War in Eastern Europe, what's it good for ....

[Angel Eyes]

Attacking a NATO ally would make things spiral entirely out of control - Russia would be facing retaliatory attacks worldwide, from Murmansk to Vladivostok from all 30 NATO countries.

https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL8N2Y72W9

So far just posturing.  Hopefully it stays that way.

[MechAg94]

Considering Ramstein would probably be a smoking hole by the time they got back, it makes sense. Unorthodox, sure, but might why go to the trouble of having jets return to a base (or more likely bases) that no longer existed.

Brad

But you give them a full fuel load so they have some options after hitting their target.  Home base and the target are not the only two places to land or bail out.  I hope it was just a matter of the politician misunderstanding something told to them. 

[Angel Eyes]

Considering Ramstein would probably be a smoking hole by the time they got back, it makes sense. Unorthodox, sure, but might why go to the trouble of having jets return to a base (or more likely bases) that no longer existed.

Years ago, when France's nuclear deterrent was the Mirage IV fighter-bomber, it was part of their doctrine that in the nuclear role the planes would make one-way trips to their targets in the USSR, similar to what the article described.  This was due to the Mirage IV's limited range, and perhaps partly due to the belief that in the event of nuclear war there wouldn't be a France to return to.

[dogmush]

This quote just sounds odd.  Anyone know anything about that situation?  Weird way to treat pilots.  I am assuming they had a full fuel load.  The quote makes it sound like they had less than a full tank deliberately.

The guy says "Fighters*" so in 1962 that meant probably F-104 Starfighters, F105 Thunderchiefs or some shiny new F-4s.  Ramstein is 702 miles dead straight line distance from the Ukrainian border, so figure with some evasive, and going inside the Soviet Union they had 800 miles to go, at least.  Wiki tells me the

Ferry

range for those planes is 1600, 1900 and 1450 miles respectively.  That's one way, slick, with no weapons and tanks.  Give them a bomb, and a flight profile that was more speed than efficacy and it was probably everything they could do to just get there.

Think of it like Doolittle's Raid.  Drop bomb, aim for somewhere friendly, and cross fingers.

* I don't know why they wouldn't have used some of SAC's bombers for this mission, they had the range in the 60's, and were presumably on Ramstein. Perhaps the senator is misremembering, or the bombers were elsewhere.

[kgbsquirrel]

Considering Ramstein would probably be a smoking hole by the time they got back, it makes sense. Unorthodox, sure, but might why go to the trouble of having jets return to a base (or more likely bases) that no longer existed.

Brad

And the jets would be sprinting low and fast.  They might be launching with full internal fuel and burn through nearly all of it in the race to target.

ETA: as usual all the answers were on the next page. 

[RocketMan]

This quote just sounds odd.  Anyone know anything about that situation?  Weird way to treat pilots.  I am assuming they had a full fuel load.  The quote makes it sound like they had less than a full tank deliberately.

Probably not a deliberate shortage of fuel.  The jet fighter-bombers of that era were fairly short legged, especially carrying large external loads.  Also, the nuclear weapons of that time were pretty heavy vs. their yield.  All of this combined makes it possible the aircraft were not capable of carrying a full load of fuel along with a full weapons load without exceeding gross weight limitations.
Strategic bombers in WWII frequently had to make the fuel versus bomb load tradeoff depending on what targets they were flying against.

[HankB]

But you give them a full fuel load so they have some options after hitting their target.  Home base and the target are not the only two places to land or bail out.  I hope it was just a matter of the politician misunderstanding something told to them.

Agree with RocketMan. These were fighter planes, not bombers. Maybe they were aimed at targets deep inside the Soviet Union, and even with full tanks weren't capable of a round trip with that payload.

[Angel Eyes]

Russia: we did not invade Ukraine, and there is no war there.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZtV0HsYzmg

I'm glad that got sorted out.  Can we have our $53 billion back please?

[French G.]

Times were different. I dug and dug once to find the correct nomenclature for some obscure control box in a UH-3H helicopter. Found in an obsolete manual, the box was from its SH-3 days and it was for the nuke gravity bomb or depth charge. Now that’s a one way trip.

[WLJ]

Russia: we did not invade Ukraine, and there is no war there.

I see Psaki is fitting in her new job

[Angel Eyes]

I see Psaki is fitting in her new job

[Ben]

Who's laughing now? Trump wins again! 

https://twitchy.com/gregp-3534/2022/06/21/this-aged-quite-badly-trump-warned-germany-of-becoming-totally-dependent-on-russian-energy-at-the-un-in-2018-whos-laughing-now/

[Boomhauer]

This quote just sounds odd.  Anyone know anything about that situation?  Weird way to treat pilots.  I am assuming they had a full fuel load.  The quote makes it sound like they had less than a full tank deliberately.   

Fighter bombers of that era were short legged.

I’ve read multiple books of fighter pilots of that era saying that their nuclear mission would have been one way.

[MillCreek]

^^^Plus, I think doctrine at the time was a high-speed low altitude approach to avoid radar detection, and that would really drink up the fuel.

[RocketMan]

^^^Plus, I think doctrine at the time was a high-speed low altitude approach to avoid radar detection, and that would really drink up the fuel.

Very true.

[Hawkmoon]

Russia: we did not invade Ukraine, and there is no war there.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZtV0HsYzmg

I'm glad that got sorted out.  Can we have our $53 billion back please?

Good.

Since there's no war, and since Russia has gotten our attention, how about Russia withdraws its forces from ALL of Ukraine (including the Crimean peninsula) and we all sit down at a table and discuss the "issues"?

I still remember what our drill sergeants told us in Army Basic Training in 1966, in response to the political position that the United States was not "at war" in Vietnam: "It doesn't matter what the politicians in Washington call it. When there are people with guns shooting at you, that's a war."

[MechAg94]

Fighter bombers of that era were short legged.

I’ve read multiple books of fighter pilots of that era saying that their nuclear mission would have been one way.

I wasn't really questioning the technical side of things.  The way it was worded sounded like they gave them only enough fuel to reach the target rather than they lacked the range.  It was either poor wording or the young politician misunderstood what the Air Force was doing. 

[RocketMan]

I wasn't really questioning the technical side of things.  The way it was worded sounded like they gave them only enough fuel to reach the target rather than they lacked the range. It was either poor wording or the young politician misunderstood what the Air Force was doing.

Both.

[WLJ]

[Jim147]

Ok, so Russia is holding up grain headed for North Africa with the blockades and mines. Famine is predicted if this grain doesn't get there. Does any country, Egypt ect.., have enough Navy to go say "Hey we want our grain."?

I could get real sporty all over the world

[Angel Eyes]

Ok, so Russia is holding up grain headed for North Africa with the blockades and mines. Famine is predicted if this grain doesn't get there. Does any country, Egypt ect.., have enough Navy to go say "Hey we want our grain."?

https://euobserver.com/world/155279

Russia is blocking Ukrainian ports so they can't ship their grain out, and is imposing a 30% tax on Russian grain exports.  And they're saber-rattling the Lithuanians over land access to Kaliningrad.  Fun times.

[sumpnz]

Ok, so Russia is holding up grain headed for North Africa with the blockades and mines. Famine is predicted if this grain doesn't get there. Does any country, Egypt ect.., have enough Navy to go say "Hey we want our grain."?

I could get real sporty all over the world

Any country that relies on imported fertilizer (and especially imported food) to meet even  the basic needs of its citizens is in serious risk of famine for the next few years.

[MechAg94]

https://euobserver.com/world/155279

Russia is blocking Ukrainian ports so they can't ship their grain out, and is imposing a 30% tax on Russian grain exports.  And they're saber-rattling the Lithuanians over land access to Kaliningrad.  Fun times.

An article I saw on the Kalingrad thing metioned that only certain items were banned from ground transport through Lithuania.  It was part of the EU sanctions they are following. 

[Angel Eyes]

An article I saw on the Kalingrad thing metioned that only certain items were banned from ground transport through Lithuania.  It was part of the EU sanctions they are following. 

Yes, that is my understanding.  But Russia is leaning on Lithuania specifically, not the whole EU.  Perhaps they believe that Lithuania will cave.

[dogmush]

Yes, that is my understanding.  But Russia is leaning on Lithuania specifically, not the whole EU.  Perhaps they believe that Lithuania will cave.

If they believe that, they are smoking crack.  Lithuania is the most nationalistic of the Baltic States, remembers and hates the Soviets, and has a large group of folks that returned home in the 90's after long careers in the US military.  Of all the former SSR's, Lithuania is at the top of the list to successfully tell Russia to *expletive deleted*ck Off.  If Putin can't subdue the Ukraine, he has zero chance in Lithuania.

And that's before the rest of NATO wakes up and gets involved.