Unpopular Aviation Opinions?

[TeaAndScones 2]

Do you have any opinions/beliefs about aviation that go against what the majority would want you to believe?  I'll give some of mine.

 

- (Circa mid-1980's) In a realistic scenario, an Su-27 would have more than a good chance against an F-15.  A common belief is that the F-15 would pwn an Su-27 because of superior Sparrow missiles and avionics.  While this holds true, why is everyone so keen to miss out the fact that it was rules of engagement in the Vietnam War that prevented the Sparrow from being used fully anyway?  Should the same circumstances apply here, an F-15 would likely need to visually ID the Su-27 before being cleared to engage.  Here, the Su-27 would have the advantage of superior low-speed maneuverability and high 'off-boresight' R-73 (AA-11) missiles, which would outclass the F-15's AIM-9M's.

 

- The IRIAF's F-14's should be scrapped and replaced.  Given that Iran's defense budget should allow, (Which it should do, given they've been able to keep these ancient birds airworthy this long, and that they've made a reverse-copy of the AIM-54), they should start investing in some new planes to replace these F-14's. and generally some of their other Western aircraft.  The West is no longer offering support to Iran for maintenance of these Jets, so I would consider looking at somewhere like Russia to provide for their future aviation needs.  The F-14 is a clunky, maintenance-intensive plane, and it's simple economics that something will become more expensive to maintain the longer it is kept operational.  Plus, the F-14A's air combat capabilities would be completely outgunned by US F-22's and F-15's, in a hypothetical air-war over Iran.  They simply need something more modern to protect their skies with.

 

These are some of my examples.  Please post yours below. :)

 

DatBritish.

[Fubar512 1,350]

AI Radar by the 1980s had become sophisticated enough to ID bogies by their signature (and reportedly, even by their turbine blade count). So, the Vietnam scenario would most likely not have applied there.  On the other side of the equation, the AA-10/R-27 Alamo missiles carried by the Su-27 during that time frame were as accurate as an AIM-7 sparrow, and had a greater range.

[fallenphoenix1986 603]

The IRIAF probably agrees with you but I can't see them replacing them anytime soon.

Hows this one, I can't think of a single F-15 engagement that couldn't have had the exact same outcome had the F-4 Phantom been flying the mission in the Eagles place, yet the Eagle is the king of fighters with its 100+:0 kil ratio... In every single one of those victories the Eagle driver had the advantage of superior training and better situational awareness, if we look at lthe F-4's payload compared to the F-15's you'll notice it eaither has the potential to haul the exact same warload or in some cases does carry the exact same warload , the F-15s raw performance wasn't really such a big deal in actual conflicts.

 

Craig

Edited March 23, 2014 by fallenphoenix1986

[MigBuster 2,879]

Depends on the majority - wasn't aware the Majority had enough knowledge to know either way?

 

1.

There are some things you need to consider - in the mid 80's you had the AIM-7M  (not the AIM-7D/E). You have to ask how many Su-27s would have been operational and trained up (F-15 was 1976 and already had combat experience). Also just 6 years later in ODS the ROE allowed BVR using AWACs & NCTR - so in the mid 80s things were already vastly different to Vietnam - only need to look at F-15 operations in 82 to see how good the missiles and radar had become. Also even in Vietnam if you consider the later AIM-7E-2s were used for kills WVR - the AIM-7M would have probably been a very good WVR weapon. 

 

Now what scenario are you talking about? - for example In a WW3 conventional conflict there would have been a lot of merges simply down to the amount of aircraft on each side and the limitations of SARH missiles on both sides (hold lock on a single target) - there was no way to detect or take out all of the opposing jets before getting in close (due to the speed things happen) - even if you allowed BVR.

 

So really it would come down to the side with better training, tactics, formation and situational Awareness you could maintain in such a melee.

 

 

 

 

2. 

I'm sure they would be flying F-22s if they could - I've not seen anything to suggest they have a choice in this matter. 

[+CrazyhorseB34 937]

If the balloon would have gone up, the F-111's at Lakenheath would of turned the Su-27s at Chojna into dust on the ground within the first hour. Su-27's radar and ECM circa 1988 was VASTLY inferior to the F-15C MSIP II. No contest.

[JediMaster 451]

There's also the reliability/maintainability issue.

 

While on paper an Su-27/27R combo might have beat an F-15C/AIM-7 combo, the odds were higher that the 27 would have a radar and/or missile malfunction, that the 15's ECM would work well while the 27's would not, and that the 15C would have seen the 27 first (due to AWACS and standoff jammers).

 

So the problem is while in some hypothetical jousting scenario the 27 could always win, in reality the deck was stacked against it in multiple areas. I would much rather be in the "inferior" F-15 fighting a 27 in any realistic mid-80s scenario that might have occurred.

[Caesar 305]

DB, even I wouldn't argue with the second statement.  Those Turkey's are OLD, have been cannibalized into each other, and you can even see on open-source websites that they've got parts in 'em never meant to be flown with operationally (I recall one with a red-walled tire - used for ground testing purposes!)  They might see an F-15 first, but they're flying with E-model Sparrows, so they couldn't shoot first.  Against the -22, even the latest variants of the F-15 and F-16 got murdered during Red Flag exercises at long range because they couldn't detect it, so good luck with an AWG-9.  It may be more powerful (10kW peak, 7kW average), but it hasn't seen the updates that the APG-63 and 70 have (or the F-14D's APG-71, for that matter), and even those radars had a tough time with the -22.  Add to that that the IRIAF Turkeys are running antiquated TF-30's, and it's doubtful they'd last close-in either (unless they had their own version of a Hoser, Snort, Turk, Frosty, Hawk, Bush, etc.)!  

 

With respect to the first question, most folks have already replied, but I'll add to this the following: when in the 1980's?  Early 80's there was the whole "don't shoot until you get shot at" rule, but by the late 1980's, as what happened with Sidra II (F-14's v MiG-23's), if a contact was maneuvering in a "hostile" way, you could shoot at them.  In those circumstances, the AIM-7M armed F-15 wouldn't have to wait to shoot!

[Lexx_Luthor 57]

Interesting Ceaser, made me think, the F-12 would have made a great stealth fighter, since most wouldn't ever detect it at 80k feet and M=3, and like Tomcat may could have been able to just drop lower targets while on a high speed overhead pass, with followups coming behind of course.

 

Unpopular opinion? Well....unpopular question...how many jet-jet gun kils since the eighties at least? Are guns finally obsolete, well depends, if you ever need one, it wouldn't be obsolete. So far we don't seem to need them, butt...I take it today its not as much cost to carry a gun so why not.

[33LIMA 972]

Winding the clock back a bit, how about this one?

 

Whoever won the Battle of Britain, the Luftwaffe did not lose it. The force that was defeated was RAF Fighter Command's No. 11 Group. The Luftwaffe gained air superiority over the invavion area in late August/early Septemper 1940. The reason that Operation Sealion, the invasion, was not launched despite this, is because it was not a feaible operation of war. This was due to overwhelming British naval superiority, from which the Luftwaffe's very limited anti-shipping capabilities could have done no more than exacted a price for denying or destroying German invasion traffic.

 

Not sure I'd agree, but unlike me, the person who stated that argument is qualified to express it - Wing Commander HR 'Dizzy' Allen, RAF, who flew Spitfires in the Battle, in his thought-provoking book 'Who Won the Battle of Britain' - published long before historical revisionism became fashionable..

[Emp_Palpatine 501]

 

 

Unpopular opinion? Well....unpopular question...how many jet-jet gun kils since the eighties at least? Are guns finally obsolete, well depends, if you ever need one, it wouldn't be obsolete. So far we don't seem to need them, butt...I take it today its not as much cost to carry a gun so why not.

IIRC, there were some gun kills between Flankers and Fulcrum in the Ethiopian-Erythrean war. 

Or was it during some agean clashes between Greece and Turkey when a F-16 was downed by a Mirage 2000?

[MigBuster 2,879]

Interesting Ceaser, made me think, the F-12 would have made a great stealth fighter, since most wouldn't ever detect it at 80k feet and M=3, and like Tomcat may could have been able to just drop lower targets while on a high speed overhead pass, with followups coming behind of course.

 

Unpopular opinion? Well....unpopular question...how many jet-jet gun kils since the eighties at least? Are guns finally obsolete, well depends, if you ever need one, it wouldn't be obsolete. So far we don't seem to need them, butt...I take it today its not as much cost to carry a gun so why not.

 

 

Flying at M3 /  80kft with a massive afterburner plume out the back of it I suspect the F-12 would have been as detectable as the SR-71 (aka very). Then at that altitude detecting smaller very low flying targets in ground clutter is a massive issue despite the pulse doppler tech that had come about. You might have had to put radar and IRST on the bottom of the jet to keep any lower targets in sweep considering the closing speed etc. Easy to see why the YF-108/12 was scrapped because the concept could only be used for recon or high altitude bomber interceptor (also see MiG-25 v Iran & Israel in the 80s).

 

In OIF in 2003 most of the aircraft in theatre used their guns (even F-14s). The 77th EFS (F-16s) fired over 7000rnds - some of that was literally when they were out of other ordnance - so they are still used - although suspect a show of force can be effective in some situations for a/c without them.

[JediMaster 451]

Of course, they were firing their guns at the ground, not at the (nonexistent) Iraqi air force.

[MigBuster 2,879]

Of course, they were firing their guns at the ground, not at the (nonexistent) Iraqi air force.

 

Well yes all A-G - however a pilot does state he strafed an unknown IrAF aircraft sitting at Balad.

[MigBuster 2,879]

 

 The reason that Operation Sealion, the invasion, was not launched despite this, is because it was not a feaible operation of war. This was due to overwhelming British naval superiority, from which the Luftwaffe's very limited anti-shipping capabilities could have done no more than exacted a price for denying or destroying German invasion traffic.

 

not looked into it much - but common thinking here is that they had to get full air superiority so they could then take out the RN with impunity.

[MigBuster 2,879]

Or was it during some agean clashes between Greece and Turkey when a F-16 was downed by a Mirage 2000?

 

Dunno

http://www.f-16.net/f-16-news-article619.html

[ironroad 218]

Winding the clock back a bit, how about this one?

 

Whoever won the Battle of Britain, the Luftwaffe did not lose it. The force that was defeated was RAF Fighter Command's No. 11 Group. The Luftwaffe gained air superiority over the invavion area in late August/early Septemper 1940. The reason that Operation Sealion, the invasion, was not launched despite this, is because it was not a feaible operation of war. This was due to overwhelming British naval superiority, from which the Luftwaffe's very limited anti-shipping capabilities could have done no more than exacted a price for denying or destroying German invasion traffic.

 

Not sure I'd agree, but unlike me, the person who stated that argument is qualified to express it - Wing Commander HR 'Dizzy' Allen, RAF, who flew Spitfires in the Battle, in his thought-provoking book 'Who Won the Battle of Britain' - published long before historical revisionism became fashionable..

 

I agree somewhat, while the Luftwaffe suffered the most loses during the Battle of Britain (BOB), the RAF in the eastern sectors of the Isles was almost at its wits end. however, I believe the failure of Luftwaffe in the BOB had more to do with German high-command's (Hitler) bumbling and impatience. This was further compounded by the fact that the Luftwaffe never had a numerous dedicated full-time long-range/high-alt/strategic bombers and coastal (anti-ship/sub) units like the Allies (UK and US) did. Not withstanding, their bomber and attack pilots weren't something to be taken lightly. The Luftwaffe was the deciding factor that neutralized Allied (UK) naval superiority in the early years of the war, i.e. Norway, Greece, and North Africa. As for the BOB, the resources that would have gone to finishing off the UK was instead was diverted towards invading Russia and pacifying (enslaving) the rest of Eastern Europe.Had Hitler decided to press the attack into the UK, things could have very well turned out differently.

 

Also, when Germany finally decided to push into the USSR, most of its experienced units and advanced equipment was committed to the battle and it stayed that way till the end of the war. Not to say that Allies had an easy go at it in North Africa, Southern Europe, France, etc. by any stretch of the imagination.

[+ST0RM 145]

Comes down to training as an overall force. During the 80's the Soviet AF was getting maybe 1/4 of the hours that the USAF were flying. Sure you'd have your individual pilots that were very skilled, but I don't think the numbers would be in the Red AF's favor.

 

The IRIAF use the Tomcat as an extension of their AEW&C with the AWG-9. If it's working. While I'm sure they'd love to have a new fleet of jets, they are making due with what they've got on hand. Hence all of the upgrades from in-house.

[ironroad 218]

Got one:

 

The dropping of atomic weapons effectively ended World War II by costing the single most loss of life in a day.

 

Yes and No

 

Even after Hiroshima and Nagasaki got vaporized the Japanese military was still not prepared to surrender (see the Kyujo Incident).  Even after the official surrender there were still Japanese military hold outs in the South Pacific, South East Asia, and China (see Hiroo Onoda and his 1974 surrender). Japan still had thousands of experienced troops/units in Southeast Asia and China (the Allies used some of these forces to police occupied areas after the war).

 

Fortunately the civilians (the Emperor) in the Japanese government could see the writing on the wall and called it quits before they were probably all fire-bombed into oblivion. *Side note there was barely enough enriched material to make the first two bombs and it would have taken a long time to make more. It was good bluff by President Truman and probably besides the US leadership, only probably Stalin and his ring of spies knew this as well. Also, conventional and incendiary bombing raids, albeit using hundreds of bombers, killed more people than A-bombs ever did.

Edited March 25, 2014 by ironroad