Kashmir

[BenThere]

Code: Select all

BenThere your gnomic, but always chauvinistic, logic never ceases to amuse me. 

You have a point, but take a look at purely empirical results over the years. The combat records of F-15 and F-16 vs. their Mig and other counterparts is quite clear, though the qualifications and training of USAF and Israeli crew is a significant factor. The qualitative advantage of US vs. Russian air defense packages sold to the likes of India, Iraq and Syria returns a similar result. US technology, reliability, and systems design has shown itself superior, all things considered. While I admit to some chauvinistic inclinations, as you point out, you do have to consider results at some stage in the selection process.

In the small world I lived in for 30 years, air refueling, I found it interesting and heart-warming that USAF air refueling was routinely accomplished world-wide, with great application to reach and deployability that the Russians could not effectively achieve. The cause of that advantage was part command and control, part equipment design and application, and part the ability to innovate and create doctrine and strategy to suit the mission.

As a side note, when Victor Bolenko defected from the now defunct USSR with his Foxbat, widely heralded at the time as the world's most advanced fighter, examination of the jet revealed severe shortcomings in material, engine, range and fighter capability compared to its F-15 contemporary counterpart. There are not a few MIG flyers who had their bubbles pierced when they came up against F-15s and F-16s. Perhaps it is chauvinistic to point that out but I'm not bothered by that. After all, truth is what we're all seeking, right?

[Cacophonix]

Code: Select all

BenThere your gnomic, but always chauvinistic, logic never ceases to amuse me. 

You have a point, but take a look at purely empirical results over the years. The combat records of F-15 and F-16 vs. their Mig and other counterparts is quite clear, though the qualifications and training of USAF and Israeli crew is a significant factor. The qualitative advantage of US vs. Russian air defense packages sold to the likes of India, Iraq and Syria returns a similar result. US technology, reliability, and systems design has shown itself superior, all things considered. While I admit to some chauvinistic inclinations, as you point out, you do have to consider results at some stage in the selection process.

In the small world I lived in for 30 years, air refueling, I found it interesting and heart-warming that USAF air refueling was routinely accomplished world-wide, with great application to reach and deployability that the Russians could not effectively achieve. The cause of that advantage was part command and control, part equipment design and application, and part the ability to innovate and create doctrine and strategy to suit the mission.

As a side note, when Victor Bolenko defected from the now defunct USSR with his Foxbat, widely heralded at the time as the world's most advanced fighter, examination of the jet revealed severe shortcomings in material, engine, range and fighter capability compared to its F-15 contemporary counterpart. There are not a few MIG flyers who had their bubbles pierced when they came up against F-15s and F-16s. Perhaps it is chauvinistic to point that out but I'm not bothered by that. After all, truth is what we're all seeking, right?

Invented and perfected by the British you know! Taken to its apotheosis during the Black Buc raid in the Falklands, but I am sure you know that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerial_re ... ng_systems



As for the rest 'Je suis tout à fait d'accord' save for "MIG". I have already been told off by Atomkraft. Don't tangle with him lest you end up with a missile up your tailpipe.

Caco

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

We do not know the details of the engagement yet (nor are we likely to), and the 1-1 draw may simply be a result of the reported 4v4 engagement. Getting a kill then being shot 5 seconds later by somebody else is pretty common in training. With both sides being single seat, trying to keep a plot of 7 other guys gets very difficult after the first serious manoevring.
In this case, there appears to be physical proof the Pakistanis used AMRAAM.
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/26 ... rial-brawl
so it's quite possible that the Indian pilot was taken out by a missile from the aircraft he'd already shot down. Ai Uchi as the Samurai called it, where with swords and no shields mutual killing was a common outcome of duels.
My understanding is that the Indians only have the semi-active radar version of the Alamo on their MiG 21s, not the Active. Even with an f-pole, it is very difficult to take out an active-armed opponent with a semi-active missile (which must have radar illumination on the target all the way to impact).

Update: It may be that my first guess was right. The Indian pilot was maybe shot down by a JF-17 which was not his target.
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/26 ... rial-brawl

We must remember, as the second article points out, that neither nation is above lying its @ss off in the same way the sea is not above the sky.

[BenThere]

Invented and perfected by the British you know!

That's a stretch, Caco.

Back around 2000 I was on a USAF team that went to RAF Cottesmore, near York, where Brits, Italians and Germans trained on Tornados to certify for NATO standard air refueling. We were there to certify them as capable and qualified. While I found the hospitality outstanding, I also saw some shortcomings before they could function in the Air Tasking Order framework as effective and competent in joint operations. The Cottesmore crews were excellent and receptive to our doctrine, just needed to learn the system.

To posit that the Brits invented air refueling may have a basis is possibly true. That they perfected it is quite a stretch. Americans did that.

[Sisemen]

Cottesmore near York Probably in the same way that San Francisco is just the other side of Washington!

Anyway, we’re dealing with chalk and cheese. The British invented and developed the probe and drogue refuelling method while the Americans developed the flying boom method; two completely different concepts. However, it appears that, with the passage of time, and technological development, both systems are being employed by the USAF whilst the RAF is not wholly convinced about the boom system. That may change with the acquisition of further US aircraft such as the F35. The RAAF can cope with both systems I understand.

[ian16th]

The early days of IFR were more or less Barnstorming Stunts and were done in the USA.

The 1st practicable system was Alan Cobham's 'Looped Hose' system, that was based on design work done by Air Marshal Sir Richard Llewellyn Roger Atcherley. Ironically development of this system was HALTED by WWII! With hind sight it should of course been accelerated.

Towards the end of and after WWII, Alan Cobham persevered and got the interest of he USAAF/USAF in his Looped Hose and eventually his Probe & Drogue system.

As we all know the USAF eventually went its own way with the Flying Boom, but the US Navy use the Probe & Drogue system.
Each system has its benefits and liabilities. But there is now no doubt that IFR/AAR is a great range extender for military use.

More irony; Sir Alan Cobham saw the main use of IFR/AAR to be civilian! His early target was none stop passenger flights from UK to India.

Here is a Wiki link that has a reasonable potted history.
Please use with caution as there is at least one factual error that I saw on a quick scan.

The first use of aerial refueling in combat took place during the Korean War, involving F-84 fighter-bombers flying missions from Japanese airfields, due to Chinese-North Korean forces overrunning many of the bases for jet aircraft in South Korea, refueling from converted B-29s using the drogue-and-probe in-flight refueling system with the probe located in one of the F-84's wing-tip fuel tanks.

Is wrong. The F-84's couldn't transfer fuel from wing tip tank to wing tip tank. So they were fitted with 2 probes, one on each wing tip tank. The procedure that was used needed 3 refuelling's! One tank was half filled, the opposite tank was then filled, then the 1st tank was topped up. This was to balance the a/c.

[BenThere]

I got your rolling on the floor Moji. If I recall correctly I had an evening at the Cottesmore Officers' Club where we rolled on the floor in the living room playing carpet rugby against a stalwart but overmatched team of exuberant Brits, a singular experience. Our ringer was an all-American type footballer who could not be stopped. We just got the ball to him. It goes without saying we kicked their butts on their own turf.

The thing about boom vs. drogue is that the boom can transfer 6400 lbs./minute. The drogue can transfer a small fraction of that. Drogues are adequate for fighters, who don't need all that much fuel, but if you have a bomber or large cargo receiver that wants 100K or so pounds, you need a boom. The new tanker can do both at the same time, and that's an improvement over the old way of putting either a single drogue or boom on the tail.r

As RAF has no heavy refueling requirements at present, its focus on drogues seems wise. I don't know - are new USAF fighters boom only?

[BenThere]

The procedure that was used needed 3 refuelling's! One tank was half filled, the opposite tank was then filled, then the 1st tank was topped up. This was to balance the a/c.

That's the same method I used fueling Lear 35s on the ground into the current century. You filled one side tip tank until it dipped to the ground, then filled the other wing tip tank. When that was full you came back to the first tank and topped it off, all the while dispensing Prist into the tank.

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

Worth reminding people about the Black Buck raids that nobody in the Vulcan fleet was assessed as being capable of doing that many probe-drogue tankings, and they had to draft in an instructor from the Victor force to do it. You need boom for bombers, simple as that. Probe and drogue for fighters/fighter-bombers works better if two fighters can prod at once, for partial refills. It is also better tactically since fighters can depart in pairs with the same fuel loads. For long fill ups (e.g. arrive empty and have external tanks and fill to full), the boom can be faster overall. That's my experience.
There is also the fact that probe-drogue can be used on fighter-sized aircraft for buddy tanking, which is why it is used by the USN & USMC, and indeed most naval air arms. And one can also stuff a probe-drogue rig in the back of a Herc or similar, which was done in the Falklands whilst I was down there.

[Cacophonix]

The first use of aerial refueling in combat took place during the Korean War, involving F-84 fighter-bombers flying missions from Japanese airfields, due to Chinese-North Korean forces overrunning many of the bases for jet aircraft in South Korea, refueling from converted B-29s using the drogue-and-probe in-flight refueling system with the probe located in one of the F-84's wing-tip fuel tanks.

Is wrong. The F-84's couldn't transfer fuel from wing tip tank to wing tip tank. So they were fitted with 2 probes, one on each wing tip tank. The procedure that was used needed 3 refuelling's! One tank was half filled, the opposite tank was then filled, then the 1st tank was topped up. This was to balance the a/c.

BenThere inaccurate about the Korean War? No it can't be so!

Where's my rolled up newspaper, I am going to give him a playful whack around the head with it?

Anyway, all this interesting talk of AAAR prompted one of the fine gentlemen on this thread to give me a heads up on a signed coffee table first edition of 'In Cobham"s Company' 'Sixty Years of flight refueling' by Colin Cruddas. I have now purchased a copy.

I shall read the book, don my Union Jack underpants and go on a long speaking tour of USAF bases, to enlighten the heathen and bring succour to the misguided! I shall name my mission 'BenThere's Broken Drogue Tour!

Caco

[Sisemen]

In an escalation of hostilities today India has announced that the highest populated areas of Pakistan could be subject to bombing.

London, Bradford, Birmingham, Rochdale and Oldham are currently being evacuated .....

[Undried Plum]

A trifle off-topic I know, but Mary Heath, who really did fly the length of Africa solo unlike the lying bitchcunt who faked a repro trip, inspired and sponsored air-air refuelling in the 1920s. It was Brits who led the way in those days.

The brilliance of the Septic way of AAR is that the receiver doesn't have to fly accurately. He merely has to fly same-way same-day as the tanker while the clever guy facing bassackwards does the skilfull stuff of steering and stabbing the stinger. It lets crap pilots go further and for longer than otherwise they might achieve. Very American.

[BenThere]

It wasn't me who commented on Korean War/F-84 AAR. Your jibe is inapt. Save your rolled up Guardian for the bird cage.

[Cacophonix]

It wasn't me who commented on Korean War/F-84 AAR. Your jibe is inapt. Save your rolled up Guardian for the bird cage.

I was reprising this little exchange back in the day BenThere!

viewtopic.php?p=126313#p126313



What a rollicking ride that was. We are being far too polite to each other these days...

Caco

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

London, Bradford, Birmingham, Rochdale and Oldham are currently being evacuated .....

Actually, Oldham is more Bangladeshi than Pakistani, though both just outnumber the whites

[BenThere]

Your link transported me to the days of debating just what happened in Korea circa 1950-53. Our narratives are different, but as I review the posts I made, which you disparage as historically inaccurate, I stand by them.

I maintain MacArthur had the Chinese/N. Korean/Russian forces on the ropes and wanted to push his offensive to a conclusive victory. In a nutshell, MacArthur's willingness to utilize the US nuclear capability, if necessary, to achieve total victory was his undoing as President Truman was unwilling to go that far. Tactically and strategically, UN forces had achieved control and dominance on the peninsula at the time of the truce, and possessed the capability to pursue the conflict to the denouement of the Communist forces. At the time it was the US/UN dealing from the position of strength, though American voters were generally and understandably tired of war. But they still overwhelmingly supported MacArthur, which is why Truman exited the presidency and politics with very low approval ratings, while MacArthur became a darling of the American right. Eisenhower took up MacArthur's military mantle and swept to the presidency in 1952 almost by acclamation.

When MacArthur made President Truman wait on the tarmac, at Wake Island I think, his fate was sealed. The president is Commander in Chief, and MacArthur challenged that, his vanity getting the best of him.

As an afterthought, I get that you want to discredit me, Caco, and you crow about how you pointed out what you perceive as my historical ignorance. I simply posed arguments that aren't consonant with your narrative. I don't accept your repeated declarations of victory as I regard them as bluster.

[Cacophonix]

I maintain MacArthur had the Chinese/N. Korean/Russian forces on the ropes and wanted to push his offensive to a conclusive victory. In a nutshell, MacArthur's willingness to utilize the US nuclear capability, if necessary, to achieve total victory was his undoing as President Truman was unwilling to go that far. Tactically and strategically, UN forces had achieved control and dominance on the peninsula at the time of the truce, and possessed the capability to pursue the conflict to the denouement of the Communist forces. At the time it was the US/UN dealing from the position of strength, though American voters were generally and understandably tired of war. But they still overwhelmingly supported MacArthur, which is why Truman exited politics with very low approval ratings, while MacArthur became a darling of the American right. Eisenhower took up MacArthur's military mantle and swept to the presidency almost by acclamation.

When MacArthur made President Truman wait on the tarmac his fate was sealed. The president is Commander in Chief, and MacArthur challenged that, his vanity getting the best of him.

You are the definition of obduracy BenThere. You sometimes take plain unalloyed fact, mangle it and then call black white! It is this kind of double think that makes me reach for my notepad and pen. There must be a PhD somewhere in this study of aberrant psychology!

There is some factual merit in what you say in the paragraph above mind!

Caco

[Cacophonix]

As an afterthought, I get that you want to discredit me, Caco, and you crow about how you pointed out what you perceive as my historical ignorance. I simply posed arguments that aren't consonant with your narrative. I don't accept your repeated declarations of victory as I regard them as bluster.

That is not true BenThere. Let me say that I take no pleasure in disagreement with somebody who, despite all our disagreements over the years, I have a great deal of respect for and with whom, I am sure, I would get on with perfectly well if we were to meet up, as I hope we will one day.

It genuinely pains me when you, sometimes, take these anti-factual postions, because I know you to be an intelligent, decent and generally well informed man. I feel diminished when empiricism fails and I gain nothing from any perceived error on your part believe me. Quite the reverse in fact!

Caco

[John Hill]

Tactically and strategically, UN forces had achieved control and dominance on the peninsula at the time of the truce, and possessed the capability to pursue the conflict to the denouement of the Communist forces.

Pure fantasy Ben. By November 1950 the North Koreans had been pushed to within about 100 miles of the Chinese border but by about Feb 1951 they and advanced to be about 100 miles south of Seoul.

The truce line is pretty close to the original dividing line.

[OFSO]

Thread drift: As a T2A working for a TO In the GPO, I fitted the telephones in the nuclear weapons stores in Cottesmore around 1964. The telephones had to be spark-proof, big heavy things in cast iron housings with rubber seals. Bit of an overkill, I thought.

Also worked on Bruntingthorpe when 10th TAC were there, roughly same period.