And these barbarians are suppose to be our ally? I don't think anything in the Middle East is worth our association with them...not even oil. Barbarism.
Friday, June 10, 2011
Armed Scout Helicopter...a tale of three companies.
 |
| AH-6I |
 |
| AAS-72X |
 |
| AAS-72X |
 |
| AAS-72X |
 |
| OH-58II |
 |
| OH-58II |
 |
| OH-58 II |
The Armed Scout Helicopter competition is a tale of three companies. Two of those companies have the savy, have the knowledge of "publicity" and the modernity to realize that information on their products will help in the arena of public debate. One company is a dinosaur. Lost in the days when newspapers led the way and everyone sat in front of the TV to hear Walter Cronkite.
As much as I pound on EADS and Euro Copter they're doing it right. They're claiming market share on the civilian side of the market in the US and they're trying real hard to get into the military market here in a big way.
Bell Helicopter is a leader in the industry and has several projects its leading on. Its well established with the Department of Defense with its current offerings being the current Scout Helicopter, the AH-1Z, the UH-1Y and the V-22. Its maintaining market share in the civilian market with its offerings there.
Boeing is a dud. Its biggest military claim to fame is the F-15, its partnership with Bell on the V-22 and its Chinook helicopter.
But its playing the game old school. This time old school isn't good school.
I wanted this post to be a description of the three contenders for the contract after watching Trimble's video on the AH-6I that he posted today.
I can't do that. No information is publicly available on the AH-6I except from "established sources"...I won't play that game.
Check out the websites of the two companies that actually do care enough to make their information available to us lowly bloggers and those that happen to read them.
Websites you should check out.
This should be the USMC's next Main Battle Tank.
Advantages over the M-1
1. Lighter yet has the same firepower.
2. Has equal cross country mobility...maybe more mobility due to its lighter weight.
3. Lower fuel consumption.
4. Less cube space aboard ship.
5. Allows easier transportation to shore.
6. Compatible with Trophy defense system.
Liabilities in comparison to the M1.
1. Not able to stand up to other MBT's in combat.
Its quite clear. If the Marine Corps is to continue to operate all weather, direct fire weapon systems in support of the Infantry then tanks are a must. The M1 is too heavy, too thirsty and takes up too much space aboard ship to be compatible with continued Marine Corps service.
Time to give BAE a call.
Principal Characteristics
EFV will come back...
This story by Fabey illustrates a private thought that I've had and one that is being confirmed by HQ Marine Corps.
The EFV will be stripped of it complex drive system will be fitted with current but high tech jet pumps for its amphibious mission and will come online stripped down, and renamed the Amphibious Combat Vehicle.
The whole story is worth a read but this caught the eye...
A speedy acquisition process isn't how things are usually done and points to a single sourced program. Another tidbit that caught my attention is that the Congressional delegation has suddenly stopped it protests and holding up of the Defense budget.Traditionally, an AOA of this type would take about 18 months, Flynn said June 9 at an event in Washington sponsored by the Center for Strategic and International Studies.“We’re trying to get to six to nine months,” Flynn says, adding that he hoped the aggressive schedule would “energize the acquisition process” for the vehicle.
All this points to General Dynamics winning the project through a sole sourced program probably to be announced either late this year or early next.
BAE fans shouldn't be too depressed though. If I was a betting man then I'd lay every cent in my pocket that they'll win the upgrade contract...which leads to the wildcard in this whole thing. If BAE is able to design an attractive enough upgrade package then it could essentially make the expense of a new EFV/ACV moot. The AAV could theoretically continue in service --- just with new built vehicles.
USS Freedom. Tired already?
 |
| 110607-N-DB113-082 PACIFIC OCEAN (June 7, 2011) An MH-60R Sea Hawk helicopter assigned to Helicopter Maritime Strike Squadron (HSM) 77 prepares to land aboard the littoral combat ship USS Freedom (LCS 1). (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication 2nd Class Aaron Burden/Released) |
Ignore the helicopter and blow the pic up and take a good look at this ship. It just entered service and its looking tired and worn out. I know visuals mean nothing but I wonder. Has limited manning finally caught up with ship upkeep? Is operating skeleton ships crews actually the way we want to go if we desire to keep these ships in service for 20 plus years?
I can't say because I don't have the facts or the skill sets to know for sure. What I do know is that the USS Freedom is looking tired...very tired.
Wednesday, June 08, 2011
Skunk Works Air Ships.
 |
One Million Pounds of Cargo By Air
The revived interest in very large cargo
airships can be directly linked to global commerce. More than 36 billion
tons of cargo — everything from flowers to food to Formula 1 race cars —
are shipped around the world annually. But in the last twenty years,
the military has also seen a need to quickly move large quantities of
everything from relief supplies to tanks into areas that often don’t
have adequate — if any — infrastructure. A ship can carry a large load
inexpensively, but it takes two to three weeks to get from China to the
United States. A 747 air freighter can get cargo around the world in
hours, but the cost is about sixty cents per ton mile, and space is
limited. With a hybrid airship, a large quantity of good can be shipped
around the world in about three days for around twenty-five cents per
ton mile. The Lockheed Martin Skunk Works is developing a family of
airships to fill that middle niche. By 2016, the captain of an airship
nearly the length of three football fields and capable of carrying one
million pounds of cargo (shown here) could issue the traditional "Up
ship" command before starting a trip across the Atlantic.
|
 |
SkyFreighter Cargo Box
The second in a family of hybrid airships,
called SkyFreighter, is a regional lifter capable of carrying seventy
tons of cargo. First flight of a 400-foot-long SkyFreighter is expected
to come in 2014. This shot shows a fully equippped Stryker armored
vehicle in the SkyFreighter cargo box, illustrating the airship's
military potential. The cargo box for all three hybrid airship variants
will have a roll-on/roll-off capability for vehicles.
|
 |
P-791
The hybrid airship demonstrator was given the
identifier P-791. The company-funded demonstrator, which is 123 feet
long, fifty-three feet wide, and thirty feet high, was built in 2005.
First flight came on 31 January 2006. All of the major components —
cockpit, engines, fuel lines, control surfaces, ACLS pads — are attached
on the outside of the envelope. The envelope is woven Vectran, a
lightweight, high-strength material similar to Kevlar. The engines and
propellers are mounted on aluminum rings that allow vectoring up and
down and left and right for climbing, descending, and steering. The
forward engine mounts are lashed to the envelope, while the two aft
engines are attached with a composite, wishbone-shaped assembly that
fits along the contours of the envelope. The engine/propeller/mount
combinations, called thrusters, give P-791 a top speed of about thirty
knots.
|
 |
SkyLiner
The third and largest variant of the hybrid
airship family is called SkyLiner. This behemoth, expected to be flown
in 2016, will measure 800 feet long and be capable of lifting 500 tons
of cargo. SkyLiner will be used on international or transoceanic routes.
The Air Cushion Landing System pads on SkyLiner, which will measure
eighty feet long and thirteen feet tall, will retract to reduce drag.
The projected commercial market could support a fleet of several hundred
SkyLiners. All three airship variants will have long, rectangular cargo
containers attached underneath the envelope. The flight deck is located
in front. Each box will have a roll-on/roll-off capability and will
accommodate containers or pallets. The SkyLiner cargo box is 300 feet
long, fifty feet wide, and thirty feet tall with an upper and a lower
deck.
|
 |
P-791
The Lockheed Martin hybrid airship
demonstrator, called P-791, is 123 feet long, fifty-three feet wide, and
thirty feet high, was built in 2005. First flight came on 31 January
2006. Company test pilot Eric Hansen made the first two flights and was
followed by Bill Francis. The pilots sat side by side in an enclosed
gondola with flight engineer Tim Blunck. A total of six flights, each
about thirty minutes long, were carried out in the P-791 test program.
The tests were mostly ground handling demonstrations. When out of ground
effect, the airship crew remained in the traffic pattern at Palmdale,
staying below 2,000 feet.
|
 |
SkyTugA year after going on contract, Aviation Capital Enterprises, based in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, announced on 17 March 2011 that it had teamed with the Skunk Works to develop, build, test, and certify to US Federal Aviation Administration standards a family of hybrid airships designed for heavy lift, economical cargo transport. Aviation Capital will market the hybrid airship to the commercial market, while Lockheed Martin retains rights to the military market.The first variant, called SkyTug (shown here), will be like a super-sized helicopter, only at about one-tenth the cost. SkyTug will have a range of up to 1,000 nautical miles at a cruise speed of sixty knots. It will be used on four- to eight-hour missions to support remote drilling sites or mines where there is no infrastructure for aircraft. The 290-foot-long SkyTug is scheduled to be flown in early 2013. The two airships called for in the initial contract will be built in Palmdale, as will any additional SkyTugs in the future. Artist concept by Joel Derrick |
 |
Cargo Box Comparison
The second in a family of hybrid airships,
called SkyFreighter, is a regional lifter capable of carrying seventy
tons of cargo. An airship this size could be an enabler for countries to
expand their economies. First flight of a 400-foot-long SkyFreighter is
expected to come in 2014. This shot shows a comparison between the
SkyFreighter (red box), C-5 Galaxy transport (yellow box), C-17 (blue
box), and short fuselage C-130 (green line near the wall). The P-791
hybrid airship demonstrator, now filled only with air instead of helium,
is in the background.
|
Blast from the past...Convair Kingfish.
via Wikipedia...
KINGFISHAnother tantalizing 'what if' we had gone this way airplane...
After cancellation of the B-58B in mid-1959, Convair turned to a completely new design, similar to their earlier entry in name only. The new "Kingfish" design had much in common with the Convair F-106 Delta Dart, using a classic delta wing layout like most of Convair's products. It differed in having two of the J58 engines buried in the rear fuselage, and twin vertical surfaces at the rear. The intakes and exhausts were arranged to reduce radar cross section, and the entire aircraft had the same sort of angular appearance as the later Lockheed F-117. The leading edges of the wings and intakes continued to use pyroceram, while other portions used a variety of materials selected for low radar reflection, including fiberglass. The new engines reduced the cruise speed to Mach 3.2 compared to the "Fish"'s Mach 4.2, but range was increased to about 3,400 nm (6,300 km).
In August 1959 the teams met again to present their latest designs. Lockheed had produced an aircraft similar to the "Kingfish", the A-11, but it was more "conventional" in layout. Although the A-11 had somewhat better performance than "Kingfish", the panel generally preferred Convair's design due to its much lower RCS. Johnson expressed skepticism of Convair's claimed RCS, and complained that they had given up performance to achieve it: "Convair have promised reduced radar cross section on an airplane the size of A-12. They are doing this, in my view, with total disregard for aerodynamics, inlet and afterburner performance."
In the end it was not performance that decided the outcome; during the U-2 project Lockheed had proven its ability to design advanced aircraft in secret, on-time, and under-budget. In contrast, Convair had massive cost overruns with the B-58 and no secure facility similar to the Skunk Works. Lockheed promised to lower the RCS in a modified version of the A-11 known as the A-12, and that sealed the deal. The A-12 entered service with the CIA in the 1960s, and was slightly modified to become the Air Force's SR-71.
Lockheed Martin's Paris Air Show Website.
UPDATE:::
Wow. Either great minds think alike...Lockheed Martin threatened to pull advertising --- something but I noticed that Aviation Week has an article up --- "Face to Face : Lockheed Martin CEO Robert Stevens" ...no big you say???? Oh yeah...much big! Ya see the byline is by Joe Anselmo...he's a business writer that occasionally graces ARES with a fluff piece on the Chinese...but another name is there that stood out simply because I had never seen it before. Anthony Velocci, Jr. He's the freaking Editorial Director for Aviation Week. Long story short (pure speculation on my part) he was there to ride herd on his writers. I guess someone with a much bigger megaphone than mine has been complaining about biased stories too.
Boxer IFV ...Canadian CCV Contender.
BOXER_IFV
I've become more and more interested in the Canadian competitions for a Tactical Armored Patrol Vehicle (TAPV) and Close Combat Vehicle (CCV).
I plan on trying to cover each and every contender for both programs and today's entry is from Rheinmetall Canada. The Boxer IFV. They've changed the profile for the Boxer for this competition. Instead of stressing simply stressing its modularity they've added the Lancer Turret and made this a formidable war machine with scalable armor.
The "but" in all this is the comparison of the Boxer IFV with the LAV-3 currently in service with Canadian Forces. This statement from CASR says it all...
I've become more and more interested in the Canadian competitions for a Tactical Armored Patrol Vehicle (TAPV) and Close Combat Vehicle (CCV).
I plan on trying to cover each and every contender for both programs and today's entry is from Rheinmetall Canada. The Boxer IFV. They've changed the profile for the Boxer for this competition. Instead of stressing simply stressing its modularity they've added the Lancer Turret and made this a formidable war machine with scalable armor.
The "but" in all this is the comparison of the Boxer IFV with the LAV-3 currently in service with Canadian Forces. This statement from CASR says it all...
The ARTEC Boxer is a joint venture between KMW and Rheinmetall. [1] The apparent scale of the Boxer is deceptive. The turretless Boxer is almost as tall as a LAV III, is a metre longer, and weighs tonnes more empty than fully-loaded LAV III. In other words, the Boxer is a MAV or Medium Armoured Vehicle. That said, in turreted form, the Boxer offers no advance in payload or dismounts over the CF's existing LAV III.More to come.
Websites to check out.
33rd Fighter Wing due to get 1st F-35 this month!
Officials at Lockheed Martin Aeronautics are days away from sending Eglin Air Force Base its first of 59 Joint Strike Fighters.The momentum has become unstoppable. The program has survived its critics and will go into full rate production.
“We are very close to delivering the first jet down there and I would say we believe it will happen in the month of June,” said Mike Rein, a spokesman for the company.
The arrival of the first F-35 will start a string of deliveries from this month to September. Six jets are slated for delivery by the end of the fiscal year, Rein said. The base will receive the majority of the jets within the next three years.
“While we’ll still be delivering aircraft to other bases, Eglin will be the primary focus for the coming years,” Rein said.
Since Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates restructured the program last January, Rein said the deliveries are on schedule.
The proposed delivery date when the Draft Executive Summary came out last September was four planes in 2010 and 26 planes in 2011. Instead, the first six aircraft will be bought this year and another six the following year.
The rate of delivery will eventually increase until Eglin receives its 59 aircraft.
Other than test aircraft, Eglin will be the first base to receive F-35s. The jets will be used to train F-35 pilots and maintainers at the 33rd Fighter Wing’s Joint Strike Fighter Training School.
The first pilots who will train on the F-35 will be instructors. Some of them, including Marines, are already stationed at Eglin and are a part of the cadre tasked with forming the curriculum.
Rein said Lockheed and Eglin plan to have events where the public can see the aircraft sometime this year.
Officials at the Pentagon and Eglin said the base is working closely with Lockheed Martin and will announce the jet’s arrival when the date is firmly in place.
The Joint Strike Fighter is the country’s first fifth-generation, multirole fighter.
“This is going to give our armed forces the capability that they’ve never had before and it is going to be a tremendous leap in technology,” Rein said. “We’re quite excited about it.”
The Haters can pound sand....eat fish heads and rice...and shut the fuck up...
You lose boys.
Tuesday, June 07, 2011
Good enough for the Marines...Good enough for the IASF
via the UPI.com. Highlighted areas are by SNAFU! Comment on those follows the article.
Just a few comments on the sections I highlighted...Israelis favor V-22 Osprey for special ops
Published: June 7, 2011 at 2:59 PM
TEL AVIV, Israel, June 7 (UPI) -- The Israeli air force is sending a team to the United States this month to evaluate the controversial V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft that it's eyeing for search-and-rescue and covert special operations.
The successful March rescue of a downed U.S. Air Force F-15 pilot in Libya by an Osprey crew has doubtless enhanced the prospects of the multi-mission aircraft built by Bell Helicopter and Boeing Rotorcraft Systems.
"The (Israeli air force) has had its eye on the V-22 for a number of years and senior officers, including Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz have flown in it and were impressed with its capabilities," The Jerusalem Post reported Tuesday.
The air force had initially looked at the Osprey as a replacement for its aging fleet of Sikorsky CH-53 Sea Stallion transport helicopters.
But these days, the Post added, "due to the V-22's smaller size it is being looked at a complementary platform to assist in (Israeli air force) search-and-rescue operations and dropping Special Forces behind enemy lines."
Once the air force team has fully examined the V-22 in the United States, the service's helicopter directorate will submit a recommendation to the air force commander, Gen. Ido Nehushtan.
The V-22 can carry 24 fully equipped combat troops seated -- 32 floor loaded -- or more than 19,800 pounds of internal or external cargo. It has a range of 2,500 miles with a single in-flight refueling.
The Osprey is unique because it has vertical takeoff and landing capability like a helicopter, with the rotors of its two end-of-wing Rolls-Royce AE 1107C engines in the upright position.
It can shift the three-bladed rotors 45 degrees so they operate as propellers pushing the aircraft forward, with short-takeoff and landing capability.
It can reach speeds of 350 miles per hour, about double that of a traditional helicopter.
The Osprey was first designed in the 1950s but the first V-22 wasn't rolled out until May 1988. Since then its development has taken years because of the complexity and difficulties of being the first tilt-rotor designed for military service.
It has had to overcome a series of political, funding and technical battles that threatened to scrap the project before it was certified for operational deployment.
Despite a series of high-profile fatal accidents involving the V-22, the Pentagon approved full-rate production in September 2005.
The U.S. Marine Corps deployed the MV-22 in 2007 and has been steadily replacing its CH-46 Sea Knights on a squadron-by-squadron basis. The switch is due to be completed by 2019.
The U.S. Army deployed Ospreys in 2009 and it has seen combat in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. It made its combat debut in Iraq's turbulent Anbar province, an insurgent hotbed, in November 2007(SNAFU! Note. This has to be an error or I've been missing some really big news).
The Israeli air force team that will evaluate with V-22 will note that the U.S. Marines in Afghanistan, where the Osprey was deployed in November 2009, found that the V-22's speed and range made it a good operational match for fast combat jets.
The Marines thus split Marine Expeditionary Unit operations into two groups, one with fixed-wing jets and V-22s, the other with slower helicopters.
The U.S. Air Force's first operational CV-22 was delivered to the 58th Special Operations Wing at Kirtland Air Force Base, N.M., in March 2006. The aircraft is currently deployed with three Special Operations Squadrons.
There are 112 V-22s operational with U.S. forces. The Marine Corps has ordered 360 of the aircraft, each costing $110 million.
The U.S. Air Force Special Operations Command wants 50 and the U.S. Navy is expected to acquire 48.
1. I wrote an article a while ago (read it here) which covered the aftermath of the Israeli CH-53 crash in Romania. In that article an Israeli General was quoted as saying that only the CH-53K could perform future missions. IF this article is true then it appears that the Israeli Air and Space Force is tailoring its forces to almost mirror the Marine Corps. That's a good sign.
2. I never knew the US Army even operated Ospreys and unless I'm in error they're talking about the combat debut of the Marine's MV-22.
3. This has been a personal area of concern with the MV-22. If the AH-1Z was the primary escort then the speed advantage of the MV-22 would have been negated. Those in the planning section I see already settled on fast movers to do the job instead.
4. Is the Navy still on tap to purchase V-22's? I thought that they allowed the requirement to die. Time for some Googling to find out what's what with that part of the story.
SIDENOTE:
A reporter today stated that the rescue was the result of the Marine Corps being glory seeking. These are his exact words...
The U.S. Marine Corps has gotten a lot of attention for its MV-22 mission, this year, to rescue one of two downed F-15 pilots when the fighter went down in Libya owing to mechanical problems.
But the U.S. Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC), not as publicity hungry or savy, has quietly carried out a far more significant search and rescue mission using its tiltrotor.
He owes the Marine Corps an apology. It won't come but he does owe it.
C-130 avionics upgrade program.
Usually this kind of thing makes my eyes roll, but this is kinda cool...via Defesa Global...
Before the upgrade....
And then after...awesome...
Before the upgrade....
And then after...awesome...
Why Robert...Why????
I've had my dust ups with ARES Blog. I've found that on one particular issue they appear to be biased, and seem to have spun facts.
I thought the bias rested with only one author.
I was wrong.
Check out this story by Robert Wall.
Seriously?The U.S. Marine Corps has gotten a lot of attention for its MV-22 mission, this year, to rescue one of two downed F-15 pilots when the fighter went down in Libya owing to mechanical problems.But the U.S. Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC), not as publicity hungry or savy, has quietly carried out a far more significant search and rescue mission using its tiltrotor.
I mean seriously?
No, what I really mean is WHAT THE FUCK!
Lets look at the facts first, and I highly recommend that you read the whole story, but Robert reports that the AFSOC used the CV-22 to rescue personnel stuck in difficult conditions.
What difficult conditions means is beyond me. Snow bound? Under fire? An injured man that needed evacuation due to a non combat related cause? We just don't know and he doesn't say.
But to compare the rescue of service personnel under any circumstance as being more important is STUPID.
To say that the Marine Corps sought this publicity is equally insane and lastly that bit of speculation on the reporters part does nothing to advance the story but only shows his anti- Marine Corps feelings. This last part is equally telling.
Next year, AFSOC will also be the first to stand up an overseas V-22 base, when CV-22s will be based at RAF Mildenhall, U.K.Not only has the reporter not done his homework, not only has he introduced another non-factor into the story, but he again reveals his anti- Marine Corps bias. How? Because the USMC recently announced that it was going to station MV-22's in Japan. That covers the bias part, he's playing tit for tat with V-22 basing---perhaps it was a birdie put in his ear by the non-publicity seeking AFSOC. How did he not do his homework? Because he is showering AFSOC with praise when SecDef Gates just announced that the US will be realigning its forces to the Pacific! AFSOC is showing that its stuck in cold war thinking by putting necessary assets in the UK when we are moving forces (ground forces anyway) out of Europe.
I've been patient, but this kind of thing pushes me over the top. Get a grip guys!
Want a completely opposite view of the same briefing that Robert reported on? Check out the DewLine.
Internally Transportable Vehicle (ITV) in action with 11th MEU.
 |
| Cpl. Anthony Jones
guides a light utility vehicle into a CH-53E heavy lift helicopter with
the 11th Marine Expeditionary Unit' s aviation combat element, Marine
Medium Helicopter Squadron 268 (Reinforced), during an aerial transport
exercise here May 24. Jones, 23, a Stuart, Fla. native, is a mortarman
serving with Battalion Landing Team 3/1, the ground combat element of
the 11th Marine Expeditionary Unit. Photo ByLine: Lance Cpl. Claudia M. Palacios |
 |
| Marines with Battalion
Landing Team 3/1, 11th Marine Expeditionary Unit, load a Expeditionary
Fire Support System into a CH-53E heavy lift helicopter from the MEU's
aviation combat element, Marine Medium Helicopter Squadron 268
(Reinforced) during an aerial transport exercise here May 24. This is
the first time the system has been loaded into an aircraft on the West
Coast. Photo ByLine: Lance Cpl. Claudia M. Palacios |
 |
| Lance Cpl. Romero
Almanza from Battalion Landing Team 3/1, 11th Marine Expeditionary Unit,
removes a roll cage from a light utility vehicle during an aerial
transport exercise here May 24. This is the first time that the
Expeditionary Fire Support System has been loaded into an aircraft on
the West Coast. Photo ByLine: Lance Cpl. Claudia M. Palacios |
Monday, June 06, 2011
How Marines actually feel about DADT.
Via the Raw Story. Read the whole thing but...
"Sir, we joined the Marine Corps because the Marine Corps has a set of standards and values that is better than that of the civilian sector. And we have gone and changed those values and repealed the 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy," the sergeant told Gates during the question and answer session.
"We have not given the Marines a chance to decide whether they wish to continue serving under that. Is there going to be an option for those Marines that no longer wish to serve due to the fact their moral values have not changed?" he asked.
"No," Gates responded. "You'll have to complete your ... enlistment just like everybody else."
This is the truth that no one wants to admit. I stand by earlier posts. The repeal of DADT will get peoples asses kicked and careers ruined. This is an ill conceived policy and the Marine Corps will suffer for it. We will see the gay version of tail hook and it won't be pretty at all.
Why airpower has failed in Libya.
Thanks Joe for sending this article.
A must read from Politico....a tidbit but make sure you read the entire article...its a primer on how airpower alone will never win wars.
Absent a coup or lucky air strike that takes out Qadhafi, success requires what all other wars demanded: a competent, reasonably armed and well-led ground capacity. In the Libya case, this will require time, money, equipment and leadership with far more on-the-ground NATO assistance. For those who think otherwise, they would do well to recall the conclusion Johns Hopkins University strategist Eliot Cohen — the director of the U.S. government’s Persian Gulf War evaluation — made in Foreign Affairs in 1994: “Air power is an unusually seductive form of military strength, in part because, like modern courtship, it appears to offer gratification without commitment.”
In Libya, gratification will not suffice.
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)