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

[Capt Morgan's]

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.

 

[Catmando]

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.

Good questions. Off the top of my head (remember, it's been a few years), and A4s can certainly comment authoritatively, here are some quickie answers:

1. The gas-hog fighters launched 1st with a full load of gas. We went overhead, joined the tanker (either a whale A-3 off the ship or out of Da Nang, or an A-6 tanker off the ship) at 15k. We usually took on about 2k+ – regardless of weapon load-out, air-to-air or both air-to-air and ground - which is about what we burned just to get up there. Depending upon how the A-strike rendezvous was going, we either left the tanker and joined the massing strike group just as they were departing their overhead rendezvous …. Or if late, stayed on the tanker as the tanker followed the departing strike group then accelerated to join them when tanking was complete.

Going feet dry, we were nearly topped off (16k). As we came out, there was usually an emergency tanker standing by just feet-wet if we needed it – which we sometimes did, and sometimes desperately. But most often, we could recover with an open deck without refueling upon return. But there always was another tanker overhead, if needed.

Bombers rarely if ever tanked; figthers - either in a fighter, or air-to-mud role - always tanked at least once, if not twice.

2. The Ironhand was the same as SEAD, but there was no such thing as a "corridor" – they just tried to slam anything that came up that was the most threat …. And they were extremely 'busy''. They also developed some wonderful "tricks" …….. that still work (I would guess) and that are therefore beyond the 'scope' of this forum.

3. Only one carrier would launch an Alpha Strike at any one time. And we coordinated with the Air Force so a Navy Alpha Strike would never occur during an Air Force strike. We alternated windows. [It was frustrating to see MiGs launch to engage the Air Force on their strikes, and to see the MiGs retreat and land during Navy strikes… but not too surprising.]

 

[Capt Morgan's]

[It was frustrating to see MiGs launch to engage the Air Force on their strikes, and to see the MiGs retreat and land during Navy strikes… but not too surprising.]

^^^^

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?

 

[llnick2001]

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

Agreed. This may be the best threadjack ever.

 

[Catmando]

^^^^

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.

Usually only one carrier would conduct Alpha Strikes while the other carriers did cyclic ops against lower threat targets, and at different times of day or night. But the main carrier (and sometimes along with other carriers) would do them 3-a-day for several days in a row.

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?

The fighters always topped off before ingress. But unless there was a MiG vector or engagement, or a very deep strike, they really didn’t need gas on RTB since total flight-time was usually only 1.3 to 1.6 hrs.

 

[MasterBates]

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.

 

[Capt Morgan's]

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_

 

[MasterBates]

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.

 

[Capt Morgan's]

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).

 

[phrogpilot73]

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.

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...

 

[MasterBates]

That's total.. You could count on 3.5 hang time unless you were doing something to drive the burn up. Even then, it was hard to push it hard enough to get below a 3.0. 3900 in the tanks was "normal" T/O fuel, NATOPS/SOP on deck was 600#.

I think if I flew Max conserve other than a MaxQ climb to altitude if I was just up running radar/esm, I could get 750-800pph over the flight.

And yes, that is for both motors. Having the APU online for AC or other reasons I think added ~150 PPH to the burn.

 

[A4sForever]

I personally think the war was winnable. (Vietnam) .... But the public would not have had the stomach for it.

Then we'd better just throw in the towel. Period. Thank God for the generation of the '30's -- the Depression Generation. The ones that had the "least" while growing up ..... I'm not sure enough of the youtube generation and their burned-out left-over lefty '60's parents and grandparents have the stomach for the really, really hard actions that need to be taken today ... to prevail and WIN over Islamic fascism.

I personally think the war was winnable. (Vietnam)

Of course it was .... refer again to what happens when one wages a "limited war" (above) ...

 

[eddie]

Now before I step on any toes or say something supremely stupid and ignorant, just hear me out.

What were the consequences of losing the Vietnam war?

I think, in a certain sense, we got off very lucky with the whole affair. The domino effect didn't pan out, the Soviets crashed for economic reasons, and a great many people see "communist" Vietnam as rapidly shaping itself into a respectable, capitalist, productive member of World Society.

If anything, losing in Vietnam has convinced large segments of more than one generation to believe that losing a war isn't all that big a deal.

I don't want to push our luck with another loss. Many Americans can't see that it could be problem.

 

[skim]

Now before I step on any toes or say something supremely stupid and ignorant, just hear me out.

What were the consequences of losing the Vietnam war?

I think, in a certain sense, we got off very lucky with the whole affair. The domino effect didn't pan out, the Soviets crashed for economic reasons, and a great many people see "communist" Vietnam as rapidly shaping itself into a respectable, capitalist, productive member of World Society.

If anything, losing in Vietnam has convinced large segments of more than one generation to believe that losing a war isn't all that big a deal.

I don't want to push our luck with another loss. Many Americans can't see that it could be problem.

I fail to see your point. Are you saying that there were no consequences for us losing? Or, that by us losing led to Vietnams capitalism and the end of the Soviet Union?

 

[FUPaladin]

Then we'd better just throw in the towel. Period. Thank God for the generation of the '30's -- the Depression Generation. The ones that had the "least" while growing up ..... I'm not sure enough of the youtube generation and their burned-out left-over lefty '60's parents and grandparents have the stomach for the really, really hard actions that need to be taken today ... to prevail and WIN over Islamic fascism.

65 years ago, the world was in real danger of falling under the control of two totalitarian and genocidal empires. The only possible response to that threat was total war. The threat from Islamic extremists today is also very real, but they're not exactly on the cusp of world domination. So is an all-in, reinstate-the-draft, pave-the-country approach really the most appropriate response to the threat from these terror cells? The way I see it, the War on Terror is unlike any war we've ever fought in that it's primarily a war of security and intelligence, not armies squaring off against each other and the demand that puts on manpower and resources.

But on the other hand, I agree with MasterBates that a limited war means a limited chance to win that war. If we're going to go into a country and overthrow the government, such as in Afghanistan and Iraq, we have to be prepared to do whatever it takes to see it through. And we certainly can't leave a country in worse shape and more dangerous than we found it. If we don't have the will to do whatever it takes to win, then we have no business starting a war. We can't just go into a country and hope that our limited war will be enough, then have no plan B when that doesn't work out.