gillan1220
Fleet admiral
I've been depressed recently. Slow replies coming in the next few days.
Posts: 12,609 
Likes: 11,326
|
Post by gillan1220 on Jul 14, 2021 14:07:08 GMT
Exactly! I remember there was a post in 2019 showing an 18-year old Hispanic-American who just graduated from Marine bootcamp and earned his Globe, Eagle, and Anchor. His next assignment: Afghanistan. The post even mentioned that he was born in November 2001, meaning he wasn't even born during 9/11 itself and now he is fighting a war he does not even really know what caused it.I’ve seen that last idea on a few occasions and each time I’m flabbergasted at the sheer silliness of it. Someone being born after 2001 doesn’t mean that they have not - learnt about it, - absorbed the constant references to it in popular culture, - read about it - and been informed about it after volunteering to join the USMC. This type of notion makes American soldiers and marines look at once both pig ignorant of the most pivotal event of the last generation; and utterly infantile in that they can’t be considered capable of personal agency. You aren’t the author of that type of post, so I don’t want to seem like I’m being cross at you; far from it. However it is quite insulting to the young men going out to war to presume they are clueless puppets. It heartens back to some of the anti-war sound bites of 2001-2007, which constantly infantilised the soldiery of several countries and portrayed them as dumb youths ‘stuck in Iraq’. Yes the author of that post assumed all the 2000s Gen Z kids are clueless about this. The post was coming from a left-leaning anti-war platform. |
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on Jul 14, 2021 14:56:55 GMT
I would suggest that such sources are as unreliable now as they were in 2001/02. I remember similar chatter about soldiers in 2001, along with other quite silly journalistic commentary, such as British Guardian journos calling for the B-52s to be scrapped and nothing but food aid be dropped over Afghanistan.
|
|
gillan1220
Fleet admiral
I've been depressed recently. Slow replies coming in the next few days.
Posts: 12,609
Likes: 11,326
|
Post by gillan1220 on Jul 14, 2021 15:09:33 GMT
I would suggest that such sources are as unreliable now as they were in 2001/02. I remember similar chatter about soldiers in 2001, along with other quite silly journalistic commentary, such as British Guardian journos calling for the B-52s to be scrapped and nothing but food aid be dropped over Afghanistan. The Guardian is basically tabloid. Now regarding those B-52s dropping food, I guess a similar thing would happen with tabloid media here in an extended Vietnam War in the 1980s. |
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on Jul 14, 2021 15:28:53 GMT
The Grauniad is many things, but tabloid it is not.
It wasn’t calling for B-52s to drop food, but for them to be scrapped altogether.
Should the war continue, then there is a problem. The B-52Ds will be gone, having been thrashed by heavy use, and the B-52Gs will likely follow them. My initial point is salient here - you can’t simply transplant the ops of the 60s and 70s into the 1980s nor the weapons of the latter decade back to the old ways.
|
|
|
|
Post by La Rouge Beret on Jul 17, 2021 11:01:30 GMT
I think a better question would be, what American equipment will South Vietnam utilise in the 1980s? As South Vietnam will be carrying the lion's share of any direct combat role, stand fast any remaining American training and logistical support.
With that in mind, not too many new weapons systems will be fielded by the South Vietnamese. Perhaps the Minimi / Saw introduced, M 16A2 introduced into service, but can't see too many advantages to adding more advanced weapons systems to an under developed logistical network.
Possibly F 20 Tigersharks and A 4 Skyhawks in service, like their peers.
American support focused on ELINT support, training teams, logistical support and at a push direct air support.
Anyway that's my 2 cents.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 67,979
Likes: 49,385
|
Post by lordroel on Jul 17, 2021 11:13:41 GMT
Possibly F 20 Tigersharks and A 4 Skyhawks in service, like their peers. That is if the F-20 enters into service. |
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on Jul 17, 2021 15:39:22 GMT
A continuing RVNAF would certainly be based around the F-5 and A-4 into the 1980s, with these perhaps augmented by Phantoms transferred as aid. The replacement for the F-5 would likely be the F-16, as the precise circumstances leading to the F-20 are unlikely to coexist with a continuing Vietnam. No F-15s by 1985 or so, as that type of heavy cover would be provided by the resident USAF fighter wings.
As said earlier, the B-52s won’t be around in the same numbers as ‘72, but some strike capacity is needed. A possible effect is a larger F-111/FB-111 order.
|
|
gillan1220
Fleet admiral
I've been depressed recently. Slow replies coming in the next few days.
Posts: 12,609
Likes: 11,326
|
Post by gillan1220 on Jul 17, 2021 15:49:30 GMT
A continuing RVNAF would certainly be based around the F-5 and A-4 into the 1980s, with these perhaps augmented by Phantoms transferred as aid. The replacement for the F-5 would likely be the F-16, as the precise circumstances leading to the F-20 are unlikely to coexist with a continuing Vietnam. No F-15s by 1985 or so, as that type of heavy cover would be provided by the resident USAF fighter wings. As said earlier, the B-52s won’t be around in the same numbers as ‘72, but some strike capacity is needed. A possible effect is a larger F-111/FB-111 order. F-16s would greatly counter the MiG-21. However, due to the butterflies, the F-20 may see light in the USAF but not in Vietnam. Since the B-52s would be gone, the USAF would likely use the B-1 Lancer and the F-111 as you said. Another great testing ground here is the F-117 Nighthawk to see how stealth would work against Soviet SAM systems. |
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on Jul 17, 2021 16:10:57 GMT
As said earlier, the B-1B was not a conventional bomber. The main purpose of bombers was not to drop iron bombs, but nuclear warfare. Everything else is secondary.
|
|
belushitd
Warrant Officer
Posts: 205
Likes: 258
|
Post by belushitd on Jul 18, 2021 20:56:57 GMT
With the B-52s production run being completed in 1962, we're not going to see any new ones produced. If the hours on the airframes mean that they start risking losses due to structural failure, reconstruction of the planes is a possibility. However, F-4s were in production until 1985. I suspect the B-52s would be retired, additional B-1s would be constructed to fill out the SIOP, and additional F-4s would be built in order to provide the bomb truck aspect of the B-52.
Belushi TD
|
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on Jul 19, 2021 12:12:31 GMT
I agree - no new B-52s.
An extended Vietnam will probably see the B-52Ds go in 1978 rather than 1982/83. The Gs and Hs are good for extended future use, unless the Gs are flogged further over SE Asia. A bomb truck is needed and the Phantom can haul iron. However, for a combination of capacity, performance and precision, the F-111 and particularly the FB-111H proposals offer some very tantalising capabilities.
|
|
oscssw
Senior chief petty officer
Posts: 967
Likes: 1,575
|
Post by oscssw on Jul 19, 2021 14:13:50 GMT
I am really late to this discussion. As you folks know I fought in Nam. I was there for Tet and a while after.
We did not "loose" that war because our weapons were inadequate.
We did not loose that war because US troops did not fight well.
We did not loose that war because our mid and senior level career military officers were incompetent.
Tet proved that.
We lost because of the ROE were based on a political decision not to fight a decisive war. That POS McNamara made that clear in his book. If you don't believe me read his book "In Retrospect: The Tragedy and Lessons of Vietnam" .
If you need more convincing read General Võ Nguyên Giáp's book in which he states the Tet offensive an utter disaster and he expected to be ordered to Hanoi to get a bullet in his head. If you don't believe me read his book "Military Art of People's War."
Sorry guys but thinking about Nam makes me crazier than usual. 
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 67,979
Likes: 49,385
|
Post by lordroel on Jul 19, 2021 14:18:00 GMT
I am really late to this discussion. As you folks know I fought in Nam. I was there for Tet and a while after.
As always thanks for your service Senior Chief. |
|
belushitd
Warrant Officer
Posts: 205
Likes: 258
|
Post by belushitd on Jul 19, 2021 14:58:40 GMT
I agree - no new B-52s. An extended Vietnam will probably see the B-52Ds go in 1978 rather than 1982/83. The Gs and Hs are good for extended future use, unless the Gs are flogged further over SE Asia. A bomb truck is needed and the Phantom can haul iron. However, for a combination of capacity, performance and precision, the F-111 and particularly the FB-111H proposals offer some very tantalising capabilities. DAMMIT! I had a nifty little post put together and my internet dropped and I lost it. *grumble* I will see if I can recreate it. I must admit I had not thought of using the F-111 as a bomb truck. I am having trouble finding equivalent costs in the same year dollars to compare the F-4 and the F-111. It appears, however, that the F-111 is upwards of three times the cost of an F-4. It might end up that extra planes of both types would be procured in order to provide a hi-low answer to the problem of having to scrap the clapped out B-52s. Or, as a means to avoid clapping out the later models and saving the time on the airframes. Use the F-111s to strike heavily defended targets where speed might be of assistance to avoid AAA or SAMs and use the F-4 to attack targets that are less well defended. Belushi TD |
|
gillan1220
Fleet admiral
I've been depressed recently. Slow replies coming in the next few days.
Posts: 12,609
Likes: 11,326
|
Post by gillan1220 on Jul 19, 2021 15:07:18 GMT
I agree - no new B-52s. An extended Vietnam will probably see the B-52Ds go in 1978 rather than 1982/83. The Gs and Hs are good for extended future use, unless the Gs are flogged further over SE Asia. A bomb truck is needed and the Phantom can haul iron. However, for a combination of capacity, performance and precision, the F-111 and particularly the FB-111H proposals offer some very tantalising capabilities. DAMMIT! I had a nifty little post put together and my internet dropped and I lost it. *grumble* I will see if I can recreate it. I must admit I had not thought of using the F-111 as a bomb truck. I am having trouble finding equivalent costs in the same year dollars to compare the F-4 and the F-111. It appears, however, that the F-111 is upwards of three times the cost of an F-4. It might end up that extra planes of both types would be procured in order to provide a hi-low answer to the problem of having to scrap the clapped out B-52s. Or, as a means to avoid clapping out the later models and saving the time on the airframes. Use the F-111s to strike heavily defended targets where speed might be of assistance to avoid AAA or SAMs and use the F-4 to attack targets that are less well defended. Belushi TD With the F-111 in use, I wonder if the F-117 could also be tested in this extended Vietnam War. |
|
