|
|
Post by simon darkshade on Jul 19, 2021 15:21:12 GMT
The F-117 is a Cold War ace in the hole. It was unveiled in 1988, when the CW had definitely begun to thaw. In a differing circumstance, I don’t believe you’d see it publicly unveiled and certainly not used in air warfare over South Vietnam.
Gillan, you often seem to suggest the use of this weapon or that in a very modern context. In a different kind of war and in a different time, I don’t think these are viable. Rather than say “I wonder if the F-117 would be tested?”, think of what it was for and what the big focus of the time was. There would be modern weapons used in Vietnam Ongoing, but it isn’t The Big Threat. Instead, their role is incidental, not central.
|
|
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 15:25:38 GMT
The F-117 is a Cold War ace in the hole. It was unveiled in 1988, when the CW had definitely begun to thaw. In a differing circumstance, I don’t believe you’d see it publicly unveiled and certainly not used in air warfare over South Vietnam. Gillan, you often seem to suggest the use of this weapon or that in a very modern context. In a different kind of war and in a different time, I don’t think these are viable. Rather than say “I wonder if the F-117 would be tested?”, think of what it was for and what the big focus of the time was. There would be modern weapons used in Vietnam Ongoing, but it isn’t The Big Threat. Instead, their role is incidental, not central. Right, I kinda forgot if the Nighthawk would be delayed or butterflied away due to the ongoing Vietnam War. |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 67,979
Likes: 49,385
|
Post by lordroel on Jul 19, 2021 15:27:20 GMT
The F-117 is a Cold War ace in the hole. It was unveiled in 1988, when the CW had definitely begun to thaw. In a differing circumstance, I don’t believe you’d see it publicly unveiled and certainly not used in air warfare over South Vietnam. Gillan, you often seem to suggest the use of this weapon or that in a very modern context. In a different kind of war and in a different time, I don’t think these are viable. Rather than say “I wonder if the F-117 would be tested?”, think of what it was for and what the big focus of the time was. There would be modern weapons used in Vietnam Ongoing, but it isn’t The Big Threat. Instead, their role is incidental, not central. Right, I kinda forgot if the Nighthawk would be delayed or butterflied away due to the ongoing Vietnam War. Think the Lockheed F-117 Nighthawk would not be effected by a ongoing Vietnam War, just not used over North Vietnam. |
|
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 15:32:03 GMT
Right, I kinda forgot if the Nighthawk would be delayed or butterflied away due to the ongoing Vietnam War. Think the Lockheed F-117 Nighthawk would not be effected by a ongoing Vietnam War, just not used over North Vietnam. If I read correctly, F-117 Nighthawks were meant to penetrate Soviet air defenses in the event of a World War III breaking out in Europe. |
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on Jul 19, 2021 15:40:52 GMT
Yes, Lordroel is right. It isn’t going to be butterflies, but the US is not going to just deploy its frontline weapons in a long term support role over South Vietnam. It just isn’t needed nor appropriate.
I’d say the force structure would be:
1 carrier battle group in the area; not quite on the same tempo as 60s/70s ops on Yankee Station, but still flying missions when needed
A battleship offshore for fire support
2 TFWs in South Vietnam, one of F-15s to provide air superiority and one of A-7s for ground pounding
2 TFWs in Thailand, one of F-111s and and one of F-4E (later F-16s) for fighter-bomber missions
Perhaps a squadron of FB-111Hs at Clark AFB for Arc Lite missions (pun intended)
B-52Gs in Guam for emergencies
USMC MEU standing by out on Yankee Station, just in case
|
|
belushitd
Warrant Officer
Posts: 205
Likes: 258
|
Post by belushitd on Jul 19, 2021 15:47:28 GMT
You really think they'd deploy F-15s to Vietnam? At least early in the procurement process when there's very few squadrons of them around? I'd think they'd build them as fast as they can afford, and equip the squadrons that are facing the A-team (the Russians) in Europe, rather than send them to face the B or C team in Vietnam. Sure, transfer the F-4s the F-15 replaced to Vietnam, but would they really use the F-15 there? Almost seems overkill. If you want to use more modern weapons, why not send a few squadrons of F-14s with Phoenix missiles? Instead of doing dogfighting for air superiority, have a few flights of F-14s standing by off the coast, and anytime you see something take off, shoot a couple phoenix at it!
I can see A-7s being used. Possibly even more squadrons raised, with more A-7s being purchased. Didn't think about that before. Might see more A-4s produced as well, for transfer to the Vietnamese Air Force.
Belushi TD
|
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on Jul 19, 2021 15:59:33 GMT
Belushi,
Yes. With an active war, having the capacity to cycle Eagle drivers through a combat tour could be quite useful. Additionally, there is the precedent of the F-15s at Kadena, which frequently deployed to South Korea. The Soviets aren’t going to stand still and not supply their proxy with more modern MiGs in an ongoing war.
The A-7s are very well suited to CAS.
Simon
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 67,979
Likes: 49,385
|
Post by lordroel on Jul 19, 2021 16:01:52 GMT
Belushi, Yes. With an active war, having the capacity to cycle Eagle drivers through a combat tour could be quite useful. Additionally, there is the precedent of the F-15s at Kadena, which frequently deployed to South Korea. The Soviets aren’t going to stand still and not supply their proxy with more modern MiGs in an ongoing war. The A-7s are very well suited to CAS. Simon North Korea might end up becoming jealous and also sending some of their pilots to do some live training over North Vietnam.. |
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on Jul 19, 2021 17:13:37 GMT
Why would North Korea be jealous and of whom? The USAF?
Having said that, the Norks did send a fighter squadron to serve in the Vietnam War in @…to no major effect.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 67,979
Likes: 49,385
|
Post by lordroel on Jul 19, 2021 17:17:13 GMT
Why would North Korea be jealous and of whom? The USAF? Having said that, the Norks did send a fighter squadron to serve in the Vietnam War in @…to no major effect. If North Vietnam get more and better Russian planes than what they are flying. |
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on Jul 19, 2021 17:23:40 GMT
If that occurred, surely their logical reaction would be to try and get those planes themselves, a la Red Phoenix by Larry Bond.
|
|
|
|
Post by La Rouge Beret on Jul 20, 2021 0:51:17 GMT
The North Vietnamese Air Force acquired Mig 23s in the 1980s and their introduction was used by the RTAF to justify acquiring F - 16s. In saying that a mixed force of F - 5Es and A 4 Skyhawks will be adequate for the South Vietnamese Air Force, once their capability is supplemented by the USAF either F - 15s or F 16s or even F - 4Es. In saying that the South Vietnamese would certainly be participating in the Cope Thunder exercises.
However, the key point that the ARVN need would be improved training leading to greater unit cohesion, along with improving their logistical network and refreshing doctrine / tactics to match the evolved North Vietnamese threat.
All in all, I see a continued American involvement in South Vietnam as providing key niche capabilities to the South Vietnamese state that augment their organic skill sets.
|
|
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 20, 2021 6:38:52 GMT
Belushi, Yes. With an active war, having the capacity to cycle Eagle drivers through a combat tour could be quite useful. Additionally, there is the precedent of the F-15s at Kadena, which frequently deployed to South Korea. The Soviets aren’t going to stand still and not supply their proxy with more modern MiGs in an ongoing war. The A-7s are very well suited to CAS. Simon So if the A-7 would see action in Vietnam, so would the Su-25 Frogfoot? Which is the Soviet equivalent of the A-10. Why would North Korea be jealous and of whom? The USAF? Having said that, the Norks did send a fighter squadron to serve in the Vietnam War in @…to no major effect. North Korean deployment to Vietnam was more of symbolic than strategic. It was meant to show that North Korea would aid their fraternal socialists against "American imperialism". The North Vietnamese Air Force acquired Mig 23s in the 1980s and their introduction was used by the RTAF to justify acquiring F - 16s. In saying that a mixed force of F - 5Es and A 4 Skyhawks will be adequate for the South Vietnamese Air Force, once their capability is supplemented by the USAF either F - 15s or F 16s or even F - 4Es. In saying that the South Vietnamese would certainly be participating in the Cope Thunder exercises. I was born on the wrong era. Some Gen Xers and Boomers here in the Philippines still remember when Cope Thunder Exercises occurred here in the Philippines from the late 1970s all the way to 1991. Usually this involved units from the United States, Thailand, Australia, New Zealand, and Singapore. In this alternate scenario, the Republic of Vietnam Air Force would no doubt be included in this. In addition, perhaps SEATO is not dissolved. |
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on Jul 20, 2021 9:27:32 GMT
I can’t see the Su-25 being used. Why? The North Vietnamese do not have air superiority over South Vietnam, so slow ground attack/CAS planes are not a starter.
|
|
miletus12
Squadron vice admiral
To get yourself lost, just follow the signs.
Posts: 7,470 
Likes: 4,295
|
Post by miletus12 on Dec 10, 2021 7:28:51 GMT
I asked in the other forum an AHC where the Vietnam War drags on to the 1980s. Like most topics, the weaponry is less important than the human beings involved. The upgrade in American technology would be countered by Russian and Warsaw Pact upgrades as a rule. One does not see the overmatch until the Americans gain in training and doctrine maturity in the early 1990s. Chroming the barrel, teaching the soldiers to clean after every action or shooting event and using a less corrosive propellant was the changes as Stoner suggested. The feed assist was a cosmetic change of no real functional use. Otherwise; the rifle has been basically the same platform Stoner gave to the USAF and which the American army adopted. the three round burst option became necessary because the soldiers could not maintain semi-auto fire discipline no matter how intensely taught. 1. Too heavy for ground conditions was the M2 bradley, it would bog. 2. I observed M-1 Abrams tanks operate in swamps. Nope. Strykers might be preferred. 3. The problem with MIGs would be solved with better air to air missiles and reversion to classic air combat energy tactics as Walter Boyd urged in the early 1970s. The planes (F-4s) were good enough. it was the pilot training, air combat tactics and missiles which were terrible. SAMs and AAA are stgill going to be trouble as the SA-6 and ZSU 23 and 57s come online. Same solution; Wild Weasels, ARM missiles and the SEAD / KEAD packages. See previous comments. |
|
