Your Nation's Air Force Mark II:

[Organized States]

Personally I always though that the US lost the vietnam war because they were shackled to the great incompetence of the south Vietnamese leader ship its its inability to exploit opportunities created by the US and its insistence on "hold everywhere"

-could be totally wrong tho-

That, and the increasing unpopularity of the war at home, because of Westmoreland's thinking that the war could be won with "more troops". The real shining light of Vietnam War was the eventual perfection of Close Air Support, and coordinated air-ground attack strategy (both of which eventually led to the Coalition's victory in the First Persian Gulf War).

[Ramin republic]

My planes!
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... ge1278.gif

[Voltrovia]

What if the US had declared a military exclusion zone around Vietnam's coast leaving any vessel within it liable to attack? Sure, the Soviets might have deployed large fleets on one or two occasions as a show of force but the supply chain would have been severely restricted.

That could have in theory, ended or severely weakened the North's and the Viet Cong's capability to wage war against ARVN and the US. Sure, the soviets would have gotten upset, but remember, they got upset at everything we did then. The then continued use of tactics like Operation Bolo, to destroy the remainder of the NVAF, would have given the US, the air dominance it had so dreamed of. The end result would be much better than it turned out to be.

That's the point. Of course there would have been an almighty diplomatic fuss and the criticism of US and Western Warmongering and Imperialism^TM but the Soviet diplomatic tactics were purely for the purpose of frustrating the effectiveness of combat operations in Vietnam. They complained, but not out of any actual outrage over American actions but merely because it helped the North immensely.

[Padnak]

Personally I always though that the US lost the vietnam war because they were shackled to the great incompetence of the south Vietnamese leader ship its its inability to exploit opportunities created by the US and its insistence on "hold everywhere"

-could be totally wrong tho-

That, and the increasing unpopularity of the war at home, because of Westmoreland's thinking that the war could be won with "more troops". The real shining light of Vietnam War was the eventual perfection of Close Air Support, and coordinated air-ground attack strategy (both of which eventually led to the Coalition's victory in the First Persian Gulf War).

I feel like the Coalition could have won the gulf war by driving a line of shermans toward iraqi lines but thats neither here no there

I think the thing about wars like the Vietnam war is that they need long term commitment to win and you don't find that kind of long term "we are going to take a lot of losses and were going to have to do some pretty extreme things" attitude in most western nations. Where on the other hand the Vietnamese (or in any other case the local opposition) are fighting for their homes and are generally more willing to go to greater lengths to fight off an invader

[Voltrovia]

Personally I always though that the US lost the vietnam war because they were shackled to the great incompetence of the south Vietnamese leader ship its its inability to exploit opportunities created by the US and its insistence on "hold everywhere"

-could be totally wrong tho-

That, and the increasing unpopularity of the war at home, because of Westmoreland's thinking that the war could be won with "more troops". The real shining light of Vietnam War was the eventual perfection of Close Air Support, and coordinated air-ground attack strategy (both of which eventually led to the Coalition's victory in the First Persian Gulf War).

Indeed. But it can be said that no deployment or usage of air power could have "won" the war in Vietnam unless the Washington-installed target restrictions had been lifted. Close Air Support could have worked in Vietnam as you say, but it didn't when the USAF and the USN were pitted against the vast amounts of Sino-Soviet equipment that could only be attacked at the least desirable points (on the Ho Chi Minh trail and elsewhere), if they could be attacked at all.

Note: The Iraqi Armed Forces were not on a par with the North Vietnamese either in terms of command organisation or in terms of equipment, but it is a good point.

[The Greater Luthorian Empire]

What kind of range are we talking about? Also is the range due to the missiles themselves or their guidance system, if its the latter it could give added benefit to longer range missiles that only bombers can carry like the Tu-160.

Range depends on the model; for the latest systems in widespread service, the Kh-31P has a range of 110 km, and the AGM-88 HARM has a range of 150 km.

All else held equal, an anti-radiation missile will have a longer range than a comparable active-radar missile, as the seeker consumes less battery power and is chasing after a direct radar signal rather than a reflected one. One can design a missile to be fired from beyond the range of its terminal seeker by installing an initial inertial stage (i.e., missile flies in the target's general direction, then homes in on the first return it picks up); and some ARMs like the AGM-88 will use backup inertial guidance to continue flying in a radar's last reported direction if the radar was turned off. Nonetheless, it doesn't appear that anti-radiation variants of the Kh-55, CJ-10, Tomahawk, or other comparable cruise missiles were ever developed. For the SEAD role, you're generally better off using multiroles or dedicated mid-size strike aircraft, preferably ones with a high speed, good low-altitude capabilities, and good electronic warfare equipment.

Thanks. For using aircraft for SAM hunting SEAD roles are there any particular traits I should look for in my aircraft, superior electronic detection systems, superior speed, superior maneuverability? Also what application could I use heavy supersonic bombers like the Tu-22, Tu-160, or B-1B for? I would like to use them if possible, and it seems like they might be more useful in the SEAD role as they can carry more munitions while still being very fast. If a multi-role fighter can carry 6 anti-radiation missiles, a heavy supersonic bomber might be able to carry 48 missiles giving it much more time hitting the enemy before it has to head home and re-arm by which point the enemy will probably be on full alert.

Barring that would there be any point to using supersonic bombers as simple heavy bombers, still carrying out interdiction and logistical strike missions?

[Rich and Corporations]

http://cryptome.org/2014/06/one-dead-pilot.pdf

Two engine debate again. So.

I say two engines.

The pilot is worth several times more than the craft.

[Triplebaconation]

Just imagine what a single blocked container ship could do, it would do wonders in terms of the cutting of the Viet Cong's supply chain, a blocked container ship, followed by the continued use of Airpower against the Ho Chi Minh trail, could have destroyed the Viet Cong's ability to continue operations against ARVN, and would allow for the Paris Peace Talks to continue without the increased threat of another Tet Offensive.

What if the US had declared a military exclusion zone around Vietnam's coast leaving any vessel within it liable to attack? Sure, the Soviets might have deployed large fleets on one or two occasions as a show of force but the supply chain would have been severely restricted.

This is a very juvenile view. Linebacker was only one reason the North was willing to make concessions. The others included Nixon's entente with the socialist world, most importantly the SALT talks and his visit to China in 1972. Pressure was applied on the North from China and the USSR, and there was fear of international isolation..

Should Nixon have abandoned his broader policy goals to cut off "Viet Cong" supplies?

[EsToVnIa]

vrooosh

[Rich and Corporations]

What if the US had declared a military exclusion zone around Vietnam's coast leaving any vessel within it liable to attack? Sure, the Soviets might have deployed large fleets on one or two occasions as a show of force but the supply chain would have been severely restricted.

This is a very juvenile view. Linebacker was only one reason the North was willing to make concessions. The others included Nixon's entente with the socialist world, most importantly the SALT talks and his visit to China in 1972. Pressure was applied on the North from China and the USSR, and there was fear of international isolation..

Should Nixon have abandoned his broader policy goals to cut off "Viet Cong" supplies?

No, I do not think Nixon should have defeated the USSR and win the Cold War. Vietnam is far more dangerous an entity.

Although he successfully destroyed the Viet Cong.

[Organized States]

What if the US had declared a military exclusion zone around Vietnam's coast leaving any vessel within it liable to attack? Sure, the Soviets might have deployed large fleets on one or two occasions as a show of force but the supply chain would have been severely restricted.

This is a very juvenile view. Linebacker was only one reason the North was willing to make concessions. The others included Nixon's entente with the socialist world, most importantly the SALT talks and his visit to China in 1972. Pressure was applied on the North from China and the USSR, and there was fear of international isolation..

Should Nixon have abandoned his broader policy goals to cut off "Viet Cong" supplies?

If he really wanted to "win", it would have taken more than him and SAC were willing to commit, and thus with the increasing unpopularity of the war, another Linebacker mission wouldn't have been very well welcomed by the public. Besides, he had far more important things to worry about than Vietnam (like spying on the Democratic Party ).

[Imperializt Russia]

http://cryptome.org/2014/06/one-dead-pilot.pdf

Two engine debate again. So.

I say two engines.

The pilot is worth several times more than the craft.

The analysis, though valid, is a little simplistic, partly for the limitations of the USAF safety centre's figures. While it tells you that a Class A Mishap is a pilot fatality and/or total airframe loss (or $1mn damage bill, which is, I assume, a write-off of the airframe), there is no breakdown available of that. One could argue that for all we know, in modern single-engine aircraft, fewer pilots are killed in single-engine Class A Mishaps and the figure is predominantly airframe losses. Twin-engine aircraft suffer fewer Class A Mishaps because of the secondary engine, but perhaps these are more catastrophic incidents in which pilot fatalities occur.

The incidents additionally do not include bird strike, which is a significant cause of engine failures.

[Bratislavskaya]

Hey, I'm not that good with air forces, but here is mine. I would like people to suggest improvements and roles I don't have covered etc:
Fighters:
PAK-FA (Some, no many)
Su-27
Su-33 (For Carriers)
MiG-31
Attack Aircraft:
Su-39
Helicopters:
Ka-50
Mi-35
Mi-17
Ka-27
Ka-60
Strategic Bombers:
Tu-22M
Tu-160
Transport Aircraft:
An-2
An-225
An-12
An-124
VTOL:
Yak-38 (For Assault Ships, due to lack of a replacement)

Any criticism is welcome.

[Imperializt Russia]

I'd personally consider the Tu-22M less a strategic bomber and more of a strike bomber.
It certainly doesn't hold a candle to aircraft like the Tu-95 or Tu-160.

Incidentally, the Su-34 (and limited, on-the-way-out Su-24) could make for interesting acquisitions for attack aircraft. The Fullback and Fencer (-34 and -24 respectively) are both strike aircraft capable of a variety of roles including electronic warfare and reconnaissance.

[Bratislavskaya]

I'd personally consider the Tu-22M less a strategic bomber and more of a strike bomber.
It certainly doesn't hold a candle to aircraft like the Tu-95 or Tu-160.

Incidentally, the Su-34 (and limited, on-the-way-out Su-24) could make for interesting acquisitions for attack aircraft. The Fullback and Fencer (-34 and -24 respectively) are both strike aircraft capable of a variety of roles including electronic warfare and reconnaissance.

I was thinking about using Tu-160's anyway, so I will add them to the list.

[Organized States]

Hey, I'm not that good with air forces, but here is mine. I would like people to suggest improvements and roles I don't have covered etc:
Fighters:
PAK-FA (Some, no many)
Su-27
Su-33 (For Carriers)
MiG-31
Attack Aircraft:
Su-39
Helicopters:
Ka-50
Mi-35
Mi-17
Ka-27
Ka-60
Strategic Bombers:
Tu-22M
Tu-160
Transport Aircraft:
An-2
An-225
An-12
An-124
VTOL:
Yak-38 (For Assault Ships, due to lack of a replacement)

Any criticism is welcome.

I suggest the acquisition of some Il-38s (maritime patrol), and maybe some Beriev A-50s or another AEW&C platform.

[Rich and Corporations]

http://cryptome.org/2014/06/one-dead-pilot.pdf

Two engine debate again. So.

I say two engines.

The pilot is worth several times more than the craft.

The analysis, though valid, is a little simplistic, partly for the limitations of the USAF safety centre's figures. While it tells you that a Class A Mishap is a pilot fatality and/or total airframe loss (or $1mn damage bill, which is, I assume, a write-off of the airframe), there is no breakdown available of that. One could argue that for all we know, in modern single-engine aircraft, fewer pilots are killed in single-engine Class A Mishaps and the figure is predominantly airframe losses. Twin-engine aircraft suffer fewer Class A Mishaps because of the secondary engine, but perhaps these are more catastrophic incidents in which pilot fatalities occur.

The incidents additionally do not include bird strike, which is a significant cause of engine failures.

"During the 26 years of operation, about one-quarter of Canada’s 110 Starfighter crashes were attributed to bird strikes."

Yeah, 34 pages and no detail on bird strikes. Go figure.

[Imperializt Russia]

The analysis, though valid, is a little simplistic, partly for the limitations of the USAF safety centre's figures. While it tells you that a Class A Mishap is a pilot fatality and/or total airframe loss (or $1mn damage bill, which is, I assume, a write-off of the airframe), there is no breakdown available of that. One could argue that for all we know, in modern single-engine aircraft, fewer pilots are killed in single-engine Class A Mishaps and the figure is predominantly airframe losses. Twin-engine aircraft suffer fewer Class A Mishaps because of the secondary engine, but perhaps these are more catastrophic incidents in which pilot fatalities occur.

The incidents additionally do not include bird strike, which is a significant cause of engine failures.

"During the 26 years of operation, about one-quarter of Canada’s 110 Starfighter crashes were attributed to bird strikes."

Yeah, 34 pages and no detail on bird strikes. Go figure.

That's the Starfighter, to which I am not referring.
For most of his figures, he's citing the USAF Safety Centre, which he repeatedly states does not feature bird strikes in its tallying of Class A Mishaps. I know it doesn't, since I posted the figures here the last time this topic was debated.

[Voltrovia]

This is a very juvenile view. Linebacker was only one reason the North was willing to make concessions. The others included Nixon's entente with the socialist world, most importantly the SALT talks and his visit to China in 1972. Pressure was applied on the North from China and the USSR, and there was fear of international isolation..

Should Nixon have abandoned his broader policy goals to cut off "Viet Cong" supplies?

The view I gave was very simplistically presented and, on its own, could certainly be described as juvenile. In fact, left as is, I'd actually agree with you that it probably wasn't the best outlined concept ever posted in haste on a forum. The rationale behind the possibility, if explained properly, is not necessarily so juvenile however: I was suggesting that had Nixon extended Linebacker for several more months and coupled it with the mining of North Vietnamese harbours to delay or destroy supplies before they arrived the ability of North Vietnam and the Viet Cong to wage war would have been severely diminished. This, along with the increased potency of the threat of American airpower being used to defend Thieu's government later (even if that threat was never carried through), could have resulted in the Paris Peace Accords having been at least partially upheld due to the immediate weakness the North would face and by challenging the Communist view that the US was on the way out and would simply leave Vietnam alone whatever happened subsequently. This could have delayed or even removed the possibility of the North rapidly invading and occupying the South as they did, although it's impossible to claim with any certainty.

If North Vietnam had been temporarily blockaded through minelaying alone as an extension of the doctrine already pursued in Linebacker it would likely have upset the Communist world, but it is hard to see how such a blockade (which would have only realistically delayed shipments of materiel anyway), unsupported by airpower at sea and not extremely difficult to dismantle, would cause the Chinese to halt cooperation and for SALT to be abandoned by the Soviets.

After all, cooperation with the Americans was critical to Mao's interests and something which he was very eager about - although only in order to create an axis against the Soviets and in order to receive American aid and military-economic support. Mao even advocated in earnest the deployment of American nuclear missiles in China at one stage. I doubt the Chinese government would have simply stopped engaging with the Americans if the final offensives of the Vietnam War were extended for several months. Also, it's unlikely it would have undermined the Paris Peace Accords at a later stage if only because the North Vietnamese would have been even weaker at that stage.

In addition, while we can never know what the implications would have been, for the USSR would have to publicly abandon SALT I, which they had already concluded in the Interim Agreement in May 1972, which would be a major step, to say the least. Of course we never will know or be able to legitimately claim what the implications would have been, but it's just an opinion.

Edit: Nixon visited China in early 1972 and the SALT talks were concluded in May, two weeks after Operation Linebacker began in full force. I'm not going to speculate, but I'll happily admit that dragging the Vietnam War on for another few months - whatever the results - wouldn't have been at all popular at home or abroad.

[Triplebaconation]

Mining harbors is a bit different than sinking Soviet ships, which is what you advocated originally.

In fact, all North Vietnamese harbors and a good deal of inland waterways were mined extensively in 1972.

[Vitaphone Racing]

http://cryptome.org/2014/06/one-dead-pilot.pdf

Two engine debate again. So.

I say two engines.

The pilot is worth several times more than the craft.

Ejecto Seato Cuz!

[Voltrovia]

Mining harbors is a bit different than sinking Soviet ships, which is what you advocated originally.

In fact, all North Vietnamese harbors and a good deal of inland waterways were mined extensively in 1972.

What I advocated originally was simplistic and slightly stupid. Especially so because I read up on the issue and found that the Soviets drew up contingency plans to break blockades with the use of force as early as 1967. In terms of mines, I'm talking about extending the minelaying operation into early 1973 as well.

[Organized States]

http://airbushelicoptersinc.com/product ... roduct.asp

The beauty of the mighty UH-72! I don't know why, but I really like the looks of this bird...

[Triplebaconation]

wip

[Gallia-]

erm erm whats with al these single seat Things ):