Tomcats gone by fall of 2006

"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" wrote...

You know me, John. Kool-Aid drinker. I'm telling you though. 2v1 or
1v1,
that high alpha's a big positive deal--against F-14's, F-15's, and F-16's.

....but only if you let them get close!

On 6/18/04 11:53 AM, in article i6FAc.134315$Ly.127603@attbi_s01, "John R
Weiss" wrote:

"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" wrote...

You know me, John. Kool-Aid drinker. I'm telling you though. 2v1 or
1v1,
that high alpha's a big positive deal--against F-14's, F-15's, and F-16's.

...but only if you let them get close!



Certainly it's better to shoot them in the lips from miles away.

--Woody

Certainly it's better to shoot them in the lips from miles away. BRBR


BUT if you find yourself in amongst them, you better have the skill to survive
and win. Many after getting into the F-4 thought closein fighting was dead and
they became dead. In a multi bogey envirnment, with so many A/C looking
similar, with a VID requirement, you are going to go to the merge.

Sure you don't pull your pants down and grovel, but you had better have the
skills to visually fight your enemy.
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

"Pechs1" wrote in message
...
Certainly it's better to shoot them in the lips from miles away.
BRBR


BUT if you find yourself in amongst them, you better have the skill to
survive
and win. Many after getting into the F-4 thought closein fighting was dead
and
they became dead. In a multi bogey envirnment, with so many A/C looking
similar, with a VID requirement, you are going to go to the merge.

Sure you don't pull your pants down and grovel, but you had better have
the
skills to visually fight your enemy.
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye
Phlyer

I didn't mean to suggest you abandon the skill (albeit in rereading my post,
that appears to be the implication). Rather, I think we don't emphasize
some of the underlying problems encountered in the "knife fight in a phone
booth" engagement.

R / John

John- I didn't mean to suggest you abandon the skill (albeit in rereading my
post,
that appears to be the implication). Rather, I think we don't emphasize
some of the underlying problems encountered in the "knife fight in a phone
booth" engagement. BRBR

I knew what you meant John, I was posting for those w/o real world experience
that the days of being w/i visual range of a bad guy are not over. In fact,
with stealth, multi A/C looking similar, poor GCI, and the fog of war, visual
engagements are going to increase, not decrease.

Ya better be able to see and defeat the bad guy.
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

(Pechs1) wrote in message ...
I knew what you meant John, I was posting for those w/o real world experience
that the days of being w/i visual range of a bad guy are not over. In fact,
with stealth, multi A/C looking similar, poor GCI, and the fog of war, visual
engagements are going to increase, not decrease.

This is interesting. I always got the impression that I didn't believe
visual range fighting was a thing of the past because I'm completely
lacking in real world experience. Sounds like there may actually be
another reason :-)

How much, if any, use would stealth technology be in a visual range
engagement?

The current doctrine/hype seems to be to shoot BVR before the target
even sees your stealthy plane, whether the target is on the ground or
in the air. I always though that was a bit like the late fifties,
early sixties magic missiles optimism.

Rob

robvr- How much, if any, use would stealth technology be in a visual range
engagement? BRBR

None but it will reduce detection ranges to where visual engagments will occur.
The question is whether or not these costly A/C will be committed during the
day. If the bad guys choose to fight during daylight, then the F-22s and F-35s
will also.

robvr The current doctrine/hype seems to be to shoot BVR before the target
even sees your stealthy plane, whether the target is on the ground or
in the air. I always though that was a bit like the late fifties,
early sixties magic missiles optimism. BRBR


Sure, assuming perfect conditions and perfect GCI, perfect information. Even in
training, on TACTS ranges, this doesn't happen. Don't expect it to happen in
the real thing.

If the bad guys put up hundreds of anything, some will get thru.

I flew an exercise in Egypt, we had nearly perfect GCI, in the F-14, 4 of us,
with working radars. The Egyptians put up 80 Mig 21s..I'll bet you can predict
what happened.
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

The current doctrine/hype seems to be to shoot BVR before the target
even sees your stealthy plane, whether the target is on the ground or
in the air. I always though that was a bit like the late fifties,
early sixties magic missiles optimism.

Three huge differences are the vastly improved missiles available today,
vastly improved radar/avionics, and most important, the vastly improved
non-cooperative target recognition systems available (that allow you to ID
planes without using IFF- e.g., using your radar to identify their engine
type). As NCTR is about as classified as it gets with jets, I don't know
any specifics, but the word is that the newer jets (Super Bug, Raptor, F-35)
all have pretty darn spiffy NCTR. That solves a lot of the ROE problems
that crippled BVR/magic missile combo in the sixties/Vietnam. Combine that
with increased use of datalinks and AWACS, and you have a much more reliable
employment of BVR techniques. The stats since GW 1 onwards bear out that
fact (and those were mostly with -15s and -16s).

Tony