John Boyd, opinions?

[FLYBOYJ]

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]

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

 

[special ed]

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]

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

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.

 

[Skyediamonds]

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]

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

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZDfdCj61dY

 

[Acheron]

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.

 

[Shortround6]

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.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

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.

 

[GTX]

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 Observe the enemy first, they are able to Orientate themselves without being seen and then Decide (supported by more information) faster before finally Acting - all faster then their enemy.

 

[GTX]

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) ...

 

[Macandy]

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

 

[Macandy]

And the video in question, that would be Lazerpig



View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZDfdCj61dY

 

[Skyediamonds]

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.

 

[Macandy]

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"

 

[Skyediamonds]

Macandy:

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

 

[Peter Gunn]

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.

 

[rob23]

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]

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]

Judging from several responses regarding Boyd's doctrine, it appears his book,

Exactly what book are you referring to?