Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

bemildred

(90,061 posts)
Tue Nov 24, 2015, 01:36 PM Nov 2015

How an ugly, brutally effective warplane won the battle for its future

U.S.-backed Syrian rebels launched an attack late last month on Islamic State militants near the town of Hawl in northern Syria. They regained control of roughly 100 square miles of territory, according to the U.S. Defense Department.

“It was a fairly straightforward, conventional offensive operation,” Army Colonel Steve Warren told reporters via video conference from Baghdad, “where we estimated … several hundred enemy [fighters] were located in that vicinity.”

Warren continued his description. “There was a substantial friendly force — well over 1,000 participated in the offensive part of this operation. And they were able to very deliberately execute the plan that they had made themselves.”

Two types of U.S. warplanes, both optimized for precision attacks in close coordination with ground troops, were critical to the Syrian rebels’ success, Warren revealed. “We were able to bring both A-10s and a Spectre gunship to bear,” he said, “… It can only be described as devastating …. it killed nearly 80 enemy fighters and wounded many more.”

http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/11/24/how-an-ugly-brutally-effective-warplane-won-the-battle-for-its-future/

3 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
How an ugly, brutally effective warplane won the battle for its future (Original Post) bemildred Nov 2015 OP
If it ain't broke, don't fix it... truebrit71 Nov 2015 #1
Totally. Just because it is new, and expensive, that doesn't mean it's better. bemildred Nov 2015 #2
Deeply mixed feelings here. Jerry442 Nov 2015 #3
 

truebrit71

(20,805 posts)
1. If it ain't broke, don't fix it...
Tue Nov 24, 2015, 01:56 PM
Nov 2015

...but the Generals want their new toys, regardless of the impact to combat situations...

bemildred

(90,061 posts)
2. Totally. Just because it is new, and expensive, that doesn't mean it's better.
Tue Nov 24, 2015, 02:07 PM
Nov 2015

I think it's the money and career-lust that gets them. Just having a good job is not good enough for them.

Jerry442

(1,265 posts)
3. Deeply mixed feelings here.
Tue Nov 24, 2015, 02:33 PM
Nov 2015

If your mission is beating up on third-world forces without sophisticated anti-aircraft defenses, then there doesn't seem to be any doubt that the A-10 or an aircraft not much different from it should be one of your key weapon systems, but...

It creeps me out that we plan on one of the key roles of our military being beating up on third-world forces. Kind of like giving our cops weapons that can bring down buildings. If they exist, they'll be used.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»National Security & Defense»How an ugly, brutally eff...