How a preventable disaster killed six marines • Hacker News Board

Re: How a preventable disaster killed six marines

#51

Post by greedo » Tue, Dec 31, 2019, 1:53 PM UTC

nradov wrote: post #13

redis_mlc wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> why not just leave all the flying stuff to the Air Force or maybe specialized parts of the Navy? The priorities aka politics of each military branch are different. Canonical example: At Guadalcanal in WW2, the Navy was supposed to land supplies and support the Marines, but when the Japanese Navy showed up, the US Navy weighed anchor and left - with most supplies still aboard. The Marines are still mad about that 75…

This is also one of the main reasons why the Joint Strike Fighter (F-35) program ended up as such an expensive mess. The Marines insisted on getting their own VSTOL variant to provide CAS from amphibious ships so that they wouldn't have to rely on the Navy. And that forced the use of a huge single engine instead of smaller twin engines, making it less aerodynamic (shorter range) and less survivable for other missions…

Funny thing. Those F-35Bs fly off Navy ships. Marines have always relied on the Navy.

Re: How a preventable disaster killed six marines

#52

Post by chipsa » Tue, Dec 31, 2019, 1:55 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.…

You're wrong on enough points that I'm unsettling to put in the time to refute all of them...

But the easy one is: there are 490 F-35s built, with the next 3 lots buying almost that amount more, for less than it'd cost to buy F-16s/-18s. It's not a small production run.

Re: How a preventable disaster killed six marines

#53

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Dec 31, 2019, 2:09 PM UTC

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #23

jdc wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism defines binge drinking as a pattern of drinking that brings a person’s blood alcohol concentration (BAC) to 0.08 grams percent or above. This typically happens when men consume 5 or more drinks or women consume 4 or more drinks in about 2 hours." https://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/fact-sheets/binge-drinking.htm

This seems to be one of those cases where the special interest definition of a term and what the general population considers a reasonable definition diverge. Killing anything less than a 6-pack is generally not considered binge drinking by the population at large. There's also an intent element. Binge drinking involves drinking to get drunk. Killing a 6-pack because you're sitting around with your buddies drinking a…

[deleted]

Re: How a preventable disaster killed six marines

#54

Post by ak86 » Tue, Dec 31, 2019, 2:14 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 ...

It does not. It says the night conditions they were flying in because they weren't given time to adjust to the night schedule made them as fatigued as if they were flying under the influence.

Re: How a preventable disaster killed six marines

#55

Post by eaandkw » Tue, Dec 31, 2019, 2:16 PM UTC

TeMPOraL wrote: post #41

eaandkw wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't know all that much about what weapons the US currently uses on the battlefield, but I'd imagine that missiles laser-guided by ground troops would be accurate enough? Also, wouldn't CAS be better handled by UAVs anyway? They're cheaper, they have much better payload-to-weight ratio, and don't put a trained pilot in harm's way.

I think UAVs are great but not everyone is Type 1 CAS qualified. Someone could correct me but I think most UAV strikes are Type 2 or 3. A Type 1 CAS has to visually confirm the location of the target, friendly, and the approach angle. Most pilots, SF, and a lot of ground troops are but not all. And they are often not in a position to be able to confirm everything. Calling in CAS is a great responsibility in that you are accountable for every bomb or missile dropped.

Re: How a preventable disaster killed six marines

#56

Post by anilakar » Tue, Dec 31, 2019, 2:28 PM UTC

jonstewart wrote: post #46

The preventable disaster—and one that’s cost taxpayers maybe a trillion dollars with the F-35–is that the Marines have fighter jets. The argument we should be having is whether the Navy should have its own fighter jet capabilities in addition to the Air Force... but the argument we’re having is that the Marines also have fight jets and impose silly requirements on their jets.

In that case, the question might as well be whether USA needs a navy at all, considering that the aircraft carrier and its planes have been the deadliest naval weapon system since WWII.

Re: How a preventable disaster killed six marines

#57

Post by vonseel » Tue, Dec 31, 2019, 2:47 PM UTC

ceejayoz wrote: post #49

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems reasonable that oxygen should affect metabolic rates.

Not enough to sober up in a matter of minutes. It may wake you up a bit, you're still impaired relative to where you'd have been without the alcohol in your system (or lack of sleep or whatever other impairment is present).

Go-pills certainly increase tolerance to alcohol, won’t change your BAC but you’ll be less impaired after drinking, although it still isn’t safe and shouldn’t be an excuse for flying after drinking. This article is more about the opposite, though, sounds like the marines had some ambien left in their systems, and possibly motion sickness pills (Dramamine/Benadryl?), but they claim the levels were so low it shouldn’t have affected the pilots.

Overall I think the guy above boiled it down pretty well, some mistakes were made, but these marines were not prepared with enough training or properly functioning equipment to do the job safely, and senior commander’s are just pointing the blame at the squadron and middle management instead of taking ownership of the real problem (not responding to warnings about unpreparedness).

Re: How a preventable disaster killed six marines

#58

Post by bluntfang » Tue, Dec 31, 2019, 2:49 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.

Because with a lack of explicitly hierarchy, an implicit hierarchy is created. I'm not sure of any social system that doesn't include some form of hierarchy, but am very inclined to read an opinion.

Re: How a preventable disaster killed six marines

#59

Post by jonstewart » Tue, Dec 31, 2019, 2:51 PM UTC

anilakar wrote: post #56

jonstewart wrote: post #46

The preventable disaster—and one that’s cost taxpayers maybe a trillion dollars with the F-35–is that the Marines have fighter jets. The argument we should be having is whether the Navy should have its own fighter jet capabilities in addition to the Air Force... but the argument we’re having is that the Marines also have fight jets and impose silly requirements on their jets.

In that case, the question might as well be whether USA needs a navy at all, considering that the aircraft carrier and its planes have been the deadliest naval weapon system since WWII.

No doubt air craft carriers were very effective in WWII, when neither side had high precision radar let alone real-time satellite imagery. They won’t be effective in future wars. Air craft carriers are sitting ducks and will also prove to be a terrible waste of blood and treasure.

The Navy is hugely important, and I think there’s even a good argument to be made in favor of the USMC continuing to exist in a quasi-spec-ops/rapid deployment infantry role. I think there’s no good argument to be made in favor of the USMC having fighter jets.

Re: How a preventable disaster killed six marines

#60

Post by maxerickson » Tue, Dec 31, 2019, 2:56 PM UTC

aspaceman wrote: post #5

salex89 wrote: post #3

I'm not really into military doctrine, but why not just leave all the flying stuff to the Air Force or maybe specialized parts of the Navy? When you look up US air units/forces, there is a bunch of stuff left to the national guards, marines etc. and flying is obviously something to be taken seriously. And it looks like they are more likely to screw it up or take it less seriously.

The various forces do different things in the air. I'm not super knowledgeable about this, so someone might have more details. Air Force is general flight missions. They tend towards support and recon. Navy is focused on carrier support and sea missions. Marines are focused on CAS and both land and sea missions. Lot of helicopters as well. So each branch takes different responsibilities. I don't think this is an issu…

The US Army also flies helicopters.

Specialization is inevitable in an organization as large and complicated as the US military, and it's worth considering whether the service level split is the better way to manage it, especially at the top where it would be better for the decision makers to have diversified experience than to be in-fighting.