Again, according to the report the problem was time. They were rejected because of time. The tankers were closer to Libya and could have met them enroute over the Mediterranean. With a 2-1 ratio between ferrying clean and empty that still puts them in Libya with 1 fuel stop. So we’re back to time as the reason. And again, they brought up a team from the United States. It’s not logical to plan an option farther out in time while rejecting an earlier option.
If they were rejected for reasons other than time then that would be a different argument but they didn’t. It was never a function of not being able to use the plane. It was always a matter of time and they didn’t know the timeline in advance.
So the report was wrong to accept General Roberson’s claim that “aerial fueling arrangements so planes would have sufficient range to fly to Benghazi, loiter overhead, and then return to base” were necessary? Getting the plane to where it needs to be without it crashing from lack of fuel or arriving with no weapons is very much part of “being able to use the plane”. They couldn’t, in fact, make the trip while still serving as a combat aircraft.
You’re assuming that there’s some compromise between combat and ferry range that puts the aircraft over Benghazi* with a usable combat load and enough time to do something with it. You’ve offered no evidence for this, and ignored evidence to the contrary, such as that offered in post 1071.
It is indeed logical to reject the earlier option if it’s senseless, as an F-16 with drop tanks and cannon is.
though then there’s still the other issues, like SAMs and distinguishing friend from foe.
There’s a difference between landing a flying truck and a latest-tech combat jet. If it itsn’t immediately apparent to you, as would to anyone with a central nervous system : one you don’t care about and can use regular commercial fuel ; the other is full of military secrets you don’t want people to get a look at, and presumably eats military-grade fuel.
Furthermore, cooperation w/ an evacuation does not imply cooperation with a bombing run on a population center. Cooperation is not a binary toggle.
Yes. Because they didn’t have the range in any reasonable configuration, thus needed tankers flying slow to get in position ahead of them (or fly along with them, slowing the pace of the whole group), so couldn’t be there in TIME!!1/
it’s as if the word “again” has no meaning to you. Nowhere in the report does it say it was not possible. It was always a function of time. Whether it involved NATO tankers located midway between the 2 destinations, or a fuel stop situation in Italy/Libya, it’s still the same. We had cooperation with Libya to operate a FAST group which involves what again… time.
As for SAM’s, did that threat go away when aircraft arrived later in the day? Did it stop them from launching other aircraft?
You aren’t being coherent. They didn’t know. But they knew that F-16s would be useless. So since doing useless things is wasteful, they didn’t do it. It would have taken far too long to get the fighters there, and even if there, they couldn’t do anything useful, so they didn’t do it. Because, unlike you, they know what they’re doing, and don’t put US lives at risk for stupid, incoherent plans thought up by amateurs.
There were many HMS Narcissus, the latest of which being a Flower-class corvette, of a vast group of fighting ships with such ultra-butch names as the HMS Lavender , HMS Wallflower, and the HMS Candytuft.
Magiver, I am not one who often Pits other Dopers, but you have me worried, and I cannot address this issue in GD.
enjoy playing with yourself. This is a debate. I’ve stated my position clearly. The report shows they activated other aircraft that took longer to put into place and blew off the F-16’s because of time. You haven’t refuted that beyond a 20/20 hindsight justification.
It’s not a debate. A good definition of insanity is repeating the same action over and again while expecting a different result. This is a black hole of stupidity so dense that no light can escape, and it is certifiable insanity.
Already discussed. But it wasn’t dismissed for other reasons than time so not a point of debate.
So the question is simple. Can an F-16 travel from Aviano to Libya. Yes. It’s a function of time as to how long it takes to get there. Flown direct it’s 1 +45 enroute time at below mach cruise speed. Flown with a fuel stop by a tanker, add 30 minutes. Flown with a fuel stop in Sicily add 30-45 minutes. Want to extend loiter time add another plane and rotate with fuel stops at Tripoli. Nothing particularly complicated about this logistically.
So the next question is how much time do they have. The answer at the time was unknown. There’s the decision factor. Without knowing how long the fighting would last the correct decision is to launch what you’ve got in the hope it helps. The decision can’t be justified after the fact with 20/20 hindsight. That’s not how decisions are made but that’s how it’s being justified in this thread. And when logic fails the debate becomes “experts just know better”. Since it’s impossible to know the timeline in advance there is no way to expertly say it wouldn’t work thus the fallacy of the argument.
I’ll note that you assume, wrongly (as noted repeatedly), that the planes, facilities, and tankers were all standing by and ready to go. They weren’t, and they weren’t going to be ready in any short period of time to go to Libya.
Apparently they made a judgment that there was no way they could have gotten the facilities, tankers, and planes ready in time to be useful, even if F-16s could possibly be useful in the situation. Considering that we don’t know exactly what sort of state of readiness the tankers, facilities, and planes were in at the time, it’s not really reasonable to say that they should have sent them.
No I assume the military is as capable as run of the mill commercial operations.
Not using 20/20 hindsight, When would it have been useful? What’s the time frame? That question cannot be answered and I don’t know how do make that point any clearer.
According to the report it was hand-waved off. It didn’t say they spent time working out the details and found out everybody was sick and all the planes were grounded and a volcano was spewing ash in the air making it impossible to transit the area. Clearly they had to work through the logistics for the other options launched.
Yeah, I’ve read the thread, and I’ve still not seen a coherent explanation of what you were expecting an F-16 to do even if it could get there.
The F-16 isn’t a ground-support plane–it carries no machine-gun or other weapon useful against lightly-armed and highly mobile ground personnel. The cannon is great for shooting up buildings and fixed targets, but the building on this mission would have been the U.S. consulate–why would we have wanted to aim at it? The bad guys in Benghazi were certainly as aware as I am of the capabilities and limitations, so I see no reason they would have been intimidated by a fly-over or three.
Throwing everything including the kitchen sink at a situation ISN’T the correct decision–time and effort spent planning and arranging the kitchen sink is time/effort diverted from operations more likely to be successful. Moreover, every man and machine committed is a risk (if the F-16 gets shot down, for example, you now have another rescue to mount), so the potential reward has to be greater than the risk. “We own one so let’s send it” isn’t a rational answer.
We didn’t know the timeline in advance, but military planners have some idea of what they expect a given piece of equipment to do in various situations. In thinking through the likely scenarios and timelines, which would have benefited from an F-16? What even reasonably plausible timeline can you envision in which an F-16 would have made a tactical difference?
This statement shows that you know little about how the military operates in the real world. It’s possible that F-16s are fueled and ready to go at any given moment, but it’s pretty unlikely that refueling tankers and all the necessary personnel and facilities are ready to go at any given moment in peacetime.
Depending on how long it would take to get the equipment ready, this question might actually be able to be answered. If the tankers and facilities won’t be ready for 10 hours (for example), then it’s a pretty good bet that everything will be over by then.
There are much more mundane reasons for the equipment and personnel not to be ready to go. They might be in the garage in pieces undergoing maintenance, some of the pilots and crew may be ill or on leave, the facilities may be doing a radiation drill, etc… there are countless things that may have been going on (in peacetime, remember!) that would prevent everything from happening in any sort of short time frame.
The military can’t be ready to go at a moment’s notice to reach anywhere in the world in minutes during peacetime. Most of the time, commands have some basic requirements like “must be ready to get tankers in the air within 12 hours at all times” and “must have 2 pilots on duty ready to fly within 4 hours at all times” and stuff like that. The facilities in question probably did not have any requirement “must be ready to launch tankers immediately at all times forever”.