If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
"Vanishing American Air Superiority"
On Mar 7, 3:35*am, Andrew Swallow wrote:
Ray O'Hara wrote: {snip} you like the author are judging the future *by todays standards. do you see any war in the near {next 2 decades} future? {snip} Next wars - Britain vs Argentina over Falkland Island oil fields. USA vs oil states over insults by their leaders, including South America West vs Muslim countries that hide and support terrorists (continuation of the current war) USA vs Iran - they have not forgiven each other plus all that oil China vs African countries for African raw materials. *(The West may decide to stay out.) Andrew Swallow Water and natural resources. Africa mainly. Somewhat in Latin America, but probably very low key there. Want to scare an Aussie, tell him about refugees coming in from SEA. By the tankerload. Who predicted Panama, Haiti, Grenada, all that? Might not be a big war but if its your carcass in the body bag, yeah, its a big deal. |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
"Vanishing American Air Superiority"
In article ,
Ed Rasimus wrote: But then, Boyd's acolytes seem to have considered that to be the goal. Guided weapons and any other electronics were useless treason, good only for funneling money from taxpayers to greedy contractors: the perfect fighter had an engine, a gun, a pilot and as little else as possible. (Wasn't a commercial Fuzzbuster assessed as being all the ECM a 'real fighter' needed?) We had the wing root wiring for QRC-160 installed in the F-105 in late '65--early '66. The pods didn't get fielded until October '66. That was ECM, counter-measures. The RHAW gear for radar detection like a Fuzzbuster was deployed in F-100F Weasels in '65 and the F-105 force in spring of '66. It was considerably more sophisticated than Fuzzbuster. I suspect that tale is urban legend stuff. The story I've heard was that an AFNG F-4 unit, NVANG seems to have been mentioned, installed some tweaked civilian radar gear, and used them to surprise some pilots in war games who thought it would be easy to sneak up on the Rhinos like they had done in the past. |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
"Vanishing American Air Superiority"
On Mar 7, 3:18*pm, frank wrote:
On Mar 7, 12:06*am, "Ray O'Hara" wrote: "Paul J. Adam" wrote in messagenews In message , Ed Rasimus writes On Sat, 6 Mar 2010 21:35:41 +0000, "Paul J. Adam" wrote: During the liveliest parts of 1972, USN Phantoms killed six NVAF MiGs for every aircraft they lost to them, while the USAF managed a 2:1 ratio. (There are many factors in play for the difference, but it's curious how smiting two enemy for every loss is considered inadequate...) The "liveliest parts of 1972 only involved late April to mid-October and then two weeks in December. The ratios you quote were not at all for the period in question. Yes, USN kill ratios were vastly higher than USAF. But sorties in Pack VI, duration of exposure in the arena, specialization of training, and (as you acknowledge) many factors were at play. And the US was always ahead on kills, even when fighting a politically circumscribed conflict where the enemy was frequently allowed untouchable bases and GCI. It's not clear that the F-4 was a disaster for US military procurement, nor that buying "something else" (what?) would have produced a better result. What were U.S. bases in Japan during Korea and VN but untouchable bases? it always amazes me how our side cries the enemy was cheating by using out of theater bases when we were doing it to a bigger degree. and there is curious incident where 2 USAF planes from Taiwan"accidently" shot up an airbase in China during the Korean war. Not only that, but virtually every conflict since. Dubai in the Gulf, Saudi Arabia. Not to mention a lot of commercial air and shipping to move supplies and troops were never touched. Somebody gets smart and whacks some of that and gets the insurance premiums through the roof, we may just lose a war someday. Lots of stuff from Taiwan haven't been put into the history books. Which is a damn shame. Lots of spooks and sheep dipped types. Japan also. It wasn't so much the "untouchable" thing either, the air defenses in South Korea and Japan were good. The Russians and Chinese sort of had to use the border as cover. There was also at least one Russian encroachment on a US Navy carrier, which was driven off by the fighter Combat Air Patrol. Yes, a US vs. Russia dogfight. Taiwan, good question, though China and Taiwan skirmished a lot. I agree about those history books. Maybe stuff was tried in that regard that we haven't heard about yet for various reasons. I agree about the air stuff today. A few years back I remember a DHL jet in Afghanistan making a dicey landing after someone hit it with a shoulder-launched missile. |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
"Vanishing American Air Superiority"
"Andrew Swallow" wrote in message ... Ray O'Hara wrote: "Andrew Swallow" wrote in message ... Ray O'Hara wrote: {snip} you like the author are judging the future by todays standards. do you see any war in the near {next 2 decades} future? {snip} Next wars - Britain vs Argentina over Falkland Island oil fields. USA vs oil states over insults by their leaders, including South America West vs Muslim countries that hide and support terrorists (continuation of the current war) USA vs Iran - they have not forgiven each other plus all that oil China vs African countries for African raw materials. (The West may decide to stay out.) Andrew Swallow we don't need the F-22 for any of thise wars and I doubt China invading Aftica is a likely scenario. I suspect that it is the other way round. African governments trying to nationalise Chinese run mines, railways and ports. This is just repeating what their grandfathers did to the European empires. Andrew Swallow gee, locals trying to control their own resources, how evil. foreigners with guns should always rule. |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
"Vanishing American Air Superiority"
On Mar 7, 9:11*pm, "Ray O'Hara" wrote:
"Andrew Swallow" wrote in message ... Ray O'Hara wrote: "Andrew Swallow" wrote in message .. . Ray O'Hara wrote: {snip} you like the author are judging the future *by todays standards. do you see any war in the near {next 2 decades} future? {snip} Next wars - Britain vs Argentina over Falkland Island oil fields. USA vs oil states over insults by their leaders, including South America West vs Muslim countries that hide and support terrorists (continuation of the current war) USA vs Iran - they have not forgiven each other plus all that oil China vs African countries for African raw materials. *(The West may decide to stay out.) Andrew Swallow we don't need the F-22 for any of thise wars and I doubt China invading Aftica is a likely scenario. I suspect that it is the other way round. *African governments trying to nationalise Chinese run mines, railways and ports. *This is just repeating what their grandfathers did to the European empires. Andrew Swallow gee, locals trying to control their own resources, how evil. foreigners with guns should always rule. Owning one's resources is not evil, but inviting someone to help develop them with you as a partner and then stealing their agreed-on share of the profits is generally considered a nasty thing to do. See: Venezuela. |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
"Vanishing American Air Superiority"
On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 09:58:27 +0000, Alan Dicey
wrote: Paul Saccani wrote: wrote: British aerial victory claims are vastly exagerated in the BoB. Indeed, to say the least. *Were* exaggerated, at the time, because of confusion (even though both sides were quite rigorous in their verification) and to help morale. Actually, the poms didn't exaggerate their claims to help moral. They understated their losses instead. Their exaggerated claims continue to be used even today. An interesting issue is that Hurricane units exaggerated their claims three times more than Spitfire units. And the biggest exagerators of them all were Defiant units. The motivations would appear to be more those of the individuals concerned than any official attempt to exagerate. Even today, those grotesque exagerations result in difficulties in understanding the lessons of the battle, particularly the relatively greater exageration by the Hurricane units versus Spitfire units, and by "Big Wing" formations versus the smaller formations. Even today, there are still people who think that the Balboas were a successful tactic. We still won. The Germans also overclaimed - their intelligence system several times reported that the RAF was down to its last few aircraft. They did, but your juxtaposition of the intelligence assessment is illogical. They thought they had dramatically curtailed production of fighter aircraft. They were mistaken. It's one reason why the appearance of the formed-up Big Wing on September 15th was such a shock. I would've said that the biggest shock was that it that it managed to be formed in time - that was only because of careless planning by the Germans, who neglected to make any feints and allowed their intentions to be clearly determined whilst they were still over France. You know the real losses were only 56 to 27, don't you? "Here they come again, the last 20 Spitfires..." Cheers, Paul Saccani, Perth, Western Australia |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
"Vanishing American Air Superiority"
On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 11:36:22 -0600, Dan wrote:
Ray O'Hara wrote: "Alan Dicey" wrote in message o.uk... Paul Saccani wrote: wrote: British aerial victory claims are vastly exagerated in the BoB. Indeed, to say the least. *Were* exaggerated, at the time, because of confusion (even though both sides were quite rigorous in their verification) and to help morale. We still won. The Germans also overclaimed - their intelligence system several times reported that the RAF was down to its last few aircraft. It's one reason why the appearance of the formed-up Big Wing on September 15th was such a shock. "Here they come again, the last 20 Spitfires..." won? the British bombing German cities causing retaliation against London "won" the battle. Check your history. He's right. The Luftwaffe acidently bombed London, so the British carried out a larger strikes against German cities. This enraged a certain vegetarian nut case into ordering the main effort against London, instead of Fighter Command and aircraft factories. If that had not of happened, Fighter Command was on the verge of collapse (in their own assessments), the Germans would have achieved air superiority, perhaps even air dominance, and the UK's production capability and war fighting potential would have been greatly effected. Though the Germans would have received a hiding if they attempted an invasion. AFAIK, Sea Lion was always a high level deception against Russia in any case. Cheers, Paul Saccani, Perth, Western Australia |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
"Vanishing American Air Superiority"
In article ,
Ed Rasimus wrote: On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 13:46:34 -0800, Steve Hix wrote: In article , Ed Rasimus wrote: But then, Boyd's acolytes seem to have considered that to be the goal. Guided weapons and any other electronics were useless treason, good only for funneling money from taxpayers to greedy contractors: the perfect fighter had an engine, a gun, a pilot and as little else as possible. (Wasn't a commercial Fuzzbuster assessed as being all the ECM a 'real fighter' needed?) We had the wing root wiring for QRC-160 installed in the F-105 in late '65--early '66. The pods didn't get fielded until October '66. That was ECM, counter-measures. The RHAW gear for radar detection like a Fuzzbuster was deployed in F-100F Weasels in '65 and the F-105 force in spring of '66. It was considerably more sophisticated than Fuzzbuster. I suspect that tale is urban legend stuff. The story I've heard was that an AFNG F-4 unit, NVANG seems to have been mentioned, installed some tweaked civilian radar gear, and used them to surprise some pilots in war games who thought it would be easy to sneak up on the Rhinos like they had done in the past. By the time the NVANG had Rhinos all F-4s were caring RWR gear, APR-46 on most -E models. Digital warning, prioritized threat, software tie to weapons type, etc. OK. I can scratch that one off. |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
"Vanishing American Air Superiority"
On Mar 8, 6:13*am, Jack Linthicum wrote:
Question: if the "new" air arms are a mother ship piloted aircraft with a covey of UAV "attack" or "defense" as responsibility and the pilot's job is simply to fly the UAV operators to the scene of the crime, is that pilot a "fighter pilot"? Since the pilot is in the air "at the scene of the crime" and may be requested to take evasive maneuvers at any time... Yes! Unless he happens to be a Naval Aviator of course. -HJC |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
"Vanishing American Air Superiority"
"Paul Saccani" wrote in message ... On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 11:36:22 -0600, Dan wrote: Ray O'Hara wrote: "Alan Dicey" wrote in message o.uk... Paul Saccani wrote: wrote: British aerial victory claims are vastly exagerated in the BoB. Indeed, to say the least. *Were* exaggerated, at the time, because of confusion (even though both sides were quite rigorous in their verification) and to help morale. We still won. The Germans also overclaimed - their intelligence system several times reported that the RAF was down to its last few aircraft. It's one reason why the appearance of the formed-up Big Wing on September 15th was such a shock. "Here they come again, the last 20 Spitfires..." won? the British bombing German cities causing retaliation against London "won" the battle. Check your history. He's right. The Luftwaffe acidently bombed London, so the British carried out a larger strikes against German cities. This enraged a certain vegetarian nut case into ordering the main effort against London, instead of Fighter Command and aircraft factories. The decision to switch the target to London was taken at a meeting of the Luftwaffe staff in The Hague on Sept 3 1940. Kesselring had been pressing for a sustained attack on London and since Hitler had removed the prohibition on bombing the British capital on Aug 30th. At the meeting Kesselring who was chief of staff repeated his recommendation for an attack on London. Sperle disagreed arguing that the attacks on the fighter fields should be continued. Goering supported Kesselring saying. Quote My fellow commanders, we are now on the brink of victory. An assault and an invasion of England is now more promising than ever before. Our intelligence has now informed us that the RAF is now down to less than a hundred fighter aircraft, the airfields protecting London are out of action because of the superb and accurate bombing of our bomber forces, their communications are in disarray, and now we are told, their air commanders are arguing with each other. Gentlemen, another phase is now almost complete. The RAF is now no longer the great threat that it used to be, and we can now draw every available fighter plane that the RAF has into the air, because the next target must be London itself....... /Quote In fact the RAF had more single seater fighters ready for action than had been the case at the start of the Battle having replaced the Belnheims and Battles with Hurricanes and Spitfires. If that had not of happened, Fighter Command was on the verge of collapse (in their own assessments), the Germans would have achieved air superiority, perhaps even air dominance, and the UK's production capability and war fighting potential would have been greatly effected. Though the Germans would have received a hiding if they attempted an invasion. This overstates the case but does nicely point out the differences between the commanders. While 11 group was undoubtedly under great pressure fighter command as a whole was at full establishment with 670 fighters available for combat. Dowding was concerned because he believed , rightly IMHO, that he should have 2 pilots for each aircraft and by Sept 1st he only had 1100 pilots available. Even so throughout the BOB the RAF was able to take pilots out of the line for rest and leave. The worst case scenario for Dowding was moving squadrons to airfields north of London. In the same period Sperle reported that the Luftwaffe was suffering seriously from attrition. Squadrons were below strength , typically at 80-90% of their establishment at the start of the battle. They were not replacing aircrews or aircraft at the rate they were being lost and he was worried that the Luftwaffe intelligence reports greatly underestimated RAF strength. He was overuled. Goering and Kesselring estimated that the RAF was down to 20% of its nominal strength. That gross failure of intelligence explains the decision to switch targets. Hitler gave the Luftwaffe Staff permission to make the mistake and they took it. Keith |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
American Women Raped in Iraq by "Lawless" Bushite Grunters - 1.The ISI's General, Mahmoud Ahmad funded 911's Atta - 2. We have video of ironflowing like water from the towers - American Women Raped in Iraq by"Lawless" Bushite | frank | Naval Aviation | 1 | August 30th 08 12:35 PM |
American Women Raped in Iraq by "Lawless" Bushite Grunters - 1. The ISI's General, Mahmoud Ahmad funded 911's Atta - 2. We have video of iron flowing like water from the towers - American Women Raped in Iraq by "Lawless" Bushi | Charlie Wolf[_2_] | Naval Aviation | 0 | August 29th 08 03:19 AM |
Corporate News Whores are Evil to All Humans Being - PentagonWon't Probe KBR [GANG] Rape Charges - "Heaven Won't Take [bushite] Marines" -American corporations actively attempt to MURDER American women, and American"Men" refus | WiseGuy | Naval Aviation | 0 | January 9th 08 02:50 PM |