The love affair with John Boyd and the LWF Mafia...why?
- Active Member
- Posts: 126
- Joined: 18 Sep 2005, 22:48
I'm no John Boyd expert but AFAIK aside from his energy maneuverability graphs he just about hated every US aircraft since the F-86. He hated the way the F-16 was "gold plated". Was not a fan of the F-15 and I'm sure he despised the F-22. Ditto for his cronies. I'm just curious if other F16netters realize that Boyd would have cursed you all out for not supporting his ultimate fighter force...thousands of stripped down F-86s with an f-119 engine and no missiles. His followers gagged over the concept of BVR combat.
-
- Elite 2K
- Posts: 2806
- Joined: 16 Dec 2003, 17:26
Salute!
I have to hand it to you, Bru ......
1: You are definitely not a Boyd expert
2: You are close to appreciating the gut-feeling of the "fighter mafia" that the USAF or any other air force wishing to have a capability to gain and maintain air superiority needed to weigh cost and no sierra air-to-air capabilty with the tactical requirements.
The USAF realized that the all-purpose Double Ugly was not exactly what was needed in light of the environment that existed in SEA, much less what would be required when the tanks began to roll thru the Fulda Gap.
So USAF developed the "tank killer" Warthog and the Eagle.
The Viper was added to provide a lower-cost jet than the Eagle that could have a decent air-to-mud capability and a decent air-to-air capability. It was a jet that the European allies could use for their specific operational requirements, while retaining the capability to meet new and varied requirements.
I can tell you right now that the Warthog did not have the mudbeating capability of the SLUF if it had to go more than 100 miles from home base, or face a high-threat, SAM-infested target. It also had ZERO air-to-air capability ( like the SLUF) to fight its way in and out.
The Viper, on the other hand, could hold its own or even better the Eagle and Warthog doing their missions.
3: The "fighter mafia" wanted a reasonably-priced jet that could be produced and deployed in "reasonable" numbers compared to to the Eagle. They were sick and tired of a single aircraft that could do everything. But they also thot that the Eagle was the wrong way to go. It was too big for their way of thinking compared to the Viper. And same for the $$$$ for the results.
The Viper fit the bill.
Go look at Riccione's ideas. Suter's ideas. Boyd's ideas.
The theory was a small, single-engine jet that could be produced cheaply and in great numbers would win the day.
4: The Viper had all the characteristics that Boyd expoused.
It could gain and maintain energy as well as the Eagle and all the Soviet designs.
It was easy to fly by newbies.
It had a super friendly switchology for acquiring and tracking enema aircraft.
It had unbelieveable visibility for knife fights within a phonebooth.
The thing was easy to maintain and launch three or four times a day in a surge environment.
5: Boyd and his followers did not hate a BVR capability.
Unfortunately, way back then, and even to this day the higher authorities feared allowing we fighter pilots to shoot without visual confirmation of the enema. So why develop and employ an expensive fighter that could not use it's full capability due to political constraints?
The ideal air-to-air employment scenario would permit BVR shots, and still allow for the knife fight.
6: Until you have passed canopy-to-canopy versus the enema at a thousand knots closure, you don't have a clue regarding Boyd's theories.
He realized that the WW2 turn and burn tactics did not apply to the new jets. Let's face it, they could go fast and climb like hell, but they could bleed off all their energy real fast if not flown correctly.
Granted, the Viper, Hornet and F-22 can turn and burn better than anything we've seen since the Spit and Zero.
On the other hand, they can extend, gain the big "E" and come back in to the fight above you and then methodically close to spray your brains all over your gunsight.
Boyd realized that the smart enema would not stay in a horizontal turn as you executed a lag roll or high-gee barrel roll to gain noze position and a decent firing position for a 'winder or gun shot. The History Channel "Dogfight" series constantly shows the textbook maneuvers. In the real world, the gomer might not stay in the "bogy gathering turn".
So Boyd and others of the fighter mafia came up with the OORDA loop idea. It depended upon an aircraft with the capability to actually "DO SOMETHING" after the observe, orient and decide steps.
*****************
I would take a thousand Vipers versus 200 Eagles or Flankers any day.
I would not say the same for the F-22. Another thread.
That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.
Gums sez....
I have to hand it to you, Bru ......
I'm no John Boyd expert but AFAIK aside from his energy maneuverability graphs he just about hated every US aircraft since the F-86. He hated the way the F-16 was "gold plated". Was not a fan of the F-15 and I'm sure he despised the F-22. Ditto for his cronies. I'm just curious if other F16netters realize that Boyd would have cursed you all out for not supporting his ultimate fighter force...thousands of stripped down F-86s with an f-119 engine and no missiles. His followers gagged over the concept of BVR combat.
1: You are definitely not a Boyd expert
2: You are close to appreciating the gut-feeling of the "fighter mafia" that the USAF or any other air force wishing to have a capability to gain and maintain air superiority needed to weigh cost and no sierra air-to-air capabilty with the tactical requirements.
The USAF realized that the all-purpose Double Ugly was not exactly what was needed in light of the environment that existed in SEA, much less what would be required when the tanks began to roll thru the Fulda Gap.
So USAF developed the "tank killer" Warthog and the Eagle.
The Viper was added to provide a lower-cost jet than the Eagle that could have a decent air-to-mud capability and a decent air-to-air capability. It was a jet that the European allies could use for their specific operational requirements, while retaining the capability to meet new and varied requirements.
I can tell you right now that the Warthog did not have the mudbeating capability of the SLUF if it had to go more than 100 miles from home base, or face a high-threat, SAM-infested target. It also had ZERO air-to-air capability ( like the SLUF) to fight its way in and out.
The Viper, on the other hand, could hold its own or even better the Eagle and Warthog doing their missions.
3: The "fighter mafia" wanted a reasonably-priced jet that could be produced and deployed in "reasonable" numbers compared to to the Eagle. They were sick and tired of a single aircraft that could do everything. But they also thot that the Eagle was the wrong way to go. It was too big for their way of thinking compared to the Viper. And same for the $$$$ for the results.
The Viper fit the bill.
Go look at Riccione's ideas. Suter's ideas. Boyd's ideas.
The theory was a small, single-engine jet that could be produced cheaply and in great numbers would win the day.
4: The Viper had all the characteristics that Boyd expoused.
It could gain and maintain energy as well as the Eagle and all the Soviet designs.
It was easy to fly by newbies.
It had a super friendly switchology for acquiring and tracking enema aircraft.
It had unbelieveable visibility for knife fights within a phonebooth.
The thing was easy to maintain and launch three or four times a day in a surge environment.
5: Boyd and his followers did not hate a BVR capability.
Unfortunately, way back then, and even to this day the higher authorities feared allowing we fighter pilots to shoot without visual confirmation of the enema. So why develop and employ an expensive fighter that could not use it's full capability due to political constraints?
The ideal air-to-air employment scenario would permit BVR shots, and still allow for the knife fight.
6: Until you have passed canopy-to-canopy versus the enema at a thousand knots closure, you don't have a clue regarding Boyd's theories.
He realized that the WW2 turn and burn tactics did not apply to the new jets. Let's face it, they could go fast and climb like hell, but they could bleed off all their energy real fast if not flown correctly.
Granted, the Viper, Hornet and F-22 can turn and burn better than anything we've seen since the Spit and Zero.
On the other hand, they can extend, gain the big "E" and come back in to the fight above you and then methodically close to spray your brains all over your gunsight.
Boyd realized that the smart enema would not stay in a horizontal turn as you executed a lag roll or high-gee barrel roll to gain noze position and a decent firing position for a 'winder or gun shot. The History Channel "Dogfight" series constantly shows the textbook maneuvers. In the real world, the gomer might not stay in the "bogy gathering turn".
So Boyd and others of the fighter mafia came up with the OORDA loop idea. It depended upon an aircraft with the capability to actually "DO SOMETHING" after the observe, orient and decide steps.
*****************
I would take a thousand Vipers versus 200 Eagles or Flankers any day.
I would not say the same for the F-22. Another thread.
That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.
Gums sez....
Gums
Viper pilot '79
"God in your guts, good men at your back, wings that stay on - and Tally Ho!"
Viper pilot '79
"God in your guts, good men at your back, wings that stay on - and Tally Ho!"
- Elite 1K
- Posts: 1092
- Joined: 19 Aug 2004, 08:19
I have a question myself about Boyd. Was he the one who literally invented the energy-maneuverability diagram? By that I mean, specifically, turn rate vs. airspeed plots with lines of constant specific excess power (Ps), load factor, and turn radius plotted within the turn rate boundaries (often referred to as the "doghouse" because of its characteristic shape). By the way, I'm talking about the constant altitude type of plot, not the 1g flight envelope plot with constant lines of Ps overlayed.
-
- Elite 2K
- Posts: 2806
- Joined: 16 Dec 2003, 17:26
Salute!
Yes, Rap, it is my understanding that was responsible for the E-M diagrams we see today. He found some "real" engineers to help quantify what he had learned thru basic experimentation over the years.
The breakthrough was specific energy plotted versus instantaneous and sustained gee. If you had "excess" energy than that required for level flight, then you could turn harder at a constant energy level or climb.
Seems that drag will keep you at a certain speed for a certain power setting, but that you could climb at that same power and maintain the same overall energy level. This was very evident in the newer jets of the time, and the high drag of the swept wing, low-aspect ratio wings was clear to all. We wound up with BIG fights and fast ones.
later, and we need Roscoe to chime in here.
Gums sends ......
Yes, Rap, it is my understanding that was responsible for the E-M diagrams we see today. He found some "real" engineers to help quantify what he had learned thru basic experimentation over the years.
The breakthrough was specific energy plotted versus instantaneous and sustained gee. If you had "excess" energy than that required for level flight, then you could turn harder at a constant energy level or climb.
Seems that drag will keep you at a certain speed for a certain power setting, but that you could climb at that same power and maintain the same overall energy level. This was very evident in the newer jets of the time, and the high drag of the swept wing, low-aspect ratio wings was clear to all. We wound up with BIG fights and fast ones.
later, and we need Roscoe to chime in here.
Gums sends ......
Gums
Viper pilot '79
"God in your guts, good men at your back, wings that stay on - and Tally Ho!"
Viper pilot '79
"God in your guts, good men at your back, wings that stay on - and Tally Ho!"
-
- Elite 1K
- Posts: 1393
- Joined: 29 Jun 2004, 20:14
- Location: Cheyenne WY
No need, you've been quite elegant as usual 
I will add that JB was totally against putting a radar in the Viper, as the radars he was familiar with (and that would have fit in the nose) were pretty useless and for the most part was weight he felt the F-16 could do without. I suspect he was surprised with how good the radar turned out to be (although still very weak compared to the Eagle).
I will add that JB was totally against putting a radar in the Viper, as the radars he was familiar with (and that would have fit in the nose) were pretty useless and for the most part was weight he felt the F-16 could do without. I suspect he was surprised with how good the radar turned out to be (although still very weak compared to the Eagle).
Roscoe
F-16 Program Manager
USAF Test Pilot School 92A
"It's time to get medieval, I'm goin' in for guns" - Dos Gringos
F-16 Program Manager
USAF Test Pilot School 92A
"It's time to get medieval, I'm goin' in for guns" - Dos Gringos
- Elite 1K
- Posts: 1092
- Joined: 19 Aug 2004, 08:19
Well... if Boyd was the guy who got some engineers to quantify the EM charts he had in his head, he should be cheered just for that alone. The EM diagram is THE single most important combat performance chart when it comes to fighter aircraft. They basically say, "Hi, I'm an F-whatever. This is how good I am at altitude X." You can also do EM diagram overlays where you take two different fighters and determine where in the flight envelope fighter A dominates as opposed to fighter B. Extremely important charts.
- Active Member
- Posts: 126
- Joined: 18 Sep 2005, 22:48
Gums wrote:Salute!
I have to hand it to you, Bru ......I'm no John Boyd expert but AFAIK aside from his energy maneuverability graphs he just about hated every US aircraft since the F-86. He hated the way the F-16 was "gold plated". Was not a fan of the F-15 and I'm sure he despised the F-22. Ditto for his cronies. I'm just curious if other F16netters realize that Boyd would have cursed you all out for not supporting his ultimate fighter force...thousands of stripped down F-86s with an f-119 engine and no missiles. His followers gagged over the concept of BVR combat.
1: You are definitely not a Boyd expert
2: You are close to appreciating the gut-feeling of the "fighter mafia" that the USAF or any other air force wishing to have a capability to gain and maintain air superiority needed to weigh cost and no sierra air-to-air capabilty with the tactical requirements.
The USAF realized that the all-purpose Double Ugly was not exactly what was needed in light of the environment that existed in SEA, much less what would be required when the tanks began to roll thru the Fulda Gap.
So USAF developed the "tank killer" Warthog and the Eagle.
The Viper was added to provide a lower-cost jet than the Eagle that could have a decent air-to-mud capability and a decent air-to-air capability. It was a jet that the European allies could use for their specific operational requirements, while retaining the capability to meet new and varied requirements.
I can tell you right now that the Warthog did not have the mudbeating capability of the SLUF if it had to go more than 100 miles from home base, or face a high-threat, SAM-infested target. It also had ZERO air-to-air capability ( like the SLUF) to fight its way in and out.
I would take a thousand Vipers versus 200 Eagles or Flankers any day.
I would not say the same for the F-22. Another thread.
That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.
Gums sez....
Ouch! Was he your uncle?
If you read Pentagon Paradox by James P. Stevenson, you learn that they(Boyd's boys)DID NOT want the f-16 to be multi-role. The AF made it multi-role according to the book because:
a. The USAF loves to drop bombs
b. So they could sell it to Europe.
The A-10 was Pierre Sprey's baby ( a charter member of Boyd's boys) and he pushed it hard for the Fulda Gap scenario. I do like the plane and its Gau-8.
Read Everest Riccioni's take on the F-22 over at POGO. http://www.pogo.org/m/dp/dp-fa22-Riccioni-03082005.pdf He claims it is more a waste of money than the F-15 ever was.
According to Pentagon Paradox, Boyd's boys REALLY did not buy the need for fighter borne radars. They contributed to size and weight growth with no (according to their stats) addition to combat ability. They wanted the F-16 to have nothing more than a "ranging radar."
I think Boyd's EM theories and proponency for low wing loading and high thrust to weight are dead on. I just don't kiss the ground he walks on.
BTW, they don't buy into stealth either. They consider "true" stealth to be a small fighter which makes it difficult to VID.
- Elite 1K
- Posts: 1092
- Joined: 19 Aug 2004, 08:19
Bruant,
I don't think Gums is related to Boyd, except perhaps for the fact that he was one of the first pilots to get to fly the F-16 operationally. I wouldn't discount his perspective too quickly. Also, did you not find it highly amusing how he called the enemy "enema"? LOL... Gums is hilarious! Lighten up, man!
I don't think Gums is related to Boyd, except perhaps for the fact that he was one of the first pilots to get to fly the F-16 operationally. I wouldn't discount his perspective too quickly. Also, did you not find it highly amusing how he called the enemy "enema"? LOL... Gums is hilarious! Lighten up, man!
- Active Member
- Posts: 126
- Joined: 18 Sep 2005, 22:48
Raptor_One wrote:Bruant,
I don't think Gums is related to Boyd, except perhaps for the fact that he was one of the first pilots to get to fly the F-16 operationally. I wouldn't discount his perspective too quickly. Also, did you not find it highly amusing how he called the enemy "enema"? LOL... Gums is hilarious! Lighten up, man!
I'm not pissed at Gums, I'm just curious if people are aware of Boyd's beliefs aside from OODA and good wing loading.
- Elite 1K
- Posts: 1092
- Joined: 19 Aug 2004, 08:19
Yes, I'm sure Gums is aware of his beliefs. Perhaps he has a better perspective on Boyd's doctrines than you though. Why? He actually flew the first production F-16s.
- Active Member
- Posts: 126
- Joined: 18 Sep 2005, 22:48
Raptor_One wrote:Yes, I'm sure Gums is aware of his beliefs. Perhaps he has a better perspective on Boyd's doctrines than you though. Why? He actually flew the first production F-16s.
Yeah you said that he flew some of the first f-16s before. Got it.
I was referring to some of Boyd's views on fighter technology.
- Elite 1K
- Posts: 1092
- Joined: 19 Aug 2004, 08:19
I'm guessing you didn't realize Gums' former occupation, otherwise you might have shown him a bit more respect. Same should probably go for Boyd. I mean... the guy was obviously old school, but that doesn't mean some of his fundamental theories weren't sound. Like I said, if the man is directly responsible for energy-maneuverability (EM) theory, he should be respected based on that alone. You don't seem to understand that a fighter's maneuverability is measured by EM diagrams. So regardless of what you think of Boyd, fighters are still evaluated as TRUE fighters based on Boyd's EM theory. I wouldn't dog the man out.
-
- Elite 2K
- Posts: 2806
- Joined: 16 Dec 2003, 17:26
Salute!
TNX for the kind words Rap.
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.
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 black screen and the little doofers crawling around (targets satisfying the doppler criteria) made interpretation a piece of cake compared with the A2A radars I used in the Deuce and VooDoo. The ground map functions were also nice, including the Doppler Beam-sharpening and "freeze" modes.
Make no mistake, the Viper's 'dar really helped situational awareness going into a fight.
*************
More on the Warthog on other threads I have posted regarding the A-7D and A-37.
************
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. So the Viper 'dar did not have the illuminator hardware or "tuning" gizmo in the remote interface units. A few years later the ADF versions flown by the Guard had the stuff and employed the Great White Hope. The Slammer changed all that. Whew.
By Block 25 we had a crude TWS and more. USAF had come to its senses and the Eagle production run had ceased.
**************
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.
************
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.
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. Our wing at Hill routinely flew over a hundred sorties per day with one squadron when we "surged". Only other jet I know of that could do that was the A-37, then maybe the Warthog.
Great thread, and maybe we can get some other perspectives, huh?
Gums
TNX for the kind words Rap.
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.
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 black screen and the little doofers crawling around (targets satisfying the doppler criteria) made interpretation a piece of cake compared with the A2A radars I used in the Deuce and VooDoo. The ground map functions were also nice, including the Doppler Beam-sharpening and "freeze" modes.
Make no mistake, the Viper's 'dar really helped situational awareness going into a fight.
*************
More on the Warthog on other threads I have posted regarding the A-7D and A-37.
************
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. So the Viper 'dar did not have the illuminator hardware or "tuning" gizmo in the remote interface units. A few years later the ADF versions flown by the Guard had the stuff and employed the Great White Hope. The Slammer changed all that. Whew.
By Block 25 we had a crude TWS and more. USAF had come to its senses and the Eagle production run had ceased.
**************
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.
************
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.
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. Our wing at Hill routinely flew over a hundred sorties per day with one squadron when we "surged". Only other jet I know of that could do that was the A-37, then maybe the Warthog.
Great thread, and maybe we can get some other perspectives, huh?
Gums
Gums
Viper pilot '79
"God in your guts, good men at your back, wings that stay on - and Tally Ho!"
Viper pilot '79
"God in your guts, good men at your back, wings that stay on - and Tally Ho!"
- Elite 1K
- Posts: 1092
- Joined: 19 Aug 2004, 08:19
Well Gums... it seems you do know a thing or two about Boyd's theories after all. I somehow knew you would... hehe. My only perspective on Boyd's theories relate to energy maneuverability. I wrote a MATLAB computer program to generate EM diagrams automatically for F-16 flight models I helped develop for the PC simulator Falcon 4.0. I'm surprised that the early model F-16As actually had EM displays! I'm not sure how I would display one in real time based on power setting, Mach, and altitude, but the tadpole thing you talk about sounds useful. I wonder why this was removed in later model F-16s. I guess Boyd and Riccione (how do you pronounce that name by the way?) didn't care much for high altitude fighters and opted more for the medium/low altitude type. The F-16 certainly did own the F-15 at low/medium altitudes. I'm guessing if the F-15 had been designed with leading edge flaps from the start like the F-16, it would have had better EM performance. Thanks for the info!
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests