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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
"Vanishing American Air Superiority"
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. Also strange is describing the F-104 as an "indescribable and dangerous oddity" when it was the 1950s/1960s epitome of John Boyd's Light Weight Fighter designed in response to user requests post-Korea: a pared-down airframe optimised for speed, energy and agility, with useless wasteful boondoggles like long-ranged radar, advanced countermeasures, or sophisticated weapon-aiming systems left out to optimise the aircraft for high-speed dogfighting. Whoa. While Boyd's concept of a high/low mix, his vision of specialization for a A/A and A/G team, and his E/M calculations were all significant contributions to extend "light weight fighter" to the F-104 is a reach. Doesn't it fit many of his goals? Maximised energy, stripped of tedious irrelevances like self-protection ECM, fast and agile with guns and basic IR-AAMs. And for sure Boyd would have *despised* that notably useless and ineffective aircraft from Republic, the F-105 Thunderchief: Ed, can you shed any light on how badly it performed and how hated it was by its pilots? The F-104 was the product of a period of fascination with Mach 2 and expanding the envelope of performance. It was optimized for speed but hardly for agility. It was extremely limited in first generation versions as a weapon system in almost any mission beyond day VFR WVR fighter. 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?) Perhaps the USAF had no clear idea what it needed? The F-104 epitomised most of Boyd's ideals, yet its limited combat service in US hands was less than stellar. Similarly, the US operated the F-5, another austere, cheap, agile fighter that should have delighted Boyd, yet chose not to field it in large numbers at the frontline. Actually the USAF never operated the F-5 as an operational system. The F-5A assets were support for Foreign Military Sales training of customer air forces. The Skoshi Tiger deployment was an Operational Training & Evaluation exercise to determine suitabilty for a purchase of operational airframes. The F-5E aggressors were training assets and adoption of aircraft which had been destined for VNAF when the war ended. No operational F-5s for the USAF. I know I'm being a smartarse, but why not? Look at the roll rate of the F-5 family (including the T-38), look at its small size and low cost, see its successful utility as an Aggressor aircraft, why isn't it a contender for a Boyd war-winner? It's got guns and Sidewinders and not much else, it's cheap and agile and small, why isn't this an airframe the USAF should procure by the thousand and send into frontline combat? However, getting there involved breaking most of Boyd's rules. Curiously, as late as "The Pentagon Paradox", Boyd's supporters were bewailing the manner in which the F-16 and F-18 were "ruined" by putting the "useless rubbish" back on them: the same useless equipment that allowed them to be worldbeating combat aircraft rather than manned target drones. Actually Boyd was gone by the time the pounds for A/G were added to the Eagles and the radar missile capability was fitted to Vipers. I know, but it's amusing to read "The Pentagon Paradox" with the benefit of hindsight. And Boyd was gone by the time that the F-15 and F-16 achieved most of their successes. If there could be a real achievement of those Pentagon basement warriors known as the Fighter Mafia it would be the conversion of the USAF from a nuclear strike force and the incorporation of leadership which could exploit tactical conventional forces rather than heavy massed bombers. On this I agree: I just read about the period in question, you were wearing the uniform and flying combat missions at the time. What's the "low" option for the US Army's armoured forces? They have a very definite "high end" war-winner in the M1 Abrams, so where is the "low end" tank? Bradley. By that argument the AC-130 is a "fighter". Armour and IFVs are inherently different beasts, even if from a distance they're both metal boxes on tracks with gun turrets. (Similarly, anyone who tries to call a British Warrior, or Scimitar or Sabre CVR(T), a "tank" is just exposing ignorance) It's interesting that both the US and British Armies go high-end-only for armour, while going for a high-low (or high-middle-low, or more recently a bizarre flexible spectrum) for infantry units. Actually it is more organizational than equipment. Building divisions as Armor or Mech Infantry gives you a high/lo emphasis. If you send tank-only units into battle they die, quickly and nastily. The question becomes whether you support them with troops in IFVs that can keep pace on a cross-country move and fight all the way, or whether you use troops on foot or in light vehicles that can't fight beyond self-defence but can keep pace with the tanks and carry the infantry's kit and first-level supplies. (Come on, Ed, you were an ALO, you picked some of this up...) Many of these Chinese aircraft will have trouble flying to Taiwan, let alone menacing any US interests less proximate. Unless the US plans to invade China, then the swarms of elderly Chinese warplanes are prisoners of their limited endurance. The issue isn't one of defending the US from a swarm of enemy aircraft. It is of responding after an unconventional attack such as a limited nuclear missile strike or similar. It is of being able to control airspace to support your offensive operational forces. As long as the US has a global leadership role we will face a probability of engaging in combat operations somewhere in the world. That will require air dominance and force projection. The cynic in me says the short-term answer to that problem is more and better carrier battle groups, unless you can guarantee that you have ready access to well-prepared airbases close to every credible threat. The key, which will probably not happen, is to recognise that it's been a quarter-century since work started on the Advanced Tactical Fighter and that the next aircraft type needs to start work *now* to keep that skillbase together and have a candidate ready to buy in 2020 (if hurried) or 2030 (if no urgent issues arise). But simply bleating "buy more F-22s!" reads as industry lobbying rather than rational argument. Only on Usenet does the detailed argument for more aircraft get reduced to irrationality. The key is exactly what you say. It takes time to develop and tool up for a modern aircraft. The existing flight is obsolescent. The Raptor/JSF are available as immediate replacements and the next-gen is over-the-horizon. The bleating is about filling the gaps for 25 years with 1980s airplanes like 15/16/18s even in the latest blocks. Even the US can't afford the F-22 in numbers (I said years ago that while the F-22 was individually superior to the Typhoon, that even the US would end up with fewer Raptors than we're getting Typhoons...) The F-35 is also escalating in cost at a worrying rate, which is a concern in the UK since we're also intending to rely on it. This isn't catastrophic for the expeditionary-warfare case since the limit always is "where can we base them?" and even the UK has run out of ramp space before running out of full-capability airframes in the last decade or two. One suggestion is to "develop a new next-generation aircraft at a sensible price". But I recall that the "Advanced Tactical Fighter" was absolutely, definitely, guaranteed to come in at less than fifty million dollars per airframe so it could replace F-15s on something approaching a one-for-one exchange. Easy to say, harder to do. (I'll make the effort as project manager, on a consultancy basis, if you give me a waiver for the NOFORN issues, but I can't *guarantee* success) There is no spare cash lying around in the UK for new defence projects and I'd hazard that the US is not too different. Is the US at a real risk of losing air superiority over the battlespace of its choosing in the next decade? If not, then perhaps the priority for limited funding is to get the next-generation aircraft started *now* and maintaining the cadre of experienced pilots and ground crews for operations, and the industrial base while some experienced hands can be kept. It's a risk: we take enough of them already that either one more is no big deal or else someone needs to persuade voters to pay to cover it. -- He thinks too much, such men are dangerous. Paul J. Adam |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
"Vanishing American Air Superiority"
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message ... In message , Mike writes The high-low mix was pioneered during WWII. Both the British and the U.S. stumbled onto the concept without quite realizing what they were doing. In the years before the war's outbreak, the British embarked on a crash program to build eight-gun fighters for the defense of the home islands. The premier model was the Supermarine Spitfire, one of the legendary combat aircraft of the 20th century. But the Spitfire was supplemented by the lesser-known but still capable Hawker Hurricane. The Hurricane could take on the primary German fighter, the Messerschmidt Bf -109, only with difficulty, Not particularly, as the histories show... the Spitfire 1A had the edge on the 109E, the Hurricane 1A was "merely" its equal. As the war went on and Spitfires appeared in more substantial numbers, the Hurricane took on the fighter-bomber role. So did the Spitfire and Seafi aircraft that had no value once the enemy air force was defeated, were of limited utility. I'd look with interest at the USN aircraft of the time: the newer air superiority fighters (Hellcats and Corsairs, then Bearcats and Tigercats) all got good at strafing, bombing and rocketing ground targets once they had shot down every flyable enemy aircraft. There's also the point that RAF procurement was far less linear of "high and low end fighter". Even during the Battle of Britain we had the Hurricane and Spitfire as fighters... plus unfortunate concepts that didn't work well such as the Defiant and the Blenheim IF, and a few Whirlwinds that were held back by engine trouble from their full potential. Later, we had "fighters" like the Beaufighter and Mosquito VI, which were fighters in the same way the F-105 was: powerful strike aircraft that were ill-advised to turn with a small, agile foe but could cruelly punish any enemy careless enough to get into their sights. We also had the Typhoon, designed as an air-superiority fighter but highly effective as a strike aircraft, the Tempest (was it the "high end" or "low end" compared to the Spitfire?) Coming into the '60s without a fighter to carry out its basic missions, the USAF was forced to purchase the F-4 Phantom II, developed on behalf of the enemy service, the U.S. Navy. While an excellent aircraft, the F-4 was in many ways the apotheosis of the fighter-bomber, too heavy and lacking the agility to fill the air- superiority role. 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...) Also strange is describing the F-104 as an "indescribable and dangerous oddity" when it was the 1950s/1960s epitome of John Boyd's Light Weight Fighter designed in response to user requests post-Korea: a pared-down airframe optimised for speed, energy and agility, with useless wasteful boondoggles like long-ranged radar, advanced countermeasures, or sophisticated weapon-aiming systems left out to optimise the aircraft for high-speed dogfighting. Perhaps the USAF had no clear idea what it needed? The F-104 epitomised most of Boyd's ideals, yet its limited combat service in US hands was less than stellar. Similarly, the US operated the F-5, another austere, cheap, agile fighter that should have delighted Boyd, yet chose not to field it in large numbers at the frontline. Together, the F-15 and F-16 stand as the most effective fighter team on record. The F-15 compiled a kill ratio of 105 kills to zero losses. While the F-16's record was only half that, it more than effectively filled the swing role as the primary high-speed attack aircraft in theaters including Serbia and Iraq. Neither aircraft ever suffered a loss in air-to-air combat. However, getting there involved breaking most of Boyd's rules. Curiously, as late as "The Pentagon Paradox", Boyd's supporters were bewailing the manner in which the F-16 and F-18 were "ruined" by putting the "useless rubbish" back on them: the same useless equipment that allowed them to be worldbeating combat aircraft rather than manned target drones. It would appear that the high-low thesis is as well established as any military concept ever gets. What's the "low" option for the US Army's armoured forces? They have a very definite "high end" war-winner in the M1 Abrams, so where is the "low end" tank? Suppose, if things get hot, our 120 planes are facing five hundred, a thousand, or even more fifth-generation enemy fighters? (China today fields roughly 2,000 fighter aircraft.) What happens then? Shades of the 1980s when analysts breathlessly counted every Soviet tank that could possibly ever be fielded, looked at the latest and best, then pronounced that we faced "fifty thousand T-80 tanks". In fact we faced a few hundred T-80s, with a tail of older and less advanced vehicles, and a notional swarm of warehoused T-34s left over from the Second World War. Similarly, China's "2,000 fighters" are largely outdated relics - MiG-21 copies and the like - and China has at least the same constraints on replacing them one-for-one with modern aircraft as the US does with maintaining its 1970s numbers while increasing individual capability. Many of these Chinese aircraft will have trouble flying to Taiwan, let alone menacing any US interests less proximate. Unless the US plans to invade China, then the swarms of elderly Chinese warplanes are prisoners of their limited endurance. The F-22 is a ferociously expensive beast, though very capable with it. However, there is a good argument - though it falls apart against traditional politicans' short-sightedness - that the design and development is the key input to maintain capability, and that limited procurement in the face of a limited threat (what aircraft in hostile hands, flying today or in the next five years, can seriously discomfit a F-22?) is a pragmatic response to reality. The key, which will probably not happen, is to recognise that it's been a quarter-century since work started on the Advanced Tactical Fighter and that the next aircraft type needs to start work *now* to keep that skillbase together and have a candidate ready to buy in 2020 (if hurried) or 2030 (if no urgent issues arise). But simply bleating "buy more F-22s!" reads as industry lobbying rather than rational argument. The 109 was better than the Hurricane and the Spit and 109 were basically equals. the Spit is prettier British aerial victory claims are vastly exagerated in the BoB. as for aerial kill loss ratios, claims well exceed kills that is true for every war. Eric Hammel in his Books on Guadalcanal took a perverse delight in exposing Joe Foss's claims of kills as being hollow he cross referenced Foss'sclaims with Japanese records and found on several occasions when Foss had victories, especially multiple victories Japanese records showed no losses. and Joe wasn't the only over-claimer in the days of gunfighters speed, rate of climb and ceilling seemed to matter more than turning. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
"Vanishing American Air Superiority"
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message news 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. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
"Vanishing American Air Superiority"
On Mar 6, 8:34 am, "Ray O'Hara" wrote:
"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in ... ..... The F-22 is another AVRO Arrow, a wonderful plane designed to fight the last war{the one we didn't have}. A really good weapon system, like the F-22, may never need to be used, because it's an intimidating deterence, that way it prevents conflict. Walk softly, carry a big stick. Ken the only weapon in history that can make that claim is the A-Bomb. and we still have plenty of those. Ever heard of going to a gunfight with a rubber knife. Ken |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
"Vanishing American Air Superiority"
On Sun, 7 Mar 2010 00:54:20 -0500, "Ray O'Hara"
wrote: The 109 was better than the Hurricane and the Spit and 109 were basically equals. the Spit is prettier The Spitfire and Hurricane were not isolated from one another - in order to make the Hurricane more competitive against the Bf109, they got the more powerful versions of the Merlin, with the Spitfire still able to be superior with the lower powered versions. This was one of Freeman's decisions to make best use of the available resources. British aerial victory claims are vastly exagerated in the BoB. Indeed, to say the least. Cheers, Paul Saccani, Perth, Western Australia |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
"Vanishing American Air Superiority"
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 |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
"Vanishing American Air Superiority"
frank wrote:
On Mar 5, 8:52 pm, 150flivver wrote: On Mar 5, 6:35 pm, Richard wrote: On Mar 5, 12:39 pm, "Ray O'Hara" wrote: "Ed Rasimus" wrote in message ... On Fri, 5 Mar 2010 11:10:15 -0500, "Ray O'Hara" wrote: "Mike" wrote in message ... http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/...an_air_superio... Vanishing American Air Superiority what a load of ****. That's a difficult argument to refute. Penetrating analysis at its finest. What parts? Spit/Hurricane? Sabre/Thunderjet? Century series? Boyd and hi/lo mix? You've given us so much to think about Ray. what better planes being planned never mind actually being built by anybody else. the points the author makes are false strawman types. the Brits on 1940 didn't need two types, they needed more spits, they were building them. maybe you can say we have "hurricanes" now but who is building 109s? if there were no 109s then the Hurricane would have ruled the sky. technology is moving past the manned fighter. building the most advanced manned fighter now would be akin to building the most advanced bi-plane in 1935. what we have is better now than what others have now, building a hugely expensive "better" plane that will be obsolete in short order is a waste Worse. Given the cost of the airframe, maintenance, crew training and support vs Drones...its more like bldg BB in 1935 instead of carriers. Aren't y'all making quite a leap saying UAVs have surpassed manned fighters when to my knowledge, not a single UAV has ever successfully engaged a manned fighter. Suddenly manned fighters are obsolete. There's a bit of difference between firing a hellfire or dropping a GBU on an unsuspecting pickup truck and attacking an IADS. UAVs may be useful weapons but they hardly are close to having the speed, range, flexibility or firepower of a manned aircraft. Not to mention I'd trust Ed on scene far more than some throttle jockey watching screens at Nellis. Or Yeager. I've heard this we can do it unmanned before. Some stuff, maybe. Dumping manned fighters for UAVs. Stupidity. And you know what, when we need manned fighters in the future, its not a matter of going to wal mart and taking 2 of them. The next successful fighter may be a stand-off launcher of missiles that can be guided to their incoming target by the weapons officer. Andrew Swallow |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
"Vanishing American Air Superiority"
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..." |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
"Vanishing American Air Superiority"
"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. Not unless Argentina buys some equipment that works... USA vs oil states over insults by their leaders, including South America Not unless there's a major change in US foreign policy. They usually just forment a coup and deal with the military. West vs Muslim countries that hide and support terrorists (continuation of the current war) The US relationship with Pakistan seems to indicate that it doesn't amtter who the government is or what they say. USA vs Iran - they have not forgiven each other plus all that oil Possible. What will Iran use for weapons? China vs African countries for African raw materials. (The West may decide to stay out.) Interesting idea. How does China get their army there? -- William Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
"Vanishing American Air Superiority"
Paul J. Adam wrote:
{snip} The cynic in me says the short-term answer to that problem is more and better carrier battle groups, unless you can guarantee that you have ready access to well-prepared airbases close to every credible threat. (Ex-)Prime Minister Tony Blair has been making it clear for several years that he wanted something done about Rhodesia/Zimbabwe, no African country was willing to permit use of their airports. Andrew Swallow |
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 |