User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 7/24/2013 11:28:03 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yes.....but we haven't' lost troops to e enemy aircraft. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Documents/2011/June%202011/0611april.pdf "No US ground troop has been killed in an attack by an enemy aircraft since 1953." Lot of soldiers and marines would tell you that friendly fire isn't friendly. Yes.....but we haven't' lost troops to e enemy aircraft. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2013 11:37:17 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So, because Army AAA sucks, it's the USAF's fault. Got it. And your comparison of the USMC's air capabilities to the USAF's is past laughable to  . Apples to manatees. MAGTF is much LESS capable than the USAF combat air forces, since the MAGTF has a VERY specialized mission with limited range, duration and capability.
But hey, continue with your bitter fantasy that the Army can do it better than the USAF, especially after North Africa in 1943. One of the main reasons the USAF is a separate service is because you Army guys wasted lives and aircraft trying to treat airpower as just another form of indirect fire. When it's not. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Not sure how pointing out the article being from "2011" is relevant; I don't believe there have been any successful attacks by enemy aircraft on US personnel in the past 2 years... Except we're not talking about air/land doctrine, we're talking about air superiority. And while I'll be the first to admit the USAF as a service tends to shortchange the CAS role (you can thank the fighter pilot mafia who took over under McPeak in 1990 for that), your dismissal of the facts is both wrong and telling of your bias. The fact is that we DO have air supremacy, and have since 1953. And will continue to as long as A) we have the political will to write ROEs that make sense from an airpower perspective, and B) fund the right tools for the job. (Yes, that means the F22. But NOT the F35.) YMMV. So, because Army AAA sucks, it's the USAF's fault. Got it. And your comparison of the USMC's air capabilities to the USAF's is past laughable to . Apples to manatees. MAGTF is much LESS capable than the USAF combat air forces, since the MAGTF has a VERY specialized mission with limited range, duration and capability.
But hey, continue with your bitter fantasy that the Army can do it better than the USAF, especially after North Africa in 1943. One of the main reasons the USAF is a separate service is because you Army guys wasted lives and aircraft trying to treat airpower as just another form of indirect fire. When it's not. The USAF is even biased on its own people who even have jobs remotely close to the Army or Marines. I've personally seen it happen with my own eyes. Those are the true USAF I respect, not some Flightline warrior wearing a T and and their pajama trousers who says they have a more difficult time, while going back to their AC huts drinking up their Green Beans latte's and emailing back home how "horrible" things are. Tell that to the dogfaces who wear full battle rattle and getting sniped, ambushed, and blown up daily. And the Air Force is sure as heck guilty for getting their own hurt and killed as well. Balad, 2003. Awfully nice set up you had to house your own, complete with these huge stadium lights. We said WTF are you doing, that's a mortar magnet. And guess what? You snubbed your noses at us and strutted away. Well surprise, surprise, you got rocketed and mortared daily until you figured out...We. Told. You. So. I was one the first to respond to that carnage, a tent full of missing limbs and not one soul knew how to do correct first aid. Be proud of that heritage of leaving the Army, it sure shows how far off the beaten track you've gone. If you're so sure about air superiority, then you sure as shit don't need to waste more money we don't have on shiny new things, as the Army surely needs that cash we also don't have, for a real dedicated SPAAG. You cannot hold ground, we can. You also can't be everywhere, while SPAAG's can stay on battle space constantly. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2013 12:31:25 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
'd rather be protected by the Navy. At least they care enough to fight/train for any scenario. The USAF is even biased on its own people who even have jobs remotely close to the Army or Marines. I've personally seen it happen with my own eyes. Those are the true USAF I respect, not some Flightline warrior wearing a T and and their pajama trousers who says they have a more difficult time, while going back to their AC huts drinking up their Green Beans latte's and emailing back home how "horrible" things are. Tell that to the dogfaces who wear full battle rattle and getting sniped, ambushed, and blown up daily. And the Air Force is sure as heck guilty for getting their own hurt and killed as well. Balad, 2003. Awfully nice set up you had to house your own, complete with these huge stadium lights. We said WTF are you doing, that's a mortar magnet. And guess what? You snubbed your noses at us and strutted away. Well surprise, surprise, you got rocketed and mortared daily until you figured out...We. Told. You. So. I was one the first to respond to that carnage, a tent full of missing limbs and not one soul knew how to do correct first aid. Be proud of that heritage of leaving the Army, it sure shows how far off the beaten track you've gone. If you're so sure about air superiority, then you sure as shit don't need to waste more money we don't have on shiny new things, as the Army surely needs that cash we also don't have, for a real dedicated SPAAG. You cannot hold ground, we can. You also can't be everywhere, while SPAAG's can stay on battle space constantly. All I got out of that is your REAL complaint is that you're bitter that we have better facilities when deployed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2013 1:31:11 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
All I got out of that is your REAL complaint is that you're bitter that we have better facilities when deployed. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
'd rather be protected by the Navy. At least they care enough to fight/train for any scenario. The USAF is even biased on its own people who even have jobs remotely close to the Army or Marines. I've personally seen it happen with my own eyes. Those are the true USAF I respect, not some Flightline warrior wearing a T and and their pajama trousers who says they have a more difficult time, while going back to their AC huts drinking up their Green Beans latte's and emailing back home how "horrible" things are. Tell that to the dogfaces who wear full battle rattle and getting sniped, ambushed, and blown up daily. And the Air Force is sure as heck guilty for getting their own hurt and killed as well. Balad, 2003. Awfully nice set up you had to house your own, complete with these huge stadium lights. We said WTF are you doing, that's a mortar magnet. And guess what? You snubbed your noses at us and strutted away. Well surprise, surprise, you got rocketed and mortared daily until you figured out...We. Told. You. So. I was one the first to respond to that carnage, a tent full of missing limbs and not one soul knew how to do correct first aid. Be proud of that heritage of leaving the Army, it sure shows how far off the beaten track you've gone. If you're so sure about air superiority, then you sure as shit don't need to waste more money we don't have on shiny new things, as the Army surely needs that cash we also don't have, for a real dedicated SPAAG. You cannot hold ground, we can. You also can't be everywhere, while SPAAG's can stay on battle space constantly. All I got out of that is your REAL complaint is that you're bitter that we have better facilities when deployed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2013 1:43:18 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
As a retired U.S. military person and Vietnam vet, I agree. Ask any old B-52 pilot about how they had to fly the same ingress and egress routes time after time, thus becoming setting ducks for North Vietnamese AAA and SAMS. And ask any pilot of that time period about all of the targets that were "off limits." If we were that terrified of the Chinese coming in, like they did in Korea, then we should have gotten the hell out instead of putting our people at risk. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
We could have had air superiority in the air war in North Vietnam but the politicians wouldn't allow it. Lots of brave airmen died because of stupid suicidal R.O.E. I hope Robert McNamara and Llyndon Johnson are rotting in hell. As a retired U.S. military person and Vietnam vet, I agree. Ask any old B-52 pilot about how they had to fly the same ingress and egress routes time after time, thus becoming setting ducks for North Vietnamese AAA and SAMS. And ask any pilot of that time period about all of the targets that were "off limits." If we were that terrified of the Chinese coming in, like they did in Korea, then we should have gotten the hell out instead of putting our people at risk. And still,no MiGs downed B-52s all by themselves so with 2 kills themselves,B-52s are 2:0 vs fighters. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2013 1:51:08 PM EDT
[#6]
The Mig-17 and 21 spawned all sorts of new missile system programs. When it first started, we couldnt hit them worth a shit with our AIM-7D/E and 9B/Ds. They could very much determine when/how engagements went. It was ugly for acouple years.
This is air/air stuff, I'm not getting into anything air/ground or CAS, because I dont know dick about that situation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2013 1:53:59 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The adage about how air power doesn't win wars would seem to ring a little hollow. It's true that air power cannot take and hold ground, it becomes much harder to do that when the enemy is running bombing and surveillance missions overhead around the clock. I'd guess this is also a reason why we no longer have any significant ground based mobile AA systems. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Documents/2011/June%202011/0611april.pdf "No US ground troop has been killed in an attack by an enemy aircraft since 1953." The adage about how air power doesn't win wars would seem to ring a little hollow. It's true that air power cannot take and hold ground, it becomes much harder to do that when the enemy is running bombing and surveillance missions overhead around the clock. I'd guess this is also a reason why we no longer have any significant ground based mobile AA systems. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile wat? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2013 1:57:21 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Documents/2011/June%202011/0611april.pdf "No US ground troop has been killed in an attack by an enemy aircraft since 1953." http://www.nytimes.com/1991/02/26/world/war-in-the-gulf-scud-attack-scud-missile-hits-a-us-barracks-killing-27.html Not an aircraft, but airpower. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2013 1:58:04 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Mig-15s spawned all sorts of new missile system programs. When it first started, we couldnt hit them worth a shit. They could very much determine when/how engagements went. It was ugly for acouple years. This is air/air stuff, I'm not getting into anything air/ground or CAS, because I dont know dick about that situation. AAM development was well underway before meeting MiGs over Korea but it took a few years for tech to catch up with bright ideas. The Soviets got a leg up when an AIM-9 didn't detonate and a Chinese MiG flew home with it after and engagement with the Taiwanese.Still,in air to air combat the North Vietnamese MiGs were more dangerous with their guns than Atolls,in large part due to restrictive ROE that ngated much of th superior radar and missile advantage. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2013 2:01:26 PM EDT
[#10]
Korean War, maybe.
The Mig-15 is arguably better than the F-35, if you look at the number of kills it racked up. The stats don't lie. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2013 2:01:36 PM EDT
[#11]
Was not there an incident in Cambodia or Laos that an air raid killed a couple of Americans?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2013 2:02:01 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
AAM development was well underway before meeting MiGs over Korea but it took a few years for tech to catch up with bright ideas. The Soviets got a leg up when an AIM-9 didn't detonate and a Chinese MiG flew home with it after and engagement with the Taiwanese.Still,in air to air combat the North Vietnamese MiGs were more dangerous with their guns than Atolls,in large part due to restrictive ROE that ngated much of th superior radar and missile advantage. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Mig-15s spawned all sorts of new missile system programs. When it first started, we couldnt hit them worth a shit. They could very much determine when/how engagements went. It was ugly for acouple years. This is air/air stuff, I'm not getting into anything air/ground or CAS, because I dont know dick about that situation. AAM development was well underway before meeting MiGs over Korea but it took a few years for tech to catch up with bright ideas. The Soviets got a leg up when an AIM-9 didn't detonate and a Chinese MiG flew home with it after and engagement with the Taiwanese.Still,in air to air combat the North Vietnamese MiGs were more dangerous with their guns than Atolls,in large part due to restrictive ROE that ngated much of th superior radar and missile advantage. Looks like I was editing abit for clarification when you replied to my original post. AAM development during that period was a quagmire. I've got some very interesting white papers on this subject. Hell, half the folks I work with worked on those programs. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2013 2:03:34 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
AAM development was well underway before meeting MiGs over Korea but it took a few years for tech to catch up with bright ideas. The Soviets got a leg up when an AIM-9 didn't detonate and a Chinese MiG flew home with it after and engagement with the Taiwanese.Still,in air to air combat the North Vietnamese MiGs were more dangerous with their guns than Atolls,in large part due to restrictive ROE that ngated much of th superior radar and missile advantage. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Mig-15s spawned all sorts of new missile system programs. When it first started, we couldnt hit them worth a shit. They could very much determine when/how engagements went. It was ugly for acouple years. This is air/air stuff, I'm not getting into anything air/ground or CAS, because I dont know dick about that situation. AAM development was well underway before meeting MiGs over Korea but it took a few years for tech to catch up with bright ideas. The Soviets got a leg up when an AIM-9 didn't detonate and a Chinese MiG flew home with it after and engagement with the Taiwanese.Still,in air to air combat the North Vietnamese MiGs were more dangerous with their guns than Atolls,in large part due to restrictive ROE that ngated much of th superior radar and missile advantage. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2013 2:14:48 PM EDT
[#14]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2013 3:17:03 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Was not there an incident in Cambodia or Laos that an air raid killed a couple of Americans? I think it was in South Vietnam and I think only a couple of ARVNs were killed, although Americans were attacked. There was also the destroyer Higbee getting attacked, but no fatalities in that incident, only wounded. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2013 3:45:25 PM EDT
[#16]
Didn't naval gunfire get used in North Africa at Kasserine Pass in lieu of air cover?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2013 4:11:32 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
http://www.nytimes.com/1991/02/26/world/war-in-the-gulf-scud-attack-scud-missile-hits-a-us-barracks-killing-27.html Not an aircraft, but airpower. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Documents/2011/June%202011/0611april.pdf "No US ground troop has been killed in an attack by an enemy aircraft since 1953." http://www.nytimes.com/1991/02/26/world/war-in-the-gulf-scud-attack-scud-missile-hits-a-us-barracks-killing-27.html Not an aircraft, but airpower. I love how narrowly they have to define things to make that statement. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2013 4:19:53 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Was not there an incident in Cambodia or Laos that an air raid killed a couple of Americans? Lima Site 85? A couple of Biplane bombers attacked the radar site in Laos, but I don't think anyone was killed during the actual air raid. The casualties came during the ground attack. An Air America Huey pursued the bombers and shot them down. 
CMSgt Etchberger earned a Posthumous Medal of Honor during the ground attack. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Etchberger Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2013 4:26:20 PM EDT
[#19]
Quoted:
Due solely to superior enemy air power or AAA, not inclement weather? This post is proof that Korea was truly a forgotten war. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2013 4:36:33 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
True, but you're missing the point. All USAF missions over enemy territory short of a nuclear mission are meant to support the ability of ground forces to compel compliance. No one has EVER been bombed into submission without the use or threat of ground forces. Certainly not by the US. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The AF, broadly speaking, exists to do two things. Firstly, to send rockets with cans of sunshine to our enemies (or drop cans of sunshine from aircraft) and secondly, to support the Army. I think controlling the sky over the US might also be on their to-do list. True, but you're missing the point. All USAF missions over enemy territory short of a nuclear mission are meant to support the ability of ground forces to compel compliance. No one has EVER been bombed into submission without the use or threat of ground forces. Certainly not by the US. I disagree. How about the UN Air campaign in Yugoslavia back in 1999? Mostly U.S. planes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2013 4:39:17 PM EDT
[#21]
This calls for a pic of some good ole WW2 saturation bombing. Paris 1944
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2013 4:43:23 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I disagree. How about the UN Air campaign in Yugoslavia back in 1999? Mostly U.S. planes. The air campaign may have been a contributing factor, but since we often bombed empty fields, dummy targets or the real target 5-10 times the effects of those aerial fires may not have been all that great. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2013 4:43:57 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Korea, Vietnam. Correct, I wouldn't consider us having air superiority in either of those conflicts. I believe of the enemy can get aircraft off the ground then we don't have air superiority. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2013 4:48:01 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
wat? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Documents/2011/June%202011/0611april.pdf "No US ground troop has been killed in an attack by an enemy aircraft since 1953." The adage about how air power doesn't win wars would seem to ring a little hollow. It's true that air power cannot take and hold ground, it becomes much harder to do that when the enemy is running bombing and surveillance missions overhead around the clock. I'd guess this is also a reason why we no longer have any significant ground based mobile AA systems. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile wat? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2013 4:57:25 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We could have had air superiority in the air war in North Vietnam but the politicians wouldn't allow it. Lots of brave airmen died because of stupid suicidal R.O.E. I hope Robert McNamara and Llyndon Johnson are rotting in hell. What he said!! |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2013 5:05:31 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The F-4's were at a severe disadvantage to the MiG's in close range dog fights due to lacking a gun. It was added retroactively mid-conflict, and it was effective. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: The F-4's were at a severe disadvantage to the MiG's in close range dog fights due to lacking a gun. It was added retroactively mid-conflict, and it was effective. naval aviators will point out that their F-4s never had a gun in that conflict, and that they had a consistently higher kill ratio than the AF due to better training. i'm not qualified to take a stance on that argument, but it seems like a strong one. over the years, i've read accounts from both military historians and contemporary pilots, wherein it was argued that when the F-4/sparrow system was employed in the role it was designed for--BVR interceptor--it performed successfully. the problem arose when it was forced into service as a VR fighter based on the visual ID ROE.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2013 5:06:12 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Several times in Vietnam. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Due soley to superior enemy air power or AAA, inclement weather? Several times in Vietnam. This. American planes got torn up by Vietnamese (Russian) anti-air in the opening years.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2013 5:10:33 PM EDT
[#28]
another thing that occurs to me is this: if no american serviceman has been killed as a result of enemy air action in 60 years, this seems like a commendation rather than a critique. granted, there are tradeoffs to be made. but how much are we prepared to risk--how close should we allow possible aggressors to close that gap (by cutting into the capability for such dominance)?
that seems like a difficult question.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2013 5:21:24 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The air campaign may have been a contributing factor, but since we often bombed empty fields, dummy targets or the real target 5-10 times the effects of those aerial fires may not have been all that great. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I disagree. How about the UN Air campaign in Yugoslavia back in 1999? Mostly U.S. planes. The air campaign may have been a contributing factor, but since we often bombed empty fields, dummy targets or the real target 5-10 times the effects of those aerial fires may not have been all that great. And the COCOM had to establish a second (Navy) "JTF" and bring the TR BATGRU into the Adriatic to do TST inside the ATO cycle. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2013 5:40:09 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
another thing that occurs to me is this: if no american serviceman has been killed as a result of enemy air action in 60 years, this seems like a commendation rather than a critique. granted, there are tradeoffs to be made. but how much are we prepared to risk--how close should we allow possible aggressors to close that gap (by cutting into the capability for such dominance)? that seems like a difficult question. A better one may be is "How is air dominance and superiority achieved and maintained." |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2013 6:05:13 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Correct, I wouldn't consider us having air superiority in either of those conflicts. I believe of the enemy can get aircraft off the ground then we don't have air superiority. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Korea, Vietnam. Correct, I wouldn't consider us having air superiority in either of those conflicts. I believe of the enemy can get aircraft off the ground then we don't have air superiority. Not accurate. NATO definition of air superiority: "that degree of dominance in the air battle of one force over another that permits the conduct of operations by the former and its related land, sea, and air forces at a given time and place without prohibitive interference by opposing air forces." ( AAP-06 Edition 2013, "NATO Glossary of Terms and Definitions") Just because a plane can launch doesn't mean we've lost air superiority. Also, the depth and sophistication of enemy IADS and its ability to shoot down aircraft has no bearing on the concept of air superiority or supremacy. It makes it hostile airspace, for sure, but not contested airspace. A sophisticated and effective IADS system makes strategic and interdiction strikes harder, but it's still an offense-only game for us. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2013 6:12:33 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't believe he was exempting THAAD and the Patriot, those can be moved, but have to be static to effectively deploy them. I think he means a real SPAAG in the lines of a Flakpanzer Gepard, Type 87, PZA Loara, Marksman, K30 Biho, or a 9K22 Tunguska which can all be employed on the move, and has armor to protect the crews from artillery and small arms. The Avenger was meant for light units, so it could more easily be deployed and used in accordance with how those type of units operate. The Linebacker is a joke, both have no onboard radar, just mark one eyeballs. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Documents/2011/June%202011/0611april.pdf "No US ground troop has been killed in an attack by an enemy aircraft since 1953." The adage about how air power doesn't win wars would seem to ring a little hollow. It's true that air power cannot take and hold ground, it becomes much harder to do that when the enemy is running bombing and surveillance missions overhead around the clock. I'd guess this is also a reason why we no longer have any significant ground based mobile AA systems. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile wat? Avenger is overweight, unarmored and can't keep up with heavy armored units. Both avenger and Linebacker use stinger missiles (not radar guided) FLIR cameras not "mark one eyeball". |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2013 6:36:15 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Avenger is overweight, unarmored and can't keep up with heavy armored units. Both avenger and Linebacker use stinger missiles (not radar guided) FLIR cameras not "mark one eyeball". Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Documents/2011/June%202011/0611april.pdf "No US ground troop has been killed in an attack by an enemy aircraft since 1953." The adage about how air power doesn't win wars would seem to ring a little hollow. It's true that air power cannot take and hold ground, it becomes much harder to do that when the enemy is running bombing and surveillance missions overhead around the clock. I'd guess this is also a reason why we no longer have any significant ground based mobile AA systems. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile wat? Avenger is overweight, unarmored and can't keep up with heavy armored units. Both avenger and Linebacker use stinger missiles (not radar guided) FLIR cameras not "mark one eyeball". |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2013 12:55:30 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And the COCOM had to establish a second (Navy) "JTF" and bring the TR BATGRU into the Adriatic to do TST inside the ATO cycle. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I disagree. How about the UN Air campaign in Yugoslavia back in 1999? Mostly U.S. planes. The air campaign may have been a contributing factor, but since we often bombed empty fields, dummy targets or the real target 5-10 times the effects of those aerial fires may not have been all that great. And the COCOM had to establish a second (Navy) "JTF" and bring the TR BATGRU into the Adriatic to do TST inside the ATO cycle. The whole campaign started out bad, when the Gen said wanted 1000 targets and fires people determined there was not 1000 viable targets, so they assigned the same targets multiple target numbers. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2013 1:01:42 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I disagree. How about the UN Air campaign in Yugoslavia back in 1999? Mostly U.S. planes. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The AF, broadly speaking, exists to do two things. Firstly, to send rockets with cans of sunshine to our enemies (or drop cans of sunshine from aircraft) and secondly, to support the Army. I think controlling the sky over the US might also be on their to-do list. True, but you're missing the point. All USAF missions over enemy territory short of a nuclear mission are meant to support the ability of ground forces to compel compliance. No one has EVER been bombed into submission without the use or threat of ground forces. Certainly not by the US. I disagree. How about the UN Air campaign in Yugoslavia back in 1999? Mostly U.S. planes. You mean the one where we bombed the shit out of their barns and the Chinese Embassy and then settled for the terms they offered on day 1? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2013 2:14:02 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't believe he was exempting THAAD and the Patriot, those can be moved, but have to be static to effectively deploy them. I think he means a real SPAAG in the lines of a Flakpanzer Gepard, Type 87, PZA Loara, Marksman, K30 Biho, or a 9K22 Tunguska which can all be employed on the move, and has armor to protect the crews from artillery and small arms. The Avenger was meant for light units, so it could more easily be deployed and used in accordance with how those type of units operate. The Linebacker is a joke, both have no onboard radar, just mark one eyeballs. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Documents/2011/June%202011/0611april.pdf "No US ground troop has been killed in an attack by an enemy aircraft since 1953." The adage about how air power doesn't win wars would seem to ring a little hollow. It's true that air power cannot take and hold ground, it becomes much harder to do that when the enemy is running bombing and surveillance missions overhead around the clock. I'd guess this is also a reason why we no longer have any significant ground based mobile AA systems. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile wat? How much do you know about Air Defense, GSL? Watching a 45 minute documentary on the Military Channel won't make you an expert on anything. We don't use SPAAGs for the same reason we use trucks to move supplies instead of mules. Guns don't have the speed or the range to keep up with missiles when it comes to shooting down planes. EDIT: Oh, by the way the Linebacker used Sentinel for acquisition, just like the Avenger. Far better radar than anything you could just "put onboard" a Linebacker. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2013 2:52:21 AM EDT
[#37]
Quoted:
Due solely to superior enemy air power or AAA, not inclement weather? Bay of Pigs? USS Liberty? First of all, one has to remember that battles are not wars or conflicts and with all the fighting the US has been done since WWII, there are bound to be some examples. In the case of the Pigs, we pulled our air support for whatever reason. It may not quite been a battle with US troops, but US wise, military wise, it was a US battle. USS Liberty probably classifies more directly to the question in that for whatever the thoughts were at the time, US airpower was denied to the US military asset under attack by another's air force. USS Pueblo could be another situation in that NK had MiG-21's out there and while the US had air assets in the area, they were not sent. "Superior enemy air power" may be taken to mean, in such situations, that it is inadvisable to send your aircraft into that situation, thus giving the air to the other guy. _________________________________________________________________________________________________ ("Do not fire unless fired upon."--Stinger, (w,stte), "Top Gun") |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2013 3:04:22 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I could see a dual 40mm being fantastic for vehicle checkpoints. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It probably helped that gun based AAA can be used for other purposes than AD to justify its place in TO&Es. Yeah. I recall a story of a Marine using a quad .50 mounted on a truck to good effect in Hue '68. IIRC, he was released from the brig and then did a fine job on the NVA. I could see a dual 40mm being fantastic for vehicle checkpoints. The biggest problem would be somebody at some level of command deciding that it is big and scary so for safety reasons it could only be fired by an E-6+, only with brigade commander approval and the ammunition will be kept locked up by an O-3+ but the system must be manned at all times by joe snuffy.
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
