Posted on 02/22/2010 6:32:13 PM PST by ErnstStavroBlofeld
The first flight of Russia's stealthy PAK-FA is the best recent example of the problems examined in the United States Defense Science Board report on “Capability Surprise”, released in September last year. This study is an important step forward in identifying the causes of many past, current and developing strategic failures. A capability surprise arises whenever an opponent makes use of a new capability, or uses an existing capability in a different way, catching the target or victim off guard1.
Al Qaeda's use in September, 2001, of passenger laden hijacked aircraft as cruise missiles was a good example of a capability surprise.
The PAK-FA is, but at many more levels, another case of capability surprise for Western military leaders.
The DSB study divides capability surprises into two broad categories, and makes some important observations:
Capability surprise can spring from many sources: scientific breakthrough in the laboratory, rapid fielding of a known technology, or new operational use of an existing capability or technology. A review of many surprises that occurred over the past century suggests that surprises tend to fall into two major categories:
(Excerpt) Read more at ausairpower.net ...
It's true a pilot and his training can make all the difference. Our training and equipment has been superior in my lifetime. While the technology gap may close somewhat, I don't believe the training and capabilities ever will as long as we have an all volunteer armed forces. The biggest hurdle in US defense policy will always the the political will of the CiC.
Had we faced Russian forces in the Middle Eastern or European theater during the first Gulf War era, I'd say the outcome would have likely been the same, although our casualties would have been higher.
The old Soviet Union and China could only accomplish goals by numbers and engaging in brute force and attrition tactics, as evident in WWII and Korea. I have not seen much in a shift away from that doctorine, especially from the Chinese. The only thing that would change, in my opinion, would be the scale of equipment/personnel and escalation threat of unconventional weapons vs Russia or China.
Interesting you would use the Lamborghini/Audi comparison. How many of each are owned and why? Obviously, there is a cost factor, but if you polled the owners, it's more probable the reasons are due to other practical factors. If you took the cost factor away, I doubt it would change either owner's mind much for the same reasons.
You are correct in saying an F-16 or -18 had a different purpose in its initial design and folded well into the other roles. Conversely, it's unlikely an A-10 or old A-6 or A-4 would ever be a viable dogfighter.
However, the difference here is the F-35 has been, from the outset, developed as a multi-role aircraft. I think that's important to recognize.
To go back to your car analogy, I'd compare the 35 to a good SUV. No, it won't accelerate or corner like a sports car, but it'll still get you where your going plenty fast and even do so over rough terrain in bad weather. No, it can't carry a semi's load, but it'll carry more than a suitcase. It's probably most like an SUV because it's developed a bad reputation without validity. Some people just choose to hate it.
Surely, someone with your background and experience can discern between the ability of the CiC to recognize, prepare, and execute over the perceived deficiencies of the weapons system.
The Zero was only good because our aircraft were substandard when comparing the Zero to the P-39 and -40. Our pilots were inexperienced at the outset of WWII. It's many weaknesses were quickly exposed once we were fully engaged in combat and our war production came online. The Corsair and Hellcat were hardly the pinnacle of our piston engine designs and they chewed up the Zero.
Thirteen .50 cal guns don't mean much when you're flying a predictable course at a predictable altitude and speed through heavy flak.
The MiG-15's existence was no secret or surprise. The fact the Soviets exported it to NK, China, and even flew it in combat against us was, but should not have been.
The F-4 only failed in its BVR capability during Vietnam because it was not allowed to be used. Visual ID was required. Dumb command decisions can't be blamed on the aircraft.
We never lost an SR-71 and probably wouldn't have lost a Valkyrie, had it been continued. That said, I am glad that drove us in the direction of stealth. It would probably be wise to have a combination of high and fast with low and slow. Future UCAVs may give us that.
Hell, we may even have something, for all I know. I remember distincly how off base people were about the F-117 when they thought it was going to be something like the rendering of the F-19.
Precisely my point, now we can add Obama & Gates to that list.
Regarding your summary:
The F-6F was designed specifically to beat the zero. The Hellcat was an air superiority fighter by birth, by design and in application.
Most B-17 and B-24 combat losses were to fighters, not antiaircraft fire. The daylight strategic bombing campaign in the ETO was almost stopped because of losses. It did not shift to the USAAF's favor until the P-51 arrived. The P-51 was designed as an air superiority fighter and long range escort.
In Korea. the F-86 was outclassed in performance by the MiG-15. What earned the spectacular kill ratio was the pilot skill in the USAF and the absolute incompetence of the NKAF.
The 1:1 parity in early air-to- air combat in Vietnam was because the F-105 and F-4 could not engage the enemy on clearly superior terms. The F-14 and F-15 were designed with one mission. Air superiority based on what was learned with the F-4 in combat.
The legacy of the SR-71 was that it could outrun SAMs and intercepters, not that it could defend itself or outfly them in ACM.
The P-51 came along in force long after the P-47 and the B-17’s had already broken the backs of the Axis. This explains the later absence of enemy opposition to our bomber missions and gave the P-51 the appearance of having won the war. The real heroes, the P-47’s, then turned their fury and massive fire power on the ground where it did the most damage to the Luftwaffe before they could get into the air to fight the P-51’s.
That being said, the P-47 is one of my personal favorites. It did all the dirty work through 1943 then became a premier tactical fighter bomber, as you pointed out. It was overshadowed by the more glamorous looking P-51.
You make a comment that I strongly disagree with "The P-51 came along in force long after the P-47 and the B-17’s had already broken the backs of the Axis." The P-51 came onboard in 1943 long before the air war in Europe was decided.
The 1:1 parity in early air-to- air combat in Vietnam was because the F-105 and F-4 could not engage the enemy on clearly superior terms. The F-14 and F-15 were designed with one mission. Air superiority based on what was learned with the F-4 in combat.
Yes and no on both.
While the MiG-15 had a better rate of climb, it was inferior to the F-86 in many ways. The heavy armament served well against bombers, but the slow chugging cannon required more skill on the pilot's part to make the shots hit their mark. It's airframe was very unstable and prone to stalling. The MiG, despite it's rate of climb, could not turn or dive with the Sabre.
The best attributes of the F-86, other than the pilot, were the Sperry gunsight and high rate of fire machine guns. Made a huge difference in the dogfight.
The F-15 was designed in response to the overblown perceptions of the MiG-25's capabilities. It wasn't until Lt. Belenko's defection we learned what a dog it was as a fighter.
The F-14 was designed to protect the fleet and homeland by intercepting Soviet bombers with the long range Phoenix missiles.
From Global Security.org:
"Experience in the Vietnam conflict showed the F-4 Phantom II to have maneuvering performance inferior to that of the Soviet-built MiG-21. In response to this finding, the USAF developed a set of requirements for a dedicated air-superiority fighter with a maneuvering capability greater than any existing or foreseeable-future fighter "
"Using lessons learned in Vietnam, the USAF sought to develop and procure a new, dedicated air superiority fighter. Such an aircraft was desperately needed, as no USAF aircraft design solely conceived as an air superiority fighter had become reality since the F-86 Sabre."
My own experience was that MacDac also went to the USAF pilots and extensively interveiwed them as to what they wanted. The answer was power, performance, manuverability, visibility and a gun. They got it all in the F-15.
The F-14 was designed to protect the fleet and homeland by intercepting Soviet bombers with the long range Phoenix missiles.
Again from Global security.org
" The design of the F-14B allows for incredible pitch authority as well as good roll control to produce an extremely agile fighter."
From everything2:
"Specifically, the Vietnam war had taught the U.S. Navy that interceptors could not just be extremely fast missile trucks with low maneuverablility. In fact, although speed was critical, the ability to engage in a 'turn and burn knife fight in a phone booth' with enemy aircraft was also needed."
The F-15 and F-14 were desgned for a single mission, from inception, to be clearly dominant air superiority fghters.
To answer the threat of the MIG-25 Foxbat, U.S. developers designed and fielded the F-4 Phantom.
That's a big fat negative. The Phantom first flew in 1958 and entered service in 1960. The Foxbat didn't even have its first flight until 1964 and entered service in 1970. It's like Hillary saying she was named after the famous Everest climber, even though she was born before the feat.
To their credit, however, they do say this:
The Navy planned to defend the carriers, using the strategy of defense in depth. The attacking Soviet aircraft will be met at long ranges by counterair aircraft based on the carriers. This requirement was initially met by the "Missileer," the name given to an aircraft of proposed in the 1950s. The F6D-1 Missileer was not a fighter at all, as a "fighter" is currently defined. It is merely a platform that launched air-to-air missiles. The theory behind the missileer is that high performance can be put into the weapon instead of the aircraft. On 21 July 1960 the Navy announced that a contract for the development of the Missileer aircraft for launching the Eagle long-range air-to-air guided missile, was being issued to the Douglas Aircraft Corporation. Eventually, the Navy development organizations became convinced that the F6D was too slow, too narrow in application, and too expensive [both the Phoenix missiles and the AN/AWG-9 radar used on its replacement, the F-14 Tomcat, evolved from the abortive Douglas F6D Missileer program].
I am not even sure I totally buy that, since, IIRC, the Phoenix system was made for the F-111's (which we discussed earlier) multi-role platform.
In any event, my origninal sourcing comes from the many volumes of Jane's All The World's Aircraft and other books from their writers I've collected over the years. I'd consider them much more authoritative in the field over GS. That's probably where GS got their F-14 info. How they came up with the other bit is beyond me.
My recollection of talking with MacDac design engineers about what features the F-15 needed was in 1972-1973. Not once was Mach-3 ever discussed. We knew by then, that most turn and burn fighting was done subsonically and most of that within gun range. We wanted low wing loading and high turn and slew rates.
Sparrows were useless in that quarter (useless overall as a matter of fact) and sidewinders and guns were the weapons of choice. Neither would have been a threat to the Mig-25. There were some discussions of an intercepter version of the F-15 with either the Falcon or the Phoenix systems but they died at birth.
On the performance of the Soviet/Chinese model ...I agree with what you said: had we faced the Soviets in a limited air-war prior to GW1, we would still have won ...just had more casualties than against the Iraqis. No argument there. To be quite straight I believe that the First Gulf War was an immense educational lesson for the Russians, the Chinese, and other upper-tier nations (like India) that had adhered to the central-command Soviet model. Those lessons can easily be seen in the way those forces have oriented their current military. Actually even in the Yugoslavia NATO action, one could notice some of those lessons starting to form ....for instance how the Yugoslavs were quite innovative in using decoys, microwaves and other cheap but effective tactics (the report of over a hundred APCs and Tanks destroyed, as well as several bridges, turned out to be far less in reality). The Indian, Russian and Chinese militaries have been taking measures to ensure that the routing of Iraq does not apply to them.
As for the F-35 ...I am sure it will be a great plane. It is just that it has experienced significant role creep. It has gone from being a 'lo' aircraft to the Raptor's 'hi,' to being the mainstay of the USAF, USN, and Marines. That might be a problem should a conflagration rise against a near-peer adversary. Does that mean we would lose the war? No, however the adversary doesn't need to win the war. Simply by hitting a hard enough blow, and letting 50% of the US population (the 'other side' of whatever political party is currently in the WH ...if it's a Dem then the 50% will be Republican, if it is a Republican then the 50% will be DUmmies) plus the media, and suddenly words like 'debacle' and 'quagmire' start coming up. The F-35 with F-22s is a great team ...however 187 Raptors is quite less than what was originally planned (and unlike the SeaWolf-to-Virginia 'cost cutting' measures, which is quite similar to the Raptor in that the SWolf was supposed to have 29 hulls, that were cut to 12, then to 3 ...raising the costs so much that the Virginia was incepted to be a 'cheaper' alternative, which ended up costing the same ...unlike that, the F-35 is not as capable as the Raptor).
Anyways, as for the SUV analogy you came up with ...I think it is perfect. Far better than my Audi vs Murcielago analogy. The 35 is the perfect truck, able to do everything (and do it quite well for that matter). The issue comes when it is track day, and the competition is showing up with Dodge Vipers. Suddenly that Lamborghini starts to look mighty attractive. Sure, in most days all one needs is the truck ...and track days will be few and far between (hence the need for far more F-35s than F-22s).
However 187 is a tad too few.
bttt
The data Belenko supplied in response to the first quick queries also seemed surprising and, at first, contradictory.
What is the maximum speed of the MiG-25?
You cannot safely exceed Mach 2.8, but actually we were forbidden to exceed Mach 2.5. You see, at high speeds the engines have a very strong tendency to accelerate out of control, and if they go above Mach 2.8, they will overheat and burn up.
But we have tracked the MiG-25 at Mach 3.2. Yes, and every time it has flown that fast the engines have been completely ruined and had to be replaced and the pilot was lucky to land in one piece. (That fitted with intelligence the Americans had. They knew that the MiG-25 clocked over Israel at Mach 3.2 in 1973 had landed back in Egypt with its engines totally wrecked. They did not understand that the wreckage was inevitable rather than a freakish occurrence.)
I read this as a kid and loved it. Here's a link to the entire book:
http://www.testpilot.ru/review/mig_pilot/index_e.htm
It's all interesting, but Chapter 7 deals with the most technical aspects of the Foxbat.
What is the maximum altitude of your missiles?
They will not work above 27,000 meters [88,580 feet].
Then you cannot intercept the SR-71 [the most modern U.S. reconnaissance plane]!
True; for all sorts of reasons. First of all, the SR-71 flies too high and too fast. The MiG-25 cannot reach it or catch it. Secondly, as I told you, the missiles are useless above 27,000 meters, and as you know, the SR-71 cruises much higher. But even if we could reach it, our missiles lack the velocity to overtake the SR-71 if they are fired in a tail chase. And if they are fired head-on, their guidance systems cannot adjust quickly enough to the high closing speed.
The B-70 flew at the same speed as the SR-71 [Fastest Speed: 2,020 mph (3,250 km/h) (on 12 January 1966)] , but within the altitude of the Russian missile envelope. But, as he said, they were not fast enough to catch it or sophisticated enough to adjust head on. We were bluffed out of pursuing one of the more interesting concepts in the Cold War.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.