Fight's On! The origins of TOPGUN and dogfights back in the day/future prospects

[Brett327]

my 02

victory in Iraq = squelch the insurgency...provide a safe atmosphere/environment for the Iraqi economy to grow, followed by or in step with a solid political infrastructure, and continue to grow Iraqi military/police forces until they can actually fully handle the country on their own. THEN begin to withdraw.

How? we need half a million troops over there NOW. may seem drastic, but in the long run will save time/lives/cash. Let's get r dun.

lets see where this lands me...

Well, we all know THAT isn't going to happen.

Brett

 

[A4sForever]

So, what does it take, sir? I assume you are talking about a draft? ....

[slight course correction]
I wasn't going there in this thread --- a draft --- mine was just a criticism of an overreliance on technology in a low-tech, low-intensity world war; you know: a war that will be going on for a long, long time ... 'cause those bad rag-guys hang around like flies. Barbary Wars, anyone? Crusades, anyone ??

This will not be a GULF 1 drive-by shooting ... like everyone is used to these days. Weekend wars are not ... well, wars.

But you DO bring up the point that you can't fight a protacted war with an all-volunteer military force. It can't be done, even though the "smart guys" (the modern day equivalent of the "best & the brightest"??) have been denying the obvious for ... what?? ... decades, now. *sigh* ... the more things change ....

The only thing that's REALLY grown since the end of the US military draft has been the "tail" of the beast and the military bureaucracy. Do you realize that we now have more admirals and general officers on active duty than we had during the peak of WW2 (not a weekend war, by the way) when the U.S. topped out at something like 14 million men under arms ( that's 14,000,000) .....

... GREETINGS from UNCLE ....

[/course correction]

 

[thull]

Well, we all know THAT isn't going to happen.

Brett

True. although, I don't see any other very convincing alternatives.. but i'm aware the American public will most likely not buy into a much heavier (albeit shorter-term) investment in Iraq as the answer. Unfortunate, because as tired as everyone is of this, it'll only drag out for god knows how long, and we need to just finish what we started and be done with it. Perhaps this is a bit off topic of the original thread-start, but this is still tied in to the discussion on the "definition of victory" and the "will to succeed" ideas. I agree with A4s, this really is a question of America's "will to succeed." The problem is that we don't have a clear cut picture of what the ramifications of "failure" would actually be for the US. we toss around ideas of "breeding ground for terrorism," or an "unstable middle east" but we haven't even experienced a real terrorist attack on our soil since 2001.

ok, starting to drift here. over nout.

 

[TrueAce]

I'm a total newb but I would think a lot depends on the aircraft? Although there could be a lot more information to process today, weren't our enemies on a more level playing field in air to air combat during WWII? That would make it tougher IMO to fight during that time. I've always wondered what enemy Air Force if any, has aircraft that can realistically challenge and possibly defeat the F-22?

 

[Zilch]

I've always wondered what enemy Air Force if any, has aircraft that can realistically challenge and possibly defeat the F-22?

I'm no expert on this, but the Eurofighter looks pretty snazzy, as does (and this pains me) the French Rafale. Don't forget the nasty thrust-vectoring Su-37, either, even though it's not a production craft...

I'm sure others here can elaborate on this a hell of a lot more than I can. From what I can gather, though, it's never really been the case of "My F-22 beats your Su-27" automatically merely because it's a much fancier ride. There seem to be a lot more factors than just who has the better air superiority fighter. Training, maintainance, logistics, etc.

For example, on paper the Zero appears to be superior to the Wildcat in pretty much every way. Faster, more agile, and so on. But, tactics were developed that played the F4F's strengths against the Zero's weaknesses, so four or so Wildcats could hold off a larger number of Zeros using team-based techniques.

The F-22 is looks like a sweet fvcking ride, to me. But, I don't think there is such thing as an un-crackable egg. I seem to remember a photo of an F-22 square in the gunsight of a Super Hornet on this forum somewhere...*

*Opinions of pre-OCS candidates are based only on information available to average joes, and therefore may be enitrely incorrect. Anyone with more knowledge than me in these respects, please correct.

 

[Zilch]

Yeah, 'tis what I figured. I guess we'll have to get to our respective schools to learn all the cool stuff.

 

[TurnandBurn55]

But, I don't think there is such thing as an un-crackable egg. I seem to remember a photo of an F-22 square in the gunsight of a Super Hornet on this forum somewhere...*

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/attachment.php?attachmentid=119834&stc=1&thumb=1

It never gets old

And that was just the one that made it to the internet.

The weakest link in any plane is always the aircrew. There's nothing magical about the F(not A)-22... it doesn't have a forcefield around it. If you can sh!t the pilot's SA, your don't need any fancy gadgets to shoot it down.

Remember than the umpteen-million dollar F-117 found itself shot down by a Vietnam-era SA-3.

Our fights are going to be over other people's soil, and the advantage of the defender is not to be underestimated if they have developed techniques to surprise us.

 

[A4sForever]

.....The weakest link in any plane is always the aircrew. ......

Or ... the stongest link in any plane is ALWAYS the aircrew.

In the end ... it's ALWAYS the man ... not the machine.

How many times ... *sigh* ..... have I said this ....

 

[TrueAce]

I'm no expert on this, but the Eurofighter looks pretty snazzy, as does (and this pains me) the French Rafale. Don't forget the nasty thrust-vectoring Su-37, either, even though it's not a production craft...

I'm sure others here can elaborate on this a hell of a lot more than I can. From what I can gather, though, it's never really been the case of "My F-22 beats your Su-27" automatically merely because it's a much fancier ride. There seem to be a lot more factors than just who has the better air superiority fighter. Training, maintainance, logistics, etc.

For example, on paper the Zero appears to be superior to the Wildcat in pretty much every way. Faster, more agile, and so on. But, tactics were developed that played the F4F's strengths against the Zero's weaknesses, so four or so Wildcats could hold off a larger number of Zeros using team-based techniques.

The F-22 is looks like a sweet fvcking ride, to me. But, I don't think there is such thing as an un-crackable egg. I seem to remember a photo of an F-22 square in the gunsight of a Super Hornet on this forum somewhere...*

*Opinions of pre-OCS candidates are based only on information available to average joes, and therefore may be enitrely incorrect. Anyone with more knowledge than me in these respects, please correct.

ya I figured some of our allies have some great jets but I'm talking about enemies. For example is China hiding something that could challenge the F-22 granted they have good enough pilots/AWACS etc? I agree in the end it comes down to the pilot but going back to what I was originally wondering, does our tech give us an advantage today against enemies in the air as opposed to the WWII dogfights.

 

[TurnandBurn55]

ya I figured some of our allies have some great jets but I'm talking about enemies. For example is China hiding something that could challenge the F-22 granted they have good enough pilots/AWACS etc? I agree in the end it comes down to the pilot but going back to what I was originally wondering, does our tech give us an advantage today against enemies in the air as opposed to the WWII dogfights.

Asked and answered...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chengdu_J-10

And, again... it doesn't matter THAT much what your plane's capability is. If you can find a way to get close (defending your own territory, it's not as hard as you think), you can get missiles into them.

If you're flying escort into enemy territory, SA is at an absolute premium. All the speed and stealth and missiles in the world can't save you if you can't figure out wtf is going on.

 

[TrueAce]

Asked and answered...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chengdu_J-10

And, again... it doesn't matter THAT much what your plane's capability is. If you can find a way to get close (defending your own territory, it's not as hard as you think), you can get missiles into them.

If you're flying escort into enemy territory, SA is at an absolute premium. All the speed and stealth and missiles in the world can't save you if you can't figure out wtf is going on.

Ok so could a salty verteran F-15 pilot defeat a new fully trained F-22 pilot on a regular basis? Hopefully this isn't a ridiculous question, but like I said I'm new to the whole process of becoming an aviator and just curious about things like this.

 

[Brett327]

Ok so could a salty verteran F-15 pilot defeat a new fully trained F-22 pilot on a regular basis? Hopefully this isn't a ridiculous question, but like I said I'm new to the whole process of becoming an aviator and just curious about things like this.

It is, and hypotheticals are mostly worthless...mostly (that's for you, Fly ). It's kind of like the saying about football - "Any given Sunday..."

Brett

 

[Fly Navy]

It is, and hypotheticals are mostly worthless...mostly (that's for you, Fly ). It's kind of like the saying about football - "Any given Sunday..."

Brett

Aliens reference?

 

[Brett327]

Aliens reference?

You're sharp, my friend.

Brett

 

[Fly Navy]

You're sharp, my friend.

Brett

Someone of my talent is rare