-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Iran seeking Su-30 fighters and Il-78 tankers
- Thread starter HeyJoe
- Start date
While I did not check out your link .... :sleep_125 .... nothing personal you unnerstan' , just a commentary on most links herein ... but "dogfights" ARE "barbaric" to a degree ..... and when you think about it -- they SHOULD BE.
... Why else would they be referred to as "guns and knives" when describing said "dogfight-fight" ...
A4s comments about the F-15, their training, and different philosophy were spot on. I had very similar experiences during that timeframe.
And for anyone who might eagerly underestimate any potential aerial threat, and believe our air supremacy will easily conquer all, should also consider this:
Link
And for anyone who might eagerly underestimate any potential aerial threat, and believe our air supremacy will easily conquer all, should also consider this:
"During the ten years of conflict in Vietnam, the United States lost 2,448 fixed wing aircraft to a third world military whose air force deployed fewer than 200 combat aircraft." (2005 remarks of USAF Gen. Richard Hawley)
Link
I don't agree. We allowed or were forced into an air war that telegraphed almost all of our intentions allowing our adversary to husband his resources. The North Vietnamese borrowed many pages from the WWII AVG over some of the same skies that the Flying Tigers flew. They built (with help from Soviet Union) a superior warning network (like Chennault) allowing them to respond when they chose and where they chose (like the AVG) and typically engaged on their terms from a superior position. The MiG-21 diving attacks on USAF strike groups were very similar to AVG P-40 tactics. We were geared towards the big war over Europe with no holds barred. Over North Vietnam, airfields were off limits as was large area around Hanoi and Haiphong where SAM sites had freedom to operate (until end of conflict).
VPAF aircraft were only responsible for a fraction of those aircraft downed, he doesn't bother to point that out.......
Au contraire, my NFO friend ...
'.... But they (NV) launched 9,000 SAMs and maintained more than 6,000 AAA sites throughout the war
... It was the AAA that proved so lethal, accounting for more than 65% of our combat losses ....'
Vast percentage were due to Triple A. SAMs were a nuisance and a threat and could cause you to descend into worst of AAA as a result of maneuvering. The air-to-air results weren't as expected (based on WWII and Korean stats) initially through bombing halt in 1968 with some exception (Navy F-8 performance was good and in Air Force, Robin Olds turned around the Wolfpack when MiG-21s started interfering and attriting the strike packages through Dec 1966). During the halt, Navy turned the tables around by virtue of TOPGUN influence and attitude and was more than ready to reengage in 1972 when Linebacker kicked off. The Air Force got worse before they started becoming proficent in air-to-air later in 1972, but Navy was way ahead of them (Ritchie and friends were exceptions).
Flathatter13
Banned
Not having been around for the Vietnam conflict I will refrain from comments as I prefer to comment on things that I have seen or at least had a chance to be around rather than read about.
That said, having been around for the two conflicts in the gulf and having personallly been over both Iraq and Afghanistan I can say with confidence that when allowed to operate how we know and allowed to do most of our own target selection and we tend to do alot better than critics usually give us credit for.
Coming from the AF side, I personally think that F15's do a fair job of air superiority (hold on now) at the same time F14's and F18's hold their own just as well. Where I think the 15's tend to do a little better is in the fact that they aren't being forced to do other jobs as well ie dropping bombs, recce, elint, sead, etc...
When you have an aircraft who's only purpose is to go air to air comparing it to another aircraft that is made to be multirole or has been adapted to multirole (F14) I think in the right hands the pure air to air will (should) win everytime.
I agree with A4's comment that there are plenty of AF pilots out there that think line abreast BVR is the best way to win a 1vAnything fight and once they have to do something other than straight and level they get lost. I have known and flown with great pilots both AF and Navy and Marines and I have seen plenty of airline pilots trapped in fighters as well.
Overall I don't think you can say one service or one aircraft is the best or better than another because we have all seen 30+ year old aircraft beat the shiney new ones when in the hands of a "old" pilot that knows how to use is plane.
That said, having been around for the two conflicts in the gulf and having personallly been over both Iraq and Afghanistan I can say with confidence that when allowed to operate how we know and allowed to do most of our own target selection and we tend to do alot better than critics usually give us credit for.
Coming from the AF side, I personally think that F15's do a fair job of air superiority (hold on now) at the same time F14's and F18's hold their own just as well. Where I think the 15's tend to do a little better is in the fact that they aren't being forced to do other jobs as well ie dropping bombs, recce, elint, sead, etc...
When you have an aircraft who's only purpose is to go air to air comparing it to another aircraft that is made to be multirole or has been adapted to multirole (F14) I think in the right hands the pure air to air will (should) win everytime.
I agree with A4's comment that there are plenty of AF pilots out there that think line abreast BVR is the best way to win a 1vAnything fight and once they have to do something other than straight and level they get lost. I have known and flown with great pilots both AF and Navy and Marines and I have seen plenty of airline pilots trapped in fighters as well.
Overall I don't think you can say one service or one aircraft is the best or better than another because we have all seen 30+ year old aircraft beat the shiney new ones when in the hands of a "old" pilot that knows how to use is plane.
And .... :sleep_125 ..... I'll keep this really short as I don't want to "get into it" right now .... but the air-to-air was just fine, overall --- throughout the war. So was the air-to-ground "air" war, the interdiction, the CAS, and the power projection.
The JCS drew up plans to take it to 'em for 60 days and end it. That was in 1964 ....
Whenever we had the opportunity, we killed 'em.
The problem -- a simplistic version, to be sure -- with the earlier VN air-to-air kill ratios was poor tactics, still poorer tactics, the wrong aircraft for the wrong missions, politics, no-fly/no hot-pursuit zones, very poor tactics, more politics, predictable ingress/egress routes to targets, predictable targeting, don't piss off Red China, don't shut down Haiphong, centralized planning & control from 10,000,000,000 miles away, safe-havens for the bad guys .... I'm getting exhausted .... and, of course, more politics.
Plus .... a lack of will. The will to fight and win is what I'm talking about -- in D.C. and the country at large. But there was never a lack of will on the part of the guys "doing it" ....
Drag it out ... piecemeal it ... don't crush the enemy .... incrementalism. That was the game plan. If you want to learn how to lose a war -- do what we did -- or were forced to do -- in Viet Nam. Or do what we're doing in the Middle East today for an updated version of the same 'ol song ...
It's past my bedtime ... warm milk and cookies heals all wounds.
The JCS drew up plans to take it to 'em for 60 days and end it. That was in 1964 ....
Whenever we had the opportunity, we killed 'em.
The problem -- a simplistic version, to be sure -- with the earlier VN air-to-air kill ratios was poor tactics, still poorer tactics, the wrong aircraft for the wrong missions, politics, no-fly/no hot-pursuit zones, very poor tactics, more politics, predictable ingress/egress routes to targets, predictable targeting, don't piss off Red China, don't shut down Haiphong, centralized planning & control from 10,000,000,000 miles away, safe-havens for the bad guys .... I'm getting exhausted .... and, of course, more politics.
Plus .... a lack of will. The will to fight and win is what I'm talking about -- in D.C. and the country at large. But there was never a lack of will on the part of the guys "doing it" ....
Drag it out ... piecemeal it ... don't crush the enemy .... incrementalism. That was the game plan. If you want to learn how to lose a war -- do what we did -- or were forced to do -- in Viet Nam. Or do what we're doing in the Middle East today for an updated version of the same 'ol song ...
It's past my bedtime ... warm milk and cookies heals all wounds.
What??? No limes??? or at least a shot or two of Kahlua in your milk???
I think indirectly, he did point it out by mentioning the 6,000 AAA sites that "accounted for more than 65% of our combat losses," and 9,000 SAMs. [ I see as I send this, A4s has kindly already mentioned this.
)Nevertheless, our kill ratio in the early years was atrocious against the very limited VPAF; which led to the Ault report and subsequently, the establishment of TOPGUN - the effects of which were immediate and well documented, and lasted for decades.
Still, the air-to-air war was mostly a side-story. For years, the North was off limits; and the MiGs never ventured South. CAS was the name of the game. And when the North finally did open up again, we still had immediate air-superiority… but with even larger losses. The MiG's were mostly harassment rather than a factor - although they bagged some good men. The major losses – and they were heavy - came from primarily AAA. And at the very end of the war, during Linebacker II, while Mig's downed two only AF F-4's then, it was SAMs (old, antiquated SA-2's) that downed 15 B-52's along with a number of other AF and Navy tacair.
Training, usually by necessity, concentrates upon a single type of threat and canned tactics in a sterile, simulated environment. This tends to give one tunnel vision. But actual war is multi-faceted, replete with many changing, dynamic threats and always some big - no, make that huge - surprises. You can never really know what you will face, until you actually face it in enemy skies. Then reassess, and quickly readjust - because the enemy will too.
Not to quibble with HJ, but Hanoi's skies, as bad as they were, may have very much been preferable than the "Estonia mentioned." At least Hanoi's heavy and concentrated defenses had less-than-state-of-the-art, Russia hand-me-downs.
(also, SAM sites were indeed legit targets for us, and desirable; it was the pervasive, red-boxed no-bomb-zones where Jane Fonda's entourage was on that particular day where we couln't bomb.)
Not to quibble with HJ, but Hanoi's skies, as bad as they were, may have very much been preferable than the "Estonia mentioned." At least Hanoi's heavy and concentrated defenses had less-than-state-of-the-art, Russia hand-me-downs.
Nothing to quibble over....I agree. Anytime we got near the Kola Peninsula and even planned strikes, nobody was keen on seeing the balloon go up. What I didn't agree with was comparing results of Vietnam to a Soviet encounter as one case had so many restrictions that did not give a true comparison whereas the other would be more evenly matched.
Back to thread, more reporting on the Su-30 buy rumor
Okay, okay you got me. That is what I get for being lazy and just skimming the link.........
.....and for not expecting a bunch of old farts to jump all over me........