Berttt Posted June 25, 2004 Posted June 25, 2004 Quoted from yesterday's Australian 24Jun04 THE US Air Force has had a "wake-up call" as a result of mock air-to-air engagements with India earlier this year that showed the US can no longer take air superiority for granted in a conflict, a top US general said today. A study of the "Cope India" air exercise, conducted by the US and Indian air forces in Gwalior, India last February, is secret, said General Hal Hornburg, head of the air force's Air Combat Command. "But we have to learn a lot of things from that," he told defence reporters. "We have to learn if we want air superiority it doesn't come cheap and it's not automatic." The Russian-made SU-30s are reported to have bested the F-15s in a majority of their engagements, much to the surprise of the organisers. It was the first time the two top-of-the-line US and Russian-made fighters have flown against each other in an exercise, an air force spokeswoman said. It pitted F-15Cs from the air force's 3rd Wing at Elmendorf Air Force Base in Alaska against a variety of Indian fighters, not just the SU-30s. They included Russian-built MiG-21s, MiG-29s and French-made Mirage 2000s. The US fighters flew with certain restrictions that handicapped their effectiveness. Nevertheless, the performance of the Indian fighters exceeded expectations. "In general, we may have learned some things that suggest we may not be as far ahead of the rest of the world as we once thought we were," General Hornburg said. He said the results of the exercise showed the need for the F/A-22 Raptor and the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF). Both aircraft are stealthier than the F-15, but the F/A-18 also has greater range and speed than the air force's existing fighters. The air force has been battling the perception that the costly new fighters are a luxury at a time when the US has dominance in the air. "I thought it was a wake-up call for some things that we've been talking about before, and it provided validation," General Hornburg said. The trade journal Aviation Week and Space Technology reported last month that the exercises showed the SU-30s had a clear advantage over the F-15C in a long-range fight. The US and Indian aircraft were seeing each other at the same time with their radars but the SU-30 pilots were able to fire their AA-10 fire-and-forget Alamo missiles first, the magazine said. My guess is the restrictions were probably related to the use of ECM. Cheers, Berttt Quote
Graham Posted June 25, 2004 Posted June 25, 2004 but the F/A-18 also has greater range and speed than the air force's existing fighters. Err....in which parallel universe? Graham Quote
Druna Skass Posted June 25, 2004 Posted June 25, 2004 What were those restrictions? If they really got owned that badly, then maybe there a good incentive to upgrade the existing F-15Cs to F-15ACTIVEs, and maybe makes some changes in training. Quote
azrael Posted June 25, 2004 Posted June 25, 2004 *yawn* I was pointed to that article by my sibling. It is unfortunate that it is misinterpreted. The US pilots were intentionally handicapped while the Indians, were not. The US fighters flew with certain restrictions that handicapped their effectiveness. Do they list what those handicaps were? No. The whole point of that demo was to: He said the results of the exercise showed the need for the F/A-22 Raptor and the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF). Now tell me you don't see the bigger picture to this? The whole point was to funnel more money to the F/A-22 and JSF. Now, if the US did not have handicaps, I would say the picture would be different and would work against the funding of the F/A-22 and the JSF. Quote
Berttt Posted June 25, 2004 Author Posted June 25, 2004 but the F/A-18 also has greater range and speed than the air force's existing fighters. Err....in which parallel universe? Graham Yeah pretty sure that's a typo since they were discussing the F/A-22 in the previous sentence. It's a pity jounalists and editors don't check thier articles properly. I'll agree that the whole point of the excercise was to point push new aircraft type, but from what I have heard those Mirage 2000 drivers have been punishing F-15's to the point where they don't want to play anymore Quote
Opus Posted June 25, 2004 Posted June 25, 2004 It really doesn't matter how good potential enemy pilots are. No one can compete with the US logistical machine. Even if India can field a few Su-30 aces how long can they keep them in the air? everyone's making a big stink over nothing. The hadicaps were probably put in place to even the odds a bit so the Indian pilots coud have a chance to learn something (it was a training excercise) rather than get instantly owned. They were underestimated. The Air Force has already taken posession of the first batch of F-22s so I don't think they need to drum up anymore support for that.. Quote
SupremeKaioshin Posted June 25, 2004 Posted June 25, 2004 No way the 18 is faster than the 15C. Quote
Druna Skass Posted June 25, 2004 Posted June 25, 2004 Besides the MiG-25/31 are there any combat air craft that can out run the F-15? Quote
David Hingtgen Posted June 25, 2004 Posted June 25, 2004 (edited) F-14B/D top speed is rumored to be 2.5+ F-14's still have a stronger windshield, and more advanced intakes, than the F-15, which are the main limiting factors. Take a Mach 2.4 plane, add 30% more power, and you'll go faster. PS--hey, I'm all for one-sided "tests" showing that we need more F-22's. PPS---having a higher top speed doesn't really mean you can "out run" an F-15. Mig25's can keep that speed up for like 90 secs. F-14's have among the longest "dash" times, due to sheer size/fuel capacity. Flankers would do well, too. And the F-22 would beat them all. Mach 2.5 for 10 minutes is nothing compared to 2.0 for an hour. Most planes that can go Mach 2+ can only do so for minutes at a time. SR-71 and Concorde are among the few planes that can do it for a long time. Just think about it--most fighters have enough fuel to have a combat radius of a few hundred miles, just cruising around at Mach 0.9 with 3 full drop tanks. Now if you need full afterburner and have to give up your drop tanks to go 1,500 mph, how long do you think they can do it before they run out of fuel? Edited June 25, 2004 by David Hingtgen Quote
Blaine23 Posted June 25, 2004 Posted June 25, 2004 Wow! A report that Americans might not be safe unless we buy more multi-million dollar airplanes? Quote
ewilen Posted June 25, 2004 Posted June 25, 2004 Good eye, Azrael. We talked about this article over in the resurrected "adios F/A-22" thread, but I missed that detail. Quote
Godzilla Posted June 25, 2004 Posted June 25, 2004 I heard about this but I think this was really a false alarm. Gee what kind of restrictions were there? I heard that it was 30 Migs vs 4 F-15Cs. Oh yeah and the media is gobbling it up saying yes we are defenseless with older equipment. Crap. Sounds like the much vaunted Soviet machines were the best in the 80's. If the Soviets invaded Germany, they would have slaughtered all the NATO armies because the Soviets had more of everything and our M1s were too costly and sucked. That pretty much was proved wrong in Desert Storm. Remember all the critics said before Desert Storm? Top Arms dealer on 60 min said that the US would lose because of desert combat. Iraqi troops were better prepared. Our advanced machines would break down. Uh-huh sure. M1A1s and Bradleys tore thru Iraqi divsions like it was nothing. And then the Apaches and Super Cobras pounded the living daylights out of them. Oh yeah let's not forget the "hiway of death" where A-10s just literally racked them over the coals when the Iraqis were retreating. And now they want to get rid of the A-10? Just more crap from top brass wanting more technological advanced weapons. I thought after 9/11 and guerrilla warfare in Afghanistan and Iraq showed that low tech forces like the Taliban they can still fight. Regardless, it is just sounding a false alarm to give more funding to the F-22 and F-35 JSF. F-15C is just as effective as the F-22. F-22 just gives them the edge. It just means that pilots need to train a little harder. I wonder if the pilots were being cocky as well. Well, we are the USAF and we will kick your ass. The only air force in the world that could kick the USAF's ass is the Israeli Air Force. Quote
Godzilla Posted June 25, 2004 Posted June 25, 2004 F-14B/D top speed is rumored to be 2.5+ F-14's still have a stronger windshield, and more advanced intakes, than the F-15, which are the main limiting factors. Take a Mach 2.4 plane, add 30% more power, and you'll go faster. PS--hey, I'm all for one-sided "tests" showing that we need more F-22's. PPS---having a higher top speed doesn't really mean you can "out run" an F-15. Mig25's can keep that speed up for like 90 secs. F-14's have among the longest "dash" times, due to sheer size/fuel capacity. Flankers would do well, too. And the F-22 would beat them all. Mach 2.5 for 10 minutes is nothing compared to 2.0 for an hour. Most planes that can go Mach 2+ can only do so for minutes at a time. SR-71 and Concorde are among the few planes that can do it for a long time. Just think about it--most fighters have enough fuel to have a combat radius of a few hundred miles, just cruising around at Mach 0.9 with 3 full drop tanks. Now if you need full afterburner and have to give up your drop tanks to go 1,500 mph, how long do you think they can do it before they run out of fuel? And I keep wondering why the Navy is dropping the F-14B/D... Quote
Sundown Posted June 25, 2004 Posted June 25, 2004 It's kind of scary that our defense funding is determined by people silly enough to believe what the Air Force brass is trying to push with the "results" of this exercise. -Al Quote
fernarias Posted June 25, 2004 Posted June 25, 2004 All this proves is that we need a missle to replace the Aim-54C. F. Quote
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted June 25, 2004 Posted June 25, 2004 interesting. Well sundown thats propaganda for you; albeit history tells us that pencilpushers really dont know what the hell they are talking about. Wish governmenyt would listen more to the military flyers themselves rather than political lobbysists in congress. Not sure if the IAF could take on the USAF. They surely kick ass in highly unbelievable odds against them but their much vaunted mock kill ratio over one of the navy's fleet's air wings is really just blown out of proportion./ Let us not forget that the IAF gets most of their planes through us and same with tactics and perhaps doctrine though suited to their tastes. In terms of this whole flanker phobia, I think eagle pilots could hold their own against flankers. Flankers need barely any armnaments mounted to do their air show manuevers....do you think a flanker loaded with gas and AAMs jumped by an F-15 would be that supermanueverable? Didn't think so either. flanker has many things going against it, its a FACT proven time and time again that nations relax worry about the plane till the next planned plane is proposed and needs funding. EF2000 and F-22 all benifitted much from flanker phobia. I always felt it was best to have the best planes and armnaments and never settle for less so to me it was ok but this just makes more people noit in the know worried to deqath that russia has the edge wchich they obvio8usly dont. flanker as said has many things going against it. (this from my experience playing the flanker sims and also studying up on JANES big ass boooks on campus and various magazines and reliable internet sources) -rearward vision sucks balls. Sorry but it does. Specially the 2 seater version. Looks cool as hell though and the backseater has a excellent view of the front almost nonexistent in the back. -avionics. hooly crap this SCREAMS GCI whore. dep0endenct on GCI was not only the norm, but what this plane relies on. Dogfighting feels weird and I felt it was useful to disregard everuything except the gun sight when dogfighting/. Radar is very difficult to use. Chances are a F-16 ANG pilot will lock onto the flanker before the pilot can even select adder to shoot the falcon. -overrated manueverability. It is no surprised that this plane moves like balls on watery soap, however it only moves that well with the bare minimum or barely any to no armnament on at all. Alpha performance is excellent but you can bet your ass i would never do a cobra in a dogfight. -overpercieved threat. F-22 can take this thing out no problem. shin's lesson for the day................... F-14 TOMCATS KICK ASS I TOO WONDER WHY THEY ARE BEING RETIRED AND THEY ROCK YO FORR33L/ ok the real lesson. Su Flanker series is the most lethal threat in the skies today from russia but this isnt the days of the 60s, our planes now can intercept and haul ass in knife fighting. we got the advantage people. Fl;anker aint that dangerous once you think about it but is said to be when budgets are needed. BTW avionics systems and radar are MUCH MUCH Quote
Nied Posted June 27, 2004 Posted June 27, 2004 That's interesting. Like everyone else I wonder what exactly those "handicaps" were and how much they affected the Eagle's performance. I do think that we in the US have gotten a little to comfortable with the idea of our all powerful ability to project air superiority. I think it's mostly becuase of how lucky we have been in the last couple major conflicts, we just haven't faced any real resistance in the air. Think about it. In the first Gulf War the Iraqi Air Force had already been mauled during the Iran-Iraq war, that combined with Husein's foolish decision to put his aircraft in hardened shelters rather than use them led to an easy victory for coalition forces. In Kosovo the Serbs barely had an air force left after the fracturing of Yugoslavia. Their most advanced aircraft were 12 Mig-29s, two were very easily shot down by NATO forces (it may be that those two were all the Serbs could fly). In Afganistan the Taliban had no air arm. In the second Gulf War, the Iraqi air arm consisted of maybe a handful of Mig-25s and a smattering of Mirage F-1s that weren't destroyed or taken by Iran, and most of those were buried in the sand in the hopes that a guerilla war would drive US forces out. Compare that with what we could face in future conflicts: North Korea has a large but crude air force, consisting mostly of Mig-21s and Mig-23s but also a handful of Mig-29s. Kim Jong Il personally wrote an analysis of the Gulf War that condemned Saddam Hussein for not using his air force. As such, one could expect a vigorous fight from the KPAAF. Iran has an interesting mix of US and Russian designs. By most accounts they still have at least one squadron of F-14s in flying condition, and though they have long exhausted their supply of Phoenix missiles, they are attempting to integrate Russian R-77 "Amramski" missiles (more ominously there are reports of the Iranians trying to re-engine their F-14s with AL-31s the same engine that powers the Su-27). They also have quite a few Mig-29s that "defected" from Iraq. The Iranian Air Force did quite well during the Iran-Iraq war; I don't see why they wouldn’t again if faced by another enemy. China's air force is very similar to India's. Quite a few older designs mixed with a smaller force of advanced designs (in this case Su-30MKKs nearly identical to India’s Su-30MKIs). They also have several advanced designs about to enter service (the FC-1 and the J-10) both of which promise F-16/F/A-18 level performance. And finally Saudi Arabia is teetering on the brink of a revolution that would almost assuredly put them on far less friendly terms with the US. Any new government would inherit one of the best air forces oil-money can buy, which in this case consists of F-15s Tornados, and F-5s, not to mention their considerable C&C assets. Even superior tactics can't make up for that. Korea would be easiest but it certainly wouldn't be the cake walk we've seen over the past few decades. Quote
Knight26 Posted June 27, 2004 Posted June 27, 2004 One quick comment concerning the Iranian Air Force, those MiG-29s that "defected" during the first gulf war were not integrated into their forces. Most of them are still sitting out in the desert rotting. I have a couple pictures of them somewhere, planes that were once perfectly flyable destroyed by being left in the desert 10+ years unattended. The Iranians wouldn't take the planes. Also the few F-14s they have in service and very few, maybe a half dozen are flyable while all the rest are being scrapped for parts since there is no way they can replacement spares except those they bought in the initial purchase. For years they even refused to fly them, letting most of them rot. The re-engining probably will not happen, its really not that simple to re-engine an aircraft, especially from NATO to Warsaw Pact engines or back again. The moutning designs differ too much. Now adapting NATO to Warsaw Pact weapons to airframes of the other side is actually fairly easy, as eveyrone uses the same missile lug spacings. If we were to go to war with Iran and they used the F-14s against us they would most likely just be used in the long range interception role and would probably use the AA-9 Amos instead, more akin to the Phoenix. The AA-12 is more like a more manueverable AMRAAM, its a midrange missile. Quote
Mislovrit Posted June 27, 2004 Posted June 27, 2004 that combined with Husein's foolish decision to put his aircraft in hardened shelters rather than use them led to an easy victory for coalition forces. Even if Saddam had every available fighter in the air during the first 48 hours of ODS, it most likely woudn't have made much of a difference in the outcome of the war. Quote
F360° Posted June 27, 2004 Posted June 27, 2004 Don't forget about the Su-37, not that is a deadly fighter. Quote
CF18 Posted June 27, 2004 Posted June 27, 2004 http://us.rediff.com/news/2004/jun/24us.htm F-15Cs that took part in Cope India were not equipped with the latest radar. Not much of a handicap since they probably just use what most order active units use. US pilot also got a chance to fly the Su-30: http://www.rediff.com/news/2004/feb/25iaf.htm Over the past few days, fighters of the two air forces practiced multi-target interception and attack, protection of high value assets and offensive counter air versus defensive counter air missions.Sometimes, it was the USAF vs IAF, at other times the rivals comprised pilots from both sides with one group protecting territory against incoming 'enemy' fighters. It was not just a few dogfight tests. Quote
Nightbat Posted June 27, 2004 Posted June 27, 2004 Do they list what those handicaps were? Pilots were restricted to using Harsh language and moderate use of the middle finger Quote
robomatt Posted June 27, 2004 Posted June 27, 2004 Most of this dicussion is moot. Why do I say that? The F-22 Raptor is being delivered and more will continue to be delivered. That fact alone would assure US air superiority. Then you consider that the Joint Strike Fighter will come on the scene soon and that gives the US and our allies a great advantage. No country...Including Israel... can touch the US in Air Superiority. Even if they could temporarily we would cut off thier supply of parts..so thier planes would be useless anyway. Or in worste case scenario use our Nuclear capabilities. The US is the only superpower in the history of the world that has used it's power MOSTLY for good and hasn't tried to make all smaller weaker countries part of it's empire. Considering our military strength and capabilities...I think the US uses a great deal of patience and restraint. We are not perfect mind you...very clearly no country is perfect. But we try to use our power for good and the American people are for the most part good people. Americans for the most part would benefit from learning about other cultures (like Japan). I think we are too focused on what we are doing in the US and don't have many interests past that. There are so many honorable fascinating cultures to learn about and appreciate. OK Speech over :-> No offense to anyone, just doing a brain dump. Quote
one_klump Posted June 27, 2004 Posted June 27, 2004 I have been reading about the aging F-15's for a while, and although they do rock, we just need somthing better. That somthing better is the F-22. Now on the F-14 issue, yes, it was old, and outdated, but nothing out there could beat it. Why mess with somthing that isn't broke? Well, if left to it's own trems, the government will soon run willy-nilly. People have been bitching about the F-14 being cut for a long time now. How many of you guys have actually called your congressman or senator and requested a response? Wonderful things can be acomplished when you actually pick up a phone and talk to a represenitive. They work for us, and they know that. If enough people demand somthing, they will push it through. people, we have to take control of our own governmet. Many countries don't get the ability to control the government at all, and most Americans throw that right away, neglecting their right as a member of a republic, and are content to just complain when the government dosn't become a mind reader and do what they want them to, even though they never told anyone what the want. to end rant, I just have to say: Be active in your government, be it local, state, or federal. Instead of fighting somthing from the outside, help change it from the inside. Quote
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted June 27, 2004 Posted June 27, 2004 that fact alone would ASSURE supertiority? do you realize that the number of raptors being produced is only in the 300 range and that the JSF lacks the payload and manueverability of the F-16? Superiority is not dictated by hardware alone its the training in affect as well. look what happened when we haed the phantoms and went to veitnam, we had the worlds most advanced fighteraircraft yet we got shotdown by rather primtive in comparison smaller migs. we dont have enough F-22s along the line to even guarantee full air sup[remacyh, we can only hope the number of 300+ is adequate to get the job done initially and have the less capable planes as backup to supplement. and Nied is right it wouldnt be a cakewalk at all. Afganhistan and iraq barely even had a force to fight in the air. Iran and north korea, espcially china would be the ones to watch out for Quote
Druna Skass Posted June 27, 2004 Posted June 27, 2004 People have been bitching about the F-14 being cut for a long time now. How many of you guys have actually called your congressman or senator and requested a response? Wonderful things can be acomplished when you actually pick up a phone and talk to a represenitive. They work for us, and they know that. If enough people demand somthing, they will push it through. people, we have to take control of our own governmet. Many countries don't get the ability to control the government at all, and most Americans throw that right away, neglecting their right as a member of a republic, and are content to just complain when the government dosn't become a mind reader and do what they want them to, even though they never told anyone what the want. Yeah I sent a letter to my Congerss Person once. The responce I got left me with a feeling of "did you even read the whole thing...?" Quote
Druna Skass Posted June 27, 2004 Posted June 27, 2004 Then you consider that the Joint Strike Fighter will come on the scene soon and that gives the US and our allies a great advantage. I wonder what David has to say about that... Quote
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted June 27, 2004 Posted June 27, 2004 I have been reading about the aging F-15's for a while, and although they do rock, we just need somthing better. That somthing better is the F-22.Now on the F-14 issue, yes, it was old, and outdated, but nothing out there could beat it. Why mess with somthing that isn't broke? Well, if left to it's own trems, the government will soon run willy-nilly. People have been bitching about the F-14 being cut for a long time now. How many of you guys have actually called your congressman or senator and requested a response? Wonderful things can be acomplished when you actually pick up a phone and talk to a represenitive. They work for us, and they know that. If enough people demand somthing, they will push it through. people, we have to take control of our own governmet. Many countries don't get the ability to control the government at all, and most Americans throw that right away, neglecting their right as a member of a republic, and are content to just complain when the government dosn't become a mind reader and do what they want them to, even though they never told anyone what the want. to end rant, I just have to say: Be active in your government, be it local, state, or federal. Instead of fighting somthing from the outside, help change it from the inside. i dunno dude i doubt much can be done. Back when cheney was sec of defense he made it so anyone in the navy who stood up to him and spoke out against him on the tomcat issue would be risking losing their wings and get courtmartialed. David probably has more on that story. This also has to do with the MCD lobby in congress and such. basicallty the gist is that to them the A-6F and F-14D were too expensive and they did originally want both and the NATF but cost overuns and the NATF with the navy pulling out left them with nothing but MCD calmiung them down with proposals for a supposed cheaper better hornet. which wasnt the case ....now. BTW i hear the tooling for the tomcat was ordered destroyed by cheney so theres not much we can do now unless grumman takes a cat apart and recasts each and every part. unlikely thye would do so. For me hope lies in the notion of tomcats being used againa nd Tomcat 21 becoming reality...however realistically i think the true tomcat successor will be in the form of the fighter that replaces the super hornet years from now. Quote
one_klump Posted June 27, 2004 Posted June 27, 2004 which wasnt the case ....now. BTW i hear the tooling for the tomcat was ordered destroyed by cheney so theres not much we can do now unless grumman takes a cat apart and recasts each and every part. unlikely thye would do so no, sadly, the age of the Tomcat has passed, and realisticaly, not much could have been done about it, most of the dealings were done behind closed doors, away from the public. I am just suggesting that it is really easy to complain about somthing and not lift a finger to change it. Quote
David Hingtgen Posted June 27, 2004 Posted June 27, 2004 The Tomcat's main jigs were destroyed. An executive order couldn't get more Tomcats made. And you cannot go back and "recast" a plane from parts. The tolerances are TIGHT. A 727 main spar has such finite tolerances, the factory climate in the area has a +/- .1 degree limit (metal expansion rates), and they stop every machine in the factory, the guy has to wear rubber shoes on a foam pad to avoid vibrations, and pretty much the entire factory holds their breath when they install the 4 main pins. And with the F-22 superiority issue: numbers matter. 50 F-22's will beat 50 of most anything else. They will not beat 200 of anything else. Also, it has been a long time since there's been a "big" engagement. 4 on 4 is the biggest we've seen in a while. Up against North Korea or someone, it'd be like 100 on 100. When you get bigger fights, luck becomes the main factor. If you've got numbers like that, it means any (or all) of 100 people could be going after YOU. Or you could be going after the same guy that 99 other people are. Aircraft type doesn't really matter in that scenario, pure numbers do. Lots of planes carrying lots of missiles. Quote
Druna Skass Posted June 27, 2004 Posted June 27, 2004 (edited) And with the F-22 superiority issue: numbers matter. 50 F-22's will beat 50 of most anything else. They will not beat 200 of anything else. Also, it has been a long time since there's been a "big" engagement. 4 on 4 is the biggest we've seen in a while. Up against North Korea or someone, it'd be like 100 on 100. When you get bigger fights, luck becomes the main factor. If you've got numbers like that, it means any (or all) of 100 people could be going after YOU. Or you could be going after the same guy that 99 other people are. Aircraft type doesn't really matter in that scenario, pure numbers do. Lots of planes carrying lots of missiles. So basicaly the more people decide to join the furball the less it matters what plane you're using? Edited June 27, 2004 by Druna Skass Quote
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted June 27, 2004 Posted June 27, 2004 and with that...chinas got a crapload of airplanes and even more peolpe on the ground waiting to gun your ass either way if you get shot down and happen to float into thei territory. F-22 aint gonna solve everything. Quote
Coota0 Posted June 27, 2004 Posted June 27, 2004 Superiority is not dictated by hardware alone its the training in affect as well. look what happened when we haed the phantoms and went to veitnam, we had the worlds most advanced fighteraircraft yet we got shotdown by rather primtive in comparison smaller migs. It had less to do with the F-4 and more to do with the training regiment of pilots in the late 1950's and early 1960's. There was a point where ACM training was completly outlawed. F-4 pilots were taught how to engage incoming Soviet Bombers with in a BVR enviroment, F-105 pilots were taght to deliver nuclear weapons at low-level into Europe. (See a trend) This is why TOPGUN and the USAF Fighetr Weapons School were developed to reteach air combat. There was also a real bad habit of the USAF of taking anyone with wings and rotating them into fighters with minimal transition training. The capablities of an aircraft are important, but the training and the abilities of the pilot are more important. Quote
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted June 27, 2004 Posted June 27, 2004 Superiority is not dictated by hardware alone its the training in affect as well. look what happened when we haed the phantoms and went to veitnam, we had the worlds most advanced fighteraircraft yet we got shotdown by rather primtive in comparison smaller migs. It had less to do with the F-4 and more to do with the training regiment of pilots in the late 1950's and early 1960's. There was a point where ACM training was completly outlawed. F-4 pilots were taught how to engage incoming Soviet Bombers with in a BVR enviroment, F-105 pilots were taght to deliver nuclear weapons at low-level into Europe. (See a trend) This is why TOPGUN and the USAF Fighetr Weapons School were developed to reteach air combat. There was also a real bad habit of the USAF of taking anyone with wings and rotating them into fighters with minimal transition training. The capablities of an aircraft are important, but the training and the abilities of the pilot are more important. i agree but robomatt was trying to make it seem that jsut because we got F-22 and JSF coming, he thinks that air supremacy will be ours, thats why i brouight up the phantom, i was the best at the time bnut it didnt mean we would win/ Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.