SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: unclewest who wrote (1282)5/20/2003 9:05:34 PM
From: JohnM  Read Replies (4) | Respond to of 793592
 
Nope, once the court made its decision, it's all over. Until DeLay over reached. They'll get another shot in 2010.



To: unclewest who wrote (1282)5/21/2003 6:01:55 AM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793592
 
New weapon made debut in Iraq

By Pamela Hess
UPI Pentagon Correspondent
From the International Desk
Published 5/19/2003 6:14 PM

Up to date "Bow and Arrows." Who would have thunk it!

WASHINGTON, May 19 (UPI) -- A number of new weapons made their combat debut in the war in Iraq, including one that was secretly developed and built in the six months leading up to the war, according to Air Force officials.

It is indicative of a new trend in weapon building in the U.S. military, officials said. While conventional wisdom suggests bombs just get bigger and more accurate, the military is actively seeking accurate bombs that do less and less damage.

The CBU-107 Passive Attack Weapon is the Air Force's modern answer to the classic bow and arrow: a high-speed volley of more than 3,000 metal arrows, projected from a single canister, meant to destroy a "soft" target with a minimum of damage to surrounding structures.

Because it is not an explosive, it was designed to be especially useful against targets where an explosion would be a bad thing -- say at a chemical plant or a suspected biological weapons laboratory. A plume of smoke from such targets could carry with it deadly gases or pathogens, according to a Pentagon official.

Just two CBU-107s were used in the war during the first two weeks of April, according to Col. James Knox, the program director for the Area Attack System Program Office at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida.

After a classified study in the spring of 2002 determined the need for a new class of precise, non-explosive weapon with projectile submunitions, the Air Force put $40 million toward the CBU-107 in September. By January, Knox and his team had delivered the first of the 1,000-pound weapons for use on the F-16 fighter, the B-52 bomber and the F-15E strike fighter.

Each weapon packed into a standard bomb dispenser has three types of metal projectiles: 350 15-inch long rods, 1,000 7-inch long rods; and 2,400 small penetrators, about the size of a 10-penny nail. The bomb itself is propelled by the forward motion of the plane from which it is dropped and the force of gravity. Gliding toward a target, the bomb's path is "corrected" for the effect of the wind by an inexpensive tail kit, which gives the weapon accuracy of closer than 30 feet. Before impact, however, an inner chamber containing the rods begins to rotate and the "arrows" are flung out in rapid succession by the centrifugal force, attacking the target within a "footprint" of less than 200 feet.

"Instead of an explosive effect these penetrators punch holes in targets," Knox told United Press International Monday.

Explosives cause unintended damage and leave dangerous "duds" behind, he explained. Anything attacked with the Passive Attack Weapon could be easily targeted with a 1,000-pound or 2,000-pound explosive Joint Direct Attack Munition, or even a cement-filled version of the weapon -- but not without unwanted consequences.

"When it came about we were looking for destructive effects to specific aspects of a target without doing a lot of damage to neighboring infrastructure. Avoiding collateral damage was a specific objective of the weapon," Knox said.

"If you had an antenna on top of a building, if you dropped one of these, you could bring some destructive effect to that antenna without risk to the structure," Knox said. "A concrete JDAM would destroy the building too."

The Sensor Fuzed Weapon, a non-explosive tank and armor-killing weapon, also made its combat debut in Iraq. About 88 were used in the war, according to the Air Force.

The U.S. military used 19,948 precision munitions in the war and 9,251 unguided weapons. Most of the precision weapons were laser-guided bombs (8,716) and JDAMs of various sizes (6,542), according to a report on the conduct of the air war prepared April 30 for Lt. Gen. Michael Moseley, who commanded that portion of the effort.

The report, "Operation Iraqi Freedom: By the Numbers," covers the war between March 19 to April 18.

Although the Army force hovered around 240,000, plus some 43,000 British and Australian troops, the total number of U.S. personnel deployed for the war was 466,985. More than 1,800 aircraft flew more than 41,000 missions. Iraqi forces responded with anti-aircraft artillery 1,224 times; with 1,660 surface-to-air missiles and rockets, and 19 surface-to-surface missiles.
upi.com



To: unclewest who wrote (1282)5/22/2003 7:58:09 AM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793592
 
A Sight to See - U.S. forces are even more impressive when you see them for yourself.

DEROY MURDOCK - NATIONAL REVIEW

I would love to have been with this reporter, UW. These guys are so much better than when I was in the service in the 50s.

For an insomniac, I am sleeping rather well these days. It certainly helps to live under a commander-in-chief who not only lands on an aircraft carrier in a fighter jet, but then delivers from that platform a clearheaded and stirring address on America's role as Earth's foremost guardian of individual liberty. Watching Operation Iraqi Freedom unfold almost flawlessly within just three weeks has made slumbering easier, knowing that bad guys also saw America assert itself decisively with relative ease.

But I also am resting especially well after a recent tour of military installations in CONUS, Pentagon-speak for the continental United States. It similarly should soothe Americans to know that we are defended by dedicated, well-equipped, tough men of action and brave women of honor.

While in the Pentagon's hands, my rank is DV, short for "Distinguished Visitor." Dozens more acronyms wash over me during my trip. (My tour's organizers operate under strict not-for-attribution rules. Thus, neither they nor anyone I meet can be identified by name.) My travels take me from Nellis Air Force Base (within sight of the Las Vegas strip), to San Diego's Marine Corps Recruitment Depot and the USMC's Camp Pendleton, the aircraft carrier John C. Stennis and Fort Lewis, the Army special-forces base in Tacoma, Washington. Seven days with all four U.S. armed forces deeply impress me as a taxpayer, citizen, and patriot.

Uncle Sam spent $331 billion on the Defense Department in fiscal year 2002. No doubt, some of that cash spit-shined the Pentagon's bureaucracy. Does the Air Force, for example, really need a Personnel Center at Randolph Air Base in Texas and a Personnel Operations Agency in Washington, D.C.?

But as frustrating as such duplication is, one also must marvel at the advanced technology that those tax dollars buy.

AMONG THE BRAVEST
As one F-16 after another screams down the tarmac and ascends with afterburners aglow into Nevada's turquoise skies, a brand-new F/A-22 stealth fighter gleams in the dry heat beside a sun-splashed hangar.

"The F/A 22's primary mission is to establish absolute control of the skies over any battlefield," according to the website of Boeing, the "air dominance" vehicle's co-developer, along with Lockheed-Martin. "It provides first-look, first-shot, first-kill capability."

The F/A 22's gently-curved fuselage, absorbent materials, and special coatings render it virtually invisible to radar. It can climb higher (ceiling: 50,000 feet), and fly more swiftly (Mach 2) than any other Air Force stealth fighter. This model's pilot proudly calls the cockpit "my office." Its vast array of buttons and interchangeable display screens gives him a vivid sense of "situational awareness" in both training and combat. Another pilot calls the F/A-22 "the King Kong of fighter aircraft."

In a nearby building, a Predator drone stands on display. These UAVs (Unmanned Aerial Vehicles) have become famous for providing field commanders and intelligence operatives maneuverable eyes in the sky. Circling quietly above, the Predator can peer discreetly on a location or ? as Qaed Sinan Harithi learned, fire up to two laser-guided Hellfire missiles at targets below. Harithi could vouch for the Hellfire's effectiveness, had it not blasted him and five of his al Qaeda comrades to bits in Yemen last November.

The Predator B promises to be even more robust. As early as next November, it will be able to stay aloft for up to 30 hours (versus 24 today). Sharper cameras will give base operators more detailed knowledge of enemy mischief. And, most amazingly, each Predator B can carry a small pod on its underside that can detach itself and fly through mysterious gas clouds. It can evaluate them instantly for the presence of chemical or biological weapons. The mini-B ? about the size of a skateboard ? can land in a safe location where the air samples it has collected can be recovered for laboratory analysis.

The JDAM (Joint Direct Attack Munitions ) kits at Nellis AFB are like brain implants for dumb bombs. A guidance system and fins attached to a regular gravity bomb use GPS satellite data to steer ordnance away from, say, foreign schoolyards and into hostile shipyards. Unit cost: $20,000.

The smallest JDAM is now a 500-pound device. The Pentagon is creating a 250-pound, small diameter bomb. Its increased accuracy and diminished blast capacity will make it even easier to strike, for example, a foreign despot's bedroom but spare the lives of his children and domestic servants down the hall. America's bombs are becoming both smarter and more polite.

For its part, the U.S. Navy aircraft carrier John C. Stennis is a giant, technological marvel. As one observer quipped, "This is 97,000 tons of diplomacy." The seven-year-old vessel's nuclear reactor permits it to travel 10 to 12 years without refueling. (The bad news: Each pit stop to replace its atomic core requires three years in port.)

I am fortunate to land on the Stennis's deck in a COD (Carrier-On-board Delivery aircraft). I am strapped inside a C-2 Greyhound that a giant steel cable decelerates from 150 MPH to a full stop within three seconds and 200 feet. Helmeted and, for safety's sake, seated backwards through all of this, the feeling is one of personal, physical implosion. Believing that all of me would shrink into something the size of a softball, I close my eyes very tightly until that sensation and the tail hook's seemingly relentless scrape stop. I quickly open my eyes and experience a full body rush as those around me applaud this real-life thrill ride.

Throughout a long, sunny day, the Stennis cruises 90 miles off the coast of Rosarito Beach, Baja California, Mexico. Its week-long mission is to help Naval aviators qualify for carrier takeoffs and landings in F/A-18 Hornets and Superhornets, EA-6B Prowlers and S-3 Vikings. One cannot tire of watching jets speed toward the deck, then stop abruptly after snagging tail hooks in any of four rubber-band-like cables stretched perpendicularly across their paths.

On "DV Row," the ship's honored guests sleep in surprisingly comfortable quarters that recall two-man college dorm rooms. In them, the on-board TV service features "PLAT Video," or what I nickname "The Stennis Channel." On-deck cameras show the jets in black and white as they approach and align their wings to the deck's pitch and yaw. (The tiny runway often bobs simultaneously from side-to-side, front to back and up and down!) It's nearly impossible to tear one's self from this genuine, no-gimmick, reality TV. After a few minutes, it becomes easy to predict which pilots will land smoothly and which will miss the cables, drag their tail hooks across the deck in a trail of sparks and throw their jets into full throttle to take-off and return for another
landing attempt.

Choreographing all of this activity are flight controllers below decks, others peering down from above the bridge and literally dozens of sailors who maintain, guide, restrain, release and recover aircraft from take-off preparation to post-sortie storage.

Those who do this work wear color-coded uniforms that correspond to their duties. Among others, those in green perform mechanical upkeep. The "grapes" in purple conduct fueling. And those in red handle ordnance and crash-related emergencies.

Given the tremendous noise in what is essentially a hectic, compact, floating airport, these professionals communicate largely through sign language. Even more amazing, during night operations they do this in tremendous darkness. After dusk, the Stennis shuts off most of its deck lights, to make it less conspicuous to antagonists.

"Night Ops" on an aircraft carrier resemble a glow-in-the-dark ant farm. The hands on deck do their duties while barely visible to each other. Flashlights of different hues allow them to communicate amid the ruckus. And yet airplanes keep coming and going ? at roughly one-minute
intervals.

Directly above my cabin, jets rev their engines at full blast before getting launched off the deck by a steam-driven catapult. Down below, the sound has to be the loudest I ever have heard indoors. Thankfully, night ops end at about 12:30 A.M. Sleep comes quickly with the sea's slightest roll as a lullaby.

The next morning, in somewhat rougher waters, a sailor staggers as the ship forcefully lurches sideways. She smiles and asks: "Hey, who's steering this thing?"

Though not as exciting as an arrested landing, being shot off the Stennis is unforgettable as well. It's like a roller-coaster ride's first plunge, only in an enclosed space, louder and facing backwards. And no one screams.

SOLDERS, GENTLEMEN, WONKS?
The military's daunting technology and facilities aside, I am deeply moved as a citizen by the high quality of America's military personnel. With about three exceptions, the service men and women I meet are enthusiastic, energetic, and dedicated. From pilots to administrators to air-refueling specialists to those on kitchen patrol, they appear uniformly thrilled and honored to do their jobs. They are incredibly disciplined and courteous, something that would be welcome in the civilian world. At the risk of sounding like an elite egghead, I also find the vast majority of GIs more intellectual than I expected and far more so than they usually are depicted in the media and popular culture.

Among the more intriguing personalities I encounter:

One enlisted man at San Diego's Marine Corps Recruitment Depot perfectly fits the description "battle sculpted" that I hear another Marine state elsewhere. The letters "USMC" are tattooed across this young man's bartop-flat belly. On his commander's order, he calmly and confidently leaps off a diving board into the deep end of an Olympic-sized pool with his hands tied behind his back. Without apparent effort, he swims about 35 - 40 feet along the pool's edge. Breathing rather normally, he reaches a spot from which two of his colleagues retrieve him. "No sweat," his face says.

A junior surface warfare officer spent last December through March in the Persian Gulf. There he led a team of sailors who rappelled along the sides of steel containers on freight vessels seeking oil, industrial equipment, weapons and other contraband barred by the U.N.'s sanctions against Iraq. They never found anything verboten other than petroleum. "It would be all too easy to hide a dozen Stringer missiles in the back of a container box filled with tea," he says.

He now peruses computer, radar, and satellite data to assure that vessels unfriendly to the Stennis maintain their distance. From far inside the carrier, he also thinks deep thoughts about deployment of naval power around the world and how such force projection secures America and its interests.

One midlevel officer served as a Navy diver in Gulf War I. Near Kuwait, he repeatedly swam toward and attached explosive charges to Iraq's Soviet-made sea mines. They then were detonated to permit the safe passage of military and maritime vessels. He also used an underwater torch off the coast of Cape Hatteras, North Carolina to recover the propeller of the Monitor. On his first dive, his rubber umbilical air hose got stuck for five harrowing minutes beneath the anchor of the Civil War-era Union ironclad ship. He freed himself only to face more trouble on his next dive. During a change in the gas mixture while descending from shallow to 70-foot-deep water, his air supply inadvertently was cut off completely for about a minute. He thought about his wife and young family and took that situation as a signal to seek less fearsome work, such as in public affairs.

"My first assignment was to the Pentagon," he recalls, "where on September 11, the plane struck the building within 200 yards of my office. So much for reducing risk."

Among other responsibilities, he now escorts DVs around the Stennis and answers their incessant questions.

But most inspiring of all were the members of the First Special Forces Group (Airborne) at Fort Lewis, Washington. These Green Berets train in the shadow of Mount Rainier. Clear and snowcapped, it emerges from its usual gray shroud during my two-day stay.

I am ashamed to confess that when I first heard I would meet Green Berets, I anticipated a dull day surrounded by luggish, albeit well-trained GIs with fantastic aim. "Mongo shoot," as one of them later lampoons my unfortunate stereotype.

Wrong! The Green Berets are some of the most incredible men I have found anywhere. They are worldly, multilingual, fluent in regional issues and can operate as units or individually in unimaginably difficult circumstances. They also have active and facile minds. I regard the special forces I meet as very well-armed think-tank scholars. They also are perfect gentlemen who cheerfully regale visitors with intelligent discussion on a wide array of topics. And, if necessary, each can snap your neck with his pinkies, probably painlessly.

I speak at length with young, bright, and fit soldiers about international affairs, economics, and even global warming. One of them tells me he has three bachelors' degrees and is earning a masters in social work. When he leaves Fort Lewis, he hopes to become a school counselor. Talk about swords into plow shares!

Their only obvious frustration is that many of them want to be in Iraq. Like basketball players watching from the bench as their teammates fight for the NCAA championship, these men long for action.

As much as I admire the other units I visit, the special forces most touch my heart. Their slogan is De Oppresso Liber, Latin for "To free the oppressed." That's a noble cause for which, as a patriot, I am proud to have them fight in my name.

- Mr. Murdock is a columnist with the Scripps Howard News Service.
nationalreview.com



To: unclewest who wrote (1282)5/27/2003 12:53:46 AM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793592
 
The Hog That Saves the Grunts
By ROBERT CORAM - NEW YORK TIMES

I knew the Air Force would do this. I hope Rummy steps in.

ATLANTA
The Air Force is planning to give the A-10 Warthog an ignominious homecoming from the Persian Gulf.

In early April, Maj. Gen. David Deptula of the Air Combat Command ordered a subordinate to draft a memo justifying the decommissioning of the A-10 fleet. The remaining eight active duty A-10 squadrons (in 1991, the number was 18) could be mothballed as early as 2004.

This is a serious mistake. The A-10 was one of the most effective, lethal and feared weapons of the Iraqi war. Its absence will put troops on the battlefield in grave danger. The decision to take this aircraft out of service is the result of entrenched political and cultural shortsightedness.

About the same time that the general's order was issued, a crucial battle of the Iraqi war was unfolding. The United States Army had arrived at a Tigris River bridge on the edge of Baghdad to find Iraqi tanks and armored personnel carriers positioned at the other end. A deadly crossfire ensued. A call for help went out, and despite heavy clouds and fog, down the river came two A-10's at an altitude of less than 1,000 feet, spitting out a mix of armor-piercing and explosive bullets at the rate of 3,900 rounds per minute. The Iraqi resistance was obliterated. This was a classic case of "close air support."

The A-10 was also the most storied aircraft of the first gulf war. It flew so many sorties the Air Force lost count. The glamorous F-117 Stealth fighter got the headlines, but Iraqi prisoners interrogated after the war said the aircraft they feared most were the A-10 and the ancient B-52 bomber.

To understand why the corporate Air Force so deeply loathes the A-10, one must go back to 1947, when the Air Force broke away from the Army and became an independent branch. "Strategic bombing," which calls for deep bombing raids against enemy factories and transportation systems, was the foundation of the new service branch. But that concept is fundamentally flawed for the simple reason that air power alone has never won a war.

Nevertheless, strategic bombing, now known as "interdiction bombing," remains the philosophical backbone of the Air Force. Anything involving air support of ground troops is a bitter reminder that the Air Force used to be part of the Army and subordinate to Army commanders. For the white-scarf crowd, nothing is more humiliating than being told that what it does best is support ground troops.

Until the A-10 was built in the 1970's, the Air Force used old, underpowered aircraft to provide close air support. It never had a plane specifically designed to fly low to the ground to support field troops. In fact, the A-10 never would have been built had not the Air Force believed the Army was trying to steal its close air support role ? and thus millions of dollars from its budget ? by building the Cheyenne helicopter. The Air Force had to build something cheaper than the Cheyenne. And because the Air Force detested the idea of a designated close air support aircraft, generals steered clear of the project, and designers, free from meddling senior officers, created the ultimate ground-support airplane.

It is cheap, slow, low-tech, does not have an afterburner, and is so ugly that the grandiose name "Thunderbolt" was forgotten in favor of "Warthog" or, simply, "the Hog." What the airplane does have is a deadly 30-millimeter cannon, two engines mounted high and widely separated to offer greater protection, a titanium "bathtub" to protect the pilot, a bullet- and fragmentation-resistant canopy, three back-up flight controls, a heavy duty frame and foam-filled fuel tanks ? a set of features that makes it one of the safest yet most dangerous weapons on the battlefield.

However, these attributes have long been ignored, even denied, because of the philosophical aversion to the close air support mission. Couple that with the Air Force's love affair with the high technology F/A-22 ($252 million per plane) and the F-35 fighter jets (early cost estimates are around $40 million each), and something's got to give.

Despite budget problems, the Air Force has decided to save money by getting rid of the cheap plane and keeping the expensive ones. Sacrifices must be made, and what a gleeful one this will be for the Air Force.

The Air Force is promoting the F-35 on the idea that it can provide close air support, a statement that most pilots find hilarious. But the F-35's price tag means the Air Force will not jeopardize the aircraft by sending it low where an enemy with an AK-47 can bring it down. (Yes, the aircraft will be that vulnerable.)

In the meantime, the Air Force is doing its utmost to get the public to think of the sleek F-16 fighter jet as today's close support aircraft. But in the 1991 gulf war and in Kosovo, the Air Force wouldn't allow the F-16 to fly below 10,000 feet because of its vulnerability to attack from anti-aircraft guns and missiles.

Grunts are comforted by the presence of a Hog, because when they need close air support, they need it quickly. And the A-10 can loiter over a battlefield and pounce at a moment's notice. It is the only aircraft with pilots trained to use their eyes to separate bad guys from good guys, and it can use its guns as close in as 110 yards. It is the only aircraft that can take serious hits from ground fire, and still take its pilot home.

But the main difference between those who fly pointy-nose aircraft and Hog drivers is the pilot's state of mind. The blue suits in the Air Force are high-altitude advocates of air power, and they aren't thinking about muddy boots. A-10 drivers train with the Army. They know how the Army works and what it needs. (In combat, an A-10 pilot is assigned to Army units.)

If the Air Force succeeds in killing the A-10, it will leave a serious gap in America's war-fighting abilities. By itself, air power can't bring about victory. The fate of nations and the course of history is decided by ground troops. The A-10 is the single Air Force aircraft designed to support those troops. For that reason alone, the Air Force should keep the A-10 and build new close support aircraft similar to the Hog, demonstrating its long-term commitment to supporting our men and women in the mud.

Robert Coram is author of "Boyd: The Fighter Pilot Who Changed the Art of War."

nytimes.com