EXCUSES: General Blames "Bad Weather" For Decrease In Strikes Against Terrorists!

[Christie Brinkley]

Some kind of joke or what? While Russia does hundreds over a few days?

U.S. and coalition forces are likely to increase air strikes against Islamic State targets in Iraq and Syria in coming weeks after a lull in September and October, the head of U.S. Air Forces Central Command said Saturday.
Lieutenant General Charles Brown told reporters at the Dubai International Air Chiefs Conference that the reduction in air strikes was due to weather and to a slowdown in activity on the ground and not due to the start of Russian air strikes in the region.
He said both government forces and insurgents were increasing their ground movements, which could create more opportunities for the United States and its allies to carry out more air strikes against Islamic State targets.
"If they're not out and about, it's harder to strike, particularly for an adversary that may wrap themselves in the civilian population," he said.
Brown also rejected criticism that the United States was not using air strikes as much or effectively as possible, saying coalition forces were striving to avoid civilian casualties that could help recruitment for Islamic State.
He also noted that the sheer number of air strikes was less of an indicator than the targets hit and the number of weapons used.
The United States and its allies targeted Islamic State in Iraq with 14 air strikes on Thursday, and also hit the militant group with nine air strikes in Syria, the U.S. military said on Friday.
Brown told reporters that an agreement signed with Russia to avoid possible mid-air collisions was working well, and no incidents had been reported.
"They don't want a mid-air and neither do we," he said.
He said the agreement did not hinder U.S. forces from carrying out strikes where needed.
"We've said we're going to fly where we need to get the job done," he said.

Read more at Reutershttp://www.reuters.com/article/2015/11/07/us-mideast-crisis-airstrikes-idUSKCN0SW08W20151107#Y4jcVkbllToOzoBE.99

[Gunny]

Some kind of joke or what? While Russia does hundreds over a few days?

U.S. and coalition forces are likely to increase air strikes against Islamic State targets in Iraq and Syria in coming weeks after a lull in September and October, the head of U.S. Air Forces Central Command said Saturday.
Lieutenant General Charles Brown told reporters at the Dubai International Air Chiefs Conference that the reduction in air strikes was due to weather and to a slowdown in activity on the ground and not due to the start of Russian air strikes in the region.
He said both government forces and insurgents were increasing their ground movements, which could create more opportunities for the United States and its allies to carry out more air strikes against Islamic State targets.
"If they're not out and about, it's harder to strike, particularly for an adversary that may wrap themselves in the civilian population," he said.
Brown also rejected criticism that the United States was not using air strikes as much or effectively as possible, saying coalition forces were striving to avoid civilian casualties that could help recruitment for Islamic State.
He also noted that the sheer number of air strikes was less of an indicator than the targets hit and the number of weapons used.
The United States and its allies targeted Islamic State in Iraq with 14 air strikes on Thursday, and also hit the militant group with nine air strikes in Syria, the U.S. military said on Friday.
Brown told reporters that an agreement signed with Russia to avoid possible mid-air collisions was working well, and no incidents had been reported.
"They don't want a mid-air and neither do we," he said.
He said the agreement did not hinder U.S. forces from carrying out strikes where needed.
"We've said we're going to fly where we need to get the job done," he said.

Read more at Reutershttp://www.reuters.com/article/2015/11/07/us-mideast-crisis-airstrikes-idUSKCN0SW08W20151107#Y4jcVkbllToOzoBE.99

Bad weather has a direct impact om military operations. It screws up and slows down EVERYTHING. If you're on a ship, you outrun the typhoon which alters your course. Planes don't fly in bad weather. Troops sit around and just how wet and muddy they can get.

[Christie Brinkley]

Bad weather has a direct impact om military operations. It screws up and slows sown EVERYTHING. If you're on a ship, you outrun the typhoon which alters your course. Planes don't fly in bad weather. Troops sit around and just how wet and muddy they can get.
So Russia's jets are special then?:rolleyes: Since they carried on striking.

[Gunny]

So Russia's jets are special then?:rolleyes: Since they carried on striking.

No. Russians are more reckless. Not to mention do you actually believe there's a General with some balls in charge over there? The FIRST thing Democrats do is set up and get rid of anyone with any kind of guts. Obama's had 7 years to destroy command infrastructure.

We actually have the better avionics.

[Christie Brinkley]

No. Russians are more reckless. Not to mention do you actually believe there's a General with some balls in charge over there? The FIRST thing Democrats do is set up and get rid of anyone with any kind of guts. Obama's had 7 years to destroy command infrastructure.

We actually have the better avionics.
Oh 'reckless' give me an example of that because of bad weather?

[NightTrain]

So Russia's jets are special then?:rolleyes: Since they carried on striking.


It probably has more to do with Russia's fairly lax standard of safety. Also, there's the leadership component where Putin is telling his commanders to kick ass, and Obama has our military restrained in a big way.

[Jeff]

It probably has more to do with Russia's fairly lax standard of safety. Also, there's the leadership component where Putin is telling his commanders to kick ass, and Obama has our military restrained in a big way.

Obama doesn't want to hurt his brothers.

[Christie Brinkley]

It probably has more to do with Russia's fairly lax standard of safety. Also, there's the leadership component where Putin is telling his commanders to kick ass, and Obama has our military restrained in a big way.
Give me an example of that?

[Black Diamond]

Oh 'reckless' give me an example of that because of bad weather?

1941-45 Eastern front

[Christie Brinkley]

1941-45 Eastern front
Today that is...

[Gunny]

Oh 'reckless' give me an example of that because of bad weather?

What I'm saying is you might want to brush up on your politics at the General Officer level. Look what Obama's done to our police. And you want some General to make decisions that kill civilians? Obama'd be all over it. He's not on the side of being right. Why risk your people for his half-stepping?

And NT is correct. We don't have the same safety rules as the Russians don't. You're not looking at the factors. I'm not sending up millions of dollars worth of aircraft, priceless human beings with years of training to NOT be able to see what they're shooting at. That is tactically stupid. And again ... for WHAT? Obama's lame crap is nothing more than an attempt for him to say he did something.

[Gunny]

Oh 'reckless' give me an example of that because of bad weather?

How about an entire flight of Avengers just disappearing off the Florida Coast? Ever been through a typhoon? Just where do you think you're going? To hang onto the nearest tree so you don't get blown into the ocean? Bad enough being trapped in the barracks for 4 days in Okinawa ... try being on a ship underway. You couldn't get a bird off that boat if you tried unless you just wanted to watch something crash and burn.

[NightTrain]

Give me an example of that?

Wow, you don't have to look very hard. The Russian nuke submarine program is a perfect example of it. They were radioactive deathtraps that killed huge amounts of sailors over the years.

It's a cultural difference - Russia couldn't care less if they lose a few soldiers, where the US military will go through great lengths to mitigate hazardous conditions.

As far as I know, this doctrine of callousness began during WWII when Stalin gave his officers commands to make their infantry charge German emplacements en masse to overwhelm them with sheer numbers. Any infantryman unwilling to bodily throw himself at the Germans was shot by his own commanding officer. Millions of peasants was the only resource Stalin had in abundance and he used it ruthlessly - and it worked. Paid for in an appalling amount of blood, but it got the job done.

They're not as bad as that anymore, of course, but they're a lot more willing to roll the dice with the lives of their military personnel than we are. And if 4 Russian Sukhois crash and the pilots are killed, do you see a massive outcry and accusations of Putin's recklessness from the Russian media? Nope. You never hear that.

On the other hand, when we lose a jet, there's a big expensive investigation to find out exactly what went wrong, and a plan written up to deal with that failure in the future.

There's also the cost to consider. Our jets are much more expensive than the Russian jets are.

Russian jets are designed to be more robust when it comes to FOD, so they can use backroads as runways. That's not to say that ingesting a small rock into the intake on the jet engine won't destroy it, it most likely will. But watch a video sometime of an American runway prior to use or one of our Aircraft Carriers - you'll see sailors slowly walking shoulder-to-shoulder looking for any object lying on the deck that could possibly be sucked into the jet engine.

[Gunny]

Wow, you don't have to look very hard. The Russian nuke submarine program is a perfect example of it. They were radioactive deathtraps that killed huge amounts of sailors over the years.

It's a cultural difference - Russia couldn't care less if they lose a few soldiers, where the US military will go through great lengths to mitigate hazardous conditions.

As far as I know, this doctrine of callousness began during WWII when Stalin gave his officers commands to make their infantry charge German emplacements en masse to overwhelm them with sheer numbers. Any infantryman unwilling to bodily throw himself at the Germans was shot by his own commanding officer. Millions of peasants was the only resource Stalin had in abundance and he used it ruthlessly - and it worked. Paid for in an appalling amount of blood, but it got the job done.

They're not as bad as that anymore, of course, but they're a lot more willing to roll the dice with the lives of their military personnel than we are. And if 4 Russian Sukhois crash and the pilots are killed, do you see a massive outcry and accusations of Putin's recklessness from the Russian media? Nope. You never hear that.

On the other hand, when we lose a jet, there's a big expensive investigation to find out exactly what went wrong, and a plan written up to deal with that failure in the future.

There's also the cost to consider. Our jets are much more expensive than the Russian jets are.

Russian jets are designed to be more robust when it comes to FOD, so they can use backroads as runways. That's not to say that ingesting a small rock into the intake on the jet engine won't destroy it, it most likely will. But watch a video sometime of an American runway prior to use or one of our Aircraft Carriers - you'll see sailors slowly walking shoulder-to-shoulder looking for any object lying on the deck that could possibly be sucked into the jet engine.

I HATED that sh*t. Walking a FOD line? Throwing me overboard would have been preferable. And all you got to do is be around when they decide to walk it and guess what YOU ares stuck doing? That's as bad as getting caught for an UNREP.