Eurofighter finds F22 weak spot........ - Page 5

General » General Discussion

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Eurofighter finds F22 weak spot........ (Page 5 of 22)

Posted: 7/30/2012 4:59:31 PM EDT

[#1]

Quoted:

Quoted:
these playing around dog fights are just fighter pilot ego management.
real war means BVR.
WVR is a chance to play, which means its all they do.

uhh.. didnt we lose a LOT of pilots because of that thinking once before?

Not really.
In Vietnam we lost 1400 AF planes to AAA, 170 to SAMS and about 70 in A2A.
Of those 70, how many were F4s with sidewinders but no cannon? Couldn't tell you.
Maybe a dozen, max
In vietnam we didn't lose our dog fighting skill, we lost our ability to adapt our doctrine to the fight. sound familiar?

Posted: 7/30/2012 5:02:20 PM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:

In vietnam we didn't lose our dog fighting skill, we lost our ability to adapt our doctrine to the fight. sound familiar?

Lies. Top Gun says otherwise.

Posted: 7/30/2012 5:02:33 PM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:

Quoted:
these playing around dog fights are just fighter pilot ego management.
real war means BVR.
WVR is a chance to play, which means its all they do.

uhh.. didnt we lose a LOT of pilots because of that thinking once before?

Not really.
In Vietnam we lost 1400 AF planes to AAA, 170 to SAMS and about 70 in A2A.
Of those 70, how many were F4s with sidewinders but no cannon? Couldn't tell you.
Maybe a dozen, max
In vietnam we didn't lose our dog fighting skill, we lost our ability to adapt our doctrine to the fight. sound familiar?

Actually, we did lose our dog fighting skills. Dudes, didn't do it prior to Vietnam, because they weren't allowed. Our kill ratio at the beginning of the war reflects that. After the Navy started "Top Gun" and the Air Force emphasized it in in Fighter Weapons School, our kill ratio swung wildly in our favor.

Posted: 7/30/2012 5:03:52 PM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:

Quoted:
No we didnt lose them so to speak they sacrificed their lives for our freedom. The Germans had us outgunned technology wise so we beat them with numbers until us and the allies (read Brits) caught up technolgy wise. It was a lesson learned and one we espounded on no thanks to some of our allies who simply rode the free wave. Not naming any names here of course and assuming your talking about WW2.

I think he was referring to Vietnam. With the advent of the missile, all the top brass, thought that Dogfighting was out dated. They even went as far as to outlaw it. Dudes, had to do it illegally, with fear of losing their wings. They also, built the F-4 with out a gun! Our boys suffered dearly as a result of this policy. They quickly hung a gun on the F-4, then put them back in on future models. We lesson our lesson...the hard way!

A fighter without a gun...is like a plane without a wing

Robin Olds

jesus christ that story gets old.
F35 A has a gun. 180 rounds of 25mm in a gun that fires 3300 rounds per minute.
F35 B has no gun
F35 C has no gun.
Navy F4s had no gun and never did.

And since vietnam, how many A2A kills with guns has the United States to its credit?

Posted: 7/30/2012 5:05:21 PM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:

Quoted:The person way above your pay grade making that call is a fighter pilot. This may come as a shock, but I am not sure I trust him to make the smart call.

Hey now, we ain't all that bad! Again, I don't get to make that call...we are all merely pawns in the fight. If they decide that the point we are defending is worth more than our lives...well, we all signed on the dotted line.

the willingness of the AF to kill its airmen to protect its doctrine was proven by the 8th AF. I have never doubted it. I just disagree with it.

Interesting, from my vantage point, I've always thought the Air Force has been TOO cautious with it's pilots and treats them as non-expendable.

But I definitely not "informed" or "expert" on these things. Just kind of what I thought I perceived.

thats a fairly recent development. They will kill who ever they have to maintain their budget. budgets been safe up till now. kinda makes me nervous, actually.

Posted: 7/30/2012 5:06:24 PM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Sadly, in the near future stealth will be a moot point.

Modern radar does much more than 'just radar' nowadays.

yeah.
stealth is nice, but it isn't a magic talisman anymore. standoff is where its at.
good article in JFQ 2 years ago on that very subject.
but without stealth, you can't justify the f35, so we will develop a doctrine to defend a dogma that you can only hope won't ever be exposed in real warfare.

do you have a newsletter yet?

I do have an article coming out in september's Air and Space Power Journal. the editorial comments were priceless.

Posted: 7/30/2012 5:08:15 PM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:

Quoted:The person way above your pay grade making that call is a fighter pilot. This may come as a shock, but I am not sure I trust him to make the smart call.

Hey now, we ain't all that bad! Again, I don't get to make that call...we are all merely pawns in the fight. If they decide that the point we are defending is worth more than our lives...well, we all signed on the dotted line.

the willingness of the AF to kill its airmen to protect its doctrine was proven by the 8th AF. I have never doubted it. I just disagree with it.

If you're referring to WWII...that was the ARMY Air Corps

. Oh and fighter pilots didn't run the air war, its was the bomber guys....

No, it was the Army Air Forces, and with the publication of FM 100-20, it was an independent Air Force in all actuality.
Hap Arnold directed the targetting from Washington DC with Eaker and later Spaatz doing the mission execution in Europe, and Harman and LeMay doing the same in the Pacific. But Arnold, who stayed in Washington DC, did targetting and resource allocation.
Can't be much more AF than that.

Posted: 7/30/2012 5:09:14 PM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I'm sure some US pilots can talk about times they were in war games against South Korea, Taiwan, Egypt or the Turks and were told to go half speed because they didn't want our friends to lose face. I've had pilots come back half pissed because they had to hold back. I bet even the Army and Navy been put in a position like that. It's just feel good shit for those who are not us!

More excuses.

Not only are you assuming that someone was holding back, but you give the benefit of doubt to your own side.

It is very common to handicap the superior force during these wargames. For example, a well known exercise against the Israelis gave them unusually high kill ratios against I believe was a carrier air wing. The reason wasn't any better tactics, but the USN fighters were carrying external fuel tanks and were not aloud to jettison them, while the Israeli fighters were launching a very short distance from where the "fight" took place. Thus they were not encumbered with long range tanks, etc. I am sure there are many more examples.

The point is most of these wargame exercises are nothing more than great commentary for writers and then the claims that the US is completely inadequate. My guess is, if this was real, the Germans never would have become airborne because the B-2s would have demolished their airfield with precision guided weapons.

Also, their small numbers would be made so small after the initial engagements that they are effectively through as a fighting force. Kind of like where Canada is now.

Posted: 7/30/2012 5:10:34 PM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:
This isn't about Canada.

Oh man you guys are touchy.

You do get it.. My bad.

Posted: 7/30/2012 5:11:24 PM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:
jesus christ that story gets old.
F35 A has a gun. 180 rounds of 25mm in a gun that fires 3300 rounds per minute.
F35 B has no gun
F35 C has no gun.
Navy F4s had no gun and never did.

And since vietnam, how many A2A kills with guns has the United States to its credit?

Off the top of my head...2. Just because it's not used all that often doesn't mean we shouldn't have it. Hell, I concealed carry...have never used it (thankfully), but I'll sure be happy to have it if I do need it. How many large scale air wars have we had? Chances are if we were to ever get into a large scale air to air battle (China/Russia type scenario) a gun will be used. The F-35 gun is a joke, and most fighter pilots are pretty pissed about their decision to not add a M61.

Oh and the gun is not just used to shoot down planes...

Posted: 7/30/2012 5:11:51 PM EDT

[#11]

Holy shit this thread is retarded.

I miss all the good threads. Although, I did just spend 2 hours in a 64D simulator.

Posted: 7/30/2012 5:12:30 PM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:
pfft!!! What does that matter? F-22 isn't going to let you get in close enough for a gun fight. He's going to take you out well before he's in your visual range or visible on your radar.

Yep.......and the early F-4 Phantoms didn't need a gun for that very reason did they!!!

Posted: 7/30/2012 5:14:36 PM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:

Quoted:
these playing around dog fights are just fighter pilot ego management.
real war means BVR.
WVR is a chance to play, which means its all they do.

uhh.. didnt we lose a LOT of pilots because of that thinking once before?

Not really.
In Vietnam we lost 1400 AF planes to AAA, 170 to SAMS and about 70 in A2A.
Of those 70, how many were F4s with sidewinders but no cannon? Couldn't tell you.
Maybe a dozen, max
In vietnam we didn't lose our dog fighting skill, we lost our ability to adapt our doctrine to the fight. sound familiar?

Actually, we did lose our dog fighting skills. Dudes, didn't do it prior to Vietnam, because they weren't allowed. Our kill ratio at the beginning of the war reflects that. After the Navy started "Top Gun" and the Air Force emphasized it in in Fighter Weapons School, our kill ratio swung wildly in our favor.

the kill ratio was a function of using century series jets for ground attack. when we switched to FAC-As, A-37Bs, Broncos and better decentralized tactics, we stopped losing so many fighters.
Again 1400 lost to ground fire, 70 to A2A. 170 to SAMS. A2A in Vietnam was effectively a non factor in our losses.
The difference between korea and vietnam is the AF didn't try to do CAS with their fighters.

Posted: 7/30/2012 5:16:36 PM EDT

[#14]

Those Eurofighters are damn good planes, not based on stealth at all but very good jets..

I STILL stick to my initial thoughts that us Canucks should have gone with the Eurofighter instead of the F35. Not only cheaper (MUCH cheaper), but in full scale production now AND tested.

And this is coming from a guy who's favorite jet is the F22, maybe I should get my name changed to Typhoon

Posted: 7/30/2012 5:19:20 PM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:
Holy shit this thread is retarded.

I miss all the good threads. Although, I did just spend 2 hours in a 64D simulator.

speaking of engagements BVR.
I would love to do some 64 sim time.
apache air assault just isn't the same, I think (though the flight characteristics are kinda simillar to the 60A/L sim)

Posted: 7/30/2012 5:19:51 PM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:

Quoted:
pfft!!! What does that matter? F-22 isn't going to let you get in close enough for a gun fight. He's going to take you out well before he's in your visual range or visible on your radar.

Yep.......and the early F-4 Phantoms didn't need a gun for that very reason did they!!!

That would be the Navy's position.
Again, in the past 40 years, how many gun kills?

Posted: 7/30/2012 5:20:55 PM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:

the kill ratio was a function of using century series jets for ground attack. when we switched to FAC-As, A-37Bs, Broncos and better decentralized tactics, we stopped losing so many fighters.
Again 1400 lost to ground fire, 70 to A2A. 170 to SAMS. A2A in Vietnam was effectively a non factor in our losses.
The difference between korea and vietnam is the AF didn't try to do CAS with their fighters.

I'm referring to how many of their fighters we shot down for every one of ours were shot down. The ratio was not in our favor at the beginning of the war, due to pilots not being allowed to train to BFM, because the missile was the end all be all weapon. When we started getting our asses whipped because the the missiles didn't always work, leadership suddenly put emphasis on BFM skills. I see what you're saying vs the overall losses...we are talking two different things here.

Posted: 7/30/2012 5:20:55 PM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:

Quoted:
jesus christ that story gets old.
F35 A has a gun. 180 rounds of 25mm in a gun that fires 3300 rounds per minute.
F35 B has no gun
F35 C has no gun.
Navy F4s had no gun and never did.

And since vietnam, how many A2A kills with guns has the United States to its credit?

Off the top of my head...2. Just because it's not used all that often doesn't mean we shouldn't have it. Hell, I concealed carry...have never used it (thankfully), but I'll sure be happy to have it if I do need it. How many large scale air wars have we had? Chances are if we were to ever get into a large scale air to air battle (China/Russia type scenario) a gun will be used. The F-35 gun is a joke, and most fighter pilots are pretty pissed about their decision to not add a M61.

Oh and the gun is not just used to shoot down planes...

so we need dog fighting skills because our ROE against Russia and China will not allow BVR engagements? Never mind the nonsense of us conventionally going against a mature nuclear power with delivery capability.

Posted: 7/30/2012 5:21:04 PM EDT

[#19]

Ya know, we have 1 2 fighter pilots in this thread, and one WSO.

Yet its 5 pages long

Posted: 7/30/2012 5:21:35 PM EDT

[#20]

This isn't news.

Getting close and staying close has been the standard in fighting a superior seeing and superior weapons platform since fighters began to fly. It takes away all of his advantages when gets slow.

The hard part is getting close. They don't talk about that.

Posted: 7/30/2012 5:24:13 PM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:
these playing around dog fights are just fighter pilot ego management.
real war means BVR.
WVR is a chance to play, which means its all they do.

Against a numerically superior force, some will survive the BVR fight and merge. When they do, you better know what you are doing or you are dead in a few seconds.

Yea, it's the more fun part. It is also the part that fucks up your neck and back for the rest of your life, even if the rest of your life is only 30 seconds.

Posted: 7/30/2012 5:24:31 PM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Not to downplay the accomplishment, but won't the Eurofighter need to find the f22 first?

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

Yep.

They seem to have been able to do so during the tests from what I understand, at least for some of the exercises.

To be honest the Raptor and Eurofighter between them make a dream team in terms of aerial combat in my eyes, but I am no expert in these matters. Add the A10 and Tornado in ground attack and low level smash-em-ups and and you have the perfect storm.

Sucks for trying to fly eurofighters when the run way is pockmarked, the revetments smoldering ash and the control tower is now a stump....B-2's kinda do that before hand.

But its all semantics, we are all a great big happy global family!

Posted: 7/30/2012 5:24:33 PM EDT

[#23]

Wired, despite some good A-stan reporting, is not a defense journal, and it doesn't purport to be.

The article is slag.

The F-22 is the premier A2A fighter in the world. Is it worth the cost? Can 182 -22s replace the -15Cs? Is the F-22 vulnerable to other threat weapons systems? All good questions.
But, it doesn't negate the fact the F-22 is the best in the world in its zone.

I've spoken with three experienced guys that have fought the F-22. They fought the F-22 in multiple iterations. All spoke with awe.

The fact the F-22 is a dominant platform in both the BVR and WVR fights is a testimony to the design. Morever, I'd argue the WVR fight is more critical in MCO than in other fights, but I also believe in adaptive, capable adversaries.

Posted: 7/30/2012 5:25:37 PM EDT

[#24]

Skipping all the comments.
The article plainly mentions that they could only do it one on one in a prepared dog fight.

Posted: 7/30/2012 5:26:21 PM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:

so we need dog fighting skills because our ROE against Russia and China will not allow BVR engagements? Never mind the nonsense of us conventionally going against a mature nuclear power with delivery capability.

In such a fight, its not the ROE that potentially precludes BVR engagements.

Posted: 7/30/2012 5:26:57 PM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:

Quoted:

the kill ratio was a function of using century series jets for ground attack. when we switched to FAC-As, A-37Bs, Broncos and better decentralized tactics, we stopped losing so many fighters.
Again 1400 lost to ground fire, 70 to A2A. 170 to SAMS. A2A in Vietnam was effectively a non factor in our losses.
The difference between korea and vietnam is the AF didn't try to do CAS with their fighters.

I'm referring to how many of their fighters we shot down for every one of ours were shot down. The ratio was not in our favor at the beginning of the war, due to pilots not being allowed to train to BFM, because the missile was the end all be all weapon. When we started getting our asses whipped because the the missiles didn't always work, leadership suddenly put emphasis on BFM skills. I see what you're saying vs the overall losses...we are talking two different things here.

I don't have the break down of the years of the A2A losses. However, I know the AF were holding to the worthless falcon missile while the navy was using sidewinders. Better missiles could account for the decrease in losses as well fighting smarter. 10 years of air combat and only 70 losses? And was the A2A improvement relearning the immelman and split S or simply understanding how to better utilize the new missiles.
With off axis targeting and the targeting AIM-7X, are we doing it just to do it? And would I ever expect the fighter pilots in charge to admit the truth to the matter when we spend a fortune on deliberately neutered war games that are so fun?

Posted: 7/30/2012 5:27:13 PM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:
Again, in the past 40 years, how many gun kills?

Quoted:

Off the top of my head...2. Just because it's not used all that often doesn't mean we shouldn't have it. Hell, I concealed carry...have never used it (thankfully), but I'll sure be happy to have it if I do need it. How many large scale air wars have we had? Chances are if we were to ever get into a large scale air to air battle (China/Russia type scenario) a gun will be used. The F-35 gun is a joke, and most fighter pilots are pretty pissed about their decision to not add a M61.

Oh and the gun is not just used to shoot down planes...

Quoted:
Yea, it's the more fun part. It is also the part that fucks up your neck and back for the rest of your life, even if the rest of your life is only 30 seconds.

Word...especially with the JHMCS.

Posted: 7/30/2012 5:27:26 PM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:

Quoted:
these playing around dog fights are just fighter pilot ego management.
real war means BVR.
WVR is a chance to play, which means its all they do.

uhh.. didnt we lose a LOT of pilots because of that thinking once before?

Not really.
In Vietnam we lost 1400 AF planes to AAA, 170 to SAMS and about 70 in A2A.
Of those 70, how many were F4s with sidewinders but no cannon? Couldn't tell you.
Maybe a dozen, max
In vietnam we didn't lose our dog fighting skill, we lost our ability to adapt our doctrine to the fight. sound familiar?

No.

In the air superiority game, we lost our dog fighting skills because with the new AIm-7, everyone assumed dog fighting was over and they stopped training for it.

Then when we went to war with a top BVR weapon system, the lawyers restricted the ROE to visual ID our our guys paid the price for stupid policy makers.

Posted: 7/30/2012 5:29:53 PM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:
Not to downplay the accomplishment, but won't the Eurofighter need to find the f22 first?

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

bingo.

Posted: 7/30/2012 5:30:46 PM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Hell, the Europeans couldn't even arm their own damn planes or fuel then for the Libyan campaign, which was a seriously limited engagement.

USAF probably had to foot the bill for the fuel they used for that exercise.

Can't speak for the rest of Europe but we payed for our own fuel.

We also flew over 3000 sorties in the Libyan campaign and dug into some of our munitions stockpiles in Cyprus. Those stockpiles have now been replenished.

Libya wasn't a campaign. It was an airshow that highlighted the increasing irrelevancy of European militaries.

This is not my assessment, but I've seen no evidence to suggest its incorrect.

The Euros do seem to have one advantage...when they destabilize a region due to a poorly thought out military action, no one seems to give a fuck, mostly because Africans are dying.

Posted: 7/30/2012 5:30:56 PM EDT

[#31]

My dads neck has been fucked up for the last 15 years due to the joys of WVR fighting

Posted: 7/30/2012 5:31:48 PM EDT

[#32]

The Eurofighter is an excellent close range dogfighter. No one can argue against that. Get close to one of them and you will have a hell of a fight on your hands

The F22 is a "hide and seek" type killer. More often than not it's targets are identified by some other source and the F22s are guided on target. Then blow them out of the sky from afar before the targets have time to react to the F22s.

Fighters don't just appear in the same airspace and fight it out like in the combat simulations mentioned in the article.
In an actual combat environment they will have to approach from a distance before engaging. During that time the Eurofighter will be in great danger as it's long range capabilities are far inferior to the F22s.

Now assuming the Eurofighter manages to get in close to a F22 we are in a completely different type of combat. One that favors the dedicated dog fighter, the Eurofighter.

Now think for a second that, in this close engagement between a dedicated dogfighter (Eurofighter) and a "Hide and Seek" type air superiority fighter (F22), the fighters were considered evenly matched.
Close in dogfighting is the F22s one weakness, and even then it was evenly matched against one of the best dedicated dogfighting planes out there.

I think that speaks volumes to the versatility and overall air superiority capability of the F22.

It's comical that some of the people in here are thumping their chests and bashing the F22, when the best dogfighter they have was only able to equal the F22 in a dogfight, an aircraft whos weakest role, among it's many, is close range dogfighting.

Posted: 7/30/2012 5:32:19 PM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:

Quoted:
these playing around dog fights are just fighter pilot ego management.
real war means BVR.
WVR is a chance to play, which means its all they do.

Against a numerically superior force, some will survive the BVR fight and merge. When they do, you better know what you are doing or you are dead in a few seconds.

Yea, it's the more fun part. It is also the part that fucks up your neck and back for the rest of your life, even if the rest of your life is only 30 seconds.

sometimes its best to walk away. If they want to chase, they can play around in patriot air space and let me know how that goes for them.

Posted: 7/30/2012 5:32:24 PM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Sadly, in the near future stealth will be a moot point.

Modern radar does much more than 'just radar' nowadays.

yeah.
stealth is nice, but it isn't a magic talisman anymore. standoff is where its at.
good article in JFQ 2 years ago on that very subject.
but without stealth, you can't justify the f35, so we will develop a doctrine to defend a dogma that you can only hope won't ever be exposed in real warfare.

Standoff will not do it.

Mobile SAM sights and necessity to carry very large munitions will always require aircraft. You can't just handle everything with surface to surface missiles.

Now, if we went with God rods we'd be fine.

Posted: 7/30/2012 5:32:44 PM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Fucking rights.

Both the F-22 and F-35 are fucking dogs.

How are those Spads working out for Canada?

I don't think of Canada when I think of highly complex war machines, I think more beaver pelt armor and wooden trebuchet technology.

What is it with you people that you can't ever seem to take fundamental criticism?

If you keep it up people will begin to think you might be a troll.

Posted: 7/30/2012 5:33:44 PM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:

With off axis targeting and the targeting AIM-7X, are we doing it just to do it? And would I ever expect the fighter pilots in charge to admit the truth to the matter when we spend a fortune on deliberately neutered war games that are so fun?

The fights are neutered for good reason, just like the fights at Irwin and Hoenfelds and Polk are neutered. We've fought how many Corps level combined arms campaigns since 1950? But, we keep a tremendous amount of national capability to do just that.

Posted: 7/30/2012 5:33:51 PM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:

Quoted:

so we need dog fighting skills because our ROE against Russia and China will not allow BVR engagements? Never mind the nonsense of us conventionally going against a mature nuclear power with delivery capability.

In such a fight, its not the ROE that potentially precludes BVR engagements.

maybe you walk away from A2A and just mush airfields with tomahawks or roll over them with tanks.
As long as we are going to playing fantasy conventional fights against the chinese hordes, lets at least be smart about it.

Posted: 7/30/2012 5:35:46 PM EDT

[#38]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Again, in the past 40 years, how many gun kills?

Quoted:

Off the top of my head...2. Just because it's not used all that often doesn't mean we shouldn't have it. Hell, I concealed carry...have never used it (thankfully), but I'll sure be happy to have it if I do need it. How many large scale air wars have we had? Chances are if we were to ever get into a large scale air to air battle (China/Russia type scenario) a gun will be used. The F-35 gun is a joke, and most fighter pilots are pretty pissed about their decision to not add a M61.

Oh and the gun is not just used to shoot down planes...

Quoted:
Yea, it's the more fun part. It is also the part that fucks up your neck and back for the rest of your life, even if the rest of your life is only 30 seconds.

Word...especially with the JHMCS.

for the love of all that is holy, please save me the supersonic fighter providing CAS. I hold pilots and my own life in much higher regard than to consider that nonsense.
I think the only loss of a fixed wing aircraft in 10 years of GWOT in combat was target fixation on a gun run and cratering.
keep the gun run.

Posted: 7/30/2012 5:37:03 PM EDT

[#39]

Quoted:

Quoted:
these playing around dog fights are just fighter pilot ego management.
real war means BVR.
WVR is a chance to play, which means its all they do.

uhh.. didnt we lose a LOT of pilots because of that thinking once before?

Not really.
In Vietnam we lost 1400 AF planes to AAA, 170 to SAMS and about 70 in A2A.
Of those 70, how many were F4s with sidewinders but no cannon? Couldn't tell you.
Maybe a dozen, max
In vietnam we didn't lose our dog fighting skill, we lost our ability to adapt our doctrine to the fight. sound familiar?

No.

In the air superiority game, we lost our dog fighting skills because with the new AIm-7, everyone assumed dog fighting was over and they stopped training for it.

Then when we went to war with a top BVR weapon system, the lawyers restricted the ROE to visual ID our our guys paid the price for stupid policy makers.

. won't argue the lawyer part, but why dogfight against a MIG 21 in an F-105 at all? Walk away. er, fly away.

Posted: 7/30/2012 5:38:16 PM EDT

[#40]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Sadly, in the near future stealth will be a moot point.

Modern radar does much more than 'just radar' nowadays.

yeah.
stealth is nice, but it isn't a magic talisman anymore. standoff is where its at.
good article in JFQ 2 years ago on that very subject.
but without stealth, you can't justify the f35, so we will develop a doctrine to defend a dogma that you can only hope won't ever be exposed in real warfare.

Standoff will not do it.

Mobile SAM sights and necessity to carry very large munitions will always require aircraft. You can't just handle everything with surface to surface missiles.

Now, if we went with God rods we'd be fine.

http://cdn-www.cracked.com/articleimages/dan/weapons/rods.jpg

The Israelis provided the answer to SAMs in 1973.

Posted: 7/30/2012 5:38:37 PM EDT

[#41]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Again, in the past 40 years, how many gun kills?

Quoted:

Off the top of my head...2. Just because it's not used all that often doesn't mean we shouldn't have it. Hell, I concealed carry...have never used it (thankfully), but I'll sure be happy to have it if I do need it. How many large scale air wars have we had? Chances are if we were to ever get into a large scale air to air battle (China/Russia type scenario) a gun will be used. The F-35 gun is a joke, and most fighter pilots are pretty pissed about their decision to not add a M61.

Oh and the gun is not just used to shoot down planes...

Quoted:
Yea, it's the more fun part. It is also the part that fucks up your neck and back for the rest of your life, even if the rest of your life is only 30 seconds.

Word...especially with the JHMCS.

for the love of all that is holy, please save me the supersonic fighter providing CAS. I hold pilots and my own life in much higher regard than to consider that nonsense.
I think the only loss of a fixed wing aircraft in 10 years of GWOT in combat was target fixation on a gun run and cratering.
keep the gun run.

My buddys unit was calling that F16 in for fires. Sad deal. He said he didnt even know it crashed for a short while.

Posted: 7/30/2012 5:39:40 PM EDT

[#42]

Quoted:

maybe you walk away from A2A and just mush airfields with tomahawks or roll over them with tanks.
As long as we are going to playing fantasy conventional fights against the chinese hordes, lets at least be smart about it.

That's stupid. If we're going to talk "fantasy conventional fights," lets talk the billions the Army spends on training for MCO, while neutering the primary killing arm in the fight. More people have been hurt jumping into training exercises, than have been hurt in Phase 2 and 3 operations.

Tomahawks are a pretty low density asset, and for most scenarios, what you have in theater is what you'll have for the fight. What you'll have is primarily ship and SSN/SSGN borne, and they'll have their own fight to content with before getting into position. That fight might be easy or hard, but, like the USAF getting used to sanctuary bases, we've gotten used to sanctuary waterspace.

Posted: 7/30/2012 5:39:59 PM EDT

[#43]

Quoted:

sometimes its best to walk away. If they want to chase, they can play around in patriot air space and let me know how that goes for them.

Yup, we know they work. Just ask the Tornado or F-18 that they killed in DS1! Or the F-16 that shot a one after the patriot locked him up...

Posted: 7/30/2012 5:42:16 PM EDT

[#44]

Quoted:

Quoted:
these playing around dog fights are just fighter pilot ego management.
real war means BVR.
WVR is a chance to play, which means its all they do.

Against a numerically superior force, some will survive the BVR fight and merge. When they do, you better know what you are doing or you are dead in a few seconds.

Yea, it's the more fun part. It is also the part that fucks up your neck and back for the rest of your life, even if the rest of your life is only 30 seconds.

sometimes its best to walk away. If they want to chase, they can play around in patriot air space and let me know how that goes for them.

In an OCA mission sure.

In DCA you don't have that luxury.

And sometimes by supporting missile to the targets, you get inside the WEZ of the enemy and you don't have the ability to run away. You are committed to the merge. The choice is no longer there. Better know some ACM.

Posted: 7/30/2012 5:43:51 PM EDT

[#45]

Quoted:

Quoted:

the kill ratio was a function of using century series jets for ground attack. when we switched to FAC-As, A-37Bs, Broncos and better decentralized tactics, we stopped losing so many fighters.

Again 1400 lost to ground fire, 70 to A2A. 170 to SAMS. A2A in Vietnam was effectively a non factor in our losses.

The difference between korea and vietnam is the AF didn't try to do CAS with their fighters.

I'm referring to how many of their fighters we shot down for every one of ours were shot down. The ratio was not in our favor at the beginning of the war, due to pilots not being allowed to train to BFM, because the missile was the end all be all weapon. When we started getting our asses whipped because the the missiles didn't always work, leadership suddenly put emphasis on BFM skills. I see what you're saying vs the overall losses...we are talking two different things here.

I don't have the break down of the years of the A2A losses. However, I know the AF were holding to the worthless falcon missile while the navy was using sidewinders. Better missiles could account for the decrease in losses as well fighting smarter. 10 years of air combat and only 70 losses? And was the A2A improvement relearning the immelman and split S or simply understanding how to better utilize the new missiles.

With off axis targeting and the targeting AIM-7X, are we doing it just to do it? And would I ever expect the fighter pilots in charge to admit the truth to the matter when we spend a fortune on deliberately neutered war games that are so fun?

I would not say neutered. I would say stacked.

Let's look at it in this light. The German pilots learned that the F-22 has a weakness. The American pilots learned not to expose that weakness. If this shows the Air Force how not to fly the F-22, and doesn't cost equipment or lives, then it is a plus.

The real question is if the Air Force is capable of learning the lesson and teaching it to the pilots. Are they placing the pilots and weapon system in a worst case scenario to better understand and adapt, or are they doing it to 'feel good' our allies? I'd like to think positively, but...

Posted: 7/30/2012 5:43:59 PM EDT

[#46]

Quoted:

It's comical that some of the people in here are thumping their chests and bashing the F22, when the best dogfighter they have was only able to equal the F22 in a dogfight, an aircraft whos weakest role, among it's many, is close range dogfighting.

No, what's comical is that you've sunk 20 years and billions of dollars into a jet that MIGHT outperform something designed by a bunch of eurofags on a comparatively shoe-string budget.

Give me $10 Trillion and I bet I could design something better than the F-22. The question you need to be asking yourself is is the additional cost worth it?

Posted: 7/30/2012 5:51:08 PM EDT

[#47]

Quoted:

Holy shit this thread is retarded.

I miss all the good threads. Although, I did just spend 2 hours in a 64D simulator.

Holy shit, they're training you to fly a '64?

Posted: 7/30/2012 5:51:31 PM EDT

[#48]

Quoted:

Quoted:

With off axis targeting and the targeting AIM-7X, are we doing it just to do it? And would I ever expect the fighter pilots in charge to admit the truth to the matter when we spend a fortune on deliberately neutered war games that are so fun?

The fights are neutered for good reason, just like the fights at Irwin and Hoenfelds and Polk are neutered. We've fought how many Corps level combined arms campaigns since 1950? But, we keep a tremendous amount of national capability to do just that.

But there are no alternatives to corps level combined arms campaigns. there are alternatives to dog fighting.
plus, apples to movie theaters. CTC rotations suck dick and everyone hates them.