Aviation and tech folks, opinions please.

[Hondo]

For years, decades really, aircraft designers have been saying that the weak link in a modern fighter is the human pilot. The aircraft is capable of more performance than the human body can withstand. Propulsion, electronics, and optics have all made huge leaps forward. Unmanned drones now have sophisticated loiter and attack capablilities.

Are we close to, or is anybody working on an unmanned air superiority fighter or tactical attack bomber?

In theory such an aircraft could be smaller, more effective, cheaper to build, and actually have a larger "flight crew". At a remote station you could have a pilot, a weapons officer, and a couple of lookouts monitoring cameras covering 360 degrees. In a sense, we could be training now with our video games. You would have air warriors that were comfortable fighting in that environment because they grew up in it. You could probably do something similar with tanks.

General opinion when the US retired the SR-71 from active recon service was that it wouldn't have been done without a replacement already flying. I wonder if we have an umanned mach 6 recon aircraft flying right now?

Any ideas?

[Captain VXR]

You'd probably get better answers on one of them paranoid websites such as http://www.abovetopsecret.com

[anthonyvop]

The US is already using predator drones with maverick missiles to great effect.
There are many plans on the drawing board to keep our pilots out of harm's way.

As for a Mach 6 recon plane we probably don't need one. Satellites can get photos quicker and any real time recon can be provided by subsonic stealthy drones which are cheaper and safer.

[BDunnell]

For years, decades really, aircraft designers have been saying that the weak link in a modern fighter is the human pilot. The aircraft is capable of more performance than the human body can withstand. Propulsion, electronics, and optics have all made huge leaps forward. Unmanned drones now have sophisticated loiter and attack capablilities.

Are we close to, or is anybody working on an unmanned air superiority fighter or tactical attack bomber?

Yes.



General opinion when the US retired the SR-71 from active recon service was that it wouldn't have been done without a replacement already flying. I wonder if we have an umanned mach 6 recon aircraft flying right now?

No.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Ben, you are a man of few words, but you are likely correct.

The only concern I have is will this possibly lead to an increase in friendly fire incidents if the aircraft are being piloted remotely? Eyes on the scene not restricted by any obstruction or a video monitor might see what isnt' visible with technology.

[BDunnell]

Ben, you are a man of few words, but you are likely correct.

The only concern I have is will this possibly lead to an increase in friendly fire incidents if the aircraft are being piloted remotely? Eyes on the scene not restricted by any obstruction or a video monitor might see what isnt' visible with technology.

There are certainly risks associated with the operation of remotely-piloted aircraft that do not apply to piloted machines, but equally there are risks associated with the operation of piloted aircraft that do not apply to remotely-piloted machines. The huge advantage of unmanned aircraft is their persistence, able to loiter and operate for hours on end. But, conversely, the unmanned machines we've seen so far lack speed and agility compared to their manned counterparts.

[Mark in Oshawa]

There are certainly risks associated with the operation of remotely-piloted aircraft that do not apply to piloted machines, but equally there are risks associated with the operation of piloted aircraft that do not apply to remotely-piloted machines. The huge advantage of unmanned aircraft is their persistence, able to loiter and operate for hours on end. But, conversely, the unmanned machines we've seen so far lack speed and agility compared to their manned counterparts.

I think also it is much harder to control a subsonic attack bomber down in the weeds than say a drone loitering at 100mph. I just know how the USAF has had a couple of friendly fire incidents with Canadian troops over in Afghanistan and in both cases, the pilot was looking right at the situation and STILL making the wrong decision. How much more incidents might occur if the pilot is in a trailer looking through a TV screen?

[BDunnell]

I think also it is much harder to control a subsonic attack bomber down in the weeds than say a drone loitering at 100mph. I just know how the USAF has had a couple of friendly fire incidents with Canadian troops over in Afghanistan and in both cases, the pilot was looking right at the situation and STILL making the wrong decision. How much more incidents might occur if the pilot is in a trailer looking through a TV screen?

Possibly not as many, because of the much lower speeds involved allowing more time to make the necessary decisions. As for your first point, the huge disadvantage of unmanned aircraft in those circumstances is precisely that low speed, which makes them far easier targets — at least in the form in which we know them at present.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Possibly not as many, because of the much lower speeds involved allowing more time to make the necessary decisions. As for your first point, the huge disadvantage of unmanned aircraft in those circumstances is precisely that low speed, which makes them far easier targets — at least in the form in which we know them at present.

Very true. I know the Predator with the missles only works on the missions where the people on the ground don't have sophisticated radars top pick up the drones.

[BDunnell]

Unmanned aircraft will close the gap on their manned counterparts with regard to all these attributes, but I do not foresee them taking over completely any time soon.

[Daniel]

A bit off topic but nonetheless aviation related

http://tinyurl.com/yzrbebb

How cool is that?

[airshifter]

For years, decades really, aircraft designers have been saying that the weak link in a modern fighter is the human pilot. The aircraft is capable of more performance than the human body can withstand. Propulsion, electronics, and optics have all made huge leaps forward. Unmanned drones now have sophisticated loiter and attack capablilities.

Are we close to, or is anybody working on an unmanned air superiority fighter or tactical attack bomber?

In theory such an aircraft could be smaller, more effective, cheaper to build, and actually have a larger "flight crew". At a remote station you could have a pilot, a weapons officer, and a couple of lookouts monitoring cameras covering 360 degrees. In a sense, we could be training now with our video games. You would have air warriors that were comfortable fighting in that environment because they grew up in it. You could probably do something similar with tanks.

General opinion when the US retired the SR-71 from active recon service was that it wouldn't have been done without a replacement already flying. I wonder if we have an umanned mach 6 recon aircraft flying right now?

Any ideas?

I'm sure that we have already experimented with conventional aircraft that were operated remotely, but not so sure if they will develop a fighter/attack other than what is already public.

As for the other question, just how long was it before the public knew about the SR-71 or the Steath fighter? ;)

[Rollo]

As for the other question, just how long was it before the public knew about the SR-71 or the Stealth fighter? ;)

The first real admission that the F-117 Stealth Fighter existed were because of photographs taken in 1987 over Panama (I think they may have appeared in Aviation Week - I forget). They were officially used proper, in the December 1989 Invasion of Panama.

The SR-71 on the other hand is a variant of the Lockheed A-12 (was that the Oxcart?) and would have seen the light of day in December of 1962, maybe?
As far I know, there is the myth that it was named the wrong way round after LBJ, fluffed a speech and it should have been RS-71 (like the RS-70 Valkyrie, which is a pretty aircraft), but the first public admission that it existed may have been over Vietnam c.1968

[Daniel]

Roolo, the Valkyrie was an XB-70

[Rollo]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/B-70_mission_profiles.png

On virtually every document and more importantly in "Jane's" the RS or Reconaissance Strike nonclameture is prefferred on the basis that most of the bombing capabilities of the aircraft would be taken over either by the B-52 or the SM-68.

[Daniel]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/B-70_mission_profiles.png

On virtually every document and more importantly in "Jane's" the RS or Reconaissance Strike nonclameture is prefferred on the basis that most of the bombing capabilities of the aircraft would be taken over either by the B-52 or the SM-68.
That was a proposed recconaissance/strike version of the proposed B-70 Valkyrie. The SR in SR-71 stands for Strategic Reconaissance

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1962_United_States_Tri-Service_aircraft_designation_system

The way the US military aircraft designation system works is that if we assume the aircraft is a XX-111, the primary mission for which the aircraft was originally designed is usually the second alphabetical character and so for instance for the AC-130 which is an attack version of the C-130 you can see it was originally a transport aircraft.

[Rollo]

Since you provided the link:


That was a proposed recconaissance/strike version of the proposed B-70 Valkyrie. The SR in SR-71 stands for Strategic Reconaissance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1962_United_States_Tri-Service_aircraft_designation_system


During the later period of its testing, the B-70 was proposed for the reconnaissance/strike role, with an 'RS-70 designation. When it was clear that the Lockheed A-12 performance potential was much greater, USAF decided to pursue an RS-71 version of the A-12 rather than the RS-70.
- From the link you provided.

Moreover:
In other words, even though it uses the system as its guideline for naming aircraft, it can approve whatever it chooses, and whatever is approved is "correct".

See earlier posts.

[Daniel]

Since you provided the link:



During the later period of its testing, the B-70 was proposed for the reconnaissance/strike role, with an 'RS-70 designation. When it was clear that the Lockheed A-12 performance potential was much greater, USAF decided to pursue an RS-71 version of the A-12 rather than the RS-70.
- From the link you provided.

Moreover:
In other words, even though it uses the system as its guideline for naming aircraft, it can approve whatever it chooses, and whatever is approved is "correct".

See earlier posts.
Of course. But what was approved was the SR or Strategic Reconiassance designation therefore that is correct ;)

[Mark]

I guess you have two types of craft, autonomous and remote piloted. The autonomous ones which just circle over an area and take pictures have less range of capailities than the piloted ones, however if they are piloted that requires a signal between the craft and the ground station (probably via satellite). A sophisticated enemy would be able to block this signal thus making them useless.

[BDunnell]

I'm sure that we have already experimented with conventional aircraft that were operated remotely, but not so sure if they will develop a fighter/attack other than what is already public.

They will and they are.

[BDunnell]

The first real admission that the F-117 Stealth Fighter existed were because of photographs taken in 1987 over Panama (I think they may have appeared in Aviation Week - I forget). They were officially used proper, in the December 1989 Invasion of Panama.

Are we sure about this? I am not certain that any shots were taken of them over Panama. The first ones I recall seeing were taken when the aircraft began operating in daylight at Tonopah, circa 1988.



The SR-71 on the other hand is a variant of the Lockheed A-12 (was that the Oxcart?) and would have seen the light of day in December of 1962, maybe?
As far I know, there is the myth that it was named the wrong way round after LBJ, fluffed a speech and it should have been RS-71 (like the RS-70 Valkyrie, which is a pretty aircraft), but the first public admission that it existed may have been over Vietnam c.1968

I'm glad you state that it was a myth! The truth is a bit more complex. Quite simply, a slip of the tongue by LBJ ought not to have stopped the aircraft from being called the RS-71 — it could simply have been put down as a mistake and the aircraft still referred to as the RS-71. However, Strategic Air Command, if I recall correctly (without my reference books to hand), were keen on changing the designation to SR-71 in order to emphasis the 'strategic' element of its role. Therefore, LBJ was not incorrect at all, but the change was not generally known, and therefore the idea that he had made a mistake took hold. It seems to have developed over the years, too.

(Incidentally, a similar thing could be said about JFK's 'Ich bin ein Berliner' speech'. Of course, it is grammatically incorrect — it should be 'Ich bin Berliner', omitting the definite article, which when included does make the sentence refer to a sort of doughnut/bun-type thing. However, the fact that there was no laughter in the crowd indicates that it wasn't considered an enormous gaffe.)

[Hondo]

Hobby RC aircraft are also becoming more sophisticated. They are bigger, can use real jet engines and use digital signal radios.

How long until one is used as a purpose built terrorist drone weapon? The thing could be catapult launched from the back of a van, piloted by line of sight and a small real time camera broadcasting to a laptop screen, and with a 5-10 pound warhead could do serious damage depending on target selection. An r/c jet could easily overtake a commercial jumbo jet on approach or take off or be flown into something like a gasoline or natural gas truck, storage tank, or distribution point. I look for it to happen, at some point.

[BDunnell]

Hobby RC aircraft are also becoming more sophisticated. They are bigger, can use real jet engines and use digital signal radios.

How long until one is used as a purpose built terrorist drone weapon? The thing could be catapult launched from the back of a van, piloted by line of sight and a small real time camera broadcasting to a laptop screen, and with a 5-10 pound warhead could do serious damage depending on target selection. An r/c jet could easily overtake a commercial jumbo jet on approach or take off or be flown into something like a gasoline or natural gas truck, storage tank, or distribution point. I look for it to happen, at some point.

They could, I suppose, but there are all sorts of potential dangers around, and we can't seek to legislate against all of them. There should be no need for paranoid preventative measures against what is a harmless hobby.

[Mark in Oshawa]

They could, I suppose, but there are all sorts of potential dangers around, and we can't seek to legislate against all of them. There should be no need for paranoid preventative measures against what is a harmless hobby.

It is a harmless hobby, but the potential is there I suppose. That said, it was pointed out most terrorists are not smart enough or thinking cogently enough to have the patience to learn to build and fly an R/C aircraft IMO. Not that one couldn't and prove me wrong, but most recent attempts almost have you thinking they want to be caught.

[Hondo]

I don't think al-Qaeda would mess with it unless they wanted to hit a remote target. I was thinking more along the lines of a disgruntled individual, already in the hobby, that gets pushed beyond his breaking point.

[Rollo]

For years, decades really, aircraft designers have been saying that the weak link in a modern fighter is the human pilot. The aircraft is capable of more performance than the human body can withstand. Propulsion, electronics, and optics have all made huge leaps forward. Unmanned drones now have sophisticated loiter and attack capablilities.

Are we close to, or is anybody working on an unmanned air superiority fighter or tactical attack bomber?

I hope not.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan/7361630/One-in-three-killed-by-US-drones-in-Pakistan-is-a-civilian-report-claims.html
The report by Peter Bergen and Katherine Tiedemann found that 32 per cent of those killed in drone attacks since 2004 were civilians.

The MQ1/RQ1 Predator uses Hellfire "fire and forget" missiles. If the above reports is true, then that's a pretty horrid sort of delivery rate. If anything it should suggest that remote piloting is a better option or that perhaps an actual pilot in a plane is capable of making better real-time decisions.

[Mark in Oshawa]

I hope not.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan/7361630/One-in-three-killed-by-US-drones-in-Pakistan-is-a-civilian-report-claims.html
The report by Peter Bergen and Katherine Tiedemann found that 32 per cent of those killed in drone attacks since 2004 were civilians.

The MQ1/RQ1 Predator uses Hellfire "fire and forget" missiles. If the above reports is true, then that's a pretty horrid sort of delivery rate. If anything it should suggest that remote piloting is a better option or that perhaps an actual pilot in a plane is capable of making better real-time decisions.

Well I consider how well the USAF does IFF now, because 8 of the casualties of Canada's Afghanistan mission came from two friendly fire incidents.

It was once said, when the Germans shoot, the British ducked, When the British shot, the Germans ducked, and when the Americans shoot everyone ducks. Sadly, in the case of the target identification business, there was an element of truth to it. I get that combat is a horrid and uncertain place, but I know errors happen now with pilots in the plane using their Mark 1 eyeballs. I shudder to think if they have an F/A 18 buzzing around on remote control armed to the teeth...

[BDunnell]

It was once said, when the Germans shoot, the British ducked, When the British shot, the Germans ducked, and when the Americans shoot everyone ducks. Sadly, in the case of the target identification business, there was an element of truth to it.

I'm afraid to say that the opinions of those I know who flew alongside the USAF on training sorties in Europe during the Cold War are, almost to a man, critical of the abilities of their American allies to deal with flying in anything other than ideal conditions, and even then they had their problems. One hears tales of their pilots 'stopping off for lunch' at RAF stations in order to basically nick maps from RAF units, because they weren't issued with decent ones of their own. And even with them, their ability to fly and fight in adverse weather, which the RAF took in its stride, was questionable.

And In Britain, the number of times USAF pilots have overflown the wrong airfield while attempting to make flypasts at air displays — I'm not making this up — really is laughable.

[Hondo]

I hope not.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan/7361630/One-in-three-killed-by-US-drones-in-Pakistan-is-a-civilian-report-claims.html
The report by Peter Bergen and Katherine Tiedemann found that 32 per cent of those killed in drone attacks since 2004 were civilians.

The MQ1/RQ1 Predator uses Hellfire "fire and forget" missiles. If the above reports is true, then that's a pretty horrid sort of delivery rate. If anything it should suggest that remote piloting is a better option or that perhaps an actual pilot in a plane is capable of making better real-time decisions.

I'm not disputing your numbers but I'd be willing to bet the majority of those 32% were mingling amongst legitimate targets either by choice or under duress or a case of target misidentification by the people that say "ok, shoot". The third possibility would be a Hellfire malfunction. All three causes are just as likely to happen using a manned aircraft.

[Rollo]

I heard on the ABC News tonight that the Rudd governement has announced that it intends to purchase 24 F/A-18F Super Hornets in lieu of the F-35 Lightning IIs that have taken to long to develop.
Yet when I did a search for this, I find that the previous Howard government announced an identical message in 2007.

The stupid thing is that the airframes of the F-111s that that RAAF has are expected to last until 2020, and on top of that, the F-111 is currently the world's fastest combat aircraft in service.

I don't know what sort of games are being played in Canberra right now, but I bet they involve lots of unmarked yellow envelopes of cash.

[Daniel]

A bit off topic but nonetheless aviation related

http://tinyurl.com/yzrbebb

How cool is that?
Really surprised no one found this interesting. Click on the link ffs!!!!

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Really surprised no one found this interesting. Click on the link ffs!!!!

I clicked, and it looked pretty cool.

[BDunnell]

I heard on the ABC News tonight that the Rudd governement has announced that it intends to purchase 24 F/A-18F Super Hornets in lieu of the F-35 Lightning IIs that have taken to long to develop.
Yet when I did a search for this, I find that the previous Howard government announced an identical message in 2007.

The stupid thing is that the airframes of the F-111s that that RAAF has are expected to last until 2020, and on top of that, the F-111 is currently the world's fastest combat aircraft in service.

I don't know what sort of games are being played in Canberra right now, but I bet they involve lots of unmarked yellow envelopes of cash.

Increasingly, the F-111s are knackered. The fleet has recently been grounded again. It is a very charismatic aircraft indeed, but really and truly it is now too old.

[Daniel]

I clicked, and it looked pretty cool.
I was just amazed at how convincing it looked. Can imagine that would really fool you if you were tens of thousands of feet up in the air :)

[Hondo]

Really surprised no one found this interesting. Click on the link ffs!!!!

I clicked. I saw. I left.

Get under something and cover your head with your hands. You'll be fine.

[Mark in Oshawa]

I'm afraid to say that the opinions of those I know who flew alongside the USAF on training sorties in Europe during the Cold War are, almost to a man, critical of the abilities of their American allies to deal with flying in anything other than ideal conditions, and even then they had their problems. One hears tales of their pilots 'stopping off for lunch' at RAF stations in order to basically nick maps from RAF units, because they weren't issued with decent ones of their own. And even with them, their ability to fly and fight in adverse weather, which the RAF took in its stride, was questionable.

And In Britain, the number of times USAF pilots have overflown the wrong airfield while attempting to make flypasts at air displays — I'm not making this up — really is laughable.

I suspect that is because the USAF and US Navy train their pilots in sunny nice places like Pensacola, Luke AFB in Arizona and Nellis out in Nevada. Whereas the Brits train in places like Scotland where the weather sucks 80% of the time!!

I of the opinion the GPS is a godsend there for those pilots.

As for the quality of US pilots, it is high, but the planes give them the edge too. Just they don't seem to always identify who they are shooting at on the ground. Maybe the A-10 guys do...but the Canadian Army has the sad experience of being bombed twice, and the one pilot didn't even seem to show any remorse about doing it.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

I suspect that is because the USAF and US Navy train their pilots in sunny nice places like Pensacola, Luke AFB in Arizona and Nellis out in Nevada. Whereas the Brits train in places like Scotland where the weather sucks 80% of the time!!

I of the opinion the GPS is a godsend there for those pilots.

As for the quality of US pilots, it is high, but the planes give them the edge too. Just they don't seem to always identify who they are shooting at on the ground. Maybe the A-10 guys do...but the Canadian Army has the sad experience of being bombed twice, and the one pilot didn't even seem to show any remorse about doing it.

Some of the British serviceman I've talked to who've been on NATO operations say that there is a 'shoot first, ask questions later' attitude in the US Armed Forces.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Some of the British serviceman I've talked to who've been on NATO operations say that there is a 'shoot first, ask questions later' attitude in the US Armed Forces.

That is what I have heard. The US military are great guys, and I know our Military does a lot of cross training with them, and the two institutions get along, but when it comes to fire control and target identification, our standards of engagement are more strict.

[BDunnell]

I suspect that is because the USAF and US Navy train their pilots in sunny nice places like Pensacola, Luke AFB in Arizona and Nellis out in Nevada. Whereas the Brits train in places like Scotland where the weather sucks 80% of the time!!

This was a problem when the Germans started flying the F-104 Starfighter in the 1960s. Their pilots went over there to train, and were then plunged back into European conditions — this wasn't the best idea. Luckily the Germans learned from it and revised their procedures, reversing the aircraft's once appalling (if over-stated by the media) accident record in German service.



As for the quality of US pilots, it is high, but the planes give them the edge too.

I have a very high regard for American-built aircraft, but this hasn't always been the case. Certainly, RAF pilots flying the much-maligned Jaguar in Germany during the Cold War felt they had far better equipment than did the Americans at the time, and the argument holds up. But generally you are correct.

[BDunnell]

That is what I have heard. The US military are great guys, and I know our Military does a lot of cross training with them, and the two institutions get along, but when it comes to fire control and target identification, our standards of engagement are more strict.

Which is a shame, shall we say, given some of the specific points I've referred to here.

By the way, having looked into the subject with the aid of papers in our National Archives, the Canadians were, for a significant period, deemed to have by some margin the best-prepared air forces in northern Europe during the Cold War. It's a really interesting subject but a bit off-topic for here, and it's late.

[Mark in Oshawa]

This was a problem when the Germans started flying the F-104 Starfighter in the 1960s. Their pilots went over there to train, and were then plunged back into European conditions — this wasn't the best idea. Luckily the Germans learned from it and revised their procedures, reversing the aircraft's once appalling (if over-stated by the media) accident record in German service.



I have a very high regard for American-built aircraft, but this hasn't always been the case. Certainly, RAF pilots flying the much-maligned Jaguar in Germany during the Cold War felt they had far better equipment than did the Americans at the time, and the argument holds up. But generally you are correct.

Well the f-15 is still the king....so whatever faults their pilots have, THAT is the plane to have in a dogfight, mainly because it is impossible to get close to without being shot down!

AS for the Germans and Canada using the f-104, I always thought it a joke we had 104's and were given the task of ground attack through NATO.

Our military has been starved, ill equiped and maligned by governments from about 68 until about 4 years ago, and using the F-104 in the role we volunteered for in the 70's was evidence of it...

Good thing they are retired...

[anthonyvop]

I'm afraid to say that the opinions of those I know who flew alongside the USAF on training sorties in Europe during the Cold War are, almost to a man, critical of the abilities of their American allies to deal with flying in anything other than ideal conditions, and even then they had their problems. One hears tales of their pilots 'stopping off for lunch' at RAF stations in order to basically nick maps from RAF units, because they weren't issued with decent ones of their own. And even with them, their ability to fly and fight in adverse weather, which the RAF took in its stride, was questionable.

And In Britain, the number of times USAF pilots have overflown the wrong airfield while attempting to make flypasts at air displays — I'm not making this up — really is laughable.

Right.
Everybody loves to bash the US military and yet our Air force still kicks ass and takes name everywhere.
Our primma donna pilots who only train in ideal conditions seemed to have managed quite will in the Balkans and the Middle East.
But the US can hardly be compared to those great German Pilots. After all they have a perfect record over the past 100 years.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Right.
Everybody loves to bash the US military and yet our Air force still kicks ass and takes name everywhere.
Our primma donna pilots who only train in ideal conditions seemed to have managed quite will in the Balkans and the Middle East.
But the US can hardly be compared to those great German Pilots. After all they have a perfect record over the past 100 years.

Dude, your vaunted USAF does a great job, but on occasion they screw up. Just like anyone else.

[BDunnell]

Right.
Everybody loves to bash the US military and yet our Air force still kicks ass and takes name everywhere.
Our primma donna pilots who only train in ideal conditions seemed to have managed quite will in the Balkans and the Middle East.
But the US can hardly be compared to those great German Pilots. After all they have a perfect record over the past 100 years.

Ah, I was wondering when you would post something along these lines. Bless you for so doing. I would advise you that (a) nobody is perfect, and (b) you really ought not to post your undeveloped thoughts on a public forum, because you run the slight risk of appearing a tiny bit foolish.

[BDunnell]

AS for the Germans and Canada using the f-104, I always thought it a joke we had 104's and were given the task of ground attack through NATO.

Our military has been starved, ill equiped and maligned by governments from about 68 until about 4 years ago, and using the F-104 in the role we volunteered for in the 70's was evidence of it...

Good thing they are retired...

In fact, the F-104 ended up performing well with those air forces that used it, though it did have its faults. As I intimated, the type's poor accident record was overstated by the German media, which contributed much to its bad reputation. This was largely undeserved.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Well the f-15 is still the king....so whatever faults their pilots have, THAT is the plane to have in a dogfight, mainly because it is impossible to get close to without being shot down!
.

The Typhoon is capable of outmaneuvering F-15s in a dogfight. Even when outnumbered.

http://www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?q=6921.5433.0.0

[airshifter]

I suspect that is because the USAF and US Navy train their pilots in sunny nice places like Pensacola, Luke AFB in Arizona and Nellis out in Nevada. Whereas the Brits train in places like Scotland where the weather sucks 80% of the time!!

I of the opinion the GPS is a godsend there for those pilots.

As for the quality of US pilots, it is high, but the planes give them the edge too. Just they don't seem to always identify who they are shooting at on the ground. Maybe the A-10 guys do...but the Canadian Army has the sad experience of being bombed twice, and the one pilot didn't even seem to show any remorse about doing it.

You must have missed the sunny clear weather in the north atlantic while shipboard, the great conditions in Korea and Japan, and the Harriers and various rotary aircraft working in white out conditions in the actic.

I've witnessed all of the above, along with such operations performed by those of other allied countries. To state that a home air base is an indication of training areas is really out of line. Like most countries the US is involved in combat training all over the world.


And though I'm not about to state any air forces or military are perfect, based on thousands of combat flight hours the US has a friendly fire incident rate among the lowest in the world.


In current day terms the US has air superiority in most cases, but the US has often not had that situation and overcome it. Much of WWII, Korea, and Viet Nam was fought with supposed inferior aircraft for the time.

[BDunnell]

You must have missed the sunny clear weather in the north atlantic while shipboard, the great conditions in Korea and Japan, and the Harriers and various rotary aircraft working in white out conditions in the actic.

I've witnessed all of the above, along with such operations performed by those of other allied countries. To state that a home air base is an indication of training areas is really out of line. Like most countries the US is involved in combat training all over the world.

The examples I cited as to the problems the US Air Force (note, specifically the Air Force) has had in the European theatre are well-known and genuine, rather than just internet forum hearsay. And a USAF combat pilot could well be posted from a training unit located in the continental USA straight to a unit based in the UK, Italy or Germany. They would not spend any time at a unit in Korea or Japan in the process. Exercises do indeed take place all over the world, but only once a pilot is on an operational squadron. That might take them to Korea or Japan, but they would not do so any earlier in their training.

[Mark in Oshawa]

The Typhoon is capable of outmaneuvering F-15s in a dogfight. Even when outnumbered.

http://www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?q=6921.5433.0.0

I am sure it is. the Typhoon is a fantastic airplane. Of course, the f-15 will never meet a Typhoon in combat. The f-15 has been in combat on and off for over 25 plus years, and never has been shot down. No other fighter can make that claim....

[Rollo]

I am sure it is. the Typhoon is a fantastic airplane. Of course, the f-15 will never meet a Typhoon in combat. The f-15 has been in combat on and off for over 25 plus years, and never has been shot down. No other fighter can make that claim....

Never?

http://www.ejection-history.org.uk/Aircraft_by_Type/f-15.htm#jasdf
See 18th, 19th Jan 1991.

I knew of the two on days 3 & 4 of Operation Desert Storm. They made the 6 O'clock news and everything.

[slorydn1]

Never?

http://www.ejection-history.org.uk/Aircraft_by_Type/f-15.htm#jasdf
See 18th, 19th Jan 1991.

I knew of the two on days 3 & 4 of Operation Desert Storm. They made the 6 O'clock news and everything.

I think what he meant to say was "shot down in air to air combat.

My favorite, the F-14 Tomcat, can say the same :p :

[airshifter]

The examples I cited as to the problems the US Air Force (note, specifically the Air Force) has had in the European theatre are well-known and genuine, rather than just internet forum hearsay. And a USAF combat pilot could well be posted from a training unit located in the continental USA straight to a unit based in the UK, Italy or Germany. They would not spend any time at a unit in Korea or Japan in the process. Exercises do indeed take place all over the world, but only once a pilot is on an operational squadron. That might take them to Korea or Japan, but they would not do so any earlier in their training.

Do UK or any other countries pilots that you know of actually train their initial training thousands of miles from their countries home bases? If so I wasn't aware of it.

The US does it's initial training here in the US, but continued training specific to the operational area of the flight groups are ongoing once assigned to an active squadron. Both Air Force and Naval air often engage in adversary squadrons based on the capabilities of the suspected threat aircraft in that particular region.

[BDunnell]

Do UK or any other countries pilots that you know of actually train their initial training thousands of miles from their countries home bases? If so I wasn't aware of it.

Many air arms that don't have their own training components — two that spring to mind being the German Air Force and the French Navy — send newly-fledged pilots a long way from home, yes. Large numbers of foreign pilots are trained with the USAF, US Navy and the NATO Flying Training in Canada programme.



The US does it's initial training here in the US, but continued training specific to the operational area of the flight groups are ongoing once assigned to an active squadron. Both Air Force and Naval air often engage in adversary squadrons based on the capabilities of the suspected threat aircraft in that particular region.

I am well aware, in a professional capacity, of all of this. But, with respect, this isn't the same assertion as you made earlier.

[Rollo]

I think what he meant to say was "shot down in air to air combat.


If that's the case, has there actually been any serious "air to air" combat in the theatres in which the aircraft has served?

[airshifter]

Many air arms that don't have their own training components — two that spring to mind being the German Air Force and the French Navy — send newly-fledged pilots a long way from home, yes. Large numbers of foreign pilots are trained with the USAF, US Navy and the NATO Flying Training in Canada programme.



I am well aware, in a professional capacity, of all of this. But, with respect, this isn't the same assertion as you made earlier.

I'm surprised at Germany not having their own training and wasn't aware of that. I did know other countries have been involved in it, but still not to the capacity I was speaking of. Actually my father was involved in some training of pilots from Saudi Arabia.

But my point was simply that those people train at whatever place that countries training facilities are. If the US or Canadian pilots were trained by the UK, I'm sure it would take place where the UK trains all of their pilots, not thousands of miles from there.

And personally from what I've seen, an aviation career has much more training after joining an active unit than it does at schools. The same is true for the majority of military fields, at least in the US.

[airshifter]

If that's the case, has there actually been any serious "air to air" combat in the theatres in which the aircraft has served?

Really if you look back in recent history, there has been very little air to air combat at all. Most of it that has taken place has been mismatched.

For the US really the last air to air combat that took place in significant frequency is Viet Nam era.

[anthonyvop]

The Typhoon is capable of outmaneuvering F-15s in a dogfight. Even when outnumbered.

http://www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?q=6921.5433.0.0

And the F-22 would find a squadron of Typhoons a Target Rich environment.

[anthonyvop]

If that's the case, has there actually been any serious "air to air" combat in the theatres in which the aircraft has served?

Ask the Israeli's and Iraqi's

[Daniel]

My military penis is bigger than your military penis :rotflmao:

[Brown, Jon Brow]

And the F-22 would find a squadron of Typhoons a Target Rich environment.

The F-22 is a remarkable aircraft. In a one on one situation the F-22 could take out the Typhoon before the Typhoon knew it was there.

But from what i've read the Typhoon is more manouvarable than the F-22 (from pilots who've tested both). So once the F-22 have given their positions away the Typhoons would have a fair chance of scoring a few kills.

Plus, the F-15 is still the spine of the USAF.

[Daniel]

The F-22 is a remarkable aircraft. In a one on one situation the F-22 could take out the Typhoon before the Typhoon knew it was there.

But from what i've read the Typhoon is more manouvarable than the F-22 (from pilots who've tested both). So once the F-22 have given their positions away the Typhoons would have a fair chance of scoring a few kills.

Plus, the F-15 is still the spine of the USAF.
Maneuverability is overrated IMHO. If a typhoon and F-22 were ever to properly fight each other I doubt they'd even see each other.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Maneuverability is overrated IMHO. If a typhoon and F-22 were ever to properly fight each other I doubt they'd even see each other.

In which case the F-22 would win.

The Typhoon would have to get within visual range to stand a chance.

[BDunnell]

My military penis is bigger than your military penis :rotflmao:

Quite. Except that one side of the argument presents proper reasoning about penis size whereas the other just makes pointless jingoistic penis-related boasts.

[anthonyvop]

Quite. Except that one side of the argument presents proper reasoning about penis size whereas the other just makes pointless jingoistic penis-related boasts.

Why do those on the left seem to have an obsession with other people's penes?

[Daniel]

Why do those on the left seem to have an obsession with other people's penes?
I'm the one that's obsessed with your penis and I'm from the centre :D

[BDunnell]

Why do those on the left seem to have an obsession with other people's penes?

Because we are all homosexuals.

[Mark in Oshawa]

You must have missed the sunny clear weather in the north atlantic while shipboard, the great conditions in Korea and Japan, and the Harriers and various rotary aircraft working in white out conditions in the actic.

I've witnessed all of the above, along with such operations performed by those of other allied countries. To state that a home air base is an indication of training areas is really out of line. Like most countries the US is involved in combat training all over the world.


And though I'm not about to state any air forces or military are perfect, based on thousands of combat flight hours the US has a friendly fire incident rate among the lowest in the world.


In current day terms the US has air superiority in most cases, but the US has often not had that situation and overcome it. Much of WWII, Korea, and Viet Nam was fought with supposed inferior aircraft for the time.

Hey, I don't doubt American pilots do deal with lousy weather, but usually in training, they train in more "ideal" weather do they not? I suppose in the end, the experienced guys see their share of crap weather, But Ben's story is one I have heard from...

[Hondo]

Quite. Except that one side of the argument presents proper reasoning about penis size whereas the other just makes pointless jingoistic penis-related boasts.

None of which deals with the primary issue which is, are we capable of sending an unmanned, drone penis into battle?

And I'll have all of you know that every piece or ordinance released, fired, or launched from a military aircraft in the service of the USA has hit something, eventually.

[Daniel]

Another thread ruined by lefty liberals obsessed with penii

[BDunnell]

None of which deals with the primary issue which is, are we capable of sending an unmanned, drone penis into battle?

To which the answer is yes. As far as the Taliban are concerned, they just keep on coming.

[Hondo]

Official Note:

No penis was mistreated or injured in the making of this thread.

[anthonyvop]

I must admit i have grown quite attached to my penis. I have had it since I was a little kid.

[airshifter]

Hey, I don't doubt American pilots do deal with lousy weather, but usually in training, they train in more "ideal" weather do they not? I suppose in the end, the experienced guys see their share of crap weather, But Ben's story is one I have heard from...

Do you really think the rain in the UK differs from the rain in Florida when you're in an aircraft going hundreds of miles per hour?

I've heard thousands of opinions, which was the original basis of the claim. Do you think US or Canadian pilots have an upper hand when training on home ground? Sure they do... and if they didn't they would still claim that their allied counterparts weren't as capable as they are. Face facts, most fighter jocks aren't exactly quiet reserved guys afraid to state an opinion.

Being the original assertions were based on Cold War era training, just how many air to air engagements took place in this time frame in that theater pertaining to the missions those men trained for? So the reality is that other than stating an opinion, there isn't really any fact to base it on. I think it's fair to say that the US pilots spent far more time over Soviet air space than anyone else did, and even they weren't engaged in air to air combat.

[Hondo]

Virtually none of the weapons systems designed in peacetime and few of the systems designed during wartime are used exclusively in the role for which they were conceived. If memory serves me correctly, the F-16 was supposed to be a cheap, back to basics dogfighter that could be produced in numbers that would help thwart Soviet numerical superiority. The list goes on.

Regardless of training received, there will always be incidents of friendly fire, especially by people in fast moving machines that have all sorts of stuff to pay attention to in addition to trying to locate and hit a small unit target on unfamiliar ground.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Do you really think the rain in the UK differs from the rain in Florida when you're in an aircraft going hundreds of miles per hour?

I've heard thousands of opinions, which was the original basis of the claim. Do you think US or Canadian pilots have an upper hand when training on home ground? Sure they do... and if they didn't they would still claim that their allied counterparts weren't as capable as they are. Face facts, most fighter jocks aren't exactly quiet reserved guys afraid to state an opinion.

Being the original assertions were based on Cold War era training, just how many air to air engagements took place in this time frame in that theater pertaining to the missions those men trained for? So the reality is that other than stating an opinion, there isn't really any fact to base it on. I think it's fair to say that the US pilots spent far more time over Soviet air space than anyone else did, and even they weren't engaged in air to air combat.



Ya.. I know. Ancedotes are easy, reality is tough. I am not knocking the USAF as being inept. I do know tho that the RAF guys take great glee in flying in stupidly nasty weather, and I suppose that is where a lot of this guff is coming from. I also thought about it, and at 30000 plus feet, the weather is ALWAYS nice....lol..and that is where the f-15 is the king of the sky.

AS for over Soviet Airspace...I would suggest other than the SR71's and U-2's....most Americans flew up to the EDGE of Soviet Airspace during the Cold War, just like the Bear Bombers flew up to the edges of ours...

[Mark]

The F-22 is a remarkable aircraft. In a one on one situation the F-22 could take out the Typhoon before the Typhoon knew it was there.

But from what i've read the Typhoon is more manouvarable than the F-22 (from pilots who've tested both). So once the F-22 have given their positions away the Typhoons would have a fair chance of scoring a few kills.

Plus, the F-15 is still the spine of the USAF.

Yes but isn't the F22 something like ten times the price of the Typhoon / F-15. Therefore you're more likely to get one F-22 up against a pack of Typhoons.

[Daniel]

Yes but isn't the F22 something like ten times the price of the Typhoon / F-15. Therefore you're more likely to get one F-22 up against a pack of Typhoons.
But just remember that these days aircraft can identify and engage multiple oponents at the same time.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

F-22 is about US$142.6 million with about 180 being built
Typhoon is about US$85million with over 550 being built

So the F-22 might have a bigger penis than the Typhoon but is outnumbered 3:1.

[Daniel]

F-22 is about US$142.6 million with about 180 being built
Typhoon is about US$85million with over 550 being built

So the F-22 might have a bigger penis than the Typhoon but is outnumbered 3:1.
Yes but more penises are not necessarily going to win a war for you. I'm sure Ben will be able to give a more detailed description but things like maintenance, servicability, loiter time etc etc etc are factors

[Bob Riebe]

Read some of the accounts, by people who were there, of how poor and ineffective the training of U.S. pilots between Korea and Viet Nam was, is well versed.

Pilots in Viet Nam were trained, on the job, in air-to-air skills by Korea and WWII veterans while flying combat missions.
It is not the airmen, it is the fecal debris in the Pentagon by people who have never been in combat, that is always the weak link.

[BDunnell]

It is not the airmen, it is the fecal debris in the Pentagon by people who have never been in combat, that is always the weak link.

I don't agree with that. Mistakes will always be made by those on the front line as well. And certainly in the UK the senior commanders of our armed forces, men with combat experience, have proved themselves all too willing to do the bidding of the government of the day.

[Bob Riebe]

I don't agree with that. Mistakes will always be made by those on the front line as well. And certainly in the UK the senior commanders of our armed forces, men with combat experience, have proved
themselves all too willing to do the bidding of the government of the day.
Feces rolls down hill, the bottom rungs get the blame.
Soldiers are taught to obey orders; if that fails, then chaos reigns.

Those with the power know how the system works, and abuse it and those under them, not the underlings running wild.

[Daniel]

You can't always get what you want.
Only the good die young.
A rolling stone gathers no moss.

[BDunnell]

Feces rolls down hill, the bottom rungs get the blame.
Soldiers are taught to obey orders; if that fails, then chaos reigns.

Those with the power know how the system works, and abuse it and those under them, not the underlings running wild.

So you are denying that mistakes get made at all levels of the chain of command? For instance, in this awful story, who is to blame — some vague notion of 'the system' or 'the bosses', or someone lower down the chain of command?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/north_yorkshire/8325588.stm

[Zico]

Hobby RC aircraft are also becoming more sophisticated. They are bigger, can use real jet engines and use digital signal radios.

How long until one is used as a purpose built terrorist drone weapon? The thing could be catapult launched from the back of a van, piloted by line of sight and a small real time camera broadcasting to a laptop screen, and with a 5-10 pound warhead could do serious damage depending on target selection. An r/c jet could easily overtake a commercial jumbo jet on approach or take off or be flown into something like a gasoline or natural gas truck, storage tank, or distribution point. I look for it to happen, at some point.


I agree, the advances they have made in RC are incredible. Have a look at this video, a modified jet powered Lavi made to have the same dynamics (and looks) of a J10, the power, speed and agility of this thing is beyond incredible, it can torque roll, hover vertically, and loop in a few square meters.
Greatest of all is the pilot though.. when you consider that a Typhoon which has very similar dynamics to this requires extensive avionics assistance to simply keep it in the air... and yet this guy can somehow fly this REMOTELY! without any avionics whatsoever.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=766N1mAe0og


A camera added to something like this could be extremely dangerous in the wrong hands.

[Daniel]

WOW. Just WOW

[Mark in Oshawa]

So you are denying that mistakes get made at all levels of the chain of command? For instance, in this awful story, who is to blame — some vague notion of 'the system' or 'the bosses', or someone lower down the chain of command?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/north_yorkshire/8325588.stm

Interesting story. I put the blame on the pilots for sure, But I blame their superiors for not putting the discipline and being aware of the tendencies of these guys to take safety and what they were doing so casually to have Johnny Cash blaring in the cockpit and buzzing taxi's....

The pilots ARE at fault, but their superior officers obviously didn't instill in these guys the gravity of what could happen to them if they treated a machine such as the Puma as a toy.

There is never ONE person wrong in many incidents, it is a chain of events....

[Bob Riebe]

So you are denying that mistakes get made at all levels of the chain of command? For instance, in this awful story, who is to blame — some vague notion of 'the system' or 'the bosses', or someone lower down the chain of command?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/north_yorkshire/8325588.stm
You are not speaking of-- mistakes; you are insinuating an excessive number of mistakes.
So which is it, everyone screws-up, fact of life, or the U.S. did it more than anyone else?

If you are denying that soldiers carry out commands of higher up rank, with severe penalty to fail to do so, then you are broadcasting a false-hood.

An aviator who was probably the top B-52 pilot without equal, crashed killing all crew members, when he tried to force a bomber to do things it was not designed for once too often, sh-- happens, but that is not the gist of your rhetoric.

[BDunnell]

You are not speaking of-- mistakes; you are insinuating an excessive number of mistakes.
So which is it, everyone screws-up, fact of life, or the U.S. did it more than anyone else?

Where am I insinuating that about the US? You are, in my opinion, reading something into my comments which is simply not there. If you take this from my earlier, perfectly factual statements about the poor performance, as viewed by their NATO peers, of more than a few US military pilots in the European theatre when it came to poor-weather missions and map-reading, well, you are going way over the top in your interpretation.

And, yes, everybody does screw up sometimes. The consequences may differ, but everybody does it.



An aviator who was probably the top B-52 pilot without equal, crashed killing all crew members, when he tried to force a bomber to do things it was not designed for once too often, sh-- happens, but that is not the gist of your rhetoric.

You are talking about the 'Bud' Holland incident, I assume? Well, if so, I'm not sure where your remark about him being 'probably the top B-52 pilot without equal' comes from. For a start, how on earth do you define 'top' in these circumstances? This was someone who gradually became known as a liability, to the point where fellow unit members refused to fly with him. In this instance, there were without question failings in the chain of command, as documented in the most interesting report published following the accident. I have read this report in detail (and nowhere, to the best of my memory, does it offer up the subjective view that Holland was 'probably the top B-52 pilot without equal'). Holland was allowed to get away with his hazardous flying for far too long. I would never seek to deny that such things do happen, but neither do I believe that this is always a contributory factor.

[BDunnell]

Interesting story. I put the blame on the pilots for sure, But I blame their superiors for not putting the discipline and being aware of the tendencies of these guys to take safety and what they were doing so casually to have Johnny Cash blaring in the cockpit and buzzing taxi's....

It is precisely because this incident is so, shall we say, unusual that it has gained so much attention.



The pilots ARE at fault, but their superior officers obviously didn't instill in these guys the gravity of what could happen to them if they treated a machine such as the Puma as a toy.

Why 'obviously'? How do you know that they didn't? I would suggest that the vast majority of military helicopter pilots, no matter which air arm we are talking about, are perfectly well aware of the possible consequences of so doing. This is why such accidents are so rare.



There is never ONE person wrong in many incidents, it is a chain of events....

Does this not run contrary to the views you surely possess on the individual taking responsibility for his/her actions? Would you so lenient with the individual when it comes to an adult criminal, say?

[Mark in Oshawa]

Why 'obviously'? How do you know that they didn't? I would suggest that the vast majority of military helicopter pilots, no matter which air arm we are talking about, are perfectly well aware of the possible consequences of so doing. This is why such accidents are so rare.

They are rare, but the proof was in the results. Not sure what these guys were thinking but they obviously didn't respect the machine or the conditions.




Does this not run contrary to the views you surely possess on the individual taking responsibility for his/her actions? Would you so lenient with the individual when it comes to an adult criminal, say?

Hey, their responsibility was paid for with their lives. It is however a two way street in the military. No officer worth a damn will tell you that he doesn't feel ( or her ) that everything his/her men/women do isn't partially THEIR responsibility. In this case, what was going through the minds of these 3 messing about up there before they crashed playing cowboy? Didn't the fear of a higher authority like their boss come to them? Did they really think they could pull such a stunt and get away with it? Did their superior officer sleep that night knowing what happened and isn't probably feeling a lot of guilt over what he should have said to them or instilled in them?

Listen, I don't doubt that they did this on their own. They are responsible for their actions and they paid for that with their lives. Still wont change the fact that in the military, an officer is always responsibile to an extent if not wholly for the actions of his men...

Unlike the civilian world, the military is more of a family structure, and the family suffers for the loss, not just turning a blind eye to it.

[airshifter]

Read some of the accounts, by people who were there, of how poor and ineffective the training of U.S. pilots between Korea and Viet Nam was, is well versed.

Pilots in Viet Nam were trained, on the job, in air-to-air skills by Korea and WWII veterans while flying combat missions.
It is not the airmen, it is the fecal debris in the Pentagon by people who have never been in combat, that is always the weak link.

The worst kill ratios for the US vs adversary aircraft were in the 3.5-1 range. Considering the lack of training in the dissimilar aircraft and the fact that most air to air engagements were with a much larger F-4 vs a more nimble MIG, this is hardly a poor performance ratio.

I can't speak for all pilots, but I know my father never got any on the job training for aerial combat while in Viet Nam. Since most training for new pilots is done by those senior in experience, it goes without saying some would be veterans of previous conflicts.

As for the Pentagon involvement, if it existed it didn't stop the Navy from implementing their advanced fighters weapons schools programs. After doing so they raised their kill ratios to more in line with 12 or 13-1 when engaged with the MIGs. As with most advanced schools in the military, the graduates somewhat became instructors when returning to their units, as they were expected to pass on the information learned in that training.

The Air Force drew different conclusions from their aircraft losses, and rather than implement advanced aerial combat schools they relied on aircraft upgrades and technology. Their kill ratios did not increase.

[Bob Riebe]

As for the Pentagon involvement, if it existed .Reads some of the accounts by people who were there.
The Pentagon, is the one who forced the pilots to fly patterns where the N. Viets knew when they would come and from where.
The Pentagon put huge tracts of military targets off-limits.
The Pentagon DID NOT train the pilots in air-to-air combat, they learned by not getting shot down; some were not that fortunate.
The Pentagon ran the damn war, period!

[airshifter]

Reads some of the accounts by people who were there.
The Pentagon, is the one who forced the pilots to fly patterns where the N. Viets knew when they would come and from where.
The Pentagon put huge tracts of military targets off-limits.
The Pentagon DID NOT train the pilots in air-to-air combat, they learned by not getting shot down; some were not that fortunate.
The Pentagon ran the damn war, period!

Please explain how the Pentagon stopped the Navy from implementing the advanced fighter tactics programs. The Air Force could have done so as well, but chose not to.

As with most major conflicts, those in higher commands call the overall "shots" as far as objectives and targets of importance. They did not dictate in any way that the various forces could not further the training of their pilots. You can claim so all you wish, but the history of the Navy fighters weapons schools will greatly diminish any such claims. Over the years those programs became to be known as the Top Gun schools, and beyond the school itself they promoted greater use of dissimilar aircraft training, using aircraft that could most closely mimick the flight characteristics of their primary adversary aircraft.

I haven't spent a great deal of time reading about such things, as I've heard it first hand from the people that were there. As the son of a military aviator with 3 tours in Viet Nam we spent a great deal of time around his friends, who for the most part were also pilots.

How can you possibly explain the increase in the Navy pilots kill ratios as something the Pentagon prevented, when in reality it's historical fact?

[Bob Riebe]

Please explain how the Pentagon stopped the Navy from implementing the advanced fighter tactics programs. The Air Force could have done so as well, but chose not to.

As with most major conflicts, those in higher commands call the overall "shots" as far as objectives and targets of importance. They did not dictate in any way that the various forces could not further the training of their pilots. You can claim so all you wish, but the history of the Navy fighters weapons schools will greatly diminish any such claims. Over the years those programs became to be known as the Top Gun schools, and beyond the school itself they promoted greater use of dissimilar aircraft training, using aircraft that could most closely mimick the flight characteristics of their primary adversary aircraft.

I haven't spent a great deal of time reading about such things, as I've heard it first hand from the people that were there. As the son of a military aviator with 3 tours in Viet Nam we spent a great deal of time around his friends, who for the most part were also pilots.

How can you possibly explain the increase in the Navy pilots kill ratios as something the Pentagon prevented, when in reality it's historical fact?
Son please do a history check.
Pilots and soldiers who have written their accounts tell the tales your father, bless his service, did not tell you, or as a Navy man, did not know.

I am not going to get into a Air Force verses Navy debate. In the Viet Nam era they did not operate in a similar manner, ask your father.
There was an official, us verses them, attitude between higher ups in the services.
The Air Force was the one that had Washington eliminate the fixed wing Army service in Viet Nam. That came straight out of the Pentagon, period.

The first air-to[air kill in Nam was in 1965; the first Navy fighter school was in 1969; the last air-to-kill, was in 1973, the school came about because of what was happening in Vietnam.The pilots recieved little to no air-to-air, the military had decided that missles were the cure all.
The Phantom was DESIGNED without guns for this reason. Why would the pilot of an aircraft without guns need dogfighting training.
Think about it.
I am not saying, or ever implied the pilots were not good. The N. Viet survivors will tell you that also.
They were horribly ill-trained for what they were doing.

There are thousands of soldiers, who died, including pilots, because of R. Strange McNamara and the Pentagon and the way THEY ran the war, that did not have to.
Several Air Force pilots were court-martialed for destroying chasnig and destroying N. Viet aircraft beyond the Pentagon ALLOWED air space.

I am sure your father has told a good many stories, and has not said much about the service in negative manner.
Most soldiers DO NOT trash the service, or try to cause living vets misery, which is why it took so many decades before how much of a cluster-fu-- Nam was, was told.

If you wish to believe other wise, do as you wish, but I would suggest to start reading some history so you know just how badly screwed the U.S. servicemen were by the people they served under.

[harsha]

firstly , I don't see how a plane can be as well controlled by Remote Control.

[airshifter]

Son please do a history check.
Pilots and soldiers who have written their accounts tell the tales your father, bless his service, did not tell you, or as a Navy man, did not know.

I am not going to get into a Air Force verses Navy debate. In the Viet Nam era they did not operate in a similar manner, ask your father.
There was an official, us verses them, attitude between higher ups in the services.
The Air Force was the one that had Washington eliminate the fixed wing Army service in Viet Nam. That came straight out of the Pentagon, period.

The first air-to[air kill in Nam was in 1965; the first Navy fighter school was in 1969; the last air-to-kill, was in 1973, the school came about because of what was happening in Vietnam.The pilots recieved little to no air-to-air, the military had decided that missles were the cure all.
The Phantom was DESIGNED without guns for this reason. Why would the pilot of an aircraft without guns need dogfighting training.
Think about it.
I am not saying, or ever implied the pilots were not good. The N. Viet survivors will tell you that also.
They were horribly ill-trained for what they were doing.

There are thousands of soldiers, who died, including pilots, because of R. Strange McNamara and the Pentagon and the way THEY ran the war, that did not have to.
Several Air Force pilots were court-martialed for destroying chasnig and destroying N. Viet aircraft beyond the Pentagon ALLOWED air space.

I am sure your father has told a good many stories, and has not said much about the service in negative manner.
Most soldiers DO NOT trash the service, or try to cause living vets misery, which is why it took so many decades before how much of a cluster-fu-- Nam was, was told.

If you wish to believe other wise, do as you wish, but I would suggest to start reading some history so you know just how badly screwed the U.S. servicemen were by the people they served under.

You seem to assume I know nothing of the history of the politics of Viet Nam or for that matter, any war in modern day times. You are totally incorrect in that assumption.

The point that you keep side stepping is that these pilots, so ill trained in your opinion, always kept the upper hand in air to air combat despite being aircraft not as capable in such combat roles. Through lessons learned, the Navy chose to implement further training, much increasing their kill ratios. You have yet to explain how the Pentagon prevented this, yet imply that they screwed up the entire war.

I'll well aware of the mistakes made during Viet Nam, and once again have spoken to some of the people that suffered directly due to those mistakes.


Rather than debate points I brought up no interest in, I'll leave you with the simple questions....

1. How did poorly trained pilots in less nimble aircraft beat their oponents 3-1?

and...

2. If the Pentagon did such a good job of screwing up everything, how did some of those pilots get training which raised the kill ratio of that branch of service to more than 12-1?

[Bob Riebe]

Rather than debate points I brought up no interest in, I'll leave you with the simple questions....

1. How did poorly trained pilots in less nimble aircraft beat their oponents 3-1?

and...

2. If the Pentagon did such a good job of screwing up everything, how did some of those pilots get training which raised the kill ratio of that branch of service to more than 12-1?
Point 1--
There were a goodly number of veteran pilots, both WWII and Korea, still flying. They taught their pilots, as well as they could, what they absolutely needed to know.

The kill ratio was very- very low. In the Korean War, the Allies had also had fought against veteran Soviet pilots yet attained a HUGE kill-ratio advantage.
The N. Viet pilots,-- and again read some of the first hand accounts written,-- were novices, at best.

NO ONE- NO ONE- has EVER diminished the effort and improvisational skill of the the U.S. pilots.
Only you are implying that.

The only reason the kill ratio did not at least equal Korea, against an aircraft short, novice air-force, was due to ineffective training U.S. pilots were receiving between the Korean and Vietnam wars, AND asinine modes of attack forced upon the pilots by the Penatagon.
Read some of the accounts, the PILOTS have said as much.

The Mig-21 was an extremely good aircraft.
Read the book written by the gents who flew them in the adversary Top Gun squadrons. They said that if the Viet pilots were not novice trainies, handicapped by the Soviet style air-defence, the kill ratio would have been even lower.

Point 2-- Pilots were DYING and being captured BECAUSE OF what the Pentagon forced on them. They bitched as loudly as they could as not get court-martialed, but were loyal soldiers and flew the asinine flight patterns forced upon them.
As I said, several pilots who had, had enough, and chased their enemy into the Pentagon forced no-fly zone, were court-martialed.
The fact they destroyed enemy aircraft and killed enemy pilots who had been killing U.S. soliers, and would have continued to do so, meant nothing to R. Strange McNamara and his butt-kissing buddies.

DO some reading; the N. Viets admitted that had Johnson not forced the bombing halt, which helped reinforce the beleaguered Cong/ N. Viet Armies ,the war would have been lost as N. Vietnam supplies were down to near zero.

The North Vietnamese best friend in that war was Washington.

N. Viet veterans were astonished how ineptly the U.S. command ran the war.
Remember many the N. Viets also fought in WWII and remembered well the skill with which poorly supplied Allies had fought the Japanese in WWII.
They had a hard time believing that the same country that defeated Japan and pushed the Chinese back in Korea, could fight in such a stupid manner.

[Malbec]

Remember many the N. Viets also fought in WWII and remembered well the skill with which poorly supplied Allies had fought the Japanese in WWII.

Interesting that the North Vietnamese had that opinion of Allied fighting skills in WW2 when the Allies had not even reached French Indo-China by the end of the war. They had no first hand experience of fighting alongside the Allies. The VietMinh did however fight British occupation forces who tried to subdue Vietnam together with the Japanese forces that were left, but that was sometime after the end of the war. Are those the Allies to which you refer?

Re: your diatribe on the Pentagon, their weapons procurement to which you refer was based on the need to fight the USSR for which the gun-less Phantom was entirely appropriate. Now tell me, did the Pentagon respond by ordering Phantoms to be fitted with gunpods or not? Did they request new Phantom models to have internal guns or not? Did they not react to rectify their procurement error or not?

You've already agreed that the Pentagon response to the lack of air combat training was to improve training and open new schools, in what way were the Pentagon not reacting to make the best of a war they had never expected to fight?

Or are you seriously suggesting that every military high command is incompetent unless it predicts and is both trained and equipped to fight any and every possible kind of military scenario possible? No armed forces on earth has the resources to accomplish that.

[anthonyvop]

Reads some of the accounts by people who were there.
The Pentagon, is the one who forced the pilots to fly patterns where the N. Viets knew when they would come and from where.
The Pentagon put huge tracts of military targets off-limits.
The Pentagon DID NOT train the pilots in air-to-air combat, they learned by not getting shot down; some were not that fortunate.
The Pentagon ran the damn war, period!

No.....The White House ran the Air war...Period!

[Bob Riebe]

Interesting that the North Vietnamese had that opinion of Allied fighting skills in WW2 when the Allies had not even reached French Indo-China by the end of the war. They had no first hand experience of fighting alongside the Allies. The Viet-Minh did however fight British occupation forces who tried to subdue Vietnam together with the Japanese forces that were left, but that was sometime after the end of the war. Are those the Allies to which you refer?

Show me where I said they fought side-by-side.
They did not live in hole unaware of who was in the war, who won, and what the Japanese military was like.
Try reading what I actually write.

Re: your diatribe on the Pentagon, their weapons procurement to which you refer was based on the need to fight the USSR for which the gun-less Phantom was entirely appropriate. Now tell me, did the Pentagon respond by ordering Phantoms to be fitted with gun-pods or not? Did they request new Phantom models to have internal guns or not? Did they not react to rectify their procurement error or not?

Go back and read what I wrote, for God's sake, and stop seeing what you want to see.
I said training BETWEEN THE WARS, was poor and did not prepare them for the war they fought. The Pentagon had a myopic view of the world and could not see beyond what they thought was.
Of course the horrid success rate of the Falcon AAM in Vietnam,showed they were not really prepared for anything.
In the only air-to-air encounter between Migs and the F-102; one F-102 was shot down and when his wingman returned fire, what should have been a e sure kill failed, as the missle failed to track and sailed off into wild blue yonder.
Boy were we prepared to stop any Russian bombers at home. HOO EE!

Now show me where I said that the pilots there, after suffering unecessary losses, due to the Pentagon having their heads up their buttocks, DID NOT bitch till changes were made.
Is that how you think a war should be fought?
Take some losses and fix it later?
It seem that showed the U.S. Pentagon does.
Changes WERE made, but the loss of aircraft and human life previous has no excuse, period.

The F-16 & F-15 came about because of the cluster-f--k forced upon U.S. soldiers in Nam.

You've already agreed that the Pentagon response to the lack of air combat training was to improve training and open new schools, in what way were the Pentagon not reacting to make the best of a war they had never expected to fight?
Hmm, the U.S. military was surprised in WWII; the U.S. military was surprised in Korea; the U.S. military was not ready for Viet Nam, sounds like a herd of self-centered dullards to me.

Or are you seriously suggesting that every military high command is incompetent unless it predicts and is both trained and equipped to fight any and every possible kind of military scenario?

They should have been ready to fight at least one. With the exception of Desert Storm, they haven't been ready ever.
If you wish to give the Pentagon a pass, regardless of facts, fine, but thousands of people are DEAD, because too many in upper ranks, in the Pentagon, brains did not go beyond the rank on their uniform and primping for the next belt-way gala.

If you wish to give them a pass, good for you. I do not.
End of discussion.

``

[Bob Riebe]

No.....The White House ran the Air war...Period!
The Secretary of Defense operates out of the Pentagon, and reports to the President.

[Bob Riebe]

No.....The White House ran the Air war...Period!
The Secretary of Defense operates out of the Pentagon, and reports to the President.
Or are you saying that President Bush, and not Rumsfeld, is responsible for the pathetically poor way the Iraq war was run for years?

[Daniel]

Can we just ignore the uninformed troll please?

[Malbec]

They did not live in hole unaware of who was in the war, who won, and what the Japanese military was like.
Try reading what I actually write.

My mistake, you wrote that the Allies were poorly supplied so assumed you must have been talking about the Allies in South East Asia only.

If you actually believe the Allies were poorly supplied certainly with respect to Japan you are utterly deluded and/or plain ignorant. Do some research.


They should have been ready to fight at least one. With the exception of Desert Storm, they haven't been ready ever.
If you wish to give the Pentagon a pass, regardless of facts, fine, but thousands of people are DEAD, because too many in upper ranks, in the Pentagon, brains did not go beyond the rank on their uniform and primping for the next belt-way gala.

If you wish to give them a pass, good for you. I do not.
End of discussion.

Exactly, thanks for proving my point. The US, Pentagon or whatever simply doesn't have the resources to prepare for every possible war under every possible circumstance which is what you are attacking them for. Is it really unreasonable for the Pentagon to have prepared for total war against the USSR back in the 60s? Can you really blame them for being caught short by a war in Vietnam where their ability to fight was severely restricted by the political limitations put upon them?

A Pentagon with an unlimited budget would have covered those shortfalls you raised earlier but forced to compromise, to provide enough troops on the ground both in Europe and East Asia it couldn't cover every eventuality could it?

Life in cloud cuckoo land where the entire planet revolves around the common soldier or airman must be a fine place to be. Unfortunately real life involves compromises and patch ups where those compromises fall short.

[Daniel]

Please see my post above Dylan :)

[BDunnell]

The Mig-21 was an extremely good aircraft.
Read the book written by the gents who flew them in the adversary Top Gun squadrons. They said that if the Viet pilots were not novice trainies, handicapped by the Soviet style air-defence, the kill ratio would have been even lower.

Which book is this? I can think of a book about the subject, an excellent book which I have read, but not one by them. In any case, you are somewhat mistaken on other points. 'Top Gun' squadrons flying MiG-21s (note how the designation is styled)? For a start, there is no such thing as 'Top Gun squadrons'. There is a TOPGUN (again, note how it's styled, other than in the movie title) course, but no such thing as 'Top Gun squadrons'. And furthermore it was the USAF, not the US Navy, which conducted technical exploitation and later, as part of its 'Red Flag' exercises, adversary training using actual MiG-21s and other Soviet-built aircraft. At least one US Navy pilot — I forget whether it was more than one — was assigned to the latter programme and thus flew the aircraft, and US Navy pilots were certainly exposed to them in the course of 'Red Flag' exercises, but the MiGs were operated by the USAF, and certainly never assigned to TOPGUN or any other naval unit, so it is simply not true to say that MiG-21s were flown 'in the adversary Top Gun squadrons'.

[airshifter]

Which book is this? I can think of a book about the subject, an excellent book which I have read, but not one by them. In any case, you are somewhat mistaken on other points. 'Top Gun' squadrons flying MiG-21s (note how the designation is styled)? For a start, there is no such thing as 'Top Gun squadrons'. There is a TOPGUN (again, note how it's styled, other than in the movie title) course, but no such thing as 'Top Gun squadrons'. And furthermore it was the USAF, not the US Navy, which conducted technical exploitation and later, as part of its 'Red Flag' exercises, adversary training using actual MiG-21s and other Soviet-built aircraft. At least one US Navy pilot — I forget whether it was more than one — was assigned to the latter programme and thus flew the aircraft, and US Navy pilots were certainly exposed to them in the course of 'Red Flag' exercises, but the MiGs were operated by the USAF, and certainly never assigned to TOPGUN or any other naval unit, so it is simply not true to say that MiG-21s were flown 'in the adversary Top Gun squadrons'.

In the early days the Top Gun training program was in fact assigned to a Navy Squadron. At the time they flew F-4s. Later in the program the assignment changed to make the school unique, and then they had A-4s, and some T-38s which actually belonged to the Air Force.

I have never heard of actual MiGs assigned to the Top Gun schools, but it is possible that they existed in Navy inventory in adversary squadrons not attached directly to the schools. There was a local squadron attachment of F-21 Kfir aircraft that flew for years in support of dissimilar aircraft training for the fleet.




I'm not even going to attempt to deal with the claims of the poster claiming Pentagon micromanagement. I will say only that my father flew 200+ missions in Viet Nam, and was never forced to fly a set pattern. The objectives were dictated by higher command, but planned and executed by the various squadrons.

[Bob Riebe]

Which book is this? I can think of a book about the subject, an excellent book which I have read, but not one by them. In any case, you are somewhat mistaken on other points. 'Top Gun' squadrons flying MiG-21s (note how the designation is styled)? For a start, there is no such thing as 'Top Gun squadrons'. There is a TOPGUN (again, note how it's styled, other than in the movie title) course, but no such thing as 'Top Gun squadrons'. And furthermore it was the USAF, not the US Navy, which conducted technical exploitation and later, as part of its 'Red Flag' exercises, adversary training using actual MiG-21s and other Soviet-built aircraft. At least one US Navy pilot — I forget whether it was more than one — was assigned to the latter programme and thus flew the aircraft, and US Navy pilots were certainly exposed to them in the course of 'Red Flag' exercises, but the MiGs were operated by the USAF, and certainly never assigned to TOPGUN or any other naval unit, so it is simply not true to say that MiG-21s were flown 'in the adversary Top Gun squadrons'.

I used "top gun" as a generic term, (my failure) and I have not separated Air Force and Navy, ALTHOUGH they are, or were two different worlds.
I am addressing the Pentagon's failures, not individual services, which is another world as the Navy, seemed to have its act in better order.

I will get you the title when I return to where the book is, and yes the book is about Air Force not Navy pilots.

[Bob Riebe]

Life in cloud cuckoo land where the entire planet revolves around the common soldier or airman must be a fine place to be. Unfortunately real life involves compromises and patch ups where those compromises fall short.
Tens of thousands died in Nam, and probably at least a thousand died, and were crippled, that did not have to in Iraq, because the Pentagon lives in a cuckoo land.

It is sad you find the deaths of soldiers fighting for their country to be of so little value, but find it easy to make asinine excuses for the Pentagon's tactics that got them killed.

You live in your world, I prefer mine where concerning whether a soldier lives or dies- failure is never an option.
Please go tell the widows, and their children, how compromise that got them killed or crippled is just part of the status quo.

[BDunnell]

I have never heard of actual MiGs assigned to the Top Gun schools, but it is possible that they existed in Navy inventory in adversary squadrons not attached directly to the schools.

Almost certainly not - in fact, definitely not, I'm sure.

[BDunnell]

I used "top gun" as a generic term, (my failure) and I have not separated Air Force and Navy, ALTHOUGH they are, or were two different worlds.
I am addressing the Pentagon's failures, not individual services, which is another world as the Navy, seemed to have its act in better order.

I will get you the title when I return to where the book is, and yes the book is about Air Force not Navy pilots.

The book I'm sure you're referring to is 'Red Eagles' by Steve Davies, which is a superb read.