It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

US Top gun pilots were actually trained by the British

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 03:03 PM
link   
Researcher Rowland White explains in his new book "Phoenix Squadron" how many of the US Navy Top gun pilots trained at Miramar during the 1960's were actually trained by instructors from Her Majesty's Royal Air Force base at Kinloss, Lossiemouth in Scotland.

The reason given for this was the relatively poor performance of US fighter pilots in combat against the MIG's during the 60's and the fact that the US's closest ally had already had a "best of the best" fighter pilot training philosophy in operation since 1959 and were 10 years ahead of the US.

It is reported that during the 1960's there were at any one time, between 8 & 12 UK RAF instructors employed as Top Gun pilot trainers at the US Miramar facility.

PEACE,
RK

edited to change most to many


[edit on 24-3-2009 by Rigel Kent]




posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 03:35 PM
link   
I remember hearing somewhere, that in the early 20th Century, the USA didn't think that Airplanes where going to be an effective war weapon, I don't know how true that is, the RAF which formed after WW1 if I remember right, took it very seriously, and ended up if what I was told is right, ended up training a huge majority of the Worlds Air Forces.

I also saw a movie once, well part of it, about a US General, who was in charge of a squadron of Torpedo Planes, he disregarded an order to change his altitude during a training bombing run on a ship, and was Court marshalled, I cant remember what the movie was called, was kind of upset I couldn't watch it all actually, was that movie a true story? it seemed in that Film, that the US didn't have much faith in the Airplane.

If anyone knows the name of that Film, please post it, i'd like to watch it right through.



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 03:50 PM
link   
Hi azzllin,
I am not sure of the movie that you are talking about but I think you are correct in stating altitude is all important when dropping a torpedo (well it was back in the day). There was a very tight margin of error in altitude when dropping a torpedo at sea.
Also you may remember the old black and white movie and documentary of "the dambusters" true story of WWII when the Brits developed the bouncing bomb to blow up a dam in Norway. Altitude was all important on that too.

PEACE,
RK

[edit on 24-3-2009 by Rigel Kent]



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 10:11 PM
link   
reply to post by azzllin
 


the film = this one

and it was dive bombers - not torpedo bombers - there is only one correct altitude to release a torpedo



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 10:39 PM
link   
They may have trained our pilots but we gave them the AIM-9 Sidewinder missile from NOTS China Lake that made it work.


www.operationcorporate.com...

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 11:11 PM
link   
azzlin prior ww1 airplane technology was in sort of a darkage as planes werent really invested in buy the gov after races from england to france or germany were influencing engineering concepts of wing structure and weight enabling higher altitude and heavier planes it wasnt long b4 2 & 2 were put together. so ww1 really inspired plane tech i think



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 11:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Rigel Kent
 


Operation Chastise is what your reffering to. It was an attack on 3 dam's in Germany.

As for the topic, I had never heard that the RAF trained the USAF/USN in their "Top Gun" schools. Is there any information on the interweb?



posted on Mar, 25 2009 @ 06:27 PM
link   
It was actually more like veteran fighter pilots from Vietnam, that led to Top Gun and Red Flag. The US had many experienced combat fighter pilots , the UK had not had substanital air combat in a while

US and UK have always trained closely since WW2 in many facets of air combat. Many future RAF fighter pilots go through pilot training in Texas too.

I would not be surprised if RAF pilots have done exchanges at Top Gun or Red Flag/Fighter Weapons School though, they even had a pilot in the F-117 when it was still secret.



posted on Mar, 25 2009 @ 06:43 PM
link   
The RAF is the only foreign service with a B-2 Mission Commander too.

The reason so many US pilots were losing dogfights in Vietnam was because they were forced to do similar combat training using very strict ROE. They couldn't get close, they couldn't go fast, they couldn't turn and burn with each other. Top Gun and Red Flag established DACT and let them really mix it up.

Prior to Top Gun and Red Flag, they had F-4s flying against F-4s, etc. Most pilots shot down didn't even see their attacker or realize they had been engaged. The new schools used smaller planes, and started DACT to teach the pilots to look for smaller more nimble aircraft engaging them.



posted on Mar, 25 2009 @ 06:51 PM
link   
The Daily Telegraph had an article about the very subject only a few days ago.

I was going to post it, but had something better to do in the real world instead


Telegraph / Top Gun School set up by the British



posted on Mar, 25 2009 @ 11:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Sorry Z gotta disagree with you here. American fighter pilots, while they definatley had strict ROE, whn engaged, did what they needed to do. I don't know where you got your info about US pilots losing alot of dogfights but it was and is wrong.About half of the air corps were ex Korean engagement pilots and knew how to maneuver but were told to rely on thier missles in a stand-off fashion. Not to mention the lack of a cannon on the F4. WHne they finally DID put a gunpod on the F4 it was too little, too late. Regardless our pilots managed to chalk up a 10:1 DKR. The Uk DID teach us ACM but we refined it. You can hand me a piece of steel , but I can grind an edge.


[edit on 25-3-2009 by djvexd]

[edit on 25-3-2009 by djvexd]

[edit on 25-3-2009 by djvexd]



posted on Mar, 25 2009 @ 11:40 PM
link   
There are some substantial errors in that article. North Vietnam did not have MiG-21s in early 60s, nor was Top Gun set up then either.

Both USN and USAF had more experience with the Phantom than the British did. UK was probably the 2nd biggest user behind the US, but the US had been using it in combat.

One problem in USAF was, than in 50s and 60s, it was SAC that ran the show, and combat aircraft were dedicated to strike. Air to Air was just something to help the strike mission. Air to Air practice was not encouraged, and even forbidden sometimes, and pilots were put into F-4s who had been flying cargo before that, just because F-4 pilots were needed.

USN and USAF had been flying missions in F-4s for years, and the idea than they did not have experienced F-4 pilots but the Brits did, is a bit far fetched.



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 07:26 AM
link   
reply to post by djvexd
 


Sorry dj but I'm gonna have to disagree with you. US pilots barely had a 2:1 kill ratio at one point before Top Gun was instituted. During Operation Linebacker the US didn't even have a 1:1 kill ratio for two months.


The origin of Red Flag was the unacceptable performance of U.S. Air Force pilots in air combat maneuvering (ACM) (air-to-air combat) during the Vietnam War in comparison to previous wars. Air combat over North Vietnam between 1965 and 1973 led to an overall exchange ratio (ratio of enemy aircraft shot down to the number of own aircraft lost to enemy fighters) of 2.2:1 (for a period of time in June and July 1972 during Operation Linebacker the ratio was less than 1:1).

Among the several factors resulting in this disparity was a lack of realistic ACM training. USAF pilots were not versed in the core values and basics of ACM due to the belief that BVR (Beyond Visual Range) engagements and equipment made maneuvering combats obsolete, and nearly all pilots were unpracticed in maneuvering against dissimilar aircraft because of an Air Force emphasis on flying safety.

An Air Force analysis (Project Red Baron II) showed that a pilot's chances of survival in combat dramatically increased after he had completed 10 combat missions. Red Flag was created in 1975 to offer US pilots the opportunity to fly 10 realistically-simulated combat missions in a safe training environment with measurable results. Many aircrews had also fallen victim to SAMs and Red Flag exercises provided pilots experience in this regime as well.

en.wikipedia.org...(USAF)

[edit on 3/26/2009 by Zaphod58]



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 08:01 AM
link   
To be honest I feel as well now many of the British pilots are better than the US ones, though this is due to a lack of proper equiptment!

The real fly boys, the real heroes of any recent air campaign against ground targets is the Tornado boys. the planes are old, and have to be flown at a very low altitude and close to the target to get the mission done.

No stealth or amazing technology to help them out, seat of the pants stuff just over the surface.

Fear and danger has made them very good at it.

Also the Harrier lads in those old planes which take an awful lot of skill to use properly.

Having said that obviously agaisnt the very well trained and highly sophisticated equiptment of the US they wouldn't stand a chance, but the Tornado lads are the best and bravest IMHO as Gulf war 1 showed.

I don't like war or idiolise these guys but credit for bravery where it is due.

Elf.



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 10:07 AM
link   
lol, epic troll topic.

GO UK!!!

UK IS BEST!!!

I think that the USA forced these UK pilots to train them by threatinging them with THE GRATEST MILITARY IN THE WORLD!

GO USA!!!

USA IS BEST!!!



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 10:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


I stand corrected on my ratio it WAS 2:1. However that being said more pilots were brought down due to AAA and SAM than actual N.Vietnamese pilots. This article doesn't make a seperation between pilots ( fighter/bomber/recon). Therefore simply quoting numbers , as this article does not ring true. There were alot of planes brought down during Linebacker, by as I said before AAA and SAMs. A rare few were actually brought down by enemy interceptors.



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 10:48 AM
link   
reply to post by djvexd
 


Kill ratios ONLY look at Air to Air though. It has nothing to do with AAA and SAM fire. I realize that most shoot downs were from ground fire, but when it comes to A2A combat, US pilots were unprepared. The thinking at the time was that the next war would be fought with missiles and nuclear weapons, not dogfights.

home.comcast.net...
home.comcast.net...

Ok now THIS is priceless. A CIA Air America UH-1D armed with an AK-47 shot down two AN-2 Cubs.

CIA Shoot down


The genesis of Red Flag traces back to the Vietnam era, when the air-combat effectiveness of the US Air Force dropped dramatically. Specifically, the Air Force enjoyed a 10-to-one kill ratio during the Korean War but only a two-to-one advantage during the latter part of the Vietnam War. Disturbed by this trend, the service set out to identify the root cause of its loss in proficiency, tasking its Tactical Fighter Weapons Center at Nellis AFB, Nevada, to conduct a series of studies called Project Red Baron to analyze all air-to-air engagements during the war in Southeast Asia. An interim report released in 1972 identified three significant trends. First, it found that multirole fighter units were expected to perform such a broad range of missions that pilots lacked proficiency across the board. Second, most pilots who were shot down never saw their attackers and did not even know that the enemy had engaged them. The report concluded that since pilots routinely trained against US aircraft from their own squadrons, they were unaccustomed to looking for the smaller, more agile aircraft flown by the North Vietnamese. Finally, Air Force pilots not only lacked familiarity with the enemy's fighter tactics and aircraft capabilities but also did not develop or train with tactics intended to exploit the adversary's weaknesses. As a result, they could not adapt to the fast maneuvering by North Vietnamese fighters during dogfights. (1)

Other studies at the time found that aircrew training and proficiency problems extended beyond the Vietnam War. The Litton Corporation, for example, studied air-combat trends in every conflict from World War I through the Vietnam War, concluding that a pilot's first 10 combat missions were the most critical.2 If aircrew members survived those missions, their chances for victory and survival increased dramatically.

findarticles.com...


[edit on 3/26/2009 by Zaphod58]



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 11:54 AM
link   
Great articles Z. But I still say the numbers are skewed. A good example of this is the fact that "Lead Sleds" were designated fighter/bombers. A2A kills of these aircraft certainly tally into it as most of these craft were used in the traditional tac-bomber role and support and alot of times flew unsupported because of thier fighter designation. Only until an inordinate amount of them were being lost till we started to see escorts and CAPS flown in thier areas to support.



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 12:08 PM
link   
reply to post by djvexd
 


A kill is a kill is a kill. It doesn't matter if it's an F-105 shooting down a MiG-21, or an F-4 shooting down a MiG-17. The F-105 obviously had SOME dogfighting ability, or it couldn't have shot anything down. They had GUN kills against some MiGs. But later on I'll sit down and figure out how many fighter v fighter kills there were for both sides and give you numbers.



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 12:29 PM
link   
reply to post by djvexd
 


Looking solely at CONFIRMED kills by fighters against fighters it comes out to about a 3.5:1 ratio. One of the problems with the numbers is that there are dozens of US shoot downs that are either in the "Unconfirmed" category, or "Attributed to AAA/SAM" category.

I went through both charts and only looked at F-4/F-8 kills against MiGs, and confirmed MiG shoot downs of F-4s and F-8s.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join