On Fri, 3 Jun 2011 23:25:05 -0700 (PDT), "miso@sushi.com"
<miso@sushi.com> wrote:

On Jun 3, 5:45 pm, emoneyjoe <emoney...@iglou.com> wrote:

On Fri, 3 Jun 2011 00:24:43 -0700 (PDT), "m...@sushi.com"

<m...@sushi.com> wrote:

On Jun 2, 9:36 pm, emoneyjoe <emoney...@iglou.com> wrote:

On Wed, 1 Jun 2011 19:12:58 -0700 (PDT), "m...@sushi.com"

<m...@sushi.com> wrote:

On Jun 1, 5:39 am, "kirk.st...@gmail.com" <kirk.st...@gmail.com>
wrote:

On May 31, 11:27 pm, "Craig 'Lumpy' Lemke"

<lu...@digitalcartography.com> wrote:

kirk.st...@gmail.com wrote:

Dude, you need to get a life.

There is a reason the military does things out of the sight of people
like you.  It's called OPSEC, among other things.

So you're worried that terrorists will see the pics,
hear the audio and thereby be able to plan the next
overthrow.

Meanwhile, you quote the links in your post.

Where did that turnip truck go?

Craig 'Lumpy' Lemke

www.n0eq.com

Actually, radio comms are not what I'm concerned about - as miso
(whoever he is, since he's too chickenshit to use a real name) says -
comms are easy to hide if you are concerned.

And by the way, I was probably using HQ operationally before you were
born....

It's the attitude that just because you see something interesting,
everybody needs to know about it.

You guys probably think Wikileaks is a good thing, too.

I realize this is useless, as are most people posting on this group
anymore, but it just pissed me off.

Kirk

Have you figured out the derivation of OPSEC yet? One part is for
operations, the other for security. So part of the operation is to
maintain security. You calculate the risks and either deem them
acceptable or you determine a way to counter the risk.

The camo dudes used to be in the clear. They have been using DES for
well over a decade. You find a hole in your security, you fix it.
Using encryption is far better than asking people not to listen.

You can ride naked on your horse through town with an edict from the
king that nobody look, or you just wear clothing.

If only there were stealth experts at Groom Lake.....

          Why, stealth is old hat, invented 35 years ago, and any
country in the world could have it if they were willing to pay
the cost of building the things.

           Smart bombs was what made the F-117 great, what
would be nice is a book by General Eugene Fischer about
the period he spent at Nellis, he may know all the important
dates.

           I should write a book, I have about 2000 pages of
official documents going back as far as 1976.

           How can congress screw things up so bad that
only a few dozen F-22s were built?

           I guess a lot of money is going into aircraft carriers
and other stealth ships.

Be sure to work some space alien stuff into that smart bomb book if
you expect to do Colbert. ;-)

           I won't be able to outdo anybody, I don't know anything
about smart bombs except they made the F-117 into a really
effective system, reducing collateral damage and being very
effective and economical.

Regarding the F-22, the mentality is we will be whacking dumb targets
versus first world nations, so better to build UAVs (UAS), souped up
P-12s, CN-235s, etc. It's all special forces these days.

          What is being done now isn't the issue, it is the future
that may present a need for a thousand superiority fighters,
and we won't have them.

JDAMs were a good invention, well unless you were on the receiving end
of one. Certainly cost effectiveness was the goal.

If a weapon system is too expensive, there is a great reluctance to
use it IF it is overkill for the job. That is why the F-22 hasn't seen
any action. Nobody wants to chance losing one to bomb a mud hut.

      I think the US is talking on too much of the burden of
fighting terrorism, but not enough to prepare for the next
big war.

        If more unmanned aircraft are needed it should be
easy to add the electronic remote controls to any existing
aircraft with a nose wheel.

        A new long range strike capability with an option
for manned or UAV may be a good idea, but we can't
fight a war with a few dozen airplanes, even with smart
bombs.

They convert F4s to QF4s for target practice, but it doesn't make
sense to convert conventional aircraft to drones. With a drone, you
don't need all that life support hardware. More room for sensors and
fuel. Loiter time is a big deal when you have to wait for your targets
to be in the clear. With satellite controls, you aren't exactly going
to be dog fighting in a drone. The satellite delay will make you lose
every time.  So the drone doesn't have to be built for significant G
forces. For fighter drones, you need local )in plane, as in
autonomous) control, and may the force be with you.  UCAV is a new
ballgame. Predator take off and landing is done via direct RF, not
over the bird. There is no significant lag time. But once the plane in
is the air, control is very sluggish due to satellite lag.

Had we never invaded Iraq and pulled out of Afgranistan when the
leaving was good, the US would have money for new toys. Now the new
SecDef gets to lord over a declining budget, cancelling projects.

Clinton was trying to do deals with the Taliban. Bush was literally
giving the Taliban money prior to war. Hell, Powell delivered the
bucks. Anyway,  the US survived with jerks like the Taliban in charge
of Afghanistan, and if they take over again, so be it.  Basically the
Taliban isn't Al Qaeda and isn't worth the lives and capital to
eliminate them. In fact, Karzai is trying to make peace with them.
What a mess.

         Yes, and we don't know that China and Russia won't at
some point put production of stealth fighters in high gear,
I don't have any idea how good the F-35 is, but there are
not many of those yet.

         What is worrisome is the number of underground
facilities China has, it may be difficult to find out what
their thinking is until the point where things get tough.

         The big thing we seem to have going is being so
far away, and I agree we may be sticking our nose 
were it doesn't belong, but I have to have confidence
that the intelligence services have provided congress
and the president with good information, and the
efforts fighting terrorism seems to be the same in
all administrations.