Warbird Information Exchange

I recall reading, years ago, a story about how a P-51 instructor used to humble his students by flying against them in a J-3. They couldn't draw a bead on the guy and he was so knowledgeable and skilled that he would cause them to lose sight of him - whereupon he'd land, push the J-3 under a tree and watch with amusement as the Mustangs waggled wings looking for him..in vain.

Instructive, but the J-3 would not be a war winner.

Bouncing from issue to issue that has come up in the thread:

As for the F-22 vs build hordes of new F-15's/16's - That was somewhat the argument in the 70's with the High-Low mix of expensive F-15's along with cheaper, more numerous, "less capable" F-16's.

What you'd like depends upon who you are. If you are the pilot, you want YOUR airplane to be an F-22. If you are a war and industry planner, you might have to order some people in a lesser airframe.

I'd like to know the cost of the F-22 normalized to GDP and then see how that compares to an Albatross or '51, or an '86 normalized to their GDP's.

One issue that hasn't come up in this thread (and is potentially explosive) is the F-35 and how survivable it will be in the face of very few F-22's to protect it. There's all sorts of heated arguments on that little bit, with some people suggesting who needs F-22's - the F-35 cna take care of itself. Others beg to differ.

And then I recall Brig. Gen. Mosley stating, in the Air Force Association Magazine, that there are some major structural parts for the F-22 that take a full 2 years to fabricate and test. (Wing box, if memory serves - but it very well may not )

Wow.

Not really gonna be able to ramp up production on that baby unless the World War lasts 20 years. And of course some people say we'll never be in that kind of war again. But I hesitate to say never on something like that though it doesn't seem to be appearing on the horizon.

But what happens if we get into a high intensity, balls out struggle that lasts for 2-3 years? I mean full throttle fighting? My uneducated prediction is that all the high tech weapons on both sides will be boiled off in the normal course of fighting rather quickly. And you'll be back to more basic weapons. And the side that can field them more rapidly might just be the winner.

History seems to show that when quantity is chosen over quality, quantity usually loses. Look at the B-17 versus B-18. The Army decided it wanted B-18s because they could get more twin-engined planes than four-engined planes. Once war broke out, though, the B-18 was virtually useless as a combat aircraft.

The Luftwaffe declined to produce four-engined bombers because they could acquire 3 twin-engine bombers for every 2 four-engined bombers (IIRC). Had they produced the Do19 or Ju88, the Battle of Britain could have had a very different outcome.

In the mid 1950s, the Israelis had a choice between acquiring more MD-450 Ouragans, the Mystere II-C or wait for the Mystere IV-A. The Ouragans were far cheaper than either Mystere, and the II-C was cheaper and more readlily available than the IV-A. The Israelis opted for the IV-A, and that proved to be the correct choice as the Mystere IV-A was the superior plane, even better than the Mig-15 being supplied to the Arab Air Forces. After the Mystere, the Israelis made sure they always had cutting-edge fighter aircraft: The Super Mystere, Mirage III-C, F-4E Phantom and F-15 Eagle.

History tends to be cyclical, if we fail to learn the lessons from the first time around, we're going to have to learn them again the second time around. Look at the bombers: The B-2 is the most up-to-date bomber in the Air Force inventory. Critics consider it too expensive, too complex and performs a mission that other less expensive planes could do. The problem is, those were the same arguments used against the B-17 when it was first produced. If you look at how vital the B-17 became a few short years later, we should be thankful to those who made sure the production line stayed open.

(Think you meant something else than Ju 88, in your post, btw! )

Fair comment, but you can argue the other way just as well - the most famous example being the Sherman tank vs the better German examples.

Not many people realise one reason for the development of the Ju 87 Stuka was the Luftwaffe could have a lot more of them and they were more effective tactically than a conventional twin-engine bomber or a mutli-role type like the Ju 88. The Germans switched to a tactical air force with the death of General Wever (not only because of bang-for-buck, btw) and the advocacy of dive bombers by Udet, and integrated that into the Blizkrieg. Had they been able to develop a strategic bomber arm either instead of (possible) or as well (financially and production terms impossible) they'd actually have done a lot worse in their early war battles than they did. Heaver conventional bombers (of the pre-1940 designs) would've been worse at the jobs that the Luftwaffe's twin-engine bombers and particularly the Stuka. Yes, the Battle of Britain would've been won earlier at less cost to Britain, and the effect of the May 1940 Blitz and the battles of the Med would've been a less 'close run thing'.

One of the tricks is what are the lessons of history? I'd agree with your bomber comparisons, but...

Certainly military equipment isn't getting cheaper, but the US has been using over-sophisticated bombers for less sophisticated tasks since Vietnam. Some (how much and what is an arguable and variable question) of that sophistication has been unused or unrequired in each war fought; had the crystal ball gazers been able to channel that equipment cost more usefully, that would be more munition on target. But that's easy hindsight, of course.

Regards,

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

So much conjecture, it is a hard thing to know what the next battlefield will be. It is almost NEVER just what the planners built the air fleet for. Having a flexible multi-role AC and the ability to USE it in varied ways is a critical. What did the Falklands War teach the Argentineans and the UK? Jump-jets against landbased fighters......bad theoretical mix but they acquitted themselves rather well. Best Jet? Circumstances has too big a role in the game. All things being equal, the Harriers should have been swept, but training, weapons, radar, control, range, fuel load......it is ALWAYS more complicated than "Which one is best"

_________________

Aviation Illustration Website
http://shepartstudio.com/illustration/

Good point Holedigger.

Another interesting examples is the B-29. It was the most complex military program(me) of its day, and a magnificent achievement, overcoming unbelievable technical obstacles to get to service. Yet LeMay decided to remove most of the guns and, despite all the effort to pressurise the thing, firebomb from relatively low level.

What's the lesson? Complexity for maximum answers or simplicity for maximum answers? One clear answer I'd submit, but hard to achieve is adaptability is vital. Over-dedicated weapons systems often become suddenly useless when circumstances change.

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

My question wasn't that simple. I asked about having a certain number of F-22s and then using remaining dollars to purchase the balance in F-15/F-16/F-18/A-10, whatever ... as opposed to phasing out the older airframes entirely. This is not horde/Soviet thinking - I'm advocating balance.

The planners know what theatres require F-22s and which ones don't. For instance, maybe a China scenario requires all F-22s. Maybe a Korean scenario requires F-22s flying cover for F-15Es. And an Afghan scenario requires only F-15s.

All I was saying is that if we spend big and phase out the older jets, then all theatres will be done by the F-22/F-35 and A) that might be overspend/overkill and B) we would have gotten rid of some very versatile platforms. (ie. an A-10 might actually score better in Afghanistan than an F-35)

Ken

_________________
"Take care of the little things and the big things will take care of themselves."

JDK,
The note about using the B-29's in Japan is a good one. However, the B-29 was designed, originally, to be used in Europe where the high altitude and heavy HE bomb load would have been very much needed. However, LeMay saw that the targets in Japan were more vulnerable to incendiary weapons. So, he made the change (another feature we haven't talked about is adaptability of people to a different strategic/tactical requirement). I bet if he were using the B-29 in Europe, that wouldn't have happened and they would have been successfully used as designed. BTW the 509th BG original orders were to England, not the Pacific.

_________________
Cheers!

Lance Jones

Yes, sorry, I meant the Ju89.

The Sherman versus Tiger/Panzer/etc. argument is a good one. However, by the latter part of the war, the Army realized they needed a better tank to go toe-to-toe with the German tanks, which brought us the M26 Pershing. After World War II, the Army realized that while the Sherman was a good tank, they needed to make sure their armor formations had the best tank, which led to the M48 and M60 development, and then later the M1 Abrams and its various derivatives.

It is an interesting discussion, and can be argued to support many different points of view. Pogmusic's point is a good one, and the big picture, I was just touching on as aspect of adaptbility rather than comprehensive capability in a weapon's design. The rider of people's adaptability is excellent too.

In a way I'd say your evidence, Saxman, supports what I was saying. Simplistically, if Britain 'held the line' and the Russians sacrificed their people to defeat Germany, America's contribution was famously as 'the arsenal of democracy'.

And the decisive factor in the US' contribution in W.W.II was, unarguably volume - of munitions, money and men. The quality of that equipment varied - most of it being good, some of it being very good. But however excellent it may have been that excellence was very rarely as critical as the amount.

At the end of the war the sacrifice of the young men was rightly unpalatable (despite being, per capita, one of the lowest percentages of the Allies' losses) and at this point (I'd argue) the hope that higher technology would mitigate military losses began. 'Good enough on time' is always better than 'excellent late' or 'potential excellence failure due to complexity'. And that's where the Sherman and Pershing tanks sit. IMHO, of course.

Separately, the information on the Ju 89 and Dornier Do 19 implies that as heavy bombers they may have been decisive from the mid-point of the Battle of Britain onwards. However I can't agree with that; Britain wouldn't have surrendered unless invaded, and the Ju 88 (for instance) was far more likely to survive attack in daylight by British fighters, and at night bombers then could only accurately hit cities, ports etc, not airfields. If the allied strategic bombing campaign did not stop German production or make them sue for peace, how could the more basic (older) German strategic bomber designs have done better?

Regards,

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

A simple thing like "Drop tanks" may have been a tide turner in the BoB, that and German leadership that wasn't so full of itself that it actually paid attention to intelligence! The 109 vs Spit battle was closely matched with the Luftwaffe's more experienced pilots and greater force size potentially overwhelming the RAF. Without the ability to press home the attack on Britain's air defense network, due to lack of fighter cover range, fighter command struggled on, continuing to put the hurt on the daily bomber streams. Stupid orders from the top requiring fighter be "Chained" to the bombers nailed the coffin shut. You cannot protect the bombers if you are flying in close formation with them. What if, what if, what if...these things do go on and on.

_________________

Aviation Illustration Website
http://shepartstudio.com/illustration/

Having read this whole thread in one gulp, the answer is clear to me. THe best dogfighter in this particular environment, hands down, is Randy Haskin.

_________________
"Anyway, the throat feels a bit rough...the legs have gone...but I'm still able to chant, so let's get going."

Joe Strummer, 1999

I don't even own a dog anymore.

_________________

So... Did you win? Or did your dog?

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

Fortunately, my ol' girl died the way every good dogfighter should...of old age in her sleep.

_________________