Archie to SAM: A Short Operational History of Ground-Based Air ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

OPERATIONS BETWEEN VIETNAM AND THE PERSIAN GULF aircraft were heading for North Africa, apparently Libyan radar did not activate until about four minutes before the 0200 attack. Standoff jamming by EF-111s and EA-6Bs, on-board ECM, and about 50 antiradiation missiles almost completely nullified Libyan radar. The mission was both a technical and political success: the Airmen got their bombs on target (mostly), losses were light (one FB-111 downed), and since the air attack, there has been a lack of terrorist activity openly and directly associated with the Libyans. Thus, the 12-minute raid demonstrated that the American military could hit difficult targets despite distance and other natural obstacles as well as penetrate numerous and sophisticated defenses with light losses. 27 Indo–Pakistani War In September 1965, war erupted on the Asian subcontinent between India and Pakistan and lasted 23 days. Both sides fielded small air forces equipped with a few modern aircraft (Indian MiG-21s and Pakistani F-104s), but most aircraft were at least a decade beyond their prime (Indian Hunters and Vampires and Pakistani F-86s). Just as the ground war ended in a stalemate, so did the air war. But even at this writing (2005), it is difficult from the conflicting claims to sort out exactly what happened. The Pakistanis claim to have destroyed 110 Indian aircraft, 35 in air-to-air combat, 32 by antiaircraft guns, and the remainder in attacks on airfields. They admit to losing 19 aircraft, eight in air combat, two to their own AAA, and nine to other causes. The Pakistanis admit that Indian guns downed a few aircraft but claim that none of the F-86s engaged in almost 500 CAS sorties were lost, although 58 were damaged. The Indians claim 73 Pakistani aircraft were destroyed and admitted losing 35. The Indians fired a few SA-2 missiles and claimed one C-130. The Pakistanis dispute this claim, stating that they did not lose a C-130 to the SAMs, and counter that the SA-2 got an Indian An-12 transport. The Pakistanis do admit that an SA-2 damaged an RB-57F at 52,000 feet. 28 In December 1971, the two countries fought another brief (two-week) war. By this time, both sides had upgraded their air 159
OPERATIONS BETWEEN VIETNAM AND THE PERSIAN GULF forces in quality and quantity but still fielded forces that were relatively small and of mixed vintage. Pakistan lost the war and its eastern territory—what is now Bangladesh. Again, the combatants’ claims markedly conflict, and these differences remain along with the political problems. Indians claimed to have destroyed 94 Pakistani aircraft for the loss of 54 and stated that one aircraft fell to an SA-2 missile. The Pakistanis claimed the destruction of 104 Indian aircraft at the cost of 26 planes. They admit losing three to four aircraft to flak as well as two aircraft to friendly fire. The Pakistanis assert that AAA registered 49 of their 104 kills. Another source states that onehalf of the lost Pakistani aircraft fell to ground defenses. 29 The Falkland Islands/Malvinas War, 1982 Early in the 1980s, another brief campaign in a remote part of the world captured the public’s attention. The Falkland campaign surprised the civilians and military alike on a number of counts: that Argentina and Britain went to war, Britain successfully liberated the islands over such a great distance, and Argentina inflicted startling losses on the more modern British forces. The conflict pitted a small, well-trained, and well-equipped modern force of a European nation operating 7,000 miles from home against a larger, less well-trained conscript force armed with a mixture of old and modern equipment of a developing nation. From the standpoint of the air war, the Argentines fielded an air force of mixed capabilities equipped with old Canberras and A-4s, counterinsurgency Pucaris, and the more modern Mirages and Super Etendards. For ground-based defenses, the Argentines had, in addition to automatic weapons, British (Sea Dart, Seacat, and Blowpipe) and Franco-German (Roland) surface-to-air missiles (fig. 70). Although the British used the old Vulcan bomber, their primary combat aircraft was the vertical-takeoff-and-landing Harrier. The Royal Navy ships operated a mixture of gun defenses and SAMs (Seacat, Seawolf, Sea Dart, and Seaslug) (fig. 71). British troops ashore used three SAM systems: Blowpipe, Stinger, and Rapier. 30 160
Page 2 and 3:
Report Documentation Page Form Appr
Page 4 and 5:
Air University Library Cataloging D
Page 6 and 7:
Contents Chapter Page DISCLAIMER .
Page 8 and 9:
CONTENTS Chapter Page 7 BALLISTIC M
Page 10 and 11:
CONTENTS Figure Page 30 George Pred
Page 12 and 13:
CONTENTS Figure Page 70 Blowpipe .
Page 14 and 15:
Foreword Dr. Kenneth Werrell’s hi
Page 16 and 17:
About the Author Dr. Kenneth P. Wer
Page 18 and 19:
PREFACE excluded from the original
Page 20 and 21:
PREFACE always been a factor in air
Page 22 and 23:
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Artillery Institute
Page 24 and 25:
ANTIAIRCRAFT DEFENSE THROUGH WORLD
Page 26 and 27:
Page 28 and 29:
Page 30 and 31:
Page 32 and 33:
Page 34 and 35:
Figure 7. British 40 mm light antia
Page 36 and 37:
Page 38 and 39:
Page 40 and 41:
Page 42 and 43:
Page 44 and 45:
Page 46 and 47:
Page 48 and 49:
Page 50 and 51:
Page 52 and 53:
Page 54 and 55:
Page 56 and 57:
Page 58 and 59:
Page 60 and 61:
Page 62 and 63:
Page 64 and 65:
Page 66 and 67:
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71:
Page 72 and 73:
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77:
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
FROM GUNS TO MISSILES American air
Page 94 and 95:
FROM GUNS TO MISSILES company deliv
Page 96 and 97:
FROM GUNS TO MISSILES (discussed la
Page 98 and 99:
FROM GUNS TO MISSILES flak rockets
Page 100 and 101:
FROM GUNS TO MISSILES 1953, the rat
Page 102 and 103:
FROM GUNS TO MISSILES to 1,285 in J
Page 104 and 105:
FROM GUNS TO MISSILES Figure 40. Ar
Page 106 and 107:
FROM GUNS TO MISSILES cember 1958,
Page 108 and 109:
Figure 42. Nike Hercules. The Nike
Page 110 and 111:
FROM GUNS TO MISSILES Airmen test-f
Page 112 and 113:
FROM GUNS TO MISSILES Bomarc failed
Page 114 and 115:
FROM GUNS TO MISSILES Despite knowl
Page 116 and 117:
FROM GUNS TO MISSILES Figure 47. Ha
Page 118 and 119:
FROM GUNS TO MISSILES Army decided
Page 120 and 121:
FROM GUNS TO MISSILES The third fam
Page 122 and 123:
FROM GUNS TO MISSILES with both les
Page 124 and 125:
FROM GUNS TO MISSILES that fired ov
Page 126 and 127:
FROM GUNS TO MISSILES Figure 53. Br
Page 128 and 129:
FROM GUNS TO MISSILES The two-decad
Page 130 and 131: FROM GUNS TO MISSILES A. H. Peterso
Page 132 and 133: FROM GUNS TO MISSILES “SAMs Spur
Page 134 and 135: Chapter 3 Airmen versus Guerrillas:
Page 136 and 137: AIRMEN VERSUS GUERRILLAS the next y
Page 138 and 139: AIRMEN VERSUS GUERRILLAS war with t
Page 140 and 141: AIRMEN VERSUS GUERRILLAS Figure 56.
Page 142 and 143: AIRMEN VERSUS GUERRILLAS firings fr
Page 146 and 147: AIRMEN VERSUS GUERRILLAS and Navy c
Page 148 and 149: AIRMEN VERSUS GUERRILLAS American A
Page 154 and 155: AIRMEN VERSUS GUERRILLAS but modifi
Page 156 and 157: AIRMEN VERSUS GUERRILLAS In all, du
Page 158 and 159: AIRMEN VERSUS GUERRILLAS least an e
Page 162 and 163: AIRMEN VERSUS GUERRILLAS War Vietna
Page 164 and 165: AIRMEN VERSUS GUERRILLAS D.C.: Depa
Page 166 and 167: AIRMEN VERSUS GUERRILLAS 97, 121; a
Page 168 and 169: Chapter 4 Operations between Vietna
Page 170 and 171: OPERATIONS BETWEEN VIETNAM AND THE
Page 202 and 203: Chapter 5 Ballistic Missile Defense
Page 204 and 205: BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE Army cons
Page 206 and 207: BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE Figure 80
Page 208 and 209: Figure 81. Spartan launch. The Spar
Page 210 and 211: BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE a limited
Page 212 and 213: BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE these wer
Page 214 and 215: BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE ment to c
Page 216 and 217: BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE developin
Page 218 and 219: BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE Radar Int
Page 220 and 221: BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE when the
Page 222 and 223: BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE casualtie
Page 224 and 225: BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE fluential
Page 226 and 227: BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE missiles
Page 228 and 229: BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE psycholog
Page 230 and 231:
BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 6. Army O
Page 232 and 233:
BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE April 196
Page 234 and 235:
BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 54. Reiss
Page 236 and 237:
BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 74. GWAPS
Page 238 and 239:
Chapter 6 Ground-Based Air Defense
Page 240 and 241:
GROUND-BASED AIR DEFENSE SINCE 1990
Page 242 and 243:
Page 244 and 245:
Page 246 and 247:
Page 248 and 249:
Page 250 and 251:
Page 252 and 253:
Page 254 and 255:
Page 256 and 257:
Page 258 and 259:
Chapter 7 Ballistic Missile Defense
Page 260 and 261:
BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE IN THE 19
Page 262 and 263:
Page 264 and 265:
Figure 96. Arrow launch.The Arrow i
Page 266 and 267:
Page 268 and 269:
Page 270 and 271:
Page 272 and 273:
Page 274 and 275:
Page 276 and 277:
Page 278 and 279:
Page 280 and 281:
Page 282 and 283:
Page 284 and 285:
Page 286 and 287:
Page 288 and 289:
Page 290 and 291:
Chapter 8 Summary, Trends, and Conc
Page 292 and 293:
SUMMARY, TRENDS, AND CONCLUSIONS ev
Page 294 and 295:
SUMMARY, TRENDS, AND CONCLUSIONS te
Page 296 and 297:
SUMMARY, TRENDS, AND CONCLUSIONS EC
Page 298 and 299:
Index A-1, 128, 227-28, 232 A-4, 12
Page 300 and 301:
INDEX Convair, 98 Crotale, 158 D-da
Page 302 and 303:
INDEX Gulf of Tonkin incident, 115
Page 304 and 305:
INDEX Remagen, 24, 57, 270 RF-4C, 1
Page 306 and 307:
INDEX SAM, 34, 74, 81-82, 84, 87, 9
Page 308:
Archie to SAM A Short Operational H
show all

Archie to SAM: A Short Operational History of Ground-Based Air ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?