Dogfights returns

[Hondo]

No apologies Jake

Spoken like a true fly guy, no apologies, I enjoy details, Thanks :eusa_clap

 

[dhermann1]

Boyd

Just reading the Wikipedia entry on Col. Boyd. To call him a major genius is just the beginning. It seems like every sentient being can learn from this man's thinking. It applies to areas far broader than just war making. Wow.
This reminds me of a great epiphany I had many years ago, when I was in the USMC. I was a computer operator (a marginally competent one, I might add) at Camp Smith, near Honolulu, from 1967 to 69. At our base we had a small camp library. In this little library I became acquainted with the Quartely of the US Army War College. It's the same kind of scholarly quarterly that all major universities publish, except the treatises in it are on military subjects. What a revelation to find out the high intellectual level these papers were written on! My respect for the quality of thought that backs up our military was born then. There are always mistakes and blunders made in real world military decision making, but the quality of the scholarship in these books was unquestionable.

 

[jake431]

Boyd was really a fascinating guy - plenty (PLENTY) of flaws, but truly a modern warrior-philosopher, and a true patriot. Anyway, I quite enjoy the show Dogfights - especially the WW2 and Korean War era stuff, although I do enjoy some of the modern battles as well. I'd love to see some Battle of Britain era episodes and more Pacific stuff too. Gimme Corsairs!


-Jake

 

[Twitch]

Sorry I can't share the admiration for Boyd. Maybe I've known too many actual aces over the years but we'll leave it at that.

Probably the one man most instrumental in getting guns back in fighters was Frederick "Boots" Blesse- 10 kills F-86.

In Vietnam the F-4 lacked a gun but the most obvious cure was a 20mm Vulpod that could be attached at the centerline and other hardpoints under the wings for ground pounding.

Blesse got his guys to rig what amounted to little more than a non-correcting stationary gunsight like WW I. On a sortie a MiG was downed with a missile and another with the gun rig. Blesse sent a letter to the Pentegon detailing the costs of the 2 kills. Missiles cost like $100,000 each and the gun kill was less than $1,000 of taxpayer money.

Somehow someone got the message and the forthcoming F-4E was produceda Vulcan in the nose.

 

[jamespowers]

There were many geniuses - but the driving force behind the removal of guns was (in the Air Force at least) the ranking generals, most of whom were from bombers in WW2 - Strategic Air Command was ascendant in the 1950's, and as the military-industrial complex began ruling the pentagon, the costs, the belief in the wonders of technology soared - and our planes, which wouldn't need guns began showing up. Also you have the multi-purpose planes showing up at this time - the F-111, the F-4. Gone were the purpose built planes of earlier wars. In fact the Pentagon had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, to agree to build three of the most successful fighters ever - the F-15, F-16 and A-10. All three were created to do one thing well - the F-15 and F-16 to be fighters (although the "Fighter Mafia" - Col. Boyd's men, would swear that they attempted to gold brick the F-15 and make it less than it could have been), and the A-10 to be a ground attack airplane (which the Air Force did not want at all - in fact it's tried to retire the plane at least twice, but in both cases war has saved it's "life" - first in Gulf War 1, the second time in Afghanistan). The F-16 and A-10 in particular, have just the technology needed to make them good at their jobs. Hell, the A-10 didn't even have (or need, really) a radar in it's early models. But it could take a ton of damage and carry a ton of ordinance and help the troops below.

Anyone interested in the history of Fighters in the US should read anything they can get their hands on about Col. Boyd. He invented the Energy Maneuverability Theory, which was a revolutionary way to measure the performance of aircraft (still used today by aircraft designers) he was able to prove the superiority of Soviet MiGs then in use in Vietnam, spurring development of the F-15. I won't say more, but if you are curious how a practically unknown Air Force Colonel fighter pilot revolutionized not only fighter design and tactics, but war itself, or how such a man came to have a full Marine honor guard at his funeral (not Air Force, Marine), go read his biography.

Sorry for the detailed answer.

-Jake

Makes sense to me. Politics got in the way of fighting a war the way it should be done. The usual. :eusa_doh:

 

[jake431]

Just reading the Wikipedia entry on Col. Boyd. To call him a major genius is just the beginning. It seems like every sentient being can learn from this man's thinking. It applies to areas far broader than just war making. Wow.
This reminds me of a great epiphany I had many years ago, when I was in the USMC. I was a computer operator (a marginally competent one, I might add) at Camp Smith, near Honolulu, from 1967 to 69. At our base we had a small camp library. In this little library I became acquainted with the Quartely of the US Army War College. It's the same kind of scholarly quarterly that all major universities publish, except the treatises in it are on military subjects. What a revelation to find out the high intellectual level these papers were written on! My respect for the quality of thought that backs up our military was born then. There are always mistakes and blunders made in real world military decision making, but the quality of the scholarship in these books was unquestionable.

Here's a link to a Master's Thesis on Boyd by Major Jeffrey L. Cowan, U.S. Air Force: http://www.d-n-i.net/fcs/boyd_thesis.htm

-Jake

 

[Twitch]

Somewhere about 1944 or even bit earlier in every country the design thrust in combat aircraft was for larger more substantial crates with the ability to perform more than one task.

Every fighter became a fighter-bomber during the war. Some excelled like the P-47. It was big and well made, able to absorb damage and could tote lots ot ordnance. Yet it could get into fighter versus fighter scraps equally well. Dive bombers and and other attack planes never faired well on their own without top cover except on rare occassions.

And by the end of WW II the cost of a new capable fighter had grown along with its technical abilities. Strategic bombers experienced the same growth.

Soon we were set on course as we were in WW II. For the foreseeable decades it would be us in long range bombing, interdiction escort roles lust like WW II. Our enemies developed aircraft tailored to the tasks that they would perform- interception.

Now interceptors don't need complexity, range, or high price tags. They are sent up as threats are in range determined by ground radars. Any that are hit have the luxury of the pilot bailing out in friendly territory. Many Luftwafe aces were shot down dozens of times. Simple, inexpensive fighters can be refueled and rearmed quickly enough to make a second intercept as intruders egress the target area.

This is how it was basically since WW II. We always had more complex, more expensive planes with greater abilities in multiple roles. Instead of 400 mile ranges we had to produce craft with 4,000 mile ranges. Keeping in mind the weakness suffered by attack aircraft fighters were armed with air-to-ground ordnance for use against those targets and could perform pretty well considering little or no modifications were needed to accomplish that.

Specialized attack planes were still produced in the 50-60s but most were never up to their jobs. Their performance mostly was never what it originally was on paper and they would have been beat up good for the most part if left to fend for themselves. But fighters with proven excellent performance could load up with bombs and rockets, ingress to target, unload and then engage interceptors on relatively equal performance terms.

Even so planes like the F-16 which originally had air superiority in mind quicky were modified into other configurations ad infinitum including a 2nd seat! To a lesser extent thankfully the F-15 with bomber designation and fighter designation was the same deal.

Navy- same deal with the FA 18s- several roles, one plane.

Somewhere along the way our million dollar airplanes grew into $50 million planes and they HAD to be multi role cause we could afford to produce only enough to fill a few squadrons. There NEVER was a project since probably the F-86 brought in on budget, on time. So by the time costs ballooned and the required spares were figured in we had these golden airplanes that did have performance but cost like crazy.

We learned in WW II that air superiority over any given terrain of conflict is paramount and in the past few decades have come to predictably stand off and destroy enemy air forces before doing thing 1 on the ground. Due to superior training there are no bad guys who can beat us up air to air.

So now when we unleash ground attack craft like the A-10 it is with total air superiority and they only face return fir from their targets. Given performance relative to our air superiority planes if they had to compete against the enemy in any WW II scenario, they would be dispatched quickly and easily as were Stukas. The A-10 is only as good as the environment completely sterile of enemy aircraft is.

While planes like the Dauntless, Stuka or IL-2 come to mind part of their success is the fact that many, many of them were manufactured and they were shot down in droves. The A-10 force could never suffer similar relative losses without being withdrawn from battle.

And now we are locked into a relative few gazillion dollar crates that are supposed to do the job. Maybe they will, maybe not. That's why I think UCAVs are a good thing. They're cheap compared to piloted ships. They can pull more Gs and there's no hand wringing if one is lost over hostile terrain. Their brains are getting better all the time and in another 10-20 years they can lead aerial assaults with the beam weapons being developed and we can get back to reasonably priced combat vehilces again.

 

[Story]

Good tale from a P-39 pilot

The commanding officer gave Giannini a heading in the direction of Africa, then turned back. When the young pilot hit the African coast, he wasn't exactly sure if he was in friendly territory.

"I saw a strip of concrete," Giannini said. "I didn't know exactly where I was. But I needed that concrete, so I landed."

It turns out the airfield was in Spanish-held Morocco, which was sympathetic to the German cause. When Giannini ran off the end of the short runway into the grass, soldiers ran out and surrounded his plane.

"I flipped the switch for the landing gear as I got out of the cockpit when they took me to the base headquarters," Giannini said. "They sat me down and gave me something to eat and some coffee. But when they tried to push the plane back onto the runway, the landing gear went up and the plane sat right down. The commander came into the room and took my food and coffee away from me."

More a guest than a prisoner, Giannini lived in a hotel for about six months before the Moroccans decided to let him go. He spent time enjoying the restaurants and taverns -- the closest he came to action was when an argument between two men over a woman erupted into a bar fight.

"The one guy threw the other through the plate glass window in front of the building and I knew all hell was going to break loose," Giannini said. I got down on my hands and knees and crawled out through the kitchen."

Eventually, Giannini's captors told him they were going to pay the U.S. government $5 as payment for his plane. Then they sent him on his way.

Complete article and link to his self-published book at
http://www.bnd.com/news/local/story/301965.html