What’s the range on the SAM’s in question?
Did our drones fly within range of the SAM’s in question?
How far above a target can our aircraft be and still hit a target whose coordinates are entered into its system?
None of this makes sense with the contingency plans anyway. My understanding, based on what the military folks here and elsewhere have said, is that if you don’t know what the situation is, you make all assets available ASAP so you have what you need to respond appropriately as soon as you DO know what the situation is. You don’t have to use everything you have available but you have to make it available in case it is needed.
And somebody correct me if I’m mistaken on this, but if you don’t have the assets available from one site (Italy) then you get the assets from where they ARE available if they can arrive in decent time. If the Obama regime created a situation where there were no assets available ANYWHERE in the volatile Middle East and northern Africa areas - the hotbeds of terrorism - then the incompetence and/or treachery is an even BIGGER problem than if we had just removed critical security from Benghazi alone.
A LOT of the manpads floating around Libya are the SA-7, which is cheap crap and WILL get fooled by flares. It also has other limitations, also.
But the SA-24 has a ceiling of 19,000 feet, so it can quite easily reach up to the altitude at which the AC-130 typically operates.
But if it got close then as long as the Herc was the U version, well, then u can b sure it’s seeker would be dazzled to a crisp, or at least enough to provide for a good miss. So the American flight crew would sweat a good deal but probably be OK and could probably still carry out a good attack.
Good rule of thumb for MANPADS (in terms of range) is 2.5-3.0 NM, even for the newer systems like Stinger and the Russian SA-16/18 series. Max altitude is about 15K for the first-generation models and up to 20K (under ideal conditions).
As other posters have pointed out, the AC-130 is designed to operate in a MANPAD environment. The gunship is outfitted with the latest flares/IR jammers and dispenser programs that can deal with virutally any MANPAD in existence. And of course, Spectre’s on-board armament is a powerful deterrent to anyone who decides to take a pot-shot.
As a result, we haven’t lost an AC-130 in combat since the Battle of Khafji during the First Gulf War. That particular aircraft (callsign Spirit 03) was downed by an Iraqi MANPAD. However, the shootdown occurred during daylight hours (when gunships normally don’t operate). The aircraft commander decided to remain on-scene despite the dangers of operating during daylight hours—and the fact that two other AC-130s had already left the area.
The presence of MANPADs should not have been enough to prevent an AC-130 from being scrambled to Benghazi, or engaging targets on the ground. That decision was purely political, and had nothing to do with the “vulnerability” of the AC-130.
One more note: the USAF operated all types of C-130s over Bosnia during the 1990s, despite the potential threat from Serbian SA-6s, the mobile, radar-guided SAM that was responsible for the downing of Scott O’Grady’s F-16. I know, because I was a crew member on one of those platforms. In fact, one AC-130 was “locked up” one night by an SA-6 target tracking radar. The gunship’s jamming pods (along with maneuvering) broke lock, and there was never confirmation of a missile launch.
However, the AC “over-G’ed” the aircraft during the defensive maneuvering, and that particular AC-130 sat on the ramp at San Vito for months while Lockheed re-winged the gunship.
That’s progress. Next stop, the MSM?
Summed up quite nicely right here: (Western Rifle Shooters, full column)
Every SOF officer and ops officer all the way up has this drummed into his head. We can make Obama respond to this question, even if reporters must shout it at him while he’s doing storm cleanup photo ops. If the reporters KNOW enough to ask the quesion.
That’s why I am shouting all over the internet about CBA.
I can’t believe cross-border authority permission is not one of the top discussion points about Benghazi.
That, and who “set him up” by sending him to Benghazi to meet the Turks on 9-11, with them leaving after dark.
And of course, down the road, was the military rescue-in-progress turned back because Obama actually wanted to make sure the consulate was wiped out? Is that why the spooks at the annex were refused permission to travel the under one mile to intervene? That would connect it all together, but for now, the best focus is on Obama either granting or withholding cross-border authority for the rescue.
Feel free to repost these musings of a long-ago SOF officer anywhere you please.