How The US Navy Could Have Intervened In The Yom Kippur War; And How They'd Have Tackled The Soviets
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 19 окт 2023
- In October 1973 the US and the Soviet Union were on the brink of war. As Israel's counterattack pushed back Egyptian forces, the Soviets appealed to Nixon to enforce a cease fire. If the President refused, then the Soviets would enforce one unilaterally.
The CIA reported that Soviet ships were transporting nuclear weapons to Egypt. US forces went to DEFCON 3.
In the eastern Mediterranean two US carrier groups loaded live nuclear weapons onto A6 Intruders. All the while, they were stalked by Soviet warships, whose missiles were pointed at the vulnerable carriers.
In this video I go into the US carrier aviation assets deployed to the region in October 1973. I've also created two scenarios that play out how those forces might have intervened to help Israel and how they might have defended themselves against the Soviets.
It's a little bit different from my usual fare, but I hope you find it informative.
Sources:
Information about air wing composition, particularly the individual squadrons deployed to the Independence and FDR came from "USN Carrier Air Units, Volume 3" by Duane Kasulka
Details of Soviet operations comes from this amazing 2004 Naval War College report: digital-commons.usnwc.edu/nwc...
TASS statement on Ilya Mechnikov, via the CIA: www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/...
![Heinkel’s Failed Rival To The Bf 109 | The He 112 [Historical Deep-Dive]](/img/1.gif)
I was an A-6 pilot in VA-176 on FDR during this confrontation in October 1973. This documentary gets it mostly right. My wingman took this photo of my warning pass near the Sverdlov class cruiser when it approached FDR to within its gun range.
Each Mk.7 (Talos) and Mk.10 (Terrier) launcher had two guidance radars each. The missiles were semi-auto radar guidance. The guidance radars would have to remain on target to illuminate it for the missiles. Each launcher would fire a salvo of two missiles per target. The Mk.7 could fire those four missiles in 2 minutes, the Mk.10 in 1 minute. Both launchers were supported with sufficient ready missiles to handle the acquisition, loading and engagement cycle. The Mk.11 (Tartar) could fire four missiles in 30 seconds and also had two guidance radars per launcher. All three missiles could be used against ship targets but radar guidance was limited to the radar horizon of 15-20 nm. Both Talos and Terrier had nuclear rounds, but these missiles used beam guidance so that the missiles remained under positive control of the firing ship until they reached their target which limited their maximum range to the radar horizon for surface to surface use or to about half the range of the SARH missiles against aerial targets. Since 1968, the USN had implemented an emergency ECM and chaff launcher program for its ships based on the demonstrated performance of Egyptian and Israeli missile boats. These systems would have had some effectiveness against the SS-N-3. The Soviets faced the same issue as the USN. Without someone to provide mid-course guidance, surface to surface attacks were limited to the radar horizon and surface to air attacks to the capabilities of the bomber's radars. Much of these electronics systems won both sides ere still using vacuum tubes and were subject to reliability problems and shock failure. The USN , however, was on the leading edge of both the solid state and miniaturization concepts and implementation that led to the revolution in electronics and guided weapons in the 1980s.
yes, my research shows the same though I'm not sure whether the ships would have a director per rail or a director per launcher when commissioned.
It of course makes perfect sense to have a director for every missile you're able to shoot, but we all know how the military (and especially the beancounters) think at times (DDG-1000 class...).
I seriously doubt nuclear tipped SAMs would have been deployed in an anti-air capability during an escalated Yom Kippur war, but lobbing one at the Sverdlov might well have been considered, using the secondary SSM capability of the weapon.
Being intended to take out larger formations of bombers than the Arabs or Soviets could muster in theater there'd be little point of using them against aircraft.
FDR had just two catapults, not three. And on October 24-25 when DEFCON 3 was declared, FDR headed for its SIOP launch point (Poodle or Terrier, I forget which), and we A-6 crews in VA-176 broke out our pre-prepared SIOP target charts and weaponeering profiles.
Appreciate the comment and correction. Thank you.
Absolutely awesome video about a topic I was not aware of in the slightest! The thought of a 6" cruiser trying to bushwack a CVN is certainly fascinating and a clever use of this otherwise hopelessly obsolete Sverdlov-class cruiser. As far as I understand it, Talos' dual purpose capability was limited. The missiles used semi-active terminal guidance. The installation aboard Little Rock used two illuminators for direction and so two missiles could be guided simultaneously. This means however that, while Little Rock held more surface to surface missiles than the Soviet fleet, these were limited to engaging targets above the horizon. The Soviet missiles were active guided and could be fired from beyond the horizon. Furthermore, Talos needed around 10 minutes to be assembled before launch excluding missiles stored on the launcher and POTENTIALLY - I do not know if this was practiced but it might be possible - missiles stored fully assembled in the final assembly shack directly forward of the launcher. This was extended to 30 minutes or more if a nuclear warhead was to be used. The Soviet installation has the advantage of not needing to wait for the missile to be assembled, it's already stored with wings folded in its tube. However the total quantity of missiles is much smaller. The limiting factor for the Soviet missiles in an over-the-horizon engagement would be locating the US force accurately. IIRC this was the job of the Tu-95 reconnaissance variant with a look-down radar. If Moskva could field a similar system on a helicopter, I do not know.
EDIT: One capability the Soviets had EXTREMELY early for the technology involved was missile networking. Missiles in a salvo could designate a "scout" that would fly high and use its radar to guide other sea-skimming weapons. I do not know when this was introduced but this tech would have been a game changer in this scenario. Perhaps it existed already, perhaps it was developed in part as a response to problems like this. I want to say I remember hearing it was developed in the 60s but frankly this strikes me as too early to be reasonably possible. And even so, like with many Soviet systems the question of effectiveness and reliability is an unknown.
Either way, a fascinating alternate history episode, definitely one of my favourite videos on the channel.
Talos ships carried 16 fully assembled "ready service" missiles in the "missile house" (the deckhouse immediately forward of the launcher). They could launch those very quickly IIRC. It's probably worth noting that Talos, Terrier, and the NTDS mainframe+datalink system that the US cruisers carried were all designed with saturation attacks (like the Japanese mounted off Okinawa) in mind. They were nothing like Aegis or even NTU, but they were more capable than most people realize.
With that said in the event of an engagement in 1973 I think the US ships would have had their hands full fending off ASMs.
The Soviets didn't start datalinking their ASMs to each other until the 1980s IIRC, and even then there is continued debate as to how effective it would have been. I believe that they might have been able to datalink to the missiles from the Ka-25 'Hormone' helicopters carried by Moskva though.
Completely forgot to mention the biggest NATO Asset in region at the time that remains on station to this day........Cyprus
that Vigilante looking sharp as ever
The Little Rock could guide 2 simultaneous Talos engagements, and the Belknap could guide either 2 or 3 simultaneous Terrier engagements (I can't remember if the aft SPG-53 was usable as a third Terrier illumination channel, in addition to the 2 SPG-55s). It's probably worth noting that ECM and chaff were pretty effective against Soviet missiles of that generation, so they wouldn't necessarily have to knock them all down to protect the carrier.
Also the Talos and Terrier SAMs would have had at least a 3:1 speed advantage over the incoming cruise missiles, so I think they could get several salvos away in the 1:30 flight time you describe. For example if they fired on the first 4 incoming SSMs at 1:30, then those Terriers/Tartars would either hit or miss by 1:10 or so. If they launched another salvo at the next 4 targets at 1:00 (allowing 0:10 to retarget) then those would either hit or miss by 0:45, another salvo at 0:35 would hit or miss by 0:25, etc. US cruisers in 1973 did have NTDS (datalinked mainframe computers), so this sort of coordinated rapid engagement might have been possible. As you say I'm not at all convinced that a salvo of 16 SS-N-3s would have gotten the job done against Independence by the time you factor in the carrier's Sea Sparrow point-defense missiles, CAP, and ECM/decoys.
It's also worth noting that Forrestal-class supercarriers like Independence could take a massive pounding, as demonstrated by Forrestal herself off Vietnam in 1967. The Soviets might have gotten a (possibly temporary) mission kill, but I doubt they would have achieved more than that.
My father was on a BEA flight from Heathrow to Belgrade in October '73 when his flight was instructed to fly a holding pattern in order to allow Soviet transport planes to land first. Those Soviet planes were carrying airborne troops headed to either Egypt or Syria.
Soviets knew how to keep peace by balancing the amerikan threat
@@redbaron9029 Hows it feel to be losing against a 3rd rate army in Ukraine, just by them using our old, left-over. no-longer wanted by us, equipment sovietsky? Hows it feel that we are able to supply BOTH Ukraine AND Israel against despite your attempt to divide our attention?
@@simpsonfan13
Only they ain't losing
Not unless you follow the BS MSM
@@simpsonfan13“We“ lmao
@@redbaron9029yes in this case you are right. The US nor USSR wanted this situation to escalate, and troop movements were carefully coordinated between washington and moscow.
In 1976 I had a US Navy instructor who served on an SSBN during the Yom Kippur war. During that period the ship went to battle stations. He genuinely thought they were going to launch nuclear missiles at the USSR
My dad was on the USS Ranger at the time and they were similarly worried. He spent most of his time below decks but one of the few stories he tells of being above deck was when a Tu-95 was scouting them and the fighters all scrambled. Everyone was worried since they didnt know if they were just being watched like normal or if it meant they were being scouted for a strike from the Soviets since tensions were high.
I was onboard the Little Rock during the Yom Kippur War.....to say things were tense is an understatement. What you don't see in this video is the number of Soviet ships that were in the area. We were outnumbered 97 Soviet ships to 60 American.
Again, I deeply appreciate the thought, nuance, and in-person details you add. The difference between this and a typical History Channel-style "Missile goes fast/plane awesome!" presentation that basically tries to show a war as if it is a kid smashing his GI Joe figures together is a real eye-opener.
Once again outstanding and well researched video. Hopefully you are considering my earlier suggestion on the Cuban Missile Crisis. I had suggested a USAF strike on SAM and missile bases but had totally overlooked the Naval component which was the linchpin for the US in the crisis.
Small correction: the A7 was the Corsair 2, the Crusader was the F8.
Otherwise exceptional video, as always.
great stuff thanks, the commanders of those battle groups needed strong nerves, the first to fire "wins" is such a scary concept and remains so.
Thank you, another outstanding documentary on a blend of my favorite subjects, naval aviation, and Middle Eastern air wars. My first 3 deployments as a young aviation ordnanceman were on "Indy", I remember her well. I was always impressed by the shear size of the AGM-78 Standard ARMs being rolled around on the roof by the attack (A-6s) guys preparing for flights.
The Vigis had their offensive systems removed at this point and were operating in recon role only. Now that i think about it the RA5 would be an interesting topic for a future video.[Edit] The A4s and A7s were nuclear capable as well.
I was going to mention this.... I was under the impression that the A-5s weapon bays where replaced with the recon equipment on conversion to RA-5s.
Also didn't the A-5 had a different weapon bay that ejected the weapon out of the tail cone?
@@the_real_bin_chicken You're correct. The Vigilante force was removed from the nuclear strike mission around 1963. It also used the unique rear ejecting bomb bay.
They still had their original avionics (the reconnaissance systems were added in addition) and pylons that could carry weapons externally.
@forcea1454 They only used external stores in trials. The Navy didn't like the results for some reason, and they were never used in fleet squadrons
I hated the Vigilante. It's exhaust was hot as hell even at an idle. And when they went to burner, you better find something to get behind. That's even with the JBD up !
excellent content as always, thank you!
thank you once more for a fascinating presentation.
This is all such a fascinating “what if.”
As you mentioned in the beginning, referencing the IDF to the Americans, experience counts for a lot. This is a factor for the Chinese in current circumstances.
Experience is major. In the 1948 Arab-Israeli War aka the First Arab-Israeli War the Arabs had the advantage in weaponry, numbers, and had a more adventurous position with Israel surrounded on 3 sides but the Israelis had a lot of WW2 veterans including both soldiers and partisans while few of the Arabs had combat experience and the Israelis won.
China today is in a similar position as early WW2 Japan: they've built a new navy and have ships comparable to the US but are inexperienced and havent even had their training programs really tested yet. Japan ran into problems and the US often proved superior because they'd built their training based off experience and it resulted in better training and better performance. One example I've read about in the differences in training was that American sailors all had at least some basic firefighting training so everyone knew how to react to a fire, and if dedicated firefighters couldnt get there in time the sailors could at least keep it contained if not put it out themselves, in the Japanese navy they had dedicated firefighters and sailors were taught to keep doing their jobs no matter what. Both sound good on paper since the Japanese could keep operating even with fires but in reality it resulted in fires growing out of control and resulted in more damage in the long run so Japanese ships proved less survivable and less durable even when the ship on paper seemed more durable.
@@arthas640 Arabs never had numerical superiority during the 1948 War, they were outnumbered 2-1 both early and later on
Great video :)
Well done :)
RUclips censored my previous comment for merely suggesting that we are close to the point again!!
Fantastic work
Very informative and interesting
Thank you
Excellent video as per usual
Great stuff man.
Don’t change anything.
Straight up fantastic cat.
😎👍
An excellent review of what could have happened if everything went wrong... depending on whose side you are on...
Brilliant Thought Experiment!!!!
Wow never knew about this incident and how close things came to a possible battle! Well done!
It would have been a bloody fight if the Sixth Fleet and Fifth Eskadra came to blows in Oct. '73. It's the forgotten Cold War Crisis that could have gone south quickly.
Well done
Loving the idea of seeing USN aviation with the lessons of Vietnam applied while still using late Vietnam era equipment. The F-4J would’ve been a fearsome foe in the hands of pilots who knew how to take advantage of its capabilities properly.
The fact that the F-4 - in various models - is still in service with a few air forces (Iran, Turkey, Greece, S. Korea), is testament to its versatility.
it's amazing what changes in doctrine can do. The US Navy focused on training while the Air Force focused on tech, and by the end of the Vietnam War the Navy fighters were enjoying a K:D ratio something like 5x what the Air Force were getting.
Minor quibble here. The Marines were spread out over 5 ships, not all on the Guadalcanal as the video seems to suggest. I know; I was one of them.
Thanks for the comment and very fair point. I should have made that clearer.
3:19 Not A-7 Crusader but A-7 Corsair II! The Crusader was the F-8!
Egypt did push beyond the bridge heads over into the sinai to "relieve pressure on the syrian front" when it went badly. And they got decimated by the IAF because their ground troops no longer enjoyed SAM cover.
America knows full well the capabilities of the Israeli war machine then and now. Americans were more worried the Isrealis would defeat the Syrian forces and drive toward Damascus prompting a Soviet response.
A very influential rabbi was pushing for the IDF to go all the way to Damascus in order to fulfil a prophecy. In fact the IDF was only a day's journey from Damascus but political considerations prevailed. Makes you wonder what might have been...
@@s.marcus3669 Most leadership on 67 and 73 were very secular on the Israeli side. Taking of Jerusalem was more a egyptian and Jordanian failure than a war goal of the Israelis even in 67.
But Damascus is a very tempting target from the border of the golan even from a non religious sense. Syrians should be thankful the Soviets were willing to escalate to protect them.
Another great video!
For the Algorithm!
Thanks for another great video. Hope this video at this time gives your channel the reach it deserves
Can you do a video about Mole Cricket 19? There are some videos online but nothing like the level of research you do and brilliant archival footage.
I might be a bit slow, but what does the "big white wingman" at 35:42 refer to? The AIM-7? I can't find anything on the Internet with those exact terms.
Ha! Yes, it refers to the AIM-7. I have clearly been listening to far too many Cold War fighter pilot interviews!
@@notapound And I've obviously been listening to far too few of them. Thanks for the explanation!
I totally enjoyed your analysis but I did notice that you didn't mention any american submarines. 😊
Certainly they could have provided SIGINT/ELINT - but in 1973 integrating that intelligence in a timely manner would be almost impossible. The RN struggled to properly integrate raid warnings from subs in the Falklands a decade later. The subs of the time had no land attack capability at the time other than the Doomsday SLBM option - which I’d rather not think about . Hunting down the Egyptian and Syrian navy surface units wouldn’t have much effect (except on the poor chaps getting torpedoed).
@richardnicklin654 I don't intend to make a big deal about this. But please understand that no Carrier group sails without submarines assigned as part of the protection package. Any Soviet surface vessel capable of attacking the Carrier was. Under surveillance by one of the 9 submarines assigned to the 2 Carrier groups plus some of the 9 were roaming the area independent of the Carrier groups, they were not there to provide protection against airborne threats other than to sink attacking Russian vessels as soon as a threat was identified. I.E. preparations for missile launch.
They were never intended to provide a direct land attack mission.
Have.a great day!! 👍
The Intruder squadrons would've had B model Iron Hand as well. The Corsair squadrons could fulfill this role as well, though not as well as the Intruder Bs.[Typo correction]
@Not a pound for air to ground
3:16 A-7E is Corsair II, not Crusader (that was the F-8, m8 😉)
Thanks for the comment and the spot! Irritatingly I spotted that myself, re-recorded the segment and then somehow put the old bit back. Can I get away with the Corsair being a stubby Crusader??
@@notapound Sure thing you can! :-D And frankly, in a way it indeed is, given the common gene pool. ;-)
It's sobering to realize that despite thousands of personnel and billions of dollars the whole thing would've likely been decided in a few minutes, either way. Thank Christ noone blinked. Thanks for the content
crazy how often that happens and its why soldiers have discipline drilled into them. During the Sino-Soviet split the Chinese harassed Soviet troops on the border, pelting them with rocks and threatening them trying to get them to fire a shot since it would justify a large response by the Chinese and could have lead to a serious war. Similar has happened in India a few times too. The DPRK has done similar to US and ROK troops on the border. Any of those border guards snapping and firing a shot could have escalated quickly to a full battle and a war, and in each case a war between nuclear powers.
As far as the A-6B goes, I can only speak for VA-65 and we didn’t have any. We were 6th fleet and really didn’t have a need for them, as the Med was pretty quiet up until the fighting started. We were outfitted with the A-6E and the KA-6D.
A-7 Corsair II, not Crusader
Thanks - good spot. I should stick to my script ;)
Well done 👍
Both amazing aircraft
Wasn’t it the 67 war when LBJ was planning to take out Egypt’s nuclear power plant(not fished)?
Also worth noting Gibraltar and the Royal Navy where close at hand for their US allies and would have added even more firepower into the mix if the soviets got involved
The Labor Govt wouldn't have allowed it unless the Soviets struck first which allowing that would have been fatal for the US carriers. Even then if it wasn't in Europe where a NATO Article 5 could be called British involvement under the Labor govt at the time would be iffy. Lets just say they weren't that politically reliable outside of the European theatre. They had their own problems in Yemen in the Dhofar War and were trying to cut down on overseas commitments that weren't West Germany (Never Ready by Helion).
@@BobbyB1928The Mediterranean was very much in the NATO area, so Britain would respond to any Soviet attacks on NATO allies.
The Prime Minister Harold Wilson was also relatively pro-Israel compared to the previous Labour Prime Minister.
As always, a fantastic video; highly informative and an interesting scenario, in a point in history that tends to fall outside of my scope of knowledge. It's always a good day when one learns something new!
You DO talk about some air to ground (in the form of SEAD), but I'd only estimate about a penny's worth, so I won't demand you change your channel name for false advertising. :P
Looking forward to the next one, man. Keep up the great work!
Thanks so much for the comment! This one was a bit of an experiment to be honest - I guess I'm not alone in musing about different sorts of scenarios.
And, yes, I definitely strayed into air to ground... and doing some more reading about the Intruder, Corsair, Skywarrior and Vigilante made me want to get into naval strike aircraft. Maybe I'll need to do that rebrand!!
Excellent video bud
I really chave to sim this in COMMAND: Modern Operations.
This video failed to take into account the roll of the USN submarines. They would have definitely been there and would've been trailing Soviet ships and submarines.
I was on the Forrestal in 73 and we were in the Med…at first I thiught the author was wrong until I realized he’s talking October 73. We were there during the summer and were relieved by then and were back in Norfolk.
Looks like we’re gonna find out now.
The A-6 squadron were usually assigned 4 KA-6D’s. Don’t know about VA176 but VA65 had 4 of them because I was the plane captain for 522. VA65 was my first squadron and the day that the war started I had the fly 3 watch since we were in Athens Greece. I went down to our line shack and told the guys there that fighting had broke out. About 20 minutes after that Indy called for flight quarters and yellow shirts started moving aircraft about the deck. What no one really knows about is that 6 planes were loaded with nukes and put in the six pack abeam the island. Four A-7s and 2 A-6’s. One other thing is that this guy keeps saying F4E’s and as far as I know the Air Force was not involved as the F4E was their bird.
The narrator referred to F4Es in the context that they were the primary IDF/AF fighter at the time, and discussed the relative capabilities of the USN Phantoms by comparison.
I should have added to my comment that after VA-65, I spent. 33 months on shore duty with VF-43, and went back to sea in ‘79 with VA-176. Talk about fate.
What about the A-6Bs that could fire the shrike and standard ARMs? Where their any of those present in the A-6 squadrons? Or were they exclusive to Vietnam and the Pacific?
The Egyptians could not have surged forward out of their bridgehead because that would have meant leaving their SAM coverage area.
That's Corsair not Crusader for the A7 Technically Corsair 2 I believe.
Why do you keep referring to the IDAF AF what the hell is that?
Israeli , defense, Air Force, Not a , super Power, air force, not until 1981, & Iraq Nuclear reactor "Take Out".
Valkyrie had a habbit of dropping that rear load on take off. Nukes were a no go after a couple of tries.
Skyraider had a nuke roll as did pretty much anyone capable of carrying a pack.
It's the A5 Vigilante, not Valkyrie
@@robertm.3520 Indeed.
I thought the A-7 was the Corsair II & the F-8 was the Crusader?
Yep - slip of the tongue.
How about the 7th fleet on the other side in the Gulf of Oman. Carriers Hancock and Oriskany with their battle groups?
A-7E Crusader? You mean Corsair II?
Or, the SLUF...
@alantoon5708 SLUF is the A-7. The Crusader is the F-8. Host had a slip of the tongue. There is no "A-7E Crusader".
Vaguely heard about this in the “TOAW” Mid East 73 scenario; could have been a more bloody nightmare.
A-7E Corsair II
@3:52 Vigilante ❤ wasn't the nuclear success it was meant to be indeed : rockets were becoming more reliable and catapulting nuclear ordnance from the carrier as good as “launched the aircraft but not the bomb” . . .
the main reason the Vigilante wasn't maintained as a bomber was the very limited ability to change it to fire different weapons from the one that was originally designed with it (the bomb bay was so specific in size, shape, and delivery mechanism that nothing else would work with it).
Once that bomb became obsolete, the purpose of the A-5 as a bomber was at an end.
It was a one trick pony that found a new life in an entirely different capability after an expensive rebuild. Still one of the most impressive aircraft to ever fly from a carrier deck though.
@@jwenting…. Within the US Navy the debate over who had a strategic nuclear weapons delivery had been won by the SSBN’s. The original strike mission of the Vigilante went away.
I imagine the unique launch mechanism was necessary but unfortunate. the "cost-cutting" one size fits all mentality remains a major bugbear in USAF/NAVY policy to this day. what a beast! high-speed recon above vietnam: they got the pictures back to where they were needed real fast . . . love this plane.
@@jwentingThe RA-5C couldn't carry the complex B-28/fuel tank combination used in the tunnel bomb bay of the A-5A/A3J-1 or A-5B/A3J-2, but it did have wing pylons to carry weapons, conventional and nuclear, externally.
This situation would be a real interesting "what-if" campaign scenario, once the retail F-4 module for DCS will be available. 😎✌️
A-6E was named Corsair II, not Crusader.
A-6E is called the Intruder. A-7 is the Corsair II, F-8 is the Crusader.
Very. interesting 🤨
Interesting in today's context
A7 is the Corsair, not the Crusader. That name belongs to the F8.
A7E Corsair 2...
A couple critiques: 1) As far as I know, the F-4E was only used by the USAF, not on USN Carriers, since the weight of the internal cannon in the nose made carrier take-offs and landings problematic. 2) If the war went largely as it did historically, I don't see the Israelis really needing USN carrier aircraft support. In all likelihood, if the Sixth Fleet ended up in combat, it would have mainly been against the Soviet's FIfth Eskadra in the Med, as a result of the Soviet intervention threats as the war just about ended. The one exception to this, I think, is if the Syrians had made a breakthrough on the Golan heights that threatened the Israeli heartland early in the war. There's a community scenario for the wargame Command: Modern Operations that explores this, where the USS Independence group is sent in to help the Israelis contain the Syrian bridgehead across the Jordan River, and this is as a desperate help to keep the Israelis from deploying their nuclear weapons.
Point one. He mentioned the E models because the IDF flew them. I stopped reading after that obvious idiotic statement of arrogance .
You forgot a major forward deployed NATO asset that in fact remained on high readiness alert throughout this period of high tension in the eastern med, veriably bristling with some of the best aircraft in the world at that time.....
Cyprus British soveriegn bases
Deconfliction would involve the Israeli not deploying their Neshers in the Sinai, limiting that theater to A-4s and F-4s, and maybe some leftover Vautours and Mysteres.
That would leave their Mirages and Neshers to pound the Syrian forces in the north, while the US takes care of air superiority for both countries over the southern theater.
If the USN were to also pull some DDGs and DLGs/CGs close to the coast (with some FFs for close support) their SAM envelopes would help establish a serious threat to the Arab air forces, in the same way as a Burke class destroyer the other day shot down (reportedly) several drones and missiles launched at Israel from somewhere in or along the Red Sea (whether this was ordered or even approved from Washington DC I don't know, I'd not be surprised if the crew of the ship acted on their own recognisance because the missiles would overfly them and thus could well have been a direct projected threat to them).
The Vigilantes at this stage had their strike packages removed and had been converted into pure photo reconnaissance aircraft. What used to be the bomb bay was now a combination fuel tank and avionics bay for ESM and ECM equipment.
Similarly the A-3s were also no longer capable of nuclear bombardment missions, but were pure carriers and EW platforms.
Some US ships had a single missile director per launcher, most had a director per rail.
For example the Belknap class had a director for each rail. So did Long Beach and Truxtun (which was a nuclear powered Belknap after all).
Same with the Charles F Adams class destroyers.
Some of these ships may have had a single director per launcher when commissioned and later be retrofitted with a second director, my sources are all post-Yom Kippur.
Also, the soviets rented naval infrastructure that the Egyptians and Syrians could not access in Egypt first and after they got kicked out by saddat, later in Syria.
Well also VF-102 diamondbacks not 122
Uummm a7 corsair not f8 crusader
Makes up for the USS Liberty Incident 🤷♂️
31:24 the Soviets just like contemporary Russian state don’t have “Marines” they have Naval Infantry.
The Naval Infantry is almost Universally informally called “Marines” around the world.
@@tetraxis3011lies
@@ogone1465 Nope. Here in Mexico the Marines are called “Infanteira de Marina” which translates to Naval Infantry.
Very few countries have a branch dedicated to the Marines.
36:55
You forgot the Walleye I and II television-guided glide bombs, with 825 and 2000 lb. HE warheads respectively. There was also the Mark 6 variant with a 6 kt nuclear warhead, although I'm not certain if the USN deployed it.
Yeah, I figured that one out after I sent the comment out. Foot in the mouth moment. What can ya expect from a 72 year old! The rest is solid though.
Minor quibble, at 21:47 with respect to FDR's 3 catapults. The FDR lost her third catapult located in the angle deck after her 1968-69 austere modernization. That particular catapult, a C-11 Mod 2, had a significantly shorter stroke, as compared to the full length C-11 Mod 1s located on the bow, and was limited to launching a relatively small ready alert fighter of 1950s vintage. Even if it had been in place I doubt it would've had the ability to launch a fully laden F-4, A-6 or A-7.
Yes I understand that the single “waist” cat fitted to the Midways when the angled deck was added in the late ‘50s was not suitable for F4s or A6s and that deck space was subsequently considered better-utilised purely as an aircraft parking zone, enabling the class to continue carrying a full Air Group despite the growth in airframe sizes over the decades.
@@neilturner6749 The Coral Sea had a full length C-11 Mod 1 cat in her waist. I suspect as a result of her port midship aircraft elevator being moved aft and having a longer angled deck as compared to her two sisters. It's my understanding that the Coral Sea kept and continued to utilize her waist cat until her decommissioning in 1990.
3:05 - so did those same Israeli aviators not consider that US Navy and Air Force pilots had just a bit of that “practical experience” under their belts from several years of air combat over Vietnam?
Or did they mean practical experience of the sort earned while firing on the USS Liberty?
why does it often sound like you say IDAFAF rather than IDFAF?
What he's actually saying is: "IDF/IAF"; I've already mentioned to him in a past video that when he says "IAF" it's pretty clear that he doesn't mean: "Indian Air Force"..... I guess old habits are hard to break.
@@s.marcus3669 IDF/AF is the correct historical term. The organisation changed names a few times, just as did the Canadian Air Force (and the Dutch, and US as well).
Over rates the Soviets capabilities, underrates the capabilities of the US...smh.
US Aviation capabilities were unquestionable since WW2... until right now .what was questionable ( Are the US aviation reconnaissance and CIA intelligences realized Israel Barlef defense line was not defensed by Israel airforces?)? Because Egypt 🇪🇬 mobilized Sam- anti-aircraft's missiles mobilized based forwarded that threatened Israel 🇮🇱 airforces successful. Are CIA betrayed Israel 🇮🇱 army ? For future political purposes orchestrating camp devid treats
why you keep saying IDAF
That would be my accent! "IDF/AF" - Israeli Defence Force/ Air Force
Haven't watched this yet, though at 38 minutes I'm sure this channel is likely to self-cancel before the video is over. Here's wishing for peace in the Middle East.
Never mind, whoever made this video at 3:14 called A-7's "crusaders." Just stop. Learn to proofread, because I'm unsubscribing right now.
U.S.S LIBERTY!
1967 get the "Dates Right."
why help those that hate and destroy you?
Who hates whom, Motha?
that's why we don't help Russia and Hamas (or shouldn't), or the Chinese.
@@jwentingwho is we
I like how your typical details overload serves to mask your glaring ignorance of the wider topic of the 1973 Arab-Israeli war. Neither the Arabs had intentions, or ability, to overrun Israel. Their plans had modest objectives in Sinai and the Golan. Nor the Soviets had a desire for a wider war in the ME as they tried to to avoid that outcome several times, let alone be involved in WW3 because of this particular conflict. So your 'what if' is rather silly and a waste of time to be honest.
Israeli propaganda is rampant in USA, so Americans think about israel fighting for survival... while Arabs just wanted their lands back. Egypt got Sinai back decade later, but Golan Heights are still occupied by israel
Not to say that israel had nukes back then and wasn't shy to use them... Samson option
@@thatdude3938 Indeed. But even without the nukes they were quite superior at conventional warfare. Better training, better plans, better tactics, etc.
The encirclement of the Egyptian 3rd army and the Valley of Tears in the Golan are obvious examples.
This video has been sponsored by da US Military Industrial Complex ... your one-stop shop for everything from Bowie knifes, 5.56 ammo to super carriers, F16s and Nuclear bombs.
Didn't Israel destroy a US ship for recording some war crimes incriminating radio chatter?
That was the USS Library during the Six-Day War
@@hydra8845USS Liberty.
6 day war + wasn't destroyed, didn't know it was american
no, they attacked the Liberty for breaching a maritime exclusion zone and failing to identify, she was behaving like an enemy combatant and treated as such.
The US learned a lesson that day: don't behave like an enemy, even to your friends.
Whether that lesson stayed learned is another matter entirely.
@@jwenting… that the IDF confused the USS Liberty as an enemy combatant is beyond credibility. Nor was there one attack on Liberty. During an initial IDF attack the pilots would have called off any follow on attacks. The Liberty was a cargo ship armed only with machine guns. Not a warship
We need a Soviet Union like Presence today, to keep Israel in Check.
@tek8233 In 67 and 73, the Presence of the Russians made Israel back down.
The US just needs to quit enabling them and being their lapdog.
How history repeats itself