To be specific, the ATO could have been transmitted, at a glacial pace but certainly quicker than flying it around the CVBG, but at the cost of other more important comms.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Europe under extreme duress
- Thread starter Randy Daytona
- Start date
How did we collaborate with the USAF during Vietnam? I realize many of the lessons learned there are ultimately what led to the joint targeting and joint fires processes we have now, but how did it work then? I guess I never considered what the interim process was between WWII (where I assumed each service basically owned their own fires and targeting as they saw fit) and post Goldwater-Nichols/the joint military we have today.
Last edited:
Been a while since I've read about this, but I think they used the "Route Pack" system that divided North and South Vietnam into airspace blocks called Route Packs. The USAF and Navy operated in different Route Packs and did their own targeting that would be originated at the Executive Branch level.
Last edited:
ABMD
Bullets don't fly without Supply
As a Loggie, I agree. Bullets don't fly without Supply.
Correct, but aircraft could violate their route in case of an emergency. Imagine something like “broken arrow” call in “We were soldiers…” At that point an airborne controller (EC-121 or E-1) would bring them together and stack them up and then a FAC would bring them in.
Maybe you guys should go hold hands over in this conversation…As a Loggie, I agree. Bullets don't fly without Supply.
I keed…I keed.
This has been an interesting resource that popped up on the equipment front. Pretty exhaustive detail, separate photo/vid logs for each individual piece of destroyed equipment on both sides…
Which is also why I would imagine the well intentioned but likely harebrained plan to lend lease aircraft fell apart? Y’all can speak to this better than I, but would imagine the Slovak/Polish/German -29s were alike more in name than innards? And then I saw this!
Transfer three A-10 aircraft squadrons to Ukraine now
This aircraft and its gun system were designed to counter an armored assault in Europe. They proved effective in Desert Storm’s target-rich environment, quite similar to the current advancing Russian force.
www.defensenews.com
“Pilot retraining is minimal. All that is needed is painting Ukrainian insignia and delivering the aircraft. This could be done in days.”
Had to double check it wasn’t April Fool’s.
Max the Mad Russian
Hands off Ukraine! Feet too
But tactical training is not. There isn't such thing like FAC(A), especially single-seat, in UA training pipeline, let alone doctrine. It's changeable, but it takes time.
Traditionally for all military in post-Soviet world the person which has to have full SA is the ground staff operative, not someone aloft or even grunts in contact. There is only one task harder than putting new thought into head of O-7 and higher - the task of getting out the old one from there. Russians now demonstrate that with full evidence.
Last edited:
I was thinking about how it's to bad they don't have any A-10s or Apaches, they could then really wreak havoc with the Russian forces.
This has been an interesting resource that popped up on the equipment front. Pretty exhaustive detail, separate photo/vid logs for each individual piece of destroyed equipment on both sides…
Which is also why I would imagine the well intentioned but likely harebrained plan to lend lease aircraft fell apart? Y’all can speak to this better than I, but would imagine the Slovak/Polish/German -29s were alike more in name than innards? And then I saw this!
Transfer three A-10 aircraft squadrons to Ukraine now
This aircraft and its gun system were designed to counter an armored assault in Europe. They proved effective in Desert Storm’s target-rich environment, quite similar to the current advancing Russian force.
“Pilot retraining is minimal. All that is needed is painting Ukrainian insignia and delivering the aircraft. This could be done in days.”
Had to double check it wasn’t April Fool’s.
Link doesn't work.
On the Russians shelling this Ukrainian nuclear plant, if they could possibly cause a major meltdown that would release a huge amount of radiation that would threaten the West (and the rest of the world), could that constitute a form of attack on NATO and thus justify NATO intervening directly to stop Russian forces from shelling it? Like basically call up Putin and say, "You are going to force our hand with this nuclear plant, stop shelling it or else." I know the plant is now in Russian hands and the fires have been extinguished but I mean assuming it was still being shelled?
Max the Mad Russian
Hands off Ukraine! Feet too
I think the problem with hitting Russians on their soil with all NATO power is of neither nuclear nor at all warfare character: it would bring about the fall of the Russia as a state and resulting dark ages within Eurasian rim. So the West chose to choke the Russia as one piece. The problem is that Russia is not unitary whole thing and it will start to fall to pieces in any case, no matter what will happen to Ukraine, next minute after Putin's death, regardless the reason. What a charade...
It's a private thread.
Sorry…just some fun about squadron logistics issues.
Side note…great source for equipment losses.
Last edited:
With reference to this…
www.defensenews.com
The U.S. could potentially set up a system like CAMCO and the AVG as they did in China back in 1941 (imagine a modern “Pappy” Boyington in Ukraine!). This would bring the expertise, skills, and equipment to Ukraine but give the artificial feel of “non-participation” by the U.S. That is really the only way something like that could work and it is doubtful America has balls that size anymore for a number of reasons…to include nuclear weapons.
Transfer three A-10 aircraft squadrons to Ukraine now
This aircraft and its gun system were designed to counter an armored assault in Europe. They proved effective in Desert Storm’s target-rich environment, quite similar to the current advancing Russian force.
www.defensenews.com
The U.S. could potentially set up a system like CAMCO and the AVG as they did in China back in 1941 (imagine a modern “Pappy” Boyington in Ukraine!). This would bring the expertise, skills, and equipment to Ukraine but give the artificial feel of “non-participation” by the U.S. That is really the only way something like that could work and it is doubtful America has balls that size anymore for a number of reasons…to include nuclear weapons.