tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6244999628674918029.post2527849686757365142..comments2024-03-19T04:41:27.866-05:00Comments on Bayou Renaissance Man: The problems of fighting an over-focused warPeterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10595089829300831372noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6244999628674918029.post-1713304653065033212015-08-14T14:18:12.337-05:002015-08-14T14:18:12.337-05:00We have long had this nifty missile that is used s...We have long had this nifty missile that is used solely for Home-on-Jammer and most of our missiles still incorporate that capability. You'd want to be some distance from those transmitters.<br /><br />Spread spectrum radios are just about all we have these days and they're hard to jam. GPS is another matter but one I'll leave in the dark.<br /><br />I' afraid that one of the conclusions the entire world drew from our last few desert forays is that it is impossible to beat the US military with military force. All those MRAPS and Cougars and armored HMMWV we abandoned in the desert are going to be needed in the next war when some no account loser takes on the US with IED's, EFPs, suicide bombers. I won't be surprised though if somebody does start to hijack the drones. We rather foolishly exported the technology and the training and, God help us, we even trained our current enemies in their design, development, operation, maintenance and repair.<br /><br />I remember back in '84 it was a truism that neither the Iraqis or the Iranians would fly strike missions at night. Weren't I surprised to return to the Gulf in 88 and see them going hammer and tongs at each other with long distance over water strikes after dark. Doctrine and tactics have to evolve and one of the evolutionary drivers is always going to be, "how are you going to pay for that." In that sense your library story out of Britain is apropos because we don't need a hollow military long on high-tech but with only enough ammunition stocks for three days of wartime fighting consumption and a poorly trained force that never got to use the weapons in peacetime because it was too expensive to train with them.HMS Defianthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10024721130102173694noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6244999628674918029.post-20569725028264509112015-08-12T07:15:35.099-05:002015-08-12T07:15:35.099-05:00As usual, cuts in budgets and lack of R&D fund...As usual, cuts in budgets and lack of R&D funding is going to bite us in the butt...Old NFOhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16404197287935017147noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6244999628674918029.post-13382543118221946452015-08-12T03:36:48.091-05:002015-08-12T03:36:48.091-05:00And then there's Sweden....
http://www.gatest...And then there's Sweden....<br /><br />http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/6287/sweden-militaryPeter Bnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6244999628674918029.post-91915731669199436732015-08-12T02:05:04.087-05:002015-08-12T02:05:04.087-05:00In spite of her having been in charge of the "...In spite of her having been in charge of the "Electronic Warfare Command" I'm fairly certain Laurie Buckhout doesn't know all of our capabilities. She was a signal officer, the way things were split up (at least when I was in) electronic warfare was under the intel command and we never shared our best toys. Many of our best toys have been repurposed, but given time we could put them back in their original roles.Tim Dnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6244999628674918029.post-62331733583461660192015-08-12T01:59:44.934-05:002015-08-12T01:59:44.934-05:00When Desert Storm spun up I was working for (defen...When Desert Storm spun up I was working for (<i>defense contractor name redacted</i>) so even though our stuff was only on the periphery we followed events, large, small and tiny, pretty closely. I remember thinking at the time that the Russians (who were the primary focus of our efforts) were going to learn a lot about what the US did and how we did it. <br /><br />Seems they did. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6244999628674918029.post-84320101471235949512015-08-11T22:54:24.881-05:002015-08-11T22:54:24.881-05:00A lot of the new US military communications infras...A lot of the new US military communications infrastructure is designed to be resistant to jamming, but it's never been tested in field conditions. I expect that brute force (high power jamming) will cause far more trouble than anyone is prepared for.David Langnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6244999628674918029.post-25205734639639456072015-08-11T21:42:04.232-05:002015-08-11T21:42:04.232-05:00"Thus the rebels can jam or eavesdrop on all ..."<i>Thus the rebels can jam or eavesdrop on all manner of Ukrainian communications (cell phones, <b>military communications and control equipment for UAVs</b> and anything else operated remotely) and jam those communications as well.</i>"<br /><br />I'm waiting for the day one of our UAVs gets hijacked and used to bomb our own troops.kamas716https://westfargomusings.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6244999628674918029.post-10549506692508785452015-08-11T20:12:57.954-05:002015-08-11T20:12:57.954-05:00That is one of the reasons why I feel like a lette...That is one of the reasons why I feel like a letter of reprisal would have been a better way to go in the GWOT. A letter of reprisal is a letter issued by a government that allows that government to pay third parties to forcibly take property of another nation. This is completely Constitutional under US law. Of course international law would argue that "States have a duty to refrain from acts of reprisal involving the use of force." Resolution 2625 (XXV) of the UN. <br /><br />We could have issued a bounty on Osama Bin Laden's head of $1 billion. A bounty of $50 million each could have been offered for lesser al Qaeda leaders. This would have been cheaper than the $1 trillion and thousands of American lives it cost us. For that kind of money, you would get some serious effort. This would have allowed our military to concentrate on defeating other armies, while the bounty hunters killed off the terrorists for us.<br /><br />Of course, the critics would point out that Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions forbids reprisals against civilians and civilian property. The United States is not a party to Protocol I, however, and does not consider the conventions' prohibitions against reprisals directed at all civilians to be part of customary international law. On the other hand, the United States is a party to the Geneva Convention on Civilians and follows its provisions regarding reprisals against protected civilians and their property. I would argue that the commander of a terror group such as al Qaeda is a legitimate military target and not a civilian.<br />Divemedichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14583007051962299381noreply@blogger.com