-
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
FRS's and Possible Duty Stations
- Thread starter D_mac05
- Start date
- Status
Box scores
Last A/A heaters were F-16s eating up Galebs over Bosnia as I recall (one guy got 3 kills). Last Navy action (success) was F-14 with heater against helo in Desert Storm and 2 Hornets getting a pair of MiG-21s with Sparrows and Heater fired. F-15s game up gig overall, but had ATO on their side to give them just the right CAP loactions and ROE.
Guns were used over Afghanistan in strafing role more than once when all other weapons were expended.
For public domain box scores, check out this site (don't forget to come back to AW because this site is chockful of data including listing of 100+ Tomcat kills over Iraqis in decade of their slugfest): http://www.acig.org/
Brett327 said:
Last A/A heaters were F-16s eating up Galebs over Bosnia as I recall (one guy got 3 kills). Last Navy action (success) was F-14 with heater against helo in Desert Storm and 2 Hornets getting a pair of MiG-21s with Sparrows and Heater fired. F-15s game up gig overall, but had ATO on their side to give them just the right CAP loactions and ROE.
Guns were used over Afghanistan in strafing role more than once when all other weapons were expended.
For public domain box scores, check out this site (don't forget to come back to AW because this site is chockful of data including listing of 100+ Tomcat kills over Iraqis in decade of their slugfest): http://www.acig.org/
TurnandBurn55 said:
Phase array radar? I can't even get an APG-73. Any strike-fighter guy in a CVW will tell you (as they continue to tell me) the importance of BFM. No, we haven't had much of an air to air tally sheet since Vietnam. I'm not going to preach the threats out there and what they are . . we can all look that up. I will tell you out at sea, there are no airforce "fighters" and no AWACS and limited other capabilities that are used for PHID. BFM, being a perishable skill is how nearly all the BVR sets end up. Maybe that's not a perspective that you have in a double anchor world--I don't know. I do know that a Top Gun graduate that hasn't flown BFM in 90 days will probably get beat in one out of four sets against something like an F-5. It happens when we don't practice.
To BFM or not BFM
This has nothing to do with with whether you wear two anchors. There is a basic disagreement on this matter between the single anchor community. Out of Desert Storm, USAF was still preaching Air Superiority as number one priority (justifying the high end F-22 solution) and citing that as biggest lesson learned over Iraq. meanwhile, Navy came away with improving strike capability (precision and all weather) as their top priority. I sat in meeting with our aviation godfather (a single anchor legacy single seat attack type) who said exctly that and soon after all of our active duty Adversary squadrons (VF-45, VFA-127, VF-126, VF-43) were put on the chopping block and even Topgun was being looked at as passe. BTW, the only reason any capability was left (reserves in Adversary role with VFC-12 and 13) was a double anchor action action officer at AIRLANT raising the warnign flag. At the time, the Adversary RO was a light attack guy with a transition to Hornets who admitted to me that he'd never been through even SFARP so he "didn't get it" and thought all the aircraft devoted to DACT were a waste of resources and stirke was where it was at (I am assuming you believe that BFM is foundation and DACT is true test of your BFM skills). So, if you want to truly debate whether BFM is a worthy endeavor, I suggest getting away from the number of anchors on your wings and into a meaningful discussion of whether BFM is a piority. I agree that it is and as you pointed out, it is a very perishable skill. I also believe that we are faced with another debate: "Will there ever be a "merge"?" Plenty of folks, even the wordsmith masters (USAF) are touting that our radar technology, Link 16 and BVR missiles will eliminate the merge...and need for JHMCS and high off boresight SRMs like AIM-9X. I've got plenty more to say on that subject, but chew on this for now before I turn into into a term paper.
PS - raegardless of BFM capability of Tomcat vs any flavor of Hornet, the real point is BFM apability against a MiG-29 or Su-27 or whatever 4th generation aircraft you might encounter (or an Iranian Tomcat). Plenty of people are arguing that we won't see a threat anyway so why train to it.
Rainman said:
This has nothing to do with with whether you wear two anchors. There is a basic disagreement on this matter between the single anchor community. Out of Desert Storm, USAF was still preaching Air Superiority as number one priority (justifying the high end F-22 solution) and citing that as biggest lesson learned over Iraq. meanwhile, Navy came away with improving strike capability (precision and all weather) as their top priority. I sat in meeting with our aviation godfather (a single anchor legacy single seat attack type) who said exctly that and soon after all of our active duty Adversary squadrons (VF-45, VFA-127, VF-126, VF-43) were put on the chopping block and even Topgun was being looked at as passe. BTW, the only reason any capability was left (reserves in Adversary role with VFC-12 and 13) was a double anchor action action officer at AIRLANT raising the warnign flag. At the time, the Adversary RO was a light attack guy with a transition to Hornets who admitted to me that he'd never been through even SFARP so he "didn't get it" and thought all the aircraft devoted to DACT were a waste of resources and stirke was where it was at (I am assuming you believe that BFM is foundation and DACT is true test of your BFM skills). So, if you want to truly debate whether BFM is a worthy endeavor, I suggest getting away from the number of anchors on your wings and into a meaningful discussion of whether BFM is a piority. I agree that it is and as you pointed out, it is a very perishable skill. I also believe that we are faced with another debate: "Will there ever be a "merge"?" Plenty of folks, even the wordsmith masters (USAF) are touting that our radar technology, Link 16 and BVR missiles will eliminate the merge...and need for JHMCS and high off boresight SRMs like AIM-9X. I've got plenty more to say on that subject, but chew on this for now before I turn into into a term paper.
PS - raegardless of BFM capability of Tomcat vs any flavor of Hornet, the real point is BFM apability against a MiG-29 or Su-27 or whatever 4th generation aircraft you might encounter (or an Iranian Tomcat). Plenty of people are arguing that we won't see a threat anyway so why train to it.
heyjoe said:
I'm a prowler guy so all I do is yell for the 'hornet spread' guys to save my butt when I'm in trouble, but what little squadron reading I've done on the SU-27 scares the sh!t out of me, and china is building up to SU-30's. Eventually they are going to feel strong enough to throw their weight around and while I don't really envisage PLA tanks rolling down the capitol, we may either have to give up Taiwan(and eventually asia) or stand up to them. End result fighting an airforce more competent than the Afghani one.
BFM?? Merge??? What threats are there??? It seems like we always set ourselves up for re-learning the lessons of the past. The Air Force was great at this when I worked against them in ACM --- which is why we ate their best for lunch while flying 30 year old aircraft with still older bodies. And terms like BFM and DACT were just being "born".....
The Navy has been guilty as well. Like post F-8 wise men who said .... "we don't need a gun in a fighter anymore --- missiles will do just fine." (?) A classic example of Battleship Row type of thinking in the jet age. Example: think F-4 Phantom II. A great A/C that would have been "greater" with the simple addition of a gun.
The enemy will always do what you don't expect him to do. Plan for everything. Train for anything.
The Navy has been guilty as well. Like post F-8 wise men who said .... "we don't need a gun in a fighter anymore --- missiles will do just fine." (?) A classic example of Battleship Row type of thinking in the jet age. Example: think F-4 Phantom II. A great A/C that would have been "greater" with the simple addition of a gun.
The enemy will always do what you don't expect him to do. Plan for everything. Train for anything.
A4sForever said:BFM?? Merge??? What threats are there??? It seems like we always set ourselves up for re-learning the lessons of the past. The Air Force was great at this when I worked against them in ACM --- which is why we ate their best for lunch while flying 30 year old aircraft with still older bodies. And terms like BFM and DACT were just being "born".....
The Navy has been guilty as well. Like post F-8 wise men who said .... "we don't need a gun in a fighter anymore --- missiles will do just fine." (?) A classic example of Battleship Row type of thinking in the jet age. Example: think F-4 Phantom II. A great A/C that would have been "greater" with the simple addition of a gun.
The enemy will always do what you don't expect him to do. Plan for everything. Train for anything.
Ditto. How many folks know that the first air-to-air kills of the Viet-Nam War were by the other side...we knew they were active and F-8s tangled with MiG-17s the day prior, but 2 F-105s gut tagged and their fighter escort never got a shot off. At the time, ACM training, period, was frowned upon by USAF (too many mishaps) and F-4 was introduced without a gun because everyone thought all engagements would be BVR.....like A4sforever says.."The more things change...
Guns? We don't need no stinkin' guns!
"The air force variant has an internally mounted gun. The Carrier and Marine variants can have an external gun pod fitted."
LINK
LM had a JSF presentation a while back here in K-rock. When they mentioned the lack of an internal gun, you could hear the audible moan from the old-salt sim instructors (former A4, F8, etc. pilots). One guy asked about how well this "pod" would stay calibrated following regular traps aboard ship. The LM guy just replied, "oh, it will work just fine." The instructor just laughed and sat down.
I've got to agree with A4s on this one. The more things change...
Evidently, we're still guilty. The upcoming JSF:A4sForever said:
"The air force variant has an internally mounted gun. The Carrier and Marine variants can have an external gun pod fitted."
LINK
LM had a JSF presentation a while back here in K-rock. When they mentioned the lack of an internal gun, you could hear the audible moan from the old-salt sim instructors (former A4, F8, etc. pilots). One guy asked about how well this "pod" would stay calibrated following regular traps aboard ship. The LM guy just replied, "oh, it will work just fine." The instructor just laughed and sat down.
I've got to agree with A4s on this one. The more things change...
Rainman said:
Too bad you aren't flying the Rhino... never flown with anything but
We've already got one phased array jet in the hangar, and a squadron full will be ready when CVW-8 returns from deployment.I'm not trying to argue that BFM isn't important... but it's a question of degree. To judge the Rhino as "not being an improvement" solely because its supersonic performance or its BFM ability is crazy. The realities of US defense spending nowadays mean that acquisition is a zero-sum game... there's always a tradeoff. Maybe I'm crazy, but I'd rather (arguably!) trade some BFM ability in favor of increased strike capability rather than the other way around... especially when you consider the BVR capability of the SH. And (as you adequately pointed out) how much more training we get vice our adversaries...
- Status