John Boyd, opinions?

[Skyediamonds]

I stand corrected of Dicky Cheney's status.

The reason Boyd was never mentioned in any acknowledgements for his influence in warfare doctrine or the design of aircraft such as the F-15 & F-16 was because of his abrasive manners & contempt for the blue suiters. Boyd was well known for talking with his mouth full of food & this often resulted in Boyd spitting food into the face of generals unfortunate enough to be caught standing in front of him.

Quick edit:

Boyd also used to take his finger & poke the generals (or any of the blue suiters for that matter) in the chest as his voice could be heard booming in the hallways.

When someone would request a "Brief," Boyd would insist that he be allowed all day to make the presentation. If the person making the request for the Brief to be condensed to two hours or less, Boyd's typical response was "How about NO Brief?" & would slam the phone down.

Given just those few examples that I've listed, it shouldn't be a surprise that Boyd's contribution to the military & his extensive research into tactics & aircraft design would be largely ignored or even swept under the bus & his funeral was attended by a vast majority of Marines but only two reps from the Air Force.

 

[RaptorFan]

I stand corrected of Dicky Cheney's status.

The reason Boyd was never mentioned in any acknowledgements for his influence in warfare doctrine or the design of aircraft such as the F-15 & F-16 was because of his abrasive manners & contempt for the blue suiters. Boyd was well know for talking with his mouth full of food & this often resulted in into the face of generals.

The best I can find was that Boyd met with Cheney when he was a Representative.
This myth of him saving us in Desert Storm is textbook Cult of Boyd. Where the EM charts guy (with help from others) and F-15/F-16 helper (he did NOT single handedly design both planes) becomes Cult Of Boyd with superhuman powers and hounded by persecution.
I won't get into some of the more unseemly people who became Cult of Boyd acolytes.

 

[MIflyer]

I was at the Pentagon when Cheney was SecDef. It was hard to get through to him. He issued a policy that said that BEFORE a service sent him OR one of his deputies a letter he wanted them to get coordination from the Deputy to who it was directed. Okay, so you basically had to get concurrence from the guy you wanted to send a letter that said, "The USAF position is..." BEFORE you sent it. And of course that guy could slow roll you forever or just not be available to coordinate.

 

[GTX]

By the way, Boyd did published a book called The Aerial Attack Study in 1963……

Aerial Attack Study is online.

Here: https://www.ausairpower.net/JRB/boydaerialattack.pdf

Note sure i would classify that as a book though...at least not a published book...more of an internal USAF Report/paper.

 

[GTX]

Definitely agree re the Cult of Boyd issue. I do however strongly appreciate the OODA loop and have applied it numerous times in real world business (those interested in the business applications should read the following: Certain to Win: The Strategy of John Boyd, Applied to Business) and can understand it's use in both military and other situations.

I do also like the following supposed quote attributed to him: "Do you want to be someone, or do you want to do something?" I like it because I see too many people these days who just want to be someone - i.e. have the title or supposed status and not actually contribute anything to society...looking your way many "influencers", politicians, rank climbers...

 

[RaptorFan]

Definitely agree re the Cult of Boyd issue. I do however strongly appreciate the OODA loop and have applied it numerous times in real world business (those interested in the business applications should read the following: Certain to Win: The Strategy of John Boyd, Applied to Business) and can understand it's use in both military and other situations.

I do also like the following supposed quote attributed to him: "Do you want to be someone, or do you want to do something?" I like it because I see too many people these days who just want to be someone - i.e. have the title or supposed status and not actually contribute anything to society...looking your way many "influencers", politicians, rank climbers...

Yes he said that in talk he gave that's on YouTube.

 

[Zipper730]

Here: https://www.ausairpower.net/JRB/boydaerialattack.pdf

Note sure i would classify that as a book though...at least not a published book...more of an internal USAF Report/paper.

There was qutie a bit on fighter vs bomber tactics, which is quite a surprise: Was the F-100 ever intended to be used in a day-interceptor role in the defense of CONUS, Alaska, or NATO airspace?

 

[GTX]

Was the F-100 ever intended to be used in a day-interceptor role in the defense of CONUS, Alaska, or NATO airspace?

Yes...kind of. The mission of the F-100A was originally seen as that of daylight air superiority, and the aircraft was pictured as the natural replacement of the F-86 Sabre. That said, it very quickly morphed into a fighter bomber role.

 

[Zipper730]

Yes...kind of. The mission of the F-100A was originally seen as that of daylight air superiority, and the aircraft was pictured as the natural replacement of the F-86 Sabre.

I never really thought of it that way. Admittedly the F-8A had similar performance (better in some ways, possibly a little slower at top-end) and was used in this capacity.

That said, it very quickly morphed into a fighter bomber role.

That appears to be similar for the F-104, though I'm curious to what extent it (the F-104A/C) was used in defending NATO nations from bomber-attack

 

[GreenKnight121]

I never really thought of it that way. Admittedly the F-8A had similar performance (better in some ways, possibly a little slower at top-end) and was used in this capacity.
That appears to be similar for the F-104, though I'm curious to what extent it (the F-104A/C) was used in defending NATO nations from bomber-attack

This is something I have seen before - the claim that the F-8A was, like the F-100, barely supersonic. This is not correct.

The F-8A (F8U-1) had a top speed of 1,013 mph (M1.53) at 35,000 ft. This was the slowest of all F-8s, and the F-8B (F8U-1E) was similar..
The F-8C (F8U-2) had a top speed of 1,105 mph (M1.67) at 35,000 ft.
The F-8D (F8U-2N) had a top speed of 1,228 mph (M1.86) at 35,000 ft. This was a "limited all-weather/night capability" fighter, and the fastest of all F-8s.
The F-8E (F8U-2NE) had a top speed of 1,133 mph (M1.72) at 35,000 ft. This was a fully all-weather/night capable fighter.

The F-100A had a top speed of 852 mph (M1.29) at 35,000 ft.
The F-100C had a top speed of 924 mph (M1.4) at 35,000 ft. This was the fastest of all F-100s, and still significantly slower than the slowest F-8.
The F-100D had a top speed of 864 mph (M1.3) at 36,000 ft.
The F-100F had a top speed of 852 mph (M1.29) at 35,000 ft.

The XF8U-3 and F-100B (F-107) are different stories, of course.

 

[Zipper730]

The Super Weight Reduction Program was designed to get the weight down for the USN version and the Air Force suffered the consequences of that for decades thereafter. I spent countless hours inspecting and pressure testing F-111 bleed air ducts, when they could have been made much stronger if they had been manufactured weighing a few ounces more.

You pointed out there were other easily fixable problems had effort been allocated, if I may ask: What were these?

The USAF did screw up royally by demanding long range supersonic terrain following, and no company could meet the specs, no matter how outrageous the design approach taken, which should have told them a lot right there. Ironically this turned out not only to be an expensive and counterproductive requirement but simply did not work well. Low altitude night attack was the way to go, all right but doing it while supersonic screamed, "Hey! I'm over here!" and actually increased your chance of being shot down.

Far as I understand, supersonic would make it easier to get in and out without detection on radar (this was pre-pulse doppler, inverse monopulse, and/or other doppler-filtering methods), provide greater difficulty for an enemy fighter to run them down, and provide the ability to lob a nuclear weapon further: I don't know how well the afterburner plume (and any kinetic heating) would cause the airplane to stick out from the ground during day time (solar radiation and the air/ground temp are hotter), but I wouldn't be surprised if it would do so decently enough; I'd imagine at night you might as well be glowing.

As for Boyd, his ability to translate fighter air combat maneuvering into a broader strategy is the most impressive thing about him.

As well as take it from the realm of art with a bit of science to just science.

 

[MIflyer]

Far as I understand, supersonic would make it easier to get in and out without detection on radar

Yes, but with the afterburners sending out long trails of fire into the night it did not require the enemy be staffed exclusively with rocket scientists to figure out where to point their guns.

 

[Zipper730]

Yes, but with the afterburners sending out long trails of fire into the night it did not require the enemy be staffed exclusively with rocket scientists to figure out where to point their guns.

True enough, but most interceptors in the USSR's inventory had IRST's.