[Shawn 507]

Originally Posted by STARMAN 352ND

Please stay on the topic here boys....
Thank You.
JP

What military personal weapons don't fall into the Dog Fight arena? LOL

[jim]

My fault, sorry.

[FormerViperDriver]

Originally Posted by Aircrafty

LOL, no one could be more full of themselves than you. The combat effectiveness of the US Sidewinder series has never matched its simulated performance. Which is why Israel built their own improved versions, Shafrir then Python. The British pilots were so disappointed with its performance in the Falklands War that the UK decided in the 1980's to produce a better AA missile system, being the ASRAAM, which is what our RAAF F/A 18's are equipped with.

Man, I've got to spell EVERYTHING out for you, don't I...

1) EVERY missile does better in simulations than in reality (duh!).

2) Falklands conflict = 1982; initial service date of ASRAAM in Australia = 2004. So for 22 years, Australia used an inferior missile (AIM-9L) on their fighters? You guys must be mad, I guess.

3) In general, British pilots were very happy with the AIM-9L in the Falklands. With more training ahead of time, they would have been more successful with them, but still the kill ratio was unprecedented. FYI, the Israelis kicked butt in the 1982 Lebanon/Bekaa Valley conflict using the AIM-9L (yes, the very same one) as a primary missile (it got more kills in that action than any other missile/gun) Their beef with the missile had NOTHING to do with the seeker head capability, only with the warhead which they thought was not large enough and did not always destroy the target instantly (leading to double shots being taken more than once). There is NO QUESTION that the AIM-9L is credited in every account of the Falklands conflict that I have ever read with being THE NUMBER ONE factor in British ability to gain a relative degree of air superiority. I'm wondering why you seem to be the only one not to know that.

What really gets me is how a guy who's never flown a fighter of any kind can think he knows more about this stuff than someone who has throusands of hours in the real thing (not Flight Simulator). Are you just unwilling to learn anything from anyone? What's your problem exactly? Just anti-American to the bone?

FVD

[Aircrafty]

Originally Posted by FormerViperDriver

Man, I've got to spell EVERYTHING out for you, don't I...

1) EVERY missile does better in simulations than in reality (duh!).

2) Falklands conflict = 1982; initial service date of ASRAAM in Australia = 2004. So for 22 years, Australia used an inferior missile (AIM-9L) on their fighters? You guys must be mad, I guess.

3) In general, British pilots were very happy with the AIM-9L in the Falklands. With more training ahead of time, they would have been more successful with them, but still the kill ratio was unprecedented. FYI, the Israelis kicked butt in the 1982 Lebanon/Bekaa Valley conflict using the AIM-9L (yes, the very same one) as a primary missile (it got more kills in that action than any other missile/gun) Their beef with the missile had NOTHING to do with the seeker head capability, only with the warhead which they thought was not large enough and did not always destroy the target instantly (leading to double shots being taken more than once). There is NO QUESTION that the AIM-9L is credited in every account of the Falklands conflict that I have ever read with being THE NUMBER ONE factor in British ability to gain a relative degree of air superiority. I'm wondering why you seem to be the only one not to know that.

What really gets me is how a guy who's never flown a fighter of any kind can think he knows more about this stuff than someone who has throusands of hours in the real thing (not Flight Simulator). Are you just unwilling to learn anything from anyone? What's your problem exactly? Just anti-American to the bone?

FVD

Take a chill pill FVD You don't have to spell anything out for any forum member including myself. You merely have to have the decency to accept that every person here has a different viewpoint to yours depending upon their culture, intelligence, education and training etc.

When are you going to GET THAT and stop trying to force YOUR opinion on every other member.

You say that technology (F-22, Sidewinders etc) is the MOST important factor in a military conflict. And you brush aside other member opinions that the ability and dedication of the human pilot, soldier etc has a significant bearing on the matter. If you are in fact a current or retired fighter pilot I would have thought by now that you have learnt the hard way that weapons systems are only as good as their operator(s).

I am NOT anti American, but I feel there are a number of people (including yourself) that would benefit from a more global view to overcome their limited scope of military history, and indeed weapons systems. For example, I frequent a number of forums on military history and military models, and I could list in the hundreds the number of members that think the B-17 was the best bomber and the Sherman the best tank in WWII, and they're not all Americans. However they often form their opinion based on biased documentaries and Hollywood movies such as The Battle of the Bulge.

As for the Sidewinder arguement, I'll address your numbered statements:

1) The effectiveness of missiles and everything else in a simulation can in fact be made worse as well as better than in reality.

2) Australia (RAAF) adopted the Sidewinders because they came with the American built aircraft we purchased, but it was soon discovered the system wasn't that good in practise. However, there was no pressing need to develop or purchase a better system until it became so outdated that we were compelled to.

3) The AIM-9L was certainly an improvement on earlier Sidewinders, but in combat it was no better in a headon attack despite it being promoted as such to the RAF pilots in the Falklands, that was what they were upset about. However the RAF and the IAF had no better alternative to the Sidewinders in the early 1980's which is why they used the sidewinder AIM-9L in their relative conflicts at that time. But they soon realised the deficiencies of the Sidewinder system and spent large amounts of money to develop a superior replacement.

[flyXwire]

Originally Posted by Aircrafty

Take a chill pill FVD You don't have to spell anything out for any forum member including myself. You merely have to have the decency to accept that every person here has a different viewpoint to yours depending upon their culture, intelligence, education and training etc.

When are you going to GET THAT and stop trying to force YOUR opinion on every other member.

You say that technology (F-22, Sidewinders etc) is the MOST important factor in a military conflict. And you brush aside other member opinions that the ability and dedication of the human pilot, soldier etc has a significant bearing on the matter. If you are in fact a current or retired fighter pilot I would have thought by now that you have learnt the hard way that weapons systems are only as good as their operator(s).

Here, here...Aircrafty well said bud!

[FormerViperDriver]

Originally Posted by Aircrafty

Take a chill pill FVD You don't have to spell anything out for any forum member including myself. You merely have to have the decency to accept that every person here has a different viewpoint to yours depending upon their culture, intelligence, education and training etc.

When are you going to GET THAT and stop trying to force YOUR opinion on every other member.

You say that technology (F-22, Sidewinders etc) is the MOST important factor in a military conflict. And you brush aside other member opinions that the ability and dedication of the human pilot, soldier etc has a significant bearing on the matter. If you are in fact a current or retired fighter pilot I would have thought by now that you have learnt the hard way that weapons systems are only as good as their operator(s).

I am NOT anti American, but I feel there are a number of people (including yourself) that would benefit from a more global view to overcome their limited scope of military history, and indeed weapons systems. For example, I frequent a number of forums on military history and military models, and I could list in the hundreds the number of members that think the B-17 was the best bomber and the Sherman the best tank in WWII, and they're not all Americans. However they often form their opinion based on biased documentaries and Hollywood movies such as The Battle of the Bulge.

As for the Sidewinder arguement, I'll address your numbered statements:

1) The effectiveness of missiles and everything else in a simulation can in fact be made worse as well as better than in reality.

2) Australia (RAAF) adopted the Sidewinders because they came with the American built aircraft we purchased, but it was soon discovered the system wasn't that good in practise. However, there was no pressing need to develop or purchase a better system until it became so outdated that we were compelled to.

3) The AIM-9L was certainly an improvement on earlier Sidewinders, but in combat it was no better in a headon attack despite it being promoted as such to the RAF pilots in the Falklands, that was what they were upset about. However the RAF and the IAF had no better alternative to the Sidewinders in the early 1980's which is why they used the sidewinder AIM-9L in their relative conflicts at that time. But they soon realised the deficiencies of the Sidewinder system and spent large amounts of money to develop a superior replacement.

You're just beyond help. No need in arguing with someone who doesn't even know basic facts. I don't have time to teach kindergarten.

FVD

[FormerViperDriver]

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

Skysurfer, your knowledge of aviation history is excellent as usual, but I'd like to warn you against getting trapped into a mental "box" (what Thomas Kuhn called a "paradigm" in "The Structure of Scientific Revolution" in 1962). Most people have a difficult time thinking "outside the box," or outside the paradigm they think is the agreed truth about the world. Such as: "it's the man, not the machine." Of course, at a certain level, we all know it's always a combination of man and machine. I'm always reminded of the scene in "Indiana Jones" when Indy is confronted by a turban-wearing, scimitar-wielding, very tall bad guy, who proceeds to do some fancy moves with his edge weapon. Indy just pulls out a gun and shoots him cold. Man or machine? Well yes, Indy had to know how to use a gun (not a difficult thing at that distance), but if if were just "the man," the other guy should have won. Guys like Shawn507 strike me as the kind of people who in 1917 would have thought the best way to take out German machine guns was the bayonet charge (because "it's the way we've always done it" and because "it's the manly thing to do" - BTW, this "manly thing" obsession deserves serious psycho-analysis, Shawn). He would also have been a great fan of the Maginot Line in the 30s. In other words, he's one of those who's always fighting the last war. But most people aren't so extreme and will agree that the combination of man and machine is what does it. "It's the man, not the machine" is a slogan, nothing more, and it simply becomes idiotic when applied in the wrong context. In reality, it is almost ALWAYS the man AND the machine. Which one is MORE important is something that can only be determined by experience, and will be highly context-dependent. It is true that IN THE PAST the man has more often than not been the most imnportant factor.

My point in this and other threads has been that the F-22 (and the F-35) represents a Khunian "paradigm shift" such as never seen in aerial warfare to date. This is based on my experience as a fighter pilot and an AIr Force operational-level warfare subject matter expert (that's what I do for a living, and quite frankly I don't care if whether people choose to believe it or not). This assessment is further backed up by my extensive daily contacts with people in the "business," not just US, but NATO, PfP, and other countries worldwide (as Aircrafty still doesn't get, but he's a "special case"). It is now yet further backed by operational experience of the F-22 in Northern Edge and Red Flag, where F-22s flown by pilots with 50 hours in it wiped out the cream-of-the-cream aggressor pilots with thousands of hours in F-16s and F-15s. Those who don't believe that the center of gravity of the man-machine complex has dramatically shifted towards the machine are just blind. They prefer slogans to truth, just like the Israelis believed in 1973 that they were so good and well trained (compared to the Egyptians and Syrians) that they had no need to worry about the new machines in Arab hands: SA-6, SA-7, ZSU-23-4, AT-2 and 3, etc... They paid dearly for that mistake, and if we hadn't intevened with massive reinforcements to help them, who knows...

People get killed from not heeding the lessons of history, but they also get killed from not seeing that the paradigm as shifted, that there is something new in the world. Ask the French in 1940. People like Shawn and Aircrafty are people who would have said back in 1903 that the aeroplane would never amount to anything useful and we don't need such technology (it's the man that counts, after all!). They would have bought tons of candles as electricity was being made commercially available for the first time. They would have charged against tanks with horse cavalry (ask the Poles about that one). They would have been staunch advocates of battleships just as aircraft carriers appeared. They would have missed the boat (pun intended) just as they are missing it now. Thankfully, the leaders of this country know better.

So, my dear SkySurfer, yes, continue to study airpower. You're doing an outstanding job at it. But remember that just because something "has always been done that way" doesn't mean it will be forever. Personally, I actually hope all our enemies (and potential enemies) listen to Shawn and Aircrafty. I want them to be so taken by surprise when the day comes that they'll never know what hit them. I don't even think it's smart to export the F-35 to all the countries we are going to, even though they are allies, as the technologies are just too sensitive (but I guess if "it's the man" then it doesn't matter). So don't become like John Boyd and become trapped in an old paradigm which is a sure path to defeat. He was a great thinker within the old "box," but became irrelevant when the technology allowed us to step out of that box. His opposition to the F-22 was just one more sign of his inability to think beyond his beloved "dogfight" paradigm, which he held until his death (I'm guessing because he was, in fact, very good at the dogfight when he was a pilot). Please don't let that happen to you. It's not a matter of puting technology above everything else, it's a matter of thinking for yourself and analyzing the evidence that the old ways don't work any more. And believe me, the evidence is everywhere you look. Paradigm shift.

FVD

[STARMAN 352ND]

Now you guys be nice to each other here on the forum ......It's always nice to hear different opinion from members.
If this keeps up i will close it.

JP

[jim]

Its fierce debate thats for sure ,but from this we can take much knowledge.

Its interesting in that we all have strong opinions and reading these posts allows us to compare notes as it were and see where our own views sit.

Perhaps after reading all this just maybe some of us are the wiser, always keep an open mind and asess things calmly, its also great fun.

[Shawn 507]

Originally Posted by FormerViperDriver

Skysurfer, your knowledge of aviation history is excellent as usual, but I'd like to warn you against getting trapped into a mental "box" (what Thomas Kuhn called a "paradigm" in "The Structure of Scientific Revolution" in 1962). Most people have a difficult time thinking "outside the box," or outside the paradigm they think is the agreed truth about the world. Such as: "it's the man, not the machine." Of course, at a certain level, we all know it's always a combination of man and machine. I'm always reminded of the scene in "Indiana Jones" when Indy is confronted by a turban-wearing, scimitar-wielding, very tall bad guy, who proceeds to do some fancy moves with his edge weapon. Indy just pulls out a gun and shoots him cold. Man or machine? Well yes, Indy had to know how to use a gun (not a difficult thing at that distance), but if it were just "the man," the other guy should have won. Guys like Shawn507 strike me as the kind of people who in 1917 would have thought the best way to take out German machine guns was the bayonet charge (because "it's the way we've always done it" and because "it's the manly thing to do" - BTW, this "manly thing" obsession deserves serious psycho-analysis, Shawn). Yeah I'm all for frontal assaults, thats why I choose to be a Paratrooper. It was the OFFICERS who held on to that train of thought in 1917. Anyone in the trenches (where I work) could see it was wrong. It was the TACTIC, not the technology that came up with fixing and flanking the machine guns. As for my mental state, I'm the last to suffer from small member syndrome. It is you that has the "Mohamed Ali" syndrome. I can only imagine what kind of officer/leader you were to those not inlock-step with your train of thought. I"ll bet this is one reason your a Former Viper Driver and not a Current one. I've seen your type before, one who is in desperate need of a sidewinder to the tail pipe. I bet others saw it too. He would also have been a great fan of the Maginot Line in the 30s. In other words, he's one of those who's always fighting the last war. Um yeah, the Maginot Line was a technological thing, like your F-22. The world saw how well that held up to sound tactics. Your F22 will have its day just as the Maginot Line did. But most people aren't so extreme and will agree that the combination of man and machine is what does it. "It's the man, not the machine" is a slogan, nothing more, and it simply becomes idiotic when applied in the wrong context. In reality, it is almost ALWAYS the man AND the machine. Which one is MORE important is something that can only be determined by experience, and will be highly context-dependent. It is true that IN THE PAST the man has more often than not been the most imnportant factor.

My point in this and other threads has been that the F-22 (and the F-35) represents a Khunian "paradigm shift" such as never seen in aerial warfare to date. This is based on my experience as a fighter pilot and an AIr Force operational-level warfare subject matter expert (that's what I do for a living, and quite frankly I don't care if whether people choose to believe it or not). This assessment is further backed up by my extensive daily contacts with people in the "business," not just US, but NATO, PfP, and other countries worldwide (as Aircrafty still doesn't get, but he's a "special case"). It is now yet further backed by operational experience of the F-22 in Northern Edge and Red Flag, where F-22s flown by pilots with 50 hours in it wiped out the cream-of-the-cream aggressor pilots with thousands of hours in F-16s and F-15s. Those who don't believe that the center of gravity of the man-machine complex has dramatically shifted towards the machine are just blind. They prefer slogans to truth, just like the Israelis believed in 1973 that they were so good and well trained (compared to the Egyptians and Syrians) that they had no need to worry about the new machines in Arab hands: SA-6, SA-7, ZSU-23-4, AT-2 and 3, etc... They paid dearly for that mistake, and if we hadn't intevened with massive reinforcements to help them, who knows...

People get killed from not heeding the lessons of history, but they also get killed from not seeing that the paradigm as shifted, that there is something new in the world. Ask the French in 1940. Yes ask them how well the Maginot Line worked for them. People like Shawn and Aircrafty are people who would have said back in 1903 that the aeroplane would never amount to anything useful and we don't need such technology (it's the man that counts, after all!). The airplane has proven its worth, we just should have kept you under Army control. Unfortunately it has also given us guys like you and Lemay who think its the end all be all. They would have bought tons of candles as electricity was being made commercially available for the first time. Ladies prefer candles in most situations. They would have charged against tanks with horse cavalry (ask the Poles about that one). The Poles, bless them. Charged the tanks because they were told they were vis-mod cars. Not because they thought the horse and saber were superior to tanks. Yet five years later, the 101st Airborne with attachments held agaisnt ten divsions. Five of which were armored. How did they do it when the Germans held the technological advantage in armor and artillery? Was it because to a MAN, they said this is it no further? They would have been staunch advocates of battleships just as aircraft carriers appeared. I like Battleships, and so did the Navy up to Desert Storm. Yes after Pearl Harbor, the Carrier became the Capitol Ship of the Navy. Or was it subs with nukes on board? They would have missed the boat (pun intended) just as they are missing it now. Thankfully, the leaders of this country know better.

So, my dear SkySurfer, yes, continue to study airpower. You're doing an outstanding job at it. But remember that just because something "has always been done that way" doesn't mean it will be forever. Personally, I actually hope all our enemies (and potential enemies) listen to Shawn and Aircrafty. I want them to be so taken by surprise when the day comes that they'll never know what hit them. I don't even think it's smart to export the F-35 to all the countries we are going to, even though they are allies, as the technologies are just too sensitive (but I guess if "it's the man" then it doesn't matter). So don't become like John Boyd and become trapped in an old paradigm which is a sure path to defeat. He was a great thinker within the old "box," but became irrelevant when the technology allowed us to step out of that box. His opposition to the F-22 was just one more sign of his inability to think beyond his beloved "dogfight" paradigm, which he held until his death (I'm guessing because he was, in fact, very good at the dogfight when he was a pilot). Please don't let that happen to you. It's not a matter of puting technology above everything else, it's a matter of thinking for yourself and analyzing the evidence that the old ways don't work any more. And believe me, the evidence is everywhere you look. Paradigm shift.

My issue with technology comes from seeing it replace tried and true methods. Methods that people forget when their new toy breaks. And it bothers me that the whole thing comes to a screeching halt when the toy breaks. Its as if noone knows how to do it the old fashioned way. It keeps the leadership from being where they should be, and turns them into icon moving micro-managers. Maybe this doesn't translate to those in the air. But if I choose not to put all my faith in technology, its based off of my experiences, in my AO.
One of my biggest kicks is watching you get your flight suit in a twist. Admit it, you still put it on at night when noone is looking. But your attitude towards those not in step with you speak volumes. Again, no wonder its FVD not CVD. I've stayed clear of this with you on here, your the one taking it to the next level. And all your doing is splitting the members on this issue. I speak my peace and let it go, your the one on the offensive here.
FVD