On 12 Jan 2004 05:58:35 GMT, (Denyav) wrote:

When I said:
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

imensional 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.

Denyav responded:
Everything you said is correct and explains why the ideas of Boyd&Co were
"fundamentally" wrong.
They developed tactics for a world without situational and global awaraness
tools and designed warplanes to excel under such circumstances.

You garble apples and oranges here. While situational awareness is
critical, it's not the same issue as developing the principles of
three dimensional maneuver between two aircraft. The analytical tools
of P-sub-s diagramming to compare aircraft and optimize your own
performance are important and whether or not you possess total SA
still going to apply.

Lets put that way, during Vietnam war US had only rudimentary situational
awareness tools no global awareness tool at all.

And, we still don't have total SA. AWACS and data-fusion/sharing are
great advances, but the "fog of war" will remain. We did have Disco,
Red Crown, T-Ball and Combat Tree as well as our own sensors and nav
gear, but a lot of SA was a personally learned and honed skill.

Boyd&Co identified wrong problem and tried to solve wrong problem with a step
in the wrong direction,the real reason for not so perfect performance of US
aircraft in Vietnam was not their inability to perform high energy maneuvers or
missing cannons,it was unavailability of situational and global awareness tools
that we have today.

You really should read a bit more history. While F-4s without guns got
a lot of notice, there were a lot more gun-equipped aircraft than
non-gun. The failures didn't relate to lack of SA as much as to
political gradualism and lack of will to win.

So,it would be much better if Boyd and others should have asked a couple of
questions to themselves before developing their concepts:
a)How it would be if US had total situational awareness in Vietnam?

The answer is easy. It would be great. But, if you are running the war
for political purposes and trying to avoid major power nuclear
confrontation, it doesn't matter what your SA is.

b)Whats if such tools brcome available in next 10-15 years?

What if? What if we had AWACS? Not much difference. What if we had
PGMs? Ahhh, that might have made a difference. What if we had
stand-off weaponry? Ahhh, that would be good to.


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.

Thats even worse than Boyds ideas,"passive" stealth was already obsolete in
70s,(Might stay as a foundation for aircraft designs for a long time to come
though,specially if your adversaries are backward third world countries like
Panama,Iraq,Iran,NK,Somalia,Zambia etc)

I did not distinguish active or passive stealth, but simply refuted
your contention that stealth is a failure. Loss rates for stealth
aircraft are statistically zero and target success rates are very
close to 100%. It makes little difference whether the opposition is
first or third world.

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.

I hope so,but Let me repeat the Battleship example,after Mitchell demonstration
it was obvious the the era of Battleships was over but Admirals all over the
world continued to order bigger better ,more capable and of course more
expensive Battleships (their showboats) till they learn the truth hard way
during WWII,

You might want to look into the Treaty of Washington 1922 to see the
status of battleship construction world wide. Mitchell's demontration
a couple of years later was relevant to aircraft vs ships and had
little to with battleships specifically.

You might apply your same incorrect logic substituting carrier for
battleship to see the error. Then check Battle of Midway.



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