Survivalist Forum banner

241 - 260 of 280 Posts

·
Live Secret, Live Happy
Joined
·
15,616 Posts
Korean War era - Chuck Yeager was detailed to evaluate combat capability of a Mig-15 delivered by a refugee pilot. Flying an F-86 vs. the MIG it was no contest. Put Yeager in the MIG's seat......again, no contest. If that's changed, why does the AF still teach combat maneuvering?

AFAIK the F-35B cannot do a VTO with a combat load. It is at best an STO fighter, but capable of vertical landing after fuel and munition weight is expended. Hence the acronym STOVL. So the lily-pad scenario doesn't work.
Yaeger was blessed with exceptional eyesight. In his autobiography he mentioned eye testing at 20/10 or better.

In WW2, he often would spot enemy formations at twice the range of the Germans. Which means a lot since aircraft radar was primitive at that time.
First to detect, first to manuver, first to fire, first kill.

Radar got better and visual acueity is less important today. Modern search radars allow detection at hundreds of miles. Unless you are flying a stealth aircraft. The average pilot flying a stealth aircraft enjoys the same sensor advantage old Chuck had. First to detect, first to manuver, first to fire, first kill.

The F35 may not manuver like the F15, but stealth planes will always have the sensor advantage over non stealth planes.
Its like every plane you send is flown by Chuck Yaeger.
 

·
Militant Normal
Joined
·
10,410 Posts
Chess computers do a pretty good job of it.

AI AI oh. :)
I've seen hints in the last few months on geek sites that there's already first generation AI software for the big ones (e.g. Predator, I assume) that will let them pick their own targets and initiate weapons deployment, but nobody wants to take responsibility for letting it loose.
 

·
Grevcon 10
Joined
·
13,053 Posts
Look at WW2 kill ratios. You can sit and watch aircraft development at a rapid pace within a single generation of pilots. A plane when first introduced will have a huge kill ratio, then as the enemy starts producing planes that match it they even out, and then when the enemy starts producing planes that surpass it they hit negative kill ratios. Same pilots. Even the legendary aces start dropping their kill numbers as the planes they face change.

The Yeager comment was remarkable simply because the planes were unusually balanced.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,595 Posts
Look at WW2 kill ratios. You can sit and watch aircraft development at a rapid pace within a single generation of pilots. A plane when first introduced will have a huge kill ratio, then as the enemy starts producing planes that match it they even out, and then when the enemy starts producing planes that surpass it they hit negative kill ratios. Same pilots. Even the legendary aces start dropping their kill numbers as the planes they face change.

The Yeager comment was remarkable simply because the planes were unusually balanced.
You also have to look at pilot skill level as well. The Germans and the Japanese were losing the cream of their respective air corps while the US was rotating pilots home to teach new pilots.

The same was true in Korea. Upon introduction of the F-86, USAF pilots dominated the airspace when they encountered North Korean or Chinese MiG pilots. It was a different story when they tangled with Russian pilots.
 

·
Golfer
Joined
·
4,159 Posts
I read that too, the incredible kill ratio of the F-86 was against the Mig-15s and untrained NKOs. That ratio supposedly went south vs experienced Soviet pilots.
But really, who knows who it was who shot you down? IMO all that who shot who was BS, everyone who claimed something was pushing their own agendas.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
232 Posts
When it comes to visual dogfighting, guns kills are almost 100% the pilot flying unless the generations are grossly mismatched. It relies heavily on managing energy and aggressively driving the fight to keep the other pilot reacting and to hopefully make a mistake you can capitalize on.

Newer technology does have its advantages, though. You could be the best tail-fighter in the world, but it doesn’t matter if you can outfly me because as soon as we get to the merge, you’re immediately getting an AIM-9 from across the circle.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,595 Posts
I read that too, the incredible kill ratio of the F-86 was against the Mig-15s and untrained NKOs. That ratio supposedly went south vs experienced Soviet pilots.
But really, who knows who it was who shot you down? IMO all that who shot who was BS, everyone who claimed something was pushing their own agendas.
Lots of documented history of the air war over Korea. Russian speaking pilots were heard quite often and US pilots filed numerous reports of Caucasian MiG pilots. It's also well known a number of Soviet "advisers" were taken out by US snipers as well.
 

·
Militant Normal
Joined
·
10,410 Posts
Now a report that some German company has tracked an F-35 from 100 miles away, using some sort of "passive" detection system.

https://www.c4isrnet.com/intel-geoi...racked-the-f-35-jet-in-2018-from-a-pony-farm/

Passive radar equipment computes an aerial picture by reading how civilian communications signals bounce off airborne objects. The technique works with any type of signal present in airspace, including radio or television broadcasts as well as emissions from mobile phone stations. The technology can be effective against stealthy aircraft designs, which are meant to break and absorb signals from traditional radar emitters so that nothing reflects back to ground-station sensors, effectively leaving defensive-radar operators in the dark.
F-35s mount radar reflectors when operating in non-combat situations, so civilian ATC radars can see them. Was this a factor?
 

·
Militant Normal
Joined
·
10,410 Posts
2 dimensions, very tight maneuver rules, limited battle space, limited attack modes.

Perfect for a logic program to filter and sift.

Real world isn’t quite that small, nor logical.;)
Many years ago a sci-fi auther wrote about a world where humans had entirely forgotten how to do math, because computers had displaced them. A kid whose natural talent for simple math made him a military secret.

The story was required reading at M.I.T.

Idea being that computers could never make decisions based on insufficient data, but a man could. Corollary being that there would never be successful unmanned fighter planes.

I wonder what they would think now?
 

·
Grevcon 10
Joined
·
13,053 Posts
Now a report that some German company has tracked an F-35 from 100 miles away, using some sort of "passive" detection system.

https://www.c4isrnet.com/intel-geoi...racked-the-f-35-jet-in-2018-from-a-pony-farm/



F-35s mount radar reflectors when operating in non-combat situations, so civilian ATC radars can see them. Was this a factor?
Maybe, but I don't think they'd have anything to brag about then. I can certainly see how their system could be good against stealth aircraft though. It doesn't need a direct bounce back of radar, which is exactly what the plane is designed to prevent. Deflecting radar away from the incoming direction would actually hurt your stealth with this system.
 

·
Golfer
Joined
·
4,159 Posts
Many years ago a sci-fi auther wrote about a world where humans had entirely forgotten how to do math, because computers had displaced them. A kid whose natural talent for simple math made him a military secret.
The factory of the future will have only two employees, a man and a dog. The man will be there to feed the dog. The dog will be there to keep the man from touching the equipment.

Warren Bennis
 

·
Wile E Coyote, Genius.
Joined
·
33,454 Posts
The factory of the future will have only two employees, a man and a dog. The man will be there to feed the dog. The dog will be there to keep the man from touching the equipment.

Warren Bennis
Yes, we used that same quote 20 years or more ago, when we were automating plants.

There would be 2 employees, the man to feed the dog and the dog to bite the man if he touched anything.

We finally value engineered them both out.
 

·
Militant Normal
Joined
·
10,410 Posts
Yes, we used that same quote 20 years or more ago, when we were automating plants.

There would be 2 employees, the man to feed the dog and the dog to bite the man if he touched anything.

We finally value engineered them both out.
The UAW is the only reason that GM/Ford block and head machining lines aren't lights-out. We had the process control technology taped 15 years ago.

I spent an inordinate amount of time "idiot-proofing" our machines. A task doomed to fail, since the UAW kept on developing better idiots.
 

·
Golfer
Joined
·
4,159 Posts
Yes, we used that same quote 20 years or more ago, when we were automating plants.

There would be 2 employees, the man to feed the dog and the dog to bite the man if he touched anything.

We finally value engineered them both out.
Ha ha.
That's the way I remembered it too, the dog to bite the man. Maybe they changed it to be a less frightening picture of the future.
 
241 - 260 of 280 Posts
Top