The love affair with John Boyd and the LWF Mafia...why?

[Obi_Offiah]

All you students raise your hand if you know that we had a EM display in the Bk 1, 5, 10 and early 15 HUD. Hmmmm. Sucker was a bear to interpret, but it tried to portray an EM diagram in real time based upon power setting and instantaneous speed(mach) and altitude. The only thing we used was this tadpole doofer on the left side of the HUD that tilted up if you were gaining energy or had excess Ps, was level at constant energy, and tilted down if you were losing energy. We only used it for Rotowski climb paths or to let us know we could pull another gee or two.

I don't know if it is a similar thing, but some aircraft now display an energy caret referenced to the flight path marker. When its above the FPM the aircraft is accelerating, when below the FPM the aircraft is decelerating and when level with the the FPM the aircraft is at a constant speed.

Obi

[JoeSambor]

Gums,

Way, way, back when I was a newbie two-striper I remember seeing the EM display in my training materials and on the HUD. It did disappear with Block 25, some of our pilots told me it was unusable and distracting. Do you know the real reason it disappeared?

Best Regards,

[bruant328]

I had the pleasure(?) of hearing Boyd at Air University as I bided my time to get into the Viper. He was "out there" by that time (late 70's), and he and Riccione would go around briefing folks. Riccione was trying to sell the F-20 using the Fighter Mafia's rationale. They were talking OODA and "fast linear transients' and other things, not EM theory and its application. I was disappointed.

Exactly what I was trying to say. That group had some good ideas but some of their other ideas would probably surprise some people in a negative way. Boyd would have gagged on 95% of this site's topic threads. BTW, in Pentagon Paradox the author writes that Boyd DID NOT like being called the father of the F-15. He was not especially pleased with how the F-15 came out.

The Viper radar was not a significant weight factor, and I disagreed with Boyd about that. Riccione was trying to sell the F-20, and its radar was heavier and had more modes than that in the Viper. Still in all, the Viper 'dar was neat, even if it didn't put out megawatts and have a huge dish like BattleStar Galactica, Rodan or whatever you called the Eagle and Tomcat. We could routinely acquire and track small tgts at 40-50 miles when they were down in the dirt. The ground map functions were also nice, including the Doppler Beam-sharpening and "freeze" modes.

Riccioni was one of those guys who said look out for defense contractors but I noticed he didn't hesitate to shill for one. Boyd's group would have told you didn't know what you were talking about when it came to airborne LD/SD radar.

The lack of BVR capability in the early Viper was a pure political thing. If we had a capable machine that was lots cheaper than the Eagle and could also help with mudbeating, then Congress would have questioned the F-15 buy. Simple as that.

The LWF mafia or whatever also had the feeling that the USAF deliberately played down the F-16 in air to air roles in order to save the F-15.



Sprey, et al, had some neat studies during the 70's that I wish I could find again.

The Fighter Mafia was not the only group that thot quantity could win over quality. So the debate rages today with the Raptor.

Lemme tell you, tho. I'll take a bigger jet that is not detected on radar until it is too late over a smaller one that you can see on the scope at 10 miles.

Blasphemer!!!

On the other side, I'll take 100 Vipers over 10 Raptors if I were an air commander in a really big war - like the one we prepared for versus the Soviet bloc back in the 70's and 80's.

Great thread, and maybe we can get some other perspectives,

See RaptorOne, we're all big boys here!

[Gums]

Salute!

Obi !!!! The EM display on the first Vipers was very hard to interpret, and Joe-breath has confirmed the pilots' opinion (my own, as well). Only thing we could really use was that energy tadpole doofer. It showed more than accel/deccel. The angle of the tail was supposed to show how much excess energy you had at current power setting and existing mach, altitude, weight, etc.


Joe-breath! Maybe we crossed paths way back when you were a "yute". Owe my life to the wrenchbenders overall, 'cept for the two that forgot to put the pin onthe LEF drive tube, heh heh. I was an "enlightened" old fart, and I used the HUD in both the SLUF and the Viper more than many. The EM display was extremely hard to use, PERIOD!!! And BTW, all the old farts can raise their hands if they remember the original dogfight radar display - it showed the tgt as if you were looking thru a toilet paper tube. The tgt was depicted as if you were IFR and looking straight ahead. As with the EM display, it was traded for other features ( remember, we had maybe 128Kbytes to play with, no kidding. SLUF had about 64K, heh heh).

To bru-breath:

We would never had gotten the Viper were it not for Gentry, Suter, Riccione and Boyd. That's a fact.

Those guys wanted the Eagle like the rest of us back in the late 60's. When the damned thing got bigger and heavier and more expensive, the Fighter Mafia raised their hands and questioned the way we were going.

I gotta admit I have not read the "expose's" you are quoting. Hell, I WAS THERE!!!! Go look up Aviation Week in Sep or Oct of 1974 and read my letter to the editor cocerning the SLUF versus the Warthog.

The true doctine and concept weenies knew with certainty that we needed a great A2A machine, a great mudbeater, and something else to do both things, and do it cheaply. GD came thru better than anyone would have thunk.

The EPG needed something more capable than the Zipper for the multi-role missions. So USAF had a ready and willing consortium. The same folks in Europe liked the Eagle, but the Eagle mafia had stated, "not a pound for air-to-ground".

Guess I'll have to find and read those references.

I can tell you from personal experience that many of the things we read of that period are lacking in "detail" from the actual folks who flew the "actual" missions. The Koh Tang Island debacle is a case in point. The SOG missions in neverneverland that we covered with CAS and escort are the same.

I tell you what, bru, you write the book and interview the actual folks. Some are gone, but a few remain. If we don't capture their memories, however biased or feeble nowadays, then we do an injustice to airpower and its role in som many conflicts.

That's all I gonna say about that for now...

Gums sends.....

[bruant328]

From the lips of Pierre Sprey:
http://www.cdi.org/pdfs/Sprey%20Quarter%20Century.pdf

and James P. Stevenson author of Pentagon Paradox http://www.amazon.com/Pentagon-Paradox- ... 657&sr=1-1

http://www.cdi.org/pdfs/Stevenson%20F-22%20Brief.pdf

I don't want to sound like I'm putting words in their mouths.

[Roscoe]

Man, I went through those briefings and what a load of hogwash.

Sprey is trying to relive his glory days. Stevenson simply doesn't have a clue about the capabilities of the Raptor.

[elp]

I think people have to acknowledge that while the basics of combat don't change, technology has finally caught up to help out.

I refer to the old days when the Sparrow was ( and Falcon too )... garbage. Radars weren't so great unless they were on a test bench. Read all the accounts from F-4 stuff in Vietnam. Some days a Sparrow shot worked and a bunch of times they didn't. Radar for that same same. Sidewinder at least kinda worked. Guns, almost always worked ( unless you did a high g pull sometimes in an F-8 and the gun jammed )

So I understand why people that had BTDT in Vietnam could look at the wonder weapons coming up in the 1970s ( F-14, 15, 16, 18 ) with some questions if the buck rogers gear on them would work. They KNEW a gun and sidewider and good situational awareness worked. A totally fair question. Look at the Sparrow PK rate even in Desert Storm. Pretty poor weapon to take into combat. Part of that too could be the complexity of the hook up to the jet ( not blaming any hard workin munitions peeps)

At least when the F-16 was fielded it had a A2A weapon that worked ( second generation sidewinders, a gun ) and of course it ended up being the absolute best self-escorting day bomber of it's day ( has the Scotland T-Shirt in a NATO exercise to prove it).... so given that Sparrow wasn't on it at the time I don't see as a big deal. Sparrow was over-rated. We did not get cost effective Radar assisted missiles until AMRAAM showed up. Fact.
Sparrow was a money pit. Look at the Bekka Valley June 82( aka Great Mariannas Turkey Shoot )... most kills were not Sparrow ( IDF kill chart via Air Combat Information Group (www.acig.org) http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_270.shtml ) That's real A2A combat. Then of course when AIM-9L came along you could shoot the other guy in the face with a heat seeker. This proved itself in the Falklands.

Fast forward to today. AMRAAM works well (including a simple hookup to the aircraft ).... Radars really work etc..... F-22 can move around the battle space fairly quick without burning up a lot of gas. Super-sonic ability is limited if you can't sustain it and the other guy can (F-22)..... With F-22 on a head to head you get a 50% range increase in your AMRAAM shot if you are going fast and high (60k plus) to add to the no-escape-zone firing solution.... F-22 critics with combat expericence fighter time from years ago... need to ( using a WWII term about oldsters (not counting Gums, he is forward thinking and incredibly bright and experienced ) ) put away the goggles and scarf and realize that some reliable things have happened. And they need to be read into the top end stuff of the F-22 program. ( I am sure they won't blab and run off and tell the Chinese ).

[avon1944]

the Viper 'dar was neat, even if it didn't put out megawatts and have a huge dish like BattleStar Galactica, Rodan or whatever you called the Eagle and Tomcat.

The problem was the F-16 at that time could not perform the primary missions the USAF or the USN needed performed. The USAF wanted an air superiority fighter for the power projection role. Several studies were done for NORAD by the North Dakota ANG and other units, to determine the best replacement for the F-106. The study concluded the best interceptor to replace the F-106 was 1) F-14A/Phoenix Missile, 2) F-15A, 3) F-16A, 4) F-4 Phantom 2 with new engines and radar.
Back when the F-16 was introduced a lot of the capabilities the F-16 now has were not available, it was a day light fighter primarily.
The F-16N protecting a surface fleet against a multi-regiment attack of Tu-95's Bears with jamming support would not happen. The Navy would be better off modernizing the F-4!

I recently found out GD would not produce the Navy's version (Model #1601), the Navy's version would be produced by LTV (Model #1600)!

The lack of BVR capability in the early Viper was a pure political thing. If we had a capable machine that was lots cheaper than the Eagle and could also help with mudbeating, then Congress would have questioned the F-15 buy.

The real issue for the USAF is the Congress lacked the technical sophistication to be able to appreciate the need for both aircraft.

On the other side, I'll take 100 Vipers over 10 Raptors if I were an air commander in a really big war

Good for you but, give me the Raptors! Just like the F-15 and F-16 introduced a higher or new level of performance and their ability to fight in the vertical than any previous aircraft, and look at their success. There are many, many exercises that have shown four or five F-15C's or F-16C's can not deal with a single Raptor. Before duration of a conflict becomes and issue, the opponents of the F-22 in the fight for air superiority will have been over.


If Intel Semiconductor or Ford Motor Co. wanted to reduce the price of their products, would they slow the production rate, short the production run, do everything in-house and not second source all work not essential to be done in-house? NO.... they would do just the opposite on all these issues. Now, guess what our bright leaders in "DC" decided to do???
The conservatives blindly plod forward on most military projects whether original specs can be achieved economically or not. The Liberals at the first sign of trouble want to make cuts in the program. Let's stretch out the production time, slow the production rate, have inconsistent funding for the product, etc. That is why the USAF wound up with F-15's and F-16's. No one proposed measures which would brought down the price of the F-15's to a level "DC" could live with. There was even talk of eliminating either the F-14 or F-15 and force both services to use the same aircraft, as they had done with the F-4. All the things said about the F-22's expense, was said about the F-14 and F-15.

I refer to the old days when the Sparrow was ( and Falcon too )... garbage. Radars weren't so great unless they were on a test bench. Read all the accounts from F-4 stuff in Vietnam. Some days a Sparrow shot worked and a bunch of times they didn't.

Sparrow was a money pit. Look at the Bekka Valley June 82( aka Great Mariannas Turkey Shoot )... most kills were not Sparrow Laughing ( IDF kill chart via Air Combat Information Group (www.acig.org) http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_270.shtml ) That's real A2A combat. Then of course when AIM-9L came along you could shoot the other guy in the face with a heat seeker. This proved itself in the Falklands.

Yes there was a lot of money spent on the Sparrow Missile but, would the Slammer Missile be as good without all the teething problems of the Sparrow Missile?
Another aspect of the Sparrow's failures was pointed out by the Commander Frank Ault's report dealing with why the Navy's kill ratio in Viet Nam was so poor. The report found that of all the missiles fire before the bombing halt in 1968, SIXTY-FIVE PERCENT of the Sparrow Missiles that were fired, either the target or the launch aircraft were outside the launch parameters! Better pilot training was needed, enter Top Gun.

As for the F-4 not having a cannon and having faith in missiles, well the USN wasn't alone. The French Mirage 3 and MiG-21 were also designed without a cannon! The Soviets lost faith in missiles and installed a cannon for the production aircraft. The Mirage 3 received its cannon when the Israeli AF refuse to purchase them unless a cannon was included in their fighters.

Adrian

[Murph]

Sparrow was over-rated. We did not get cost effective Radar assisted missiles until AMRAAM showed up. Fact.
Sparrow was a money pit. Look at the Bekka Valley June 82( aka Great Mariannas Turkey Shoot )... most kills were not Sparrow ( IDF kill chart via Air Combat Information Group (www.acig.org) http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_270.shtml ) That's real A2A combat. Then of course when AIM-9L came along you could shoot the other guy in the face with a heat seeker. This proved itself in the Falklands.

I would suggest you take a look at WSEP results and the afteraction reports on the Bekaa and Desert Storm before you make any statements on AIM-7 effectiveness, especially in its M or MH versions. "Real" air to air combat? Any time you're getting shot at or have the possibility of getting killed it's "real." As far as the Falklands kills, there was one or two initial cases where the Brits tried to employ the 9L in a high aspect mode and were unable to get a self track, so their missile shots were all low aspect, in fact, they could have done just as well with an AIM-9G or H, since they were inevitably shooting non-maneuvering targets from the rear quarter.

Regards,
Murph

[bruant328]

the Viper 'dar was neat, even if it didn't put out megawatts and have a huge dish like BattleStar Galactica, Rodan or whatever you called the Eagle and Tomcat.

The lack of BVR capability in the early Viper was a pure political thing. If we had a capable machine that was lots cheaper than the Eagle and could also help with mudbeating, then Congress would have questioned the F-15 buy.

On the other side, I'll take 100 Vipers over 10 Raptors if I were an air commander in a really big war

Adrian

Just for the record the above quotes attributed to me were actually quotes by Gums that I used in my own post.

[Gums]

Salute!

Why not ask a few that "were there"? Both in early days of the Viper and in actual combat?

1) I never went after anybody during my combat tours, but have many friends and squadmates who did. One posts here regularly and has a Mig kill. Another is Steve Ritchie, who got all his kills with the Sparrow. They will tell you that the Sparrow was designed for an "interceptor", not a dogfighting machine.

It is true that too many Sparrows were fired out side of specs. In fact, one of Ritchie's kills was a pair of missiles that he fired in sequence - first one to get the bandit's attention, and second for the kill. In fact, the first one nailed the Mig and the second went thru the burning debris. He didn't think the first one had a chance, but it was one of those "wonder Sparrows". He'll also tell you that he knew the systems and was good about firing within the launch zone.

2) We were debriefed by an actual Falkland vet. He says the Aim-9 "Lima" was everything it was supposed to be. Claims first (maybe only kill) was a high-aspect shot and he didn't believe we Yanks' claims. Sucker went stahead for a second, then did a "bat turn" and nailed the bandit.

3) The Slammer used much more current technology when it was introduced than the Sparrow. It was also "tested" by Viper, Eagle and Aggresor pilots in simulators way before it went to final testing and production. Many aspects of it were refined as the result of those tests. Then there was AIMVAL-ACEVAL. Much of the Lima and Mike 'winder capabilities came from that, as well as the Slammer.

4) The lack of a radar missile capability for the Viper was pure politics. The radar was modified quite cheaply in late 70's to use the thing. Small CW antenna in the radome and a tuning doofer in the RIU, and presto!

The ADF Vipers had the Sparrow capability early on at a relatively low cost and negligible integration effort.

So the "dayfighter" legend is just a legend.

And BTW, I flew jets like the 106 and the difference with a pulse-doppler radar was day and night ahead of them. The VooDoo and the 106 had the same Hughes radar, same radar missile except for the Aim-26, and the same Genie rockets. I woulkd have taken the Viper 'dar anyday, especially for the low alt tgts.

5) By the early 80's, USAF was moving toward "airspace sovereignty" as the mission for NORAD, and not some kinda "force projection".

This was Northrop's selling point with the F-20. It would have been an awesome point interceptor, and would also have been damned cheap. When I was consulting there in 1984, their big effort was to get USAF's Air Defense Command to but the F-20. Their theory was that it could also be used in a "surge" mode for mudneating as well as the basic airspace sovereignty mission. Think Desert Storm and such.

Yeah, the Tomcat might have been a good choice for NORAD, but also very expensive to maintain. Several Guard units got the Eagle - like New Orleans, for interceptor duty and it filled the bill more cheaply than the F-14.

*********************

Back to the subject.

The "fighter mafia" got us both the Viper and Eagle. For that, I salute them.

They were not political animals, but were effective enough to have a serious impact upon both tactics and procurement. For that, I am in their debt.

Gums sends ...

[MarcoPolo]

Eagle crew chief here, sittin' alert in sunny Miami. Read the bio on Boyd, read Sprey's papers, read the arguments for and against the Raptor, read the boards here, etc. I love my Eagle, to me it's the best bird I know. However, I have nothing but endless respect for the capabilities of the Viper, and now that my eyes have seen the light, the Raptor. What I appreciate about Boyd was his zeal and chutzpah. All he wanted was for us to have, political bullshit aside, the best equipment to put steel on target and get home safe. This is my synopsis on the man after reading up on him. Anyway, just wanted to add my two pennies.

[MarcoPolo]

Oh, and just a funny sidenote since the F-20 was mentioned. My flight instructor was a F-5 jock back in the day. The funniest thing ever is to get him going on a rant about the F-20 and how we messed up by not buying it. 20 years later, and he still gets ticked off, funny stuff.....

[Arctus]

If I may,
I believe there is a cultural component to Boyd's mystique not being addressed.

The Air Force as we know it is an interesting mariage of opposites. On the one hand air power, as a military force, is inherently flexible. That is its greatest strength. Concurrently the development of new aircraft technology requires a culture of intellectuall flexibilty i.e. out-of-the-box thinking. Air power theorists and students, and those charged with putting air power concepts into action tend to be imaginative, quick-thinking decision makers...warriors.

On the other hand the Air Force as an organization is a bureaucracy, which are inherantly inflexible.
Bureaucrats are typically linear thinking, uncreative pedants. They control the mudane but necessary functions that keep the organization clicking along. They tend to be threatened by anything or anyone that disrupts their carefully control processes. Those individuals who buck the "system" tend to be quashed.
Someone once said that the prime directive of all bureaucracies is to protect and perpetuate themselves. That said organizations tend to protect and promote those individuals who best espouse the organization's cultural norms (i.e. are most likely to perpetuate them)

If you'll take my preamble at face value....

The Air Force is run by bureaucrats. Warriors tend to self-eliminate when it comes to promotions beyond Lt Col. They are either killed outright during wars by putting themselves out front once too often. Or they refuse to compromise thier principles when the latest management fad conflicts with what they know to be right. Either way its usually the dullards who survive to wear stars. And for those warriors who do get promoted, personal ambition and/or the pressures of generalship have turned many a former steely-eyed killer warrior into a platitude spewing, uniformed politician. Even when its not the generals themselves it's any of the hundreds and thousands of pinhead subordinates

Accordingly, men like John Boyd and others of his ilk have tended to ostracize themselves. We have a great tradition of crucifying our maverick thinkers and then lionizing their memories. Billy Mitchell was court martialed for stating that air power was as important as the army, and now we celebrate his contribution at every chance. Robin Olds was ordered to cease and desist BFM training for fear it would lead to mishaps. A non-warrior bureaucrat pinhead gave that order. Olds ignored it. In Boyd's case, I believe he'd be largely unknown outside of fighter pilot/academic circles had it not been for USMC Commandant Krulak's decision to incorporate OODA into all Marine combat officer training.

The big, enduring deal with Boyd is he was a warrior by both inclination and deed, and a fierce advocate for what he saw as the necessary tools wariors needed to be effective. The warrior sect still thrives in the middle ranks of the Air Force and John Boyd is it's most recent patron saint.

[elp]

Good post. Thanks... I see a lot of that and agree.