|
Flanker posted:The Americans can't even contemplate conducting an operation without total air supremacy so mounting AAA and SAMs on Humvees starts to look crazy. Has an enemy ever even had temporary local aerial superiority on US forces since Korea?
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2011 20:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 00:36 |
|
|
Not to my knowledge. Both Iraq wars the Iraqis got assets in the air but I don't think they managed to threaten coalition ground troops.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2011 20:45
|
|
|
Flanker posted:Not to my knowledge. Both Iraq wars the Iraqis got assets in the air but I don't think they managed to threaten coalition ground troops. The second war they never actually got jets airborne...mostly because we were bombing the poo poo out of their air assets and air defenses for the year prior to the actual invasion as part of Operation Southern Focus. During Desert Storm they got several jets airborne, but they were more concerned with providing defense over their territory than striking anything we had, and within a few days they were focused on fleeing to Iran. Of course, they threatened coalition ground troops in both wars with TBMs, but that's a little different can of worms I suppose. Additionally, while there has never been a case where the enemy was able to have air superiority over our territory, there have been cases where the enemy was able to deny us air superiority of his territory...Vietnam, obviously, particularly with the Christmas Bombing, where for the first time in USAF history a strategic bomber strike was turned back because of the effectiveness of enemy defenses, arguably Desert Storm, where Iraq was able to deny Baghdad and the surrounding airspace to non-stealth aircraft, and the Balkans, where the Serbs were able to make effective use of their SAM resources and not allow NATO forces uncontested access of the airspace.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2011 22:19
|
|
|
Were any Americans killed in Vietnam due to hostile air?
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2011 23:23
|
|
|
Flanker posted:Were any Americans killed in Vietnam due to hostile air? On the ground or in the air? There were multiple US aircraft that were shot down by VPAF MiGs...I'm fairly certain that at least some of those aircrew were KIA, although I guess I don't know this for a hard fact off the top of my head. On the ground...there weren't any VPAF strikes into South Vietnam; however, I've heard a few stories about Communist helicopters operating in Laos. I say "Communist" because no one seems to know if they were North Vietnamese, Chinese, Soviet, or someone else. I don't know for sure if any of these were responsible for striking any US forces, but obviously given the fact that it was in Laos and most of the details of that war are still classified, information could be hard to find. Incidentally, one of the best books about the air war in that country that I've been able to find is "Here There Are Tigers," which was written by a dude that spent a tour flying FAC sorties over Laos, including several missions that never occurred as far as the official record is concerned. If you guys are interested I could do a mini-let's read on that book in this thread regarding some of the hairier missions he describes. Oh, and then there was the strike by VPAF An-2 biplanes on Lima Site 85, which resulted in the first air to air kill from a helicopter when an Air America Huey launched and chased down one of the An-2s, spraying it with M-16 fire and causing it to crash. A few Hmong personnel were killed in the An-2 strikes but no U.S. personnel, military or otherwise, were wounded. iyaayas01 fucked around with this message at 23:37 on Jul 1, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2011 23:34
|
|
|
Flanker posted:The Americans can't even contemplate conducting an operation without total air supremacy so mounting AAA and SAMs on Humvees starts to look crazy. Same thing for the antitank everywhere mentality of the US, right? While we're talking about mentality, were infantry (mechanised or not) / tank doctrines fundamentaly different between NATO and the USSR?
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2011 23:41
|
|
|
SIGSEGV posted:Same thing for the antitank everywhere mentality of the US, right? Short answer, yes. Longer answer will be forthcoming later if Flanker or anyone else doesn't beat me to it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2011 23:43
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Short answer, yes. Longer answer will be forthcoming later if Flanker or anyone else doesn't beat me to it. I'm tapped out.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2011 00:01
|
|
|
Duck and Cover There were many Thuds and Buffs shot down by migs. My favorite story is about this B52 named "Diamond Lil" on display at the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs.  From here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_B-52_Stratofortress#Air-to-air_victories quote:On 24 December 1972, during the same bombing campaign, the B-52 Diamond Lil was headed to bomb the Thái Nguyên railroad yards when tail gunner A1C Albert E. Moore spotted a fast-approaching MiG-21. Moore opened fire with his quad fifties at 4,000 yards (3,700 m), and kept shooting until the fighter disappeared from his scope. TSG Clarence W. Chute, a tail gunner aboard another Stratofortress, watched the MiG catch fire and fall away. The Diamond Lil is preserved on display at the United States Air Force Academy in Colorado. Moore was the last recorded bomber gunner to shoot down an enemy aircraft with machine guns in aerial combat. These victories make the B-52 the largest aircraft to be credited with air-to-air kills. The quad 50's were only mounted in B52 tails for a short period. Then they switched to 20mm, then they did away with them all together. I am lucky to have an ammo can marked "FOR B52 AIRCRAFT USE ONLY".
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2011 00:19
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:eating Moose's Tooth 
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2011 09:52
|
|
|
SIGSEGV posted:Same thing for the antitank everywhere mentality of the US, right? The slightly longer short version is that NATO forces viewed armor (and all the other arms...aviation, artillery, etc.) as support for the infantry, while Warsaw Pact forces were reversed, with the infantry (and aviation, artillery, etc.) providing support for armor. Warsaw Pact forces had a real hard on for armor, as evidenced by their development of tanks through the years of the Cold War, as opposed to the U.S.'s incremental While the Warsaw Pact developed ATGMs (they had the first combat use of such missiles in the Yom Kippur War through proxy use with Egypt's forces), the US/NATO were most concerned with anti-armor developments, as evidenced by the TOW missile, Hellfire missile, and development of the anti-armor helicopter (Cobra and Apache are the best examples of this). The Warsaw Pact developed ATGMs as part of their effort to aid armor, while the US/NATO forces developed anti-armor weapons in order to turn back the tide of Warsaw Pact armor. SyHopeful posted:Haters gonna hate. The Santa's Little Helper pizza and Fairweather IPA were deeeeelicious. Also, I had some Snow Goose beer a few days ago, and drank a plethora of Alaskan Amber beers today. Anchorage really has it going on when it comes to brews...going to hit up Glacier Brewhouse this weekend.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2011 10:23
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:The slightly longer short version is that NATO forces viewed armor (and all the other arms...aviation, artillery, etc.) as support for the infantry, while Warsaw Pact forces were reversed, with the infantry (and aviation, artillery, etc.) providing support for armor. Warsaw Pact forces had a real hard on for armor, as evidenced by their development of tanks through the years of the Cold War, as opposed to the U.S.'s incremental This is also where the old Soviet air defense strategies came into play. SA-6/8/11/13/15/19 and manpads weren't intended primarily for counter-interceptor use, they were for keeping up with and protecting the armor column from helicopters and A-10s. They've since expanded to counter PGMs, which were in turn our answer to the Soviets fuckoff huge range fixed SAMs.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2011 19:36
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:The slightly longer short version is that NATO forces viewed armor (and all the other arms...aviation, artillery, etc.) as support for the infantry, while Warsaw Pact forces were reversed, with the infantry (and aviation, artillery, etc.) providing support for armor. Warsaw Pact forces had a real hard on for armor, as evidenced by their development of tanks through the years of the Cold War, as opposed to the U.S.'s incremental Psh, Alaskan Amber is from Juneau, my old stomping grounds. If you haven't had the halibut tacos at Humpy's yet you should probably go do that ASAP.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2011 20:46
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Also, I had some Snow Goose beer a few days ago, and drank a plethora of Alaskan Amber beers today. Anchorage really has it going on when it comes to brews...going to hit up Glacier Brewhouse this weekend. Glacier Brewhouse is loving amazing. Their oatmeal stout is so goddamn good.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2011 21:32
|
|
|
Propagandalf posted:This is also where the old Soviet air defense strategies came into play. SA-6/8/11/13/15/19 and manpads weren't intended primarily for counter-interceptor use, they were for keeping up with and protecting the armor column from helicopters and A-10s. They've since expanded to counter PGMs, which were in turn our answer to the Soviets fuckoff huge range fixed SAMs. Ok, I get it, it's really "ground first" versus "we need the air" with near to no mitigation either way. Anyone has anything about the USSR-China conflicts, they look like a load of fun but there I didn't find much to read about them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2011 06:20
|
|
|
SIGSEGV posted:Ok, I get it, it's really "ground first" versus "we need the air" with near to no mitigation either way. Yeah I'd like to know more about the border wars as well. That and the Chinese invasion of Vietnam.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2011 15:03
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:I haven't had the fortune of hearing it up close at all, but the C-130 pilots I talked to who had said they'd almost rather we just let the mortars hit because the sound of the gun is so loud and horrifying. I'd rather be next to the CRAM when it fires than in a C-130 without earpro. It is loud, but for some reason you feel it more than hear it, I'm sure that it isn't good for your ears but they don't hurt like other loud noises seem to. I heard those all the time at Eglin too because they had a range where they tested aircraft cannon a stone's throw from the road to my squadron so it was a familiar sound. The most annoying sound to me is an F-16 taking off with full afterburners, gently caress those guys. That and anytime I heard an IL-76's engines spooling up (down?) I thought it was something whistling through the air and it always freaked me out for a second before I realized what it was.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2011 17:42
|
|
|
BadgerMan45 posted:
You've never heard a B-1, have you?
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2011 19:26
|
|
|
Propagandalf posted:You've never heard a B-1, have you? My high school golf tournaments were always the best because of this. The kids from other schools would be bitching about the wind (who needs trees on top of this hill that always has 30mph winds psh) and then a B-1 would start doing flyovers right over the 2nd hole. Or that tourney where some A-10's buzzed us. Nothing beat the time when I went golfing the afternoon after they had used the course for some first aid training on the base though, but hadn't cleaned it up yet. Teeing off onto a fairway that has fake injured bodies scattered about is pretty eerie, especially with B-1's still flying around. Also my house is covered in random cracks from the stress the noise puts on the house. It's worthless painting over them or putting putty down to cover them up either. You get used to the noise though. e. F-16's are more annoying though, it's that high pitched whine that always confuses me when I hear it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2011 22:19
|
|
|
Propagandalf posted:You've never heard a B-1, have you? Vipers aren't really that bad as far as fighter aircraft go, even...Strike Eagles are pretty loving loud, and for some reason Super Hornets are the absolute worst.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2011 22:47
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Vipers aren't really that bad as far as fighter aircraft go, even...Strike Eagles are pretty loving loud, and for some reason Super Hornets are the absolute worst. The correct answer is EA-6B
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2011 22:51
|
|
|
A Vulcan lives behind my house. You'll never hear me complain about the noise!
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2011 08:05
|
|
|
monkeytennis posted:A Vulcan lives behind my house. You'll never hear me complain about the noise! I never knew Spock porked his old lady so hard before. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2011 08:38
|
|
|
monkeytennis posted:A Vulcan lives behind my house. You'll never hear me complain about the noise! Are we talking an actual Avro Vulcan? Because V bombers are the bees knees. I mean look at them.   
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2011 10:14
|
|
|
Propagandalf posted:You've never heard a B-1, have you? Thank god no, I can only imagine that those things are annoying as hell. I haven't heard any strike eagles either, only the C models and they weren't too bad. I'm sure if I got stuck around either one of those aircraft as often and long as I have with F-16s I would find them as or more annoying. The worst thing about any fighter is they almost always launch more than one and occasionally I would find myself wondering what in the world they would need with six or more fighters at one time as pieces of ceiling rained down around me. On the opposite end of the spectrum, the first time I heard an F-22 I was pretty surprised to look up and see a fighter, they are impressively quiet. BadgerMan45 fucked around with this message at 13:32 on Jul 4, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2011 13:22
|
|
|
BadgerMan45 posted:On the opposite end of the spectrum, the first time I heard an F-22 I was pretty surprised to look up and see a fighter, they are impressively quiet. I've found F-22s to be pretty loud during takeoff, but they're loud in a very generic way that isn't irritating, compared to the whine of an F-16.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2011 14:02
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Vipers aren't really that bad as far as fighter aircraft go, even...Strike Eagles are pretty loving loud, and for some reason Super Hornets are the absolute worst. Our quarters were next to the flight line at Al Assad. Sometimes it seemed like the Marines were trying to burn up the month's fuel budget at night with the constant F-18 traffic at 3 AM.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2011 14:17
|
|
|
Armyman25 posted:Our quarters were next to the flight line at Al Assad. Sometimes it seemed like the Marines were trying to burn up the month's fuel budget at night with the constant F-18 traffic at 3 AM. Reading this and looking at your custom title really made me chuckle.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2011 15:16
|
|
|
Armyman25 posted:Our quarters were next to the flight line at Al Assad. Sometimes it seemed like the Marines were trying to burn up the month's fuel budget at night with the constant F-18 traffic at 3 AM. I was next to the flightline at Bagram. drat those constant Strike Eagle sorties
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2011 16:40
|
|
|
Slo-Tek posted:I missed a turn on the way back from the Zoo yesterday, and came across a body shop with a couple dozen Vietnam-era aircraft and helicopters in the back lot, including one whole F-105, one in many many small bits, a bunch of chopped up Dog Sabres, several Shooting Stars, and a couple Mohawks, and bunch of Choctaws and flying bananas. Chino airport in CA has my favorite collection of old war birds.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2011 18:42
|
|
|
Sjurygg posted:Are we talking an actual Avro Vulcan? Because V bombers are the bees knees. Yes, an honest to God V-Bomber. It's spine tingling when I'm sat having a beer in the garden and they head off to a display somewhere.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2011 19:35
|
|
|
FiendishThingy posted:Chino airport in CA has my favorite collection of old war birds. Ok, Changed my mind. I don't want the F-105 anymore, I want one of those Drakens. Wow, there is a bunch of weird stuff there. Northrop Scorpion, what I'm guessing is an early Vought jet. Wonder what that fuselage is between the DC-3 and the Learjet. Might be a pre-radome herc. So cool. Slo-Tek fucked around with this message at 23:04 on Jul 4, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2011 22:59
|
|
|
They do a lot of restorations at that airport, I know most of the currently flying B-25s were put back together or serviced there. One of these years just for fun I'd like to go down there and get my B-25 type rating.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2011 00:00
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:I've found F-22s to be pretty loud during takeoff, but they're loud in a very generic way that isn't irritating, compared to the whine of an F-16. Raptors really aren't that loud, comparatively speaking, given their size and the amount of thrust their engines put out. A good comparison in size/thrust is the Strike Eagle...I've been on the flightline when a Mud Hen and Raptor took off one after the other; no comparison. Also, Super Bugs are loving LOUD...pretty sure I have some hearing damage from being on the line when they were up here taking off for Northern Edge. Anyway, the biggest reason for this is that Raptors put out enough thrust in military that they don't regularly use afterburner on takeoff, just dry thrust, unlike pretty much every single other fighter out there. iyaayas01 fucked around with this message at 08:23 on Jul 5, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2011 08:13
|
|
|
Hey guys; long time lurker with a hippie mom so no boxes for me for a few more years, My grand father is a RET US Colonel in the USAF. He started out at 16 in the Navy as a naval aviator before we had a real air force. He then fought in every war till the Gulf and did psyops, security testing, and classified R and D during the early cold war; by the end he had his own base and that is where it is hard to get anything out of him. He will talk about how he was in charge of all US bombing in Laos when we weren't officially there; but not the load outs of the planes. He will tell just enough of how they were doing poo poo like building grids of metal under hundreds of square miles of desert in Italy to see if they could make an EMP device by making a huge magnet but then just sum it all up with something simple like "it did not work". The most interesting thing to me was how he had a unit of air force special forces and their job was to test security on our bases and allied bases during the cold war. They would basically pull fake attacks on bases in West Germany and such. This is the main thing he does not seem to cover besides his work with Rockwell after retiring. I can not find a good book or resource on any of this sort of stuff but was wondering if anyone has had any luck with something newer (last year or so; like the new Area 51 book)? I mean hell he has silver plates and a room of medals and awards with SAC's logo and the USAF. When he passes, I want it to be more than just metal and know what the hell it was for and none of his kids seem to, too. If not, I was curious if anyone has a "guide" for asking people who are used to keeping secrets their whole life about things they did that were key to our country and history but think they were just "doing their job" and still do not "need" to tell anyone, even if it is declassified? Finally, the whole reason I came to post; if I was on Holloman Air Force Base watching missile trials with active duty families during the mid 90s; what the gently caress was I watching? All I remember is hours and hours of watching missiles miss each other or be so far away and things happening so fast I had no idea what was going on. Being like 5 didn't help too. All I remember well are the planes and that is just because I knew what they all were. If you haven't seen F-117s, B2s, F22s flying over the desert super and subsonic you are missing out. You can see how they would scare the poo poo out of anyone in the under developed world/stupid UFO people who saw then. Even I, knowing what they were, kinda thought that the aliens were coming. Sorry for the  . But, no one seems to give a poo poo but me about this stuff in my family. I really want to preserve it so I figured I would see if anyone could help me with talking to older and higher up ex-military members? Also, any books on the time that I could cross reference with what I have written and recorded from when he has been willing to talk would be great (mostly post Korea till the telecommunications science of the late 80s/early 90s and it's applications)/ Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2011 12:11
|
|
|
This thread is great, maybe someone in here can answer something I was pondering the other day. What ever happened to the SU-47 with the forward swept wings, are they still trialling it or has the project pretty much been dumped?
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2011 13:54
|
|
|
The Gloaming posted:With some military types, manners and passive attitude aren't going to work. Bring your grandfather a cold beer, sit down next to him with a clip board, and be a borderline rear end in a top hat interrogator. I think if he sees your genuine interest he might open up. He probably still thinks you're that bored 5 year old in the desert.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2011 15:35
|
|
|
The Gloaming posted:I am honestly curious how he went from naval aviator to USAF.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2011 15:49
|
|
|
Execu-speak posted:This thread is great, maybe someone in here can answer something I was pondering the other day. Pretty sure it's been dumped, with the focus being on the PAK.FA. e. The T-50, this sexy guy. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2011 17:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 00:36 |
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:Pretty sure it's been dumped, with the focus being on the PAK.FA. I need to know more edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_T-50 I wonder what the NATO name will be. Voting 'Foreskin' Flanker fucked around with this message at 17:23 on Jul 5, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2011 17:15
|
|