![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In message , Chad Irby
writes In article , Alan Minyard wrote: Are you familiar with the concept of guided missiles? If you get into gun range you have already screwed the pooch. The gun is a last ditch, desperation weapon in ACM, wasting airframe volume and weight on a honking great, slow, unreliable gun is not a wise trade off. Comments nearly identical to the one above were very popular in the early 1960s. And then we got into a real shooting war, and pilots suddenly needed guns again. It's an interesting area to actually analyse, particularly when comparing USAF and USN performance: in Linebacker the USAF shot down forty-eight MiGs for twenty-four air-to-air losses, while the USN lost four and scored 24 kills. More interesting yet, the Navy's fighters met MiGs twenty-six times, for a .92 probability of killing a MiG and a .15 chance of losing one of their own; the USAF had eighty-two engagements, for .58 kills per engagement but .29 losses.[1] Sounds abstract? The services were using the same aircraft, near-identical missiles (Sparrows and different models of Sidewinder), but the USAF's F-4Ds and F-4Es had guns (pods for the Ds, internal for the Es) supposedly as a solution to the problems encountered during Rolling Thunder. Yet they were twice as likely to be shot down and barely half as likely to kill, as the gunless Navy fighters. (Only seven of the forty-eight USAF Linebacker kills were achieved with guns, despite the efforts made to fit them) Yep, McNamara is still influencing military thought. I was sure we'd gotten over that, but what goes around, comes around. "We're not training our crews properly, aren't using our weapons correctly, and are employing poor tactics that make us very vulnerable" is much less palatable than "the only problem is the aircraft imposed on us doesn't have a gun!" Note that the missiles have improved very significantly since 1972, while the M61 - though a fine weapon -has had only incremental modifications. [1] Stats from "Clashes" by Marshal Michel III -- When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite. W S Churchill Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AIM-54 Phoenix missile | Sujay Vijayendra | Military Aviation | 89 | November 3rd 03 09:47 PM |
P-39's, zeros, etc. | old hoodoo | Military Aviation | 12 | July 23rd 03 05:48 AM |