randy@ms.uky.edu (Randy Appleton) (01/25/91)
From: randy@ms.uky.edu (Randy Appleton) ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Allan Bourdius) writes: >From: Allan Bourdius <ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu> >I recall reading in BGEN Chuck Yeager's (USAF, Ret.) book _Yeager_ about >his experiences flying the MiG-15 during the Korean War after we had >gotten a NK pilot to defect with one. The results of the flight tests >performed by Yeager on the MiG-15 showed that the F-86 Sabre of the USAF >was an infinitely superior aircraft in most respects (speed, >maneuverability, survivability, etc.). Yeager then preceded to wax the >fannies of any Sabre pilot who wanted to take him on in the MiG. The >Sabre pilots, of course, claimed that the MiG was better than the Sabre >(no fault to their flying, of course). Yeager retalliated by putting a >Sabre pilot in the MiG and he flew a Sabre. Again, Yeager waxed their >tails all the time. >What this proves is that the quality of the plane involved in a dogfight >dosen't make the difference--the quality of the pilot does. Uhhh, no. Fighter combat back then was visual intercept, and then guns to guns in a dog-fight. These days air-air combat seems to be radar lock-ons and beyond visual range missiles. I understand the British in the Falklands might have done a bit of dogfighting, but I also thought that the Israeli's attacks in the '82 (or was it '83) turkey-shoot were mostly of this more modern variety. It would seem to me that the quality of the equipment is *more* important than before, and conversly the pilot's less so. Certainly the ability to turn and high speeds at middle and upper atlitudes both seem relitivly less important than the missiles and radars carried. On counter thought might be that the ability to pull high G's might reduce the range at which you can be shot at successfully. Of course, while you're busy dodging one missile, the enemy can close and fire another. I once heard ( *rumor alert* ) that half the cost of a modern fighter was in the avionics. It seems the designers agree. Finally, I wonder if maybe the latest trend in fighter aircraft might be to increase the bomb load. It seems to be more efficient to attack the air base than the air craft. -Randy -- ============================================================================= My feelings on George Bush's promises: "You have just exceeded the gulibility threshold!" ============================================Randy@ms.uky.edu==================
sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney) (02/04/91)
From: sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney) In article <1991Jan27.104656.26741@cbnews.att.com>, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: |>From: randy@ms.uky.edu (Randy Appleton) |>Uhhh, no. Fighter combat back then was visual intercept, and then guns |>to guns in a dog-fight. These days air-air combat seems to be radar |>lock-ons and beyond visual range missiles... | |unaware Syrian MiGs, with radar aircraft supervising, sure. For air |combat above Iraq, where most of the aircraft are friendly and the bad |guys can pop up with little warning, probably not. Actually, first U.S. kill air-to-air kill was made with a Sparrow. First Saudi kills were Sidewinders. Take your pick. Iraqi airspace is pretty much owned by AWACS, so you can get some flexability in BVR launches. |>Finally, I wonder if maybe the latest trend in fighter aircraft might |>be to increase the bomb load. It seems to be more efficient to attack |>the air base than the air craft. | |This has been fairly fundamental dogma since the Six-Day War, which is |why you see a lot of runway-piercing bombs and hardened aircraft shelters |and the like. I wonder sometimes how true it is. The Israeli air force |would have taken heavy losses if they'd tried that against an alert and |well-defended opponent. Also true that the Iraqis have been able to put back on-line their airfields relatively quickly (decent combat engineers, fer shure). I wouldn't be surprised to see one strike targeted at an airfield, then another strike come in an hour later to attack the repair crews.... Doug Mohney, Operations Manager, CAD Lab/ME, Univ. of Maryland College Park * Ray Kaplan was right *