When was the last time the US Navy or Air Force was in a real dogfight?

[R. P. McMurphy]

I'm watching the Discovery HD channel and they are extolling the virtues of the Navy's F/A 18 plane. It does some amazing stuff and, as a male with more than a bit of testosterone, I like toys like that. Yea, it sucks fuel like crazy but so what. This is cool stuff! They say that this thing really excels in a dogfight. Yea, I watched Top Gun. You can't be king of the world if you can't win an arial dogfight.

Now I'm thinking, wait a minute. When was the last time any of these highly trained pilots with all of this expensive equipment, flying off of an incredibly costly aircraft carrier was actually involved in an arial dogfight? We keep these guys trained an primed. We're in a war. What enemy are they ready to engage. You fill in the blanks and 'splain this to me.

[RickJay]

Originally Posted by Spartydog

I'm watching the Discovery HD channel and they are extolling the virtues of the Navy's F/A 18 plane. It does some amazing stuff and, as a male with more than a bit of testosterone, I like toys like that. Yea, it sucks fuel like crazy but so what. This is cool stuff! They say that this thing really excels in a dogfight. Yea, I watched Top Gun. You can't be king of the world if you can't win an arial dogfight.

Now I'm thinking, wait a minute. When was the last time any of these highly trained pilots with all of this expensive equipment, flying off of an incredibly costly aircraft carrier was actually involved in an arial dogfight? We keep these guys trained an primed. We're in a war. What enemy are they ready to engage. You fill in the blanks and 'splain this to me.

The last country to actually put up a good fight in the air was North Vietnam, who had some air-to-air success, albeit with great help from the USSR.

Aerial combat has never really been about "dogfighting" - it has, even in WWI, been won mostly by the side that sees the other guy first and kills him with a quick attack from behind before the other guy knows what him him. Indeed, the USA in World War II shied away from dogfighting, especially in the Pacific theatre, because it simply didn't fit the abilities or their aircraft; the preferred methods were team-oriented "Boom and zoom" attacks, using their bigger, faster aircraft to attack the lighter, quicker-turning Japanese aircraft without giving the enemy a chance to shoot back.

Dogfighting is fine and dandy in movies but in real life, and more so now than ever, it's about detection and attacking the other guy first.

[alphaboi867]

I don't know about the USN, but I've read that the Falkland War was only major navel warfare since WWII.

[Johnny L.A.]

[Emphasis mine.]

Originally Posted by alphaboi867

I don't know about the USN, but I've read that the Falkland War was only major navel warfare since WWII.

That's worth contemplating.

[R. P. McMurphy]

Originally Posted by RickJay

The last country to actually put up a good fight in the air was North Vietnam, who had some air-to-air success, albeit with great help from the USSR.

. . .

Dogfighting is fine and dandy in movies but in real life, and more so now than ever, it's about detection and attacking the other guy first.

This is where I'm getting a bit mystified. I know enough to know that this stuff doesn't come cheap. Who's the enemy? Who are we prepared for? The Vietnam War, that was the 1970's.

The F/A 18 is a whiz-bang plane. Does it serve any real military purpose to sustain an aircraft that is unparalleled in a dogfight when there is no such thing anymore?

[Princhester]

The military is always well prepared to fight the last war.

[Johnny L.A.]

In 1981 two F-14 Tomcats from VF-41 shot down two Libyan Su-22 Fitters. In 1989 two Tomcats from VF-32 shot down two MiG-23 Floggers.

[thirdname]

Originally Posted by Spartydog

The F/A 18 is a whiz-bang plane. Does it serve any real military purpose to sustain an aircraft that is unparalleled in a dogfight when there is no such thing anymore?

Well, it's designated F/A because it's a ground-attack aircraft as well as a fighter. Anyway, I think that the manueverability that is so important in a dogfight would also come in handy for evading anti-aircraft missiles, whether they are launched from other fighters or from surface.

[Declan]

Originally Posted by Spartydog

Now I'm thinking, wait a minute. When was the last time any of these highly trained pilots with all of this expensive equipment, flying off of an incredibly costly aircraft carrier was actually involved in an arial dogfight? We keep these guys trained an primed. We're in a war. What enemy are they ready to engage. You fill in the blanks and 'splain this to me.

You have just described the balance of power for the last fifty years, if they have not been used for their primary purpose then the system has worked, but really look at it this way , the airforce has flown and retired at least 3 different heavy bombers , whose sole purpose was to drop canned sunshine on russia and china. The navy by contrast has to do everything from smacking a banana republic that needs an attitude adjustment to rescuing people from various maritime disasters, so they train for everything.

Declan

[Secret Volcano Lair]

Originally Posted by Johnny L.A.

In 1981 two F-14 Tomcats from VF-41 shot down two Libyan Su-22 Fitters. In 1989 two Tomcats from VF-32 shot down two MiG-23 Floggers.

Audio from both can be heard HERE and HERE.

Very interesting...wish I could find more of these.

[Richard Pearse]

Originally Posted by Spartydog

Now I'm thinking, wait a minute. When was the last time any of these highly trained pilots with all of this expensive equipment, flying off of an incredibly costly aircraft carrier was actually involved in an arial dogfight? We keep these guys trained an primed. We're in a war. What enemy are they ready to engage. You fill in the blanks and 'splain this to me.

I think the lesson they learned in Vietnam was that they should never assume that the age of the dogfight is dead. F-4 Phantoms were initially fitted with missiles only, on the premise that they could shoot down any enemy aircraft before any traditional dogfight became necessary. They then discovered that missiles weren't as reliable as had been hoped for and gun fights were still happening. The F-4s were retro-fitted with guns.

So, there may not be any current threat that requires a dogfighting aircraft, but there may be such threats in the future and it is much easier to maintain a capability that is not used, than to lose that capability only to try and regain it at a later date.

[Malacandra]

Originally Posted by Declan

canned sunshine

Nice phrase!

[Quartz]

Originally Posted by 1920s Style "Death Ray"

I think the lesson they learned in Vietnam was that they should never assume that the age of the dogfight is dead.

Well, they tried to forget it with the Eurofighter.

[Beware of Doug]

Originally Posted by Malacandra

Nice phrase!

Yeah, we switched to ICBMs so we could blow said sunshine up their asses.

[LSLGuy]

Former USAF fighter pilot ...

USAF fighters shot down several Iraqi AF tactical (fighter / attack) aircraft during Gulf War I in 1991. I believe they have shot down several more since then during the extended no-fly enforcement effort prior to Gulf War II.

I expect, but do not know for sure, that USN got one or two as well along the way.

Not sure whether the events were classic manuevering dogfights or sneak up & blast 'em up the ass, but in either case it requires a fast aircraft with a good radar, missiles and guns to pull that trick off.

If we get involved in a shooting war with China, North Korea, or Iran, we will need all the tactical fighters we can get our hands on.

There is also a chicken-and-egg situation with friendly tactical air. If you have it in spades, the opposing air force is pretty much invisible, often destroyed on the ground in the first 12 hours of the war. (See Gulf War I). If you don't have it, then you do see the enemy air overhead, dropping bombs & doing other disruptive stuff that's bad for friendly morale.

To defeat an enemy who has a locally effective air force (even if small compared to our worldwide assets), you've got to take the fight to them early & often. And if we're to do that quickly & with few losses, we need a lot of the best tools available.

The chicken and egg effect can make it seem like friendly tacair isn't real useful for lack of an effective enemy, when in fact the existence of friendly tacair is exactly why there isn't an effective enemy (any more).


Finally, note that Discovery Channel excels at gee-whiz factoids that are simple enough to explain in a sound bite & show in a simplistic 10 second graphic or vid clip. Modern jet dogfights have very little in common with the WWII variety or with airshow manuevers. From either the inside or out, they look very little like (idiot) Maverick in Top Gun. But they still require vast power & turning (i.e. G) capability.

[Sam Stone]

Iraq lost 38 aircraft to air-to-air engagements in the first Gulf War.

[Philster]

Israel has US aircraft and trained pilots with kills, but have they seen much action in the past 20 years?

[Tristan]

LSLGuy, if I may pick your brain:

Do you feel that the superior outcome of US Air assest in Gulf War 1 were a result of better training, or better equipment? Obviously, the guys had guts on both sides, but we clearly had an edge in air-to-air confrontations.

[Terminus Est]

Originally Posted by Spartydog

You can't be king of the world if you can't win an arial dogfight.

I like helvetica dogfights so much better.

[Pushkin]

Originally Posted by Terminus Est

I like helvetica dogfights so much better.

Or if you're in the UK, Daz will do

Speaking of that Dogfights show, they had a show about the Israeli airforce, did they score the first kills with Phantoms?

[Loach]

Originally Posted by Spartydog

Now I'm thinking, wait a minute. When was the last time any of these highly trained pilots with all of this expensive equipment, flying off of an incredibly costly aircraft carrier was actually involved in an arial dogfight? We keep these guys trained an primed. We're in a war. What enemy are they ready to engage. You fill in the blanks and 'splain this to me.

The problem is that you can't pull a bazillion dollar fighter or trained pilots out of your ass when you need them. You need to maintain them even when they are not needed. There are other countries out there that have fighters and pilots. We are not currently in conflict with them but do you completely trust Iran or North Korea? I don't trust what Putin is doing in Russia and I don't trust China. Maybe you feel better about the world than I do.

[dropzone]

Originally Posted by LSLGuy

Finally, note that Discovery Channel excels at gee-whiz factoids that are simple enough to explain in a sound bite & show in a simplistic 10 second graphic or vid clip.

They need to be good at it because that's all the time they have between commecial blocks.

[mlees]

Originally Posted by Tristan

LSLGuy, if I may pick your brain:

Do you feel that the superior outcome of US Air assest in Gulf War 1 were a result of better training, or better equipment? Obviously, the guys had guts on both sides, but we clearly had an edge in air-to-air confrontations.

I think that the Coalition forces launched a very effective first/surprise strike that disrupted the Iraqi radar net, communications and control net.

This left the Iraqi fighters (those that got airborne) with very poor (or no) info on which direction the enemy is at or coming from.

The Coalition air command and control infrastructure remained untouched, and were able to vector the fighter aircraft to advantageous approach vectors almost every time.

Coordination of air assests makes a huge difference when only one side has it.

[Sam Stone]

Better training is certainly part of it. But a modern air battle that pits individual airplanes against an entire system consisting of fighters, AWACS planes, sophisticated radars and missiles, ground attack aircraft hitting enemy radars, and computer systems to manage it all, is going to be very one-sided against the individuals, no matter how good the individual pilots might be.

[tomndebb]

Originally Posted by Pushkin

Speaking of that Dogfights show, they had a show about the Israeli airforce, did they score the first kills with Phantoms?

I think the Israeli air force's first kills were flying German (or, more likely, Czech), Messerschmitt Bf-109s. (If a -109 did not get the first kill, it certainly got many subsequent kills and whatever got the first kill was a WWII era fighter. There were no Phantom IIs in 1948. (The FH-1 Phantom was flying in 1948, but all 50-60 of them were owned by the U.S. Navy.)

[tomndebb]

I'm sorry. I misread your question. I do not know whether Israeli Phantom IIs preceded US Navy Phantom IIs in scoring the very first kill by that plane.

[tomndebb]

According to Wikipedia, the first Phantom II victory was in Vietnam on 10 July, 1965. The first Israeli victory (in an Israeli named Kurnass), did not occur until 11 November, 1969. (This sounds about right. As late as the 1967 War, Israel was primarily using French Mirage fighters for air superiority.)

[mlees]

Originally Posted by Pushkin

Speaking of that Dogfights show, they had a show about the Israeli airforce, did they score the first kills with Phantoms?

Originally Posted by tomndebb

I'm sorry. I misread your question. I do not know whether Israeli Phantom IIs preceded US Navy Phantom IIs in scoring the very first kill by that plane.

Hmm. May I practice my google-fu? Wiki says ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-4_Phantom_II )

By the time of the Tonkin Gulf incident, 13 of 31 deployable Navy squadrons were armed with the type. F-4Bs from Constellation made the first Phantom combat sortie of the Vietnam War on 5 August 1964, flying bomber escort in Operation Pierce Arrow. The first Phantom air-to-air victory of the war took place on 9 April 1965 when an F-4B from VF-96 Fighting Falcons piloted by Lt JG Terence M. Murphy shot down a Chinese MiG-17 'Fresco'. The Phantom was then shot down, apparently by an AIM-7 Sparrow from one of its wingmen.[6] On 17 June 1965, an F-4B from VF-21 Freelancers piloted by Cdr Thomas C. Page and Lt John C. Smith shot down the first North Vietnamese MiG of the war.

USAF F-4Cs scored their first victory against a North Vietnamese MiG-17 on 10 July 1965 using AIM-9 Sidewinder air-to-air missiles. On 24 July 1965, a Phantom from the 47th Tactical Fighter Squadron on temporary assignment in Vietnam became the first American aircraft to be downed by an enemy SAM, and on 5 October 1966 an 8th Tactical Fighter Wing F-4C became the first U.S. jet lost to an air-to-air missile, fired by a MiG-21.

The Israeli Air Force has been the largest foreign user of the Phantom, flying both newly built and ex-USAF aircraft, as well as several one-off special reconnaissance variants. The first F-4Es, nicknamed Kurnass (Heavy hammer), and RF-4Es, nicknamed Orev (Raven), were delivered in 1969 under the Peace Echo I program. Additional Phantoms arrived during the 1970s under Peace Echo II through Peace Echo V and Nickel Grass programs. Israeli Phantoms saw extensive combat during Arab-Israeli conflicts, first seeing action during the War of Attrition. The first Kurnass air-to-air victory came on 11 November 1969 against an Egyptian MiG-21 'Fishbed'. The first air combat loss, also to a MiG-21, happened on 2 April 1970. Over the course of the conflicts, IDF claimed 116 air victories to 56 losses, mostly to ground fire.[12]

Wiki is backed up by this site: http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/f4.html

[Declan]

Originally Posted by Sam Stone

Iraq lost 38 aircraft to air-to-air engagements in the first Gulf War.

Air to Air was a little stretched during desert storm, concidering that one of the kills was a laser guided bomb dropped on a moving Helicopter.

Declan

[Declan]

Originally Posted by LSLGuy

Former USAF fighter pilot ...

USAF fighters shot down several Iraqi AF tactical (fighter / attack) aircraft during Gulf War I in 1991. I believe they have shot down several more since then during the extended no-fly enforcement effort prior to Gulf War II.

If I remember correctly the USAF shot down some serbian A/C during the kososvo campaign .


Declan

[t-bonham@scc.net]

Originally Posted by Declan

the USAF shot down some serbian A/C

Huh?
What did they have against Air Conditioning?
Because I'm sure the Serbs didn't have any Aircraft Carriers.

The other possibilities Google brings up are Alarm Clocks and Access Control software -- I doubt the USAF really shoots them down much, either.

Could you clarify what you mean by "A/C" here?

[Rick]

Air Craft

[R. P. McMurphy]

Originally Posted by Loach

The problem is that you can't pull a bazillion dollar fighter or trained pilots out of your ass when you need them. You need to maintain them even when they are not needed. There are other countries out there that have fighters and pilots. We are not currently in conflict with them but do you completely trust Iran or North Korea? I don't trust what Putin is doing in Russia and I don't trust China. Maybe you feel better about the world than I do.

I know what you are saying but . . .

As we've seen, war at any time is possible. We're currently in a war where about 3-4 US soldiers are getting killed per day. There is a lot of controversy about lack of armor and ground based equipment getting worn out and not replaced fast enough.

While war with Iran, N. Korea or China is a possiblity, what is liklihood that aerial dogfighting would even factor in the conflict? The F/A 18 sucks fuel so fast that its flight time is very restricted. It does some things exceedingly well but can those things be expected to realistically occur in a present day or forseeable conflict?

Assuming that all resources are finite is it reasonable to think that absolute superiority in an aerial dogfight makes any difference in the equation of military superiority? To put it more bluntly, is the military maintaining a showpiece at the expense of what is really needed?

Probably off to Great Debates but that wasn't the intent of the OP.

[Rick]

Originally Posted by Spartydog

I know what you are saying but . . .

As we've seen, war at any time is possible. We're currently in a war where about 3-4 US soldiers are getting killed per day. There is a lot of controversy about lack of armor and ground based equipment getting worn out and not replaced fast enough.

While war with Iran, N. Korea or China is a possiblity, what is liklihood that aerial dogfighting would even factor in the conflict? The F/A 18 sucks fuel so fast that its flight time is very restricted. It does some things exceedingly well but can those things be expected to realistically occur in a present day or forseeable conflict?

Assuming that all resources are finite is it reasonable to think that absolute superiority in an aerial dogfight makes any difference in the equation of military superiority? To put it more bluntly, is the military maintaining a showpiece at the expense of what is really needed?

Probably off to Great Debates but that wasn't the intent of the OP.

Iran? a factor but not a large one.
North Korea? About 500 fighters if I count correctly. Air power would play a huge role in any conflict with NK just like it did the last time.
Red China? according to the link RC has the largest military air force in the world. So I got $5 that says in a conflict with China air power would play a huge role.

[mlees]

Assuming that all resources are finite is it reasonable to think that absolute superiority in an aerial dogfight makes any difference in the equation of military superiority? To put it more bluntly, is the military maintaining a showpiece at the expense of what is really needed?

Air superiority/Air supremacy is critical. (Not the end-all-be-all, but one leg of a tripod.) You can conceivably win a ground battle when the enemy controls the air, but that is, in general, not the rule. If you do win the ground fight, you will probably have suffered many more casualties than otherwise. (The NVA in Vietnam comes to mind here.)

In Iraq, we can use a smaller patrol of infantry/armor to do the job assigned to them because they can be backed up by ground to air assets that are on call to bring the additional firepower and reconnoitering capability if and when needed. Without the air assets in theatre, we would need a lot more soldiers in the area to ensure their safety or success if they get jumped by an insurgent force.

I think the military is doing it right. The quality of the equipment, the training of the troops, and the overwhelming massing of firepower and tactics employed get the fight over as fast as possible, with as little loss of (friendly) troops as possible, given the chaotic nature of war.

Do you think all that is just for "show boating" for no good cause?

[mlees]

Originally Posted by mlees

In Iraq, we can use a smaller patrol of infantry/armor to do the job assigned to them because they can be backed up by ground to air assets that ...

Bah! Make that Air to Ground.

[pilot141]

Originally Posted by Spartydog

Assuming that all resources are finite is it reasonable to think that absolute superiority in an aerial dogfight makes any difference in the equation of military superiority? To put it more bluntly, is the military maintaining a showpiece at the expense of what is really needed?

The F/A-18 is not a showpiece. It is a tool that can be used to gain and maintain absolute control of the air in (hopefully) any theater that the US chooses to employ it.

If you want to win a war, you must control the air. This is not an option - it must happen. It has been true since the emergence of air power in WWII. By continuing to develop air-superiority fighters (like the F-22) the US is fighting the air war on two fronts. The first is the obvious - a single F-22 can engage and destroy multiple aircraft at very long ranges. So if it comes to an actual shooting war, the F-22 will give the US almost immediate control of the air.

The second part of the air war is deterrence: Have a few flights of F/A-18s and F-22s orbiting on the edge of some country's airspace (like, say, North Korea) and they might never even get their fighters airborne. If they know they will be shot down, there is no point in launching them.

And to nitpick: yes the F/A-18 is a fuel hog, but it can carry external fuel tanks to extend it's range and time on station. In addition to that the US has this wonderful system of airborne tankers that can refuel planes and keep them airborne until the engines run out of oil or the pilot falls asleep.

[Sailboat]

Another nitpick: the F/A-18 is multi-role. It can bomb ground or sea targets as easily as engage enemy aircraft. As such, it is simply more likely to be used than a pure air-superiority plane like the F-22. The F-22 is higher tech and costs more -- if you want to question the need for a sophisticated, expensive aircraft, start with the F-22.

I personally do not question the military need for air defense/air superiority, even high-tech, expensive air defense. If I were inclined to question the F-22 program, however, I'd focus on the issue of whether a piloted aircraft is needed for air superiority. Presumably pilotless fighters (which can turn at much higher G-forces without a squishy human inside) are coming some day -- the question is, is that day here yet?

Sailboat

[Quartz]

Originally Posted by pilot141

If you want to win a war, you must control the air. This is not an option - it must happen. It has been true since the emergence of air power in WWII.

As has been mentioned, Vietnam gives the lie to this. And the Russian front of WW2 is also a counter-example, isn't it?

[pilot141]

Vietnam was lost because of many reasons; control of the air was not the primary one. Think of it this way: control of the air does not guarantee victory. However, control of the air is necessary for victory on any modern battlefield.

I think the Russian front in WWII would count as being right on the cusp of "the emergence of air power in WWII" that I mentioned earlier. The line is hazy there so I was deliberately vague.

[R. P. McMurphy]

Originally Posted by pilot141

Vietnam was lost because of many reasons; control of the air was not the primary one. Think of it this way: control of the air does not guarantee victory. However, control of the air is necessary for victory on any modern battlefield.

I think the Russian front in WWII would count as being right on the cusp of "the emergence of air power in WWII" that I mentioned earlier. The line is hazy there so I was deliberately vague.

But see, right there your premise "that you must control the air" falls apart. North Vietnam won and they didn't control the air. There's always lots of reasons for winning and losing.

Right now we are in a similar situation. The insurgents in Iraq certainly do not control the air but they are certainly giving our military fits. And yes, there are lots of reasons. Remember, wars ARE political.

Back to the OP . . . I'm not suggesting a dismantling of the Air Force or Navy. The effectiveness of the weaponry and the deterence factor are indisputable. I guess what I'm wondering, as an example, is if 3 or 4 or 10 or whatever number of Warthogs would be much more useful than 1 F/A !8? Are we building a military for the enemy thats out there or something else? If modern militaries have not engaged in dogfights in over 20 years and will probably not do it again then what's the point of having the top dogfighter?

BTW, another limitation of the F/A 18 is the service it requires. You can't just keep refueling it in the air. It's not a long range bomber. While the service downtime is much less than the aircraft it replaced it is still significant. It's like a race car. You cant just keep refueling, you have to bring it in for tire changes or you're going to lose the whole thing.

[morgantire]

The real answer to the OP's question is "lobbying by Boeing, Lockheed, and other members of the military industrial complex". The US spends more on defense than the next 7 nations ***combined***. Is that much spending necessary to secure American interests or would we served just as well by relying on cheaper, existing technology? Well, that's a question for Great Debates that we can't answer here.

But this is indisputable -- the deployment of the FA22 and other weapons systems is worth hundreds of billions of dollars per year to military contractors. Regardless of whether those systems are needed or not, you can be damn certain these companies are spending ungodly amounts of money to convince politicans and the public that any senator who votes against the FA-22 means is "soft on defense" and probably supports the terrorists, too.

[Johnny L.A.]

Originally Posted by pilot141

And to nitpick: yes the F/A-18 is a fuel hog...

A comment from one of the engineers I worked with at Edwards in the mid-'80s: 'An F-16 burns more [in] fuel in a single sortie than I make in a year.'

[Rick]

Originally Posted by Spartydog

But see, right there your premise "that you must control the air" falls apart. North Vietnam won and they didn't control the air. There's always lots of reasons for winning and losing.

I think Pilot 141 is referring to a military victory, and you are referring to a political one.
You cannot win a military victory without control of the air. Ask the Iraqi Republican Guard about that.

[tomndebb]

Originally Posted by Johnny L.A.

A comment from one of the engineers I worked with at Edwards in the mid-'80s: 'An F-16 burns more [in] fuel in a single sortie than I make in a year.'

He was bullshitting you. C'mon, Johhny. The F-16 carries 7,200 lbs. of fuel internally and up to 8,000 lbs externally. At 6.7 lbs./gal (fuel being lighter than water), we're talking 2270 gallons of fuel. Even at $3.50/gallon, we are not going to exceed an engineer's $70,000/year salary. Since IATA is (today) listing jet fuel at $2.069/gal, I have actually overstated the cost of a maximum fuel flight and I doubt that anyone would consider nine such (refueled) flights a single sortie.

In the mid-80s, at $.90/gal vs a $50,000/year salary, it would have been more difficult.

[tomndebb]

Thinking this over, he may have intended to say that the overall cost of a sortie was more than he made in a year. If you take the cost of running a squadron for a year, (all personnel salaries, all maintenance, all repairs, maintenance of the hangars and equipment, and then throw in that they really do not like trying to land with a wing full of live bombs, so even on training missions they tend to drop their external ordinance), then divide those costs by the number of sorties, annually, I could see exceeding one engineer's salary for each sortie. However, I really doubt you could keep a pilot out there for twenty hours each time he went up so that he could expend $70,000 (or $50,000) in fuel.

[R. P. McMurphy]

Originally Posted by Rick

I think Pilot 141 is referring to a military victory, and you are referring to a political one.
You cannot win a military victory without control of the air. Ask the Iraqi Republican Guard about that.

Again, wars are political. We bombed the crap out of Vietnam and they still kept coming. They were not about to quit despite all of the bombs, napalm, helicopters and mines.

When you take politics out of the equation of warfare you are bound to eventually get your ass kicked. If you get into a fight, you had better be prepared to fight the guy you are facing, not the guy you want to fight.

Are military contractors deciding what our enemies look like rather than learning what they really look like?

[slaphead]

Originally Posted by Spartydog

Again, wars are political. We bombed the crap out of Vietnam and they still kept coming. They were not about to quit despite all of the bombs, napalm, helicopters and mines.

Perhaps you should give some thought to what the Vietnam war would have been like if the US had not been able to move around pretty much at will using air transport, and if the NVA had been able to call in airstrikes on a regular basis. You can lose with air superiority, but you'd certainly lose a lot faster and more messily without it.

With regard to the Eastern Front, the Soviets had effective air superiority by the end of the war, mainly by throwing up planes faster than the Germans could knock them down. The Il-2 was called things like the "Black Death" by the Germans. They're quoted as knocking out 70 tanks from a single division at Kursk. In 20 minutes.

Most things the Pentagon buys are absurd boondoggles, though. That I'll agree with.

[R. P. McMurphy]

Originally Posted by slaphead

Perhaps you should give some thought to what the Vietnam war would have been like if the US had not been able to move around pretty much at will using air transport, and if the NVA had been able to call in airstrikes on a regular basis. You can lose with air superiority, but you'd certainly lose a lot faster and more messily without it.

With regard to the Eastern Front, the Soviets had effective air superiority by the end of the war, mainly by throwing up planes faster than the Germans could knock them down. The Il-2 was called things like the "Black Death" by the Germans. They're quoted as knocking out 70 tanks from a single division at Kursk. In 20 minutes.

Most things the Pentagon buys are absurd boondoggles, though. That I'll agree with.

I'm not disputing the effectiveness of air superiority. It is obvious that effective air support can save a lot of lives of the troops on the ground.

I simply took issue with the statement that you can't win a war without controlling the air. North Vietnam did exactly that. Was that possible because the war was political? Yes. Again, wars are political.