Ash Clouds and Air Ops in T2K

[Raellus]

I know that this kind of thing doesn't affect most T2K campaigns but I enjoy this kind of macro stuff.

All the of recent talk about the volcanic ash from Iceland halting flights across the Atlantic and most of Europe got me thinking about how combat flight ops could be hampered by the dust and particulates stirred up and thrown about by nuclear blasts.

I imagine that this would have become a problem once the exchange really got underway in earnest.

I know that some folks think that airbursts down toss up much in the way of airborne debris or produce much smoke, but I disagree. I am not contending that a series of tactical nuclear strikes would produce the same type or quantity of ash and airborne debris as the Icelandic volcano. I doubt that all air ops would be halted by the escalating nuclear exchanges but I do think that airborne dust and the like produced by same would degrade combat readiness and increase the maintainance hourse (and ground crew workload) required for aircraft to fly. It would likely delay certain ops or reduce time spent aloft. It may also damage sensitive jet engines and could possibly lead to crashes.

Long-term damage from flying in post-exchange skies could help hasten the grounding of the air forces engaged in Europe.

Apparently, there are questions about how the Iceland erruption is affecting NATO air capabilities and readiness. I heard on NPR today that an unamed U.S. diplomatic source claimed that an F-16 (nationality unkown) crashed due to ash-related issues.

Anyway, it's something else for us macro-philes to mull over.

[Dog 6]

Originally Posted by Raellus

I know that this kind of thing doesn't affect most T2K campaigns but I enjoy this kind of macro stuff.

All the of recent talk about the volcanic ash from Iceland halting flights across the Atlantic and most of Europe got me thinking about how combat flight ops could be hampered by the dust and particulates stirred up and thrown about by nuclear blasts.

I imagine that this would have become a problem once the exchange really got underway in earnest.

I know that some folks think that airbursts down toss up much in the way of airborne debris or produce much smoke, but I disagree. I am not contending that a series of tactical nuclear strikes would produce the same type or quantity of ash and airborne debris as the Icelandic volcano. I doubt that all air ops would be halted by the escalating nuclear exchanges but I do think that airborne dust and the like produced by same would degrade combat readiness and increase the maintainance hourse (and ground crew workload) required for aircraft to fly. It would likely delay certain ops or reduce time spent aloft. It may also damage sensitive Long-term and could possibly lead to crashes.

Long-term damage from flying in post-exchange skies could help hasten the grounding of the air forces engaged in Europe.

Apparently, there are questions about how the Iceland erruption is affecting NATO air capabilities and readiness. I heard on NPR today that an unamed U.S. diplomatic source claimed that an F-16 (nationality unkown) crashed due to ash-related issues.

Anyway, it's something else for us macro-philes to mull over.

volcanic ash is not the same as ash from a nuke. flying in to volcanic ash is an no no, it can and will shell out any jet engines and turboprops. as for the nukes there would be no Long-term effect to jet engines from nuclear clouds, and the only increase in maintenance would be decontamination.

EMP would have had a far greater effect on flight op's imo