User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 7/24/2013 8:28:21 AM EDT
[#1]
Quoted:
Due soley to superior enemy air power or AAA, inclement weather? Several times in Vietnam. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2013 8:28:57 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Several times in Vietnam. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Due soley to superior enemy air power or AAA, inclement weather? Several times in Vietnam. Could you be more specifc? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2013 8:29:53 AM EDT
[#3]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2013 8:36:12 AM EDT
[#4]
"No US ground troop has been killed in an attack by an enemy aircraft since 1953." |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2013 8:36:14 AM EDT
[#5]
Korea, Vietnam.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2013 8:36:26 AM EDT
[#6]
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." |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2013 8:39:48 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 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." Yep...
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2013 8:43:28 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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." Lot of soldiers and marines would tell you that friendly fire isn't friendly. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2013 8:43:43 AM EDT
[#9]
It is a lot easier on the ground when your side owns the skies.
If the balloon had gone up in Europe during the Cold War, who would have ruled the skies? I think NATO Air Power & being on the defense were the only advantage we had over the Warsaw Pact. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2013 8:54:10 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It is a lot easier on the ground when your side owns the skies. If the balloon had gone up in Europe during the Cold War, who would have ruled the skies? I think NATO Air Power & being on the defense were the only advantage we had over the Warsaw Pact. But the pact had a really good ADA system....and by good I mean a lot of them. Besides I am sure they had our airbases all pre-plotted for nuclear strike. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2013 8:56:22 AM EDT
[#11]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2013 9:02:12 AM EDT
[#12]
http://www.legion.org/magazine/216261/decline-dustoff
TLDR, Dustoff purportedly ain't what it used to be due to risk aversivity in A-stan. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2013 9:02:23 AM EDT
[#13]
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." 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 |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2013 9:05:27 AM EDT
[#14]
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. 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. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Germans serving on the Western Front in WWII would agree with that statement. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2013 9:05:42 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Lot of soldiers and marines would tell you that friendly fire isn't friendly. 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." Lot of soldiers and marines would tell you that friendly fire isn't friendly. I can recall aircraft IFF training sessions that boiled down to "if the aircraft is pointed at you, it's hostile." 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2013 9:08:11 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Lot of soldiers and marines would tell you that friendly fire isn't friendly. 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." 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 9:08:32 AM EDT
[#17]
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 Patriot isn't "significant"? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2013 9:21:29 AM EDT
[#18]
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 Last time I checked the Army still had an entire branch called "Air Defense." Lots of Patriot and Stingers still on the Army's MTOE. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2013 9:25:33 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
But the pact had a really good ADA system....and by good I mean a lot of them. Besides I am sure they had our airbases all pre-plotted for nuclear strike. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
It is a lot easier on the ground when your side owns the skies. If the balloon had gone up in Europe during the Cold War, who would have ruled the skies? I think NATO Air Power & being on the defense were the only advantage we had over the Warsaw Pact. But the pact had a really good ADA system....and by good I mean a lot of them. Besides I am sure they had our airbases all pre-plotted for nuclear strike. Yup.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2013 9:25:54 AM EDT
[#20]
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. 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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2013 9:33:20 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Last time I checked the Army still had an entire branch called "Air Defense." Lots of Patriot and Stingers still on the Army's MTOE. 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 Last time I checked the Army still had an entire branch called "Air Defense." Lots of Patriot and Stingers still on the Army's MTOE. I don't have any figures to back this up, but I suspect the ratio of AAA crews to infantry was much higher in WW2/Korea than today. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2013 9:38:34 AM EDT
[#22]
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. Troops, no. Sailors, yes. How about 34 killed and 174 wounded in one incident in 1967. Navy fighters were en-route to protect and were told to stand down.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2013 9:44:35 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Troops, no. Sailors, yes. How about 34 killed and 174 wounded in one incident in 1967. Navy fighters were en-route to protect and were told to stand down. 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." 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. Troops, no. Sailors, yes. How about 34 killed and 174 wounded in one incident in 1967. Navy fighters were en-route to protect and were told to stand down. Interesting point, but I'm not sure if it falls under the OP's inquiry. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2013 9:48:34 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Could you be more specifc? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Due soley to superior enemy air power or AAA, inclement weather? Several times in Vietnam. Could you be more specifc? 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. And the F-105.... not much needs to be said there. My understanding of our air technology compared to the Soviets throughout the Cold War was that we spent more money training pilots and the Soviets spent more money advancing technology. They're still trying to incorporate thrust-vector technology in an era of beyond visual range combat 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2013 9:49:26 AM EDT
[#25]
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. God forbid we ever get into it with a real military with force on force in every battle space environment, because after we get our ass's kicked on the ground from air power, I'm hoping everyone one of you USAF fawners and nay sayer's to a modern SPAAG to shoot yourselves with a large bullet, preferable HP's. In other words, how do we know we're that invincible, eh? Yeah-yeah, do not bore me with history lessons or try to insult my intelligence by belittling me, as you'll become the fool. History repeats itself, and those that shun the past are doomed to repeat things. I love you guys, I actually do. You're all so quick to throw away lesson's learned from the previous wars, and still wanting to train to fight that great Fulda Gap battle and be Patton reincarnate with WW2 tank warfare mentality. You laugh at anyone who says why don't we have this...and the next war you say WTF, we actually needed that. Well guess what, we found out that all the uparmoring our Vietnam vets did was for a very good reason, and it's people like you who had lives lost because you were stuck in your own matrix. Rant over. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2013 9:52:44 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident Interesting point, but I'm not sure if it falls under the OP's inquiry. More recently, the USS Stark. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2013 9:54:06 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't have any figures to back this up, but I suspect the ratio of AAA crews to infantry was much higher in WW2/Korea than today. 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 Last time I checked the Army still had an entire branch called "Air Defense." Lots of Patriot and Stingers still on the Army's MTOE. I don't have any figures to back this up, but I suspect the ratio of AAA crews to infantry was much higher in WW2/Korea than today. It probably helped that gun based AAA can be used for other purposes than AD to justify its place in TO&Es. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2013 9:54:29 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: An Air Force article...from 2011. We also haven't gone up against an equivalent equipped foe since the Korean War. Yes, we had the odds stacked in our favor since then, but to surely go along with that type of thinking is extremely dangerous. God forbid we ever get into it with a real military with force on force in every battle space environment, because after we get our ass's kicked on the ground from air power, I'm hoping everyone one of you USAF fawners and nay sayer's to a modern SPAAG to shoot yourselves with a large bullet, preferable HP's. In other words, how do we know we're that invincible, eh? Yeah-yeah, do not bore me with history lessons or try to insult my intelligence by belittling me, as you'll become the fool. History repeats itself, and those that shun the past are doomed to repeat things. I love you guys, I actually do. You're all so quick to throw away lesson's learned from the previous wars, and still wanting to train to fight that great Fulda Gap battle and be Patton reincarnate with WW2 tank warfare mentality. You laugh at anyone who says why don't we have this...and the next war you say WTF, we actually needed that. Well guess what, we found out that all the uparmoring our Vietnam vets did was for a very good reason, and it's people like you who had lives lost because you were stuck in your own matrix. Rant over. 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." 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. God forbid we ever get into it with a real military with force on force in every battle space environment, because after we get our ass's kicked on the ground from air power, I'm hoping everyone one of you USAF fawners and nay sayer's to a modern SPAAG to shoot yourselves with a large bullet, preferable HP's. In other words, how do we know we're that invincible, eh? Yeah-yeah, do not bore me with history lessons or try to insult my intelligence by belittling me, as you'll become the fool. History repeats itself, and those that shun the past are doomed to repeat things. I love you guys, I actually do. You're all so quick to throw away lesson's learned from the previous wars, and still wanting to train to fight that great Fulda Gap battle and be Patton reincarnate with WW2 tank warfare mentality. You laugh at anyone who says why don't we have this...and the next war you say WTF, we actually needed that. Well guess what, we found out that all the uparmoring our Vietnam vets did was for a very good reason, and it's people like you who had lives lost because you were stuck in your own matrix. Rant over.  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... |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2013 9:56:20 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: More recently, the USS Stark. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident Interesting point, but I'm not sure if it falls under the OP's inquiry. More recently, the USS Stark. Yep, that definitely qualifies IMO. Probably why the Air Force article I posted used "ground troops" to qualify their statement. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2013 9:58:51 AM EDT
[#30]
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. And the F-105.... not much needs to be said there. My understanding of our air technology compared to the Soviets throughout the Cold War was that we spent more money training pilots and the Soviets spent more money advancing technology. They're still trying to incorporate thrust-vector technology in an era of beyond visual range combat I'm not sure it is accurate to say they invested more in tech. Our was almost always more advanced, but their fighters were designed for dog fighting and we were expecting guided missles to dominate the fight. In Vietnam we had more advanced tech and better pilots but our tech and training did not focus on digfighting like their did. We prepared for the wrong kind of fight. We studied karate while they trained in sambo, then we fought in the cage, and found out their training was more appropriate. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2013 9:59:47 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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... |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2013 10:01:09 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2013 10:07:05 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Lot of soldiers and marines would tell you that friendly fire isn't friendly. 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." Lot of soldiers and marines would tell you that friendly fire isn't friendly. USS Liberty...feet wet |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2013 10:10:04 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2013 10:11:54 AM EDT
[#35]
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 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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2013 10:12:29 AM EDT
[#36]
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 Brad replacement ought to have a single 40mm like the CV9040, but that makes too much sense. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2013 10:15:28 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The Brad replacement ought to have a single 40mm like the CV9040, but that makes too much sense. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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 Brad replacement ought to have a single 40mm like the CV9040, but that makes too much sense. Hasn't there been an off the shelf 50mm chain drive autocannon available since the early '90s? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2013 10:16:07 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The Brad replacement ought to have a single 40mm like the CV9040, but that makes too much sense. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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 Brad replacement ought to have a single 40mm like the CV9040, but that makes too much sense. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2013 10:16:13 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Korea, Vietnam. In 'nam we had complete control of the airspace above our troops (unless they were in North Vietnam) and I think we always controlled the sky over our troops in Korea. For awhile MiG-15s, flown by Russians, gave us a lot of trouble in Korea, but I think that was contesting the space over their troops, not ours. Basically we dominated the space over our ground forces, and in large part over their gound forces as well. They did contest the skys over the land they controlled to some extent, sometimes to good effect. The MiG-15 was a surprise that gave them an aircraft that equaled or exceeded our aircraft in Korea, and in Vietnam their aircraft (and training) were much better suited to a dogfight, and our ROE only made it worse. On the flip side, I'm pretty sure the USSR wasn't investing as much in the air fight as we were, and they didn't want us capturing any Russian pilots so that would limit their willingness to fight in airspace over property we controlled. Political considerations dictated to both sides, in other words. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2013 10:16:35 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The date refers to the lack of critical thinking on the USAF's air/land doctrine, and also it points out we haven't faced a modern foe who will be gladly our huckleberry. Quote HistoryQuoted:
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.) |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2013 10:18:25 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2013 10:23:11 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. Disagree. The AF mission is to A) own the skies, so B) we can hold any target in the world at risk. Sometimes that target is in support of the Army. But it doesn't (and, if we do our job right, shouldn't) necessarily have to be. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2013 10:25:08 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think controlling the sky over the US might also be on their to-do list. Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2013 10:27:37 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
In 'nam we had complete control of the airspace above our troops (unless they were in North Vietnam) and I think we always controlled the sky over our troops in Korea. For awhile MiG-15s, flown by Russians, gave us a lot of trouble in Korea, but I think that was contesting the space over their troops, not ours. Basically we dominated the space over our ground forces, and in large part over their gound forces as well. They did contest the skys over the land they controlled to some extent, sometimes to good effect. The MiG-15 was a surprise that gave them an aircraft that equaled or exceeded our aircraft in Korea, and in Vietnam their aircraft (and training) were much better suited to a dogfight, and our ROE only made it worse. On the flip side, I'm pretty sure the USSR wasn't investing as much in the air fight as we were, and they didn't want us capturing any Russian pilots so that would limit their willingness to fight in airspace over property we controlled. Political considerations dictated to both sides, in other words. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Korea, Vietnam. In 'nam we had complete control of the airspace above our troops (unless they were in North Vietnam) and I think we always controlled the sky over our troops in Korea. For awhile MiG-15s, flown by Russians, gave us a lot of trouble in Korea, but I think that was contesting the space over their troops, not ours. Basically we dominated the space over our ground forces, and in large part over their gound forces as well. They did contest the skys over the land they controlled to some extent, sometimes to good effect. The MiG-15 was a surprise that gave them an aircraft that equaled or exceeded our aircraft in Korea, and in Vietnam their aircraft (and training) were much better suited to a dogfight, and our ROE only made it worse. On the flip side, I'm pretty sure the USSR wasn't investing as much in the air fight as we were, and they didn't want us capturing any Russian pilots so that would limit their willingness to fight in airspace over property we controlled. Political considerations dictated to both sides, in other words. The US at times in the Korean war failed to achieve even air parity, which is to say that they couldn't prevent enemy attacks on friendly troops. Given that there are five ways to describe varying levels of dominance in the air, of which air supremacy is the most favorable, it would be unrealistic to claim that the US had air supremacy in Vietnam. Air superiority would be more realistic for much of the war. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2013 10:28:45 AM EDT
[#45]
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. No. That's exactly the kind of thinking that led to the failed use of airpower in North Africa in 1943. All USAF missions over enemy territory short of a nuclear mission are meant to support the US strategic and operational objectives. That may not necessarily mean supporting the Army. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2013 10:29:26 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Disagree. The AF mission is to A) own the skies, so B) we can hold any target in the world at risk. Sometimes that target is in support of the Army. But it doesn't (and, if we do our job right, shouldn't) necessarily have to be. Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. Disagree. The AF mission is to A) own the skies, so B) we can hold any target in the world at risk. Sometimes that target is in support of the Army. But it doesn't (and, if we do our job right, shouldn't) necessarily have to be. As far as having effects on the enemy, air power alone does relatively little. That is why I am dramatically oversimplifying things. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2013 10:39:06 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yep, that definitely qualifies IMO. Probably why the Air Force article I posted used "ground troops" to qualify their statement. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident Interesting point, but I'm not sure if it falls under the OP's inquiry. More recently, the USS Stark. Yep, that definitely qualifies IMO. Probably why the Air Force article I posted used "ground troops" to qualify their statement. Might as well be talking about Battleships. We haven't fought a force on force war in decades, and air superiority has never been challenged like we saw in WWII, Korea, or VN. We have been doing asymmetric force on force. The Brits had a dose of it in the Falklands, but that wasn't us. We are now "at war" nowhere and everywhere. Our enemies are no longer nation state based. It can be argued 9/11 was an air attack against which we were defenseless. And if one of Obama's Arab Spring friends gets the notion, we could very well have another USS Liberty attack from a "friendly" military force. The Air Force has no plan to defend against such a nebulous threat. Yes, we have some gee-wiz aircraft assets and super pilots, but the threat has changed from grease pencil lines on a map to world wide vulnerability. Even Korea still has one of our ships and they operated against our boys with impunity on that one. Don't forget, the Polish Army had the finest mounted cavalry in the world in the spring of 1939. Sometimes tactics change...... |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2013 10:45:21 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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.) Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2013 11:02:37 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
especially with the increased armor our potential adversaries are equipping on their CAS assets that can withstand 20MM hits and shrug things off. YMMV. What are you referring to here? Not arguing, just trying to keep up. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2013 11:17:19 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Good luck with that. My biased views comes from reality, not make believe. While the USMC has air superiority not just from themsleves, but from the ground to the seas, their well protected. Us in the Army, we keep on getting fucked over and it's getting old, really fast. But keep on thinking how right you think you are, meanwhile we have SPG's that will lose artillery duels, and no SPAAG's to defend ourselves with against a serious threat. The Avenger is a joke, especially with the increased armor our potential adversaries are equipping on their CAS assets that can withstand 20MM hits and shrug things off. But hey, lets not listen to the people on the ground. YMMV. Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. |
|
|
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.
