Update from the Heartland
No.317
31.12.07 – 6.1.08
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
No.317
31.12.07 – 6.1.08
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
The follow-up news items:
-- The accused traitor Adam Yahiye Gadahn (AKA Azzam the American and Adam Pearlman) [253] starred in another enemy video issued on Sunday. The al-Qaeda mouthpiece called for fighters to bomb President Bush during his pending visit to Israel and the Palestinian territory. I look forward with eager anticipation when Gadahn meets his fate.
An Iowa resident interviewed prior to the caucuses Thursday night said, “I have a problem voting for someone of the Mormon faith” – no mention of leadership, diplomacy, strength, organizational skills, or comprehension of contemporary issues. For this person, a candidate’s religion is the deciding factor. And the really sad part is, she is not alone. I could launch into a diatribe, but you have heard it all before. Let it suffice to say, the simple statement represents precisely why religion and politics do not and cannot mix – a tragic statement on the condition of this Grand Republic’s citizenry. Mark my words, one day we will view the political meddling of evangelical Christian preachers for what it really is, religious megalomania – no different from the violent form espoused by the mad mullahs of radical, fundamentalist Islam. To me, a “wall of separation between church and state” is a reinforced, concrete and steel, impenetrable barrier miles thick, and that Iowa citizen noted above and her brethren are precisely the reason why. As much as I despite anyone and especially the government penetrating my privacy, likewise I resent someone else’s privacy contaminating my public. Religion is a private matter, between each of us and God; it does not belong in public, secular, political affairs.
In James Taranto’s Best of the Web Today for 26.December.2007, and specifically his article “Phony Libertarian,” about Republican presidential candidate, Representative Ron Paul of Texas, he wrote, “As the old joke goes, if you want to find out if someone's really a libertarian, ask him: Do you think children should be allowed to buy heroin from vending machines? A real libertarian will answer: Only if the vending machines are privately owned.” To my knowledge, the question has not been put to Ron Paul, yet. Nonetheless, Taranto’s joke question does raise a legitimate public question. Are there boundaries to freedom? If so, where do those boundaries lay? Whether we like it, children are not citizens; they are the wards of their parents; they have limited rights derived from their parents. Neither the State, nor capitalist business, nor any other citizen, has the right to decide such issues for parents -- a vending machine has no controls, restrictions or constraints. And, the State has an obligation to protect the rights of every parent. Conversely, parents have an obligation to society . . . to teach their children about life and give them the skills to deal with the realities of modern life. Protecting or insulating children from reality does little to that end and rather ensures they are ill-prepared by neglect to make proper, informed choices. As I have argued in this humble forum, we have allowed government to penetrate too far beyond the front door and too deeply into our fundamental right to privacy and our freedom of choice. I have advocated and continue to advocate for repeal the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 (PL 91-513) [197, et al], and for regulation of production, distribution and sale of psychotropic substances, just as we do for alcohol, tobacco, and over-the-counter cold medications; somehow, we must find the courage to eliminate the criminal sub-culture associated with drug production and smuggling just as we did in 1930’s regarding alcohol. There are limits to personal freedom, as there should be. Our freedom of choice must not infringe upon another citizen’s freedom of choice or cause injury. Our freedom of speech does not protect causing unjustified harm with our words. Similarly, enforcement of sale restrictions of alcohol, tobacco, heroin, et al, is warranted and required to preserve access by adults making a free choice while protecting the parents’ responsibility to educate and mature their children properly. Thus, my answer to Taranto’s joke question is NO, and thus, I am NOT a real libertarian. And, if the criterion is valid, I shall not vote for a Libertarian – freedom gone too far.
This paragraph simply notes the filing of a law suit by 16 states against the Federal government, namely the Environmental Protection Agency, over waivers to the Clean Air Act of 1970 [PL 91-604], allowing state's to set more stringent carbon dioxide emission standards. The 16 states party to the suit are: California, Massachusetts, Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington. I am still trying to figure out the Federal government's position beyond the obvious demonstration and exercise of power. The kerfuffle appears to be some lame attempt at maintaining dominance, kinda like a school-yard bully. This is going to be another interesting case to watch.
I recognize and acknowledge that I am a feeble, lone voice in a powerful wind regarding equal rights for all citizens, but along come Press articles probably designed to stir up folks like me.
“Same-Sex Divorce Challenges the Legal System -- Most States Lack Law, Precedent To Settle Issues”
by Dafna Linzer
Washington Post
Wednesday, January 2, 2008; page A03
http://letters.washingtonpost.com/W0RH01610315E059C0E3937168C750
Additionally, I must acknowledge that most folks who read this humble journal and probably a greater number in the population at large do not care about or want to hear about a small portion of our citizenry who are denied equal rights and privileges simply because they seek their Pursuit of Happiness on a different path from what the majority thinks of as normal or acceptable. The solution is actually quite simple – treat everyone equally. I continue to struggle with understanding why that simple concept is so hard to comprehend.
Comments and contributions from Update no.316:
"As usual a well written piece. You have a good grasp of English...considering it's not you native tongue! How that for a piece of 'colonialist thinking'! (No insult intended.)
"'The gates of freedom remain open.'
"For the people of your republic and us British the price is high, however, we must maintain our vigilance and drive the wolves from the front door.”
My reply:
The price of freedom is indeed high, but the alternative is unconscionable and unacceptable.
Another contribution:
“Neat those Marines could all be home.
“I agree that the importance of a good stable family cannot be overemphasized when it comes to raising kids.
“The Bhutto business is a long way from over. No telling what will happen now, or where.”
My response:
Always nice to see families committed to this Grand Republic.
Stable families come in many forms.
Indeed. The fallout from the Bhutto assassination is a long way from over.
Another contribution in a continuing thread from the F-15 item last week:
I flew the F-4 in the USMC and later in the ANG over the course of 20+ years. I spent some fun years as an adversary pilot in the Corps and have air-to-air, close air support (CAS), and many years recce flying as well all in the same aircraft. Over those decades we had several serious structural failures and managed to fix them. I remember one nasty one in the early 70s concerning a critical structural part. On one sad day, my squadron lost a great pilot, outstanding Marine, father, and husband when he crashed on takeoff due to this failed structure. All Phantoms had to be inspected and many were found to be failed. It took some time, but we fixed them and flew another day. The moral of the story is that the F-15 will fly again and will have more failures as well given its age. In effect, to make so few F-22 Raptors will lead that community to ruin. Or, the USAF can wise up and develop a better argument. Figther/attack aircraft must have multi-mission capability in the 21st century and the Raptor would receive more support if it had a stronger multi-role mission. The USAF argument is the F-35 will fill the CAS bill. As long as they hold on to that specialized stance, the slope is slippery to get many more Raptors authorized regardless of their current posturing on the latest F-15 structural issues. They should put together the best argument for congress on the air-to-mud and recce capabilities of the Raptor and make sure it has them and the pilots are trained to do them. We produced over 5,000 F-4 Phantoms and got our money's worth. The same is true of the F-16 and F-18. The F-14 was plagued with limited close air support capability until late in its life, which partially accounts for why we don't see them anymore. Being a fighter pilot I was certainly air-to-air focused and wish I could turn back the clock and do it again. Regardless, as a Marine aviator I am more cognizant of the need for multi-role fighter aircraft in this century. We have the technology to do it. Time to demonstrate we have the will to do it as well. Let's hope the USAF can pull it off and our nation gets the best bang for the buck.
My reply:
Understood and well said.
I was an attack helo pilot, and spent a good portion of my air support time controlling CAS & artillery missions for the grunts. I've worked CAS missions with assets from the Air Force, Navy, and Marines. There was never a doubt who put bombs closer to the target, and I don't say that because I am biased . . . just facts. Even among the Marines, you could tell the guys who took the task of bombs-on-target seriously, and I go back to the iron sight days . . . none of today's fall-line and pickle cue computations. I've controlled all the Marine assets in the day; F-4's, A-6's, A-4's, AV-8's and OV-10's . . . as well as other Cobras. No offense, but the worst of the Marine bunch were the F-4 jocks; it was like they didn't care where the bombs went, and they had a GIB to help out. The best were the AV-8 guys; they lived with us. Their airplanes were parked next to ours; they slept in same tents, ate the same cold food, and took the mission briefs with us. More importantly, they debriefed with us. They worked hard to put bangers where we wanted them. They got down in the weeds with us. It was quite rare to have an AV-8 driver get a BDA of 0. When the A-4M entered service, the Scooter guys caught up with the AV-8 blokes. The point of this little exposé, the key from my experience and perspective seems to be practice; the guys who spent the most time, in a wide variety of environmental conditions, in close proximity to friendly troops, were generally the best at the CAS mission. I heard stories (I cannot confirm) that grunts on the ground or AFACs back in our war, refused USAF F-4's; they saw them as a greater threat than the enemy around them. I did not have a lot of experience with Air Force pilots in CAS missions, but the ones I had (F-4 & A-7) were embarrassing and would tend to validate the stories.
Anyway, "that's just my opinion, but I could be wrong."
. . . round two:
No offense taken Marine. But, know that the Marine F-4 had a fixed sight that the RIO did not see nor did he hit the pickle button. I can assure you that in my squadron time, we took CAS as serious as all of it. But, I will admit that a good close in air-to-air furball dogfight was like putting the knife in your teeth and swinging the rope over to the other ship and fighting like a leatherneck.
. . . my reply to round two:
Understood. I know there must have been a few good Marine F-4 CAS pilots. Unfortunately, I never experienced one. On the flip side, fortunately, modern technology has given the F/A-18 and AV-8B (and I am certain every other aircraft with a CAS mission) impressive HUD displayed information like bomb-fall-lines, bullet stream, and Constant Computed Impact Point (CCIP) along with such flight info at thrust vector and in some cases terrain cues. Of the friendly fire incidents involving fixed wing aircraft I know about, all have been Air Force pilots; probably not fair, but that is what I’m aware of. And, no, the GIB did not have the pickle button, but he was an extra set of eyes.
I was never a fighter pilot. In my aviation youth, I learned ACM principles from an attack pilot with some F-8 fighter time who made the transition to attack helos. I took those early lessons and contributed to the expansion of attack helo capability into the ATA roll including a big Army test at Pax River -- helo v. helo ACM. Great experience.
. . . and round three:
Helo to helo ACM sounds like fun. And yes, there were many good F-4 CAS pilots as I've been witness to as well as told by the guys on the ground despite having no CAS cockpit platform to speak of in the USMC version. Any precision was due to flying without gizmos. Sorry you did not see any. When the Harrier was purchased, I was offered the opportunity to join the workup for the 1st squadron and transition as were many F-4 drivers at the time. Of course, the F-14 had not been cancelled yet and I held out for that one, but it was not to be. The RIOs were always valuable for another set of eyes all the time, but really in their element in ACM and intercepts. I flew with a few of the best ever. It was difficult for them in dive bombing given they could not see the target nor had little control over what was happening, except for a few who could tweek an AWG-10 mapping mode in the F-4J. Regardless, a good RIO was a comfort level I won't ever forget in CAS, ACM, and recce (especially recce given the close proximity of the ground at 100' keeping the pilot busy trying not to run into anything at high speed and high G at very low altitude). I had plenty of experience prior to entering the recce mission with the ANG but still had to learn how to maneuver high-G, high-speed, at 100' in steps. It was not an easy mission, particularly at night. Once again we did not have the fancy gizmos that the F-111 and current jets have, but got that job done pretty well under the circumstances, including the Gulf War. We acquitted ourselves well there, but silently without fanfare.
. . . with my reply to round three:
Hey, we all takes our chances . . . . The F-14 was a hellava machine, but not for the Marine Corps.
Helo ACM was hard-work in a different but similar way. I've flown a bunch of helo v. fixed wing ACM as well. Maneuverability & weapons were critical.
I know the F-4 had iron sights, similar to the A-4 & A-7 (until the A-4M & A-7E). I think we had the same basic sight in the AH-1J. Once you got used to using it and practiced enough, we got pretty good with it; we really only used it for rockets, fixed gun, or with a gun pod when we used 'em. We dropped bombs on a quasi-dead-reckoning basis. Our chin gun was usually used with a mechanical sighting system in the front seat. Systems today are dramatically different. And yet, there is a huge difference between dropping a bomb on a bridge versus a non-descript-spot-on-the-ground. With all the system enhancements they have today, they still get it wrong.
Another contribution:
“Pakistan is certainly a bubbling cauldron. The worst-case scenario is the Islamofacists taking over, then low and behold they've got nuclear weapons. Then there's India across the border, and they certainly won't feel comfortable living next door to NWN -- "Nuts With Nukes." God help us all if that becomes reality.
“As to the Congressional resolution stating support for Christians, I think it's a shame we've gotten to the point where a government body has to come out with a statement like that . . . which to me is essentially meaningless since it won't change the minds of groups who actively try to push Christianity from public view. I, quite frankly, have lost all patience with groups like the ACLU and other people and organizations who make a federal case (many times literally) over a girl showing up to school wearing a cross around her neck or over a school calendar that *gasp* actually has the words Christmas Break on it. How that is offending non-Christians or showing intolerance is behind me. When I was in elementary school during Christmas time we sang Christmas carols, and I even remember singing a couple of Hanukah songs. I never once felt that singing "Hi Ho For Hanukah" was meant to convert me from Catholicism to Judaism. I guess some people are just mushspines who wait around to be offended by the stupidest things.
“Maybe Congress should have come up with a simpler meaningless resolution, something along the lines of, ‘Unless someone is pushing their religion down your throat, chillax! And no, saying ‘Merry Christmas’ does not constitute pushing a religion.’”
My response:
I think you hit the nail squarely regarding Pakistan. We need to remain attentive and vigilant.
Sadly, there is a politically influential, evangelical, Christian Right, who are determine to impose their values, their beliefs, their agenda upon all Americans, in the name of recognizing the Christian heritage of the United States. I lived and worked in Italy for two years. The dominance of the Roman Catholic Church within Italy is nearly total. Numerous Roman Catholic religious remembrance dates are celebrated as national holidays; paid time off for workers. I never felt imposed upon or offended, although I did not celebrate some of the “saint” days. Every single American citizen is entitled to their personal choice of religious belief and practice. All of my brothers in arms served this Grand Republic to protect that right to religious freedom for everyone regardless of their beliefs or lack of belief. Part of the rebellion of the evangelical, Christian, uber-Right seems to be a backlash against the ravages of “political correctness” gone wild. If so, let’s have the public debate about the insanity of political correctness rather than pass silly, dangerous resolutions like H.Res.847, and laws attempting to impose Christian standards upon every citizen. Let us focus on the real issues of public conduct rather than using religion as a political instrument that affects private choices and conduct.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
The follow-up news items:
-- The accused traitor Adam Yahiye Gadahn (AKA Azzam the American and Adam Pearlman) [253] starred in another enemy video issued on Sunday. The al-Qaeda mouthpiece called for fighters to bomb President Bush during his pending visit to Israel and the Palestinian territory. I look forward with eager anticipation when Gadahn meets his fate.
An Iowa resident interviewed prior to the caucuses Thursday night said, “I have a problem voting for someone of the Mormon faith” – no mention of leadership, diplomacy, strength, organizational skills, or comprehension of contemporary issues. For this person, a candidate’s religion is the deciding factor. And the really sad part is, she is not alone. I could launch into a diatribe, but you have heard it all before. Let it suffice to say, the simple statement represents precisely why religion and politics do not and cannot mix – a tragic statement on the condition of this Grand Republic’s citizenry. Mark my words, one day we will view the political meddling of evangelical Christian preachers for what it really is, religious megalomania – no different from the violent form espoused by the mad mullahs of radical, fundamentalist Islam. To me, a “wall of separation between church and state” is a reinforced, concrete and steel, impenetrable barrier miles thick, and that Iowa citizen noted above and her brethren are precisely the reason why. As much as I despite anyone and especially the government penetrating my privacy, likewise I resent someone else’s privacy contaminating my public. Religion is a private matter, between each of us and God; it does not belong in public, secular, political affairs.
In James Taranto’s Best of the Web Today for 26.December.2007, and specifically his article “Phony Libertarian,” about Republican presidential candidate, Representative Ron Paul of Texas, he wrote, “As the old joke goes, if you want to find out if someone's really a libertarian, ask him: Do you think children should be allowed to buy heroin from vending machines? A real libertarian will answer: Only if the vending machines are privately owned.” To my knowledge, the question has not been put to Ron Paul, yet. Nonetheless, Taranto’s joke question does raise a legitimate public question. Are there boundaries to freedom? If so, where do those boundaries lay? Whether we like it, children are not citizens; they are the wards of their parents; they have limited rights derived from their parents. Neither the State, nor capitalist business, nor any other citizen, has the right to decide such issues for parents -- a vending machine has no controls, restrictions or constraints. And, the State has an obligation to protect the rights of every parent. Conversely, parents have an obligation to society . . . to teach their children about life and give them the skills to deal with the realities of modern life. Protecting or insulating children from reality does little to that end and rather ensures they are ill-prepared by neglect to make proper, informed choices. As I have argued in this humble forum, we have allowed government to penetrate too far beyond the front door and too deeply into our fundamental right to privacy and our freedom of choice. I have advocated and continue to advocate for repeal the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 (PL 91-513) [197, et al], and for regulation of production, distribution and sale of psychotropic substances, just as we do for alcohol, tobacco, and over-the-counter cold medications; somehow, we must find the courage to eliminate the criminal sub-culture associated with drug production and smuggling just as we did in 1930’s regarding alcohol. There are limits to personal freedom, as there should be. Our freedom of choice must not infringe upon another citizen’s freedom of choice or cause injury. Our freedom of speech does not protect causing unjustified harm with our words. Similarly, enforcement of sale restrictions of alcohol, tobacco, heroin, et al, is warranted and required to preserve access by adults making a free choice while protecting the parents’ responsibility to educate and mature their children properly. Thus, my answer to Taranto’s joke question is NO, and thus, I am NOT a real libertarian. And, if the criterion is valid, I shall not vote for a Libertarian – freedom gone too far.
This paragraph simply notes the filing of a law suit by 16 states against the Federal government, namely the Environmental Protection Agency, over waivers to the Clean Air Act of 1970 [PL 91-604], allowing state's to set more stringent carbon dioxide emission standards. The 16 states party to the suit are: California, Massachusetts, Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington. I am still trying to figure out the Federal government's position beyond the obvious demonstration and exercise of power. The kerfuffle appears to be some lame attempt at maintaining dominance, kinda like a school-yard bully. This is going to be another interesting case to watch.
I recognize and acknowledge that I am a feeble, lone voice in a powerful wind regarding equal rights for all citizens, but along come Press articles probably designed to stir up folks like me.
“Same-Sex Divorce Challenges the Legal System -- Most States Lack Law, Precedent To Settle Issues”
by Dafna Linzer
Washington Post
Wednesday, January 2, 2008; page A03
http://letters.washingtonpost.com/W0RH01610315E059C0E3937168C750
Additionally, I must acknowledge that most folks who read this humble journal and probably a greater number in the population at large do not care about or want to hear about a small portion of our citizenry who are denied equal rights and privileges simply because they seek their Pursuit of Happiness on a different path from what the majority thinks of as normal or acceptable. The solution is actually quite simple – treat everyone equally. I continue to struggle with understanding why that simple concept is so hard to comprehend.
Comments and contributions from Update no.316:
"As usual a well written piece. You have a good grasp of English...considering it's not you native tongue! How that for a piece of 'colonialist thinking'! (No insult intended.)
"'The gates of freedom remain open.'
"For the people of your republic and us British the price is high, however, we must maintain our vigilance and drive the wolves from the front door.”
My reply:
The price of freedom is indeed high, but the alternative is unconscionable and unacceptable.
Another contribution:
“Neat those Marines could all be home.
“I agree that the importance of a good stable family cannot be overemphasized when it comes to raising kids.
“The Bhutto business is a long way from over. No telling what will happen now, or where.”
My response:
Always nice to see families committed to this Grand Republic.
Stable families come in many forms.
Indeed. The fallout from the Bhutto assassination is a long way from over.
Another contribution in a continuing thread from the F-15 item last week:
I flew the F-4 in the USMC and later in the ANG over the course of 20+ years. I spent some fun years as an adversary pilot in the Corps and have air-to-air, close air support (CAS), and many years recce flying as well all in the same aircraft. Over those decades we had several serious structural failures and managed to fix them. I remember one nasty one in the early 70s concerning a critical structural part. On one sad day, my squadron lost a great pilot, outstanding Marine, father, and husband when he crashed on takeoff due to this failed structure. All Phantoms had to be inspected and many were found to be failed. It took some time, but we fixed them and flew another day. The moral of the story is that the F-15 will fly again and will have more failures as well given its age. In effect, to make so few F-22 Raptors will lead that community to ruin. Or, the USAF can wise up and develop a better argument. Figther/attack aircraft must have multi-mission capability in the 21st century and the Raptor would receive more support if it had a stronger multi-role mission. The USAF argument is the F-35 will fill the CAS bill. As long as they hold on to that specialized stance, the slope is slippery to get many more Raptors authorized regardless of their current posturing on the latest F-15 structural issues. They should put together the best argument for congress on the air-to-mud and recce capabilities of the Raptor and make sure it has them and the pilots are trained to do them. We produced over 5,000 F-4 Phantoms and got our money's worth. The same is true of the F-16 and F-18. The F-14 was plagued with limited close air support capability until late in its life, which partially accounts for why we don't see them anymore. Being a fighter pilot I was certainly air-to-air focused and wish I could turn back the clock and do it again. Regardless, as a Marine aviator I am more cognizant of the need for multi-role fighter aircraft in this century. We have the technology to do it. Time to demonstrate we have the will to do it as well. Let's hope the USAF can pull it off and our nation gets the best bang for the buck.
My reply:
Understood and well said.
I was an attack helo pilot, and spent a good portion of my air support time controlling CAS & artillery missions for the grunts. I've worked CAS missions with assets from the Air Force, Navy, and Marines. There was never a doubt who put bombs closer to the target, and I don't say that because I am biased . . . just facts. Even among the Marines, you could tell the guys who took the task of bombs-on-target seriously, and I go back to the iron sight days . . . none of today's fall-line and pickle cue computations. I've controlled all the Marine assets in the day; F-4's, A-6's, A-4's, AV-8's and OV-10's . . . as well as other Cobras. No offense, but the worst of the Marine bunch were the F-4 jocks; it was like they didn't care where the bombs went, and they had a GIB to help out. The best were the AV-8 guys; they lived with us. Their airplanes were parked next to ours; they slept in same tents, ate the same cold food, and took the mission briefs with us. More importantly, they debriefed with us. They worked hard to put bangers where we wanted them. They got down in the weeds with us. It was quite rare to have an AV-8 driver get a BDA of 0. When the A-4M entered service, the Scooter guys caught up with the AV-8 blokes. The point of this little exposé, the key from my experience and perspective seems to be practice; the guys who spent the most time, in a wide variety of environmental conditions, in close proximity to friendly troops, were generally the best at the CAS mission. I heard stories (I cannot confirm) that grunts on the ground or AFACs back in our war, refused USAF F-4's; they saw them as a greater threat than the enemy around them. I did not have a lot of experience with Air Force pilots in CAS missions, but the ones I had (F-4 & A-7) were embarrassing and would tend to validate the stories.
Anyway, "that's just my opinion, but I could be wrong."
. . . round two:
No offense taken Marine. But, know that the Marine F-4 had a fixed sight that the RIO did not see nor did he hit the pickle button. I can assure you that in my squadron time, we took CAS as serious as all of it. But, I will admit that a good close in air-to-air furball dogfight was like putting the knife in your teeth and swinging the rope over to the other ship and fighting like a leatherneck.
. . . my reply to round two:
Understood. I know there must have been a few good Marine F-4 CAS pilots. Unfortunately, I never experienced one. On the flip side, fortunately, modern technology has given the F/A-18 and AV-8B (and I am certain every other aircraft with a CAS mission) impressive HUD displayed information like bomb-fall-lines, bullet stream, and Constant Computed Impact Point (CCIP) along with such flight info at thrust vector and in some cases terrain cues. Of the friendly fire incidents involving fixed wing aircraft I know about, all have been Air Force pilots; probably not fair, but that is what I’m aware of. And, no, the GIB did not have the pickle button, but he was an extra set of eyes.
I was never a fighter pilot. In my aviation youth, I learned ACM principles from an attack pilot with some F-8 fighter time who made the transition to attack helos. I took those early lessons and contributed to the expansion of attack helo capability into the ATA roll including a big Army test at Pax River -- helo v. helo ACM. Great experience.
. . . and round three:
Helo to helo ACM sounds like fun. And yes, there were many good F-4 CAS pilots as I've been witness to as well as told by the guys on the ground despite having no CAS cockpit platform to speak of in the USMC version. Any precision was due to flying without gizmos. Sorry you did not see any. When the Harrier was purchased, I was offered the opportunity to join the workup for the 1st squadron and transition as were many F-4 drivers at the time. Of course, the F-14 had not been cancelled yet and I held out for that one, but it was not to be. The RIOs were always valuable for another set of eyes all the time, but really in their element in ACM and intercepts. I flew with a few of the best ever. It was difficult for them in dive bombing given they could not see the target nor had little control over what was happening, except for a few who could tweek an AWG-10 mapping mode in the F-4J. Regardless, a good RIO was a comfort level I won't ever forget in CAS, ACM, and recce (especially recce given the close proximity of the ground at 100' keeping the pilot busy trying not to run into anything at high speed and high G at very low altitude). I had plenty of experience prior to entering the recce mission with the ANG but still had to learn how to maneuver high-G, high-speed, at 100' in steps. It was not an easy mission, particularly at night. Once again we did not have the fancy gizmos that the F-111 and current jets have, but got that job done pretty well under the circumstances, including the Gulf War. We acquitted ourselves well there, but silently without fanfare.
. . . with my reply to round three:
Hey, we all takes our chances . . . . The F-14 was a hellava machine, but not for the Marine Corps.
Helo ACM was hard-work in a different but similar way. I've flown a bunch of helo v. fixed wing ACM as well. Maneuverability & weapons were critical.
I know the F-4 had iron sights, similar to the A-4 & A-7 (until the A-4M & A-7E). I think we had the same basic sight in the AH-1J. Once you got used to using it and practiced enough, we got pretty good with it; we really only used it for rockets, fixed gun, or with a gun pod when we used 'em. We dropped bombs on a quasi-dead-reckoning basis. Our chin gun was usually used with a mechanical sighting system in the front seat. Systems today are dramatically different. And yet, there is a huge difference between dropping a bomb on a bridge versus a non-descript-spot-on-the-ground. With all the system enhancements they have today, they still get it wrong.
Another contribution:
“Pakistan is certainly a bubbling cauldron. The worst-case scenario is the Islamofacists taking over, then low and behold they've got nuclear weapons. Then there's India across the border, and they certainly won't feel comfortable living next door to NWN -- "Nuts With Nukes." God help us all if that becomes reality.
“As to the Congressional resolution stating support for Christians, I think it's a shame we've gotten to the point where a government body has to come out with a statement like that . . . which to me is essentially meaningless since it won't change the minds of groups who actively try to push Christianity from public view. I, quite frankly, have lost all patience with groups like the ACLU and other people and organizations who make a federal case (many times literally) over a girl showing up to school wearing a cross around her neck or over a school calendar that *gasp* actually has the words Christmas Break on it. How that is offending non-Christians or showing intolerance is behind me. When I was in elementary school during Christmas time we sang Christmas carols, and I even remember singing a couple of Hanukah songs. I never once felt that singing "Hi Ho For Hanukah" was meant to convert me from Catholicism to Judaism. I guess some people are just mushspines who wait around to be offended by the stupidest things.
“Maybe Congress should have come up with a simpler meaningless resolution, something along the lines of, ‘Unless someone is pushing their religion down your throat, chillax! And no, saying ‘Merry Christmas’ does not constitute pushing a religion.’”
My response:
I think you hit the nail squarely regarding Pakistan. We need to remain attentive and vigilant.
Sadly, there is a politically influential, evangelical, Christian Right, who are determine to impose their values, their beliefs, their agenda upon all Americans, in the name of recognizing the Christian heritage of the United States. I lived and worked in Italy for two years. The dominance of the Roman Catholic Church within Italy is nearly total. Numerous Roman Catholic religious remembrance dates are celebrated as national holidays; paid time off for workers. I never felt imposed upon or offended, although I did not celebrate some of the “saint” days. Every single American citizen is entitled to their personal choice of religious belief and practice. All of my brothers in arms served this Grand Republic to protect that right to religious freedom for everyone regardless of their beliefs or lack of belief. Part of the rebellion of the evangelical, Christian, uber-Right seems to be a backlash against the ravages of “political correctness” gone wild. If so, let’s have the public debate about the insanity of political correctness rather than pass silly, dangerous resolutions like H.Res.847, and laws attempting to impose Christian standards upon every citizen. Let us focus on the real issues of public conduct rather than using religion as a political instrument that affects private choices and conduct.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
No comments:
Post a Comment