USMCFLYR

I was stashed with VMFA-112 back in the last days of the F-4S before I even went to flight school. We did a 3 week deployment to Yuma in October of 1990 and they fought Hornets nearly everyday. It was first time to sit in on the actual fights via the TACTS range. I remember it being rather one-sided and asked one of the reserve majors with a BUNCH of F-4 time how the squadron was fairing against the Hornets. He comment was "it is like shooting fish in a barrel..........for them"

I had the chance to fight a few JASDF F-4s while stationed in Japan. Most ran. The ones who didn't tried to turn, but it isn't really their strength. Anyone can get caught in a bad situation or make a bad move and another experienced pilot can capitalize - - but I'll put down a $10 that even the young dudes weren't anywhere near getting their clocks clean unless the SPINS had the Hornets acting like rear quarter shooting MIG-17s

rwthompson - those "baby' Hornets that you are talking about - ESPECIALLY the Lot7-9s and 16-18s (as examples) are extremely good dogfighters as you are obviously aware of. I would have taken my first Lot 9s against just about anything else other than the first Lot 16s.

USMCFLYR

rwthompson67

Concur! My last FLT sqdn we were flying lot 15s. First jets with EPE motors, and much lighter than some of the later lot jets. Of course it's a little hard to experience all of the potential when you're flying double/triple bubble off the boat.

JamesNoBrakes

I absolutely believe that's what we'll do, it's the logical "protection" against EW, at least at the highest form. I'd also bet money that they already employ it, just for different purposes, like re-attempting connections, momentary losses of signal, instructions if encountering complete loss of signal(self destruct, and so on), etc. Yes, the one in Iran didn't exactly do this, but I'd bet this is already being addressed in subsequent generations, and present to limited degrees already.

Remember, there are backup navigation systems, with modern technology something like IRS would that much better even, not to mention other systems, sat and other signals can be jammed. The military/defense industry would have to be stupid to not be considering and designing around this.

Adlerdriver

I flew my first ever dissimilar BFM ride against a VMFA-112 F-4 around Sep-Oct '89. I would concur with the one-sided fight. I can't take too much credit for the outcome - it's the mighty Eagle after all. With my whopping 10-15 hours in the F-15, no matter how hard I tried to screw up I ended up the victor. He was wily but that will only take you so far.

Grumble

I love fighting with a slick A for that very reason. May not have many toys, but it's so light you don't need them. My fleet squadron was Lot 18's. EPE motors, but so many add ons all the extra thrust was just pushing the gear.

If they'll throw the proposed EPE motors in the Super Hornet, it'll be unreal. The quote I heard was "all the thrust of a Viper, with the alpha of a Hornet."

USMCFLYR

Do you remember that the Spanish put EPE engines on the Lot 9's they were flying?
It was before I got to -106 as an IP (Nov '98), but the planes came through there before heading over to Spain I heard and they let some of the IPs fly them. UNREAL!

USMCFLYR

UAL T38 Phlyer

To get back to the original thread-topic, plus some of my perspective in more detail:

To my knowledge, the F-22 and F-35 do not bring new missiles to the fight---they stay with AIM-120, and AIM-9X. Great missiles, to be sure. Can some of the Russian missiles out-stick them? (For civilian-types, "Stick" refers to how far away from the bad guy you can shoot, and/or how far away he is when he blows up). I've been out of tactical flying for 15 years, so some of the details are not known to me....but I would guess "Yes." The last I knew, the bad-boy from Russia was still the AA-10C.

In other words, a new platform (for us) doesn't necessarily give a pre-merge missile advantage.

In the 1992-1996 time-frame, I learned how to lead F-4s against F-15s and F-16s and hold my own. We obviously couldn't win in a turning fight. Our tactics were radar-deception, which took away their sort and long-range shots. Once inside their max-range shots, with their first missiles defeated, we forced them to our terms: a short-range radar pick-up, frantic sort, shots, and we would blow straight through the merge. Once separated, we would turn around, target the survivors, using the same tactics. This was mostly AIM-7M vs AIM-7M (against Eagles), and later, AIM-7M vs AIM-120 (Vipers). AIM-9M all around, except that for the Phantom, we had no off-boresight capability (we had to point at them to get a shot). This worked great through 1995. Even though technology said I should have been defeated easily, superior tactics meant we traded even numbers, or sometimes emerged the clear victor.

Then, in 1996, I lead an 8 v 8 at Nellis. I didn't know it, but the Eagles were testing (at my expense) a large-force tactical datalink exercise. (Tac-datalink was brand-new then). We got our collective butts handed to us. The point is, until a monumental change in technology occurs, aircraft with a technological disadvantage can still be the winner.

Fast-forward to today/tomorrow: the implied advantage of the F-22 and F-35 is low radar cross-section, and/or supercruise. Therefore, the bad guys bringing a longer stick to the fight isn't an advantage if they can't find you to shoot you. While the F-22 can do some impressive airshow maneuvers, neither aircraft really brings a more-maneuverable aircraft to a long-range fight than what we have now. The F-35 is about the same as the F-16, and the F-22 would be trying to avoid any tactics that result in a post-merge "hiyaka." (ie, impressive low-speed maneuvering).

But let's look at the numbers. If you had $1 billion to spend on fighters, you could buy 6 or 7 F-35s.....or 30 F-16s. Let's say on day-1 of the war, a typical 20% of your fleet is down for phase-maintenance (300-hour, 600, 900, inspections, etc).

That means you have 4 F-35s, and 24 F-16s.

Let's say 10% of the fleets ground-abort. Three F-35s, 21 Vipers.

I'm not sure of the loadout, but I will guess each F-35 can carry six missiles plus the gun. Same for F-16.

So, defending the Straits of Taiwan are 3 F-35s, carrying a total of 12 AIM-120, and 6 Sidewinders....and 1,800 rounds of 25mm.

Or, 21 F-16s, carrying 86 AMRAAM and 42 Heaters. Oh, and 12,000+ rounds of 20mm.

Personally, I would think a swarm of Vipers would be a huge tactical advantage versus a handful of extremely-capable stealth aircraft when confronting a large enemy force.

Adlerdriver

Good post. One minor point. The Raptor is still waiting on the -9X. Got some issues to work out still. In the mean time it's the 'ole -9M for them. UFB but true.

N9373M

MCAS Beaufort, SC is still building the five new VTOL blast pads, hangar(s) and support buildings for the F-35. Gotta love politics and Government procurement rules - spend it while you got it.

When KNBC had the Harriers, I assume they also had blast pads. Are they gone, or won't support the F35? (one big fan vs 4?).

rickair7777

T38 Phlyer I'm starting to agree with you. The F-22/35 advocates (I used to be one) always assumed that regardless of cost inflation congress would ultimately buy the needed number (or at least within the same ballpark).

Given the dire budget situation, and the lack of obvious long-term solutions it n ow appears that "the buy" will end when the allotted dollars run out, not when the desired airframes are in hand. And the allotted dollars are getting smaller as we speak.

At some point we have to realize we can't afford to spend that kind of money just to end up numerically under-equipped with airplanes that may not even work right.

I'd feel a lot better with a modest number of 4.5 fighters which would have an ugly ( but somewhat predictable) fight on their hands against somebody else's 4-4.5s...as opposed to a tiny handful of 5th gen units against a numerically far superior force.

When you get down to really small numbers, statistics don't work very well...you end up with really questionable planning assumptions.

Anyone know if Mccain is right about the F-22 maintainability problems?