"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...
Hate to disappoint you but...No, I'm not talking about what happened
in Colombia at all. Laos actually. Since you are spouting all these
"facts", I thought you'd know all about it.

We have not lost an ARL in Laos.

Yeah. I know that. Apparently you are unaware of the ISR assets we DID
lose in Laos.


Hand it over. Anybody with have a brain knows that stealth is not completely
infallible, and that golden BB's do exist. The F-117 is a tough enough
target to acquire and hit--but it is not *impossible*.

I only have your word for it and so far your words have not been
substantiated or proven particularly reliable.
Do you think we are the only ones pursuing innovative networked
targeting systems? You are showing more signs of that "Voctory
Disease".


Of course I don't expect you to open this:

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/a...pietrucha.html
Everyone seems to understand the S-400's threat against
aircraft...except you.

Uhmmm...note that scenario has them facing F-15E's, not E-10's or ARL's?
Gee, wonder why... As to the realism of that particular threat...a single
ATACMS battery sitting in that same UAE territory can drill your S-400 site
each time the radar gets flipped on. Joint operations is a wonderful thing,
isn't it?

Excellent!! You did open a link. I urge you to open the others as
well...especially those dealing with surviviability. Whatever you
think of my points here, there is wealth of good stuff there. I'm
heartened that you now know the difference between "vulnerability" and
"susceptability"
Networked systems, that certainly wont be fielded by 2006, is what it
takes to defeat that kind of threat. What is expected to serve as the
nexus for the networked systems? Why our airborne ISR assets of
course. Neutralize them and we have a big problem.
Our potential adversaries are aware of this and have stated they want
to counter those assets in a big way.
Once you get done doing the research on ISR asset losses in Laos, read
up on Three Attacks Three Defenses


For C-40s et all, thats where the changes to Part-25 (typo'd as 125
earlier)and MIL-STD-1530A come in. MANPADS is now a threat to ALL
transport category aircraft.

Oh, no! We have to scrap all of our airliners NOW! Build new ones that meet
your lofty criteria for survivability, right?

Thats silly Kevin. What CAN be done is to harden those civil airframes
destined for military use to a measured level. Then leverage at least
some of those enhancements (whatever analysis shows to be the best)
into new construction aircraft.
On the civil side, all thats being proposed are pork riddled expensive
countermeasure sets. IF you were to read up on survivability, you
would see a balance between susceptability and vulnerability is what
it takes for sucess.
The big problem is the analysis is not getting done for aircraft that
will sorely need the protection one day.


No, the "fact" you conveniently ignore is that it WAS a civil aircraft, it
WAS hit by a MANPADS, and...it did not fall apart! It actually *survived*.
Not a good example to support your "commercial airframes can't handle
modern combat requirements" sermon, now is it?

Didn't ignore it one bit. It was a very small piece of shrapnel that
caused that winfg to burn almost all the way off. Because this
aircraft landed means little. It had no hydraulics (and no manual
reversion), and the left after spar was burned 85 to 90 pct through.
The fact that airplane landed really doesn't say much except that it
was a calm day, the aircraft was empty and light, and the captain had
just recently been reviewing the United DC-10 no hydraulics landing.
If it had been windy, or if the airplane had been heavier, or if the
captain had not thought about how to maneuver with engines only, the
story would have been different. They were really, really lucky.
An aircraft that had been built to take at least some damage which is
what these people are all about making sure happens:
http://jas.jcs.mil/main.htm
would have had a whole lot better chance at making it back alive.


I hate to tell you this, but the ARL also serves in that role--or did you
think we deployed them to Korea for grins and giggles? The key is *where* it
conducts its "fight"...yep, somewhere well to the rear of the FLOT, with due
regard to any potential threat systems that *could* cause it problems if it
moved into their envelope.

Essentially a cold war type deployment prior to the initiation of
hostilities. You are exhibiting more symptoms of the Victory Disease.
http://www.army.mil/prof_writing/vol...03/9_03_5.html
With a projected SAR/MTI range of 120 km (in flat terrain) ACS would
be well within range of S-300 S-400 threats.

On a parting note. Did you see where the E-10 isn't likely to be built
anytime soon anyway?