Interesting Air Superiority article

[wlawr005]

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.

Yeah, my point was I can carry a six pack of beer in my cooler, but I can't drink it until I take one out. Sorry if I worded my original post poorly.

 

[wlawr005]

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.

I would counter that argument with the fact that if you're that supermaneuverable, you have less of a need for HOBS...because you're supermaneuverable. Supermaneuverable means you are super at maneuvering...and can probably get your nose around to take a shot, or defend, or both.

Not trying to get into an internet dick dance about Raptor tactics...just approaching it from a common sense perspective. It's not all that ironic to me that it doesn't have 9X or helmet. It doesn't need those things given how it's employed. Would they be nice to have in your 360 battlefield (whatever the he'll that is), sure. But it's not absolutely necessary, which was my original point. The Raptor is lacking several other mission components that impact its mission far more than a cueing system it doesn't have to shoot a missile it's never gonna use.

Like oxygen for example.

 

[Flash]

...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).

^This. This is one thing that many folks who are 'experts' but have never flown in the military don't realize just how important this factor is. Our potential adversaries may have some cool toys but do they know more just just how to fly them? Fixing and fighting them is pretty important too.

 

[hscs]

My recall of the BIG "lesson learned" from allied aircraft losses in VN ... 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)

Everyone needs to write this down and remember this - many forgot this or never learned this in OIF/OEF in the helo world - and we paid with a lot of blood.

 

[Renegade One]

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.

I absolutely agree with everything you said. Many, many of the sources I tapped briefly specifically called out the incredible contributions of electronic combat in all its forms, but specifically of airborne SEAD as being a huge factor in airborne survivability and mission success. Don't leave home without it.

 

[Catmando]

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.

Some comments: Yes, the vast majority of losses were from AAA, but not necessarily for the reasons stated. By Linebacker I, (and even before) nobody was doing multiple runs. It was verboten. While the Air Force, especially the B-52s in Linebacker II stupidly did predicable ingress/egress, the Navy certainly did not. Every Alpha Strike was planned by the flight leader and they really varied the routes and roll-ins intelligently. It wasn’t there 1st rodeo. With hundreds of combat missions, these guys were extremely experienced under fire and knew what they were doing. Nevertheless, we still had losses.

Also I don’t recall being any more vulnerable for those few quick seconds in doing a very fast 40 degree steep and quick “dumb bomb” [BTW, we had some smart bombs too.] release at 500 Kts. @ 5,000 ft. and bottoming out above 3,500 AGL, than I did the other 99.9% of the time I was flying over the North getting shot at, regardless of altitude. It was all the same... although MigCap @ 3500 ft over the same spot for 20 minutes usually under fire and photo escort to get BDA down low after the hornets nest was stirred were perhaps a bit worse.

It also should be noted that the vast majority of those “millions” of sorties posed minimal threat to the fast movers… although slow movers were sitting ducks and hit really hard. Fast movers could operate their million sorties with near impunity over most of the South, Laos, and Cambodia. However the relatively much fewer sorties over the North were an entirely different story, producing heavy losses.

As mentioned, SEAD was key. However as great and as capable as our ARM and ECM assets were, they were up against an incredible number of SAM and AAA sites. It was overwhelming. We also ran quickly out of Shrikes early in Linebacker I. So we went in naked. Fortunately our A-7 pouncers, without any missiles then used deception by calling out phony and imagined launches. Since our comms were immediately translated, this voice call caused the SAM sites to shut down. We loved it! Fortunately we were un-repped with more Shrikes before the bad guys caught on. Nevertheless they were smart and played other cat-and-mouse games to limit if not occasionally defeat our SEAD.

That a limited number of our losses were from MiG engagements should be not too surprising. At the time they had only 71 MiGs total in their entire country compared to our Navy and Air Forces’ several hundreds. Thus they usually did not engage us, to conserve their extremely limited numbers. They used guerrilla tactics of hit and run when they could, but they rarely fought our fighters. That they downed as many of our fighters as they did, given their paltry numbers and reluctance to engage, should give one pause. While the establishment of the NFWS propelled our kill-ratio to incredible new heights from what it had been earlier, the school did not, nor was it designed to, stem our continuing losses to withering enemy surface fire. Regardless of the source, a loss is a loss and a kill is a kill.

“…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.”​

Probably. I do think so. However I remember the same was said before Vietnam.

 

[Pags]

While the air defenses of NV may seem primitive by today's standards, I seem to recall that Hanoi's defenses represented the state of the art at the time. I don't have a source, but I also remember reading that Hanoi was one of the most heavily defended locations in the world.

Also, technology and tactics improved throughout the Vietnam war. SEAD, ECM, and ASE capabilities all expanded greatly throughout the war. I don't think many of the aircraft early in the war had RWR or any other ASE suite to speak of. At the beginning of the war you had A-1s and A-4s dropping dumb bombs. By the end of the war, EA-6Bs were being introduced and USN and USAF aircraft were dropping LGBs.

 

[ryan1234]

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.

The Raptor takes care of itself just fine in a BVR fight!

 

[Hopeful Hoya]

Fair enough, obviously I have not flown a front line fighter or Raptor so not very read into what its strengths or weaknesses are, just of the "more is better" mentality.

Even if it does well with -9Ms and no cuing system, would anyone really turn down the extra margin they provide?

 

[ryan1234]

Fair enough, obviously I have not flown a front line fighter or Raptor so not very read into what its strengths or weaknesses are, just of the "more is better" mentality.

Even if it does well with -9Ms and no cuing system, would anyone really turn down the extra margin they provide?

The Raptor does some really awesome stuff, you'll find out more in due time! It's hard to have a fruitful discussion outside of a vault, unfortunately.

 

[ryan1234]

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.

Unfortunately, Tyler Rogoway is not really an expert on anything except for writing wildly speculative articles targeted at the uninformed.

 

[Renegade One]

Some comments: Yes, the vast majority of losses were from AAA, but not necessarily for the reasons stated. ...

I'll surely defer to a guy who was there…I wasn't.

The repetitive ingress stuff was from my recall of Robin Olds' "Operation BOLO" (I think…) tactics , wherein, as I understand it, the F-4 wing emulated the oft-used F-105 strike package ingress route, altitude, time of day, and successfully suckered the VPAF fighters into battle where the odds were stacked against the defenders. Glad the Navy had a better way.

 

[Pags]

Even if it does well with -9Ms and no cuing system, would anyone really turn down the extra margin they provide?

The folks who own the checkbook

 

[Hopeful Hoya]

Unfortunately, Tyler Rogoway is not really an expert on anything except for writing wildly speculative articles targeted at the uninformed.

Fair enough, I'll take his work with a grain of salt from now on then.

 

[brownshoe]

I'll surely defer to a guy who was there…I wasn't.

Catmando said: "Yes, the vast majority of losses were from AAA, but not necessarily for the reasons stated. ..."

Cat is right, R1. Just ask BzB.