F-16.net

icemaverick wrote:
We haven’t had any major aerial conflicts since NATO bombed Yugoslavia in the late 90s. Even in the most recent Iraq War (not Gilulf War), there was almost no resistance in the skies.

Most of the shoot downs in the past ~19 years have been between sides that are not officially at war. In “peacetime” conditions, the ROEs are going to be vastly different.

Thats what I'm saying, so we can't use historical data to prove future predictions. Instead I'd use what the current technology brings and what the counter is and weigh the 2. Right now that tells me that a majority will be BVR but there will also be a modest number of post merge scenarios.

Iraq and Bosnia who are basically the poster child for BVR combat had no where near the amount of SA that peer adversaries had, there were also kills against aircraft that were running away to Iran, so I would say thats a poor man's victory.

And please don't say "Iraq was difficult, they only made it look easy". If the combined strength USAF, USN, RAF, RSAF and all the other air forces in the coalition had a hard time with Iraq (who was not supported by Russia or China) then they have no business challenging the Russians or the Chinese in any way.

Iraq had experience on their side, but that was about it. they were depleted and exhausted from the Iran-Iraq war, their tech was good for a regional power, but nowhere near Superpower levels. Russia and China on the other hand were near peer and continue to be to this day. So it was a numerical and technological over-match that allowed the Gulf war to be the way it is.

The objective of BVR is not To avoid WVR, but to get numerical advantage when WVR begins.

gta4 wrote:The objective of BVR is not To avoid WVR, but to get numerical advantage when WVR begins.

The technology exists in service now, to make this no longer a necessary act or presumption.

It's now viable to elect to maintain a given radial distance, below which you do not go, or seak to recover to, and you can also choose to not be seen at all.

Thus do not need to involuntarily go into WVR, but to fight a MDF-based (mostly passive) BVR-only engagement (a high intensity fight that is), then disengage from there, with cover.

There is presently almost no reason to enter, or be forced to enter into a WVR radius fight, if you chose in advance, to not do so, yet still engage to kill.

WVR is positively dangerous now with all aspect missiles and targeting. You may not have the choice but I can't see anyone choosing to fight in that regime unless visual ID is required first. Successful long range target ID is crucial for SA to get full use of your long range weapons. That's why the F-35's supreme SA is more important than say the fancy TVC maneouvering of the Su-35/Su-57 with the latter probably not being that important anyway WVR if your opponent has a better aspect missile than you to hand. The F-35 is just the right combination of stealth, SA and kinematics for the first part of this century. The second half of this century I believe will be the era of combined cycle turbine/scramjet hypersonic aircraft and missiles with some attention to stealth where possible.

gta4 wrote:The objective of BVR is not To avoid WVR, but to get numerical advantage when WVR begins.

Not disagreeing, but that's not what Lockheed is selling when discussing the F-22 and in particular, the F-35. Recall their retort to the infamous F-16D vs. F-35 "dogfight". Something to the effect of, "but the F-35 isn't designed to dogfight/doesn't need to..".

Just sayin'...

mixelflick wrote:

gta4 wrote:The objective of BVR is not To avoid WVR, but to get numerical advantage when WVR begins.

Not disagreeing, but that's not what Lockheed is selling when discussing the F-22 and in particular, the F-35. Recall their retort to the infamous F-16D vs. F-35 "dogfight". Something to the effect of, "but the F-35 isn't designed to dogfight/doesn't need to..".

Just sayin'...

Well that was true when F-35's flight control software limited its capability, especially when the pilot claimed F-35 has "insufficient pitch rate".

However, since 2017 Paris airshow, LM has changed its PR strategy completely and F-35 is advertised to be "fully capable in dogfight and is more maneuverable than Typhoon or Superhornet without a doubt". At least its pitch rate is sufficient now, judging from airshow moves.

zero-one wrote:And please don't say "Iraq was difficult, they only made it look easy". If the combined strength USAF, USN, RAF, RSAF and all the other air forces in the coalition had a hard time with Iraq (who was not supported by Russia or China) then they have no business challenging the Russians or the Chinese in any way.

I'll be your huckleberry.

Not China or russia, no.

Easy? Also no. In sports the mark of a superior team is pulling a close win against am equal opponent and dominating lesser competition

XanderCrews wrote:Easy? Also no. In sports the mark of a superior team is pulling a close win against am equal opponent and dominating lesser competition

Exactly.

Was Iraq dominated? Yes.....VASTLY Dominated, therefore they are "lesser competition" far far far lesser

zero-one wrote:

XanderCrews wrote:Easy? Also no. In sports the mark of a superior team is pulling a close win against am equal opponent and dominating lesser competition

Exactly.

Was Iraq dominated? Yes.....VASTLY Dominated, therefore they are "lesser competition" far far far lesser

I think you are underestimating how difficult Iraq really was. Of course they were not as powerful as China or Russia but can you think of many other countries that would have posed a bigger challenge at the time? Iraq was the 4th or 5th largest air force in the world at the time. They had MiG-29s, which were considered to be a pretty scary aircraft. The MiG-25 and Mirage F1s were no joke either. Plus, they also had a formidable air defense network. On top of that, many of their pilots were seasoned veterans whereas the US pilots were mostly untested in battle.

The North Vietnamese were also outnumbered and outgunned and look at how difficult it was for the USAF and USN....at certain points of that war, the kill ratio was less than 1:1. The reason Saddam Hussein chose to take on the US and allies is because he believed that he could turn it into another Vietnam; he thought he could bog down the Coalition and wear them out. At that time, no one knew for sure if America's new doctrines would work or not.

The success of the Gulf War is a testament to the lessons learned in Vietnam. Thanks to Boyd and others, the USAF (and also the Navy) completely revamped their approach to fighting wars. They changed the doctrine, strategy, the tactics, the aircraft and the missiles. Sure the Coalition should have dominated but it was something like a 39:1 air-to-air kill ratio. That's pretty damn impressive. Even the USAF and USAF were surprised at how badly Iraq was dominated.

It also helps when the Pols let the Generals do what they gotta do.

You also have to remember that the Iraqis were heavily tied to GCI systems. Most of their pilots where being told “ when,what,where.....” and that played a significant part in what we were able to accomplish.....

zero-one wrote:

XanderCrews wrote:Easy? Also no. In sports the mark of a superior team is pulling a close win against am equal opponent and dominating lesser competition

Exactly.

Was Iraq dominated? Yes.....VASTLY Dominated, therefore they are "lesser competition" far far far lesser

Lesser? Yes. That's what I said.

Far far far lesser? No.


If you were around in 1991, there were potential failures abound. Most of those pitfalls were avoided with nothing short of solid competency. It wasn't an accident and it wasn't all luck or Iraqi incompetence.

That's the fastest way i can put it. Whole very thick bOoks have been written on the 1991 war and the Iraq and Iran war that preceded it

zero-one wrote:

XanderCrews wrote:Easy? Also no. In sports the mark of a superior team is pulling a close win against am equal opponent and dominating lesser competition

Exactly.

Was Iraq dominated? Yes.....VASTLY Dominated, therefore they are "lesser competition" far far far lesser

Must have been as easy as beating Germany and Japan during WW2. You know, where the allies build about 600.000 more airplanes and around 5 times the amount of tanks, to easily stomp over the axis?

botsing wrote:Must have been as easy as beating Germany and Japan during WW2. You know, where the allies build about 600.000 more airplanes and around 5 times the amount of tanks, to easily stomp over the axis?

I guess I'm in the grim position of asking how many Americans and allies would have to have died in order for Iraq to be considered a decent (though still overmatched) opponent.

mixelflick wrote:

gta4 wrote:The objective of BVR is not To avoid WVR, but to get numerical advantage when WVR begins.

Not disagreeing, but that's not what Lockheed is selling when discussing the F-22 and in particular, the F-35. Recall their retort to the infamous F-16D vs. F-35 "dogfight". Something to the effect of, "but the F-35 isn't designed to dogfight/doesn't need to..".

Just sayin'...

There was no F-16D vs F-35 dogfight.