# John Boyd, opinions?



## Acheron (Dec 29, 2022)

Out of curiosity, do people here have opinions on John Boyd? I understand he is revered among some, but also quite divisive among others?


----------



## Capt. Vick (Dec 29, 2022)

Don't know enough to give an opinion


----------



## cvairwerks (Dec 29, 2022)

Father of Energy Maneuverability Theory for fighter combat, author of the Aerial Attack Study, which is the fighter tactics manual, helped develop the OODA Loop, used in litigation. All around a pretty smart and intense guy. The F-15, F-16 and the F/A-18 are all around and in use due to him, and Riccioni for the most part,

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Acheron (Dec 29, 2022)

cvairwerks said:


> Father of Energy Maneuverability Theory for fighter combat, author of the Aerial Attack Study, which is the fighter tactics manual, helped develop the OODA Loop, used in litigation. All around a pretty smart and intense guy. The F-15, F-16 and the F/A-18 are all around and in use due to him, and Riccioni for the most part,


His detractors claim, among other things, that his work regarding "Energy Maneuverability" to be largely taken from "Energy Approach to the General Aircraft Performance Problem" from one Edward S. Rutowski. Sadly, I know nothing of neither the work nor the man.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## rob23 (Dec 31, 2022)

I have the book, and I've tried to read it, but I just can't get into it for some reason. From what little I have been able to read, Boyd was revered by the Marines and that's the limit of my knowledge of the man. Maybe the book will take at some point.


----------



## Acheron (Jan 1, 2023)

Reason I was bringing it up, recently saw a video by some British youtuber and he got really nasty with Boyd, going so far as to call him an outright fraud. The youtuber in question has previously attacked the "fighter mafia", at best accusing their design philosophy of being terrible (arguing that all these expensive gadgets actually brought considerable combat capability) and at worst accusing them of taking credit where credit was due to other people (according to him, some Alexander Kartveli was a designer who is to this day lacking the recognizing he deserves because of them).

I am reluctant to just post the video, because it is rather inflammatory and I neither want to start a flame war, nor post what would be considered in bad taste here. However, I found his arguments in the past rather compelling and frankly, I feel the same about the video in question, so I am quite curious what people more knowledgeable than me have to say about what he says. Think I should post it? He also swears a lot I should add.


----------



## Snautzer01 (Jan 1, 2023)

Was the fighter Mafia just a bunch of charlatans?


Just recently watch this Video. Was the fighter Mafias a bunch of fraud?



ww2aircraft.net

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GTX (Jan 1, 2023)

While I think the Fighter Mafia's concepts had issues the OODA loop from Boyd is extremely relevant. I use it all the time in business.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 1, 2023)

From my earlier comments;

_"John Boyd and Everest Riccioni were the real deal - they served in the USAF, Boyd served a short tour in Korea and both wrote many papers and manuals about air combat and energy management during combat. They made valid points and their influence eventually saw the F-16 and F/A-18 develop, credit is due there. Their heyday however was in the 70s and 80s with regards to consulting and lending their combat experience and knowledge to aircraft manufactures."_

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GTX (Jan 1, 2023)

FLYBOYJ said:


> From my earlier comments;
> 
> _"John Boyd and Everest Riccioni were the real deal - they served in the USAF, Boyd served a short tour in Korea and both wrote many papers and manuals about air combat and energy management during combat. They made valid points and their influence eventually saw the F-16 and F/A-18 develop, credit is due there. Their heyday however was in the 70s and 80s with regards to consulting and lending their combat experience and knowledge to aircraft manufactures."_


Agreed.


----------



## SaparotRob (Jan 1, 2023)

Acheron said:


> Reason I was bringing it up, recently saw a video by some British youtuber and he got really nasty with Boyd, going so far as to call him an outright fraud. The youtuber in question has previously attacked the "fighter mafia", at best accusing their design philosophy of being terrible (arguing that all these expensive gadgets actually brought considerable combat capability) and at worst accusing them of taking credit where credit was due to other people (according to him, some Alexander Kartveli was a designer who is to this day lacking the recognizing he deserves because of them).
> 
> I am reluctant to just post the video, because it is rather inflammatory and I neither want to start a flame war, nor post what would be considered in bad taste here. However, I found his arguments in the past rather compelling and frankly, I feel the same about the video in question, so I am quite curious what people more knowledgeable than me have to say about what he says. Think I should post it? He also swears a lot I should add.


He's Scottish. And quite drunk.


----------



## AL90 (Jan 1, 2023)

SaparotRob said:


> He's Scottish. And quite drunk.


Pishbabblingfool nothing new on Y tube..... an embarrasment to Scottish drunks!

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## cvairwerks (Jan 1, 2023)

Acheron: Rutowski wrote a paper while at Douglas, but his application was time to climb performance for general aircraft usage and therefore economize the required fuel to get to altitude. Boyd took that general approach and applied it to all axis while in combat. 

Boyd was a substantial part of the initial plans of the Gulf War. Dick Cheney had known about Boyd for years, after being briefed about "Patterns of Conflict" and the need to break enemy OODA loops to become the victor on the battlefield. Even the Marine Corp took "PofC' and reshaped their doctrine off of it. Boyd has been called the top military theorist in SU history by some people. Would be an interesting read of his major papers and books.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jan 1, 2023)

AL90 said:


> Pishbabblingfool nothing new on Y tube..... an embarrasment to Scottish drunks!


I'll take your word for it. He does do a funny vid on the great ocean liner battle of WW I.


----------



## GTX (Jan 2, 2023)

cvairwerks said:


> Would be an interesting read of his major papers and books.


He never published any books. You can see a copy of his "Patterns of Conflict" presentation here:









John Boyd's masterful Patterns of Conflict presentation


John Boyd's Patterns of Conflict presentation in PDF, slides and video form. Essential reading for military historians and leaders.




geekboss.com

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## J_P_C (Jan 2, 2023)

GTX said:


> He never published any books. You can see a copy of his "Patterns of Conflict" presentation here:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


thank you for posting this - very interesting stuff


----------



## cvairwerks (Jan 2, 2023)

GTX said:


> He never published any books. You can see a copy of his "Patterns of Conflict" presentation here:


Aerial Attack Study, while classified as a monograph, is long enough to be considered a book.....over 150 pages. Semantics in reality on how long something has to be, move into being classified as a book vs monograph vs pamphlet.


----------



## GreenKnight121 (Jan 2, 2023)

Boyd shouldn't really be credited with the F-16 and F/A-18 as they were actually built... if he had had his way they would have never been capable of carrying any air-ground weapons at all, and would never have had any air-air radar past a radar ranging gunsight.

He was furious when the F-15 was designed with air-ground capability.
Remember his motto: "Not a pound for air to ground"!

In his view BVR missiles were a perversion of what a fighter should use... and Sidewinders were barely acceptable, as he felt the gun was the be-all and end-all of jet fighter weaponry.

He felt there should be ground-attack aircraft and air-air aircraft, with NO overlap in capabilities.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 2, 2023)

GreenKnight121 said:


> Boyd shouldn't really be credited with the F-16 and F/A-18 as they were actually built... if he had had his way they would have never been capable of carrying any air-ground weapons at all, and would never have had any air-air radar past a radar ranging gunsight.
> 
> He was furious when the F-15 was designed with air-ground capability.
> Remember his motto: "Not a pound for air to ground"!
> ...


And there was the "old school" side of him. I don't think he or Riccioni would ever comprehend that modern combat aircraft had the capability of fighting beyond BVR effectively.


----------



## special ed (Jan 2, 2023)

What good is BVR if the pilot must have a visual to avoid friendly fire? He must still fly to the merge.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 2, 2023)

special ed said:


> *What good is BVR if the pilot must have a visual to avoid friendly fire?* He must still fly to the merge.


Who said that's a major issue? Friendly fire from where? What if vectors were achieved via AWACS? 

I think during the Gulf war BVR kills made up over 30% of the kills.


----------



## Skyediamonds (Jan 2, 2023)

Acheron:

I read & reread this book about John Boyd several times & each time I laughed & at the same time learned something new. The book is written as a combination of biography of Boyd & the processes & theories that led up to OODA Loop, the design and genesis of the F-16. The F-17/18 only won the Naval contract due to its twin engines, not the performance.

Just a quick edit:

At the time, the navy was more concerned with the second engine giving the pilot that extra reliability of bringing him back to home (carrier). 

True, the Hornet, as it was later to be called, was an excellent maneuvering combat aircraft in its own right ( my son served as plane captain on maintaining the F-18’s) but the F-16 was designed as a pure clean-sheet light weight aircraft, much like Ed Heinemann’s Douglas A-4 Skyhawk. 

It absolutely infuriated John to see this pure highly maneuvering fighter being loaded down with perks from add-ons such as conformal tanks, hard points ( ground pounders were for A-10’s) & more.

He was pure genius & way ahead of his time. He studied Sun Tzu’s Art of War & did years of study to come up with innovative concepts that were applied to air combat maneuvering that earned both admiration & fear among the “blue suitors” in the Pentagon.

While flying F-100’s & instructing his students in the art of aerial combat, he was known among his peers as “40-second Boyd.” This was because he would allow his students get in his six o’clock position & they had three minutes to shoot him down. In less than 30-40 seconds before his students even realized where he was, Boyd was already in their six calling over the radio “Guns, guns, guns” meaning they were already shot down.

I wouldn’t be surprised if the latest movie Top Gun, Maverick, had taken up some of his tactics in humbling his students to end up doing push ups.

He absolutely feared no one. It was a common sight at the Pentagon to see John poking his fingers into the chests of admirals & generals alike shouting in their faces why they were wrong at the same time spitting out left over food from his mouth.

Whenever they saw John walking down the halls, everyone turned around & went into hiding.

He also hung up on (slammed down the phone) the Chief of Naval Operations because John told him his briefings in the Art of War could not be condensed to 2 hours from his 5-8 hour normal presentation.

Dick Cheney was one of his admirers & followed Boyd’s examples.

I absolutely encourage everyone to get this book:” Boyd, The Fighter Pilot Who Changed the Art of War.”

I promise you, you won’t be disappointed.

To those people who bad-mouthed John, in my humble opinion, they fall into the same category of election deniers (meaning they don’t know “stuff” what they’re talking about) & will believe whatever they want regardless of the truth.

Cheers & Happy New Year,

Gary

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## special ed (Jan 2, 2023)

The intended target of the BVR contact may be a friendly, hence a visual before firing, Wrong IFF or inop IFF could lead to a friendly fire incident. I wasn't clear in my question. I guess things have changed and become more certain.


----------



## GreenKnight121 (Jan 2, 2023)

Skyediamonds said:


> Acheron:
> 
> I read & reread this book about John Boyd several times & each time I laughed & at the same time learned something new. The book is written as a combination of biography of Boyd & the processes & theories that led up to OODA Loop, the design and genesis of the F-16. The F-17/18 only won the Naval contract due to its twin engines, not the performance.
> 
> ...


All I can say to that is if Boyd's desires had won, there would have been a lot more dead USAF/USN/USMC fighter pilots in Desert Storm... and the CAS & ground strikes would not have been as numerous or effective.

Like many "geniuses", Boyd's brilliance was best taken with a tablespoon of salt, with the good eagerly accepted (both the USAF and USN really did need to make ACM a vital part of fighter design again) and the obsessed excess put aside where it would cause no harm.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Skyediamonds (Jan 3, 2023)

GrrenKnight;

I understand your views, my point was more than simply the design of the aircraft, but the overall concept of war itself. Dick Cheney & the Chiefs of Staff followed Boyd’s “Art of War” ’to a very decisive victory with minimal loss during Dessert Storm. 

One would only take such concepts “with a grain of salt” if they did not read the book on John Boyd or truly delve into his concepts of the OODA Loops or his briefs. 

As an aside, OODA Loop is published in its own condensed form ( much is still classified ).


----------



## Acheron (Jan 3, 2023)

The video was indeed by LazerPig, as some already guessed. Here is the link, as said it is rather inflammatory


----------



## Acheron (Jan 3, 2023)

special ed said:


> What good is BVR if the pilot must have a visual to avoid friendly fire? He must still fly to the merge.


Develop technologies/techniques/procedures to allow pilots to engage beyond BVR. You cannot say cannons are useless, because the pilot has to fly within saber-range anyway to slap the enemy pilot with his glove to initiate combat.

Also note, in Vietnam, the US had the option to fight BVR, the enemy did not. This changed, if you optimize the USAF/USN to fight with cannons or short-range missiles, it will suffer badly when fighting an enemy that fights BVR.

I believe LazerPig had an example in another vidoe, Iran-Iraq war, Iraq had the better pilots, yet they couldn't do much in their MiGs against F-14s who might as well have attacked from Narnia.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 3, 2023)

Viet Nam was sort of an anomaly. 
At any given time you might have 20 times the number of US planes in an area as you had NV planes. 
Given the reliability of pretty much tube electronics in 60s the chances of a mis-identification (failure of IFF) and small percentage of actual NV planes in the target zone the engagement rules make some sense or at least arguable. 
Combine that with low risk to the "base" (the NV were not trying to sink the carrier/s or bomb the airfields) and that skews the risk/benefit balance even more. 
10-20 incoming tracks _all_ with IFF failures, all closing on the carrier group at high speed, all much further off shore than "normal"?
Order to fire BVR might have been issued pretty quick.
Or have one NV aircraft actually get within bomb or missile range of the carrier before Visual Id and see if the policy changes.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 3, 2023)

Acheron said:


> Develop technologies/techniques/procedures to allow pilots to engage beyond BVR. You cannot say cannons are useless, because the pilot has to fly within saber-range anyway to slap the enemy pilot with his glove to initiate combat.
> 
> Also note, in Vietnam, *the US had the option to fight BVR,* the enemy did not. This changed, if you optimize the USAF/USN to fight with cannons or short-range missiles, it will suffer badly when fighting an enemy that fights BVR.
> 
> I believe LazerPig had an example in another vidoe, Iran-Iraq war, Iraq had the better pilots, yet they couldn't do much in their MiGs against F-14s who might as well have attacked from Narnia.


ROE's restricted BVR combat and the sparrow missile was exactly the most reliable tool in the shed. I think only a small percentage of kills in VN were accomplished with a gun.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GTX (Jan 3, 2023)

The funny thing for some of the Boyd advocated (the Pierre Sprey types and others who argue for simpler systems) is that the F-35 is an example of the OODA loop in action: The combination of advanced sensors (on and off board), data fusion and low observability enable a faster cycling within the OODA loop.

The F-35 has its own AN/APG-81 AESA-radar along with the Electro-Optical Targeting System (EOTS) mounted under the nose. These are complimented by 6 additional passive infrared sensors distributed over the aircraft as part of Northrop Grumman's AN/AAQ-37 distributed aperture system (DAS). When combined with the EW System and also the data linking capability (which brings all sorts of additional sensors/information sources to the mix) and more importantly, the onboard processing/sensor fusion/data presentation tools (led by the Helmet Mounted Display - remember the F-35 does not have a HUD but rather all relevant information is constantly right in front of the pilot's eyes), this puts the F-35 pilot at a distinct advantage over his/her rivals. As a result, the F-35 pilot not only is able to *O*bserve the enemy first, they are able to *O*rientate themselves without being seen and then *D*ecide (supported by more information) faster before finally *A*cting - all faster then their enemy.

Reactions: Like Like:
5 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GTX (Jan 3, 2023)

Those who bring up the Vietnam example to justify why BVR weapons (or even missiles as a whole - vs guns) amuse me. The Missile Technology used in Vietnam was 1950s/1960s technology. This was 50+ Years ago!!! Anyone want to say that their TV or music system from 50+ years ago is better than that from today...honestly? This sort of argument is no different to those who before WWII were saying that aircraft had to be Biplanes with open cockpits so as to dogfight. It would also have us still fighting modern Wars with canvas covered mainplanes and rifle calibre guns (if that) ...

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Macandy (Jan 4, 2023)

Going for the merge and a knife fight - Gods way of saying hello to a heat seeking missile.

Boyds doctrine taken to its limit would see every Western Air Force flying Sopwith Camels, a pure ultra manoeuvrable energy dogfighter

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Macandy (Jan 4, 2023)

And the video in question, that would be Lazerpig


----------



## Skyediamonds (Jan 4, 2023)

Judging from several responses regarding Boyd’s doctrine, it appears his book, nor the subsequent materials such as OODA Loop or even the authoritative Sun Tzu were looked at, much less even taken the time to read. They are all readily available. I have all three.

A good example is Tzu’s doctrine. It is more having to do deal with strategy than any weapons, be they are bows & arrows, BVRs, spears, missiles, guns or even guided bombs. All of which are useless, unless they’re implemented with strategy & purpose. Tzu often advocated trying to negotiate or even retreat until the situation changes where the use of force will yield maximum results with minimal casualties.

Should that opportunity present itself & there’s no other option but the use of such force, then strike with all the might & will one possesses with all the power & might available.

Otherwise, one might just as well throw a rock. 

Boyd’s doctrines deals along the same paths, with careful planning & using one’s brain as opposed to employing any weapons, no matter how as advanced.

What I have described is a gross oversimplification of the true magnitude of such strategy & doctrine.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Macandy (Jan 5, 2023)

Skyediamonds said:


> A good example is Tzu’s doctrine. It is more having to do deal with strategy than any weapons, be they are bows & arrows, BVRs, spears, missiles, guns or even guided bombs. All of which are useless, unless they’re implemented with strategy & purpose. Tzu often advocated trying to negotiate or even retreat until the situation changes where the use of force will yield maximum results with minimal casualties.



" Have no shame when its time to get out of Dodge"

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Skyediamonds (Jan 5, 2023)

Macandy:

LoL…. To some extent. Only until the time & resources are right for retribution.


----------



## Peter Gunn (Jan 5, 2023)

Not to be insulting, as 

 Skyediamonds
you seem to be a big Boyd fan so don't take this personal.

Never was impressed with Boyd, however I'm sure he was a smart guy and a decent fighter pilot and I'll give the guy his due. But...

I'd wager he didn't get on guys like Yeager, Robin Olds or any other _combat_ veteran/ace's (you know, guys that _actually fought_ fighter planes) six in 40 seconds, if at all. In fact I'd wager a guy like Robin Olds would have had him for lunch any time any place.

As for the OODA loop and Sun Tzu, well, if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## rob23 (Jan 5, 2023)

FLYBOYJ said:


> ROE's restricted BVR combat and the sparrow missile was exactly the most reliable tool in the shed. I think only a small percentage of kills in VN were accomplished with a gun.


 The guns on the F-8 would break under G loading, I think only 2 kills were gun only, maybe two more were missile and gun, the rest AIM-9. The A-1 Skydraiders had a couple of cannon kills, and I think Don Kilgus's F-100 guns kill was finally verified. The F-105 has the most gun kills on the US side credited with something like 24 MiGs.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 5, 2023)

rob23 said:


> The guns on the F-8 would break under G loading, I think only 2 kills were gun only, maybe two more were missile and gun, the rest AIM-9. The A-1 Skydraiders had a couple of cannon kills, and I think Don Kilgus's F-100 guns kill was finally verified. The F-105 has the most gun kills on the US side credited with something like 24 MiGs.


And I think those were all the gun kills out of the 196 MiGs shot down during Viet Nam by th USN and USAF. So about 11/12%?


----------



## GTX (Jan 5, 2023)

Skyediamonds said:


> Judging from several responses regarding Boyd’s doctrine,* it appears his book,*


Exactly what book are you referring to?


----------



## GTX (Jan 5, 2023)

Peter Gunn said:


> As for the OODA loop and Sun Tzu, well, if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.


The OODA loop does have strong relevance and not just in combat.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## rob23 (Jan 5, 2023)

FLYBOYJ said:


> And I think those were all the gun kills out of the 196 MiGs shot down during Viet Nam by th USN and USAF. So about 11/12%?


Sounds about right. My internal imaging regarding Vietnam is something like our airplanes that went into Vietnam were analogous to Olympic caliber wrestlers, boxers, and judo trained athletes that expect to fight their equivalent. But instead of boxer vs boxer it was boxer vs street fighter with a knife. The boxer has to adjust very quickly to survive, much less win. This may not make any sense but its how my brain works.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Skyediamonds (Jan 5, 2023)

Peter G:

No insults were taken, sir. We’re all entitled to our opinions. I also respect yours as well & in fact, I welcome & enjoy different views. Thank you!

I’d like to point out that during Boyd’s heyday, it was back in the 70’s. This is over 50 years ago so much of his combat techniques such as maneuvering his aircraft & the use of guns to engage in combat (which those particular types of guns themselves are now obsolete) are probably outdated. The technology for using missiles was still in its developing stages as it was common knowledge many of the existing missiles were unreliable, forcing the pilot to resort to the use of guns which were jam-proof. 

The general consensus during the initial stages of the Viet Nam War, the use of guns was considered no longer a necessity & missiles with BVR was the new weapon of choice. The hard facts of war soon blew that philosophy out the door.

Boyd was known for mastering the F-100 & was one of the few pilots who could wring the Super Sabre to its maximum potential all over the sky where few pilots were aware of what it could do & fewer dared to emulate. It was John who determined the cause & solution to the deadly “ Sabre Dance.” 

At that time, the F-100 was considered the top of the line fighter jet with all of the attendant “steam gauges“ buttons & levers. There were no helmet mounted displays, or computers to do all the thinking (& flying), or microchips with capabilities in the order of terabytes, or “wingman drones”. It was pretty much a dumb hands-on pilot’s plane. 

So it’s in that context, Boyd made the most of what he had. Which was a fighter jet that depended upon the occupant to manage its idiosyncratic behaviors, do all the thinking & processing, rely on its limited technology & still be able to out maneuver his opponents, or at least position himself for a kill, all within split seconds.

Insofar as Sun Tzu’s techniques & the OODA Loop, they’re constantly updated ( or should be), revised, modernized & more. The use of satellites, new laser guided munitions, “smart bombs,” drones, UCAs (Unmanned Combat Aircraft) & more are game-changers & should reflect such different tactics. 

Still, it all comes down to someone making the ultimate decision & pushing the button.

Cheers,

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Skyediamonds (Jan 5, 2023)

GTX,
The biography of Boyd. It’s entitled: “John Boyd, the Fighter Pilot Who Changed the Art of War.”

Hope this helps.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GTX (Jan 5, 2023)

Skyediamonds said:


> GTX,
> The biography of Boyd. It’s entitled: “John Boyd, the Fighter Pilot Who Changed the Art of War.”
> 
> Hope this helps.


Ah, so it is one of the books about him, not a book written by him which is what I was focussed upon.


----------



## GTX (Jan 5, 2023)

Skyediamonds said:


> Insofar as Sun Tzu’s techniques & the OODA Loop, they’re constantly updated ( or should be), revised, modernized & more.


Errr...how exactly. If you understand these things there is no updating what-so-ever. New technologies do not affect the basic principles here. The OODA loop in particular is about the decision making process.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 5, 2023)

Remember that John Boyd came up through the US fighters in the Era of the F-89, the F-86D, the F-102, the F-101, the F-104 and others. 
Some were pretty good airplanes and others were not. 
The US played with the whole unguided rocket thing and plethora of missiles that didn't work as well as wanted even on the test ranges. The F-101 fighter even resorted to unguided rockets using 1.5 kt nuclear warheads for bomber interception. 
What was published in magazines of the day vs what these things were really doing were rather different things. 
The guns (even with troubles) seemed like a more reliable solution.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jan 5, 2023)

Skyediamonds said:


> [...] forcing the pilot to resort to the use of guns which were jam-proof.



Unintended double-entendre spotted here.


----------



## Skyediamonds (Jan 5, 2023)

Thumpalumpacus:

LoL…. Actually I should’ve seen this one coming. What I meant by “jam-proof” was the guns could not be jammed up by any electromagnetic countermeasures or other outside influence or more accurately, interference.. 

Obviously they could jam up from the physical aspects such as extreme temperatures, overheating, mis-alignment of the belt feed & so on. All of which has nothing to do with any action taken by the enemy.

Good call.

Reactions: Friendly Friendly:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Jan 6, 2023)

Skyediamonds said:


> Peter G:
> 
> No insults were taken, sir. We’re all entitled to our opinions. I also respect yours as well & in fact, I welcome & enjoy different views. Thank you!
> 
> *SNIP*


Well said sir, I'm happy it was taken in the spirit it was intended, sometimes my responses can be rather terse and come off as sounding like a bit of an attack, which I do not intend it to be. I do not wish to give offense and I too always enjoy differing views on subjects especially like this.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Skyediamonds (Jan 6, 2023)

Peter Gunn:

Here, here ( raising a stein of ale ).

Cheers,

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Friendly Friendly:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Macandy (Jan 6, 2023)

F-8 Crusader 'Last of the Gunfighters'
Always had guns and missiles, 80% of its kills were missile shots.

Boyd was stuck in the past - the Crusader was the last gunfighter for a reason.


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jan 6, 2023)

Skyediamonds said:


> Thumpalumpacus:
> 
> LoL…. Actually I should’ve seen this one coming. What I meant by “jam-proof” was the guns could not be jammed up by any electromagnetic countermeasures or other outside influence or more accurately, interference..
> 
> ...



I know, I was just funnin' you.


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jan 6, 2023)

Macandy said:


> F-8 Crusader 'Last of the Gunfighters'
> Always had guns and missiles, 80% of its kills were missile shots.
> 
> Boyd was stuck in the past - the Crusader was the last gunfighter for a reason.



To be fair, USAF took to hanging 20mm cannon in pods onto early F-4s (until the -E model integrated an M61 into the nose), so they obviously felt the need for a close-in weapon. 

In that era, the advent of missiles did not mean that knife-fights were a thing of the past -- even if missiles still did the lion's share of the killing.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## rob23 (Jan 6, 2023)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> To be fair, USAF took to hanging 20mm cannon in pods onto early F-4s (until the -E model integrated an M61 into the nose), so they obviously felt the need for a close-in weapon.
> 
> In that era, the advent of missiles did not mean that knife-fights were a thing of the past -- even if missiles still did the lion's share of the killing.


Regarding the Crusader, it's my understanding that the gun is why those aviators were so good at getting behind the bandit. Just think if it had actually worked most of the time.


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jan 6, 2023)

rob23 said:


> Regarding the Crusader, it's my understanding that the gun is why those aviators were so good at getting behind the bandit. Just think if it had actually worked most of the time.



Not sure how the gun helps that maneuvering, but I expect it can help once you're in close range. Might you expand more on your point?


----------



## rob23 (Jan 6, 2023)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> Not sure how the gun helps that maneuvering, but I expect it can help once you're in close range. Might you expand more on your point?


The gun and Sidewinder were rear quarter weapons, so the aviators had to be able to get behind the bandit to shoot them down. For all the faults the F-8 had it was a pretty good at ACM, hence the F-8 community having the highest exchange ratio which I've read as being 6:1.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## rob23 (Jan 7, 2023)

I have a book about the Crusader cleverly titled Crusader! by Adm Paul Gillcrist who flew the F-8 in Vietnam with VF-53. There's a photo of Gillcrist hoisting a drink with mustachioed Robin Olds who invited the Navy to drop by and talk to his Air Force pilots about how to shoot down MiGs. 

There's also a story regarding a MiG 17 pilot who was vectored to intercept two Phantoms, only they weren't Phantoms, they were two F-8's. When the MiG pilot identified the F-8's he turned 180, went low and fast. The F-8's of VF-211 overtook the MiG, and just as LTjg Jerry Tucker was about to shoot a Sidewinder the MiG pilot ejected. 

I have to admit I have very strong bias towards the F-8. I blame Walt Disney and Dick Van Dyke. Those of you old enough know why.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GreenKnight121 (Sunday at 4:20 AM)

rob23 said:


> The guns on the F-8 would break under G loading, I think only 2 kills were gun only, maybe two more were missile and gun, the rest AIM-9. The A-1 Skydraiders had a couple of cannon kills, and I think Don Kilgus's F-100 guns kill was finally verified. The F-105 has the most gun kills on the US side credited with something like 24 MiGs.


No, the guns did not break.

The ammo belts, feeding through curved chutes from the drums to the guns, would jam under G-loading, and free themselves as soon as the G-loads were reduced.

That was sort of the same thing, as it reduced the usefulness of the guns considerably.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Hunter111 (Monday at 10:12 PM)

I’ve read the book and knew of Boyd long before the public was made aware of his work.

The OODA loop describes a natural process. Anyone who has participated in sports understands it at both the macro and micro levels. Boyd’s main contribution was a means of evaluating relative performance by developing the E-M theory into a useful representation.

The main author of the book was one of Boyd’s “Acolytes”, part of the team that supported Boyd in the Pentagon, so it’s hardly objective. His acolytes, many who weren’t pilots, were particularly annoying and out of date.

The whole 40 second Boyd is overstated, and probably points to the lack of training and experience and USAF air to air training policy. The USN and many USAF pilots were dogfighting throughout the late fifties and sixties over various areas that were know. It wasn’t official, but pilots were turning and learning.

Boyd was a terrible husband, there is no excuse for that. Because he had been treated poorly during his enlisted service immediately after WWII in Japan, he despised the indifference of Field Grade Officers in the USAF, perhaps with good reason.

A lot of his attitude about “Do you want to BE something or DO something” has been in play since armies of men first began to organize.

Boyd made useful contributions, but his main failure was to fail to see the value of technology, as evidenced by the phenomenal combat performance of the aircraft he mocked.

The book is a good read, just know that it’s a bit of a puff piece on a complex man.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Skyediamonds (Tuesday at 12:48 AM)

Victory:

You are correct in just about all areas describing Boyd, particularly as a husband & more so as a father. Insofar as what the book has described him, he wasn’t physically abusive but his absence from his family coupled with his disdain for things he considered luxury, when oftentimes they were actually a necessity, really took its toil. His house was a small ramshackle place in a bad neighborhood & he professed ignorance at what was taking place in the family when his own world was flying & theory.

Note: I mentioned “the” family instead of using the proper syntax “his” family because it was exactly as how he treated them. He professed his puzzlement about youngest daughter whom he called “snookem” when she turned to drugs & went downhill fast & violently took her actions against him. Yet despite please from his wife to do something, John just turned he back & went to work as if nothing had happened.

His theories & codes were at farsighted, at least in his time, which were well over 50 years ago. True, Navy & Air Force were dogfighting for years & the kill ratio fell dismally low during the Viet Nam War. As the book described it, very little was done about it. 

As it was stated “ the air force pilots were turning & learning” wasn’t all that cut out to be. If they were truly learning as they were turning the kill ratio would ( or at least should ) be different. 

The overstatement of John as 40-second Boyd may have been true, but it was backed up by countless witnesses & was well documented. So there has to be some validity somewhere.

The “blue suiters” as John so disdainfully put it, loved to add systems to an otherwise clean design & just as well continue managing their careers to retirement. 

The F-111 Aardvark program, a plane that was shoved down the Navy’s throat was a very good example of the blue suiters & McNamara’s “Wiz Kids” & their collective actions.

John said it best when asked his opinion on the swing-wing bomber: “Just rip the wings off, give it a bench seat in the back & paint it yellow.”

In his later years, McNamara admitted his mistakes in forcing the services to accept a multipurpose aircraft that could do a “little bit of everything but accomplished nothing.”

If the Marines were the only service to accord John the honors of a soldier, then so be it. One must remember that at the time of John’s passing he was a civilian.


----------



## Macandy (Tuesday at 5:52 AM)

Boyd was so obsessed with his thrower, he simply ignored the reality that it was political restrictions that limited the effect of USAF and USN fighters over Vietnam. 
When the gloves were taken off, they had no problem swatting f=down the MiGs.


----------



## Skyediamonds (Tuesday at 9:23 AM)

Macandy:
Sorry, you threw me off with the word, “thrower.”

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Hunter111 (Tuesday at 2:52 PM)

Skyediamonds said:


> His theories & codes were at farsighted, at least in his time, which were well over 50 years ago. True, Navy & Air Force were dogfighting for years & the kill ratio fell dismally low during the Viet Nam War. As the book described it, very little was done about it.
> 
> …
> 
> ...



Little was done about it? Not in the USN. The Ault Report was commissioned resulting in NFWS. A lot was being done about it at every level. The problem is that the lay person isn’t aware of the way things work. So much of the issues in SEA were caused by VID requirements and poor tactics that came from above. The services were hamstrung on employing ways to get around it. TCS/TSEO and NCTR resulted, both of which Boyd would have mocked. He trended towards obstinance, probably due to this hatred of Generals and Staff Officers. The Pentagon political realm is a good place to lose your soul. 

The 40 second Boyd deal is just another BS story that gets passed along by people who have no way to confirm it. I’m sure he could beat some rookie who didn’t know what they were doing.

The F111 mess was being opposed by thousands of Naval Officers across the spectrum. Boyd was merely another voice.
Boyd’s mindset was simple in a lot of ways. Reduce complexity, fund and field superior numbers, overwhelm the enemy while taking your losses. Similar to the Cold War Soviet mindset it a lot of ways. 

The problem in the cockpit is that you need good systems that give you SA so you dominate the OODA process, That’s what bloggers and media don’t understand about the F35. Boyd would have hated it, based on Pierre Sprey’s, who has never flown a fighter much less under combat conditions, ridiculous comments about the aircraft.

The HM theory was very useful as a tool for basic maneuvering comparison to develop a basic game plan. It’s become a holy grail for folks who don’t fly airplanes, and have a tendency to view things from a 1v1 perspective. Today, a lot of Boyd’s biases have been voided by the advent of EID methodology and reliable radars and weapons. It’s a different world that wouldn’t exist had industry followed Boyd’s precepts.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Skyediamonds (Tuesday at 7:42 PM)

Hunter111:

I tend to agree on just about everything you said. It sounds like you’re speaking from experience so you’ll get no argument from me here.


----------

