Interesting Air Superiority article

[Hopeful Hoya]

Another intriguing article in a similar vein (albeit maybe a bit less speculative)

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/why-its-sad-that-the-f-22-just-fired-its-first-guided-a-1704889474

It's crazy to think that even one of the least-favored aircraft programs in the military right now (A-10) has a HMD while the F-22 does not.

 

[wlawr005]

The F-22 isn't designed for close in shots of the AIM-9 variety. That tactic is well within its wheelhouse, but not a primary objective. In order to shoot a Winder, it's gotta be mounted externally. It doesn't really need a HMDS to track and shoot BVR targets.

An HMDS is absolutely money for A/G support and sensor work. That's why anything that drops bombs is most likely gonna have one.

What the Raptor does need is Link 16, and that is a much more glaringly retarded omission for a "5th gen fighter".

 

[Flash]

Still, a cogent article would require detailed analysis of both sides' missile kinematics, as well as their aircraft capes, lims, and BVR TTPs. Not to mention any onboard/offboard EA, both TTPs and assessed effectiveness against both sides' IFF, BVR missiles, and AI radars.

Not necessarily, you can glean a lot of the missile effectiveness just by how many hit their target, even excluding all the stuff. One aspect of the Navy's air-to-air successes during Operation Linebacker was the integration of jamming the GCI frees of the NVAF that directly contributed to several kills. While an important part of the overall battle it had nothing to do with the Navy's AIM-9G successes during that time period.

Fat chance having anything approaching an intelligent discussion about all that in an unclass forum. Those who talk don't know; those who know can only talk in places like NSAWC Journal.

With all the publicly available info on Desert Storm and the Falklands you can definitely have a good discussion about the air combat that occurred, the book I cited is one example.

 

[Catmando]

We have never had any real threat to our overwhelming air superiority since Vietnam… and really not even then. However that particular air war still remains instructive, even if may not be very relevant in today’s world. More recent air war successes in the Falklands, Bekaa Valley, Desert Storm or Kosovo provide too small a sampling to make sweeping judgments about our air warfare capabilities, especially if we are ever pitted against a truly formidable opponent. These were relative skirmishes, thus Vietnam remains the better air war to analyze because of its broader scope. And while the AIM-4 and AIM-7’s performances were abominable, the Sidewinder and the ship launched BVR Standard missiles were superbly successful.

People tend to forget that the US lost 10,000 aircraft in Vietnam! Nothing compares since then. While the majority of losses were helicopters, we still lost 1,000 then state-of-the-art fighter and attack aircraft. Remember this was against a 3rd World country with a very small and unsophisticated air force against a "super power."

What makes Vietnam still relevant has little to do with comparing technology or missile systems, then or now. It is this: We entered that air war with overwhelming and far superior assets in every category, better technology, and in far greater aircraft numbers. We also entered it with overconfidence, if not some hubris. Yet this third world rag-tag small air force and their air defense systems knocked down a thousand of our front line aircraft and captured several hundred of our pilots. Indeed 89 of our aircraft we shot down by vintage MiGs with old guns and deplorable missiles. Yes there are many other reasons for these losses, but overconfidence in our capabilities was significant among them.

If we are ever unfortunate to find ourselves in a real large scale air war of epic proportions and well beyond that of Vietnam, with a country that also has large and capable air warfare forces like ours, let us hope we do not let overconfidence in our capabilities handicap us.

 

[STOVLer]

In order to shoot a Winder, it's gotta be mounted externally.

This is not the case whether they are carrying -9M or -9X.

 

[wlawr005]

http://www.janes.com/article/45114/lockheed-martin-to-upgrade-f-22-for-aim-9x-missile

"One of the main reasons for this delay is that the AIM-9X Block I currently lacks the ability to lock on before launch when carried internally, as it would be on the F-22, though this capability is planned for the datalinked Block II missile"

It doesn't work the same way as conventionally mounted AIM-9, and requires additional technology given how they carry and employ it.

 

[jmcquate]

Couldn't agree more Cat, but in Vietnam and to some point OIF/OEF, in my opinion the real issue is the inability of civilian oversight to stomach politicaly what it means to commit forces in combat...........if you choose to release the dogs of war and cry havoc.............then release the dogs of war and cry havoc.

 

[Catmando]

Couldn't agree more Cat, but in Vietnam and to some point OIF/OEF, in my opinion the real issue is the inability of civilian oversight to stomach politicaly what it means to commit forces in combat...........if you choose to release the dogs of war and cry havoc.............then release the dogs of war and cry havoc.

BINGO!!!!!

 

[Swanee]

What the Raptor does need is Link 16, and that is a much more glaringly retarded omission for a "5th gen fighter".

From what I know that was intentional. EMCON reasons, at least that's what the Raptor dudes (all 2 of them) have told me. Stupid to not have the ability in today's realm? Probably.


I'm surprised no one has brought up the idea that we have stuff that can help us extended our visual recce beyond what only our naked eyes can see- if only we had these telescopes mounted to our airplanes to help us see further...

 

[STOVLer]

Acknowledging the technology isn't there yet for the internal 9X on the Raptor doesn't change your original statement. Saying that "in order to shoot a winder, it's gotta be carried externally" is false. They have carried 9Ms internally since they started flying.

 

[MIDNJAC]

Completely agree that Vietnam is still relevant. The challenges that you all faced there are inherent to any air war, regardless of technology, place, or time. So I "get" that. However, I think the author is regurgitating a bunch of "sky is falling" arguments that have been made many many times before, and ones which can't reasonably be either validated or put to rest at an unclass level. Which just leads me to the question of "what is the point here?" And then I got to the last paragraph where he starts talking about the A-10, and it became clear. An aircraft who's only relevance to the (title) question of Air Superiority, is that it has no mission whatsoever without it.

We have never had any real threat to our overwhelming air superiority since Vietnam… and really not even then. However that particular air war still remains instructive, even if may not be very relevant in today’s world. More recent air war successes in the Falklands, Bekaa Valley, Desert Storm or Kosovo provide too small a sampling to make sweeping judgments about our air warfare capabilities, especially if we are ever pitted against a truly formidable opponent. These were relative skirmishes, thus Vietnam remains the better air war to analyze because of its broader scope. And while the AIM-4 and AIM-7’s performances were abominable, the Sidewinder and the ship launched BVR Standard missiles were superbly successful.

People tend to forget that the US lost 10,000 aircraft in Vietnam! Nothing compares since then. While the majority of losses were helicopters, we still lost 1,000 then state-of-the-art fighter and attack aircraft. Remember this was against a 3rd World country with a very small and unsophisticated air force against a "super power."

What makes Vietnam still relevant has little to do with comparing technology or missile systems, then or now. It is this: We entered that air war with overwhelming and far superior assets in every category, better technology, and in far greater aircraft numbers. We also entered it with overconfidence, if not some hubris. Yet this third world rag-tag small air force and their air defense systems knocked down a thousand of our front line aircraft and captured several hundred of our pilots. Indeed 89 of our aircraft we shot down by vintage MiGs with old guns and deplorable missiles. Yes there are many other reasons for these losses, but overconfidence in our capabilities was significant among them.

If we are ever unfortunate to find ourselves in a real large scale air war of epic proportions and well beyond that of Vietnam, with a country that also has large and capable air warfare forces like ours, let us hope we do not let overconfidence in our capabilities handicap us.

 

[Hopeful Hoya]

The F-22 isn't designed for close in shots of the AIM-9 variety. That tactic is well within its wheelhouse, but not a primary objective. In order to shoot a Winder, it's gotta be mounted externally. It doesn't really need a HMDS to track and shoot BVR targets.

Don't believe that is true. -22s have been carrying -9Ms in their two side internal bays forever, only issue is that they have to open the doors and stick the missile out into the air stream to get a lock before they can fire, compared to the -120s which they can quickly "eject" from the center bays. The Block II missiles, however, would give them the ability to eject the missile and a achieve a lock after launch, thereby lessening the drag and radar visibility penalty.

Realize that the Raptor wasn't designed for the close up shots, but the argument was in a 360 degree battlefield you can never take it for granted that the enemy will always be on your nose at BVR. And in an aircraft that places a lot of emphasis on supermanuverability, the fact that it does not have a HOBS capable missile or cuing system would be a large handicap should it ever get into a WVR fight.

 

[Renegade One]

People tend to forget that the US lost 10,000 aircraft in Vietnam [including] 1,000 then state-of-the-art fighter and attack aircraft. Remember this was against a 3rd World country with a very small and unsophisticated air force against a "super power."

My recall of the BIG "lesson learned" from allied aircraft losses in VN was that 90% of aircraft losses were due to ground-launched air defenses…the lion's share being good ol' AAA. I think it had more to do with required "dumb bomb"-delivery techniques (and release altitudes) coupled with poor/repetitive mission planning and target area tactics (e.g., aircraft making multiple runs on the same target, multiple strikers using same roll-in/pull-off headings, templated/predictable ingress/egress routes, yadda yadda yadda) than A-A missile technology, although there was some of that…and arguably more significantly, poor understanding of the actual capabilities of the missiles we had at the time. Read: a lot of shooting outside of actual required launch parameters. Hence, for the Navy's part, the Ault Report and all that resulted from that. A quick "Google-source" indicates that about 260 "fixed-wing" US aircraft of all types…including RECCE drones, transports, B-52s, etc…were actually lost to enemy aircraft. There may be other/better data, but that seems in the ballpark. Given that the U.S. Air Force ALONE flew 5.25 million sorties over South Vietnam, North Vietnam, northern and southern Laos, and Cambodia (more Google-fu, and we're getting into possibly meaningless "fruit salad" comparisons/data), the number of air-to-air losses starts to lose its shock value.

Concur with everything Catmando said about hubris and overconfidence. Just an opinion from the aging Peanut Gallery…but that's what needs to be avoided when next our folks meet any sort of capable IADS…including modern (if not 5th Gen/state-of-the-art) opposing aircraft/A-A weapons and decently trained/experienced enemy pilots.

That said, my perception is that the folks in today's cockpits still have a better overall mix of training, equipment, tactics and appreciation of their own capes/lims than does any foreseeable foe. Maybe I'm the one that's guilty of hubris/overconfidence…and I do appreciate that "quantity has a quality all its own", should a potential enemy's numerical superiority become a significant factor.

 

[nittany03]

Point 1: Have you hugged your VAQ people lately?

Point 2: This is why we don't like Hornet guys going "it can't be that hard to figure out." In-depth SEAD credibility saves lives. Even egotistical fighter pilot lives. Especially in the modern double-digit arena people are freaking out about above, geekery pays off.

 

[MIDNJAC]

I personally think that every VFA JO should read both the Ault report, as well as the (IMO more telling) Red Barron report. And then re-read them before becoming a DH. I was probably too hung over to remember that much from Willie D's lecture, but one thing I remember is the printout he distributed of the pri comms from an F-105 flight that lost a guy to a MIG. If you could encapsulate every stereotype I have about that era (mid to late 1960's) of fighter aviation into one really horrible, confused, "watching a kid run out in front of a car in slow motion" moment, that would be this transcript. But I guess what I am really trying to say is that in light of those lessons, we developed an institution of training that IMHO is worth way more than a fleet of F-22's, or any other technological advantage. This guy can worry about the effectiveness of X combat system/weapon, but at the end of the day, I still think we are raising guys better than anyone else out there, in spite of years fighting essentially unopposed wars (from a FW/fighter aviation perspective).