Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: BMathis on April 29, 2009, 12:21:43 PM
-
This is a really nice video. Very interesting technologies at work.
http://www.es.northropgrumman.com/solutions/f35targeting/assets/eodasvideo.html
:salute
-
Gotta love those F-35's. Lockheed Martin is right down the road from me. I have picked a few F-35's with my cranes. They wouldn't let me take any pictures. :cry
-
X-ray vision? watch out ladies. :D They can look through the floor of the cockpit. :aok
-
Looks sweet, but why do the Aus's want to refund their F-35s?
-
So that's what my Brother isn't allowed to talk about. Amazing how far we have advanced since WWII. :)
-
Looks sweet, but why do the Aus's want to refund their F-35s?
Because no F-35 has been combat tested. Everything has been simulated by computer...
-
Because no F-35 has been combat tested. Everything has been simulated by computer...
And the computer suggested they'd be 'clubbed like baby seals' by Russian and Chinese fighters. Either that or they were being flown by two-weekers.
-
Ooooh, yay! Now we can run from the fight instead of outmaneuvering our opponent and still win the fight. Something tells me ACM training will soon be regarded as, "unnecessary."
-
Ooooh, yay! Now we can run from the fight instead of outmaneuvering our opponent and still win the fight. Something tells me ACM training will soon be regarded as, "unnecessary."
We made that Mistake in Vietnam...
-
Ooooh, yay! Now we can run from the fight instead of outmaneuvering our opponent and still win the fight. Something tells me ACM training will soon be regarded as, "unnecessary."
Tom Cruise proved that it is necessary
-
We made that Mistake in Vietnam...
Which leads me to believe we are right on schedule to make that mistake again.
-
Very interesting but I'm pretty sure that Australia isn't going to refund them all. We're taking some superhornets as a stopgap aircraft and then we need replacements because our f-111's are getting to old. Interesting video. Could be working on those in a matter of a few years as an Avionics technician in the RAAF :)
Regards
FBClaw
-
This is a really nice video. Very interesting technologies at work.
http://www.es.northropgrumman.com/solutions/f35targeting/assets/eodasvideo.html
:salute
Way not-cool. The romance of the fighter pilot is officially dead.
-
Yup. We are gonna buy this bomber and I bet its gonna be a great bomber.
I just hope its gonna be fast enough (maybe in a dive :lol ) to catch the backfires and russian fighters that we need them for. The stealth is gonna be a real asset when we have to bomb the taliban in afghanistan though. They are well known for their excellent radars and anti aircraft missiles :)
-
Yup. We are gonna buy this bomber and I bet its gonna be a great bomber.
I just hope its gonna be fast enough (maybe in a dive :lol ) to catch the backfires and russian fighters that we need them for. The stealth is gonna be a real asset when we have to bomb the taliban in afghanistan though. They are well known for their excellent radars and anti aircraft missiles :)
That's a pretty moot point. The F-16's you have now can't catch a dashing Backfire, and neither can the Gripen or EF2000 or any other european fighter. However, the good thing about bombers (if you can call it a good thing) is that when you really need to intercept them they are coming towards you. ;)
-
All the planes you mentioned are faster than the F35 and they can turn ;)
That beeing said id rather see we get the F15 Silent Eagle with all the latest radars and upgrades. They have the two engines that i feel is needed over the north sea. Atleast the F35 is cheap so that helps abit and it should do well against the russian fleet if they ever decide to do something stupid.
Stealth? Yeah its good for now but thats just until detection technologies gets better and that is just a matter of a few years. :)
The low price of the F35 and its excellent sensors is what makes me give it a thumbs up.
-
Arming your air force to fight the Russians is ... unrealistic. No matter what aircraft you buy you can't hope to stand against an air force 100 times larger than your own, even if your aircraft are somewhat more advanced. Arming your air force for international NATO operations on the other hand is realistic, and even if the bad guys we're fighting now are nothing but mountain goat herders with AK's, tomorrow it might be Iranians or North Koreans or who knows what, and you might want a piece of that action. Your pilots will most likely never have to fire an air-2-air missile in anger, USAF/USN will do the prep-work as usual. However you might have a SAM or two fired at you, and then this DAS system seems like a good thing to have.
-
DAS does look fantastic! :aok
-
Arming your air force to fight the Russians is ... unrealistic. No matter what aircraft you buy you can't hope to stand against an air force 100 times larger than your own, even if your aircraft are somewhat more advanced. Arming your air force for international NATO operations on the other hand is realistic, and even if the bad guys we're fighting now are nothing but mountain goat herders with AK's, tomorrow it might be Iranians or North Koreans or who knows what, and you might want a piece of that action. Your pilots will most likely never have to fire an air-2-air missile in anger, USAF/USN will do the prep-work as usual. However you might have a SAM or two fired at you, and then this DAS system seems like a good thing to have.
No way we have a chanse against the russians so even trying is futile. That is why what we really need is something fast enough to intercept them in peacetime (as we do several times a month) to show them we can. In a war with russia the airforce would be disabled in 30 mins to an hour MAX whatever aircraft we have. All they have to do is hit the airfields. This has been known for over 50 years. ;)
-
Ooooh, yay! Now we can run from the fight instead of outmaneuvering our opponent and still win the fight. Something tells me ACM training will soon be regarded as, "unnecessary."
it's not running. it's extending
-
No way we have a chanse against the russians so even trying is futile. That is why what we really need is something fast enough to intercept them in peacetime (as we do several times a month) to show them we can. In a war with russia the airforce would be disabled in 30 mins to an hour MAX whatever aircraft we have. All they have to do is hit the airfields. This has been known for over 50 years. ;)
And do you have problems with intercepting Russian bombers now? The F-16 cannot super cruise so all your intercepts now are subsonic. On afterburner the F-16's endurance is measured in minutes. How can the F-35 do worse?
-
And do you have problems with intercepting Russian bombers now? The F-16 cannot super cruise so all your intercepts now are subsonic. On afterburner the F-16's endurance is measured in minutes. How can the F-35 do worse?
Not a problem in peacetime to intercept if they let us, and it wont be a problem with the F35 in peacetime either. That is why i say thumbs up for the F35 due to its low cost and good sensors. In war time atleast the eurofighter/F15 or JAS would have a better chanse at intercepting them due to higher speeds ;)
F35 is a good cheap peacetime bomber and an excellent surveilance aircraft that would prolly get some kills in war too if they are up when the attack comes. When they go to land for more missiles or fuel they will be in trouble just as any other plane because the airfield(s) would be full of holes.
In a war over here our aircraft would not be our best line of defence whatever plane we would have. Most of the war plans we had during the cold war were and i suspect are made with the assumption that our airforce is all gone.
-
We made that Mistake in VietNam...
Been awhile since 'nam and 1'ST Gen ATA missilery eh?
Here http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_217.shtml scratch you itch on that page and study the ATA kills made by US aircraft during Gulf-1, "which was a generation ago missile-wise". All those kills by the AIM-7, the Sparrow AMRAMM. A missile that required the launch aircraft to keep its radar on and fly straight and level. Current generation AMRAMM dont require either.http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/aim-120.htm
To compare these Vietnam era aircraft, missiles, avionics, with todays latest Gen. is just crazy. Look at it this way. Vietnam era we sent men to the Moon with computers about as powerful as a cheap day planners you'd buy for $10 at a K-mart. Compare that to the latest game puters anyone with a credit card can buy nowadays. Heck my puter has more RAM in its video card then all the RAM of every NASA puter that went to the moon. Let alone the ability to process faster.
And thats the real secret of the F-35/5'th Gen aircraft and avionics, "besides stealth". They have the sensors on board, and the processing power, to acquire and move information at an incredible speed/Network and give the pilot the upper hand in the battle. Its an entirely new ball game.
America has the most advanced military aviation industry in the world by far. We could just have easily built a fighter that dances and tail walks at air shows. But we didn't! Why?
-
In war time atleast the eurofighter/F15 or JAS would have a better chanse at intercepting them due to higher speeds ;)
That is wrong on many levels:
1. There is no difference between peacetime intercepts and wartime intercepts up to the point when the shooting starts.
2. None of the fighters you mentioned are faster than the F-35 with an A2A war load. The F-35 carries its A2A missiles internally and can fly at its maximum speed. All the other fighters you mentioned lose speed for every missile they carry.
3. The Russian bombers cannot super cruise, so they are subsonic too for most of their flight. The Backfire would be lucky to even detect the interceptors before coming under fire, and the F-35's stealth is a great asset in that regard.
Top speed is pretty irrelevant for bomber intercepts. Maximum cruise speed however is critical, and with no draggy external load and large internal fuel capacity the F-35 outclass all other fighters except the F-22.
-
Arming your air force to fight the Russians is ... unrealistic. No matter what aircraft you buy you can't hope to stand against an air force 100 times larger than your own, even if your aircraft are somewhat more advanced. Arming your air force for international NATO operations on the other hand is realistic, and even if the bad guys we're fighting now are nothing but mountain goat herders with AK's, tomorrow it might be Iranians or North Koreans or who knows what, and you might want a piece of that action. Your pilots will most likely never have to fire an air-2-air missile in anger, USAF/USN will do the prep-work as usual. However you might have a SAM or two fired at you, and then this DAS system seems like a good thing to have.
i've said this before and got blasted for it......technology doesn't win wars, numbers do.
-
i've said this before and got blasted for it......technology doesn't win wars, numbers do.
I guess the Israelis didnt hear you.
Or the Chinese, who are spending a fortune switching from numbers to High Tech.
Saddams army was far larger then ours in either war but got slaughtered wholesale. Night vision, smart bombs, networkcentricty, AWACs, GPS, drone aircraft, cruise missiles, advanced gunnery on MBTs. My gosh all this high tech was just useless. :D If only we had numbers.
Should the Russians ever get drunk enough to attack NATO they will have far more numbers. However they will be so outclassed everywhere else the war would be exciting but short for them.
Im not blasting you for this technology doesn't win wars, numbers do.
I'm laughing.
-
I guess the Israelis didnt hear you.
Or the Chinese, who are spending a fortune switching from numbers to High Tech.
Saddams army was far larger then ours in either war but got slaughtered wholesale. Night vision, smart bombs, networkcentricty, AWACs, GPS, drone aircraft, cruise missiles, advanced gunnery on MBTs. My gosh all this high tech was just useless. :D If only we had numbers.
Should the Russians ever get drunk enough to attack NATO they will have far more numbers. However they will be so outclassed everywhere else the war would be exciting but short for them.
Im not blasting you for this I'm laughing.
heh....still blasting....:rofl :rofl
soooo.....you're saying that iraq had a bigger army than we did? :rofl
-
Been awhile since 'nam and 1'ST Gen ATA missilery eh?
To compare these Vietnam era aircraft, missiles, avionics, with todays latest Gen. is just crazy. Look at it this way. Vietnam era we sent men to the Moon with computers about as powerful as a cheap day planners you'd buy for $10 at a K-mart.
America has the most advanced military aviation industry in the world by far. We could just have easily built a fighter that dances and tail walks at air shows. But we didn't! Why?
Yes Rich, I understand why we don't build like the Russians or Europeans. I wasn't bashing where we are putting our money. I was simply pointing out that once missiles became the primary means of attack (After WW2/Korea), ACM went out the window...
DAS does look fantastic! :aok
Yea it does. Looking through the Floor of the AC is incredible.
And do you have problems with intercepting Russian bombers now? The F-16 cannot super cruise so all your intercepts now are subsonic. On afterburner the F-16's endurance is measured in minutes. How can the F-35 do worse?
I believe the F-22 has Supersonic Cruise.
-
ACM did not go out the window. People thought ACM went out of window, but the geometry of a missile shot dictates moving to a position to gain a high PK firing solution, or you miss.
Missiles are not death-sticks. Use it right, or miss horribly. The technology helps, but it doesn't change the fact you still have to put yourself in the proper position to make reliable kill shots.
and stealth != invisibility. It simply cuts your detection range drastically. F-35 and F-22 have that massive advantage over everything else, and it really is massive. You up an entire wing of Su-30MKK, and you're still pretty boned. AWACS sees you, makes a radio call, and fighters you can't see coming are now between you and your base. If you don't keep running straight from them, you eat missiles.
-
heh....still blasting....:rofl :rofl
soooo.....you're saying that iraq had a bigger army than we did? :rofl
1st Gulf War they sure did. They were the 4th largest Army at the time and we could only match their numbers through the coalition forces we organized.
ack-ack
-
ACM did not go out the window. People thought ACM went out of window, but the geometry of a missile shot dictates moving to a position to gain a high PK firing solution, or you miss.
Bmathis is referring to the accepted USAAF doctrine at the time that dogfighting with other planes using guns was obsolete, which is why some fighters such as the F-4 Phantom II were built without guns.
During the Korean War where USAF F-86 pilots ran up a 10:1 kill ratio over their North Korean and Chinese opponents. In contrast, American fighter pilots over North Vietnam "only" managed a 2.5:1 kill ratio up to the final bombing halt of 1968. Frustration over this embarrassing performance was intense. Popular mythology has it that while the Air Force continued to bungle along with a grossly inadequate training program, the Navy established their famed "Top Gun" program which, when the air war heated up again three and a half years later, its graduates sweeping the skies over North Vietnam. Meanwhile, Air Force fighter pilots failed to keep up.
ack-ack
-
1st Gulf War they sure did. They were the 4th largest Army at the time and we could only match their numbers through the coalition forces we organized.
ack-ack
soooo...then the invading forces were still larger, correct?
oo..and thanks for a reasonably phrased answer....... :aok
-
i've said this before and got blasted for it......technology doesn't win wars, numbers do.
Technology and numbers win wars. Neither will do it on its own.
-
heh....still blasting....:rofl :rofl
soooo.....you're saying that iraq had a bigger army than we did? :rofl
Yes...by far. I meant no insult but you have to think before you post stuff. Especially around people who know a little what they are talking about.
Iraq had 600,000 troops in the Kuwait theater alone out of an army that numbered over 1,000,000, "coalition 537,000", "course much of that was navy or marines not deployed to combat". They had 4,200 tanks deployed and lost 4,000 of them. Of 3,110 artillery tubes in the theater they lost 2,140. They lost 1,900 of 2,900 armored troop carriers. 240 of 800 aircraft, "most fled to Iran". Iraq suffered in the area of 85,000 to 100,000 troops killed. Out of 106,000 allied air sorties we lost 27 airplanes to combat.
I could go on and on but you get the picture, "or maybe you dont". The fact is they were so hopelessly outclassed technologically they never had a chance. Despite their numbers and the fact they were fighting in their own backyard.
Of course there are other variables. You have to have a force size large enough for the mission. Training, morale, strategy....ect But nations throughout the world aren't spending zillions to buy, beg, borrow, and/or steal military technology for nothing. From the time of clubs and sticks history is full of examples of superior technology winning wars. The war this game is based on is full of such examples. We won the war of the Atlantic with superior technology including the first use of homing torpedoes, sonar, radar...ect Had the Germans developed their wonder weapons a little earlier, which was feasible, the outcome of the war might have been different. America won the war with the ultimate technological advancement "Atom Bomb" and has never looked back.
We could have made a different kind of fighter then the F-35 but we looked at what actually happens in an air war and what technology's will be decisive. Dont forget we are entrusting the safety of our super-carriers to the naval version of this fighter.
-
Bmathis is referring to the accepted USAAF doctrine at the time that dogfighting with other planes using guns was obsolete, which is why some fighters such as the F-4 Phantom II were built without guns.
During the Korean War where USAF F-86 pilots ran up a 10:1 kill ratio over their North Korean and Chinese opponents. In contrast, American fighter pilots over North Vietnam "only" managed a 2.5:1 kill ratio up to the final bombing halt of 1968. Frustration over this embarrassing performance was intense. Popular mythology has it that while the Air Force continued to bungle along with a grossly inadequate training program, the Navy established their famed "Top Gun" program which, when the air war heated up again three and a half years later, its graduates sweeping the skies over North Vietnam. Meanwhile, Air Force fighter pilots failed to keep up.
ack-ack
This Vietnam question is a bit more complicated then the statistics would lead you to believe.
First off the NV only challenged Yank control of the sky's in the earlier years of the war. And every time they did come up en-mass, like in North Korea, they suffered very heavy casualties in kill ratios that resembled the Korean ones. Well they changed their tactics, being pretty smart in their own right. They adopted the hit and run types tactics used on the ground. They discovered the F-4s weak spot, attacks from the side, and attacked with good success and running away after initial contact. They never directly contested the Phantoms again for control of the sky over Vietnam.
Some things to keep in mind. 1, Many of the American losses in this kill ratio were of other then air superiority fighters, where'as the enemy were all front line fighters.. But even there ground pounders like the 105 gave better then they got posting a 1.4 to 1, and a 5.7 to 1 against the Mig-17. USAF F-4s posted a 5.7 to 1 against the Migs. USN F-4s and F-8s posted a 3.6 to 1.
2, The Migs were able to operate in airspace where they had a 1st class Soviet supplied air defense network that stayed operational because much of it was in areas Americans were unable to attack due to Political reasons. The same goes for their SAM network. For their airfields. For their harbors where they brought this equipment in. In a war today these targets would get targeted on opening night and have a very negative effect on the enemies air operations and loss/kill ratios. It wasn't until late in the war when we systematically destroyed their SAM network and completely owned the skies over both Vietnam's.The Migs always had support from these radars where'as the Yank pilots had to rely on whatever avionics they brought with them. We never had a air defense radar network in Vietnam.
3, And during all this we always had to deal with a very serious high altitude threat from the SAMs which negatively impacted our performance and operations.
4, And during the entire war Yank bombers, attack aircraft, helicopters...ect were able to operate without much fear of the Migs. We "ALWAYS" had control of the air over Vietnam.
So as you see the "Vietnam example" is a bit more complicated then one would at first believe. Made even more complicated by the fact that we won the air war hands down in the first place.
-
This Vietnam question is a bit more complicated then the statistics would lead you to believe.
First off the NV only challenged Yank control of the sky's in the earlier years of the war. And every time they did come up en-mass, like in North Korea, they suffered very heavy casualties in kill ratios that resembled the Korean ones. Well they changed their tactics, being pretty smart in their own right. They adopted the hit and run types tactics used on the ground. They discovered the F-4s weak spot, attacks from the side, and attacked with good success and running away after initial contact. They never directly contested the Phantoms again for control of the sky over Vietnam.
Some things to keep in mind. 1, Many of the American losses in this kill ratio were of other then air superiority fighters, where'as the enemy were all front line fighters.. But even there ground pounders like the 105 gave better then they got posting a 1.4 to 1, and a 5.7 to 1 against the Mig-17. USAF F-4s posted a 5.7 to 1 against the Migs. USN F-4s and F-8s posted a 3.6 to 1.
2, The Migs were able to operate in airspace where they had a 1st class Soviet supplied air defense network that stayed operational because much of it was in areas Americans were unable to attack due to Political reasons. The same goes for their SAM network. For their airfields. For their harbors where they brought this equipment in. In a war today these targets would get targeted on opening night and have a very negative effect on the enemies air operations and loss/kill ratios. It wasn't until late in the war when we systematically destroyed their SAM network and completely owned the skies over both Vietnam's.The Migs always had support from these radars where'as the Yank pilots had to rely on whatever avionics they brought with them. We never had a air defense radar network in Vietnam.
3, And during all this we always had to deal with a very serious high altitude threat from the SAMs which negatively impacted our performance and operations.
4, And during the entire war Yank bombers, attack aircraft, helicopters...ect were able to operate without much fear of the Migs. We "ALWAYS" had control of the air over Vietnam.
So as you see the "Vietnam example" is a bit more complicated then one would at first believe. Made even more complicated by the fact that we won the air war hands down in the first place.
That still doesn't change the fact that USAAF training doctrine at the time placed less emphasis on 'dogfighting' than with missile engagements for the reason that it was believed amongst the high command that such fighting was 'out of date'. Which I think Bmathis and I were trying to point out that it wasn't the case, as the kill ratio shown by US air forces during the early part of the Vietnam War showed. Which is also why the USN created Top Gun because of the findings of the "Ault Report" which went into detail about the poor aerial combat performance of USN fighter crews (USAAF had similiar report, The Red Baron reports that were declassified during the early '90s).
The Ault Report details how the USN fighters had a low kill ratio of 3.7:1 against NV MiGs. The Ault Report also details the reasons why. The report recommended that a graduate-level school be established to train fleet fighter pilots in air combat tactics, which is how Top Gun was born. After Top Gun graduates started to make their way back to the squadrons in the combat zone, the kill ratio dramatically climbed to 13:1 against the MiGs. USAAF never implemented such a program like Top Gun until after the war and according to Benjamin Lambeth's The Transformation of American Airpower, the USAAF actually had its kill ratio worsen for a time after the resumption of bombing.
So yes, the poor kill ratio by the US air forces during the Vietnam War can be directly contributed to the lack of training in aerial combat and the over emphasis of using missiles.
ack-ack
-
So yes, the poor kill ratio by the US air forces during the Vietnam War can be directly contributed to the lack of training in aerial combat and the over emphasis of using missiles.
Overall yes. The early sidewinders were poor performers and to much of the training was for missile fighting. The Pilots had to scream just to get a cannon on the F-4. At the time much of USAF was in a strategic interceptor mind set and not thinking dogfighting enough.
A lesson we didn't forget again, however, you cant compare early sidewinders with the ATA missiles today. Or the avionics.
However "poor" is relative. As in "exactly when in the air war that we won did we perform poorly"?
-
Overall yes. The early sidewinders were poor performers and to much of the training was for missile fighting. The Pilots had to scream just to get a cannon on the F-4. At the time much of USAF was in a strategic interceptor mind set and not thinking dogfighting enough.
A lesson we didn't forget again, however, you cant compare early sidewinders with the ATA missiles today. Or the avionics.
However "poor" is relative. As in "exactly when in the air war that we won did we perform poorly"?
When your air force is only able to average a 3.7:1 kill ratio against an 'inferior' enemy in both technology and abilities would be considered poor performance. If this wasn't considered to be poor then it wouldn't have forced the air forces (both USAAF and USN) to totally rethink and change their doctrine.
Serenity had a good point a few replies back when he questioned whether to forces that be have forgotten the lessons learned from Vietnam when they designed the F-35 without an internal cannon and instead went with one mounted in a pod. Since the Vietnam War, until the F-35, no US fighter was produced without an internal cannon. Even the F-22 is produced with an internal cannon.
ack-ack
-
This Vietnam question is a bit more complicated then the statistics would lead you to believe.
First off the NV only challenged Yank control of the sky's in the earlier years of the war. And every time they did come up en-mass, like in North Korea, they suffered very heavy casualties in kill ratios that resembled the Korean ones. Well they changed their tactics, being pretty smart in their own right. They adopted the hit and run types tactics used on the ground. They discovered the F-4s weak spot, attacks from the side, and attacked with good success and running away after initial contact. They never directly contested the Phantoms again for control of the sky over Vietnam.
Some things to keep in mind. 1, Many of the American losses in this kill ratio were of other then air superiority fighters, where'as the enemy were all front line fighters.. But even there ground pounders like the 105 gave better then they got posting a 1.4 to 1, and a 5.7 to 1 against the Mig-17. USAF F-4s posted a 5.7 to 1 against the Migs. USN F-4s and F-8s posted a 3.6 to 1.
2, The Migs were able to operate in airspace where they had a 1st class Soviet supplied air defense network that stayed operational because much of it was in areas Americans were unable to attack due to Political reasons. The same goes for their SAM network. For their airfields. For their harbors where they brought this equipment in. In a war today these targets would get targeted on opening night and have a very negative effect on the enemies air operations and loss/kill ratios. It wasn't until late in the war when we systematically destroyed their SAM network and completely owned the skies over both Vietnam's.The Migs always had support from these radars where'as the Yank pilots had to rely on whatever avionics they brought with them. We never had a air defense radar network in Vietnam.
3, And during all this we always had to deal with a very serious high altitude threat from the SAMs which negatively impacted our performance and operations.
4, And during the entire war Yank bombers, attack aircraft, helicopters...ect were able to operate without much fear of the Migs. We "ALWAYS" had control of the air over Vietnam.
So as you see the "Vietnam example" is a bit more complicated then one would at first believe. Made even more complicated by the fact that we won the air war hands down in the first place.
now there ya go confusing the issue with FACTS!!!!
what the hell mannnn? how am i supposed to be beligerent with facts like that??
seriously....thanks dude...i appreciate that reply...i had no clue......really.........
-
When your air force is only able to average a 3.7:1 kill ratio against an 'inferior' enemy in both technology and abilities would be considered poor performance. If this wasn't considered to be poor then it wouldn't have forced the air forces (both USAAF and USN) to totally rethink and change their doctrine.
When your Air Force can maintain a 3.7 to 1 ratio against an enemy you normally win the air war. 81% of US Losses came from radar guided attacks to the stern of the aircraft where the Yank Pilots never even knew the enemy was there, there was no radar warning. So for 81% of the aircraft lost "doctrine" had nothing to do with it.
Again "technology" had everything to do with it. We started operation Teaball, which was a series of ground and air based electronics gathering Intelligence apparatus which ended up giving our Pilots a much electronic clearer picture of the air space. And most important, early warning of enemy Migs being vectored in by their own radar. So Teacup operations came at about the same time as did cannon, as did Top Gun schools, as did the first laser bombs that cut losses by giving pinpoint accuracy from high Alts. So again, which exactly helped the pilots more? You see? The picture is hazy and not so clear cut.
The answer is, "they all did".
And again, while greatly outnumbering the enemy the Yank air forces were operating in the most SAM intensive environment in history. The Soviets had thousands of the things up and running with powerful radar guiding them. We would never be flying again at such an electromagnetic disadvantage as we were in 'nam. A disadvantage that gave the Migs most of their kills without our pilots even knowing they were there. Teacup helped balance that and of course Teacup was followed by AWACs and all kinds of good active and passive gadgetry thats given us a huge edge ever since.
Numbers indeed Cap. In 'nam we had a huge edge in numbers of aircraft of all kinds but were pitted against a well trained enemy with the Latest Soviet technology. All of which resulted in a relatively modest kill/loss ratio. For America at least.
Serenity had a good point a few replies back when he questioned whether to forces that be have forgotten the lessons learned from Vietnam when they designed the F-35 without an internal cannon and instead went with one mounted in a pod. Since the Vietnam War, until the F-35, no US fighter was produced without an internal cannon. Even the F-22 is produced with an internal cannon.
Take a look at our last air war http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_217.shtml which BTW was a missile generation ago. How many kills were made by cannon and how many by ATA missiles? How many by AMRAMMs? I'll add that the Yank air forces that shot down Saddam's was the child whose father was the lessons learned in the air war over Vietnam. As were the tactics used and doctrine followed. Why let em get within gun range when you can kill them from 30 mi. away.
:salute
-
http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_217.shtml
Hmmm... that link is a bit suspect. According to it, the Iraqi Air Force did not get a since kill since the 1960s even though it spent 9 years locked in combat with Iran. I just find that unbelievable. Even a nob gets lucky sometimes.
-
2. None of the fighters you mentioned are faster than the F-35 with an A2A war load. The F-35 carries its A2A missiles internally and can fly at its maximum speed. All the other fighters you mentioned lose speed for every missile they carry.
surely the typhoon is faster with a comparable load (ie. 4xAMRAAM)? the hardpoints arent internal but they are semi-recessed. would seem crazy for a new interceptor to be unable to supercruise with its standard loadout.
-
Hmmm... that link is a bit suspect. According to it, the Iraqi Air Force did not get a since kill since the 1960s even though it spent 9 years locked in combat with Iran. I just find that unbelievable. Even a nob gets lucky sometimes.
The sight is filled with Iraqi claims of air to air victories if you just read thru it. I dont think there is "any" official tally since both Iran and Iraq considered the subject super secret. What is known however is the Iranians had them outclassed by far in the air. We had supplied the Iranians with our latest air craft and technologies including 80 F-14s, hundreds of our Latest F-4s, and hundreds of Pheonix, AIM-7, and AIM-9 ATA missiles.
As far as I know we have no idea how many aircraft each country lost. Unlike the tallies of the Indo/Pako wars, both sides keeping very detailed and accurate records of the air war.
-
Muwahahaaaa.. little did they know the data was for a popcorn machine, muwaaaahaahaaa haaaaaa.
Doubt me now, but when you see "made in china" on each popcorn, call me.. ill cry with you in laughter. :salute
-
As far as Vietnam goes:
1. The addition of guns to F-4s did not significantly alter the kill ratios. Make no mistake: missiles were the primary weapons despite the disappointing results.
2. The Navy did not use guns for air-to-air on their F-4s. Top Gun taught Navy pilots how to use F-4s to win with missiles against gun-armed MiGs.
3. The USN F-8s, so famously named "the last of the gunfighters", got most of their kills with AIM-9s and could only turn marginally better than F-4s.
4. The USN kill ratio improvement in later years was at least partly due to their AIM-9G/H missiles that were only marginally inferior to the highly successful AIM-9L/M missiles.
5. The USAF chose not to use Navy AIM-9D/G/H Sidewiinders, which were far superior to the AIM-9E/Js developed by the USAF.
6. Unlike the USN, the USAF did develop a much better Sparrow- the AIM-7E2, which it used to great advantage given the poor performance of the AIM-9E/Js.
7. Top Gun produced Duke Cunningham and Willie Driscoll (5 kills together), but the "inferior" USAF produced 1 5-kill pilot, 1 5-kill WSO, and 1 6-kill wso.
8. After Vietnam, the USAF and USN adopted common missiles based on each others' successful designs, allowing both services to have effective long range and short range missiles.
9. Despite dominating the kills in the 1991 Desert Storm, the AIM-7M still had only a 35% kill probability compared to the 1950s estimate of a 50% kill ratio from range shoots.