John Boyd, opinions?

[GTX]

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.

 

[rob23]

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.

 

[Skyediamonds]

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& the use of guns to engage in combat (which those particular types of guns themselves are now obsolete) are probably outdated.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,

 

[Skyediamonds]

GTX,
The biography of Boyd. It's entitled: "John Boyd, the Fighter Pilot Who Changed the Art of War."

Hope this helps.

 

[GTX]

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]

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.

 

[Shortround6]

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.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

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

Unintended double-entendre spotted here.

 

[Skyediamonds]

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.

 

[Peter Gunn]

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.

 

[Skyediamonds]

Peter Gunn:

Here, here ( raising a stein of ale ).

Cheers,

 

[Macandy]

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]

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.

I know, I was just funnin' you.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

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.

 

[rob23]

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]

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]

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.

 

[rob23]

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.

 

[GreenKnight121]

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.

 

[Hunter111]

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.