quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

If the combat range is 740nm then the plane cannot fly 500 miles, deliver ordinance and fly 500 miles back to base. (740nm being only 851.5 miles). They had to mean that was with mid air refueling.

Firstly, with in-flight refueling available the target distance would not be limited to 500 miles. Secondly, the definition of "combat radius" excludes refueling:

Combat radius refers to the distance from an airbase that a warplane can reach, patrol there for a set amount of time and return to base with minimal fuel left ~Military Analysis

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

No. It does actually say that a ground strike combat radius is 340nm.

Scroll down to the specifications section and read.

Well no, it doesn't. Nowhere (for clarity, that means "not anywhere") on the page does it state that an F-16 configured for a ground attack mission is limited to a 340nm combat radius.

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

If the combat range is 740nm then the plane cannot fly 500 miles, deliver ordinance and fly 500 miles back to base. (740nm being only 851.5 miles). They had to mean that was with mid air refueling.

Firstly, with in-flight refueling available the target distance would not be limited to 500 miles. Secondly, the definition of "combat radius" excludes refueling:

Combat radius refers to the distance from an airbase that a warplane can reach, patrol there for a set amount of time and return to base with minimal fuel left ~Military Analysis

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

If the combat range is 740nm then the plane cannot fly 500 miles, deliver ordinance and fly 500 miles back to base. (740nm being only 851.5 miles). They had to mean that was with mid air refueling.

Firstly, with in-flight refueling available the target distance would not be limited to 500 miles. Secondly, the definition of "combat radius" excludes refueling:

Combat radius refers to the distance from an airbase that a warplane can reach, patrol there for a set amount of time and return to base with minimal fuel left ~Military Analysis

K.

Thanks Kirata.

But its pointless arguing with FactlessKen. I've explained (already) that combat range means outbound leg, time on station and inbound leg. Doesn't matter. He knows better.

I've explained that combat range or ferry range is the distance that matters, depending what you want to do.

I've shown that you can probably do it from aviano with a minimal load out. I've shown you can definitely do it with F-15s. I've shown that you could ferry.

I question that out of the more than 613 tankers that the US runs - that none of them were in a supply logistics hub - when we are running milllions of gallons to afghanistan.

More importantly - I provided a link from a 26 year decorated pilot that says they could have done it. Doesn't matter. FK knows best.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

What it says is that in one of the F-16's standard configurations it does.

One of them, yes. Loaded down with four 2,000 pound bombs! But you claimed that the combat radius of an F-16 was 340nm, period.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

The unsupported combat radius of an F-16 is 340 miles. The straight line distance between Sigonella and Benghazi is 470 miles. Unless there is a mysterious unknown base more than 100 miles closer to Benghazi no F-16 support was possible in the time available.

Even the longer combat radius cited by the NAS is probably shorter than what the armament profile for a mission like Benghazi would allow, because the requisite ordnance would be anti-personnel munitions, not multi-thousand pound bombs.

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael

Nobody knew at the start it was going to get that bad or last that long.

I think they knew right from the start that it was an organized attack that wouldn't end well. And with the good guys holed-up and the bad guys in the open inside a large walled compound, there would probably be a lot that F-16s could do if they got there in time. But that all said, given the distance, and the fact that nobody knew it would last as long as it did, I can see why scrambling jets might have seemed useless at that point.

However, to say they didn't know it would last as long as it did admits that they didn't know it would be over quickly either. And they didn't even try! Plus, there's the lack of anything resembling adequate security at the compound and the total absence of a backup plan. I'm willing to call it a tragedy that probably couldn't have been averted in those conditions. But those "conditions" should be a noose around somebody's neck.

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael

Nobody knew at the start it was going to get that bad or last that long.

I think they knew right from the start that it was an organized attack that wouldn't end well. And with the good guys holed-up and the bad guys in the open inside a large walled compound, there would probably be a lot that F-16s could do if they got there in time. But that all said, given the distance, and the fact that nobody knew it would last as long as it did, I can see why scrambling jets might have seemed useless at that point.

However, to say they didn't know it would last as long as it did admits that they didn't know it would be over quickly either. And they didn't even try! Plus, there's the lack of anything resembling adequate security at the compound and the total absence of a backup plan. I'm willing to call it a tragedy that probably couldn't have been averted in those conditions. But those "conditions" should be a noose around somebody's neck.

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

If I may, first, the F16's would have been carrying anti-personnel cluster ordinance, not precision ordinance. Second, at the very least, an f16 equipped for recon could have been dispatched.

I have not been able to find out if a surveillance satellite was in position to get real time intel of the situation, all any reports discuss are images from before the attack occurred.

quote:

I have noted a few statements about special ops troops being less than an hours flight from Benghazi. Speaking as a former airborne trooper, I have never heard of an airdrop into an urban area. So the troops would have to have been landed at an airport, transit the distance between there and the consulate, and deal with what ever resistance encountered.

quote:

My question is, why was security at the compounds so insufficient? Or more to the point, considering that they were located in a basically hostile area, why were they even there to begin with? I mean we closed our embassy in Syria didnt we? For much the same reasons.

quote:

ORIGINAL: papassion

Everyone is talking about what an F-16 can and cannot do, ect. Times, etc. The FACTS are: Other nations that didn't have a dumb bastard like Hillary In charge, removed their people. The Red Cross removed their people, The Ambassador himself requested more security, more than once. This was UNBELEIVABLE INCOMPETANCE on EVERYONE'S part!

Hillary's MAIN obligation was the safety of Diplomats and their staff of HER State Department! She failed miserably. She isn't even qualified to run a lemonaide stand!

If Obama and Hillary paid more attention to what the hell was going on in our Diplomatic services instead of the next ELECTION, those guys would probably be still alive and they wouldn't have to LIE about what really happened!

quote:

ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael

Nobody has addressed the following:

The F16 is not equiped for nighttime ground attack.
Permission by Italy
Permission by Libya
ground control
israel cant stop attacks with helicopters and aircraft, the mere presence of aircraft is zero guarantee of ANY change in.outcome.
What the fuck were they going to do once they got there, bad guys were in the building.
Nobody knew at the start it was going to get that bad or last that long.

Most criticaly, shit happens, i still dont see stunning incompetence. tragedy, yes but if THIS is the stabdard for competence, not many presidents pass.

First, to DomKen in the last message I did say combat range, I thought I had said combat radius. Doesn't affect the fundamental argument that planes can reach.


To Michael: According to Wiki f-16's have night fight capability: "The MLU introduced compatibility with night-vision goggles (NVG). The Boeing Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing System (JHMCS) is available from Block 40 onwards, for targeting based on where the pilot's head faces, unrestricted by the HUD, using high-off-boresight missiles like the AIM-9X.[71]"