# Fred on Everything: everything you need to know about air power



## dapaterson (28 Jan 2009)

http://www.fredoneverything.net/Air%20Power.shtml



> Air power is really good for things it is really good for, but works lousily for things it doesn’t work well for.
> 
> ...
> 
> ...



Well worth reading... and sadly accurate...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (28 Jan 2009)

I've been reading Fred's (mostly) weekly updates for years. Most times he's absolutely spot on. He's also not afraid to tell the emperor he has no clothes. Years ago he had a humorous column about him and his buddies in an Amtrac. I'll attempt to find it.


http://www.fredoneverything.net/Amtracs.shtml

edit to add link


----------



## belka (29 Jan 2009)

I'm thinking much of that was directed against the Israeli Air Force and its use of F-16s against Hamas. 

"What air power isn’t good at is fighting guerrillas and insurgents, especially in populated areas. Why? Lots of reasons. First, pilots have no idea what they are bombing. They are flying at three hundred miles an hour over countries, often obscured by trees, in which everybody looks exactly like everybody else. So they guess, or bomb where the intelligence children tell them are terrorists. "

I'd rather have an aircraft fly over and level a house that may or may not be full of terrorists instead of sending in ground forces.


----------



## Journeyman (29 Jan 2009)

belka said:
			
		

> *I'm thinking much of that was directed against the Israeli Air Force and its use of F-16s against Hamas.*


It was written last November.

Stick to what you're good at; maybe thinking isn't for you.


----------



## time expired (29 Jan 2009)

CRAP,who is this expert and what are his credentials?.How many allied
troops are alive today because of the availability of CAS,and as far as the
Israelis are concerned 4 weeks of intense bombing produced just over
1000 dead most of whom were terrorists,prove otherwise if anyone can,
is not a bad result.I really do not understand what his point is,that we 
get rid of air forces because they do not, in his opinion,fit the war we are
fighting right now.What about the war we will be fighting in 10-20 years?.
One thing is obvious he does not like pilots,maybe he failed pilot trg.
earlier in life.
                       Regards


----------



## time expired (29 Jan 2009)

JORNEYMAN,maybe you should ease up on your personal
insults.
                       Regards


----------



## Journeyman (29 Jan 2009)

time expired said:
			
		

> *CRAP,who is this expert and what are his credentials? *


Fred on Everything's biography -- quite easy to find on the same site as the article.



> *JORNEYMAN,maybe you should ease up on your personal insults.*


 Spell check, proof-reading, and the use of the space bar when typing are all free; I guess we both have things to work at.


----------



## Zoomie (29 Jan 2009)

His example of the aircraft carrier in the Pacific is pretty wonky.  There is zero chance that a modern carrier battle group would allow a hostile aircraft within visual range of the outer pickets, nevermind the actual flat-top.  Most likely anti-ship missiles (Harpoon, etc) would be utilized from over the horizon platforms - thus negating his argument of the pilot or operator visually identifying his target.

Most modern CAS doesn't discriminately carpet bomb targets - LASER designators from the ground or other airborne platforms help the payload in achieving their goal.  I would imagine that these targets are designated based upon timely intelligence and/or eyes on the ground.  I know this because I watched Transformers----


----------



## dapaterson (29 Jan 2009)

Indeed, deeper in the artcle Ferd comments on the failings of intelligence.

The key question, as always, is what is the strategic effect we wish to have.  Killing an enemy leader = good.  When he's surrounded by other dignitaries we want to work with in the future at a wedding and they're all in the blast radius = not good.

In that example, tactical goal acheived.  Strategic goal rendered more difficult.


----------



## observor 69 (29 Jan 2009)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Fred on Everything's biography -- quite easy to find on the same site as the article.
> Spell check, proof-reading, and the use of the space bar when typing are all free; I guess we both have things to work at.



Here I am fumbling along trying to be delicate in my replies and you start producing this stuff.
What's a guy to do ?  ;D ;D


----------



## belka (30 Jan 2009)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> It was written last November.
> 
> Stick to what you're good at; maybe thinking isn't for you.



What's with the insult? You like making yourself feel better, or do you just have a lower self-esteem and feel the need to say something you would never have the balls to in person?  :


----------



## Journeyman (30 Jan 2009)

PM inbound. Thanks for playing along


----------



## belka (30 Jan 2009)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> PM inbound. Thanks for playing along



Why are there so many users on this forum that resort to personal insults in replies? Not to mention the overuse of the " : " emotion.


----------



## aesop081 (30 Jan 2009)

belka said:
			
		

> I'd rather have an aircraft fly over and level a house that may or may not be full of terrorists instead of sending in ground forces.



You understand politics right ? Ever hear of the "CNN factor" ?


----------



## George Wallace (30 Jan 2009)

belka said:
			
		

> Why are there so many users on this forum that resort to personal insults in replies? Not to mention the overuse of the " : " emotion.



 :



			
				belka said:
			
		

> Mabye they should have disposed the bomb with the human component still attached so she would still be able to complete her mission.  :




Perhaps your answer lies in your proven "Track Record".


----------



## belka (30 Jan 2009)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> :
> 
> 
> Perhaps your answer lies in your proven "Track Record".



Finding a post from 4 years ago. Nice.  : : : :


----------



## Fishbone Jones (30 Jan 2009)

belka said:
			
		

> Finding a post from 4 years ago. Nice.  : : : :



jutes! Is that you?


----------



## Nfld Sapper (30 Jan 2009)

belka said:
			
		

> Finding a post from 4 years ago. Nice.  : : : :


----------



## George Wallace (30 Jan 2009)

belka said:
			
		

> Why are there so many users on this forum that resort to personal insults in replies? Not to mention the overuse of the " : " emotion.



 ;D



			
				belka said:
			
		

> Finding ....................  : : : :



Hello!


----------



## time expired (30 Jan 2009)

GEORGE W.,since I was the one who objected to the tone of the reply
given to Belka`s post and all I receive was a cheap shot,I read a large
number of his previous posts and I find very little to justify your comment
about his "track record".Please clarify.
                                     Regards


----------



## belka (30 Jan 2009)

time expired said:
			
		

> GEORGE W.,since I was the one who objected to the tone of the reply
> given to Belka`s post and all I receive was a cheap shot,I read a large
> number of his previous posts and I find very little to justify your comment
> about his "track record".Please clarify.
> Regards



I'm interested in the response aswell.


----------



## George Wallace (31 Jan 2009)

time expired said:
			
		

> GEORGE W.,since I was the one who objected to the tone of the reply
> given to Belka`s post and all I receive was a cheap shot,I read a large
> number of his previous posts and I find very little to justify your comment
> about his "track record".Please clarify.
> Regards



Sorry.  I tried answering earlier, but ran into some technical difficulties.  As Belka has now chimed in, perhaps he would like to explain his previous lives here or perhaps answer the question put to him in Reply # 16.  Either of those answers would probably answer your inquiry.


----------

