"Vanishing American Air Superiority"

On Mar 7, 3:35*am, Andrew Swallow wrote:
Ray O'Hara wrote:

{snip}



you like the author are judging the future *by todays standards.
do you see any war in the near {next 2 decades} future?

{snip}

Next wars -

Britain vs Argentina over Falkland Island oil fields.

USA vs oil states over insults by their leaders, including South America

West vs Muslim countries that hide and support terrorists (continuation
of the current war)

USA vs Iran - they have not forgiven each other plus all that oil

China vs African countries for African raw materials. *(The West
may decide to stay out.)

Andrew Swallow

Water and natural resources. Africa mainly. Somewhat in Latin America,
but probably very low key there.

Want to scare an Aussie, tell him about refugees coming in from SEA.
By the tankerload.

Who predicted Panama, Haiti, Grenada, all that? Might not be a big war
but if its your carcass in the body bag, yeah, its a big deal.

In article ,
Ed Rasimus wrote:

But then, Boyd's acolytes seem to have considered that to be the goal.
Guided weapons and any other electronics were useless treason, good only
for funneling money from taxpayers to greedy contractors: the perfect
fighter had an engine, a gun, a pilot and as little else as possible.
(Wasn't a commercial Fuzzbuster assessed as being all the ECM a 'real
fighter' needed?)

We had the wing root wiring for QRC-160 installed in the F-105 in late
'65--early '66. The pods didn't get fielded until October '66. That
was ECM, counter-measures. The RHAW gear for radar detection like a
Fuzzbuster was deployed in F-100F Weasels in '65 and the F-105 force
in spring of '66. It was considerably more sophisticated than
Fuzzbuster. I suspect that tale is urban legend stuff.

The story I've heard was that an AFNG F-4 unit, NVANG seems to have been
mentioned, installed some tweaked civilian radar gear, and used them to
surprise some pilots in war games who thought it would be easy to sneak
up on the Rhinos like they had done in the past.

On Mar 7, 3:18*pm, frank wrote:
On Mar 7, 12:06*am, "Ray O'Hara" wrote:





"Paul J. Adam" wrote in messagenews

In message , Ed Rasimus
writes
On Sat, 6 Mar 2010 21:35:41 +0000, "Paul J. Adam"
wrote:
During the liveliest parts of 1972, USN Phantoms killed six NVAF MiGs
for every aircraft they lost to them, while the USAF managed a 2:1
ratio. (There are many factors in play for the difference, but it's
curious how smiting two enemy for every loss is considered
inadequate...)

The "liveliest parts of 1972 only involved late April to mid-October
and then two weeks in December. The ratios you quote were not at all
for the period in question. Yes, USN kill ratios were vastly higher
than USAF. But sorties in Pack VI, duration of exposure in the arena,
specialization of training, and (as you acknowledge) many factors were
at play.

And the US was always ahead on kills, even when fighting a politically
circumscribed conflict where the enemy was frequently allowed untouchable
bases and GCI. It's not clear that the F-4 was a disaster for US military
procurement, nor that buying "something else" (what?) would have produced
a better result.

What were U.S. bases in Japan during Korea and VN but untouchable bases?
it always amazes me how our side cries the enemy was cheating by using out
of theater bases when we were doing it to a bigger degree.

and there is curious incident where 2 USAF planes from Taiwan"accidently"
shot up an airbase in China during the Korean war.

Not only that, but virtually every conflict since. Dubai in the Gulf,
Saudi Arabia. Not to mention a lot of commercial air and shipping to
move supplies and troops were never touched. Somebody gets smart and
whacks some of that and gets the insurance premiums through the roof,
we may just lose a war someday.

Lots of stuff from Taiwan haven't been put into the history books.
Which is a damn shame. Lots of spooks and sheep dipped types. Japan
also.

It wasn't so much the "untouchable" thing either, the air defenses in
South Korea and Japan were good. The Russians and Chinese sort of had
to use the border as cover. There was also at least one Russian
encroachment on a US Navy carrier, which was driven off by the fighter
Combat Air Patrol. Yes, a US vs. Russia dogfight.

Taiwan, good question, though China and Taiwan skirmished a lot. I
agree about those history books. Maybe stuff was tried in that regard
that we haven't heard about yet for various reasons.

I agree about the air stuff today. A few years back I remember a DHL
jet in Afghanistan making a dicey landing after someone hit it with a
shoulder-launched missile.

"Andrew Swallow" wrote in message
...
Ray O'Hara wrote:
"Andrew Swallow" wrote in message
...
Ray O'Hara wrote:
{snip}

you like the author are judging the future by todays standards.
do you see any war in the near {next 2 decades} future?
{snip}

Next wars -

Britain vs Argentina over Falkland Island oil fields.

USA vs oil states over insults by their leaders, including South America

West vs Muslim countries that hide and support terrorists (continuation
of the current war)

USA vs Iran - they have not forgiven each other plus all that oil

China vs African countries for African raw materials. (The West
may decide to stay out.)

Andrew Swallow

we don't need the F-22 for any of thise wars and I doubt China invading
Aftica is a likely scenario.



I suspect that it is the other way round. African governments trying
to nationalise Chinese run mines, railways and ports. This is just
repeating what their grandfathers did to the European empires.

Andrew Swallow

gee, locals trying to control their own resources, how evil.
foreigners with guns should always rule.

On Mar 7, 9:11*pm, "Ray O'Hara" wrote:
"Andrew Swallow" wrote in message

...





Ray O'Hara wrote:
"Andrew Swallow" wrote in message
.. .
Ray O'Hara wrote:
{snip}

you like the author are judging the future *by todays standards.
do you see any war in the near {next 2 decades} future?
{snip}

Next wars -

Britain vs Argentina over Falkland Island oil fields.

USA vs oil states over insults by their leaders, including South America

West vs Muslim countries that hide and support terrorists (continuation
of the current war)

USA vs Iran - they have not forgiven each other plus all that oil

China vs African countries for African raw materials. *(The West
may decide to stay out.)

Andrew Swallow

we don't need the F-22 for any of thise wars and I doubt China invading
Aftica is a likely scenario.

I suspect that it is the other way round. *African governments trying
to nationalise Chinese run mines, railways and ports. *This is just
repeating what their grandfathers did to the European empires.

Andrew Swallow

gee, locals trying to control their own resources, how evil.
foreigners with guns should always rule.

Owning one's resources is not evil, but inviting someone to help
develop them with you as a partner and then stealing their agreed-on
share of the profits is generally considered a nasty thing to do. See:
Venezuela.

On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 09:58:27 +0000, Alan Dicey
wrote:

Paul Saccani wrote:
wrote:
British aerial victory claims are vastly exagerated in the BoB.
Indeed, to say the least.

*Were* exaggerated, at the time, because of confusion (even though both
sides were quite rigorous in their verification) and to help morale.

Actually, the poms didn't exaggerate their claims to help moral. They
understated their losses instead.

Their exaggerated claims continue to be used even today. An
interesting issue is that Hurricane units exaggerated their claims
three times more than Spitfire units.

And the biggest exagerators of them all were Defiant units.

The motivations would appear to be more those of the individuals
concerned than any official attempt to exagerate.

Even today, those grotesque exagerations result in difficulties in
understanding the lessons of the battle, particularly the relatively
greater exageration by the Hurricane units versus Spitfire units, and
by "Big Wing" formations versus the smaller formations.

Even today, there are still people who think that the Balboas were a
successful tactic.

We still won.

The Germans also overclaimed - their intelligence system several times
reported that the RAF was down to its last few aircraft.

They did, but your juxtaposition of the intelligence assessment is
illogical. They thought they had dramatically curtailed production
of fighter aircraft. They were mistaken.

It's one
reason why the appearance of the formed-up Big Wing on September 15th
was such a shock.

I would've said that the biggest shock was that it that it managed to
be formed in time - that was only because of careless planning by the
Germans, who neglected to make any feints and allowed their intentions
to be clearly determined whilst they were still over France.

You know the real losses were only 56 to 27, don't you?

"Here they come again, the last 20 Spitfires..."

Cheers,

Paul Saccani,
Perth,
Western Australia

On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 11:36:22 -0600, Dan wrote:

Ray O'Hara wrote:
"Alan Dicey" wrote in message
o.uk...
Paul Saccani wrote:
wrote:
British aerial victory claims are vastly exagerated in the BoB.
Indeed, to say the least.
*Were* exaggerated, at the time, because of confusion (even though both
sides were quite rigorous in their verification) and to help morale.

We still won.

The Germans also overclaimed - their intelligence system several times
reported that the RAF was down to its last few aircraft. It's one reason
why the appearance of the formed-up Big Wing on September 15th was such a
shock.

"Here they come again, the last 20 Spitfires..."


won? the British bombing German cities causing retaliation against London
"won" the battle.



Check your history.

He's right. The Luftwaffe acidently bombed London, so the British
carried out a larger strikes against German cities. This enraged a
certain vegetarian nut case into ordering the main effort against
London, instead of Fighter Command and aircraft factories.

If that had not of happened, Fighter Command was on the verge of
collapse (in their own assessments), the Germans would have achieved
air superiority, perhaps even air dominance, and the UK's production
capability and war fighting potential would have been greatly
effected. Though the Germans would have received a hiding if they
attempted an invasion.

AFAIK, Sea Lion was always a high level deception against Russia in
any case.

Cheers,

Paul Saccani,
Perth,
Western Australia

In article ,
Ed Rasimus wrote:

On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 13:46:34 -0800, Steve Hix
wrote:

In article ,
Ed Rasimus wrote:

But then, Boyd's acolytes seem to have considered that to be the goal.
Guided weapons and any other electronics were useless treason, good only
for funneling money from taxpayers to greedy contractors: the perfect
fighter had an engine, a gun, a pilot and as little else as possible.
(Wasn't a commercial Fuzzbuster assessed as being all the ECM a 'real
fighter' needed?)

We had the wing root wiring for QRC-160 installed in the F-105 in late
'65--early '66. The pods didn't get fielded until October '66. That
was ECM, counter-measures. The RHAW gear for radar detection like a
Fuzzbuster was deployed in F-100F Weasels in '65 and the F-105 force
in spring of '66. It was considerably more sophisticated than
Fuzzbuster. I suspect that tale is urban legend stuff.

The story I've heard was that an AFNG F-4 unit, NVANG seems to have been
mentioned, installed some tweaked civilian radar gear, and used them to
surprise some pilots in war games who thought it would be easy to sneak
up on the Rhinos like they had done in the past.

By the time the NVANG had Rhinos all F-4s were caring RWR gear, APR-46
on most -E models. Digital warning, prioritized threat, software tie
to weapons type, etc.

OK. I can scratch that one off.

On Mar 8, 6:13*am, Jack Linthicum wrote:
Question: if the "new" air arms are a mother ship piloted aircraft
with a covey of UAV "attack" or "defense" as responsibility and the
pilot's job is simply to fly the UAV operators to the scene of the
crime, is that pilot a "fighter pilot"?

Since the pilot is in the air "at the scene of the crime" and may be
requested to take evasive maneuvers at any time...

Yes!

Unless he happens to be a Naval Aviator of course.

-HJC

"Paul Saccani" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 11:36:22 -0600, Dan wrote:

Ray O'Hara wrote:
"Alan Dicey" wrote in message
o.uk...
Paul Saccani wrote:
wrote:
British aerial victory claims are vastly exagerated in the BoB.
Indeed, to say the least.
*Were* exaggerated, at the time, because of confusion (even though both
sides were quite rigorous in their verification) and to help morale.

We still won.

The Germans also overclaimed - their intelligence system several times
reported that the RAF was down to its last few aircraft. It's one
reason
why the appearance of the formed-up Big Wing on September 15th was such
a
shock.

"Here they come again, the last 20 Spitfires..."


won? the British bombing German cities causing retaliation against
London
"won" the battle.



Check your history.

He's right. The Luftwaffe acidently bombed London, so the British
carried out a larger strikes against German cities. This enraged a
certain vegetarian nut case into ordering the main effort against
London, instead of Fighter Command and aircraft factories.



The decision to switch the target to London was taken at a meeting
of the Luftwaffe staff in The Hague on Sept 3 1940. Kesselring had
been pressing for a sustained attack on London and since Hitler had
removed the prohibition on bombing the British capital on Aug 30th.

At the meeting Kesselring who was chief of staff repeated his recommendation
for an attack on London. Sperle disagreed arguing that the attacks on
the fighter fields should be continued.

Goering supported Kesselring saying.

Quote
My fellow commanders, we are now on the brink of victory. An assault and an
invasion of England is now more promising than ever before. Our intelligence
has now informed us that the RAF is now down to less than a hundred fighter
aircraft, the airfields protecting London are out of action because of the
superb and accurate bombing of our bomber forces, their communications are
in disarray, and now we are told, their air commanders are arguing with each
other.

Gentlemen, another phase is now almost complete. The RAF is now no longer
the great threat that it used to be, and we can now draw every available
fighter plane that the RAF has into the air, because the next target must be
London itself.......

/Quote

In fact the RAF had more single seater fighters ready for action than had
been the case at the start of the Battle having replaced the Belnheims and
Battles with Hurricanes and Spitfires.

If that had not of happened, Fighter Command was on the verge of
collapse (in their own assessments), the Germans would have achieved
air superiority, perhaps even air dominance, and the UK's production
capability and war fighting potential would have been greatly
effected. Though the Germans would have received a hiding if they
attempted an invasion.



This overstates the case but does nicely point out the differences between
the commanders.

While 11 group was undoubtedly under great pressure fighter command
as a whole was at full establishment with 670 fighters available for combat.
Dowding was concerned because he believed , rightly IMHO, that he
should have 2 pilots for each aircraft and by Sept 1st he only had 1100
pilots available. Even so throughout the BOB the RAF was able to take
pilots out of the line for rest and leave. The worst case scenario for
Dowding
was moving squadrons to airfields north of London.

In the same period Sperle reported that the Luftwaffe was suffering
seriously
from attrition. Squadrons were below strength , typically at 80-90% of
their establishment at the start of the battle.

They were not replacing aircrews or aircraft at the rate they were being
lost and he was worried that the Luftwaffe intelligence reports greatly
underestimated RAF strength.

He was overuled. Goering and Kesselring estimated that the RAF was
down to 20% of its nominal strength.

That gross failure of intelligence explains the decision to switch targets.
Hitler gave the Luftwaffe Staff permission to make the mistake and they
took it.

Keith