Top Gun Inspired by Fleet Air Arm ?

[Glider]

The following caught my eye in todays paper and I was wondering if anyone could add to this story.

American Top Gun fighter pilot academy set up by British - Telegraph

 

[timshatz]

Did not know that. Thanks for posting.

 

[syscom3]

A lot of things were happening in tandem.

There was a recently published book about a "rebel" USAF general who wrote an intense technical study on "energy conservation" in dogfighting which formulated what the best dog fighting pilots knew by instinct. His studies led directly to the F16.

I think there was also a similar charachter in the marines that was working in parrlallel with him.

 

[neilf92]

I certainly remember as a teenager in the early 60's living about 60 miles from Lossiemouth watching the neat drk. grey and white Hunter GA11's practicing dog fights way overhead . They really wrung them out .
Looking up through binoculars at a three ship in a vertical downward tailchase is not something you forget.

 

[109ROAMING]

Very interesting ,Thanks for posting this

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I have some issues with this story.

"When British pilots arrived at Miramar airbase in California in the early 1960s the Americans were losing a large number of dogfights in their multi-million Phantom fighters to the enemy's relatively "cheap" MiG 21s. "

First off, the "MiG problem" did not come to a head until at least 1966 and it was the MiG-17 not the MiG-21 that was a real problem in air-to-air combat. Additionally in the first part of the Vietnam War there were no more than 15 to maybe 20 MiG-21s deployed by the NVNAF, with close to half of those being destroyed during Operation Bolo. Additionally I can't see anyone in the FAA having experience in air-to-air combat with the F-4 as the RN F-4s were still being flight tested in 1966!!!!

Top Gun wasn't established until 1969!!!!

This smells a bit fishy!

 

[ToughOmbre]

When British pilots arrived at Miramar airbase in California in the early 1960s.....

Early 1960s????

Wasn't until the mid to late '60s that we were mixing it up with the NVA MIGs. And as stated below, Top Gun opened for business in 1969.

Americans were losing a large number of dogfights.....

The kill ratios were not great early on (finally realized we also needed guns on our aircraft), but were still in our favor (between 3:1 and 4:1)

Agree with Joe, ain't buyin' the story.

TO

 

[pbfoot]

Why not the early 60's the US military was getting clobbered in all the NATO air gunnery meets , some where in my "archives" I have the results for all the NATO gunnery meets" Guynemer Trophy " during that period of time and the results were poor .

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Why not the early 60's the US military was getting clobbered in all the NATO air gunnery meets , some where in my "archives" I have the results for all the NATO gunnery meets" Guynemer Trophy " during that period of time and the results were poor .

Please find them even though this has nothing to do with the claim in the article. And I'd like to see the basis on how its determined that the USAFE did "poor."

And as far as I know the Guynemer Trophy was awarded for air-to-air gunnery against a towed target. Yes, Canada won it in 1958 and 1959 (and probably in later years) flying Sabers. 5 years later the game changed drastically.

An F-86 shooting at a towed target? I think pretty easy pickins and that said without taking anything away from the pilots who flew them during that period.

BTW - how does this even equate to air combat over North Vietnam where almost all air-to-air combat on the US side was conducted with aircraft that did not have guns, with the exception of the F-8 Crusader???

BTW the Crusader's Score in Vietnam? 18 confirmed kills to 3 losses, and of those 18, only two were gun kills. So much for that poor showing in NATO competitions! Maybe the plane had something to do with it!

At worse the USAF had a 2 to 1 kill ratio over the NVNAF and this being partially due to "rules of engagement" and other BS imposed by MacNamara and LBJ. The Navy came out slightly higher, all this prior to 1972.

From what I understand the worse years came in late 1967 and 68 where the NVNAF became real good with hit and run tactics just across the DMZ. US pilots for the most part were not trained to react to a threat as such and the US were not "going north" to engage MiGs.

Again, all that changed in 1972

Back to the article - there was no fighter weapons school operating at Miramar until 1969. I don't know the backgrounds of those pilots interviewed but for the most part, this article is a load of rubbish.

 

[Glider]

Just remember guys, that I didn't write the article!!!

That said I will try to have a look at the book ,as you cannot totally trust a paper to review a whole book in a piece that size.

My guess and it is a guess, is that the USN once they decided to do something about air combat training were big enough to look around for ideas. With the close links to the FAA, they would almost certainly look at the FAA training (and no doubt others) for some input. Take one jingoistic reporter and hey presto its all down to the FAA

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Just remember guys, that I didn't write the article!!!

That said I will try to have a look at the book ,as you cannot totally trust a paper to review a whole book in a piece that size.

My guess and it is a guess, is that the USN once they decided to do something about air combat training were big enough to look around for ideas. With the close links to the FAA, they would almost certainly look at the FAA training (and no doubt others) for some input. Take one jingoistic reporter and hey presto its all down to the FAA

No worries Glider....

I actually sent an e mail to the paper saying the article is rubbish. During that period I don't see anyone telling the USN anything it didn't know but at the same time I know they would of welcomed any kind of input. Bottom line I doubt the truth behind the article.

 

[evangilder]

If I can point something out about towed targets. I spoke with several aces last year during the air show season and learned that many of them couldn't hit the towed targets to save their lives, but when the real bullets started flying, they became aces and lived to fly another day several times.

It came up because I had about three of them nearby and had the opportunity to hear the answer from all of them when I asked about their training in the aircraft and gunnery training. They all said that they either "had trouble" hitting the target, or couldn't hit it at all!

Tugged targets are good for side shots and head to head at oblique angles, but how can you get an "on the tail" shot without the risk of hitting the target tug?

 

[syscom3]

Heres something of interest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Boyd_(military_strategist)