How a preventable disaster killed six marines • Hacker News Board

Re: How a preventable disaster killed six marines

#31

Post by dmos62 » Tue, Dec 31, 2019, 12:22 PM UTC

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #27

masklinn wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being there quick is not useful when you do nothing of value and leave immediately though.

Experience gained in the last 20yr in the middle east (Afghanistan in particular) indicates that what we traditionally consider "fighter" type aircraft are capable of delivering various guided munitions with sufficient accuracy and that time to location is highly important. Having dedicated CAS aircraft is nice and it's probably wise to keep something of that nature in service at all time but it's foolish to pretend…

> it's foolish to pretend that a modern multirole fighter can't be shoehorned into that role with reasonable effectiveness.

I would say it is foolish to make such a broad generalization like that a plane being new and designated multirole is enough for it to fill all CAS roles (there's more than 1 type of CAS mission) "with reasonable effectiveness". In the case of F-35 replacing A-10, we know that it won't be able to fill some of those roles.

Re: How a preventable disaster killed six marines

#32

Post by redis_mlc » Tue, Dec 31, 2019, 12:26 PM UTC

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #27

masklinn wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being there quick is not useful when you do nothing of value and leave immediately though.

Experience gained in the last 20yr in the middle east (Afghanistan in particular) indicates that what we traditionally consider "fighter" type aircraft are capable of delivering various guided munitions with sufficient accuracy and that time to location is highly important. Having dedicated CAS aircraft is nice and it's probably wise to keep something of that nature in service at all time but it's foolish to pretend…

You're wrong on several points.

The US has air dominance in Afghanistan, so even a Stuka would look good.

And the F35 has such a small production run that the Air Force would run out in months. Which they won't do for another agency for CAS.

In Vietnam we learned that having airplanes in-theater are much, much cheaper to operate than carrier and remote-based aircraft that take multiple refuelings to arrive on target.

For those not familiar with high-performance figher/bomber jets, they have to be refueled immediately after carrier launch and typically at least one more time after that before a bombing run. It's ridiculous, and exposes the tankers to risk.

Re: How a preventable disaster killed six marines

#33

Post by dsfyu404ed » Tue, Dec 31, 2019, 12:31 PM UTC

TeMPOraL wrote: post #28

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>And the F35 is the worst at CAS - high, fast and expensive with no loiter time. True, but it's there quick (compared to the A10, C130 and any helicopter) which counts for a ton. Nobody ever called for air support and didn't need it now.

Isn't the job of getting there quick and delivering fire to the ground best left to missiles?

That question is too broad. It depends on the situation.

If you know in advance where you're going to need the extra firepower (i.e. "we're gonna take that village over there") then you set up artillery. It's accurate gets where you need it quick, is cheap and can't be shot down en-route.

If you are fighting a war of occupation and patrolling basically everywhere and don't know where you'll run into a fight then you need some way of getting your extra firepower to the ground units that need it. This is traditionally handled by fixed and rotary wind aircraft carrying bombs or air to ground missiles. I'm unaware of surface to surface missiles being used in this role.

Re: How a preventable disaster killed six marines

#34

Post by thrower123 » Tue, Dec 31, 2019, 12:32 PM UTC

pjc50 wrote: post #18

C1sc0cat wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And your problem is here ? If the meeting attendees where not driving after the meeting, I don't see the problem with social drinking and bonding.

Well, the original post said they were flying aircraft while still impaired afterwards ...

All the Airforce personnel that I've drunk with tell me that a couple minutes on pure oxygen do wonders to clear up a hangover.

Re: How a preventable disaster killed six marines

#35

Post by js8 » Tue, Dec 31, 2019, 12:40 PM UTC

Hierarchical organizations have many flaws, yet humans continue to largely support them. Why?

I think the question "why there are social hierarchies" is the biggest open problem in social sciences. There are many plausible explanations, but no clear winner.

Re: How a preventable disaster killed six marines

#36

Post by varjag » Tue, Dec 31, 2019, 12:47 PM UTC

redis_mlc wrote: post #32

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Experience gained in the last 20yr in the middle east (Afghanistan in particular) indicates that what we traditionally consider "fighter" type aircraft are capable of delivering various guided munitions with sufficient accuracy and that time to location is highly important. Having dedicated CAS aircraft is nice and it's probably wise to keep something of that nature in service at all time but it's foolish to pretend…

You're wrong on several points. The US has air dominance in Afghanistan, so even a Stuka would look good. And the F35 has such a small production run that the Air Force would run out in months. Which they won't do for another agency for CAS. In Vietnam we learned that having airplanes in-theater are much, much cheaper to operate than carrier and remote-based aircraft that take multiple refuelings to arrive on target.…

> The US has air dominance in Afghanistan, so even a Stuka would look good.

USAF had air dominance in all recent wars, and A10s suffered the highest losses. Going against an enemy with functioning air force and air defence with those would be unwise.

Re: How a preventable disaster killed six marines

#37

Post by C1sc0cat » Tue, Dec 31, 2019, 12:51 PM UTC

reallydontask wrote: post #25

C1sc0cat wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well it was more the mandated PowerPoint presentation they had to sit through. Anyone who's worked for a big corporation will know what I mean. "what the anti brbary course dint we do that 6 weeks ago "

Isn't the difference that most people are unlikely to be in any position where they can be bribed whereas in the military a lot more people use heavy equipment (for want of a better word)?

Its the same sort of repeat the same tick the box training - and woe betide you if you don't do it properly.

https://www.duffelblog.com/2017/12/soldiers-accidentally-sum...

Re: How a preventable disaster killed six marines

#38

Post by eaandkw » Tue, Dec 31, 2019, 1:09 PM UTC

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #33

TeMPOraL wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't the job of getting there quick and delivering fire to the ground best left to missiles?

That question is too broad. It depends on the situation. If you know in advance where you're going to need the extra firepower (i.e. "we're gonna take that village over there") then you set up artillery. It's accurate gets where you need it quick, is cheap and can't be shot down en-route. If you are fighting a war of occupation and patrolling basically everywhere and don't know where you'll run into a fight then you…

Surface to surface missiles are basically just indirect fire. I believe that the Army's MLRSs would qualify for IDF.

The difference between IDF and direct fire is mostly to reduce collateral damage. Direct fire can be more accurate and limit damage to surrounding areas. It is also easier to hit moving targets with direct fire.

Re: How a preventable disaster killed six marines

#39

Post by StreamBright » Tue, Dec 31, 2019, 1:16 PM UTC

js8 wrote: post #35

Hierarchical organizations have many flaws, yet humans continue to largely support them. Why? I think the question "why there are social hierarchies" is the biggest open problem in social sciences. There are many plausible explanations, but no clear winner.

What is the mode of operation you are suggesting to be used instead? On the top of that, what flaws are you talking about in specific?

Re: How a preventable disaster killed six marines

#40

Post by eaandkw » Tue, Dec 31, 2019, 1:16 PM UTC

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #27

masklinn wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being there quick is not useful when you do nothing of value and leave immediately though.

Experience gained in the last 20yr in the middle east (Afghanistan in particular) indicates that what we traditionally consider "fighter" type aircraft are capable of delivering various guided munitions with sufficient accuracy and that time to location is highly important. Having dedicated CAS aircraft is nice and it's probably wise to keep something of that nature in service at all time but it's foolish to pretend…

This is the same type of argument that people make over programming languages or EMACS/VIM. You could provide CAS with just about anything that flys. However a good CAS vehicle should be able to fly relatively slow and be well protected from ground fire. The A-10 if perfect and I really wish there was a way to make new ones. I even heard at one point the USMC was thinking of bringing back the OV-10 Bronco.