Bye-bye INF treaty?

On Feb 28, 11:27 pm, Pat Flannery wrote:

The F-111s had laser guided bombs; at the time the Navy didn't have
those IIRC.

Starting in 1979 A-6E's were equipped with TRAM- a pod that combined
FLIR and laser designator/rangefinder.

Chris Manteuffel

Christopher Manteuffel wrote:
Starting in 1979 A-6E's were equipped with TRAM- a pod that combined
FLIR and laser designator/rangefinder.



Here's info on why they were used:
http://www.afa.org/magazine/March1999/0399canyon.asp
It was to allow both Tripoli and Benghazi to be hit simultaneously,
while not having to bring more carriers into position

Pat

On Mar 1, 2:03 pm, Pat Flannery wrote:

Here's info on why they were used:http://www.afa.org/magazine/March1999/0399canyon.asp
It was to allow both Tripoli and Benghazi to be hit simultaneously,
while not having to bring more carriers into position

As the article mentions, there was no surprise even with Sara out of
position, so the idea of waiting for a few more days to get another
carrier into position with the Six Fleet would hardly have been the
end of the world (there was no reason that the strike had to be
launched on April 14th, 1986). Or even a few days earlier- without the
wrangling between the USAF and USN, perhaps the strike could have been
implemented sooner?

And that's assuming that two carriers can't handle two simultaneous
strike packages, which is something that I'm frankly sceptical of.
Lehman claims that the Coral Sea and America could have done the whole
thing. While one might suspect him of having a bias, I certainly don't
trust the Air Force Magazine any more. Of course the USAF would say
that they were necessary, just like B-2's were necessary for Operation
Enduring Freedom.

Chris Manteuffel

On Feb 24, 11:15 am, Pat Flannery wrote:
Jordan wrote:
You're right.

We _are_ stupid to defend the Europeans. We should pull those ABM's
out right away!

1.) The system hasn't been deployed yet.
2.) Realizing all the Russian crap its deployment could bring down on
Europe's heads, they are now looking at an indigenous European ABM
system that they can bargain away in exchange for the Russians not
sticking IRBMs along their borders.

I'm not sure what you mean by "Russian crap its deployment could bring
down on Europe's heads." Are you seriously trying to argue that
Russia would be insane enough to respond to the deployment of a
defensive ABM system by launching an atomic war against Europe? I
have seen _no_ indication of the Russians being this irrational -- at
most, they would deploy additional IRBM's, but not actually launch
them at the Europeans. What I'm _hoping_ is that the Russians get an
attack of sanity, notice the rising threat of _Muslim_ nuclear
missiles, and deploy their own _ABM_ systems to counter it, thus
increasing the security of the whole world.

Secondly, if the Europeans are planning to develop an indigenous
European ABM system with the intent of bargaining it away in exchange
for the Russians not putting IRBM's on the borders, the _Europeans_
are utterly mad, because they would eschew the power of defending
themselves against the (aggressive) Muslim states in return for the
(no longer aggressive) Russians promising to deploy less misiles --
while retaining enough missiles to fry Europe any time Russia wanted
to, assuming that Russia wanted to in the first place.

- Jordan

On Feb 24, 1:27 pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:

The point here is that the Russians are talking about breaking out of
a treaty not because it is against their interests, but in a cynical
attempt to engage in extortion to get their way on something else.
This sort of thing definitely makes them untrustworthy when it comes
to treaties.

The Russians have _never_ been trustworthy as regards treaties.
However, what I do trust is that Russia will follow her own
interests. Russia has absolutely nothing to gain by launching a
nuclear war against Europe, and plenty to lose. Even if America were
neutral in the affair (which we probably wouldn't be -- even after the
mass bug-out over Iraq we still have _that_ much loyalty to NATO),
Russia would suffer nuclear retaliation from Britain and France, and
the whole continent would suffer probably over 100 million dead and a
major economic depression lasting for at least a decade. And even if
Russia had an ABM system capable of stopping the European retaliation,
Russia is in no logistical position to conquer Europe even without
American opposition.

If it makes Russia feel better to build more IRBM's, let them do
this. It doesn't hurt Europe, and it does increase the forces
available for Russia to use when the showdown comes with Russia's
_true_ enemy -- Islam in Central and South Asia.

- Jordan

On Feb 28, 7:16 am, "Hyper" wrote:
On Feb 28, 2:37 pm, (Rand Simberg)
wrote:

France didn't merely "disagree" with us. They *obstructed* us and
allied themselves with a tyrant against us, for corrupt reasons.
Agree or disagree with their actions, but they weren't those of an
ally at all, let alone a staunch one.

Allowing their airspace to be used for an act of war can hardly be
construed as allying themselves with Ghadafi.

Gadafi had committed an act of war against NATO by bombing Germany,
which is how the fight started.

You might also wish to note that Spain had denied overflight to USAF
planes too.

Well, as the Spanish have shown in the recent conflict, they are
serious competitors with the French in the Surrender Olympics.

And BTW the French embassy in Tripoli was hit by mistake in that raid.

Heh, if it _was_ a "mistake." It might have been a reminder to the
French to be careful who they side with.

- Jordan

On Feb 28, 1:09 pm, "Christopher Manteuffel"
wrote:
On Feb 27, 1:14 pm, "Scott Hedrick" wrote:

Tell that to the parents of the crew of the F-111 that was shut down while
defending France and the rest of the world against terrorism in the Libyan
actions of 1986.

Why were the 'varks involved in El Dorado Canyon at all? The Navy was
perfectly capable of doing the entire mission without Air Force
help[1], not just Benghazi plus supporting the Air Force's Tripoli
strikes. Given that the Air Force had to do such a crazy route, why
didn't they simply leave the whole thing to the Navy? As it was, the
Navy provided SEAD support for the Air Force strikes (there were a few
Spark Varks as well as a EA-6 and some A-7's as HARM shooters, plus
some F-14's as CAP). Why couldn't they have provided the whole strike
package?

Note that only four of the 18 F-111's hit their targets (one was lost
on ingress, six aborted, seven missed). With a success rate like that,
was the AF participation in El Dorado Canyon truly necessary?

Was it inter-service politics between the Air Force and the Navy that
got those men killed? I would say that those politics had at least as
much to do with it as US-French politics.

Chris Manteuffel
[1]: _Command of the Seas_ by Lehman

I have a number of problems with the 1986 raid, but not that it took
place. My main problem with it was that it was such a _minor_
reprisal -- we could, at very little risk to our own forces, have sunk
the entire Libyan Navy and smashed most of their Air Force, in a
couple of days' combat.

OTOH, 1986 was the climax of the Cold War, so it may have been for the
best that we didn't do this.

OTGH, we certainly could have de-fanged Libya at any time from 1989 to
2001, and I mark it as one of the failings of both Bush 41 and Clinton
that neither did.

- Jordan

On Feb 16, 6:08 am, Pat Flannery wrote:

If they have any brains, the EU will tell Poland to ditch this idea
pronto, under threat of economic sanctions against Polish products, as
if this goes through all of Europe is going to be a lot less safe five
years down the road.

Pat, if Europe _doesn't_ have either American or European ABM's
protecting her, what does Europe intend to do in the future in which
pretty much every tinpot radical Muslim dictatorship has at least a
few nuclear missiles?

Lacking ABM's, I don't see much middle ground between "issue stern
diplomatic notes" and "launch genocidal retaliations." And, after the
_second_ such looney attack by the Islamofascists, I think that the
genocides will start being pre-emptive ones.

You're worrying about the Russians, when Russia is a declining Power
with little in the way of remaining imperial ambitions. You're
focusing on the wrong threat.

- Jordan

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
...

Shhh...be vewy quiet...wew hunting tewwowists. :-)


wabbit season!!!


--
Terrell Miller


"One machine can do the work of fifty ordinary men. No machine can do the
work of one extraordinary man."
- Elbert Hubbard

Rand Simberg wrote:
On 28 Feb 2007 18:25:52 -0800, in a place far, far away,
" made the phosphor on
my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Not that it was the right thing to do. It certainly wasn't done for
noble or admirable reasons. And as I said, whether they behaved
rightly or wrongly, it wasn't the behavior of an ally.

Lets see, French soldiers are fighting and dying for you in
Afghanistan

Really? How many are fighting? How many have died?

2000 fighting 9 died. Yahoo.com is your friend. Does it really
make a difference? How many times must a soldier die to
prove that he is sincerely fighting?

but you can't consider them to be allies because they have also voted
against the US going into a quagmire in Iraq.

No, they voted against removing Saddam Hussein.

I have a hard time
understanding this line of reasonning. I think that France really
thought it was a bad idea for the US to go in Iraq.

Of course they did. It meant cutting off their corrupt gravy train.

France thought it was a bad idea "for the US" to go in Iraq.
Not France thought it was a bad idea for France that the
US go into Iraq. Well yes, it was also bad news for France
because it helps the insurgency in Afghanistan to be able
to say with some credibility that the crusaders are fighting
Islam not just fighting the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks.
But though it is bad news for France it is much worse for
the US. And France did not want that much worse to happen
to their allies for whom they are fighting and dying in
Afghanistan even if those allies are bickering about France
not being an ally.


Alain Fournier