End of an era

[Gun Grape]

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

Not in a world of 40% vacancy on US supercarriers they don't.

The USN is putting to sea flight groups only 60-65% of the size of the 90TACAIR groups from the cold war. There is plenty of room on the supercarriers for a decent sized amphib force now.

It's not like we're ever gonna do any kind of a real ampnibious invasion again. We are afterall, told all the time by the likes of the USN themselves that this is an extinct operation.

And just think of all the money that would be saved eliminating the AAAV, AMTRAKS, LCAC, and all those various amphibious ships.

We could buy more real carriers then.

Gee Snipe, You are really stuck on # of planes arn't you? Kind of like determining the effectivness of NSFS by "Throw weight".

The Navy can do that because they have more capable planes. Planes that have higher turnaround rates. That can self escort in the attack and buddy tanker mode. Fire more precise munitions which require less BoD. In other words a group that is just as capable as the old full deck Wings.

You know ever since Gallipoli people have said that "There will never be another
amphibous invasion again". And yet the RN and USMC just did a joint one for OIF.

I'm betting there were naysayers after the landing at New Providence, Bahamas.
"No one will ever do that again."

If we get rid of AAVs and LCACs then what will the Army use for amphibious crossings?

You are aware that the amphibous capability is the main reason that 1 MEF did the run up the right side to Baghdad. The Army doesn't have the amphibious vehicles or the bridging capabilities to conduct operations in that type of terrain . A couple of downed bridges would have stopped them in their tracks. Those AAVs work real good for rivers and lakes.

If we get rid of the LCACs than how will the Army and AF APA unload midstream?
Or will you only onload at ports that have modern Ro-Ro capablility?

Now once you decide to use those carriers to embark your "army amphibous force" you will need twice the carriers.

I gave you the example of the Somolia Embassy NEO in another thread. 2 ships from the ARG detached to accomplish that mission. You would have us pull a Carrier and her Airwing to accomplish the same. As I recall all the Carriers at that time were involved in a little thing called Desert Storm at the time.

Yea that would make sense, Pull the CAG from combat so we can do a helo op.

[Anon]

Gunny i'm just wondering how far i can PULL YOUR LEG before you realize i've been fuccking with you for dozens of posts now.

Apparently pretty far........

I had to really weave some intricate BS trying to keep this argument going this long.

LOL....

[Anon]

Originally Posted by Gun Grape

Gee Snipe, You are really stuck on # of planes arn't you?

Ummmmmmm............yes.

Why yes i am.

Oddly enough, so are the USAF and USN.

There's just no replacement for displacement.

[Anon]

Originally Posted by Gun Grape

And yet the RN and USMC just did a joint one(amphib invasion) for OIF.

Invasion?

cough....coughh.....bs......scoff......cough...... ...cough

Originally Posted by Gun Grape

You are aware that the amphibous capability is the main reason that 1 MEF did the run up the right side to Baghdad. The Army doesn't have the amphibious vehicles or the bridging capabilities to conduct operations in that type of terrain . A couple of downed bridges would have stopped them in their tracks. Those AAVs work real good for rivers and lakes.

You're on crack.

[rickusn]

"You're on crack."

Be careful, Sniper, that could be considered libelous. LOL

See below:

Warning to chatroom users after libel award for man labelled a Nazi

· High court orders lecturer to pay £10,000 damages
· Lawyers say case confirms existing law applies on net

Owen Gibson, media correspondent
Thursday March 23, 2006
The Guardian


A political argument that erupted in a remote corner of cyberspace and descended into vicious name-calling could lead to a spate of libel actions by contributors to internet message boards, the man at the centre of the case claimed yesterday.
The dark side of the blogosphere was revealed by a libel action brought by Michael Keith-Smith, a former Conservative party member who stood for Ukip in Portsmouth North at the last election. He said he was moved to sue after a woman with whom he was debating the merits of military action in Iraq began a campaign of name-calling that started by describing him as "lard brain" and culminated in falsely labelling him a "Nazi", a "racist bigot" and a "nonce".

Tracy Williams, a college lecturer from Oldham, was ordered by a high court judge to pay £10,000 in damages, as well as Mr Keith-Smith's £7,200 costs, and told never to repeat the allegations.

The case is one of the first of its kind between two private individuals to go to court and, said lawyers, highlighted issues that would become more prominent as internet usage continued to grow and blogging, social networking and community sites became yet more popular.

Mr Keith-Smith told the Guardian that he took action after a debate about the Iraq war in 2003 on a Yahoo! message board with about 100 members turned ugly. "She was very pro-Bush. Initially, she called me lard brain and I wasn't particularly concerned about that. Then she called me a Nazi," he said.

He has also taken action against a second poster, he said, with whom he claimed to have settled for a sum "in the region of £30,000".

"They started saying I was on a sex offenders' list and that people shouldn't let me near their children," said Mr Keith-Smith, who is also chairman of the Conservative Democratic Alliance, which bills itself as "the leading voice of the radical Tory right".

He resolved to take legal action after the pair accused his wife of being a prostitute. But once his solicitors petitioned the court to find out the identity of Ms Williams, who contributed to the forum under a pseudonym, the abuse got worse.

"It's a matter of principle. I had no proof that anyone who read this took it seriously. I just didn't see why she should be allowed to get away with it," he said.

Legal experts said the case should be taken as a warning to the millions of people in the UK debating contentious issues on message boards, in chatrooms and on their own blogs that the laws of libel applied just as they would if the comments were published in a leaflet or newsletter.

But despite claims from some that Judge Alistair MacDuff's high court decision would hamper freedom of speech, most said the case merely provided confirmation of the existing law.

"You can't say this is something that should just be allowed to carry on. I don't think it is going to open any floodgates; it's a quite sensible application of the law," said Caroline Keane, a partner at media law firm Wiggin LLP.

But Mark Stephens, head of media law at Finer Stephens Innocent, said the case should trigger a wider debate about whether the libel law was best suited to deal with such cases. If a chatroom was self-moderating and had a limited circulation, he questioned whether such cases should ever reach court.

Most such cases never reach court because most complaints tend to be to an ISP or site owner, which would take down the defamatory content as soon as it was notified and the person making the libellous allegations would back down.

FAQ: Internet libel

Should internet service providers be worried about libel?

The issue of liability was a grey area for ISPs, but a workable system has developed through European and UK law whereby ISPs are not generally considered liable as long as they act to take down potentially libellous material when notified.

Does this affect freedom of speech?

Some have argued that in ISPs' haste to take down material complained about, they are in effect curtailing freedom of speech.

Why haven't more of these cases come to court?

Lawyers say cases between individuals have tended to be settled before reaching court.

What about site owners?

Uncertainty remains over whether a site owner such as the BBC would be liable, particularly if it claimed to moderate comments before they were added to a website.

[Anon]

That was the UK, Libel is literally hundreds of tims harder to prove in the US.

It does go to show you just how EFFED UP the UK is though...

LOL.

[Gun Grape]

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

Originally Posted by Gun Grape
And yet the RN and USMC just did a joint one(amphib invasion) for OIF.


Sniper:Invasion?

cough....coughh.....bs......scoff......cough...... ...cough

Well according to my dictionary an invasion (in military content) is a military action consisting of armed forces of one geopolitical entity entering territory controlled by another such entity, generally with the objective of conquering territory or altering the established government.

I did just catch the RN when it should have been RM.

How large of a force do you think it requires before it can be called a "Invasion"

Orig posted by GG:You are aware that the amphibous capability is the main reason that 1 MEF did the run up the right side to Baghdad. The Army doesn't have the amphibious vehicles or the bridging capabilities to conduct operations in that type of terrain . A couple of downed bridges would have stopped them in their tracks. Those AAVs work real good for rivers and lakes.


Snipers comment:
You're on crack.

So tell me why I MEF was chosen? And since you seem to think the Army can do amphibous crossings (River). Please list the organic amphibous vehicles and bridging assets T/E to a Mech or Armored Div.

Its gonna be a short list All bridging assets belong to the reserves. That leaves you with 4 ABLVs. for the whole div.

Originally Posted by concerning # of planes

Ummmmmmm............yes.

Why yes i am.

Oddly enough, so are the USAF and USN.

There's just no replacement for displacement

Then why is it that when MC squadrons chop to the CAW they are told to drop 2 planes? MC F/A 18 Squadrons still have 12 planes vice the 10 plane Squadrons the Navy is transforming to. When assigned to a carrier the squadrons are told to
leave the "extra" planes at home. Seems to me that the Navy would want them to bring everything if they were concerned about #s of planes on deck vices amount of capability. It would be a way to boost raw numbers and maybe make a push to reenstate the lost planes. If the Navy really wanted them.

[Anon]

Originally Posted by Gun Grape

So tell me why I MEF was chosen?

I suspect so that the Marines could participate and not be left out of the war.

Originally Posted by Gun Grape

And since you seem to think the Army can do amphibous crossings (River). Please list the organic amphibous vehicles and bridging assets T/E to a Mech or Armored Div.

Its gonna be a short list All bridging assets belong to the reserves.

It does not matter at what level the bridging assets are, they can be chopped directly to ANY UNIT IN THE ARMY as needed. When OJC was ramping up, my Bn's Sniper section was chopped to SOUTHCOM and we were then joined up in a TF with elements of 7th ID.

Whether a unit is organic or not is practically irrelevant.

Originally Posted by Gun Grape

Then why is it that when MC squadrons chop to the CAW they are told to drop 2 planes? MC F/A 18 Squadrons still have 12 planes vice the 10 plane Squadrons the Navy is transforming to. When assigned to a carrier the squadrons are told to
leave the "extra" planes at home. Seems to me that the Navy would want them to bring everything if they were concerned about #s of planes on deck vices amount of capability. It would be a way to boost raw numbers and maybe make a push to reenstate the lost planes. If the Navy really wanted them.

I assume the two primary reasons are for operational commonality and to save on fuel costs.

I can't friggin' believe you're going to make the argument that a Nimitz with 60 strike planes is as powerful as one embarking 90.

It's a patently ridiculous argument.

[Gun Grape]

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

It does not matter at what level the bridging assets are, they can be chopped directly to ANY UNIT IN THE ARMY as needed. When OJC was ramping up, my Bn's Sniper section was chopped to SOUTHCOM and we were then joined up in a TF with elements of 7th ID.

Whether a unit is organic or not is practically irrelevant.

No it isn't. When you have to chop a front line unit there must be a period of "snapping in" The Commander has to know what those "Chopped" units can do for him, What he has to do for them and at what point they should be used.

I can't friggin' believe you're going to make the argument that a Nimitz with 60 strike planes is as powerful as one embarking 90.

It's a patently ridiculous argument.

Well JFTHOI, Tell me what planes your 90 plane CAW consist of. There were enough variations from CAW to CAW and ship that I want to know what exactly you are embarking. Then I will explain it to you.

[Gun Grape]

You know Snipe, I like these "back and forths". It gives me a break from thinking about my buisness. And it helps run up post #s.


I am worried, With all your "Save the BB, Air Mech and disband the MC" you really are starting to sound like Sparks.

[Anon]

Originally Posted by Gun Grape

No it isn't. When you have to chop a front line unit there must be a period of "snapping in" The Commander has to know what those "Chopped" units can do for him, What he has to do for them and at what point they should be used.

The units are all cookie cutters and are in effect largely interchangeable. That's the whole point behind a standardized TO&E.

Originally Posted by Gun Grape

Well JFTHOI, Tell me what planes your 90 plane CAW consist of. There were enough variations from CAW to CAW and ship that I want to know what exactly you are embarking. Then I will explain it to you.

A 90TACAIR wing.

[Anon]

Originally Posted by Gun Grape

You know Snipe, I like these "back and forths". It gives me a break from thinking about my buisness. And it helps run up post #s.

That's the main reason i do it too.

Originally Posted by Gun Grape

I am worried, With all your "Save the BB, Air Mech and disband the MC" you really are starting to sound like Sparks.

See above.

As far as Mike, I'm about 1000x the debater as Sparks.

It is true i like to take a radical look at things and debate them to their logical conclusion. However it is also true that you tend to come across as an unabashed company man.

The next major program in the pipeline i see you speak out against or oppose will be the first one.

PS: AirMech has been around since the 70s, thats just a catchy name for decades old operational concept. A proven decades old operational concept.

Take a look at the TO&E of a Soviet/Russian Abn division some time.

[Gun Grape]

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

The units are all cookie cutters and are in effect largely interchangeable. That's the whole point behind a standardized TO&E.

Maybe when talking about switching out 1 Brad Company for a 113 Company. But here we are talking about assets that most commanders don't know how to use. Because they havn't used them before. How far do you need to lower your rate of march so the ABLV can keep up? ect....

OoE, I'm sure you have a horror story of engineer assets being misused.

A 90TACAIR wing.

Well your going to need to give me the spec. As I said, before almost every CAW is different. When was this 90 TacAir wing used? Which wings were they and what ships were they embarked on?

The "standard" wing after the intro of the F/A 18 in the late 80s early 90s was composed of 74 planes.

And that was the following:

Plane/#

F-14/ 14
F/A-18/ 36
E-2C/ 4
EA-6B/ 4
S-3B/8
ES-3A/2
H-60 /6

However if you look at the CVs that took part in ODS, We had 2 that had 78 planes(TR, JFK)1 with 73 (America)1 with 72 (Sara)1 with 62 (Ranger) and Midway with 56.

So what is your 90 plane Wing and what does it consist of?

[Officer of Engineers]

Originally Posted by Gun Grape

OoE, I'm sure you have a horror story of engineer assets being misused.

How do you convince a four bar (full Colonel) that an M113 Armoured Engineering Vehicle ain't a bulldozer?

[Gun Grape]

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

How do you convince a four bar (full Colonel) that an M113 Armoured Engineering Vehicle ain't a bulldozer?

What do you mean it ain't? Its got a dozer blade. So its a dozer