State of the Art, 1963

On Sun, 7 Sep 2003, Charles Talleyrand wrote:

Imagine four your favorite combat aircraft of 1963 going up against four modern F/A-18s in a BVR engagement. Suppose that the 1963
pilots were smart and willing to employ the best tactics available. Even so we suppose the F-18s win almost every engagement.

But how close is it? Can the 1963 aircraft get a radar lock on their enemy
(and what about modern jamming)? Can they get to within
knife-fight radius? Will they ever see the enemy or even get shot off?

Basically, how does the combat go?

Launch the nuclear-tipped Genies at maximum range.

"Close" is good enough.

Cheers and all,

Charles Talleyrand wrote:

Imagine four your favorite combat aircraft of 1963 going up
against four modern F/A-18s in a BVR engagement. Suppose
that the 1963 pilots were smart and willing to employ the best
tactics available. Even so we suppose the F-18s win almost
every engagement.

But how close is it? Can the 1963 aircraft get a radar lock on
their enemy (and what about modern jamming)? Can they get
to within knife-fight radius? Will they ever see the enemy or even
get shot off?

Basically, how does the combat go?

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Likely no
different than how the Japanese Zero's did against F-14's
in the 1980 movie, "The Final Countdown," starring Kirk Douglas,
Martin Sheen, Katharine Ross, and the nuclear aircraft carrier
USS Nimitz.

-Mike Marron

"Mike Marron" wrote in message news
Basically, how does the combat go?

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Likely no
different than how the Japanese Zero's did against F-14's
in the 1980 movie, "The Final Countdown," starring Kirk Douglas,
Martin Sheen, Katharine Ross, and the nuclear aircraft carrier
USS Nimitz.

The F-4 never even sees the enemy? It should see the enemy from
30 miles away unless someone jams them, and most F-18s don't
have jamming ability (I think).

In message ,
Bill Shatzer writes
On Sun, 7 Sep 2003, Charles Talleyrand wrote:
Imagine four your favorite combat aircraft of 1963 going up
against four modern F/A-18s in a BVR engagement. Suppose
that the 1963
pilots were smart and willing to employ the best tactics
available. Even so we suppose the F-18s win almost every
engagement.
Basically, how does the combat go?

Launch the nuclear-tipped Genies at maximum range.

"Close" is good enough.

Trouble is, the Hornets may manage to deny the enemy a radar lock (what
ECM did they bring?) and the Genies may never get fired.

Even if they do... that's a _big_ smoke trail and the fighters are going
to evade it. And the Genie's kill radius is not that large. Then F-102s
with Falcons (unreliable and inaccurate) mix it up with Hornets armed
with late-model Sidewinders and AMRAAMs.


If air-to-air tacnukes worked really well, they'd still be around. They
didn't, so they aren't.

--
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

In message , Charles Talleyrand
writes
"Mike Marron" wrote in
message news
How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Likely no
different than how the Japanese Zero's did against F-14's
in the 1980 movie, "The Final Countdown," starring Kirk Douglas,
Martin Sheen, Katharine Ross, and the nuclear aircraft carrier
USS Nimitz.

The F-4 never even sees the enemy? It should see the enemy from
30 miles away unless someone jams them, and most F-18s don't
have jamming ability (I think).

What pods are the F/A-18s carrying, and/or who's escorting it?

30 miles head-on is well inside the published AMRAAM envelope: by the
time the F-4s see the enemy, they've already got missiles inbound (but
are still well outside published Sparrow range, even head-on).

Would _you_ assume that the difficult blips on your radar were some sort
of time-travelling superfighter? Even if you did, what could you do?



--
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

"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message

And the Genie's kill radius is not that large.

Are you factoring in EMP with that kill radius?

If air-to-air tacnukes worked really well, they'd still be around.
They didn't, so they aren't.

I don't know if that's entirely accurate. The role of air-to-air tacnukes
wasn't "versus fighters". If it had been, I'm sure something more than a
"point, pull, and pray" type of firing mechanism would've been used.
Proximity detection, SARH and that sort of thing would've been incorporated.

Air to air tacnukes were designed to be fired at formations of slow,
lumbering Soviet bombers coming across the DEW line, not fast, agile
fighters. As the technology and indeed the political climate changed, the
role of the Genie began to diminish. Also, political and military
leadership I think probably grew less and less cavalier about throwing
around a few nukes here and there just to even up the odds. I'm sure that
today, a Genie would be just as effective versus a Tu-22 as it would've
versus grouped formations of Bear bombers.

The willingness to use it, however, is a different matter.

--
http://www.delversdungeon.dragonsfoot.org
Remove the X's in my email address to respond.
"Damn you Silvey, and your endless fortunes." - Stephen Weir
I hate furries.

In message , Bill
Silvey writes
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message

And the Genie's kill radius is not that large.

Are you factoring in EMP with that kill radius?

Against which platforms? Some are designed to survive it, otheres have
not heard of it.

If air-to-air tacnukes worked really well, they'd still be around.
They didn't, so they aren't.

I don't know if that's entirely accurate. The role of air-to-air tacnukes
wasn't "versus fighters". If it had been, I'm sure something more than a
"point, pull, and pray" type of firing mechanism would've been used.
Proximity detection, SARH and that sort of thing would've been incorporated.

Which gets you to the same conclusion as most other theatres... if you
need that much targetting, you can kill da bum with HE.

Air to air tacnukes were designed to be fired at formations of slow,
lumbering Soviet bombers coming across the DEW line, not fast, agile
fighters.

Or bombers with decent (by 1960s standard) ECM.

As the technology and indeed the political climate changed, the
role of the Genie began to diminish. Also, political and military
leadership I think probably grew less and less cavalier about throwing
around a few nukes here and there just to even up the odds. I'm sure that
today, a Genie would be just as effective versus a Tu-22 as it would've
versus grouped formations of Bear bombers.

Except a Genie took up three Falcon slots. (How many Sidewinders could
you put on a rack in place of three Falcons or one Genie?)

Back when a Falcon had a 5-10% kill rate, going nuclear (trading three
10% shots for one Big Bang) makes a sort of sense.

But when the bombers don't mass in formation and the missiles are
killing 70% of targets, giving up three .7 shots for one .9 shot is not
good.

The willingness to use it, however, is a different matter.

True, but an excellent reason to get the kills (or threat thereof) with
conventional weapons while maintaining a serious nuclear arsenal.

--
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

"Charles Talleyrand" wrote in message
...

"Mike Marron" wrote in message
news
Basically, how does the combat go?

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Likely no
different than how the Japanese Zero's did against F-14's
in the 1980 movie, "The Final Countdown," starring Kirk Douglas,
Martin Sheen, Katharine Ross, and the nuclear aircraft carrier
USS Nimitz.

The F-4 never even sees the enemy? It should see the enemy from
30 miles away unless someone jams them, and most F-18s don't
have jamming ability (I think).


Are we talking E-model -18s when you mention "modern?" If so, the reduced
RCS alone may preclude the early F-4 and its rudimentary radar from even
seeing the -18s, let alone locking them...

JMHO,
Cory
"Happy to be here, proud to serve!"

"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message ...
The F-4 never even sees the enemy? It should see the enemy from
30 miles away unless someone jams them, and most F-18s don't
have jamming ability (I think).

What pods are the F/A-18s carrying, and/or who's escorting it?

30 miles head-on is well inside the published AMRAAM envelope: by the
time the F-4s see the enemy, they've already got missiles inbound (but
are still well outside published Sparrow range, even head-on).

Would _you_ assume that the difficult blips on your radar were some sort
of time-travelling superfighter? Even if you did, what could you do?

I would likely die. I would rather eject. Maybe utrning tail and running
would work????? But it's bad all the way.

My question is .. do the F-4s see the F-18s or the incoming missiles at all?
Sure, they lose the battle but do they even see (on radar) the enemy at all.
I'm pretty sure the answer is "no" if the F-18s come in low, so what
if the F-18s come in high?

In message , Charles Talleyrand
writes
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
What pods are the F/A-18s carrying, and/or who's escorting it?

30 miles head-on is well inside the published AMRAAM envelope: by the
time the F-4s see the enemy, they've already got missiles inbound (but
are still well outside published Sparrow range, even head-on).

Would _you_ assume that the difficult blips on your radar were some sort
of time-travelling superfighter? Even if you did, what could you do?

I would likely die. I would rather eject. Maybe utrning tail and running
would work????? But it's bad all the way.

My question is .. do the F-4s see the F-18s or the incoming missiles at all?

Not the missiles. The aircraft... don't know. Depends on lots of issues
(which model of Hornet? The -E is sneakier, especially head-on). Are the
Phantoms looking up or down? Do they have any idea at all there's a
threat?

Early Phantoms, I'll say they won't see the missiles, might maybe see
the Hornets, but wouldn't want to bet on it.


Reaching here (not used early Phantom radar) I'd guess the F-4s might
pick up fast small inbounds, which then turn away outside Sparrow range:
first guess is enemy threat avoiding the Sparrow shot rather than
closing to fight. No launch indications they'd recognise and the threats
are evading; and if the AMRAAMs even set off the F-4's RWRs when they go
active the Phantoms are looking for a pop-up fighter threat, not
starting missile evasion.

It's bad news for the F-4s, AFAIK.


--
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