscape. Then you
>> need reliable
>>> HF radios.
>>>
>> The supplemental defense appropriation and the current
>> budget are supposed to have funds set aside to get
SINCGARS
>> fielded to all components. Thereafter, I don't know if
they
>> will be working on fielding more SATCOM systems for use
at
>> theater level or other alternatives.
>>
>>> 3) Blue Force Tracker.
>>
>> That's a good idea. I wonder if it can be expedited?
>
> From what I hear they are outfitting units now preparing
to deploy so
> perhaps the Rapid Fielding Inititive is working.
>
Good! Hope it works as advertised.
>
>
>>>
>>> 4) Ground transport,
>>> i.e. trucks. Guard units are still using M35's.
>>> And I've seen a point in an AAR about Guard units
showing
>> up with
>>> MOGAS powered equipment !
>>> If they can't get enough LMTV/FMTV for the NG and AR
then
>> get to work
>>> rebuilding and issuing M925's. At least then the trucks
>> won't be damn
>>> near as old as I am.
>>>
>> I've seen that the supplemental defense appropriations
bill
>> that was passed recently is supposed to equip AR and NG
>> units with at least the 9xx series of trucks among other
>> things.
>
> Good, I hadn't looked at the details of the pending bills
but that is
> a step in the right direction.
>
It is. But a few more such steps are needed if the AR and
NG are going to be permanently integrated into any military
deployments and this has to be DoD wide policy.
>
>>> 5) Take a good HARD look at MTOE's.
>>> Actually solicit input from the field instead of the
"oh,
>> here is the
>>> TY0X draft. I need it back in 4 days"
>>> CS and CSS units need to be plused up with vehicle,
>> radio's and crew
>>> served weapons.
>>>
>> Yep, although we need to look at it from a joint service
POV
>> and make sure that all units have the ability to move and
>> survive in the field.
>
> That's the point. Right now the CS/CSS units can't move
with the
> manuver forces.
The AARs from OIF prove that point.
> The MST I used to run didn't even have the mobility to
keep up with
> the CAV unit we suppoerted and didn't have the commo to
operate more
> than one crew seperate from the MST proper.
>
> And that was in an "Enchanted" brigade.
>
I've heard that even though ERBs are supposed to be equipped
with nearly current systems and high degree of readiness
there are a *lot* of holes between the concept and the
practice. Not to mention that even AD units have problems
with maintaining the equipment they have which also impacts
mobility. I recall one FSB that had half its trucks down
for some kind of maintenance or repair (and they'd never
been deployed yet).
>>> Things to kill,
>>>
>>> 1) XM-8 rifle.
>>> We are going to spend how much to replace small arms ?
To
>> what gain ?
>>>
>>
>> We do need a newer rifle. But I'd rather a US made
product
>> (it is for defense after all and you never know who
>> tomorrows foe might be). But, it needs a ground up look.
>> Technologies have changed a lot since the AR-15 design.
We
>> need a lightweight assault rifle with interchangeable
>> capabilities and a cartridge with a bit more reach while
>> still being able to defeat most body armor.
>
> You mean the Stoner ?
>
> In 6mm perhaps instead of 5.56mm.
Maybe, or maybe something else (Ruger?), and why not a .257
Roberts or .264 Winchester?
Snark
~Nins~
Oh please. You're what? 52? Hmm, well wait a minute, one does get that
senior citizens discount card at 50, well okay then, if you say so. ;-p
I'm just going to agree with you from now on. If you say you're old, well
it's okay, you're old. Maybe we should send you some of those vitamins for
older folks? Or wait, how about the *V* pill? Oh yeah, you old, better
start taking those, uhm, supplements and enhancers, uh-huh. [Could I be any
more of a smart-butt tonight? lol]
ssn...@earthlink.net
> ssn...@bangserver.na wrote:
>>> "~Nins~" <nin...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
>>> news:cWM6c.44790$1p.636060@attbi_s54
>>>> Yeff wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 20 Mar 2004 00:17:39 GMT,
ssn...@bangserver.na wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ah, then you and my ex-brother-in-law have something
in
>>>>>>> common although his tongue still lolls when he sees
Stevie
>>>>>>> Nicks much to the chagrin of his Filipina wife.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A Filipina wife *and* he's smitten with Stevie? Wow,
we do have
>>>>>> a lot in common. <g>
>>>>
>>>> She's old and wrinkled now. Do you two have a
geriatric fetish or
>>>> wrinkle fetish or something? <just being mischievous>
>>>>
>>> Hey! Just-a-minute there. I *am* geriatric!
>
> Oh please. You're what? 52? Hmm, well wait a minute,
one does get
> that senior citizens discount card at 50, well okay then,
if you say
> so. ;-p
Not only that but, in a very short time I expect my
"honorary" AARP membership to become a real one. :-)
I'm just going to agree with you from now on.
That's playing it safe. :-p
If you say
> you're old, well it's okay, you're old. Maybe we should
send you
> some of those vitamins for older folks?
I take my Centrum silver religously and have for years. :-)
Or wait, how about the *V*
> pill?
Why bother, I gave up women and sex for Lent (which since I
don't know when it starts or ends will be permanently
AFAIK).
Oh yeah, you old, better start taking those, uhm,
supplements
> and enhancers, uh-huh. [Could I be any more of a
smart-butt tonight?
> lol]
LMAO! smarty pants! :-p
la n.
> "Yeff" <zoo...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
> news:6592uetr...@lemming.militia.com
> > On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 22:40:31 GMT, ssn...@bangserver.na
> wrote:
> >
> >> Well, Yeff's a real "lady-killer". :-)
> >
> > That was never proven! No body, no crime. I'm sure
> Tommel has some
> > neat Latin phrase that describes this.
> >
> >> Looks and those USAF deep pockets.
> >
> > The unofficial motto of my last unit was "Carpe Per Diem".
> I guess
> > you had to be there.
> >
> >> Snark
> >> Le Bete
> >
> > Have you been listening to Stevie Nicks lately?
> >
> No, I've been listening to a lot of Joan Jett and the
> Blackhearts and Heart with a little Joan Baez and Joni
> Mitchell to soften it a bit.
Heart and Joni Mitchell: Heavy Canadian content there,
"Cuddles" .... ;)
- nilita
ssn...@earthlink.net
daddy was Commandant of the USMC at about the time that they
released "Dog and Butterfly" if I recall.
Joni Mitchell was a favorite of my first wife and it brings
back good memories.
Snark
la n.
> On Sat, 20 Mar 2004 00:17:39 GMT, ssn...@bangserver.na wrote:
>
> > Ah, then you and my ex-brother-in-law have something in
> > common although his tongue still lolls when he sees Stevie
> > Nicks much to the chagrin of his Filipina wife.
>
> A Filipina wife *and* he's smitten with Stevie? Wow, we do have a lot in
> common. <g>
>
> One of my "I must be growing up" moments came when I saw her on the Chris
> Isaak show on Showtime. She was overweight, over 50, and I *still* wanted
> to invite her out to dinner and a movie.
Now, Chris Isaak is a guy *I* dig. Last year a delightful "older" woman was
shopping in the clothing store where my daughter worked in Vancouver,
and this woman wanted to pay for her purchases with $100 American
bills which confused the hell out of my beloved spawn. My daughter
asked her where she was from, and the woman responded that she
was from So. Cal., up in B.C. visiting her son who has a teevee show
here. And she said - there he is now and called him over to meet my
daughter. Sonny boy was Chris Isaak. Very good to his mama
which always earns brownie points for *moi* ... ;)
- nilita
>
> I was but a young man stationed in Japan when I first heard her do "I Sing
> for the Things". There's a slight catch in her voice as she sings,
>
> I'll take off my cape for you
> I'll take down my hair for you
> Anything you want me to do...my love
>
> Well, I'll sit home and wait for you
> Oh, darling there's nothing that I'd rather do
> Anything you want me to do...my love
>
> To this day I'm sure she wrote those lyrics just for me. And no, I've
> never been convicted of stalking.
-- nilita - Nicks' version of Landslide is better than that
of Smashing Pumpkins and Dixie Chicks
>
la n.
> On Sat, 20 Mar 2004 01:14:48 GMT, ~Nins~ wrote:
>
> >| A Filipina wife *and* he's smitten with Stevie? Wow, we do have a
> >|| lot in common. <g>
> >
> > She's old and wrinkled now. Do you two have a geriatric fetish or
wrinkle
> > fetish or something? <just being mischievous>
>
> If love made sense my life would be *so* much different... (you'll note
> that I didn't say better)
>
You have a good attitude, pretty boy Yeff. I, too, don't
notice so-called physical imperfections when I am enamoured
of someone (as I search my long-term memory).
- nilita
la n.
52? Snarky, you're a kid! And only a minute or two older than *me*.
- nilita, reaching for the Geritol
la n.
Ahhh .. I had to wrack my memory and eventually do a
little research as to the Canadian connection. Indeed, they -
the Wilson Sisters - came to Vancouver in the early years
of their careers to form a band and marry Canadian guys
and release early demos.
>
> Joni Mitchell was a favorite of my first wife and it brings
> back good memories.
Beauty.
I've looked at love from both sides now
From give and take, and still somehow
It's love's illusions I recall
I really don't know love at all
- nilita
~Nins~
|| Why bother, I gave up women and sex for Lent (which since I
|| don't know when it starts or ends will be permanently
|| AFAIK).
Yeah, right, ok, whatever. Men are driven by their primal instinct. Oh
wait, let me guess, you've evolved beyond the instinct, the mere physical
pleasures of humanly existence?
[Dang, I'm on a roll tonight. Whoo-hooo!]
||
|| Oh yeah, you old, better start taking those, uhm,
|| supplements
||| and enhancers, uh-huh. [Could I be any more of a smart-butt
||| tonight? lol]
||
|| LMAO! smarty pants! :-p
Pink, lacey ones to be exact. [Their pj bottoms. I know what popped into
thought there, uh-huh. See, primal instinct, it can't be controlled.]
I'm going to go do something else for a bit. Give you a break. I just want
to do my part in keeping you in touch with the realness of humanity, given
that you're going to go in that isolationist mode so loved by officers, as I
have heard from someone who shall remain nameless. I have rank-blindness,
don't see those clusters or birds, whatever they might be, although I do
have respect for the achievement. My mischief mode knows no boundaries set
by such things. >;-p .
~Nins~
Yeff
> I've looked at love from both sides now
> From give and take, and still somehow
> It's love's illusions I recall
> I really don't know love at all
In the end, "Both Sides Now" is kind of saccharine. I prefer "Who Knows
Where the Time Goes":
Sad, deserted shore, your fickle friends are leaving
Ah, but then you know it's time for them to go
But I will still be here, I have no thought of leaving
I do not count the time
-Jeff B. (being eclectic)
la n.
> On Sat, 20 Mar 2004 03:58:18 GMT, la n. wrote:
>
> > I've looked at love from both sides now
> > From give and take, and still somehow
> > It's love's illusions I recall
> > I really don't know love at all
>
> In the end, "Both Sides Now" is kind of saccharine. I prefer "Who Knows
> Where the Time Goes":
Both Sides Now was a favourite of mine when I was
a young folkie, playing guitar and autoharp.
>
> Sad, deserted shore, your fickle friends are leaving
> Ah, but then you know it's time for them to go
> But I will still be here, I have no thought of leaving
> I do not count the time
If you want more intense lyrics from female
folk singers, I recommend October Project.
I don't believe the group has been around for
years, but you can still get their music.
In the shadow cast as you were leaving
In the beauty of the ending day
There is always something to return to
Something you allow
To slip away
- From their song, "Something More Than
This."
>
> -Jeff B. (being eclectic)
> yeff at erols dot com
- nilita singing Outkast's
"My baby don't mess around
Because she loves me so
And this I know for shooo..
Uh, But does she really wanna
But can't stand to see me
Walk out the dooor..
Don't try to fight the feelin'
Because the thought alone is killing me right nooww.."
... and suddenly being more black than Yeff ... :)
Tank Fixer
on Sat, 20 Mar 2004 02:36:30 GMT,
> "Tank Fixer" <paul.deek...@us.army.mil> wrote in
> message
> news:MPG.1ac42b1b3...@news.west.earthlink.net
> > In article
> <rLd6c.27263$%06....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> > on Thu, 18 Mar 2004 09:13:59 GMT,
> > ssn...@bangserver.na ssn...@earthlink.net attempted to
> say .....
> >
> <snip>
> >> Up that a little bit and aside from leadership
> development
> >> it should include basic service related skills and then
> the
> >> CMF specific skills that would make it work. Perhaps CMF
> >> schools for NCO and advanced NCO training?
> >
> > And keep the course length to two or three weeks tops ?
> >
> More likely four to five weeks.
Thats not bad, better than the 8 to 14 weeks some are now.
> >>> My choices ? Were I SecDef.
> >>> 1) Airlift.
> >>> Nuf said.
> >>>
> >> I'm partial to having the AF design and build a
> replacement
> >> for C-141 and C-5 airframes which we need for long range
> >> strategic lift capability. Design them to work off of
> steel
> >> mat runways and we can probably handle another
> Afghanistan
> >> type deployment a _lot_ more effectively.
> >> Add medium speed and high speed Sealift too! We're
> woefully
> >> of adequate Sealift capability still especially high and
> >> medium speed vessels. A lot more Sealift that doesn't
> >> require a port facility would be good too.
> >
> > Hmm, did you just describe the C-17 ? ;')
> No, the C17 was supposed to be for Intra-theater transport
> and as a potential replacement for some C-130 and C-141
> missions but we really need something that will lift a C-5's
> load for long distances and a wide bodied version of the
> C-141 that lifts more than a C-17 but less than a C-5.
Would a cargo verson of the 767 fit the bill ?
> > And for sealift I have heard the Army was pleased with the
> tests of
> > that Austrailian boat.
>
> Which one? The HSS designs seem to be doing well and some of
> the medium speed ro-ro systems seem to do ok. But we don't
> have enough of them (note how during OIF we were constrained
> because of the port facilities available in Kuwait. Perhaps
> we also need LCACs like the USMC to bring our gear ashore?
I know, that's what made some of the media's comments rather funny. They
never bothered to do the homework about why it took so long to off load
the 4ID and 3 ACR.
The LCAC's are getting long in tooth and are starting to need rebuilding.
> > Is there a place for rigid airships as stratic airlift
> assets ?
> >
> I don't think airships are a good answer, low speed being
> one problem (max true airspeed <100 knots, IIRC)
I have the same reservation. Still if the lift capacity is great enough..
> >>> 2) Commo, like I said.
> >>> Our higher HQ for AT this year still is using -12 series
> >> radios. Not
> >>> an issue since we will co-locate now due to other
> >> constraints but
> >>> still... And more long range Commo. SINCGARS is good,
> >> until you
> >>> string a division 300km across the landscape. Then you
> >> need reliable
> >>> HF radios.
> >>>
> >> The supplemental defense appropriation and the current
> >> budget are supposed to have funds set aside to get
> SINCGARS
> >> fielded to all components. Thereafter, I don't know if
> they
> >> will be working on fielding more SATCOM systems for use
> at
> >> theater level or other alternatives.
> >>
> >>> 3) Blue Force Tracker.
> >>
> >> That's a good idea. I wonder if it can be expedited?
> >
> > From what I hear they are outfitting units now preparing
> to deploy so
> > perhaps the Rapid Fielding Inititive is working.
> >
> Good! Hope it works as advertised.
So far it has.
> >>> 4) Ground transport,
> >>> i.e. trucks. Guard units are still using M35's.
> >>> And I've seen a point in an AAR about Guard units
> showing
> >> up with
> >>> MOGAS powered equipment !
> >>> If they can't get enough LMTV/FMTV for the NG and AR
> then
> >> get to work
> >>> rebuilding and issuing M925's. At least then the trucks
> >> won't be damn
> >>> near as old as I am.
> >>>
> >> I've seen that the supplemental defense appropriations
> bill
> >> that was passed recently is supposed to equip AR and NG
> >> units with at least the 9xx series of trucks among other
> >> things.
> >
> > Good, I hadn't looked at the details of the pending bills
> but that is
> > a step in the right direction.
> >
> It is. But a few more such steps are needed if the AR and
> NG are going to be permanently integrated into any military
> deployments and this has to be DoD wide policy.
Yes, I know thay have considered dental in the past but the
Cav here will incure over 200K in bills when they need to deploy.
> >>> 5) Take a good HARD look at MTOE's.
> >>> Actually solicit input from the field instead of the
> "oh,
> >> here is the
> >>> TY0X draft. I need it back in 4 days"
> >>> CS and CSS units need to be plused up with vehicle,
> >> radio's and crew
> >>> served weapons.
> >>>
> >> Yep, although we need to look at it from a joint service
> POV
> >> and make sure that all units have the ability to move and
> >> survive in the field.
> >
> > That's the point. Right now the CS/CSS units can't move
> with the
> > manuver forces.
>
> The AARs from OIF prove that point.
>
Bingo...
> > The MST I used to run didn't even have the mobility to
> keep up with
> > the CAV unit we suppoerted and didn't have the commo to
> operate more
> > than one crew seperate from the MST proper.
> >
> > And that was in an "Enchanted" brigade.
> >
> I've heard that even though ERBs are supposed to be equipped
> with nearly current systems and high degree of readiness
> there are a *lot* of holes between the concept and the
> practice. Not to mention that even AD units have problems
> with maintaining the equipment they have which also impacts
> mobility. I recall one FSB that had half its trucks down
> for some kind of maintenance or repair (and they'd never
> been deployed yet).
Both of the enhanced brigaes I've had contact with are still using M35
series trucks....
> >>> Things to kill,
> >>>
> >>> 1) XM-8 rifle.
> >>> We are going to spend how much to replace small arms ?
> To
> >> what gain ?
> >>>
> >>
> >> We do need a newer rifle. But I'd rather a US made
> product
> >> (it is for defense after all and you never know who
> >> tomorrows foe might be). But, it needs a ground up look.
> >> Technologies have changed a lot since the AR-15 design.
> We
> >> need a lightweight assault rifle with interchangeable
> >> capabilities and a cartridge with a bit more reach while
> >> still being able to defeat most body armor.
> >
> > You mean the Stoner ?
> >
> > In 6mm perhaps instead of 5.56mm.
>
> Maybe, or maybe something else (Ruger?), and why not a .257
> Roberts or .264 Winchester?
Why re-invent the wheel when Eugene Stoner did it 30 years ago.
--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.
RTO Trainer
> "edward ohare" <edward...@nospam.yahoo.com.invalid> wrote
> in message
> news:tvtg50p2d1bbmv3p6...@4ax.com
> > On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 05:14:10 GMT, Tank Fixer
> > <paul.deek...@us.army.mil> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> While progress has been made finishing the job will be
> difficultt.
> >> See the distrust the USMC and Army have of relying on the
> USAF
> >> to provide CAS.
> >
> >
> > Why of course. The USAF still believes the theories of
> Billy
> > Mitchell, Curtis LeMay, and Bomber Harris. CAS is
> something it only
> > does reluctantly.
> >
> True. But, in a time when "Strategic Bombing" as espoused
> by Mitchell and practiced by Harris and "improved upon" by
> LeMay has limitations when dealing in Low Intensity Conflict
> versus Total War and is utterly unusable against a
> non-national enemy like Al Qaeda. Tactics must change to
> suit a changing environment and keeping a B1 or B2 or even a
> B52 circling overhead to drop single bombs on small targets
> is an expensive proposition. What did it cost during the
> operations at Tora Bora for example, for a B1 to orbit until
> we spotted and designated a likely ingress/egress point from
> the complex for them to bomb?
>
> > Since the USAF was formed based on there being a separate
> strategic
> > mission for it, it should only have gotten the aircraft
> needed for
> > that mission. The rest should have remained under Army
> control.
> > Actually, in my opinion, the theory of a separate
> strategic mission
> > should have been rejected.
>
> That's a good question. Maybe even a good thread starter.
> Is the Air Force an obsolete concept?
>
> Snark
For Transformation to go forward as a Joint enterprise I thinkthe
folowing steps *have* to be taken:
1) Rescind the 1948 Key West Accord
2) Reorganize the services, not by task as was done in 1948, but by
effect. (Deep Strike as opposed to Bombing)
3) The JCS must hold the reigns of trnasformation to keep the
services from transforming in 4 different and incompatible directions
focusing on their own "relevance" and not on joint operation.
ssn...@earthlink.net
Whereas, I'd prefer "Big Yellow Taxi"
Hey, hey farmer put away that DDT now,
Leave me spots on apples
but give me the birds and the bees
Pleeeeaase!
Don't it always seem to go,
That you don't know what you've got till it's gone.
They paved paradise,
Put up a parking lot.
But my mood is more in tune with Peter, Paul and Mary's
rendition of Leavin' on a Jet Plane since I'm not going to
see my dog for two weeks.
Already I'm so lonesome I could cry,
So kiss me and smile for me,
Tell me that you'll wait for me,
Hold me like you'll never let me go.
I'm leaving on a jet plane,
Don't know when I'll be back again.
I miss my dog.
Snark
ssn...@earthlink.net
> ssn...@bangserver.na wrote:
>>> Why bother, I gave up women and sex for Lent (which
since I
>>> don't know when it starts or ends will be permanently
>>> AFAIK).
>
> Yeah, right, ok, whatever. Men are driven by their primal
instinct.
> Oh wait, let me guess, you've evolved beyond the instinct,
the mere
> physical pleasures of humanly existence?
No, just too old, too tired and don't really give a tinker's
d___.
>>>
>>> Oh yeah, you old, better start taking those, uhm,
>>> supplements
>>>> and enhancers, uh-huh. [Could I be any more of a
smart-butt
>>>> tonight? lol]
>>>
>>> LMAO! smarty pants! :-p
>
> Pink, lacey ones to be exact. [Their pj bottoms. I know
what popped
> into thought there, uh-huh. See, primal instinct, it
can't be
> controlled.]
>
Nope, didn't really think about it at all. Figured you got
strange tastes in pants.
> I'm going to go do something else for a bit. Give you a
break. I
> just want to do my part in keeping you in touch with the
realness of
> humanity, given that you're going to go in that
isolationist mode so
> loved by officers, as I have heard from someone who shall
remain
> nameless. I have rank-blindness, don't see those clusters
or birds,
> whatever they might be, although I do have respect for the
> achievement. My mischief mode knows no boundaries set by
such
> things. >;-p .
Yep.
Snark
ssn...@earthlink.net
> In article
<O6O6c.48779$aT1....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> on Sat, 20 Mar 2004 02:36:30 GMT,
> ssn...@bangserver.na ssn...@earthlink.net attempted to
say .....
>
>> "Tank Fixer" <paul.deek...@us.army.mil> wrote in
>> message
>> news:MPG.1ac42b1b3...@news.west.earthlink.net
>>> In article
>> <rLd6c.27263$%06....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
>>> on Thu, 18 Mar 2004 09:13:59 GMT,
>>> ssn...@bangserver.na ssn...@earthlink.net attempted to
>> say .....
>>>
>> <snip>
>>>> Up that a little bit and aside from leadership
>> development
>>>> it should include basic service related skills and then
>> the
>>>> CMF specific skills that would make it work. Perhaps
CMF
>>>> schools for NCO and advanced NCO training?
>>>
>>> And keep the course length to two or three weeks tops ?
>>>
>> More likely four to five weeks.
>
>
> Thats not bad, better than the 8 to 14 weeks some are now.
>
mean why? A _lot_ of it seems to be jumping through hoops
just because everyone before you did it.
You'd need to change the landing gear so it sat lower and
put in front and rear cargo doors for fast on/off loading
but, it might work. I'm no aviation engineer.
>
>
>>> And for sealift I have heard the Army was pleased with
the
>> tests of
>>> that Austrailian boat.
>>
>> Which one? The HSS designs seem to be doing well and some
of
>> the medium speed ro-ro systems seem to do ok. But we
don't
>> have enough of them (note how during OIF we were
constrained
>> because of the port facilities available in Kuwait.
Perhaps
>> we also need LCACs like the USMC to bring our gear
ashore?
>
> I know, that's what made some of the media's comments
rather funny.
> They never bothered to do the homework about why it took
so long to
> off load the 4ID and 3 ACR.
> The LCAC's are getting long in tooth and are starting to
need
> rebuilding.
>
Well, if both services were contracting for LCACs perhaps it
would be less expensive per unit. There's a limit to the
usability of ro-ro technology in the absence of a port
facility.
>
>>> Is there a place for rigid airships as stratic airlift
>> assets ?
>>>
>> I don't think airships are a good answer, low speed being
>> one problem (max true airspeed <100 knots, IIRC)
>
> I have the same reservation. Still if the lift capacity is
great
> enough..
>
Yes, but the speed and operating altitude are a constraint
in most cases.
Good!
That's about what some of the AD units had to have just to
get enough equipment together for the last deployments.
We've been using money for repair and maintenance to finance
smaller deployments in the past and that false economy has
come full circle to bite us _hard_.
>
>>> The MST I used to run didn't even have the mobility to
>> keep up with
>>> the CAV unit we suppoerted and didn't have the commo to
>> operate more
>>> than one crew seperate from the MST proper.
>>>
>>> And that was in an "Enchanted" brigade.
>>>
>> I've heard that even though ERBs are supposed to be
equipped
>> with nearly current systems and high degree of readiness
>> there are a *lot* of holes between the concept and the
>> practice. Not to mention that even AD units have
problems
>> with maintaining the equipment they have which also
impacts
>> mobility. I recall one FSB that had half its trucks down
>> for some kind of maintenance or repair (and they'd never
>> been deployed yet).
>
> Both of the enhanced brigaes I've had contact with are
still using M35
> series trucks....
>
Ah, what redc1c4 calls the National Guard and re-enactors
guild. :-)
>
>
>>>>> Things to kill,
>>>>>
>>>>> 1) XM-8 rifle.
>>>>> We are going to spend how much to replace small arms ?
To what
>>>>> gain ?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We do need a newer rifle. But I'd rather a US made
>> product
>>>> (it is for defense after all and you never know who
>>>> tomorrows foe might be). But, it needs a ground up
look.
>>>> Technologies have changed a lot since the AR-15 design.
>> We
>>>> need a lightweight assault rifle with interchangeable
>>>> capabilities and a cartridge with a bit more reach
while
>>>> still being able to defeat most body armor.
>>>
>>> You mean the Stoner ?
>>>
>>> In 6mm perhaps instead of 5.56mm.
>>
>> Maybe, or maybe something else (Ruger?), and why not a
.257
>> Roberts or .264 Winchester?
>
> Why re-invent the wheel when Eugene Stoner did it 30 years
ago.
Cost per unit and complexity. I'd like to see something a
lot cleaner and simpler in design and concept that
incorporates modern metallurgy, polymer technology and a
very simple operating system. The SR-25 is a nice rifle but
perhaps something even simpler? Remington 788s with a 30
rd mag in 6.5 Remington come to mind but that's probably
going too simple.
Snark
ssn...@earthlink.net
news:ed856011.04031...@posting.google.com
That's a good first step.
> 2) Reorganize the services, not by task as was done in
1948, but by
> effect. (Deep Strike as opposed to Bombing)
Much more difficult as effect is a subjective appraisal (see
all the conflicting studies of strategic bombing for
examples). Task is a good way to break down the services
but, task needs to be defined differently, Attack, Defense,
Support, and Consolidation are the way I see tasks as being
defined. Then break attack into it's dimensions, Air,
Ground, Sea, Space, etc., (include electronic/computer
attack and psyops as dimensions. Likewise defense, etc.,
> 3) The JCS must hold the reigns of trnasformation to keep
the
> services from transforming in 4 different and incompatible
directions
> focusing on their own "relevance" and not on joint
operation.
Absolutely and a good broad based and open minded civilian
executive team should mediate any disputes.
Snark
redc1c4
>
> "Yeff" <zoo...@fastmail.fm> wrote
(snipage occurs)
When my fist clenches, crack it open
Before I use it and lose my cool
When I smile, tell me some bad news
Before I laugh and act like a fool
redc1c4,
we were all put here to suffer and die needlessly.
--
"Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and bear
considerable watching."
Army Officer's Guide
redc1c4
>
> "~Nins~" <nin...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
> news:QlP6c.45268$_w.680483@attbi_s53
> > ssn...@bangserver.na wrote:
> >>> Why bother, I gave up women and sex for Lent (which
> since I
> >>> don't know when it starts or ends will be permanently
> >>> AFAIK).
> >
> > Yeah, right, ok, whatever. Men are driven by their primal
> instinct.
> > Oh wait, let me guess, you've evolved beyond the instinct,
> the mere
> > physical pleasures of humanly existence?
>
> No, just too old, too tired and don't really give a tinker's
> d___.
maybe if you tried something other than throwing rocks, your
outcomes might improve.
redc1c4,
envisioning Snark implementing an ISO9000 romance improvement plan %-)
ssn...@earthlink.net
news:405BEB6C...@drunkenbastards.org.ies
> "ssn...@bangserver.na" wrote:
>>
>> "~Nins~" <nin...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
>> news:QlP6c.45268$_w.680483@attbi_s53
>>> ssn...@bangserver.na wrote:
>>>>> Why bother, I gave up women and sex for Lent (which
>> since I
>>>>> don't know when it starts or ends will be permanently
>>>>> AFAIK).
>>>
>>> Yeah, right, ok, whatever. Men are driven by their
primal instinct.
>>> Oh wait, let me guess, you've evolved beyond the
instinct,
>> the mere
>>> physical pleasures of humanly existence?
>>
>> No, just too old, too tired and don't really give a
tinker's
>> d___.
>
> maybe if you tried something other than throwing rocks,
your
> outcomes might improve.
>
> redc1c4,
> envisioning Snark implementing an ISO9000 romance
improvement plan %-)
Snark don't do ISO900x (9001 is for service industries).
Snark
RTO Trainer
I think so. It would allow for forgetting about what we trditionalyy
think of as an Air Force or and Army and redefine it to fit the world
instead of forcing our square peg Army into a round hole Reality.
> > 2) Reorganize the services, not by task as was done in
> 1948, but by
> > effect. (Deep Strike as opposed to Bombing)
>
> Much more difficult as effect is a subjective appraisal (see
> all the conflicting studies of strategic bombing for
> examples). Task is a good way to break down the services
> but, task needs to be defined differently, Attack, Defense,
> Support, and Consolidation are the way I see tasks as being
> defined. Then break attack into it's dimensions, Air,
> Ground, Sea, Space, etc., (include electronic/computer
> attack and psyops as dimensions. Likewise defense, etc.,
>
For myself I'm willing ot use the Effects as described in
JV2010/JV2020. However I see merits in your concept as well. In
either event I'd be willing to let whomever define thise as they
wished, but then I'd hold them strictly to the definitions they used.
> > 3) The JCS must hold the reigns of trnasformation to keep
> the
> > services from transforming in 4 different and incompatible
> directions
> > focusing on their own "relevance" and not on joint
> operation.
>
> Absolutely and a good broad based and open minded civilian
> executive team should mediate any disputes.
>
Like RAND,...er....Halibu...er....Arthur And....
Damn.
RTO Trainer
> "David Casey" <sgtc...@cableoneIH8SPAM.net> wrote in
> message
> news:cyqcenfd9i2o$.d...@sgtcaseycableone.net
> > On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 17:45:38 GMT, ssn...@bangserver.na
> wrote in
> > us.military.army,us.military,us.military.navy:
> >
> >>> Next step, one BDU uniform for all branches like before.
> I don't
> >>> see why everyone has to have something different when
> we're all
> >>> working side-by-side.
> >>
> >> That would make sense from a procurement standpoint. I
> >> wonder why the Army didn't go with the "digitized
> pattern"?
> >
> > I thought the Army was working on their own new version?
> Perhaps
> > whoever came up with that idea should take a look and
> decide that
> > maybe spending that few millions of dollars it took to
> design a new
> > and "improved" uniform could have been better used
> elsewhere.
> >
> That's part of what I mean by procurement has to be
> coordinated and made a common task across all four services.
> Any system including uniforms that could be used commonly by
> all four services should be standardized and procured
> through a single point in order to assure uniformity,
> quality and best pricing.
>
> Snark
How about this: There are some functiosn that shoud be "advanced" out
of the services and strictly into the realm of DoD. Procurement being
one.
Example of Problem: F-22 It doesnt' have enough range to be of any
use to the Marines or the Navy. It is a one service platform and
that, barring excellent justification, shoud be wrong.
ssn...@earthlink.net
> "ssn...@bangserver.na" <ssn...@earthlink.net> wrote in
message
>
news:<lPR6c.49037$aT1....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net
>...
>> "RTO Trainer" <bill....@us.army.mil> wrote in message
>> news:ed856011.04031...@posting.google.com
>>> For Transformation to go forward as a Joint enterprise I
>> thinkthe
>>> folowing steps *have* to be taken:
>>>
>>> 1) Rescind the 1948 Key West Accord
>>
>> That's a good first step.
>>
>
> I think so. It would allow for forgetting about what we
trditionalyy
> think of as an Air Force or and Army and redefine it to
fit the world
> instead of forcing our square peg Army into a round hole
Reality.
>
We'd also have to include Navy and Marines in this measure
as well, to reduce or eliminate duplication of effort across
the board.
>
>>> 2) Reorganize the services, not by task as was done in
>> 1948, but by
>>> effect. (Deep Strike as opposed to Bombing)
>>
>> Much more difficult as effect is a subjective appraisal
(see
>> all the conflicting studies of strategic bombing for
>> examples). Task is a good way to break down the services
>> but, task needs to be defined differently, Attack,
Defense,
>> Support, and Consolidation are the way I see tasks as
being
>> defined. Then break attack into it's dimensions, Air,
>> Ground, Sea, Space, etc., (include electronic/computer
>> attack and psyops as dimensions. Likewise defense, etc.,
>>
>
> For myself I'm willing ot use the Effects as described in
> JV2010/JV2020.
I saw those "effects" as both self serving and subjective.
They essentially justified existing organizations and
capabilities and did not look "out of the box".
However I see merits in your concept as well. In
> either event I'd be willing to let whomever define thise
as they
> wished, but then I'd hold them strictly to the definitions
they used.
>
OK, the problem of course, will be getting KISS definitions
out of any such commission.
>>> 3) The JCS must hold the reigns of trnasformation to
keep
>> the
>>> services from transforming in 4 different and
incompatible
>> directions
>>> focusing on their own "relevance" and not on joint
>> operation.
>>
>> Absolutely and a good broad based and open minded
civilian
>> executive team should mediate any disputes.
>>
>
> Like RAND,...er....Halibu...er....Arthur And....
>
The Boy Scouts of America? :-P Although I'd actually meant
personnel from the office of the SecDef. But, with the
wrong SecDef this could go to heck in a handbasket and be a
big boondoggle with some of the above companies getting an
even bigger spot at the trough.
Snark
ssn...@earthlink.net
Ok, Is it just range or is it also the strength of the
airframe? IIRC, both Navy and Marine Corps aircraft must be
able to take "X" amount of launches and landings on a
carrier. Also, is the F-22 truly a multi-role platform or
is it primarily a strike aircraft and fighter that can be
used for CAS as an afterthought?
Snark
la n.
> "~Nins~" <nin...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
> news:QlP6c.45268$_w.680483@attbi_s53
> > ssn...@bangserver.na wrote:
> >>> Why bother, I gave up women and sex for Lent (which
> since I
> >>> don't know when it starts or ends will be permanently
> >>> AFAIK).
> >
> > Yeah, right, ok, whatever. Men are driven by their primal
> instinct.
> > Oh wait, let me guess, you've evolved beyond the instinct,
> the mere
> > physical pleasures of humanly existence?
>
> No, just too old, too tired and don't really give a tinker's
> d___.
Snarky, you're gonna scare the younger uns in this
group, making them think that when they reach the
ripe "old" age of 52, it's all over when it comes to
carnal pleasures!
- nilita
la n.
Snarky, when I read your thoughts about wimmin - good,
bad, and indifferent - I am made to think of the preamble
to _A Tale of Two Cities_: "It was the best of times, and
it was the worst of times."
- nilita (and somehow i can relate)
~Nins~
|| "redc1c4" <red...@drunkenbastards.org.ies> wrote in message
|| news:405BEB6C...@drunkenbastards.org.ies
||| "ssn...@bangserver.na" wrote:
||||
|||| "~Nins~" <nin...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
|||| news:QlP6c.45268$_w.680483@attbi_s53
||||| ssn...@bangserver.na wrote:
||||||| Why bother, I gave up women and sex for Lent (which since I
||||||| don't know when it starts or ends will be permanently
||||||| AFAIK).
|||||
||||| Yeah, right, ok, whatever. Men are driven by their primal
||||| instinct. Oh wait, let me guess, you've evolved beyond the
||||| instinct, the mere physical pleasures of humanly existence?
||||
|||| No, just too old, too tired and don't really give a tinker's
|||| d___.
|||
||| maybe if you tried something other than throwing rocks, your
||| outcomes might improve.
|||
|| Let it die.
Let what die? [Sorry, couldn't resist, residual smark-aleckness.]
redc1c4
now you tell me..... i just finalized your enrollment in a
6 week seminar "ISO 10,000: The Next Step."
redc1c4,
here's your orders, SATO has your tickets.... %-)
la n.
So, Snarky, I'm guessing that if I told you that I was
at the moment wearing plane jane white cotton
Hanes Her Way briefs you wouldn't be particularly
turned off ..... :)
- nilita
~Nins~
What's a "SATO"?
RTO Trainer
> "RTO Trainer" <bill....@us.army.mil> wrote in message
> news:ed856011.04032...@posting.google.com
> > "ssn...@bangserver.na" <ssn...@earthlink.net> wrote in
> message
> >
> news:<lPR6c.49037$aT1....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net
> >...
> >> "RTO Trainer" <bill....@us.army.mil> wrote in message
> >> news:ed856011.04031...@posting.google.com
>
> >>> For Transformation to go forward as a Joint enterprise I
> thinkthe
> >>> folowing steps *have* to be taken:
> >>>
> >>> 1) Rescind the 1948 Key West Accord
> >>
> >> That's a good first step.
> >>
> >
> > I think so. It would allow for forgetting about what we
> trditionalyy
> > think of as an Air Force or and Army and redefine it to
> fit the world
> > instead of forcing our square peg Army into a round hole
> Reality.
> >
> We'd also have to include Navy and Marines in this measure
> as well, to reduce or eliminate duplication of effort across
> the board.
>
I wasn't intending to leave them out. Just didn't name them in what
was meant as an example.
Okay. make me do more work now that I intended. I'll give you my own
list of Effects that should be used...in a minute.
> >>> 3) The JCS must hold the reigns of trnasformation to
> keep
> the
> >>> services from transforming in 4 different and
> incompatible
> directions
> >>> focusing on their own "relevance" and not on joint
> >> operation.
> >>
> >> Absolutely and a good broad based and open minded
> civilian
> >> executive team should mediate any disputes.
> >>
> >
> > Like RAND,...er....Halibu...er....Arthur And....
> >
> The Boy Scouts of America? :-P Although I'd actually meant
> personnel from the office of the SecDef. But, with the
> wrong SecDef this could go to heck in a handbasket and be a
> big boondoggle with some of the above companies getting an
> even bigger spot at the trough.
>
Not just this SecDef, any SecDef.
Thought--commission to consist of vollunteers--retired or former
military personnel of grades E-7 or lower enlisted or O-5 or lower who
are not employed in a Defense or Defense related industry.
Also all Doctrine, before promulgation must be approved by the Council
of Specialists-- a group of Junior Enlisted, E-4 and below who review
doctrine for simplicity and consitency.
ssn...@earthlink.net
won't be able to attend. I'm going to try to slide a side
trip into OC to pick up and drop off some things in storage
if possible.
Snark
ssn...@earthlink.net
don't I? :-)
>>>>> 3) The JCS must hold the reigns of trnasformation to
>> keep
>> the
>>>>> services from transforming in 4 different and
>> incompatible
>> directions
>>>>> focusing on their own "relevance" and not on joint
>>>> operation.
>>>>
>>>> Absolutely and a good broad based and open minded
>> civilian
>>>> executive team should mediate any disputes.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Like RAND,...er....Halibu...er....Arthur And....
>>>
>> The Boy Scouts of America? :-P Although I'd actually
meant
>> personnel from the office of the SecDef. But, with the
>> wrong SecDef this could go to heck in a handbasket and be
a
>> big boondoggle with some of the above companies getting
an
>> even bigger spot at the trough.
>>
>
> Not just this SecDef, any SecDef.
>
Like I said, the wrong SecDef...big boondoggle.
> Thought--commission to consist of vollunteers--retired or
former
> military personnel of grades E-7 or lower enlisted or O-5
or lower who
> are not employed in a Defense or Defense related industry.
>
> Also all Doctrine, before promulgation must be approved by
the Council
> of Specialists-- a group of Junior Enlisted, E-4 and below
who review
> doctrine for simplicity and consitency.
Sounds good to me. How do you sell it though? Everyone's
going to want their special interest covered.
Snark
edward ohare
wrote:
>Ahhh .. I had to wrack my memory and eventually do a
>little research as to the Canadian connection. Indeed, they -
>the Wilson Sisters - came to Vancouver in the early years
>of their careers to form a band and marry Canadian guys
>and release early demos.
What? They got married? Early?
Are you telling me that my years of lust for Anne were more in vain
than I thought?
la n.
"edward ohare" <edward...@nospam.yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
Umm ... that was, like, 25 years ago. I betcha dollars
to doughnuts there have been several divorces and
re-marriages since then. You might still have a chance.
- n'a
edward ohare
wrote:
>Umm ... that was, like, 25 years ago. I betcha dollars
>to doughnuts there have been several divorces and
>re-marriages since then. You might still have a chance.
Seriously, I didn't know either had been married at all. In fact,
this came up last time I went to a Heart concert, circa 1990.
I went with a female friend and got into an extensive conversation
with another women sitting next to me about their marriages. (She
accurately perceived my companion was not a romantic interest... in
fact thought I was her brother.)
edward ohare
>We'd also have to include Navy and Marines in this measure
>as well, to reduce or eliminate duplication of effort across
>the board.
What role does specialization have in this?
There is a person at work who has the same job I do. He is
significantly better than I am in the most important aspect of the
job. But that is the only job he knows how to do. I, on the only
hand, have done every job in the department at one time or another,
and have done all reasonably well.
RTO Trainer
I could have gone into all that, but is seemed like piling on.
CAP/CAS is an afterthought. The plane has to have external fuel tanks
mounted to give it the loiter time needed for such a mission. (Pilot
to Ground: Sure guys--Just wait til I get back, okay?)
This plane was built for dogfighting. Who has the Air Foce engaged in
dogfights with since Viet-nam? The literature says that the Raport is
being developed to confront "emerging threats." Which emerging
threats are these and have they been emerging since ,say, 1991?
Yeff
> CAP/CAS is an afterthought. The plane has to have external fuel tanks
> mounted to give it the loiter time needed for such a mission. (Pilot
> to Ground: Sure guys--Just wait til I get back, okay?)
The Raptor won't be used for traditional CAS. That would be silly. It's
the JSF that will be down in the weeds with the grunts.
> This plane was built for dogfighting.
Not exactly. While it *is* extremely agile, it's strength in defeating
enemy aircraft will be its stealth, supersonic persistence, and advanced
avionics. The Raptor will most likely come in high and fast (I'm guessing
based on what I've been reading - the book on Raptor tactics hasn't been
written yet). Its avionics and stealth mean it'll most likely see threats
before the threats know the Raptor is there. BVR shots will be taken,
maybe from the targeting Raptor, maybe from his wingman who has targeting
information data-linked over.
> Who has the Air Foce engaged in dogfights with since Viet-nam? The
> literature says that the Raport is being developed to confront "emerging
> threats." Which emerging threats are these and have they been emerging
> since ,say, 1991?
Su-27, Su-30, Su-33, Su-34, Su-35, Su-37, J-10, J-11, Mirage 2000. The
Rafale has also been offered for export.
-Jeff B.
RTO Trainer
You bet.
I have a feeling that no matter how radical my redesign of the
military gets the Marines won't change much--they are a specialty
force and should probably remain so. It looks like I'll just be
assigning them additional functions that, in my assessment, are
reasonalbly associated.
RTO Trainer
Okay. And the Raptor sufficiently more capable against these
opponents then the JSF to justify spendig at this level for something
that can't be used by the other fixed wing services?
Yeff
> Okay. And the Raptor sufficiently more capable against these
> opponents then the JSF to justify spendig at this level for something
> that can't be used by the other fixed wing services?
The Raptor is being described by insiders as "revolutionary", not
"evolutionary". Make of that what you will.
There was talk, back when the Advanced Tactical Fighter program was first
starting, of including the Navy in with the program. The Navy, probably
still smarting from the F-111 debacle, declined and poured their money into
developing a stealthy attack aircraft instead. The Navy program (the A-12)
failed and is nothing but lawsuits today.
You simply can't take an aircraft that was designed and engineered to Air
Force specifications and make it into a carrier-capable aircraft. Not
without significant redesign you don't. The time for the Navy to get
involved in the program so that they and the Marine Corp would also have an
aircraft as capable as the Raptor was 20 years ago when the program first
started. They missed the boat.
Next year the Air Force will have been flying the F-15 as its front-line
fighter for 30 years. It's good. Damn good. It's also getting long in
the tooth. A replacement with eye-watering performance is at hand. To
cancel it because the Navy failed to plan ahead would be folly.
ssn...@earthlink.net
in message
Specialization is all well and good, but every person in a
given unit should be cross trained to at least have basic
competencies in the functions of every other person in the
unit and their immediate supervisor.
Things happen in combat conditions that tend to make too
much specialization a detriment.
Snark
RTO Trainer
But what about cancelling it because we now have another plane that
incorporates much of what was learned in the 20 years of Raptor
development (Looking at JSF--it *looks* like a smaller Raptor) that
will do the Navy and Marine Corps missions and that in its most
expensive incarnation (USMC) costs 1/7th what the F22 does per copy?