F-15 Fleet grounded

[Randy Haskin]

Back on target....Randy, has there been any more news regarding the Eagles? Did they ground the -E Strike Eagles too, or just the air-to-air birds?

Thanks,

John

Both still grounded. Waiting on the Boeing engineers.

[Boghopper]

Both still grounded. Waiting on the Boeing engineers.

Well, atleast the targets at Wainfleet-Holbeach-Donna Nook are having a bit of a restbite

[muddyboots]

Back on target....Randy, has there been any more news regarding the Eagles? Did they ground the -E Strike Eagles too, or just the air-to-air birds?

Thanks,

John

Both still grounded. Waiting on the Boeing engineers.

Then you should have time to walk over to the Lakenheath High school, sneak into the Viking Boat site, and steal me a souvenier. Get busy!

*cracks whip*

[Mark Nankivil]

Here's a photo of 80-0034 I took a few years ago looking a wee bit more "put together"



And a photo I took of the Wing Commander's aircraft during a pass upon arrival at the St. Louis County Fair & Air Show this past Labor Day weekend.



I hope the grounding is lifted soon - I rather enjoy hearing the 131st's Eagles flying overhead every morning and afternoon - the wonderful sound of Freedom's protectors!

Enjoy the Day! Mark

[Randy Haskin]

double post deleted.

Last edited by Randy Haskin on Thu Nov 08, 2007 11:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[Randy Haskin]

I stole this from the other thread to put here where it is "relevant":

Sabre, perhaps a little off topic. However I think the story I saw may have been on a F-15, and in any event when Karzai ask U S airpower to stand down, it is F-15s that have done much of the bombing. So how do they operate now? Do they cease totally, do they go only to purely military targets, do they ignore the Afghan president and contnue to bomb as before? I am not really asking just about the 15, however Randy is a WIX member and has written about his missions in the land of sand and poppies in the F-15.

First, the operational side of things...yes, the F-15Es in Afghanistan are part of the groundings. There are so many different fighter assets in theater that the missions were simply shifted to other airframes (Navy, I'm guessing).

Second with respect to the "only purely military targets". Be careful here, Bill, because this is another one of those "are you still beating your wife?" kinds of back-handed worded questions. By asking if we're changing something by going BACK to military targets implies that there was a time that we were bombing non-military targets. Implying that coalition forces would simply ignore a plea by the Afghan president to stop killing civilians is an incredibly loaded question as well that implies things that are not true.

WE ARE NOT BOMBING NON MILITARY TARGETS. It has NEVER been policy to do so.

A couple things to go with that.

The Taliban and Al Qaeda are not organized state militaries. They don't have bases, or storage depots, or airfields. They are insurgent fighters who operate in civilian homes and buildings, and use ordinary pickup trucks and sedans to move (side note: I wonder how Toyota feels about being essentially the "official vehicles" of Taliban and AQ forces??). Finding fighters purely from the air is next to impossible if you don't physically see them carrying weapons and shooting at friendly forces.

Taliban and AQ forces KNOW that coalition forces will not engage civilians. Unfortunately, they don't abide by the same rules and will happily kill civilians, but that's another discussion entirely. As such, the militans exploit the fact that we abide by operating in among the populus. It then makes it extremely difficult to fight back at them because of the collateral damage to civilians and their buildings (their HOMES!).

So, the nature of things in Afghanistan is that the battle is constantly taking place around civilians. That is something CONSTANTLY affecting operations -- we and others are unable to provide air support to ground forces under attack because we simply can't figure out who is bad and who is a non-combatant -- an EXTREMELY difficult problem to solve.

Do non combatants get killed or injured in this war? Yes...far more get killed or injured by the bad guys (who simply don't care) than get killed or injured accidentally by coalition attacks. The numbers of civilians affected by this war is ORDERS OF MAGNITIDE LESS than in WW2 or Vietnam.

Finally, I'll note that the Taliban and AQ are extremely media savvy and exploit the fact that in the USA we are very ignorant about the people and cultures of this area of the world. When attacks happen, the Taliban and AQ are VERY QUICK to play the persons killed as "civilians", and they exaggerate numbers significantly. Let's just say there is as much a "media war" as a kinetic war in Afghanistan, and the US media plays into it just as much as anyone else.

[JDK]

Hi Randy,
Thanks for that insight.

Finally, I'll note that the Taliban and AQ are extremely media savvy and exploit the fact that in the USA we are very ignorant about the people and cultures of this area of the world. When attacks happen, the Taliban and AQ are VERY QUICK to play the persons killed as "civilians", and they exaggerate numbers significantly. Let's just say there is as much a "media war" as a kinetic war in Afghanistan, and the US media plays into it just as much as anyone else.

As ever, not specific to people or places, but in general...

I can't recall any war that's not been a 'media', (PR or propaganda if you prefer) war, if they aren't being questioned they are being lied about. There's no middle ground. Projecting images 'back home' into people's living room is the 'new' thing, but itself goes back to Vietnam.

The only war I can recall that had significant media control in a democracy is the Falklands in 1982 where Thatchers' government (thanks to specific geographical and technical reasons) were able to rigidly control what came out. That's no longer a viable plan.

Democracies have to wage a war with the diversity of opinion and commitment back home; that's the critical bit of being democratic. If the war (not necessarily the military) lose popular support, then the democracy will eventually withdraw. The difference between W.W.II and today's conflicts is that the democracies of the war did see W.W.II as a 'just' war worth pursuing to the end. Media differences are obvious, but IMHO overrated as affecting a people's will, the fundamental issue is behind that - is the war 'worth' the loss and pain. The real issue is and has always been the pain to the families back home who lose loved ones - that doesn't change.

Those who would shut down or restrict the varied media feeds we have access to, or demand that the media follows a state agenda should bear in mind those models have existed; offered by totalitarian regimes, and Gobbels in particular is the high priest of that methodology. There is no halfway house. Democratic governments (and their military) have to win, retain and work on public support. Complaining about the message and the messenger is pointless. (IMHO.)

The issues isn't the message or the messenger but the public will to continue, and creating ignorance won't help that.

Regards,

[Randy Haskin]

The critical problem is that Taliban and AQ media folks simply have to say after EVERY attack that the targets were civilians, and the coalition is then put on the spot to "prove" that the target was valid.

What results is a war fought with the public determining targets and tactics -- a situation that is 1,000s of times worse than Robert McNamara choosing targets at Tuesday lunches. Fighting a war with targets approved by public opinion is not a way to win anything.

It's a very effective tactic for causing distaste for the conflict in the western world.

[muddyboots]

WE ARE NOT BOMBING NON MILITARY TARGETS. It has NEVER been policy to do so.

Erm...with the exception of WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Serbia, no, I can't argue with you.
The problem is and always has been that the line between civilian and military is fuzzy. Are telephone lines civilian or military? Power plants? Sewage plants? Railroads? All have vital military applications, and would be targeted at some point if they were available for use by an enemy.

We have enough quotes from WWII to argue strongly that we did indeed target civilians simply to break their will to support Hitler and Tojo. And yet it is still argued that those fuzzy areas were the real reasons we hammered people.

I agree with it, mind you. If having a couple of Buff's do arclight strikes on downtown Belgrad had kept me from going there myself, I'd have happily watched it from a safe distance.

This era's Air Force has evidently decided that it's had enough with being called baby killers and taken strong actions to protect itself from that rep... I applaud it and am grateful that you guys don't have to deal with that silly sugar. All you've ever done is take the orders, trusting that the men who make the calls have honor and integrity, and sense.

As you have described, there are enough other issues to deal with in each and every strike you make, from permission to let fly, to who the target really is and the political repercussions afterward.

All I can say is, once again: thank you for being there so I don't have to, and protecting my kids. It means an awful lot.

[JDK]

The critical problem is that Taliban and AQ media folks simply have to say after EVERY attack that the targets were civilians, and the coalition is then put on the spot to "prove" that the target was valid.

With respect (based on I don't like to argue with a heavily armed man ~ and more seriously, nor argue with someone with your insight who is on the spot) it doesn't alter my proposed 'rule of thumb'. The equivocation is a lack of belief in justness or chance of 'winning' the war, not superior propaganda by AQ. There's also clearly a disjunction in the social contract between the people 'back home' and the military, which is what you are touching on I think, and is part of Bill's unfortunate question. AFAIK, only one overseas anti-guerrilla war has ever been 'won' by a colonial or world power - the Mau Mau rebellion, and that was 'won' short term on hearts and minds, and of course was very different.

For various reasons I won't comment here on current operations in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Another current western fault by government PR or propaganda, and I've seen this in the US, UK and Australia is the attempt to minimise the reality of war with euphemism, rather than facing the fact that was is nasty and expensive, and we are certain to have some of our people die. The 'collateral damage' and 'insurgents' and was war that's 'over' before it really started PR babble as against Churchillian 'blood sweat and tears'. If the people were told straight rather than being given a pill coated with equivocation, it might be a different story.

Just, of course, my opinion, based on Randy's commendable frank insights.

[muddyboots]

James, I am not sure that Americans trust their government enough to swallow that pill. We certainly haven't ever been trusted to do so. Name a war where propaganda, sensationalization and outright lies haven't been used to justify war and the things we do in war?

I'm NOT saying those wars were not justified. Just that our leadership has always felt the need to feed us what they want us to hear. After Vietnam the military itself grew wary of the press, while trying hard to accomidate them in a way which didn't actually mean anything.

You saw tons of guys in humvees bouncing along the roads using crappy video gear. But you never did get real poop about what was happening in war room. Just more wagging mouths saying the enemy was scary, but we were doing just fine. ( I kept hoping Jeraldo Rivera would get run over by an M2 just as he went live one morning)

And every darn commander (Petraus comes to mind) ended up hyper-vigilant about every interview or profile he saw on himself. The guy who wrote "An Army at Dawn followed Patreus and really pissed him off over a minor thing in a news story. How can we ever make informed decisions when every factoid we get has been groomed until it's fur has fallen out?

I'm pretty happy to have Randy here. We get a more informed (alhough censored for his own safety and security reasons) view of the sticky end than 99% of the people out there.

[JDK]

Good post Clay,

James, I am not sure that Americans trust their government enough to swallow that pill.

And that's the problem - trust, not what news or how. (Not limited to the US, BTW).

We certainly haven't ever been trusted to do so. Name a war where propaganda, sensationalization and outright lies haven't been used to justify war and the things we do in war?

Gee, um, er, none? But I wasn't referring to that, just (a big 'just'!) that FDR and Churchill had both a clear and present danger plus were frank it was going to cost - lives and massive disruption to society. This doesn't seem to be something current western leaders have figured is going to go over, whether they admit it or not. Bear in mind Britain was half-heartedly at war from September 1939 until May 1940, with British industrialists demanding that certain German targets were not bombed because of their stake in them... It took Dunkirk for Britain (say the British public) to realise this was serious. December 7th 1941 was a rather different start to the war, and as we know, Japan underestimated American strength, speed, resilience and public opinion.

I don't watch TV news - content free, long on images short on actual new, comment on analysis, IMHO.

I'd also thank Randy for his insight, but I'd not encourage him to post more as we don't want any conflicts of interest in any direction (fellow airmen etc.) However, as you observe, for many of us, insight and feedback from people like Randy constitute a significant proportion of our news gathering.

Regards,

[Randy Haskin]

WE ARE NOT BOMBING NON MILITARY TARGETS. It has NEVER been policy to do so.

Erm...with the exception of WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Serbia, no, I can't argue with you.

I meant in Afghanistan or Iraq.

[sgt hawk]

I guess I'll add my two cents. No. 1. Most of us get our news from the TV, and boys, that thing is "traveling at the speed of the slowest ship", i.e "Convoy TV". Some old countryboy is sittin out there with a death grip on a Budweiser, and he's "buyin most of the crap their sellin". Cereal, Soap, Beer and no doubt Viagra. That black box is nothing but a capitalistic marketing tool that has to exist on Ratings! So them dudes are sensationalizing, inference (suttle and otherwise) all the crap you hear in order to keep or increase their ratings. Are we getting any "real" News? Maybe some,but you have to reach in other directions to get the real stuff.
Be aware, that some of those Networks also have a Political agenda. Lets face it, who really makes all the money in an election year and why do Politicians have to have so much $$ in their accounts-To buy TV time. "TV is America's biggest Waste Land. And when their Ratings drop, Pfizer pulls their Viagra Adds, Now "they" really get stiffed!

[bipe215]

As an example, it was announced this week that Bahgdad is 99% clean of AQ. An incredible accomplishment. So big it should have led every newscast, but I bet you heard more about OJ this week.

Steve G