No, it doesn’t need any pit stops. Where are you getting this from? It has the range to go to and from Benghazi without refueling. A tanker allows a single F-16 to stay in the area and take on additional fuel.
Why would you postulate a continuously loitering f-16? What scenario do you see this playing out that requires this? It’s a handful of hostile attackers.
Again, the F-16’s were rejected because of time. Were discussing time. This is what you’re arguing over and not the logistics behind the time. You don’t understand it and that’s fine. I’ll make it clearer. It takes X amount of time to get the planes there. They did not know what the time frame was in order to reject X amount of time but they launched support aircraft from the US which required 5X amount of time to get there.
what’s your reason for posting when you clearly don’t know anything at all about aircraft and ignore the report. People were told not to attempt a rescue. This was after relocating the people to safety they were suppose to protect. People who were not under attack in the first place. Aircraft were not launched from a much closer location and the reason was given was time yet they launched assets that were 5 times the distance.
If you don’t want to debate then don’t. It’s a poor debate tactic to attack the debater with a rant.
I agree. Although I wouldn’t characterize what I said as a rant. I’d say I’m trying to figure out what is motivating you to keep fighting a battle you’ve long since lost.
F-16s and motorcycle spec-ops aren’t good ideas. They aren’t something that a professional would suggest. Yet you keep pretending that your position is sound and attacking the administration for not enacting such rubbish. I’d like to know, why you think you are more knowledgeable than sitting generals and all the experts.
Don’t you think that when every single expert anyone can cite thinks you’re wrong, you should take a second to re-evaluate your ideas?
People were told not to attempt a rescue. This was after relocating the people to safety they were suppose to protect. People who were not under attack in the first place. Aircraft were not launched from a much closer location and the reason was given was time yet they launched assets that were 5 times the distance.
… Yes. With a range of 300 miles, it can go 700 miles without refueling. That is, indeed, how numbers work.
Because you’re the one who brought up loitering weapons platforms, remember ? Don’t blame me for *your *shit. I got plenty of my own, I don’t do charity.
That attacked eight hours later. Or got pushed back within 30 minutes, depending on which attackers you’re talking about.
So, and I want you to put down what you’re doing and concentrate on the sound of my voice because this is complicated algebra I’m about to lay down on you : if the F-16 is launched 20 minutes after the initial attack, as you’re screaming it has to, OK ? And it takes 3 hours to get there, right ? And the follow-up attack it’s here to prevent happens at an indeterminate point in the future, which we now know is 8 hours, still with me ? Then the lone F-16 has to stay in flight over Benghazi for… ?
Nobody give him the answer ! He has to figure it on his own, or he won’t learn. No looking at CannyDan’s answer sheet, either.
Oh, and since we’re playing your game : if they have no idea of the timeline and have to send EVERYTHING RIGHT NOW GOGOGO just in case, then they don’t know it’s a handful of guys with a mortar, either. So your “it’s a handful of hostile attackers” argument falls on its ass, by your own “logic”.
The public can’t hide its unabashed surprise at this unforeseen development.
that’s not the range of an F-16. It has the range for a round trip. It’s not going into combat requiring the fuel needed to take on other aircraft. It doesn’t require afterburners to get there. What don’t you understand about this? The plane has twice the range needed to get there. That alone, without a tanker gives them an hour of loiter time plus an alternate airport for a fuel stop. What kind of scenario do you see needed with an attack by a small group of people. It gives them the option of launching a small weapon at a narrow target area. It could have been something as simple as moving the embassy people into building A and firing on embassy building B. The more assets that are brought to the area, the more scenarios available to work with.
now you’re back to trying to justify a decision based on 20/20 hindsight. You keep dodging the question. The ability to get a plane there was never a question. It was the time involved. It was simply dismissed yet they pulled another team out of the United States. If you don’t want to debate then don’t but you’re dodging the issue of time.
It’s 1,000 statute miles and at a 575 mile an hour cruise it’s about an 1hr 45 minutes. Add 45 minutes to fuel, brief and hang weapons and you’re at 2:30 to location. Stagger additional aircraft if Italy rejects a tanker request and you have continuous coverage while the F-16’s take turns refueling at local regional airports (remember, Libya has agreed to work with us).
Now follow me closely because this is important, they didn’t know the time frame involved. You don’t seem to grasp that it’s not a function of not being able to get a plane in the air. It’s about launching them in order to have options available.
You keep dodging the question. The great generals and experts who can do no wrong decided to launch a team from the United States which was 5000 miles away. And they didn’t launch the shorter distanced option.
Once more (once more) with feeling : if it has that range, it doesn’t have a small weapon. It doesn’t have a large weapon. It doesn’t have a weapon. Ferrying range means no weapons. Not armed. Unarmed. Offensive-option free. Bombs taboo big big voodoo no distance. Him big strong brave take boom logs, him no water in sky horse.
Do you get this ? I’m not sure how you keep speeding into that wall again, and again, and again. I’m trying. Please, please tell me you have internalized this before I have to start carving it into a sledgehammer.
Yes. Which precludes fighter jets coming in half-assed from Aviano, since they’d have to stay up there forever to counter a putative threat that hadn’t materialized. Remember, if it takes 45 minutes to prep a plane, then by the time the pilot’s kissing one of his local girls goodbye in a strangely homoerotic way, the initial attack has been reported over 15 minutes ago. You’re talking about preventing the random mortar strike.
This *is *about time, not hindsight.
No. With weapons, at 2:30 you’re learning to swim.
Lybia can agree to whatever it wants (though considering they were leery of even a handful of grunts in US uniforms for fear of bad local press, I shouldn’t think they’d be fine with carte blanche to Operation Star Sprangled Bomb Our Shit), no Air Force pilot is going to agree to land in a possibly compromised airport with zero US personnel to cover their asses.
No USAF General is going to allow his planes to land in Bumfuq, Lybia without any trust in (or real info on) the local conditions, or even knowing whether they even *can *get refueled at all or be stranded there with the angry locals.
And no Secretary of Defense is going to let latest-block Air Force airframes land at a foreign airport, military or otherwise, with no US personnel, amenities and so forth to pull security. Never. Not now, not tomorrow, not if the Russians are pouring through the Fulda gap.
International military matters are not run like a county bowling league. You can’t just crash on peoples’ couch over the WE to save on gas money.
And precisely because they don’t know the time frame involved, the F-16s have to stay in the air forever. Which they can’t.
With your scenario as-corrected-for-material-facts, that is to say hop in with just cannon to fight close to the edge of range, either the F-16s luck into a cannon target 10 minutes in with no ground assets to designate, or they have to RTB. Great plan. Shockingly overlooked, I agree.
Yup. A team of 50 infantrymen, sent to bolster security for the foreseeable future. So, *not *strafing fighter planes. What were they thinking ?!
Just checking the thread to see if I need to debunk any more of Magiver’s ridiculous proposals. Like the chain of sequential F-16s that arrive every half hour burning fumes and capable of minimal airspeed and maneuverability, only to expend a 2 second burst of 20mm rounds at anything near the annex based not on targeting but on whatever direction the plane takes on its single pass over the city before it suicides into the Med rather than surrender the aircraft to a foreign power by landing on said foreign power’s airport.
But no, I see that **Kobal2[/]b] is handling things quite well and I’m not needed. I think I’ll turn in for the night, safe and secure in the knowledge that Magiver isn’t in charge of US national security.
Sorry no, you don’t reduce the fuel range by a factor of 7 because a missile is hung on it. There is no reason to drag 2000 lb bombs around when the mission is against a small group. This is not a war. It’s to protect a small contingency of people. They get to fuel where they want and land where they want.
And once again, this was not listed as the reason for not using the F-16. It was time.
You don’t just “hang a missile” on it. The missile takes the place of a drop tank, the presence of which is factored in ferry range calculations. We’ve been telling you this over, and over, and over. Maybe you need purdy pikshures to understand ? An F-16 has 3 hard points per wing, plus 2 wingtips and a centerline. The wingtips can only carry A/A missiles. Centerline and the 2 near hardpoints are fuel tanks, 2 large ones, 2 small ones and a big fuck-off one. Like so (here, one small tank got jettisoned).
That leaves the exterior wing racks available, hardpoints 2 and 8 - which can only carry AMRAAMs. Those are further A/A weaponry, if you don’t know.
So yes, once more (once more) [once more] it is an either/or proposition. Fuel or weapons. Take your pick.
Also, there’s nothing smaller than an Mk.82 (the 500 lbs bomb you’re talking about) that you can tack onto an F-16. JDAMs and Paveways are just Mk82s (and 84s) with guidance crap bolted on. They can also bring Mavericks (a 600 lbs TV-guided A/G missile) to the party.
Everything else is just bigger and meaner. The Viper as fielded by the US does not carry the Hellfire or the even smaller Griffin - the Brits do use modified Hellfires on their Typhoons and call them Brimstone, but the US doesn’t.
And no, they most certainly don’t get to land wherever the fuck they please, much less in the Middle East. The US might be a world cultural hegemony, but it hasn’t conquered the entire planet. Yet.
Who specifically, and how would this rescue of yours have worked? *Extra points for logistically inept plans like dropping motorcycles with sidecars. *
If you cared even a bit about the reality of the situation, you’d see that the time objection, is because it would take hours, even if they flew off like your chuckle-fuck plan without any knowledge of what they were flying into.
And when they got there, the battle was over, and they’d have to land for lack of fuel. But that doesn’t matter to you, because you have delusions about a constant stream of tanker planes rotating in and sippy-cupping the F-16s which are doing nothing but burning fuel, flying over a friendly city without permission with 2 seconds of canon ammo that they can’t use effectively, hoping to pinpoint shot some militants while magically not shredding the neighborhood. It’s a stupid plan. You’re fighting for a course of action that smart people who know more than you think is pure nonsense.
And if they were shot down by local anti-aircraft, you’d be shrieking like an air-raid klaxon about how Hillary got the pilots killed. :rolleyes:
You just don’t grasp the complexity of situation, and that’s making you come up with ideologically driven should-woulda-couldas that make no sense at all.
The British totally have a way with naming weapons – with the exception of “Tornado,” that’s kind of lame. But the names of their ships? Awesome – Illustrious, Invincible, Daring, Dauntless, Audacious, Astute… I’m eagerly awaiting the launch of the HMS Narcissism in 2016!
How do you think the military planes that picked up the remaining embassy staff managed that feat if the Libyan government didn’t let them land. We had their cooperation.
You keep posting as if it’s some kind of miracle to fly an airplane from Italy. F-16’s were not rejected because they couldn’t make the trip. They were rejected because of the time involved.
