- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Air to Air combat
Posted on 4/14/17 at 2:00 pm to choupiquesushi
Posted on 4/14/17 at 2:00 pm to choupiquesushi
The most basic proficiency of any F-15, F-16, F-22, and F-35 pilot is air-to-air. They get thousands of hours of training over the course of their career. Way more than any other advanced nation. So while we haven't had a "real" one in a while, they're very prepared. I can't speak for the Navy, but I worked with a few Hornets/Super Hornets and they were very good, albeit with a slightly different mindset and a language all their own (AFTTP 3-1 vs ALSA if my memory serves).
I still love the Viper. The multi-role capability is tremendous. Give them a good controller (or a set of Raptors with an AESA radar in the AOR) and they're formidable against any other nation's fighters.
The Eagle is the Air Superiority fighter. Well, the -C model is. All it does is air-to-air. All the avionics advancements make it a great platform. The Strike Eagle, in my experience, was a good platform, too, but the pilots generally struggled in air-to-air engagements. Understandable. They train for nap-of-the-Earth tactical strikes.
The Raptor is the monster in the sky. It is an Air Dominance fighter. Can't pick it up on radar. How do you fight invisible? That radar is a beast, plus it can share info to other platforms. I know Eagles and Raptors train regularly together in joint missions where they share air and ground information digitally to assign targeting responsibilities. Raptor is practically a mini E-3 out there. A lot of the initial Raptor pilots were former F-15C guys/gals, so they know their air-to-air tactics.
Countermeasures are what some countries, particularly China, are going towards to combat our technological might. It's far cheaper to build countermeasures than develop a counter-platform with the necessary avionics and pilot training required to proficiency fly it. Good news is we regularly trained against those emerging ECM technologies. I remember old DRFM jammers that were a PITA to deal with when we were first training against them. Nellis has (had) professional aggressor squadrons that simulate known potential enemy platforms to expedite training (flying as various MiGs and Su- models for instance).
As for the North Korea discussion, we'd wax their army in a matter of days. NK's threat is lobbing a shitload of artillery into Seoul for the mass casualty shock and urban terrorism. Their standing army would fall easily, but the terrorism would go on for a while. Another big concern is just how brainwashed their people may be. Will they be homicidal? Will they be suicidal? Will they be so brainwashed they start packing their children's clothes with explosives? But as a matter of might vs might, NK's conventional military would crumble and we'd find Fat Boy Kim hiding in a Krispy Kreme somewhere.
NK's "best" platform are shitty MiGs with limited range, loadout, and training. Even their MiG-29s are woefully antiquated. It's not like they do any SLEP on those platforms. Basically A models. Their pilots might get 10 hours of training a year in the air. You could be stationed at Osan/Kunsan with access to the ROK's radar surveillance sites for a year and never see a DPRK fighter flying around up there. When they do, it's a big deal because it's so rare.
I still love the Viper. The multi-role capability is tremendous. Give them a good controller (or a set of Raptors with an AESA radar in the AOR) and they're formidable against any other nation's fighters.
The Eagle is the Air Superiority fighter. Well, the -C model is. All it does is air-to-air. All the avionics advancements make it a great platform. The Strike Eagle, in my experience, was a good platform, too, but the pilots generally struggled in air-to-air engagements. Understandable. They train for nap-of-the-Earth tactical strikes.
The Raptor is the monster in the sky. It is an Air Dominance fighter. Can't pick it up on radar. How do you fight invisible? That radar is a beast, plus it can share info to other platforms. I know Eagles and Raptors train regularly together in joint missions where they share air and ground information digitally to assign targeting responsibilities. Raptor is practically a mini E-3 out there. A lot of the initial Raptor pilots were former F-15C guys/gals, so they know their air-to-air tactics.
Countermeasures are what some countries, particularly China, are going towards to combat our technological might. It's far cheaper to build countermeasures than develop a counter-platform with the necessary avionics and pilot training required to proficiency fly it. Good news is we regularly trained against those emerging ECM technologies. I remember old DRFM jammers that were a PITA to deal with when we were first training against them. Nellis has (had) professional aggressor squadrons that simulate known potential enemy platforms to expedite training (flying as various MiGs and Su- models for instance).
As for the North Korea discussion, we'd wax their army in a matter of days. NK's threat is lobbing a shitload of artillery into Seoul for the mass casualty shock and urban terrorism. Their standing army would fall easily, but the terrorism would go on for a while. Another big concern is just how brainwashed their people may be. Will they be homicidal? Will they be suicidal? Will they be so brainwashed they start packing their children's clothes with explosives? But as a matter of might vs might, NK's conventional military would crumble and we'd find Fat Boy Kim hiding in a Krispy Kreme somewhere.
NK's "best" platform are shitty MiGs with limited range, loadout, and training. Even their MiG-29s are woefully antiquated. It's not like they do any SLEP on those platforms. Basically A models. Their pilots might get 10 hours of training a year in the air. You could be stationed at Osan/Kunsan with access to the ROK's radar surveillance sites for a year and never see a DPRK fighter flying around up there. When they do, it's a big deal because it's so rare.
This post was edited on 4/14/17 at 2:02 pm
0
Posted on 4/14/17 at 2:02 pm to TigerstuckinMS
quote:
You fricking kidding me? The average OTer is 7 feet tall with a ten inch dick and flies an F-22 that's custom designed for their size
I don't fly a damn thing. But I did command one of these....
Posted on 4/14/17 at 2:03 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
Exactly. That's the precise reason why just as our fighters need to be able to engage targets "over the horizon", they also need to be able to engage in point blank dogfighting as well.
I'm not saying we don't need the most advanced targeting and radar system. I'm saying we need those AND the ability to dogfight as well.
You're saying that they can't though. How do you know that they can't?
quote:
during the service life of all these aircraft, how many air wars did they have to fight against an enemy with an air force willing or able to fight?
Hint: It's less than 1.
That's the point. And it's why the 35 is basically a flying sensor package that can carry some munitions. There's little chance of ever getting into a direct fight with an air force that's more than just junk.
IF the US ever has to go to war with a country with a competent air force I guarantee you there won't be enough time for any individual aircraft to be involved in a dogfight in any engagement. Everyone is going to be dumping their missiles and running.
quote:
Again. You're making the same mistakes the generals and admirals of the mid-60's made. They saw that technology had advanced that allowed aircraft to engage other aircraft with air-to-air missiles at ranges no gun could ever hope to match. What they failed to take into account is that just as technology allowed planes to do this, other technology would also be developed to counter this technology. And when our fighters encountered this in the sky's over Vietnam, they were at a huge disadvantage.
The myth that the F-4 wasn't a good fighter because it lacked a gun is a myth. After the Navy started developing tactics and switched to the AIM-9G they were much better in air combat. So much better that the NVA warned their pilots not to engage with "gray phantoms"
The AF didn't have a program like TOPGUN but their kill ratio still improved due to experience. A lot of the kills in Vietnam were still due to missiles and not gun kills. The ROE for all branches were very strict and really restricted the US's ability to engage BVR.
This argument against the F-22 and F-35 still doesn't make sense though because our pilots are taught how to dogfight whereas the AF had actually abandoned it to some degrees before Vietnam.
quote:
And yes, I fully understand the fighters of today are so far advanced from then it's not funny. But that doesn't mean this technology won't be countered. Because as history has proven since the days of antiquity is that every single military leap forward is answered eventually by another leap. Thus, as I said before, you can find a counter to the most advanced targeting and radar systems to make them ineffective. But you can't stop a 20mm round that's on it's way.
You can stop a 20mm round if your enemy can't see you. Stealth works. The Russians would have to actively target 35s or 22s with their radar and give away their position to see them BVR. They're going to be shot at far before the 22s or 35s ever have to worry about being shot back. Not only that, the 35s can act as forward scouts and coordinate attacks without ever having to be seen. The only thing that can stop this style of air combat is to have AWACS or a radar station assisting with the enemy and that ends up being a massive target.
There simply is no easy counter for stealth right now and if the 22s and 35s get into dogfights they'll have to use cannons. I'm not betting on them ever having to do that, though, because of how advanced they are. Even if the enemy has great countermeasures they're not going to be able to stop every missile. If I'm the DoD, I'm not changing my aircraft design just in case the enemy is stupid enough to charge into a dogfight with my fighters.
Posted on 4/14/17 at 2:04 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
But I did command one of these
Don't get me wrong. I fricking love the Abrams, but the pilots DO call those "targets", Darth...
This post was edited on 4/14/17 at 2:05 pm
Posted on 4/14/17 at 2:05 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
Where did I ever say scrap BVR tech? You've totally misunderstood me. I never said scrap it. All I said was it was foolish to scrap the idea of having the need to be able to dogfight. Of course we need the latest and greatest tech when it comes to BVR capability. But along with that, we need to be able to dogfight if and when that BVR stuff doesn't work like it's suppose to.
You're the one saying that 22 and 35 pilots don't know how to dogfight.
Posted on 4/14/17 at 2:05 pm to rmnldr
quote:
You're the one saying that 22 and 35 pilots don't know how to dogfight
Where did I say that?
ETA: I never said our pilots can't dogfight. Some guy named Prime Time Money said this....
quote:
For the most part it's obsolete. That's why the F-35 isn't a great dog fighter. They didn't need it to be
And I said it would be a mistake to have a fighter than can't dog fight. But I never said our pilots can't dogfight. Where you got that idea is beyond me.
This post was edited on 4/14/17 at 2:08 pm
Posted on 4/14/17 at 2:11 pm to rmnldr
quote:
The AF didn't have a program like TOPGUN but their kill ratio still improved due to experience.
Yep. That's why they established the USAF Fighter Weapons School. Now it's just USAF Weapons School and encompasses a wide range of AF platforms. Everything from fighters to big fat kids like E-3, JSTARS, Compass Call, and even tankers. Also added various enlisted controllers like the snake eater TACPs
I went to both Top Gun and USAFWS courses as a controller. No offense to my Navy brothers and sisters, but USAFWS was a monster. Six months of intense training. Find any AF "patch wearer" and ask them
I'm not the least bit concerned about the capabilities of the AF in an air-to-air war. I'm far more concerned with the politicians and general public's gumption to help support it properly and see the objective through to its conclusion.
This post was edited on 4/14/17 at 2:13 pm
Posted on 4/14/17 at 2:13 pm to Tyga Woods
quote:
I never really hear anything about "Top Gun"-type fighting
RIP Goose-
Posted on 4/14/17 at 2:19 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
I never said our pilots can't dogfight. Some guy named Prime Time Money said this....
quote:
For the most part it's obsolete. That's why the F-35 isn't a great dog fighter. They didn't need it to be
And I said it would be a mistake to have a fighter than can't dog fight. But I never said our pilots can't dogfight. Where you got that idea is beyond me.
Directly from your post:
quote:
The Air Force and Navy made that same mistake in the mid-60s. The result was the F4 Phantom which didn't even have a gun on it initially. Worse yet, our pilots were not trained to dog fight because it was deemed "obsolete". They reasoned all a fighter aircraft had to do now was get radar lock and launch air-to-air missiles.
Only when our pilots started getting their asses handed to them in the skies over Vietnam by communist Mig 21s did they realize how big of a mistake they'd made. The result was the Navy established their "Top Gun" school and the Air Force hastily reinstituted dog fight training.
quote:
The Air Force and Navy made that same mistake in the mid-60s.
quote:
our pilots were not trained to dog fight because it was deemed "obsolete". They reasoned all a fighter aircraft had to do now was get radar lock and launch air-to-air missiles.
So you're saying here that we're currently doing what we did in the 1960s. Thich includes you saying that our pilots don't know how to dogfight.
If you're not saying that, it's cool, but don't act like you didn't say our guys can't dogfight nowadays.
Posted on 4/14/17 at 2:24 pm to Tyga Woods
"You're cashing checks your body can't cash"
Posted on 4/14/17 at 2:27 pm to Reservoir dawg
Posted on 4/14/17 at 2:29 pm to rmnldr
Good lord. You're siting here trying to tell me what I said when I'm telling you misunderstood me? Are you so incapable of admitting you may have misread someone's words that you actually think you know better what they were saying than they were?
I never said diddly-shite about what our pilots can or cannot do nowadays. I only said what mistakes were made in the past, namely producing fighters that cannot dogfight and training pilots who lacked dogfighting skills. That was in the 1960's. Not now.
I'm fully aware both the Air Force and Navy operate schools where pilots are taught dogfighting tactics. You even quoted the sentence where I said this....
My whole point was that it would be a mistake to think dogfighting will ever be obsolete. I never said we had stopped training our pilots to do it.
And speaking of stopping, you need to stop trying to tell me you know better what I was saying that I do when I'm the one who said it. Instead of trying (as usual unsuccessfully BTW) to try and score a gotcha on me, how about you take time to read and think before jumping to conclusions.
I never said diddly-shite about what our pilots can or cannot do nowadays. I only said what mistakes were made in the past, namely producing fighters that cannot dogfight and training pilots who lacked dogfighting skills. That was in the 1960's. Not now.
I'm fully aware both the Air Force and Navy operate schools where pilots are taught dogfighting tactics. You even quoted the sentence where I said this....
quote:
The result was the Navy established their "Top Gun" school and the Air Force hastily reinstituted dog fight training.
My whole point was that it would be a mistake to think dogfighting will ever be obsolete. I never said we had stopped training our pilots to do it.
And speaking of stopping, you need to stop trying to tell me you know better what I was saying that I do when I'm the one who said it. Instead of trying (as usual unsuccessfully BTW) to try and score a gotcha on me, how about you take time to read and think before jumping to conclusions.
This post was edited on 4/14/17 at 2:31 pm
Posted on 4/14/17 at 2:36 pm to Tyga Woods
Immediately following "shock and awe" there were at least 7 air to air kills in Iraq. USAF F-15's downed to enemy migs the first day. USN F-18's shot down 5 the second day. As far as I know, there were no other Iraqi fighters that faced off with us. With good reason.
Posted on 4/14/17 at 2:38 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
Good lord. You're siting here trying to tell me what I said when I'm telling you misunderstood me? Are you so incapable of admitting you may have misread someone's words that you actually think you know better what they were saying than they were?
calm down quote:
I never said diddly-shite about what our pilots can or cannot do nowadays. I only said what mistakes were made in the past, namely producing fighters that cannot dogfight and training pilots who lacked dogfighting skills. That was in the 1960's. Not now.
Alright. Cool.
quote:
My whole point was that it would be a mistake to think dogfighting will ever be obsolete. I never said we had stopped training our pilots to do it.
Okay. I figured you were comparing doctrinal mistakes of the past to what was happening now. It's possible for people to not know exactly what you're talking about.
quote:
And speaking of stopping, you need to stop trying to tell me you know better what I was saying that I do when I'm the one who said it. Instead of trying (as usual unsuccessfully BTW) to try and score a gotcha on me, how about you take time to read and think before jumping to conclusions.
Chill the frick out dude. You're the one that compared our modern air combat doctrine to the 1960s and I argued that it's not what we're doing at all and why. If that's not what you're saying then say it isn't instead of arguing and getting your panties in a wad. No one is here to embarrass you or try to make you look stupid. Drop your guard.
Posted on 4/14/17 at 3:01 pm to USAFLSUTIGER
quote:
Immediately following "shock and awe" there were at least 7 air to air kills in Iraq. USAF F-15's downed to enemy migs the first day. USN F-18's shot down 5 the second day. As far as I know, there were no other Iraqi fighters that faced off with us. With good reason.
you sure about that..... I was under the impression Iraq's jets stayed pretty much on the ground in round 2?
Posted on 4/14/17 at 3:10 pm to Reservoir dawg
Dude
His ego wrote checks his body couldn't cash
His ego wrote checks his body couldn't cash
Posted on 4/14/17 at 4:13 pm to Ronaldo Burgundiaz
quote:A guy on my team is an ex-Navy pilot. He told me that when you can see your opponent, they call the engagement a "knife fight".
Today they would never even see the enemy fighters.
Posted on 4/14/17 at 4:44 pm to Tyga Woods
Comes close when planes cross into airspace they shouldn't. There was audio of some near action a few years back. I'll try to find it.
Posted on 4/15/17 at 12:14 am to choupiquesushi
This information was presented as part of a lesson while I was in squadron officer school. I assumed the instructor was factual, but I can't claim 100% certainty. You're right, the Iraqis stayed out of the air for the most part.
Posted on 4/15/17 at 10:32 am to USAFLSUTIGER
quote:
the Iraqis stayed out of the air for the most part.
friend of mine was flying a barcap in an eagle early on in the first gulf war, most of the Iraqi fighter activity was trying to get the jets out of Iraq and into Iran, he saw a MiG takeoff, followed by a second, the second jet shot down the first departure, they're going , WTF, over? then quickly ruled that the penalty for shooting down your buddy's jet is death, so they lit his arse up with the quickness
Page 5 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News