Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

F-35, dogfighting, etc.


  • Please log in to reply
6 replies to this topic

#1 Squeaky

Squeaky

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 177 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Texas

Posted 14 January 2018 - 03:27 AM

First, I hope it's ok to start a new thread.

 

I'd just like to add my two cents worth about the F-35/modern ACM environment debate as a life-long aviation nut, the son of a Marine jet & helicopter pilot, and (for what it's worth) the grandson of a Battle of Midway B-17 pilot & Pearl Harbor survivor. However, I am not a military pilot or defense sector worker so please pardon me if I sound totally ignorant. I just have a good eye for big picture stuff, and a sense for history. I'm sort of on the outside looking in.

 

The issue with regards to the Air Force seems to be cultural - not technical. It seems like the Air Force has been trying to prove itself ever since it's birth as an independent branch of the military. That might be wrong, but a habit I've noticed is for the Air Force to always want the most complicated plane possible. Perhaps this is because W.W.II demonstrated the vital importance technology. 

 

The Air Force seems to not like to adhere to the K.I.S.S. principle. Thus, the grudge against the A-10. I remember some bean counters wanting to get rid of the A-10 sometime around 1989 - 90 without a suitable replacement. Just give its missions to the F-16. I thought "bad idea." Thank God that didn't happen because Desert Storm came and the A-10 really shined. A less sophisticated airplane excelled at helping to win a war. It still shines.

 

Douglas's designer Ed Heinemann adhered to the K.I.S.S. principal and produced great aircraft for the Navy like the SBD Dauntless, the A-1 Skyraider, and the A-4 Skyhawk - less relatively sophisticated planes during their respective time periods. All excelled with (as far as I know) high reliability rates, wonderful performance, and an ability to take damage. I'm not saying we should revert to 1950s/60s technology. I just think the Air Force would be served well if it tried to keep things as simple as possible. The simple Dauntless sank Japanese carriers which my Grandpa's more sophisticated B-17s (with the vaunted Norden bomb sight) completely missed.  

 

To be fair though, I submit what an F4U Corsair veteran and test pilot for the A-37/T-37 program once told me: "What makes an airplane fly? Money."  

 

So ... financial constraints force the military services to still try to make a tactical plane be a jack-of-all-trades. It seems only increases in the military budget will allow for more mission specific designs like the A-10. My Dad flew the F-4 Phantom - an obviously famous multi-role jet. He said it was excellent at what it was originally designed to do: point defense interception. You had to force it to be a dogfighter or attack bird. He also seemed to allude to it's sophistication by saying he never flew a full systems F-4. There was always a squawk of some sort with it's avionics/radar system. He also flew the TA-4F Skyhawk a lot. By comparison, it was trouble free. 

 

I just hope newer jets like the F-22 and the F-35 don't become the "Tiger Tanks" of the modern ACM environment. It just seems like planes that adhere to the K.I.S.S. principle are more reliable & successful.

 

Do you really need a Surgeon rifle with a Night Force scope ($$$) to shoot that trophy buck, or will a .30-30 do the job? I propose that for attack missions the .30-30 will do just fine. For air superiority, however, you do need the Surgeon rifle. Trouble can come when one mixes the two. Keep a S.E.A.D. /Wild Weasel capability in specialized aircraft. You want a plane to really excel in that role. 

 

I suggest, however, that we continue developing U.C.A.V.s to fulfill the attack and fighter roles so you don't need manned tactical aircraft anymore (or not as many). I also suggest that somehow we develop weapons that can be dropped by satellites onto certain types of targets so we don't need attack planes or drones. Use G.P.S. and miniature M.I.R.V.s.

 

I sincerely hope my points are valid. Again ... I'm just a layman.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


  • Spacehog likes this

#2 Machinist

Machinist

    Amazing Old Man

  • Contributor
  • PipPip
  • 249 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 14 January 2018 - 08:22 AM

Squeaky, very thoughtful and thought provoking points you provided.
Thanks for all the service your family give to our great country through the generations!

#3 Capt Nemo

Capt Nemo

    Citizen

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,675 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oshkosh, WI

Posted 15 January 2018 - 08:11 PM

The more boots on the ground or in the sky is what makes the real difference.



#4 Rhodes1968

Rhodes1968

    Top Member

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,725 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:North Idaho

Posted 16 January 2018 - 10:31 AM

Basically everything you mentioned applies to the entire military in toto. 

When it comes to KISS nobody in government in any fashion follows that path, just more obvious when dealing with billion dollar airplane platforms.

As for the "Tiger Tank" comparison, if given the choice I would rather button down in that than a damned Sherman which happened to be REAL simple.

 

Nothing is easy or simple when you get down to it, all we know for sure is government does not work... :)


Had the Japanese got as far as India, Gandhi's theories of "passive resistance" would have floated down the Ganges River with his bayoneted, beheaded carcass. -- Mike Vanderboegh.

#5 Squeaky

Squeaky

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 177 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Texas

Posted Yesterday, 05:27 PM

I guess what I'm saying is I hope today's technology gets applied in the simplest manner possible in order to ensure reliability. As for actual combat, you don't want a fighter pilot to experience information overload, or failing missiles, or jamming guns.  

 

With regards to equipment & performance, I'm mindful of how "high-tech" American jets could get shot down by simpler MiGs and their cannons - and they did.

 

The theory of missile engagements sounded great in the 1950s & 60s, but missile technology was immature. I just hope we're not repeating the same kind of mistake by thinking advanced avionics, today's missiles, and AWACS will once again preclude the need for a true dogfight capability in our planes and pilots.

 

I can see an unwary F-22 or F-35 pilot getting blasted out the sky by cannon fire. You can't jam a bullet. However, I'm all for giving our pilots the ability to "reach out and touch someone" from a farther distance than a bad guy can because maneuverability does no good if you're spinning about the same spot in the sky. In that case, you're just a high-G target.



#6 Capt Nemo

Capt Nemo

    Citizen

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,675 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oshkosh, WI

Posted Yesterday, 07:04 PM

The biggest problem is numbers.  We've been cutting down on the numbers but advancing the tech.  Sooner or later, you reach a point where there's more targets than your aircraft can overcome...Then you're toast!  We need a system that's inexpensive to field large numbers of.  The other problem is pilots.  We have a serious problem there as, most kids coming out of high school are 4F.  We need to boot shoot a heck of a lot of those snowflake professors and teachers, and start teaching the things that really matter.

 

I'm all for "service for citizenship!"



#7 Squeaky

Squeaky

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 177 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Texas

Posted Yesterday, 07:10 PM

Roger that Nemo!






1 user(s) are reading this topic

1 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


    jerry52