Combat Duty?

This is coolbert:

Women in combat.

The women of Malmstrom!!

Thanks to the tip from Larry and the Malmstron AFB web site we have the photo and brief description of ten young American military women, officers each and every one of them, those lieutenants at the very leading edge of the U.S. military atomic arsenal and deterrent.

These young women prior to a 24 hour alert, manning deep underground a command post [two officers per post] of a missile silo, able to launch the Minuteman III intercontinental  ballistic missile each and everyone of those Minuteman carrying ten atomic warheads.

That debate over women in combat was ended long time ago? Unbeknownst to the American public and unappreciated, for some time now U.S. military women have been an integral part of the American nuclear deterrent? This qualifies as COMBAT DUTY EVEN IF WAY UNDERGROUND?

"Mission planning before ICBM alert"

"2/2/2012 - Crew members from the 10th Missile Squadron deployed to the five missile alert facilities for a 24-hour alert Jan. 30"

 "Malmstrom Air Force Base is a United States Air Force base . . . is the home of the 341st Missile Wing (341 MW) of the Air Force Global Strike Command (AFGSC)."

Those young women chosen for intellect, highly trained and screened for security and reliability their mission while on duty having a global reach!

NO PERSON can command a nuclear equipped unit if there is even the appearance of wrong-doing, even if totally unfounded! A very high standard almost beyond measure for which these young American woman more than pass the test!!

My absolutely instantaneous and intuitive reaction when seeing this photo and also from the web site the listing of names was that this is some sort of gross breach of operational security [OPSEC]. The names and photographs of persons assigned to and in command of nuclear equipped units is usually classified to some extent? Evidently not the case here!

coolbert.

Waler.

This is coolbert:

From that wiki entry: "Horses in World War I" we have another MILITARY BEST!

The Australian Waler horse. Finest horse of the cavalry that fought as such during the Great War [WW1]!

"The Australians primarily rode Waler horses . . . The majority of horses in the Corps were Walers and there is no doubt that these hardy Australian horses make the finest cavalry mounts in the world ..."

The Australian soldier instantly recognizable from even an distance by the appearance of the slouch hat those troops deployed beyond Australia proper all volunteers no conscripts!!

That indigenous Australian horse, called a "type" and not a breed the Waler a combination of many breeds and ideally suited for the arid and "rough" terrain as found in the Middle East. A "type" of horse accustomed to hard work under difficult conditions, tough and able! BEST!

"The Waler combined a variety of breeds; particularly the Thoroughbred, Arab, the Cape horse (from the Cape of Good Hope), Timor Pony and perhaps a little Clydesdale or Percheron. It was originally considered only a 'type' of horse and not a distinct breed. However, as a landrace bred under the extreme climate and challenging working conditions of Australia, the Waler developed into a hardy horse with great endurance even when under extreme stress from lack of food and water. It was used as a stockman's horse and prized as a military remount. Walers were also used by bushrangers, troopers and exploration expeditions that traversed inland Australia."

During the Battle of Megiddo the Australian light horse troop advancing at a rate exceeding any and all other military units of modern times for which there is a record! Movement by horse, the soldier fighting dismounted!

coolbert.

War Horse.

This is coolbert:

The current movie "War Horse" as directed by Steven Spielberg is getting very high marks, good ratings, reviewed as a must see!

I have not seen this film yet but plan to. YOU TOO!

"War Horse is a 2011 war epic motion picture directed by Steven Spielberg. It is based on . . .  War Horse, a children's novel set before and during World War I, by British author Michael Morpurgo"
. . .

"The film is currently in contention for six Academy Awards and five BAFTAs. It was also nominated for two Golden Globe Awards."

The horse at war during modern times. An epic [?] film taking place during the period of the Great War [WW1], at the time horses still an integral part of the military. Used as cavalry and as prime movers for artillery.

Horses it is reputed during WW1 the number of which dying from all causes at least in as great numbers as the number of human battlefield dead, about 10 million in either case!! Losses of a catastrophic nature human and equine both!! Exact figures not of course available, estimates that are "ballpark" as they say, probably pretty accurate, that wiki entry "Horses in World War I" INDEED making for very painful and sorrowful reading!!

"The use of horses in World War I marked a transitional period in the evolution of armed conflict. Cavalry units were initially considered essential offensive elements of a military force, but over the course of the war, the vulnerability of horses to modern machine gun and artillery fire reduced their utility on the battlefield"

That war of movement as originally envisioned and planned for by the general staff officers of the various combatants during WW1 only occurring during the earliest stages of the war ["The Guns of August"] and during the very latter days of the war in the Middle East. ACCORDING TO DUPUY THAT AUSTRALIAN HORSE TROOP IN 1918 ADVANCING AT THE HIGHEST RATE OF ANY MILITARY FORCE IN MODERN TIME FOR WHICH THERE IS RECORD!

Horse deaths on the battlefield occurring primarily from artillery fire and overwork!! Horse basically driven to exhaustion and collapsing in their tracks dead and abandoned. Disease also taking a heavy toll, in some cases accusations of biological warfare being leveled against the Central Powers.

Comments:

* Even without a war of movement during WW1 as so desired by the senior commanders, cavalry units at divisional strength were maintained at the ready in case of a breakthrough in the traditional manner! Divisions in such numbers, the amount of acreage and cropland set aside in England for the growing of fodder for horses that the British population had to endure food rationing and malnutrition!

* That Australian horse troop in 1918 when finally on the offensive using Mus Mus pass as a means of bypassing Turkish positions as did the Egyptian Pharaoh Thutmose when waging his own war thirty-five-hundred [3,500] years earlier!!

* In the aftermath of the Great War, cavalry still used extensively and most successfully so by both sides during the Russian Civil War!

* The British Admiral Parry having predicted that if and when the world order as we know it begins to break down starting this year CERTAIN SPECIFIC PARTIES MAY RESUME THE USE OF CAVALRY AS A MEANS OF WAGING WAR! That remains to be seen!

coolbert.

Aardvark II.

This is coolbert:

Conclusion!

From a prior blog entry:

"JFK at that exact instant watching aircraft carrier take-offs and landings as is the prerogative of the commander-in-chief in the process gaining a better understanding of American military prowess and capabilities, the duties of the President almost mandating such knowledge!"

President Roosevelt in 1939 also witnessing US Navy aircraft carrier take-offs and landings would have seen as well a variety of types of warplanes as found in the navy inventory at the time. Each and every type having a specific role and function, task-tailored for maximum performance as was understood at the time. Types [1939] to include:

* Fighter/interceptor.
* Bomber.
* Torpedo plane.
* Scout.

1. That bomber able to deliver ordnance in either the horizontal or dive role.
2. That torpedo plane with torpedo slung underneath the fuselage and not contained internally.
3. That scout being a two-man warplane having very limited combat ability, the back-seater being trained as a spotter/radio operator.

President Kennedy in 1961 witnessing carrier take-offs and landings observing an EVEN GREATER ARRAY OF TYPES AND VARIETIES OF COMBAT AIRCRAFT! As launched and recovered to include:

* Fighter/inteceptor.
* Light bomber. [single engine]
* Heavy bomber. [dual engine]
* Early Warning. [radar]
* Tanker.
* Electronic warfare [EW].
* Attack.

1. Early warning a radar-carrying warplane performing picket duty, able to spot surface and aerial targets a long distance off.
2. Attack a warplane propeller-driven with a close air support [CAS] mission in mind.
3. No more scout plane that reconnaissance mission now normally performed by a fighter/interceptor with a camera pod mounted.
4. Torpedo planes as that term understood no longer in the inventory.
5. EW aircraft having the mission of jamming enemy radars while on mission over enemy targets.

[am not taking into consideration ANY rotary wing aircraft - - only fixed wing.]

Presumably the FTX [F-111] with modification from the basic model might very well be able to function in all roles except Early Warning? This is what Robert S. Mac Namara had in mind?

That variable-gemometry swept-wing design of the F-111 from an engineering stand-point precluded the folded wings as found on many carrier aircraft? That too constituted a problem for which there was no amelioration? I cannot say.

To what extent the US Navy will find the F-35 to be a success as a jack-of-a-trades, not in all categories meeting their criteria as perceived [the lack of two-engines from the start felt to be a drawback] we shall see!

coolbert.

Aardvark I.

This is coolbert:

From a comment to the blog by Steiner:

"I think you're too hard on the F-4 and the F-111 . . . The F-111 was the great lost cause of American aerospace in the Cold War. Upon its introduction, it defined what would come to be called the 'bleeding edge' of combat technology. It took a few years to sort out (especially the TERCOM), and then it became arguably the most advanced production airframe ever deployed in the pre-stealth era."

I think the consensus opinion would be that as originally intended, within the context of the F-111 aircraft as a replacement advanced for the F-105 that the FTX as it was deemed from the experimental stage was appropriate and well within any acceptable parameters. That F-111 as envisioned as a low-level attack penetration fighter/bomber, day-night, all-weather mission possible warplane, able to deliver in the tactical mode nuclear or conventional munitions on a target with precision.

Greatly aided and abetted by the terrain following radar allowing for that low-level nape of the earth mission pilots to an extent passengers as was advertised.

The FTX becoming a political football when Secretary of Defense [SECDEF] Robert Mac Namara began to push and promote and even to a degree mandate the FTX as a suitable multi-role-combat-aircraft [MRCA] for the US Navy, a one size-fits-all warplane able to accomplish any mission.

Such promotion and "push" by the SECDEF only after Mac Namara reputedly overhearing an offhand remark by the then President Kennedy: "why do we have so many different types of aircraft, why can't we have just one type of aircraft?"

JFK at that exact instant watching aircraft carrier take-offs and landings as is the prerogative of the commander-in-chief in the process gaining a better understanding of American military prowess and capabilities, the duties of the President almost mandating such knowledge!

FTX found belatedly after much development to be too large and heavy for US Navy purposes, without question the finished product the F-111 being remarkable nonetheless, variable geometry swept-wings and TERCOM radar as Steiner has remarked cutting edge what they call it.

I can recall very well the anticipation of the first six F-111 when deployed to SE Asian during the Second Indo-China War. Great expectations for big things was the order of the day but sadly came up naught, two of the six planes unexpectedly crashing while during combat missions.

The F-111 with lengthened fuselage and two new larger and improved engines later deployed by the USAF as a medium-range bomber, seeing active service and in the inventory for a span of at least thirty years!!

And because of the FTX boondoggle [especially with regard to the US Navy but not strictly limited to the FTX] all procurement procedures were overhauled and FLY BEFORE YOU BUY BECAME THE WATCHWORD!!

coolbert.

Frederick.

This is coolbert:

Here one more senior military commander wounded numerous times while leading his troops forward into battle, returning to the fray repeatedly heedless of injury, most exemplary conduct and unexpected heroism almost without peer or parallel.

Robert Frederick. Commander of the combined American/Canadian First Special Service Forces [FSSF]. The FSSF also known as the Devil's Brigade.

"Robert Tryon Frederick . . . was a highly decorated American combat commander during World War II"

Frederick a combat commander of ranger/commando/special operations/parachute troops during the Second World War [WW2] wounded no less than eight times, twice on one day. Commanding at ever increasing echelons promotions rapid, repeated and deserved.

It was said of Frederick: "'the greatest fighting general of all time' . . . 'if we had had a dozen more like him we would have smashed Hitler in 1942'".- - Winston S. Churchill.

Frederick belonging to a very select group of fighting senior officers whose battlefield exploits and courage are most admirable. Senior commanders to include:

* Hyazinth von Strachwitz.
* Bernard Freyberg.
* Oskar Dirlewanger.

Some may question my inclusion of Oskar Dirlewanger in such esteemed company. The very name Dirlewanger will always be associated with atrocity and uncivilized behavior. Nonetheless it cannot be denied that Dirlewanger was also a combat commander of repute, leading from the front, wounded eleven times, unquestionably brave, lunatic almost.

Devoted readers to the blog are aware of other men, senior military commanders, the repeated wounding of which did not prevent their returning to the "fray". I await comments.

coolbert.

Black Lady.

This is coolbert:

Thanks to the tip from intelNews.org, the United States military, after a twenty year hiatus, returns to the Philippines, at least on a temporary basis?

1. "UPDATE 2-Philippines studying U.S. offer to deploy spy planes"

"MANILA, Jan 27 (Reuters) - The Philippines is considering a U.S. proposal to deploy surveillance aircraft on a temporary, rotating basis to enhance its ability to guard disputed areas in the South China Sea"

. . .

"plans to deploy more littoral combat ships and spy aircraft"

. . .

"both countries grapple with the growing assertiveness of China"

Please note that this article is from the African edition of Reuters, the energy and oil section. It is obvious what is at concern here is the Spratly Islands and contiguous waters as claimed by five nations [China, Malaysia, Vietnam, Indonesia, Philippines]. Those islands, the contiguous waters and continental shelf under which is thought contain vast deposits of oil and natural gas. So we are told. Disputed waters the United States of which at the exact moment seems to be the one party able to guarantee at least for the time being a neutrality and safe-passage for international water-borne trade and commerce

2. "U.S. may rely on aging U-2 spy planes longer than expected"

Spy planes what they call em'. The Black Lady of espionage as what was referred to by the Soviets. The U-2 reconnaissance/intelligence gathering aircraft. First missions flown in 1955, thirty three remaining airplanes in the inventory, repeatedly rebuilt, refurbished and renovated and still going strong almost sixty years later!!

Drones having proven to be too expensive and perhaps not as reliable, we can predict the U-2 having temporary basing in the Philippines, flying recce missions to monitor the military activities of those nations in dispute over the South China Sea, the sovereignty issues complex and multiple, unresolved now and for the foreseeable future.

"The Pentagon has proposed delaying a plan to replace the U-2s with RQ-4 Global Hawk drones"

"Since 1994, the Air Force said, at least $1.7 billion has been invested to modernize the U-2 airframe. These upgrades also include new engines, new cockpits and, of course, new cameras and sensors."

"Today, the U-2 is flying more missions and is involved in more operations than ever . . . Since 2003, the Air Force has flown more than 95,000 hours in the U-2 providing intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance."

More missions and operations than EVER!! Yeoman work for the Black Lady! Remarkable.

coolbert.