![]() |
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
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 19:00:14 +0000, "Paul J. Adam"
wrote: In message , Chad Irby writes 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] While numbers tell a story, they can occasionally mislead. USAF to USN comparisons offer some insight, but strict stats can lead to bad conclusions. To compare sortie count/MiG engagement percentages you would need to consider the various missions, the allocation of the resource, the philosophy of engagement, etc. With large composite strike packages, the AF tended toward lots of specialization. Chaff droppers, SEAD, escorts (that often were used to herd MiGs rather than engage them) and only a few dedicated shooters on TEABALL frequency meant that the numbers could be skewed. 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. I don't know of any instances in which F-4Ds were carrying gun pods into RP VI during Linebacker. There were lots of external gun sorties flown in 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) It would be helpful to consider the USN fighter-vs-attack philosophy as well as the level of experience of the multiple tour carrier force. The USAF "universal pilot" concept and the "no involuntary second tour" policy impacted the competence level. The parenthetical conclusion is a poor one. With TEABALL, the 555th TFW specialists, and the accompanying GCI support, it was possible for the USAF fighters who DID engage, to use their longer range weapons and negate the requirement to close to gun range. 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!" Amen! It's much easier to write off a combat loss than to suffer accidents in training. |
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 |