Monday, August 14, 2006

Thought-provoking

via Defensetech.org, these presentations (1, 2, in PDF) from some of the designers of the F-16, F-15, and A-10 make some alarming claims.

Probably the most controversial would be that the US Air Force hasn't fielded a truly superior aircraft (superior to it's rivals, I assume) since the F-86 in the Korean War. Even worse, they both argue that the F-22 is going to be a disaster.

I have some reservations about this analysis - notwithstanding my hostility to the F-22 - because a lot of their criteria for evaluation seem to rig the game in favour of smaller, cheaper planes and don't (I think) take in to account enhanced capabilities. David Axe at Defensetech says he'll give the aviator's response to these criticisms soon.

My reservations notwithstanding, it's a very, very interesting read for anyone interested in the evolution of combat aircraft since, oh, the 1950s.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

I think I'm coming down about where you are on that analysis.

A random thing that got my attention:

Sprey and Stevenson show Pk for AIM-7 series flat since its introduction, presumably since it didn't see enough (any?) combat use after Vietnam to get good numbers from, but it's been continuously improved over the years. AIM-7's poor Pk in Vietnam was at least somewhat due to restrictions on BVR engagement and the nature of semi-active guidance. I don't see how they can draw conclusions about AMRAAM's Pk-inflation from AIM-7.

Personally I feel that it's still worth developing the F-22, in order to learn lessons about the high end, and let that knowledge trickle down over the next 30 years or so to more affordable designs.

Anonymous said...

Their kill ratio figures are suspect, as well. For example, the 14:1 F-86 vs. MiG ratio in Korea is based on our pilots' kill claims. The former USSR released, post-1991, documents claiming 345 MiGs shot down in that conflict in which we lost 224 F-86 to all causes. If half of our losses were MiG shootdowns, it's about 3:1.

I get very suspicious when ostensibly intelligent and well-informed people trot out a lot of statistics that are this easy to challenge.