Survivability in Combat

Sorry Art, but I have to go with jets, and fast ones at that. The
record is pretty solid during Korea and Vietnam, jets were a LOT more
survivable than piston - powered aircraft. In Vietnam, the good old
A-1 had the highest loss rate of any USAF combat aircraft.

As far as speed, the A-10 had a much higher loss rate than the F-16
during Desert Storm. Of course, so did the Av-8, due to the
vulnerability of the Harriers engine to handheld SAMS!

Of course, a LOT of this has to do with the mission being flown, etc.
The only reason for going slow is to find and hit a target better - if
the weapon system allows you to do that at highter speeds and
altitudes - then faster is better. It is also a lot more expensive,
and not always necessary, and there will always be a need for
something like the A-10 to get down and dirty - I sure wish they would
make a C model with more grunt and some decent avionics!

R-2800s are wonderful - and so are J-79s - and so is no engine at all,
sometimes!

Kirk

On 8 Dec 2003 07:07:26 -0800, (Kirk Stant)
wrote:

Sorry Art, but I have to go with jets, and fast ones at that. The
record is pretty solid during Korea and Vietnam, jets were a LOT more
survivable than piston - powered aircraft. In Vietnam, the good old
A-1 had the highest loss rate of any USAF combat aircraft.

Kirk

That would be a surprise to me. Hobson indicates 201 USAF losses of
A-1s and 65 USN losses. He indicates 397 losses of F-105s and 573
losses of F-4s (both USAF and USN).

If we're talking "rate" as losses per sorties flown, my candidate for
the highest rate would be the F-111 with 11 losses for a very brief
pair of combat deployments.

We might also have to bracket a bit to get meaningful stats, since
there were considerably different loss rates for various types at
different periods and in different areas.

Regardless, I'll agree that fast is better than slow in virtually all
circumstances. Fast gets you through gun sectors more quickly, fast
lets you move out of prediction for aimed fire more quickly, fast lets
you maneuver to counter missiles more quickly and fast lets you
counter enemy aircraft attacks more effectively. Not much can be said
for going slow and even in a slow aircraft the tacit assumption is
that you are going as fast as you can.

Subject: Survivability in Combat
From: Ed Rasimus
Date: 12/8/03 7:38 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: 1769tvofbookb27uvk9fr10b00nvah

Regardless, I'll agree that fast is better than slow in virtually all
circumstances. Fast gets you through gun sectors more quickly, fast
lets you move out of prediction for aimed fire more quickly, fast lets
you maneuver to counter missiles more quickly and fast lets you
counter enemy aircraft attacks more effectively. Not much can be said
for going slow and even in a slow aircraft the tacit assumption is
that you are going as fast as you can.



ED,

That begs the question. The question was not which is better in combat, fast or
slow. Nor was it do fast planes suffer fewer losses than slow planes. The
question was do radials have a higher survivability rate once hit than jet
engines? That was the question.

Regards,

Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

Ed Rasimus wrote:
(Kirk Stant) wrote:

Sorry Art, but I have to go with jets, and fast ones at that. The
record is pretty solid during Korea and Vietnam, jets were a LOT more
survivable than piston - powered aircraft. In Vietnam, the good old
A-1 had the highest loss rate of any USAF combat aircraft.

That would be a surprise to me. Hobson indicates 201 USAF losses of
A-1s and 65 USN losses. He indicates 397 losses of F-105s and 573
losses of F-4s (both USAF and USN).

Speaking of combat loss rates, just a quick anecdote: Dad recalled
one hellish mission that he and three other A-1E's flew in 1966...he
limped back to base (shot up) *alone*.

On a related note, here's a brief excerpt from one of Dad's letters
home, dated 9, Aug, 1966:

"I guess it's humorous; we have lost so damn many airplanes
that we are getting more time off than we are used to. I am reading
Tolstoy's, "Anna Karenina." In my spare time and at night I have
been devouring books at a fantastic rate. I guess it takes your
mind off everything and gets you to think of other things. If you sat
and pined away for home all the time you would go batty in a
short time. I saw one major who let things get carried away and
he was all curled up in the pre-natal position listening to tapes
from home. I know these were old tapes but he plays them over
and over. It just isn't healthy. I don't mean to say that I can't
understand it I just don't think it does any good to go asiatic.
Like in that book and movie; sometimes you can hear the world
hum...."

If we're talking "rate" as losses per sorties flown, my candidate for
the highest rate would be the F-111 with 11 losses for a very brief
pair of combat deployments.

We might also have to bracket a bit to get meaningful stats, since
there were considerably different loss rates for various types at
different periods and in different areas.

Regardless, I'll agree that fast is better than slow in virtually all
circumstances. Fast gets you through gun sectors more quickly, fast
lets you move out of prediction for aimed fire more quickly, fast lets
you maneuver to counter missiles more quickly and fast lets you
counter enemy aircraft attacks more effectively. Not much can be said
for going slow and even in a slow aircraft the tacit assumption is
that you are going as fast as you can.

Doubtful anyone here would disagree that "fast is better." However,
when it comes to loitering with intent; e.g: interdiction, close air
support, air and surface escorts, armed reconnaissance and search
and rescue, nothing at the time could perform these critical duties
better than the slow, prop-driven A-1. According to Dad, it wasn't
just that the A-1 was relatively slow -- it was also the extremely
low altitudes and the tactics developed by the 602nd commander
of flying directly_into_the_enemies_gunsights so as to suppress
fire that also contributed to the A-1's high loss rate.

Having said that, low and slow or not, ISTR Dad mentioning
something about some "plan" to actually win the war using A-1's
*exclusively* -- had they been allowed to set aside the asinine
ROE.