On 09 Jan 2004 23:57:52 GMT, (Denyav) wrote:

ROTFL! Oh really, and what pray tell is your practical insight to draw that
conclusion, compared to that of a combat vet who has a wardrobe full of
'dont that' T Shirts.

Combat vets should try to do what they supposed to do best, we are not going to
re-fight Vietnam war or any war in the past,if f16 or f22 were available during
Vietnam war,it would be magnificent,but it was 30 years ago and science and
technology did not stop in 70s.

Your comment that was refuted was that Boyd & Co. and Stealth were two
concepts gleaned from Vietnam that were proven erroneous or invalid.

Boyd's work on energy maneuverability and three dimensional maneuver
is still the basis for 1-v-1 BFM and led to the development of
supporting element maneuver in multi-plane engagement. Without Boyd,
we'd still have Eagles, Vipers and Raptors running around in fighting
wing.

Stealth, and the idea of denying the defenses accurate az/el/range
data through a variety of technologies is going to be a foundation for
aircraft (and defense) designs for a long time to come.

As for what "combat vets should try to do", please acknowledge that
like all professions, military aviators are not one-dimensional
humans. We do a lot of things in a life time, and don't simply
disappear into the attic when the war is over.

As for the relevance of the lessons of Vietnam to F-16, F-22 or SU-37,
let me point you to Santyana---"those who will not learn the lessons
of history are condemned to repeat them."

Lots of science and technology, but it is directed by the experiences
gathered along the way.

You gotta problem wid dat?


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8