"Most pilots shot down didn't see the enemy coming"

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

DonL said:
Any source for this claims my books show the contradict,
Click to expand...

Check any book containing the number of sorties and losses suffered... loss/sortie went DOWN for the LW bombers, loss/sortie went UP for RAF fighters by September. Essentially the concentration of fighters and bombers instead of sending them in piecemeal worked well (rather predicable).

Galland and pilots may have not liked the new tactics (what about Mölders BTW? he was a much more established and systematic officier than the charismatic Galland), but apparently he was a big enough character not see any further than his own tactical needs and kept blaming Göring for it.
Its a pity that only his version survives of the events, isn't it.

DonL said:
LW fighter losses increased dramaticly, LW bomber losses remain constant and RAF fighter losses went down (especially the Hurricane).
Click to expand...

So if RAF fighter losses went "down", why were Park and Dowding so worried by September? Why were aircraft reserves dwindling? (See official RAF history of BoB for figures)

Also show us your sources to your claims of that "dramatic" LW fighter loss increase, please...
 
I don't know whose right and have no intention of trawling through the figures. I would sound a note of caution. Raw figures for losses, unrelated to other data, can be VERY misleading.
There may be many factors at work.

Air Vice-Marshall Keith Park gave this assessment on 6th September 1940.

" Contrary to general belief and official reports, the enemy's bombing attacks by day did extensive damage to five of our forward aerodromes and also to six of our seven sector stations. There was a critical period when the damage to sector stations and our ground organisation was having a serious effect on the fighting efficiency of the squadrons, who could not be given the same good technical and administrative service as previously."

He added.

"....the general dislocation of ground organisation was seriously felt for about a week in the handling of squadrons by day to meet the enemy's massed attacks, which were continued without the former occasional break of a day

My italics. That's called keeping the pressure on.

During the previous two weeks Fighter Command had lost 295 fighters destroyed and 171 seriously damaged. Productivity in the various factories was actually falling. August had seen the loss of just over 300 pilots. They were replaced by 260 new ones of whom many were under trained.

The Luftwaffe was doing much better than it realised.

Cheers
Steve
 
Last edited:

Battle of Britain: Amazon.de: Christer Bergstrom: Englische Bücher
 
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.


Gentlemen, the only thing I can somewhat agree with here is the cost of this aircraft. It is very expensive, no doubt, but what's more cost effective, buying an aircraft half as capable for ¾ of the price of an F-35 in today's dollars and having it last only 20 years and then having to go back to the drawing board for a redesign and procurement all over again with funding that may not exist or going with the F-35 and having it last 50 years or more? There's the old saying "pay me now or pay me later." In my mind, our pilots should have the best equipment available and until the F-35 can be shown that it's an utter failure, the jury is still out. When one looks into the problems encountered so far on this program, there's little difference than what was encountered when such aircraft as the F-15, F-16 or even Tornado were being developed.
BTW - look over the parameters that were changed as posted by OldSkeptic - they are for the most part non-players. "Sustained turn performance lowered by .1G?!? Come on, you could probably fart .1G and not feel a thing! 43 second increase from going to mach .8 to 1.2?!? Show me tactically where that will make a difference???

The fuel tank venting problem has been addressed AFAIK. In the mean time the aircraft continues to be flight tested and production models are starting to be delivered. To be continued...
 
Last edited:
Fair points Flyboy but still its the expense to performance ratio that bugs me. The STOL version has I believe an expected mission radius with a full air to ground warload and internal fuel of 120 miles. 120 miles I dont know how much loiter time that includes and I only got the figure from a newspaper but 120 miles from an aircraft that expensive. Wouldnt it be cheaper to build a flying aircraft carrier for the USMC and just shove the bombs overboard.

The RN is proposing to use them as multi role aircraft yet it cant even supercruise and too much afterburner time is going to mean a lot of pilots having to walk home across the N Atlantic. God only knows what they will do if the mission involves a lot of wavetop flying carrying an anti ship load up into the Northern Ocean, I hope the Norwegians have a lot of tankers handy.
 


According to the LMCO site the F-35B has a combat radius of 450 nm, internal fuel. Now if the aircraft is placed in a hover for long durations I could see that range being severely reduced.

I think there is a lot of dis-information being spread about this aircraft. For example, this article;

Reduced F-35 performance specifications may have significant operational impact

They make statements about pilot's concerns but never once say who the pilot is or let alone identifying if he's ever flown the aircraft! There's many other F-35 bashing articles that do the same. Alot of quoting but they never say from who and how they're connected to the program. So far I haven't heard anything negative from any of the pilots who have flown the aircraft.
 
Last edited:
I have seen so many range and radius figures I dont know which ones to believe but I see on wiki (I know I know LOL) it gives range for the 35B as 900 nmi yet a combat radius of 469 nmi. Somethings not right there unless the 35B doesnt need fuel to warm up, take off and climb or any reserve then one of those numbers is wrong. As the same wiki gives an internal fuel load for the 35B of 13,500 lbs and 19,750 lbs for the 35C then 900 nmi range sounds right for the 35B as against 1,400 nmi for the C assuming a roughly 2/3 load gives you roughly 2/3 range.

Still think it would be cheaper to build a flying aircraft carrier

My preffered option for the RN buy the Rafale naval version or a catobar Grippen for the cheapest option
 
I think many of the internet sources don't have accurate info and are getting are three aircraft co-mingled into one
fastmongrel said:
Still think it would be cheaper to build a flying aircraft carrier
Click to expand...



fastmongrel said:
My preffered option for the RN buy the Rafale naval version or a catobar Grippen for the cheapest option
Click to expand...
That might be true, hovever keep in mind with the UK as a major player in this program, how much offset dollars (and pounds) will flow if the US builds 2500 of these things, let alone other nations?
 
Ah Cloudbase now we are talking. Gerry Anderson see he had the right idea in 1968. Captain Black was my favourite Captain Scarlett and the Mysterons character a puppet with a 5 o,clock shadow.

 
fastmongrel said:
Ah Cloudbase now we are talking. Gerry Anderson see he had the right idea in 1968. Captain Black was my favourite Captain Scarlett and the Mysterons character a puppet with a 5 o,clock shadow
Click to expand...
I was partial to Fireball XL5 myself, although I did watch Captain Scarlett daily.
 
There's so much money and politics surrounding the F35 right now that I find it impossible to rely on anyone`s figures these days. I don`t think we (John Q. Public) are going to get any concrete data until its been in service for a few years and been in a real scrap or two.

The only people that truly know of the aircraft's (evolving) capabilities aren't going to tell the world at this point.

One thing I do know for certain, is that (as FLYBOYJ said) this seems to happen all the time. We saw it with the F22, F16, F4, F105, the list goes on and on ... take your pick.

The exacerbated problem with the F35 is that it`s what, the largest military procurement program in history? Way too many people have a dog in this fight for you to not be skeptical of everything you hear.
 
That's mostly the problem with the F-35, it's gotten too big to fail.
So much money has been put into it, that if it does fail, we're in big, big, trouble.
 
tyrodtom said:
That's mostly the problem with the F-35, it's gotten too big to fail.
So much money has been put into it, that if it does fail, we're in big, big, trouble.
Click to expand...

I think you need a lot more bigs in 30 point bold to get even close to the hole the west will be in if the F35 turns out to be a Camel. 10 years down the line with an ageing if not geriatric F15, F18, F16, AV8 fleet what else to buy. Sukhoi/MiG shares anyone because with all the money flowing into Lockheeds black hole who else in the US will have the skillset or the facilities to get a multi role combat aircraft into service in less then 15 years. It has to work or we are in the smelly stuff up to the nostrils.
 
I hope OLDSKEPTIC can answer the question to post #63.

Anyways F-35, nice jet.. REALLY nice jet. CANADA was considering purchasing a few to replace the CF-18 Hornet. Whoa! Bad move I think, the F-35
should be used in conjunction with the CF-18 Hornet. Frankly, I can't see the F-35 operating in Northern Canada. Single engine, short takeoff/landing
runways, in some cases unpaved.. not for the F-35 for sure. I think a bunch of F-18 Super Hornets and a few F-35's would be the ticket. Also:

 
Steve Hinton got to fly bthe F-35 simulator and says that without training he was able to do VTOL operations with a short explanation. The Harrier was reasonably difficult to master, but Steve says the F-35 STOVL is easy in the extreme and that can make a big difference when landing short on fuel, like some Harriers did in the Falklands War on freighters and other non-carrier ships.

I heard one talk by the initial project test poilot who said it flies quite well (not the STOVL). That was at Parker Aerospace (make the actruators for most of the control surfaces plus the clutch for the lift fan).

I don't like the cost and feel they should have stayed with the F-22 or, ideally, the F-23, but FlyboyJ is right, the jury is still out. When it gets into service, I recon we'll see, won't we? All of us. Hope it isn't a dog like some think or we'll be sorry.

If it IS, we may not be able to afford the replacement.

Politicians! Why is they never ask the pilots which plane to pick?
 
Ive only ever flown the harrier in a flight Sim, and whilst i could just master the A-4, the Harrier was just such a handful that i crashed nearly every time. VTOL is hard, even helos are a b*gger to get the hang of. Even STOVL is a bit of a nightmare. Id love to hear from some real pilots on this that flown such specialised a/c
 
GregP said:
I don't like the cost and feel they should have stayed with the F-22 or, ideally, the F-23, but FlyboyJ is right, the jury is still out.
Click to expand...

Greg, the F-22 and F-23 would have cost more to procure, and probably more to run.

I also don't like the cost of the F-35.

I am also a bit wary of the claims of its superiority against current and potential adversaries.



I guess that's the difference between 1960s/1970s avionics and 2000s avionics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

M
Why Didn't The RAF use Beaufighters Instead of Typhoons In The ETO
2
Replies
29
Views
3K
MIflyer
M
M
RAF Fighter Pilots Wounded/Injured Compared to US Pilots
2 3 4
Replies
79
Views
5K
GrauGeist
S
Pilots aiming at cockpits?
9 10 11
Replies
207
Views
12K
Peter Gunn
K
Japanese Twin-engine bombers shot down 24 October 1944
Replies
0
Views
642
Keith1967
K
1937-45: Doubling down on the 2-engined 'day fighters'
7 8 9
Replies
175
Views
9K
Admiral Beez
A
Menu
Log in
Register