some F35 info (1 Viewer)

[Thumpalumpacus]

I think we have been down this road before, "missiles means you don't have to do dogfight". Didn't the losses as a result of that line of thought end up with the implementation of both the FWS and Topgun specifically to get back to ACM basic skills?

Missiles are great, but they are not infallible...and you have a limited number. Radar missiles (essentially all long range missiles) are more expensive and more fallible than IR / imaging seekers. That means you still sometimes end up having to get in (relatively) close to get the shot. And sometimes the mission just makes you go someplace you don't want, be it self escorting into a target area or some kind of CAS, close range ACM is going to happen, even in the modern battlespace.

T!

Maybe you have covered this before, but I haven't. Having said that, nowhere in there did I say that missiles would obviate any dogfighting; and I'm well aware of the history of the Vietnam War in the air.

My point is that an encounter winding up in a shooting dogfighting is almost always the suboptimal end-result, and much more hazardous.

I'm not fool enough to think any missile (or any other man-made object) is infallible. That's probably why I didn't use that word.

 

[Token]

Yes and no - it was thought that missiles only would be the "end all" to dogfighting, the issues were the ROEs (Vietnam to be specific)

Missiles were so much the "end all" solution that newly designed fighters in the era did not include guns.

The ROE rightfully takes a beating anytime you discuss Vietnam, not being able to kill aircraft and missile sites on the ground before they lifted off or fired on you was stupid. But, it was not the ROE that resulted in a (low point) 1:1 ratio when discussing air-to-air combat in the region. It was the fact that the MiG-17 and -21 were really good fighters in the WVR arena, and the Vietnamese (or Russian aircraft controllers) were very good at leveraging the advantages of the aircraft and region. Even if the Navy / Air Force had been given free reign to kill anything in the air, the MiGs in Bananna valley stayed unshootable (low, terrain masking, etc) until, they had a specific target.

Agree but I believe in this modern era you have way more accuracy and reliability - look up the aerial engagements from the Gulf War on, well over 90% of the air to air kills were done with missiles and I can only think of maybe 2 engagements where the mission took a turn and the close in knife fight was undertaken.

Lets be clear, I did not say missiles were not the primary weapon, I was not saying "guns only", I was specifically talking about long range shots vs close range engagements. Think BVR vs WVR. Although there is setup and maneuvers in BVR engagements, the world of traditional ACM is really in the WVR arena. The Sidewinder (or Atoll, or Python, or Magic, etc) is a (relatively) close range weapon. Long range missiles can be, and often are, used at shorter ranges. In the case of the Gulf War if you include the Sidewinder engagements or Slammers fired at close ranges you end up with over half of the engagements being WVR.

Reference: "Premise and Reality, Beyond Visual Range (BVR) Air-to-Air Combat" (sorry, can't find an online copy to link)
During the Gulf war there were roughly 41 total air to air kills by coalition forces. 2 were guns, 10 were WVR missiles, 8 were BVR missiles shot at WVR ranges, and 16 were BVR missiles shot at BVR ranges. Over half at WVR ranges, whatever the weapon used. Plus the WVR weapons and Guns have a much higher probability of intercept, at over 60%, with BVR missile shots falling something under 35%.

And the Gulf War was not a peer-on-peer extended air campaign. Yes, in theory they were roughly the 4th largest army in the World, with a modern air force and air defense system. The reality is that they were so well suppressed and restricted that it was almost a turkey shoot (from the air-to-air aspect).

T!

 

[Token]

Maybe you have covered this before, but I haven't. Having said that, nowhere in there did I say that missiles would obviate any dogfighting; and I'm well aware of the history of the Vietnam War in the air.

My point is that an encounter winding up in a shooting dogfighting is almost always the suboptimal end-result, and much more hazardous.

I'm not fool enough to think any missile (or any other man-made object) is infallible. That's probably why I didn't use that word.

My response was to your statement of "In an age when missiles have ranges of 80-100 miles, if you're caught in a dogfight you've probably done something pretty wrong." That sounds to me like you believe that WVR engagements have no place in the modern battlespace. Not only do they have a place, it must be planned for. While it would certainly be nice to stiff arm any opponent and never get closer than 75 miles to a threat, that just is not realistically possible under many real world conditions.

If I misunderstood your statement then I apologize.

T!

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

My response was to your statement of "In an age when missiles have ranges of 80-100 miles, if you're caught in a dogfight you've probably done something pretty wrong." That sounds to me like you believe that WVR engagements have no place in the modern battlespace. Not only do they have a place, it must be planned for. While it would certainly be nice to stiff arm any opponent and never get closer than 75 miles to a threat, that just is not realistically possible under many real world conditions.

If I misunderstood your statement then I apologize.

T!

As I clarified above, yes, I hold a knife-fight to be a sub-optimal end result, and yes, "probably" something has gone wrong imho.

I'm well aware that we can't be bubble-people, or shoot at every.single.enemy we see etc.

 

[GTX]

It amuses me to no end whenever I see a discussion re missiles vs guns and someone brings up Vietnam. Quite apart from the ROE restrictions people seem to forget that this was 50+yrs ago. By way of comparison, the music format at the time was radio, 8-track tapes and/or vinyl records, mobile phones were something of science fiction and computers were bulky and certainly not something in every day use. Today we can have a smart phone which allows communications, listening to music, ready books and much more plus it probably has more processing power than most computers back then. And yet, we see many still referring to that time to justify their position re the viability of missiles in aerial combat. Do people really think that missiles haven't moved on since then?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Measure vs counter-measure. IFF is subject to a constantly evolving arms race, as are all other airborne technologies. Very few of the kills mentioned above were between equivalent generation systems of major world super powers. Most were achieved by higher tech aircraft with more proficient crews against lower tech/older generation aircraft, often with less experienced/proficient crews. Lessons drawn from such data don't necessarily apply to a hypothetical major power conflict involving same generation opponents. The eyes still have it.
The knife fight in a phone booth is always a potential scenario, and the N Vietnam scene, with its heavy dependence on vulnerable AWACS aircraft and nearby tankers is less viable in this world of ultra long range SAMs and AAMs.

Agree to a point but if you look at what has actually taken place during the last 30 years, the "knife fight in a phone booth" hardly took place, but with that said it doesn't mean you don't train for it.

More than likely if an aircraft like the F-22 or F-35 get involved in an unrestricted shooting war, it's going to be a matter of who sees who first, and I'm talking BVR and maybe with the assistance of AWACS. Unless something goes very wrong, I see these aircraft killing their enemy BVR and moving on the the next objective.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Missiles were so much the "end all" solution that newly designed fighters in the era did not include guns.

The ROE rightfully takes a beating anytime you discuss Vietnam, not being able to kill aircraft and missile sites on the ground before they lifted off or fired on you was stupid. But, it was not the ROE that resulted in a (low point) 1:1 ratio when discussing air-to-air combat in the region. It was the fact that the MiG-17 and -21 were really good fighters in the WVR arena, and the Vietnamese (or Russian aircraft controllers) were very good at leveraging the advantages of the aircraft and region. Even if the Navy / Air Force had been given free reign to kill anything in the air, the MiGs in Bananna valley stayed unshootable (low, terrain masking, etc) until, they had a specific target.

That is true but you still had restrictions in the aircraft (prior to 1972) where pilots had to be fired upon and had to visually see the opponent. If this ROE didn't exist I would suggest the 1:1 ratio "would have" been a lot higher but there still would have been the need for ACM training

Lets be clear, I did not say missiles were not the primary weapon, I was not saying "guns only", I was specifically talking about long range shots vs close range engagements. Think BVR vs WVR. Although there is setup and maneuvers in BVR engagements, the world of traditional ACM is really in the WVR arena. The Sidewinder (or Atoll, or Python, or Magic, etc) is a (relatively) close range weapon. Long range missiles can be, and often are, used at shorter ranges. In the case of the Gulf War if you include the Sidewinder engagements or Slammers fired at close ranges you end up with over half of the engagements being WVR.

OK-

Reference: "Premise and Reality, Beyond Visual Range (BVR) Air-to-Air Combat" (sorry, can't find an online copy to link)
During the Gulf war there were roughly 41 total air to air kills by coalition forces. 2 were guns, 10 were WVR missiles, 8 were BVR missiles shot at WVR ranges, and 16 were BVR missiles shot at BVR ranges. Over half at WVR ranges, whatever the weapon used. Plus the WVR weapons and Guns have a much higher probability of intercept, at over 60%, with BVR missile shots falling something under 35%.

I think the numbers prove my point - the object is to kill the opponent; if it can be done BVR, the better.

And the Gulf War was not a peer-on-peer extended air campaign. Yes, in theory they were roughly the 4th largest army in the World, with a modern air force and air defense system. The reality is that they were so well suppressed and restricted that it was almost a turkey shoot (from the air-to-air aspect).

T!

Agree

 

[FLYBOYJ]

It amuses me to no end whenever I see a discussion re missiles vs guns and someone brings up Vietnam. Quite apart from the ROE restrictions people seem to forget that this was 50+yrs ago. By way of comparison, the music format at the time was radio, 8-track tapes and/or vinyl records, mobile phones were something of science fiction and computers were bulky and certainly not something in every day use. Today we can have a smart phone which allows communications, listening to music, ready books and much more plus it probably has more processing power than most computers back then. And yet, we see many still referring to that time to justify their position re the viability of missiles in aerial combat. Do people really think that missiles haven't moved on since then?

Well this will always be brought up because it shows how the USN and USAF had to fight with one arm tied behind their backs and because of this many lives were needlessly lost (I don't want to go political here). During that period there were many issues with the Sparrow missile which had a dreadful reliability rate, but I think even with less stringent ROEs, the issue for the need for ACM training as well as fighters armed with a gun would have still come to light.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

My response was to your statement of "In an age when missiles have ranges of 80-100 miles, if you're caught in a dogfight you've probably done something pretty wrong." That sounds to me like you believe that WVR engagements have no place in the modern battlespace. Not only do they have a place, it must be planned for. While it would certainly be nice to stiff arm any opponent and never get closer than 75 miles to a threat, that just is not realistically possible under many real world conditions.

If I misunderstood your statement then I apologize.

T!

Yes, but so far in the conflicts that occurred during the past 30 years, the "stiff arm" was the flavor of the day and was probably the preferred method of killing the bad guy, but where I disagree is I think we now have the capability to "stiff arm" most threats, even in many real world conditions.

But still train for ACM...

 

[Greyman]

Today we can have a smart phone which ... probably has more processing power than most computers back then.

I would wager a new smartphone today has more processing power than all computers on earth combined back then. Several times over.

 

[GrauGeist]

To get a better idea, Apollo 11's computer operated at .04MHz - an average "smart phone" today is about 2.5GHz.



(edited to fix typo - as usual...)

 

[FLYBOYJ]

 

[Token]

It amuses me to no end whenever I see a discussion re missiles vs guns and someone brings up Vietnam. Quite apart from the ROE restrictions people seem to forget that this was 50+yrs ago. By way of comparison, the music format at the time was radio, 8-track tapes and/or vinyl records, mobile phones were something of science fiction and computers were bulky and certainly not something in every day use. Today we can have a smart phone which allows communications, listening to music, ready books and much more plus it probably has more processing power than most computers back then. And yet, we see many still referring to that time to justify their position re the viability of missiles in aerial combat. Do people really think that missiles haven't moved on since then?

I absolutely know how much missile technology has moved since then. I also know how much countermeasures have moved since then.

T!

 

[XBe02Drvr]

To get a better idea, Apollo 11's computer operated at .04MHz - an average "smart phone" today is about 2.5GHz.



(edited to fix typo - as usual...)

When I got out of the Nav I worked awhile for Eastern Airlines on a 727 simulator driven by a British Redifon computer roughly the size of a really large office desk that ran at 1 MHZ and had about as much memory as an IBM PC XT. A separate Burroughs computer that filled a 6 ft vertical rack and had similar computing capacity handled the (night time only) visual system. Buggy as all hell. We techs used to hand each other the ceremonial FLIT sprayer before "going tactical" in search of the mighty bug.

 

[ThomasP]

wrong thread

 

[Token]

Yes, but so far in the conflicts that occurred during the past 30 years, the "stiff arm" was the flavor of the day and was probably the preferred method of killing the bad guy, but where I disagree is I think we now have the capability to "stiff arm" most threats, even in many real world conditions.

But still train for ACM...

In non-peer conflicts, the only kind we have been involved in in the past 30+ years, yes, we have the ability to stand off and suppress almost anything we need to before getting close. A peer-to-peer or near-peer conflict would be different.

T!

 

[FLYBOYJ]

In non-peer conflicts, the only kind we have been involved in in the past 30+ years, yes, we have the ability to stand off and suppress almost anything we need to before getting close. A peer-to-peer or near-peer conflict would be different.

T!

That's speculation, the only way to know for sure is if it was to happen. IMO against a Chinese threat, agree, against the Russians, considering what we've seen over Ukraine?

 

[GTX]

825+ delivered so far!

https://www.f35.com/content/dam/lockheed-martin/aero/f35/documents/F35%20Fast%20Facts%20August%202022.pdf

 

[buffnut453]

825+ delivered so far!

https://www.f35.com/content/dam/lockheed-martin/aero/f35/documents/F35%20Fast%20Facts%20August%202022.pdf

What a complete flop!

 

[GTX]

Indeed - obviously in a death spiral...