Your argument should be supported with emotionless facts and you should keep personal opinion, especially where that personal opinion is derogatory to
certain individuals / groups, to a minimum. It’s a sure-fire way to turn off your audience.
Fine. The U.S. Air Services were in the PG because they were a cheap way to get cheap oil. It was their presence there which made 9/11 happen. If
pilots were not worshipped as heroes instead of assassins, their use as 'instead of combat' moralless replacements for a commitment to policies that
torture other nations rather than openly fighting them would be seen in much the same light as they should be: Unnecessarily Cruel and Wastes Of
Right or wrong, there’s nothing we believe that we can’t at least take on. That’s half the battle; believing you can do something.
The difference between the average fool who wants to believe the Hollywood answer you just blathered and me is that I don't see being able to 'do
something' as necessarily equating the moral right to bleed a society of resources just to prove how many crutches and payoffs you need /not to/.
Wars are about winning. If you can fight a war without having to win it, you are commiting to a sport-war concept of policies which, in the eyes of
others, you DON'T want to win. Only prosecute to their detriment.
9/11 came about because we thought that we could play in the Arab's sandbox with the same mindset as we cheer our teams in the NFL.
Thanks but no thanks. If you make our nation feel 'safe' to be a bully demanding oil-tribute through back channel merc use of airpower to isolate
and excoriate a country we don't have the moral commitment to overrun or leave be, you contribute to the lessening of standards by which we exist as
a people 'by for and of freedom'.
I don't care /how/ elite _you_ feel about it.
I worked for a short time for a Colonel that was soon to retire. Here was a Vietnam vet, old-school fighter pilot who was forced to give up his
command and flying billet because he announced his retirement. Room had to be made for the next in line for command. He spent his last couple of
months playing goat herder to a bunch of non-rated shoe clerks. Luckily, the Colonel still came by the squadron bar on Fridays to have a beer or two
with the boys. I’ll never forget him telling us that in his nearly 30 years in the Air Force he had never doubted a task to get done when given to a
fighter pilot. He had also never been lied to by another Air Force officer until he started herding ‘goats’. You want integrity and a
‘the-buck-stops-here’ attitude? Call a fighter pilot. Sure, we screw up and bad things happen. But real fighter pilots don’t make excuses.
Flying in a drug-induce haze was just some poor excuse dreamed up by a desperate defense lawyer.
Google Go/No-Go and read the story about the PILOT who said he had to take them. But oops, I guess that messes up your 'get things done' attitude
or you would already have done it.
The fact remains that however you raise chins and brag to your fellow officers 'as a class apart', you are not up to the task of hunting down time
critical targets over a period of weeks and months because you cannot generate the _presence_ over their areas of operation needed to do so.
So whatever smug allure your existence has to the ignorant mob who want to live a knights-code 'just like you', the ultimate definition of your
capabilities as a slaughterer of men just falls way damn short of what is needed. And that means you should be 'downsized' in preparation of for
industry revamp towards an airpower mode which DOES work.
Even when it's run by simple slobs with a trail of snore-spittle and donut sprinkles on their perfectly starched little uniform shirts.
Because THEY are not the ones creating presence on the battlefield. And the airframes which are, are cheaper to use and more endurant for want of YOU
not being there.
There is no point in creating symbols of a life properly lived if living that life does not match the conditions of the society whose needs are not
fulfilled by it.
The nice thing about web sites such as this is they offer near perfect anonymity. You can say just about anything you want about anyone without fear
of any real reprisal. If you don’t like what they say you just have to turn your computer off. There’s no real requirement for open debate or real
embarrassment. No one really knows who you are. What happened in your case? Did you not get selected for pilot training? Did you wash out of pilot
training? Did some mean fighter pilot pee in your corn flakes or take your woman? Do you suffer from jealousy that is only soothed by belittling those
of whom you are jealous? Does this make you feel better?
I speak in contempt of _your class existence_ as the most elitist of a societal appendix which, yearly, takes the King's Cut of discretionary
And you automatically assume it's because of something /one/ of you did?
How jolly. How displacement indicative of a bully psychology that thinks the best way to 'deal' with someone is always one on one.
You just cannot stand to wrap your head around the notion that SOMEONE sees thru the illusion to the truth that fighter 'piloting' as a whole is a
grotesque waste of money to maintain a skillset which is itself vestigial because we WILL NOT use war to /take/ what we need.
When we can thieve it.
At that point the combined loss of real resources spent preparing for something we won't do but 'always prepare for' (over someone else's
airspace). And the moral vanity if not vacuousness of assuming that the hatred we engender by playing casually 'restrained' butchers without intent
to do more than stomp on the necks of those who oppose our _economic_ tape worm politics.
Is greater than any degree of 'safety' that the tools and men we empower give us.
Show me a single program in this country which spends as much money on finding a _replacement_ for our oil-as-coc aine dependency as we are
currently wasting on the JSF.
And I might believe the 'need' for you is transitory rather than by venal design. As is, all I see is a class unto itself. Protecting itself.
With RICO chargeable (corrupt organization whose sole purpose is to further an ongoing conspiracy) criminality of FRAUD at it's heart. You make the
Mafia look like amateurs sir.
Yet why should we worship that?
Let’s get back to your points. I’m sure you would agree that any point should be supported by verifiable facts. Some of your facts, however, make
me wonder what your sources are. It certainly isn’t from having the ‘been-there-done-that’ T-shirt. Here are some examples:
“in Kosovo, where we lost 26 UAVs but only 3 Predators vs. 2 manned aircraft (an F-117 and a Puma IIRR)”
Did you forget about the Block 40 F-16CG from Aviano Air Base? The pilot was a good friend of mine and was one of my Fighter Weapons School
classmates. Thankfully, he was picked up shortly after getting on the ground. He was the squadron commander and had his flagship shot out from
underneath him. We still give him a hard time about it. Now he’s a Brigadier General – select. I should’ve gotten shot down. I’d be a General
What point does "IIRR" not support? Is YOUR argument so weak that you fail to see that /whatever/ the loss of manned aircraft, _if there had been
no man aboard_ there would be no 'friend in danger'?
“The F-15s ran at Mach 1.7 which is the maximum they can run with Sidewinders aboard”
Does this mean the F-15 can’t overcome drag to go any faster than 1.7 M with Sidewinders onboard or is placarded to a maximum of 1.7 M when carrying
Sidewinders? Since I do have the F-15 been-there-done-that T-shirt, I’ll tell you that the F-15C has no problem exceeding 1.7 M with a full load of
missiles. It is also not placarded to a maximum of 1.7 M with any air-to-air missile. I’m looking at T.O. 1F-15A-1 which is the flight manual for
the F15A, B, C and D. The manual is open on my desk as I type. The chart I have from Chapter 5 of the above document concerning AIM-9 carriage states
‘BAL’ which means basic aircraft limits (2.5 M / 800 knots indicated). Some variants of the AIM-120C are placarded to 2.3 M, but those are the
only carriage limits I see for air-to-air missiles. Any speed above 2.3 M for the F-15 is limited to one minute maximum.
According to a fighter pilot I once knew and respected, the AIM-9's seeker dome cannot sustain the friction temps of speeds higher than Mach 1.78. I
chose 1.7 because I figured if I 'rounded up' to 1.8, someone like you would nit pick that I was 'knew nothing because I was going too fast'.
As I recall, the man's name was Walt Bjorneby. You might look on RAM newsgroup. Or you might not.
The point I made remains true. If knights of the sky lived so perilously close to some kind of internal moral compass, they would have all fallen on
their swords when they discovered in 1982 that the en-masse shutdown of ADC was in the process of rendering America's skies open to the attentions of
overt threats as much as internal terrorism.
As is, you were 'we can do anything besides ADTAC is just a bunch of /interceptor pilots/' too proud to do more than continue the fantasy by which
it's okay to do unto others what they could not prevent being comes-around returned favor here at home.
Don't win over there.
Don't protect here.
Time for a new solution.
“even as we bouth (spelling?) about 615 F-16C.40's”
I’m not sure how many Block 40s were built because other countries also bought Block 40s. Among them were Egypt, Greece and Bahrain. Korea? Perhaps.
If the ‘we’ means the USAF, according to T.O. 1F16CG -1 (the Block 40 Flight Manual), the number is 409 Block 40 / 42s. T.O. 1F16CG-1 contains a
list of all aircraft to which it is applicable. All the combat-coded, active-duty units that fly the F-16CG fly the Block 40 since it is equipped with
the more powerful General Electric F110-GE-100 engine and not the Block 42’s Pratt and Wimpy F100-PW-220 (the same engine that powers some of the
later-model F-15Cs). The Block 42 is a PIG.
I didn't use a direct quote because this site does not allow me to cut and paste in support of my arguments.
I did Google the number-
Which seems to me to indicate that I am more interested in research than you are in disproving the thrust of my argument. Which is principally that
_with the number of MQ-1s in service today_ (no, I am NOT going to look that one up for you) we could do the Kosovo mission set /better/ than the
F-16CG, in all it's flaming hordes. Mind you, I chose the F-16CG for it's 'smart bomb' capability because the actives were too protective of
their non-existent SEAD mission (or maybe their MIB connections) to buy the LITENING from a NorGrumman/Israeli connection. It had nothing to do with
the types lack of aero performance. Because the only performance that counts is endurance and LO and it had neither. It _does_ however reflect
poorly on the pilots that both their sensors and their judgment is so bad (Say, is that a John Deere tractor or a truck full of genociders down
there?) that they have to have a /drone/ back up their calls.
Some sanity check 'common sense onboard' eh?
“Take this another step further and look at an F-22 firing out an acoustically and Q fire hydranted sidebay onto targets as much as 20,000ft below
from a high end supercruise. The pilot rolls to acquire with JHMCS, and then the targets reverse under to deny the shot…”
The F-22 has no JHMCS or any other helmet-mounted display or cueing system.
Are we even in the same thread here or are you introducing 'personal grudges' from others?
Never mind, it will by the time it goes to war and Code One even emphasizes this in one of it's later articles. Look it up.
“The only thing useful about the MiG-29's close-in weapons suite is the OEPS-29 IRST. And even that has lost about 70% of it's functionality with
the deactivation of the KOLS laser ranger. Largely this is because they Luftwaffe MiGs didn't have the latest standard in R-72 (45 degree boresight
capability which is roughly the same as the AIM-9M /after/ lockon, realy primitive IRCCM qualities and the older autopilot/motor)…”
This is another case of having the been-there-done-that T-shirt. I flew the MiG-29 for nearly 3 years as an exchange pilot with the Luftwaffe. The
only useful thing about the MiG-29’s close-in weapons suite was not the OEPS IRSTS (infrared search and track system). The KOLS was a POS and could
have been deleted from the Fulcrum with no noticeable impact on combat capability.
No. Because the setup on hi-lo PRF and range gating of the No-19 was so primitive that the only way the MiG-29 could be used effectively in a NATO
environment was as a GCI vectored aircraft whereby stern conversion which allowed the full effectiveness of the optical head to be employed when _the
radar dumped_ and /assuming/ you had an operational ranger.
The most useful thing(s) about the Fulcrum’s close-in weapons suite was the helmet-mounted sight (HMS) and R-72 IR-guided missile (NATO AA-11
Archer). The HMS could slave the radar and the German-owned R-72 up to 60 degrees off boresight (missile slaving limits) and the IRSTS within its full
envelope of plus or minus 15 degrees in elevation and plus or minus 30 degrees in azimuth. For the radar and missile, the 60 degree limit applied to
the pure vertical / horizontal axes (in relation the aircraft). In between those 4 points, the maximum off-boresight angle was somewhat less than 60
degrees. The Luftwaffe had the R-72 version 1, which has limited capabilities against countermeasures (flares). It had all the same kinematic
capabilities of the version 2 which has very robust capabilities against flares. We test fired 12 Luftwaffe R-72s from Luftwaffe MiG-29s in 2003 as
part of a weapons evaluation. We wanted to test the extreme in-close envelope of the Archer. We consistently slaved the missile to nearly 60 degrees
off-boresight during target acquisition and had a couple of cases where the missile left the jet at near its gimbal limits of around 90 degrees.
Eleven shots were successful in that they guided to the target. There was one missile autopilot failure. We also successfully fired 12 AA-10
The original R-73 was a 45` HOBS weapon. Since you don't even get that part right, why should I support your argument which is extraneous to THIS
Oh, that's right, it's 'all about being cold with the facts' in context ain't it?
“As to the Archer as granddaddy of all 'expanded envelope' threat missiles, this system is /highly/ overrated. True, the original missiles had a
40-45` HOBS capability (at a time when the AIM-9L was about 27.5`) but the combination of IRST bore cue and helmet tracking are both dependent on
dated electronics equivalent to the 1972 VTAS system wherein 'if the radar sucks, so does your handoff' (not to mention sill lines on the Flanker
and Fulcrum and the terrible electromechanical 'flashing LED' latency of the systems themselves).”
See above. I was very impressed at how well this system worked and how simple and reliable it was. Unfortunately, this was about all I found
impressive with the MiG-29. OBTW, the Luftwaffe did not operate some watered-down export version of the Fulcrum A. They had the same radar, same
weapons computer and just about everything else as the Motherland.
And this is relative to what on a UCAV?
“But it works because the Luftwaffe drivers were only wanted as 'threat emulators' whereby they flew WARPAC tactics utterly unsuited for
We didn’t fly WARPAC tactics – ever! No one ever asked us to or required us to do so. The attitude of our training adversaries was ‘bring it’.
So now some of your facts have been proven to be suspect (or just plain wrong). What does this do the credibility of your other ‘facts’ and the
points you are trying to make?
Why bother quoting about half a dozen magazine articles and briefs which state the opposite? Why bother with RAM and RAM-N chatter which state the
opposite. If every time I do so, I get censored and censured by the ATS crowd?
The last time including a three day suspension by an ATS moderator who never felt the need to explain why beyond "I'm the boss, I will chop your
text as I feel like!"
I did do the research.
I don't trust or accept 'your word' in light of publically available data which states otherwise.
You want UCAV-like aircraft to take over for manned aircraft. One reason you give is cost. Another reason is that pilots are idiots, morons or
whatever name you can think of. UCAVs, as you say, will be able to do the job better and reduce fratricide and collateral damage.
Another reason is just man in general. You seem to hold man in contempt because man is imperfect. I’m just wonderin’ how imperfect people can
build ‘perfect’ machines with ‘perfect’ software? There seems to be a disconnect there.
Ever hear the old knob about how 'Doctorates think of the idea, Masters write the orders by which it is made real, Bachelors build it, HSDs sweep the
floor after the important people are done for the day..." ??
It doesn't really matter if you haven't.
Because the nature of human imperfection is in the stress of an urgent moment reactive mistake more than a protracted design. Fighter pilots, adrenal
junkies of the highest degree, seek that 'urgency' as if it was life's fire.
Less stress = better decisions. And the /overwhelming/ numbers of pilot-induced causes in both Class-A mishap accidents and Fratricidal Combat Losses
proves that whatever 'class act' personal superiority you wish to imply as being solely the province of your ego, in fact doesn't exist.
Your own psychosis proves it wherein the desire to 'do something about it in a tight corner' (rack up 'tee shirt' kills in the limited periods of
play-war where your true natures are allowed out without frown) and the fear of death and 'a miss is as good as a mile' lost opportunities to look
cool if you wait.
_Pilots_ (whom I don't class as being humans because they don't) desire for dynamicy makes them the root of evil in combat design.
Something we no longer should put up with the cost as much as cause celebre`as their shortcomings as warriors are now 'protected' by standoff
munitions and LO whose very 'level wings, never too close' dicta of enhanced survival useage make the energetic panderings of childish spirits
_pointless_ prima donnaism.
So you can respond in some emotional manner and rant and rave how I don’t know WTF I’m talking about. I don’t really GAF. You’ve already
called me an idiot once for stating that an F-16C has better range than a similarly configured F-15C. You really hurt my feelings – not.
If I didn't hurt your 'personal honor' feelings you wouldn't waste half a page of text in an unrelated thread to spout your outrage at being
proven wrong. Fighter Pilots can't stand to be treated with the very contempt of engagement by which they IAM/LGB attack the helpless 20,000ft under
them and 'back to base before happy hour' are away from the fight that they couldn't win but for the technology sitting under them.
Which is why nobody 'minds' when Iraqi soldiers jam ice picks in your ears, break your bones and generally _get even_ when a lucky hit puts you in
their midst as equals. You're plenty 'human' then, aren'tcha?
Of course what I refuse to accept is the blatant reality that that technology which you THINK makes you more than the rest of us, in fact no longer
So why should we pay BILLIONS of dollars for you to have 'my other car is...' playtime? Why should a nation built on openness and equality in every
act and concept create it's own martial elite? When that elite are such moralless cowards as to /enjoy/ the status of WHO they are. But not to
PROSECUTE a war to pay for their special privileges in a way that has real benefit to those of us who only see your so called prowess as a means to
incite other 'just humans' to acts of such vile barbarity as can only be visited UPON THE CIVILLIANS YOU FAIL TO PROTECT EITHER.
This is supported in an article in the Spring of 1989’s edition of the “USAF Fighter Weapons Review”. The article was even written by an F-15
pilot. I’ll give you that when you start hanging bombs on the F-16, range does suffer. I often wondered what I was doing there when I pulled into
the arming area in my F-16 carrying 2 JDAM and parked next to an F-15E carrying many times more than that. The F-16 was saddled with the wrong
mission. It should have been primarily an air-to-air machine. Why not hang bombs on the F-15C and give it a real mission?
What does this have to do with UCAVs? The F-15/16 debate is a wasted discussion because THAT money has already been 'hi-low, the new way to sell
pilot dole!' thrown away three decades ago. It was a waste then. About the only question to be debated now is why we haven't learned any better.
Of course the answer is simple. There are no independent-of-union-bias counter arguments.
In any case, the answer as to why you don't hang bombs on the F-15C is simple. It can carry four 500lb class AAM without losing it's base range and
station time, over Germany. Out of England. In Europe. You want to pull an 'air supremacy' victory out of certain defeat in a 1979-85 NATO war
(our 'window of vulnerability') you have to acknowledge the certainty that the LGPOS will never swing Sparrow or fight in a Euroclag.
OTOH, the Albino cannot win a SARH war either.
But only the LGPOS needs a 350lb-before-ARH solution.
If the F-16 wasn't worthless, they wouldn't design a crutch for it's 'sales success' which was based around a missile which the extant technology
base couldn't acheive IOC on before 1991. Something we knew when we spec'd out the requirements in 1976.
I preferred the F-16’s avionics over that of the F-15C (2000 hours in the Viper and 1000 hours in the Eagle). When you don’t need the airframe to
support the ‘emergency’ engine, you can invest more in avionics.
When you only need 500-750 of one type vs. the 2,500+ (yes, here I am winging it) we have money-at-wolves thrown to industry for the LGPOS, you can do
a lot more with 'the avionics'.
Where 'avionics' means man interface in the cockpit, the F-15E beats the F-16C before CCIP and color MFD.
Where 'avionics' means a functioning Mk.XII and EOID backup to NCTR for 'fighting in constricted ROE or the Middle East', neither jet is more than
a red barons wet dream compared to COE as a BVR platform enabled preference they _should have been_ from the outset.
SEA taught us, not that BVR didn't work. But that excessive rules (what, 3 jets and a gunboat?) which prevent it's proper employment, along with a
'hands off' constriction on OCA and airbase attack, _generated the conditions_ by which visual fights became inevitable. And that it was those
/visual fights/ which made the attrition happen.
Visual fights whose 3/9 encounter conditions ended up being nearly random because of the lack of adequate LDSD and poor raid planning which didn't
saturate so much as stream through the IADs. Result: You went A2A when someone flashed across your nose or your wingman blew up beside you.
A condition which, doppler aside, could very well have been replicated in Europe with the numeric density overwhelming the ACP improvements and _no
datalink_ sort to make up for the slowness of voice vector out of Geilenkirchen. OTOH, the Russians had no problem with BVR volley fire from the
start. Guess who was smarter.
Of course I don't need to 'speculate' because most pilot's answer is the LGPOS. Rather than a firm belief in the systems engineering INVESTMENT
doctrine which says "We never accept battle on their terms. We yield ground because we know that we can fly back over it at 600 knots when they are
all gone. And we slaughter our enemies like snipers, not WVR morons fighting a kodiak in a coat closet."
Don’t say the F-15’s radar can see further. That’s a mute point
STT is not a moot point when you can use it like a lash with a silent-midcourse weapon whose range is at least 150% greater than what even the 7Mike
Am I killing you? Am I 'serious'? Keep Flying Into Me Mister AND FIND OUT. Two shots out, fade and return. Two shots out and RTB.
Given the USAF persisted in a fluid four approach throughout SEA and /continued it/ as the baseline division 'wall of Eagles' approach during
tactical workup on the F-15A, the least you can do is acknowledge what happens when your first launches come at 50nm and your first kills at 35.
Something no LGPOS will ever achieve with the APG-66 which we would have taken into a NATO war if the Russians hadn't been bear-over-mountain bluffed
into Rudyard's Poem.
Against the normal RCS adversary fighter. I would concede a big edge to the AESA boys in Alaska but they are the exception.
I don't Twiz in my coffee. Do you? With a decent missile, the only thing you need to beat is the trackbreaker pulsing dynamics at the
noise-threshold receiver gate and for what it's worth, I can make STT /look like/ TWS if I want to.
Did you know the F-16’s radar has greater peak power than the F-15’s radar?
And the Hi-PRF lockup mode on the AIM-120 beats both, for an instant. And which version of APG-66 (around which the LWF-becomes-F-16A _production_
decision was 'Deal Of The Century' profiteering based) would that be btw.? How many PRF layers? How many channels coming out of the TWT? What's
the density on the range gate overlaps going into the RSP?
Don't BS me with veiled techno-wow /crap/. I will spit Maxwell's Equations right back at you as to how big an antenna and how many MCOPS it takes
to run a longrange missile fight.
However, the F-16 radar’s lower duty cycle means that its average output power is less than that of the Eagle. For pure performance, I still prefer
the F-16. That’s my opinion and it doesn’t make me an idiot; especially when someone who has not flown both aircraft claims I am. You don't like
the F-16. I'm OK with that.
I don't like any mechanical pedestal array that chooses physical performance over IFDL shared volume coverage. This was something that WAS 'within
the SOA' given only that w paid for JTIDS T2 in a small force rather than waiting 15 years for MIDS/IDM after it was all over but the bragging.
Gee thanks, Mister Uber Alles LGPOS.
Of course the whole screwup with technology inserts into a reasonable force structure was in no small part due to the fact that we based 'MSIP'
around building new airframes to justify capabilities that should have been baseline without TELLING AMERICANS that what they were buying was not a
war winning strategy of mixed capability and numbers.
No matter which jet actually got the benefit of export sales payoffs.
The F-16 was purely a military industrial base profiteering scheme designed to get rich quick. It worked because pilots want to be pilots even when
they are incompetent for the role they are fighting.
Which only leaves the 'sensible people' to replace Victor Alert with Pershings and Gryphons which were the REAL (nuclear tripwire in the 80's just
as the 50's) stiff arm means by which we bluffed the Russians by threatening to end the world. 'Them First'.
Of course nobody heard that viewpoint in the U.S. because cable didn't include BBS newscasts about /why/ The Greens were so pissed at being the
CH1466, in the immortal words of wise Sergeant Hulka, “Lighten up Francis”.
You exist with humour because your world is secured in lollypop past visions of what has been. Not the ruinaton that your /class system/ is visiting
upon us now economically and setting us up for worse of geo-politically, in future.
Don't pretend to be a 'polite' acquaintance or a personal advisor so long as you support that narrow minded view of how 'good' you are as the
sole justification for why the system you support needs to exist.
It doesn't. As far as I'm concerned, YOU don't. Live with that.