Looks like Iran didn't follow the first rule of weapons......

[tadbart]

I'm facebook friends with the drummer of one of my favorite bands. not surprisingly, he's a lefty to the core. he was railing against Trump today, and blamed Trump for the jet disaster. "Trump kicked the hornet nest" he said. Dude, we been at war with Iran since the the 1970s, but only one side been doing the shooting. we kill one general, and don't damage any Iranian ground, and we are the bad guys after trigger happy achmed launches an AA missile at a civvy aircraft?

 

try again, drummer boy.

[holyjohnson]

i do believe that some of our very own Smarter then the average bear Members pointed out some Russian Wood pecker holes in the Fuselage, you`d think even Iranians would know to turn off their Anti aircraft Missiles by the Airport.

 

 

[holyjohnson]

8 minutes ago, tadbart said:

I'm facebook friends with the drummer of one of my favorite bands. not surprisingly, he's a lefty to the core. he was railing against Trump today, and blamed Trump for the jet disaster. "Trump kicked the hornet nest" he said. Dude, we been at war with Iran since the the 1970s, but only one side been doing the shooting. we kill one general, and don't damage any Iranian ground, and we are the bad guys after trigger happy achmed launches an AA missile at a civvy aircraft?

 

try again, drummer boy.

brother no matter what its gonna be 'Orange man bad' for a long long time to come.

 

especially if everything he does keeps working so well for Americans.

[janice6]

2 hours ago, holyjohnson said:

i do believe that some of our very own Smarter then the average bear Members pointed out some Russian Wood pecker holes in the Fuselage, you`d think even Iranians would know to turn off their Anti aircraft Missiles by the Airport.

 

 

But, they had no idea what was coming, and the rank and file were scared s**tless...….. 

This is a good recipe for crap.  I bet they thought an attack by stealth air to ground, pretending to be civilians.  It's what they would do if they could.

I would wager that they judge our actions by what they would do under the circumstances.

Edited January 10, 2020 by janice6

[holyjohnson]

5 minutes ago, janice6 said:

But, they had no idea what was coming, and the rank and file were scared s**tless...….. 

This is a good recipe for crap.  I bet they thought an attack by stealth air to ground, pretending to be civilians.  It's what they would do if they could.

I would wager that they judge our actions by what they would do under the circumstances.

kind of sad they may think they`d even see us coming..

[tous]

The Soviets had one tactical theory and two ways to achieve it.

Their basic theory was why send one SAM when 20 is better and that is what they did  Saturate the defended airspace with rockets at the first peep.

The Soviets had two  basic configurations: the 'star' configuration with the missiles sited in a star around a central RADAR control unit; the control unit fired the missiles.  We saw a lot of that in Vietnam and that was effective in defending static targets.   The other configuration was the road-mobile launchers that were stand-alone units with RADAR and rockets in a roadable package.    Most effective for defending a temporary site or corridor.  Same theory.  They had a lot of missiles, so send many and hope one or two do the job. We saw a lot  of them in Vietnam as well.  Remember Baghdad in 1991 with all of the missiles and tracers lighting up the sky?

Soviet doctrine.

I have been out of the game for a very long time, but I suggest that the Russians and their customer likely haven't changed the fundamentals a lot: quantity, quantity, quantity beats precision.

I suspect that the unit that downed the airliner was probably a road-moblle launcher brought in at the last minute with a green, terrified crew.

It would be interesting to know if they launched just one or salvoed off the entire trailer load.

Edited January 10, 2020 by tous

[willie-pete]

3 minutes ago, tous said:

The Soviets had one tactical theory and two ways to achieve it.

Their basic theory was why send one SAM when 20 is better and that is what they did  Saturate the defended airspace with rockets at the first peep.

The Soviets had two  basic configurations: the 'star' configuration with the missiles sited in a star around a central RADAR control unit; the control unit fired the missiles.  We saw a lot of that in Vietnam and that was effective in defending static targets.   The other configuration was the road-mobile launchers that were stand-alone units with RADAR and rockets in a roadable package.    Most effective for defending a temporary site or corridor.  Same theory.  They had a lot of missiles, so send many and hope one or two do the job. We saw a lot  of them in Vietnam as well.  Remember Baghdad in 1991 with all of the missiles and tracers lighting up the sky?

Soviet doctrine.

I have been out of the game for a very long time, but I suggest that the Russians and their customer likely haven't changed the fundamentals a lot: quantity, quantity, quantity beats precision.

I suspect that the unit that downed the airliner was probably a road-moblle launcher brought in at the last minute with a green, terrified crew.

It would be interesting to know if they launched just one or salvoed off the entire trailer load.

One report I saw said the satellites saw two launched.

[Dric902]

6 minutes ago, tous said:

The Soviets had one tactical theory and two ways to achieve it.

Their basic theory was why send one SAM when 20 is better and that is what they did  Saturate the defended airspace with rockets at the first peep.

The Soviets had two  basic configurations: the 'star' configuration with the missiles sited in a star around a central RADAR control unit; the control unit fired the missiles.  We saw a lot of that in Vietnam and that was effective in defending static targets.   The other configuration was the road-mobile launchers that were stand-alone units with RADAR and rockets in a roadable package.    Most effective for defending a temporary site or corridor.  Same theory.  They had a lot of missiles, so send many and hope one or two do the job. We saw a lot  of them in Vietnam as well.  Remember Baghdad in 1991 with all of the missiles and tracers lighting up the sky?

Soviet doctrine.

I have been out of the game for a very long time, but I suggest that the Russians and their customer likely haven't changed the fundamentals a lot: quantity, quantity, quantity beats precision.

I suspect that the unit that downed the airliner was probably a road-moblle launcher brought in at the last minute with a green, terrified crew.

It would be interesting to know if they launched just one or salvoed off the entire trailer load.

“Quantity has a quality all its own”

America would focus on accuracy under the pretense that hitting your target costs less. Soviets considered it cheaper to fire a lot of ‘accurate enough’ munitions to ensure a target hit.

Run your hand over the side of a Mig 17 and you feel rivets, seams. Run your hand over a Sabre jet and it’s smooth.

some of that has changed as tech has gotten cheaper and more readily available.

but the basic doctrine of the US firing a couple missiles and seeing if you need more, the Russians will keep firing until the target is hit with something.

some of the satellite countries like Iran it’s a little different. They have to buy the ammo and want to hoard it like Gollum with his Precious. That’s why much of their inventory is old and not well maintained. But they don’t like to shoot them easily, they like to have the asset to brag about to their neighbors.

 

this was a screw up, and I bet somebody is gonna pay a price for the firing and the embarrassment 

.

[janice6]

2 hours ago, Dric902 said:

“Quantity has a quality all its own”

America would focus on accuracy under the pretense that hitting your target costs less. Soviets considered it cheaper to fire a lot of ‘accurate enough’ munitions to ensure a target hit.

Run your hand over the side of a Mig 17 and you feel rivets, seams. Run your hand over a Sabre jet and it’s smooth.

some of that has changed as tech has gotten cheaper and more readily available.

but the basic doctrine of the US firing a couple missiles and seeing if you need more, the Russians will keep firing until the target is hit with something.

some of the satellite countries like Iran it’s a little different. They have to buy the ammo and want to hoard it like Gollum with his Precious. That’s why much of their inventory is old and not well maintained. But they don’t like to shoot them easily, they like to have the asset to brag about to their neighbors.

 

this was a screw up, and I bet somebody is gonna pay a price for the firing and the embarrassment 

.

When I retired, the  Aegis battle group  was capable of coordinating fire control computers for all the capable ships automatically to define and handle swarms of fighters and missiles. 

I believe I saw that each ship could take their segment of the total and target them with a minimum of double coverage.  In principle, a swarm was one of the attack defenses that the system was programmed to handle.  As a tactic, I saw capabilities of taking on "hundreds" of threats at once for the group.

I don't know what the capabilities of the ground forces was in handling multiple threats simultaneously.

Edited January 10, 2020 by janice6

[Dric902]

1 minute ago, janice6 said:

When I retired, the  Aegis battle group  was capable of coordinating fire control computers for all the capable ships automatically to define and handle swarms of fighters and missiles. 

I believe I saw that each ship could take their segment of the total and target them with a minimum of double coverage.  In principle, a swarm was one of the attack defenses that the system was programmed to handle.  As a tactic, I saw capabilities of taking on "hundreds" of threats at once for the group.

I don't know what the capabilities of the ground forces was in handling multiple threats simultaneously.

When I got out the hardware for Tac-Fire was being developed. We were using the first and second generation but I’m sure after the Paladin Howitzer we had a long way farther to go.

if an enemy gun fired, even if it wasn’t at us, we would have counter battery fire on the way before their rounds impacted. “Copperhead” rounds were the first generation of laser guided projectiles, and that was the mid ‘80s. The 155 mm gun had a nuke round. The 8 inch had two, one of which was purely mechanical so it could be fired in any weather conditions. (It would be a shame to fire a nuke and have hard rain set it off when the proximity fuse lit up)

the Soviets would counter that with hundreds of tubes firing.

the age old question was, who wins?

.

[Fog]

Part of me finds a morbose humor in the Iranians thinking they would even get a shot at what was about to kill them. Low and a couple hundred MPH? You think you could hit that? Yeah, you have nothing to fear, that's not what's going to kill you.

[tous]

Remember the 176 souls lost, and yes, the Iranian air defense system will be smoking holes in the ground just before the good stuff arrives.

That would be the right time for Iranian defenders to be afraid.

Very afraid.

This incident remains just so sad for the crew and passengers of that aircraft.

 

Some news reports indicate that that particular ADS ( SA-15? ) has an automatic mode and they don't need a finger to push the button.

However, it is astonishing that anyone, regardless of how depraved, would park such a device near a commercial airport and I don't see  the tactical purpose of such an automatic system.

Edited January 10, 2020 by tous

[willie-pete]

18 hours ago, SC Tiger said:

"Keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to shoot." - Maybe.

 

Also from CNN: https://www.cnn.com/middleeast/live-news/iran-plane-crash-investigation/h_b5bcdf6b67af8819b2697feabc070d67

Not verified by anyone else yet AFAIK.

 

 

Well, now that we have had time to think about the issues. I really think it is a violation of Rule # 4 

( KNOW WHAT YOUR TARGET IS )

 

rather than Rule # 3.

 

Jeff Cooper's Four Rules are:

1. All guns are always loaded.
2. Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy.
3. Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on the target.
4. Be sure of your target and what is beyond it.

 

 

[SC Tiger]

1 hour ago, willie-pete said:

Well, now that we have had time to think about the issues. I really think it is a violation of Rule # 4 

( KNOW WHAT YOUR TARGET IS )

 

rather than Rule # 3.

 

Jeff Cooper's Four Rules are:

1. All guns are always loaded.
2. Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy.
3. Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on the target.
4. Be sure of your target and what is beyond it.

 

 

Honestly I was never sure of the order.  I just know what they are.

[Dric902]

6 hours ago, tous said:

Some news reports indicate that that particular ADS ( SA-15? ) has an automatic mode and they don't need a finger to push the button.

However, it is astonishing that anyone, regardless of how depraved, would park such a device near a commercial airport and I don't see  the tactical purpose of such an automatic system.

I saw a report about that.

nothing like boobytrapping your own airspace.

I would think that would be for a battlefront forward type of area

.

[janice6]

13 hours ago, Fog said:

Part of me finds a morbose humor in the Iranians thinking they would even get a shot at what was about to kill them. Low and a couple hundred MPH? You think you could hit that? Yeah, you have nothing to fear, that's not what's going to kill you.

I was touring the Lockheed Martin F-16 plant on business years ago.  I saw an assembly line that started with large billets of A/C Aluminum Alloy, and at the other end they wheeled out completely functional F-16's. You couldn't see the other end of the line, it was clouded in haze.

Towards the finished end of the line, I saw planes with all the skins off, and they were a damn near solid layer of Black cables almost all around the length of the fuselage.

My guide asked what I thought of their aircraft.  I said It seemed vulnerable to even small arms fire hitting a cable and causing problems.

He was indignant and said, "It goes 1,200 Miles per hour!, It has less than 2 meters of frontal cross section.  First you have to hit it!"   ( From the front it looked like the pilot sat in a bubble on top of the aircraft)

He had a good argument!

[janice6]

15 hours ago, Dric902 said:

When I got out the hardware for Tac-Fire was being developed. We were using the first and second generation but I’m sure after the Paladin Howitzer we had a long way farther to go.

if an enemy gun fired, even if it wasn’t at us, we would have counter battery fire on the way before their rounds impacted. “Copperhead” rounds were the first generation of laser guided projectiles, and that was the mid ‘80s. The 155 mm gun had a nuke round. The 8 inch had two, one of which was purely mechanical so it could be fired in any weather conditions. (It would be a shame to fire a nuke and have hard rain set it off when the proximity fuse lit up)

the Soviets would counter that with hundreds of tubes firing.

the age old question was, who wins?

.

 I remember after the Soviet Union fell, lot's of Russian military were being interviewed by Western journalists, since it was the first opportunity to hear their side of the Cold War.

One general said that their plan of swarming Europe with tanks was getting everyone on their side very worried as to the possibility of success, when the A-10 Warthog came out.  They believed it would cause them great tank losses per aircraft, and put in question the concept of swarming with tanks.  The numbers could be nullified.

Quantity isn't always a solution it seems to  be, if you anticipate it.

[SC Tiger]

1 hour ago, janice6 said:

 I remember after the Soviet Union fell, lot's of Russian military were being interviewed by Western journalists, since it was the first opportunity to hear their side of the Cold War.

One general said that their plan of swarming Europe with tanks was getting everyone on their side very worried as to the possibility of success, when the A-10 Warthog came out.  They believed it would cause them great tank losses per aircraft, and put in question the concept of swarming with tanks.  The numbers could be nullified.

Quantity isn't always a solution it seems to  be, if you anticipate it.

Funniest A10 story I've heard is that supposedly on joint exercises, any time the A10 showed up, SOMEBODY would call out on the radio:

PIGS.......IN.........SPAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACCCCCCCCCCCCEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Dric902]

1 hour ago, janice6 said:

 I remember after the Soviet Union fell, lot's of Russian military were being interviewed by Western journalists, since it was the first opportunity to hear their side of the Cold War.

One general said that their plan of swarming Europe with tanks was getting everyone on their side very worried as to the possibility of success, when the A-10 Warthog came out.  They believed it would cause them great tank losses per aircraft, and put in question the concept of swarming with tanks.  The numbers could be nullified.

Quantity isn't always a solution it seems to  be, if you anticipate it.

I always thought that our doctrine would win eventually, but it would be costly. 

 

our plans were repeatable and consistent. They relied on fast territory acquisition until losses reached unworkable and then hold what they had until they could resupply and rotate in fresh forces. Our supply lines were a lot more efficient than there’s.

and at the time, it may has changed over 30 years, they had no NCO Corp to speak of. They had fodder and officers, and their control was very top heavy. They not only had no initiative, they punished you for displaying it. The officer answered the radio and complied.

we concentrated on small unit tactics, war fighting, and a strong NCO Corp to keep the troops trained, fed, in the right place at the right time doing the right things. Command and control was pushed to the lower levels so as to respond quickly and effectively.

Eventually we would wear them down, control the sky and cut the supply lines. But it’s a big number to wear down. 
 

They had immediate compliance and a lot of resources. if they could take ground and the other side asked for talks, they would if they had what they wanted.

We had a much more reactive and fluid force, accurate and effective. We also had Patton and Monty playing against each their until Ike had to be a politician as much as a General. MacArther was....different.

We had Swartzkopf and the AF Gen during the Gulf War (I don’t recall his name, but I could tell you some stories)

basically, we could sustain a war. They had to ‘shoot their wad’ quickly and hold or deal. We had to have a strong center that would keep everybody on the same plan, and make the big decisions.

 

Reagan scared the crap out of them. The A-10, F-16, F-15, M-1 tank, Bradley, Paladin, MLRS, Lance, Patriot. The increases in budget and tech in ammunition’s and software.....

They were made obsolete in almost every aspect of war fighting. Reagan bankrupted them

 

.

Edited January 10, 2020 by Dric902

[willie-pete]

CBS had a reporter at the crash site tonight, It has been wiped clean.

 

 

Hmmm, I wonder what they are trying to hide ?

[tadbart]

9 hours ago, willie-pete said:

CBS had a reporter at the crash site tonight, It has been wiped clean.

 

 

Hmmm, I wonder what they are trying to hide ?

They already fessed up to shooting it down "accidentally." So why wipe the site? Doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

[willie-pete]

3 hours ago, tadbart said:

They already fessed up to shooting it down "accidentally." So why wipe the site? Doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

To my understanding it was " sanitized " way before the final announcement.

 

Maybe they had a " coming to Jesus " moment. 

 

 

[Dric902]

9 hours ago, tadbart said:

They already fessed up to shooting it down "accidentally." So why wipe the site? Doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

If they already confessed then why would anybody go to the site. 
- Iranian scumbag

 

they are protecting themselves from something. Lawsuits, loss of intel maybe

embarrassment?

.

Edited January 11, 2020 by Dric902

[willie-pete]

Well, certainly the poor bastards that were involved in the launch are going to " disappear " so nobody can ever interview them.

 

[tadbart]

4 hours ago, willie-pete said:

Well, certainly the poor bastards that were involved in the launch are going to " disappear " so nobody can ever interview them.

 

Yeah, Uncle Achmed the rocket tender ain't gonna be at Thanksgiving this year...