[Shawn 507]

Originally Posted by skysurfer808

Glad to play Switzerland in this contest. I agree that it's the Pilots, hence my respect for Col Boyd's People, Ideas, Hardware mantra. This was proven by the Navy with Top Gun, which increased the Vietnam Era victory ratio from just over 2 to 1 to 12 to 1, without changing hardware (Crusaders and Phantoms thoroughout). Red Flag did the same for the Air Force, which made an even more dramatic improvement between Vietnam and the Gulf...though they also managed a hardware change through this. The Air Force that flies and trains more, that masters its own technology, will be more effective.

Looking back through time, one can compare Air Power to Sea Power at the beginning of the 20th Century. In both cases a World Superpower used their technological advantage and control of a neutral medium to dominate world trade. In Britain's case it was the Sea, in America's the Sea and Sky. Air Power has become for the US what Sea Power was for Britain, the ultimate means of control. Both had its limitations. Air and Sea Powers can control movement, but not Ground. Technology can be countered by technology, something the European powers learned in World War One, when modern armies fought one another, rather than against primative opponents.

The Raptor reminds one of the Dreadnaught, a weapon system that caused a Sea Power revolution. Yet because the Dreadnaught was so far ahead of its contemporaries, it made the rest of the Royal Navy obsolete. Thus, Britain's advantage shrank from many to one....and the rest of the world was able to catch up. The Raptor will not exist in a vaccum. Other nations will develop countermeasures against it, and progress will march on. UCAVs and missiles are this century's equivalant of Submarines and Torpedos. Future adversaries will possess fighters with an equivalant capability. Amidst all this, a reserve of well trained pilots is the best insurance policy a nation can have. Technology is important, but People will make the ultimate difference. It is folly to believe anything else.


Skysurfer808

Now when I said in another thread, it was the man not the machine I was quickly squashed with techno-gibberish. Blasphemy they said. Perhaps you've said it more politely than I, but the F-22 and its cousins will have its day. Man is the ultimate weapon, wether he flys it or designs it. It takes a man or heck even a woman to make it deadly.
I'm wondering if it wouldn't be cheaper to outfit a F-teen with some of this geewhizery than purchase these new toys? But what do I know, I'm still plinking away with a 40 yr old rifle that some say is obsolete. Funny, when I up-keep and maintian my M4 it still drops the baddies. Heck, even my M-14 or M-1 Carbine will do that. Training, training, and when tired... more training. But in this new world everyone wants it quick and easy. I guess the pajama gang prefer not to sweat.
- Shawn

[skysurfer808]

Originally Posted by Shawn 507

Now when I said in another thread, it was the man not the machine I was quickly squashed with techno-gibberish. Blasphemy they said. Perhaps you've said it more politely than I, but the F-22 and its cousins will have its day. Man is the ultimate weapon, wether he flys it or designs it. It takes a man or heck even a woman to make it deadly.
I'm wondering if it wouldn't be cheaper to outfit a F-teen with some of this geewhizery than purchase these new toys? But what do I know, I'm still plinking away with a 40 yr old rifle that some say is obsolete. Funny, when I up-keep and maintian my M4 it still drops the baddies. Heck, even my M-14 or M-1 Carbine will do that. Training, training, and when tired... more training. But in this new world everyone wants it quick and easy. I guess the pajama gang prefer not to sweat.
- Shawn

You are absolutely correct Shawn, it is the Man in the Machine that makes the difference. I'm not a professional in this arena, but a strong student of its history, and the best aces in history have agreed on this point. Adolf Galland's words to that effect come to mind. I would say that our highly technical age does make it necessary to have good equipment that its operators are well trained to use. New adversaries are developing machines that will put America's technological dominance to the test in the future. Current equipment is wearing out, and will need to be replaced. When it comes to realistic preparation for war, the sad fact is that programs make money while training is seen as a cost. This was taken to an absurd level during Vietnam, when MacNamera's whiz kidds knew the cost of everything...but the value of nothing. Realistic training saves lives in war, as the Romans said, "he who sweats more in peace bleeds less in war." The unfortunate fact of America's way of war is that blood will continue to be spent to pay for peacetime defense policies. The fact is New programs generate jobs and bureaucratic empires, while upgrades of old equipment bypass the Pentagon's acquistion mafia. That's why the Tomcat is being destroyed, while the Raptor and Super Hornet are churned out. This isn't just an American habit. Erich Hartmann, top scoring pilot of all time, topped out as Colonel in the Peacetime Luftwaffe in part because he opposed massive German Starfighter buy. He wanted pilots to master the equipment they had, and felt the Luftwaffe was biting off more then it could chew in purchasing so many at once. The loss record of the F-104 in Luftwaffe service bore this out. Still, the Raptor is important because it will help guarantee Air Dominance in the Future...just as the Dreadnought kept the waves for Britannia a century ago. I'm all for giving the Air Force its next generation fighter, so long as the Navy recapitalizes its Carrier Air Wings, and the Army gets the equipment it needs.

By the way as a professional, which do you prefer, M-4 or M-14?

Skysurfer808

[Aircrafty]

Originally Posted by F-104 Paul

Ah the sound of musketry and the smell of black powder.... Wrong thread......But seriously very interesting discussion much of it way over my head (Never having flown a combat aircraft) but having read an enormous amount of literature on the subject of modern aircraft combat I would tend towads FVD's arguments/comments.

Everyone's entitled to their own opinion, including that of the F-104 Starfighter

[Shawn 507]

I like the M4 or its compact size, but for the currrent fight in Iraq and Afghanistan where "AT&T" shots are required. The M-14 would be my first choice, but as a PSG those are reserved for the designated marksman in the squad / platoon.
- Shawn

[Aircrafty]

Originally Posted by skysurfer808

Not club this thread to death, but found this article on defenseindustrydaily.com
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...se-03470/#more

Good piece on a recent exercise between the RAF and IAF, which recapitulates a lot of what we've discussed here.

Skysurfer808

I wonder if the experts are placing to much emphasis on Beyond Visual Range combat ability, I guess it's fine if you're sure the guy you can't see is on the other side - but is he

[Cavtanker]

The M-4's small-size is great for the HMMWV series since it doesn't take up very much room. And it works well in MOUT. After the M-4, it would be hard for me to go back to the M-16.

[Shawn 507]

Originally Posted by Cavtanker

The M-4's small-size is great for the HMMWV series since it doesn't take up very much room. And it works well in MOUT. After the M-4, it would be hard for me to go back to the M-16.

The M16 does feel like a musket after having a M4 doesn't it.
- Shawn

[Cavtanker]

That's exactly the way I always hear soldiers describe the difference between the two rifles. I removed my mamba sling because it just kept getting caught on the M1114 vehicle commander's side. And I used the BIS the whole time. So my M-4 was as light as I could make it.

I'm not one of those who attached a high-powered flashlight or EOTECH sight to the M-4. What are soldiers going to do when the batteries die?

[TopHat]

Originally Posted by Cavtanker

I'm not one of those who attached a ... EOTECH sight to the M-4. What are soldiers going to do when the batteries die?

I guess they can peek underneath the EOTECH and use the iron sights that Colt gave them.

[Cavtanker]

You'd be surprised how many fools just take off the rear portion of the BIS and leave them behind.