VIETNAM or IRAQ WAR: What is it good for?? Absolutely nothing?? Or ...????

I used to doodle out whole alpha-strikes... I wonder if that would get me the chair? Or maybe a war crimes trial? What a joke.

WOW!!! A nascent Air Intelligence Officer .... who could know???

That's great --- where in the hell did you find that ????!!!

"Cept I don't see any flak suppressors ...... .... Ironhand doesn't count!!!

That looks like it had to be hell to get airborne, formed up, and inbound off one boat.

What's TARCAP? What's flak suppressors?

Ok, I figured out the definitions, but I like it better when the old men tell me.

Com'on, eddie ... work with us on this.

1. TARCAP .... sounds a little like .... TARGET COMBAT AIR ..... what?? I'll let you fill in the last word ....

2. Flak suppressors .... possibly the opposite of flak enhancers ... yes ???

I pullin' your leg --- if you can't get it, ask/post again and we'll spell it out. It's good for you boys to use the noodle and maybe do a little research.

Yes???

*edit* I see you got it. Good job!! What old men are you talking about, however ????

Ah. So it wasn't cyclic ops.

(dumb helo guy turning hooker question- is the carrier ever non on cyclic ops?)

We did "practice launches" because our flight deck was so lame we needed to practice our LSP!!!

Nose

What your air plan depicts as F-4 STRIKE/TARCAP ... mebbe even some of the upfront MIGCAP (I've never seen that many F-4's up at one time in the history of Naval Aviation ) usually became our flak suppressors w/Rockeye/CBU -- accelerating ahead of the strike group @ a minute prior to roll-in .... ... then resuming their TARCAP roles after flak suppression pull-off. Seems like every Air Wing had their own ideas on what worked and what didn't ....

A good overall picture -- talks a little about cyclic ops vs Alpha strikes -- of mid-late '60's Vietnam Ops is provided by none other than ADM James L. Holloway III, USN (Ret.) on the Naval Historical Center website:

[FONT=Times New Roman,Georgia,Times]TACTICAL COMMAND AND CONTROL OF CARRIER OPERATIONS[/FONT]

MB,

Yes. If you are doing a big ass strike (don't really use the term Alpha Strike anymore), then usually the plan is to have a "Ready Deck" for RTB.

A normal cyclic ops launch is 20-30 aircraft. Big strike may be 40+. Too hard to return, hold overhead, take seperation, work the deck, keep the pattern disciplined, etc. Plus, a couple of bolter/WO/WOFD with all those planes overhead and you got serious gas problems. Easier to have strikers return (usually off of backside tanking) in sections/divisions and come straight to the break. Usually flows out pretty nice as guys are coming off the tankers about 1-2/minute.

NSAWC used to advocate "Modified Flex" where you could launch small events during flex deck (because those fokkers were always trying to weasel some extra BFM!) but usually it was catch 'em all, then do a 1-1.5 hour re-spot and go cyclic after that.

Good for LSOs, because of the Tanning opportunities.

Nose

This was a most useful threadrift/jack. My knowledges have increased.

Cat and A4's this is incredibly interesting and if the history lesson could continue for just a bit longer I had three questions.

#1 - where are the tankers on the above plan? I am assuming with the point of an alpha strike you would launch light on fuel and heavy on weapons and plan to refuel to your require amounts in the air. Are they just a given factor and thus not included on the map plan. Also how long does that/did that take to fuel everyone before proceeding with the mission?

#2 - the Ironhand sections, did they work like current SEAD packets and knock down corridors for everyone else to squeeze through or did they just slam anything that they could get a shot at? I would imagine with all that aluminum in the air the guys in the north or anywhere that they shot at you must have been drooling watching their radar.

#3 - would more than one carrier launch an alpha strike at once and you guys just simply mass mob the north?

Thanks for sharing, again very interesting.

^^^^

This is just really interesting how the logistics of setting one of these strikes up works. Did you do these kind of strikes all the time or was it once in awhile since it obviously took a bit of work to put together.


So having to tank twice with the fighters was that a more desirable or less spot to fly as it sounds like you had to get gas all the time ? Or is it more of that first off last in kind of deal?

Agreed. This may be the best threadjack ever.

After flying the arguably most fuel efficient fleet aircraft (H60), the sheer amounts of gas the fighters use still boggles my mind.. ~19-20K average weight, and 1100 pph was if you were hauling ass somewhere. And I flew the heavy version with a lot of shit hung off it.

It is harder and harder to understand why with all this of this talent and iron being slung all over the place we didn't just try and win the war overall and be done with it.


But I guess that is a whole other topic which involves way more than just airpower and bombs on target :censored_ :banghead_

I was not there, (wasn't born yet) but from reading about the air war, and talking to the ground/air cav guys I know (Dad, Uncles, their friends) I personally think the war was winnable.

But the public would not have had the stomach for it.

In my OPINION Limited War = Limits ability to win war.

When their strategic targets are protected, and there are long pauses in attacks that allow them to rebuild, it won't be easy.

If it was run like WWII (beat the Germans/Japanese, using any and all methods you can) I think it could have been done.

But I was not there, and that is a call best made by those that were.

I second what Master is saying, from what I can read and have heard from people who were there. The reason we didn't "win" was not because of a lack of effort by the military but rather because of the lack of testicular fortitude by those in washington who instead of figuring out how to push these guys back to China were constantly trying to figure out how to end the war and get away from it without looking like that was exactly what they were doing.

There are also depending on who's theory you buy into several other reasons, such as opium trade, defeating communism, not wanting to pull China and it's neighbors into the fight etc... etc... etc...

I don't know that the public would have had such an issue with the war if we would have actually made some gains and there certainly wasn't nearly as much press coverage as there is these days where reporters are embedded with the troops for "live from the front" reports.
From what I have read/heard most of the general publics outrage with Vietnam was the lack of effectiveness and senseless loss of life there by making it appear to be a pointless war.
I think it was probably more the politians didn't have the guts to have to explain it to the general public.


Overall I think if you look at operations conducted after Vietnam that were run with the overall goal to win look at the results.

Iraq #1 - overwhelming airpower usage and a well thought out follow up by ground forces - result = low casualty rates, quick progression and overall a "win"

Iraq #2 (not the resulting occupation phase) - went from the Saudi line to Bagdad in a matter of days.


As he said above, just my OPINION from what I have read/studied as I also was not there (war was ending when I was born).

Was that total? Don't know if you had more than one fuel tank, know very little about the H60. We burned around 800 pph/side worst case (1600 pph total) but usually averaged around 700 pph/side (1400 pph total). If 1100 pph is total - that's pretty sweet...