pmaidhof

AN-26's and MiG's! I'll have to look "closer". I did see the helo up in the northeast. MTF I'm sure.

This may morph into a Etendard/Super Etendard strike on a Yemeni airfield, most likely Al Hudayah. Took a look at it in google earth. May want to cut the single runway, target the control tower, maybe catch four or so MiG-21's on the ground, defense could be a couple of ZU-23's, and perhaps an S-60 57mm gun battery (six guns).

Did a re-play tonight. Granted the MiG-21's surprise - allows them a shot without a French response. Both MiG's volley fired their eight Atoll-b's downing one Crusader. In the second round the the surviving Crusader fires its two R.550 Magic 1's but both miss. The MiG's attempt, but fail to escape the furball. In the third round the Crusader gets in position behind the fleeing MiG's and fires his quad Mk12 20mm but misses. One MiG-21 escapes the dogfight. In the first (4th) round of the second 3minute tactical turn, the Crusader essentially does not get a good position on the last MiG-21, missed the roll with an 80. The final MiG-21 then successfully rolls to escape the dog fight. Not a good day for the Marine Nationale losing one F-8E (FN).

Thanks a lot BP. As it is such a quick scenario, I'll re-do with your findings and post the result here. [Edit: Nice F-8 site as well]

All air, no well deck - just give it a MARDET and call it even. Maybe just the Marine in me.

Here here for NEO Operations, took part inside the US Embassy Monrovia Liberia in August 1990 for the evacuation of US citizens and third nation "friendlies". NEO = Non-Combatant Evacuation Operation. They come in the permissive and non-permissive environments, and are a specialty of a Marine Expeditionary Unit (SOC), often now deploying within ESG's. I'd still say aircrew first, but all for full blown NEO's for sure.

New amphib to be named America By Philip Ewing - Staff writer Posted : Monday Jun 30, 2008 11:57:54 EDT Navy Secretary Donald Winter announced Friday that the new amphibious assault ship known as LHA 6 would be named America, granting the wish of veterans of the aircraft carrier America, who have lobbied for another ship to take the name after theirs was sunk as a target in 2005. Winter made the announcement in Jacksonville, Fla., at a reunion of the America Carrier Veterans Association. The new America is planned as a 45,000-ton, gas-turbine big-deck gator that has been dubbed “a Marine Corps aircraft carrier.” It has an axial flight deck like a Wasp-class amphib, but no floodable well deck for landing craft. The Marine Corps wants two such ships — one each for the East and West coasts — to carry helicopters, V-22 Osprey tiltrotors and the Marine Corps’ short takeoff, vertical landing version of the new F-35 Lightning II joint strike fighter. The new America would be the sixth ship in Navy service to bear the name, although three of the predecessors were not traditional warships — one America was part of the Civil War “Stone Fleet” deliberately sunk to block the harbor in Charleston, S.C.; one was a yacht pressed into naval service in the Civil War; and another was a German liner seized and used as a U.S. troop transport in World War I. The first commissioned warship named America was a 74-gun ship of the line that served briefly in the French navy at the end of the 18th century; the second was the Kitty Hawk-class carrier commissioned in 1965. After a long career, the carrier America was pummeled by explosives, torpedoes and naval gunfire in the Atlantic in 2005, before being scuttled to show Navy observers how such a large ship behaved in battle. Its veterans have lobbied ever since for another carrier to be named America, first calling for the ship that bears hull number CVN 78. But that carrier was named Gerald R. Ford, so the America veterans began focusing on the LHA 6, according to an announcement from Brian Skon, who works with the veterans association. The LHA 6 is to be built at the Northrop Grumman shipyards in Pascagoula, Miss., where the amphibious assault ship Makin Island is already under construction. Although the Makin Island and the new America fall numerically into existing classes of ships — Wasp class for Makin Island and Tarawa class for America — the Navy considers each one a “first in class,” with different propulsion plants, electrical systems and other improvements over existing gators. Find Navy Times article here. No well deck - WTF, then why carry on with the sequential Tarawa Class LHA hull numbers? LHA-1 Tarawa LHA-2 Saipan (decommissioned) LHA-3 Belleau Wood (sunk as a target IIRC) LHA-4 Nassau LHA-5 Peleliu LHA-6 America: No well deck?

For what it's worth, I'd say focus initially on aircraft crews possible surviving and providing for possible rescue. It would most likely involve fewer rescuees. Overwater first because over land will quite possibly involve ground units landing and securing the downed aircrew. Wouldn't deployable ground units be something akin to the mother/child/grandchild discussion over in amphibious operations thread? Somewhat in the weeds, a USMC TRAP (Tactical Recovery of Aircraft & Personnel) would/could include CH-53/MV-22's, a dismountable security team to secure the site, rescue team to find and secure the aircrew, and a support team to secure HV pieces of gear from the wreck, and to facilitate the recovery of the downed aircraft or ensure the destruction of critical or HV gear. All of these cats and dogs would then need to re-embark onto the hogs or ospreys to get back to friendly sites.

Welcome home road warrior.

Clashes, by Marshall L. Michel III, Page 142: "GCI guided the MiG-21s to the tightly packed strike flight, with its highly visiable smoke trail, and the MiGs made a sequential diving attack at very high speed, firing their Atolls at about 1 mile range. When the first MiG was seen (often only after he fired his Atolls), it sometimes distracted the U.S. flights, and they did not see the second MiG-21, three miles behind the first, until too late. After they fired, the MiGs accelerated straight through at high speed, then climbed and headed for the Chinese border as fast as they could go, about Mach 2. If the U.S. MIGCAP jettisoned its tanks and attempted to follow these MiGs, a second pair of MiG-21s could attack the strike force, especially if the North Vietnamese GCI controller detected an opening in the area the escorts had left. The U.S. aircrews were totally frustrated by the MiG-21's tactics. More than one Air Force pilot commented that 'the best flying job in the world today is a MiG-21 pilot out of Phuc Yen'" A bit long-winded, but it does appear that the MiG-21's volley fired their Atolls in one, all for nothing, diving/slashing attack, and then get out of dodge. So volley firing in this instance would also be justified.

probably, dug out my copy of Clashes yesterday. Trying to find the time to the reference to their tactics without re-reading the book.

Yes. But this engagement is 1977 French/North Yemen with F-8E(FN) and MiG-21bis.

Now everyone picks up and moves. Sean Avery wants 4 years at $4M. All quiet on Jagr. Straka leaving for a Czech team HC Lasselsberger Plzen.

Thanks Brad, HT lists P-80 Back Net at 135/100/75/32/10.

Are there any examples of GCI radar sets inthe H4.1/HT data annex? After determining the performance of the respective French and Yemeni AI radars and seeing how what little performance that they have is halved one altitude level below, and two levels above, I'm thinking that the Yemeni's may have needed directions to get to the ballpark.

That IS probably why I will most likely find no special provision in the rules. It's an impossibility to list everything that you can't do.

Depending on the missile and launching aircraft, yes. Looks like you're dealing with 'fire and forget' heat seekers here, so no reason why more than one couldn't be launched at the same target. For early generation IR seekers, there were probably some practical limitations when it comes to immediately shooting a second missile, i.e. the hot rocket exhaust of the first potentially interfering with the seeker of the second. It gets more complicated when you add semi-active radar guided missiles to the mix, but iirc, it was part of Soviet air combat doctrine for the AA-10 Alamo to shoot both a SARH variant and an IRH variant at the same target. Thanks Brad. My question is more to how the H4.1 rule handle/allow for it. It was late so I'll need to do some more reasearch in the rules. From my Vietnam air war readings, I recall that two missiles were often fired at a target due to the relative unreliability of the 1960's and early 70's AAM's. This engagement apparently ocurred in 1977.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-8_Crusader “On 7 May 1977, two Crusaders went separately on patrol against supposedly French Air Force (4/11 Jura squadron) F-100 Super Sabres stationed at Djibouti. The leader intercepted two fighters and engaged a dogfight (supposed to be a training exercise) but quickly called his wingman for help as he had actually engaged two Yemeni MiG-21 Fishbeds. The two French fighters switched their master armament to "on" but, ultimately, everyone returned to their bases. This was the only combat interception by French Crusaders.” What if…? At Medium Altitude, the chance encounter ocurs. I pixie dusted the French pilots as Experienced while the North Yemanese Competent. F-8E(FN) Man Rating: 3.5 Gun: 3.72 Damage: 21 Max Speed: 675 MiG-21bis Man Rating: 3.5 Gun: 3.18 Damage: 17 Max Speed: 660 Given that the passage indicates the French completely not expecting MiG’s, I allowed the Fishbed-N’s to roll for possible Surprise. Two aircraft maneuvering on two aircraft results in a 20% chance of surprise. The MiG’s roll 96. No surprise. The furball begins. The dogfight radius is 6nm. The Crusaders, due to their speed advantage, get the first shots. Since their Matra 530’s are not “dogfight” capable, the go to guns. The gun rating of 3.72 and cross referencing with a Target Damage Rating of 17 equals a Gun Lethality Index of .40. The pK is the cross referenced result of .40 and 0 (maneuver difference) = 0.12, shifted to 0.16 due to pilot quality. Rolls of 83 and 07 down one Fishbed-N. The surviving MiG ripple fires (is that allowed – multiple missiles at the same target?) two dogfight capable IRH (Atoll AA-2d) R-13M. The Maneuver Difference remains at 0. The Crusader maneuver rating of 3.5 is subtracted from the Atoll’s ATA rating of 2.5 is -1.0, whuch is then lowered to -2.5 after the 1st generation Atoll is cross referenced with the 2nd Generation Decoys of the Crusader. The pilot quality causes a shift of one left and up. The pK is 0.01. The first two Atolls miss on rolls of 54, and 33. In the 2nd round, both Crusaders attempt gun attacks and miss (45, 32). The MiG-21 rolls 01, 90 with his last two missiles, downing one of the F-8E’s. In the 3rd round, the Crusader misses the Mig with a roll of 62. The Fishbed attempts to escape but on a roll of 6, after pilot quality modification it fails to escape. In the 1st round of the second Tactical Turn, the surviving Crusader shoots down the MiG-21 with a roll of 10. Can multiple air to air missiles be launched at the same target?

Debated the A-7 Corsair II photo...ah jeez!

Enjoyed the photos and descriptions, keep on keeping on.

Thanks Tony, keep 'em coming, and enjoy the trip.

C'mon now computer/tech GURU. Is this an aweful weak cover story for a road trip with Dad?

Looking forward to see any of your well deserved discoveries along the way. Say hello to you Dad, and Larry.

Thanks Brad. I've had some fun on my gaming table with the BrahMos. Might be time to take off the green cloth of my table and replace it with the blue sheet.

Pretty impressive, Thanx. It brings back fond memories of my Midway days. Buddha Yep...gone are the days....