Basher54321

Poor old SithSpawn has to clear this thread up now - I do apologise :) I cant comment on F-14 maneuverability - would upset too many people :) carry on

RE Bolo - they had fly predictable large formations because the F-4s were pretending to be F-105s so the MiG-21s would take the bait....... Look I see where you are coming from in the second paragraph but its more of an ideal and doesnt reflect this era. (e.g. AIM-9Ls not available till 79 / Soviet Tech maybe worse but did work)

I think the Tom Cooper issue is up for contention - but everything else isn't - you wont find better resources other than the classified and you could probably learn a few things - or you can spend a few years learning about this era and then tell me I was right ;) I could say clashes is poor resource because it has a lot of mistakes also - but it is quite old now. Not aware there was any documentation on the Iraqi side - most say it was destroyed by the Iraqis - any sources on that?

A Hungarian chap called Istvan Toperczer was allowed access to VPAF files and has compiled a few books including: https://ospreypublishing.com/mig-17-and-mig-19-units-of-the-vietnam-war http://www.stellabooks.com/books/istvan-toperczer/mig-21-units-of-the-vietnam-war/1603873 They also do very in depth books on the US side e.g. https://ospreypublishing.com/usaf-f-4-phantom-ii-mig-killers-1972-73 and from an Isreali Historian https://ospreypublishing.com/israeli-f-15-eagle-units-in-combat There is a lot declassified stuff out there now - but well researched books like the above often include that anyway. I have most of that series and a lot more on the Vietnam Air War and have spent years looking at the detail so my opinions may seem odd.

I'm trying to give you an example of outnumbered - which was supposed to be the point of having a cheaper LWF to supplement the F-15. let go for 2 F-15s v 4 x MiG-23s - in this scenario both are aware of each other and are pretty much head on. So both F-15s sort out their IDs and fire - now when I say one shot regardless of how many F-15s - they only have one shot each in this type of situation - and it is really down to the closing speed. Now lets say the MiGs don't fire but 2 of them get indications they are fired on and both go off in the same direction. To maintain a lock the F-15s have to focus on the 2 targets - so say both MiGs are hit - great - but the other 2 MiGs which you may or may not know where they are due to the closing speed will not only be WVR but could have already launched weapons at you. Even if things go for the best the end result is precarious to say the least. Should also note that one reason the AIM-7 was called the great white hope because coming in head on you could see it launch miles away in reasonable weather.

Its all black and white to you ;) Pulse doppler modes weren't that great in the 90s - they were **** in the 70s Where did I say it was a single ship? the example is outnumbered - and we don't want to get into the technicalities too much but suffice to say in war you might be a single if your wingman get blown out the sky :thumbup:. USAF F-16s flew constant exercises against F-4s and F-15s in the 80s - there were many ways to get to the merge against AIM-7 foe.

Looking at that I think you are a bit out of your depth on this subject - both VPAF and USAF/USN/MC records have been researched and have been matched up so I have a very good idea of what happened. Some of the VPAF guys had years of experience in 72 they were not all useless and the cause is never down to one simple factor you may have read on Wiki.

Until the transponders were hacked the US had no idea where the MIGs were regardless of tactics. The BVR restrictions were not just part of the ROE they were because there was no reliable way to ID the jets as foe - so nearly all the fighting would have been visual anyway. And no they didn't always fly in predictable formations - sometimes they even used that to their advantage (See Op Bolo). You are not countering the argument and it is not a theory. With the AIM-7F you only have 1 shot max against a formation that knows you are there - and the chances of it hitting at low level if the other guy knows its coming are <10% Not only that but if the targets spilt you lose SA on the other MiGs - there is no standoff ability like you get with active types - in reality the AIM-7 is only a BVR weapon against something that doesn't know its coming.

You beg to differ but at the same time pretty much agree with me on the tech front? The VPAF didn't lose without exception - what are you on about? perhaps you need to research the conflicts a bit more - they did exceptionally well. BVR was not totally restricted - even before combat tree was used in 72. As I have already stated Isreali SA was made up from more than the APG-63/65 which were not what you think they were. If you also consider with the AIM-7 you barely have time to sit there for one shot if they are coming head on. The conflict is in no way to be used as a comparison for a potential CW scenario - there are many other factors you are not considering.

Yes I see what you are saying - but you need to understand the 50s/60s era - it's alright with hindsight but the tech was a massive let down in this era so that is what Boyd was trying to address - the lessons from Vietnam. You are talking about technology today - in Vietnam the US outnumbered the VPAF massively but it really was a formality for VPAF MiGs to get in close to US formations. There is nothing an F-15 could do in the 70s to stop vast quantities of Soviet MiGs getting in close with that radar and missile technology regardless of numbers. Not having a radar would have been ridiculous - however I'm pretty sure this slight emanates from Sprey who was a massive luddite even back then.

What I actually meant by that - kill ratio is irrelevant if one jet is in a conflict and gets opportunity for kills when the other doesn't - the F-15 has over 100 kills and the F-22 has 0 kills - so is the F-15 a better performer in combat?? In the 1982 conflict figures vary (no one can really prove them anyway) - e.g. a good source states 33 F-15 kills - another has 40 claims by F-15 pilots and 44 claims by F-16 pilots. Israel had radar coverage of the entire area - unlike the Syrians you will find this provided them with better SA - not the crap 1970s tech radars. You also need to remember that despite some BVR claims this was still mostly a visual environment. Boyd has a lot of respect from past and present military aviators - and despite his big head a lot of it is valid regardless - you will find it is Uber luddite Sprey that drags his name through the mud. I don't really agree on the Fast Transients thing - but that's just me ;)

Boyd is a good read - but there are a few hmmm moments in there. Kill ratio also can be put down to opportunity - so can probably forgive him for that.

There can be different definitions of Empty weight also :) You could of course put it on a spread sheet and do the values from empty to max take off weight. Also T/W does not take into account for any drag caused by airframe / stores/pylon/lift. Also the given thrust figures out there are static only - the actual thrust produced by a jet engines varies massively depending on speed and altitude. However what you are doing will give you more of an understanding - so it is a good exercise.

I do have an autobiog from apparently the head of the Sedjil project and wasnt going to post it - but someone has put part of it up here I see anyway: http://defence.pk/threads/project-sedjil-the-fitting-of-the-mim-23-surface-to-air-missile-on-the-f-14.324912/ The Sedjil Project team was planning a non ideal scenario for the third test drone, when Col. Babaii called from Bushehr 6th TFB directing Maj. AliMazandarani to fly to Bushehr and commence testing on an actual enemy aircraft. After 3 days of full alert, Maj. AliMazandarani and Lt. Ansarin scrambled their F-14A towards incoming Iraqi fighters heading towards KharkIsland. At a distance of 25 miles the F-14 fired its first Sedjil missile; however, the missile was one of five missiles used during the initial tests of the project which was loaded by mistake. The bad rocket dropped, fired and did a barrel roll over the front of the cockpit and Radom missing the Tomcat as it headed down towards the sea. The pilots reacquired the target, locked on and fired the second missile at a range of 20 miles, hitting it several seconds later, thus proving the success of the project. It was sheer luck or destiny that saved the F-14 from a disaster that may have suspended the project altogether and perhaps change the face of the war. As the war ended in 1988, The IRIAF had time to try and revive the Phoenix missiles using substitutes for the coolant and batteries. The IRIAF F-14s now carry both the Phoenix and Sedjil missile on their pylons!

VF-2 used NVGs in OIF (F-14D) Never seen any reference to TFR.

If you are talking a 1 v 1 BFM affair then its more down to pilot skill and luck in reality. Have only seen reference to the Red Eagles (CONSTANT PEG) having MiG-21F-13 and J-7s.

Without the full context it is difficult to say - might be real - however I would guess the reason he might want A-10s has nothing to do with capability and more to do with the pilots CAS skills in sorting out complex CAS situations. Several accounts in OEF where A-10s got to an area which they describe as chaos and the pilots had to take charge and organize the multiple assets already there.

There is no way to visually ID people at any speed or altitude and differentiate whos who especially when troops are close so a very high probability of fratricide if you take the chance. You need complete guidance from the ground first. Even in low intensity warfare - for example 2 A-10s on night CAS in OEF are given coordinates from the JTAC and then they fix the TGP on the location of the bad guys. They then spend time going though the ROE procedures and observing them along side the JTAC- then 10 mins later they got approval to strafe. Without a TGP they would have to spend a lot of effort keeping tabs on the actual location - but instead they can concentrate on more important things - like not flying into a mountain. Possibly but like below they may still want ordnance dropped near a given reference to help them out. It's a pilot account from https://ospreypublishing.com/f-16-fighting-falcon-units-of-operation-iraqi-freedom-pb - I havnt checked details but think it scared the Iraqis and allowed the SOF guys to escape. Pretty sure they can still drop PGM/IAMs etc in CCIP/CCRP modes like a dumb/gravity bomb. edit: This was a hectic and panicked situation the SOF controller was running for it but the F-16 guys (both got the Semper Viper award for this) managed to get out of him that a drop 3 clicks north of the light (firefly) would be away from friendlies so he pickled a GBU-12 in dumb bomb release (have to assume CCIP). Off target at 5000ft and staying fast 450 - 500kts due to MANPAD threat.

Below a certain speed neither will be hitting 9G - and AOA can become the limiting factor regarding nose rate and GOR. However over that certain speed it will likely be G limited. Like a lot of older jets without G limiters there is a chance it will see higher G over the limits - (examples of Mirage IIIs pulling 12 Gs etc in desperate situations) but likely major air-frame damage if sustained. So for example if the pilot is going to hit the ground he aint gonna care about writing the jet off!

When there was no alternative this was likely true to an extent - in Vietnam you may need to see the WP or rocket smoke marking references - but back then communication was audio and smoke. Communication from the ground today can be via multiple methods - not just voice/smoke. Your eyes are not better than a multispectrum camera that can zoom in on exact coordinates relayed from other assets and will allow you to sit in relative safety with far more time. Even if you had a multi spectrum HMD that tagged the bad guys with labels why would you need to sit down low soaking up damage? In reality damage repair is not a case of flying back to base. An example taken from 1991 when A-10s were withdrawn in favour of F-16s because so many were on the ramp damaged. There is a place for low and slow - where you can get away with it - but better SA - hardly you have far less time to think/react and are in far more unnecessary danger - with probably less idea of what is actually happening on the ground.

Well yes the allies had every advantage - apart from pilot training - some Iraqi pilots had 8 years + of combat experience - this would not allow them to overcome the gulf in technology and numbers though.

The OP is correct - the definition of CAS as defined by the forces has nothing to do with flying low /slow and is not platform dependent. Nothing is going to be flying low & slow over a half decent ground force today - and any observation will done from a safe distance unless things have really gone to pot in which case it's a suicide run! Assuming you can ID ground troops with your eyes is ridiculous - and only leads to fratricide. This is why JTAC/FACA/CAS assets work as teams - and the guys calling shots when troops are close are the ones on the ground only - even in WW1 friendly ground troops had to mark out their positions on the ground. Ok so a TGP potentially cant see through clouds - but under the clouds you still cant see through tree cover - and good luck working out who's who when the troops are intermingled (or not). One reason a FACA uses a TGP because they can mark targets for the other guys they call in instead of having to give instructions open to misinterpretation. An advantage of the A-10C using a TGP is that it can verify targets given from the controllers and has far more time to observe and work suitable attack vectors better than they would down lower. Caliber size doesn't equate to muzzle velocity etc - and anything under that doesn't go through troops and vehicles you say?? An example from Iraq 2003 - a couple of F-16s got called in under cloud cover at night so had to go to about 5000ft - the troops were intermingled with each other. The SOF controller waved a light they could pick up in NVGs and they dropped (JDAM?) bombs unguided where the guy wanted from the ref point which did the trick. An A-10 or AV-8 etc could have also done this. I suspect SDBs could be dropped unguided in the same situation - and yes SDB IIs have multiple seekers (GPS/Laser) for moving targets anyway. hmmm

You need to provide me with the sources you are getting the research from to refute this book because I want to see them. The research into F-14 Iranian Tomcats has been published by one of the most reliable and respected sources available and like any research it is not all accurate - however it is not all hearsay either. If you have anything to refute the research then you need to provide it! No actually the author Tom Cooper defends the work passionately...............here is an example - http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=25753

According to which credible sources?

This is a fantastic campaign - many congratulations