<p>Actually while we did say that the gun wasn’t needed in the plane pre-VNam (we touted our missiles) I don’t know that BVR combat was openly discussed as the current radar missiles (early versions of the AIM7 and others) were’t terribly reliable.</p>
<p>I have a great video someplace at home of an F-4 engaging a MIG in VNam…he’s perhaps 3-5 miles from his adversary and he ripples off ALL FOUR of his AIM-7s…</p>
<p>ONE guided and scored; the other three…went stupid. And this was a “simple” turning engagement from the rear aspect. If you dig into the archives you’ll find that the early missiles…were NOT terribly reliable for Pk.</p>
<p>NOW?</p>
<p>Hugely different story. The AIM120…I don’t have to keep you lit up; light you up, feed the missile, launch it; then it takes over and goes active, and I move to the next target. If I’m chasing that guy from the video and I pop a Slammer from that range, that aspect?</p>
<p>I’m headed home to a cold beer and to paint a flag under my canopy. Pk will be at or very near 1.0.</p>
<p>Sorry…got busy typing and not thinking that a lot of folks might not understand.</p>
<p>BVR: Beyond Visual Range
Guided: Attained radar lock and followed the doppler beam to the target
Went Stupid: Obvious…
Pk: Probability of Kill…term used in determining effectiveness of a weapon and its potential employment envelope to effect the most probable destruction of a target. The “BEST/PERFECT” Pk would be 1.0; fractions of that are normally used; the higher the better probability. There’s a really “deep” explanation in the book about how its computed…I’m a pilot, I don’t care about the math, I need to know what conditions give me the best Pk.
AIM-7: Sparrow missile (once known derogatorily as the Great White Hope) Doppler beam rider; you had to maintain full radar lock on the target to guide the missile
AIM-120: “Slammer” aka: AMRAAM. Starts on your radar lock, then its own radar takes over…it’s VERY VERY LETHAL! Has a nice warhead but when I’ve seen it used…it didn’t need a warhead as it speared the targets! I’ve never fired one, I come from the era of the Great White Hope…and have seen them go stupid. And to be fair, I’ve seen them hit.</p>
<p>Edit: Flieger beat me to it, but I’ll leave this here anyway.</p>
<p>Translation: Even though we didn’t think we needed guns going into 'Nam, aerial combat from beyond visual range didn’t receive a whole lot of discussion because the missiles of that day weren’t very reliable.</p>
<p>In the video, the pilot fired off all four of his AIM-7 missiles. Only one hit, while the other three wandered off uselessly, even though he was set up in a good spot to the rear of the bandit, which is the most advantageous position. In short, the probability of scoring a kill with an AIM-7 or other Vietnam-era missile, especially beyond visual range, was not good.</p>
<p>Today’s missiles, however, are quite different. After a pilot locks onto a target and fires a missile, the modern AIM-120 will take over and do all of the work involved with destroying the enemy. If such a pilot were to engage the aircraft in the aforementioned video at the same range and aspect using modern equipment, the odds of scoring a kill would be very high.</p>
<p>First off, just gotta say that most of this thread just brought a tear to this retired fighter WSO’s eye. Slammers, BVR, BFM and turning dog-fights! If only we could all somehow be in the squadron bar, shooting down our enormously over-sized watches while we demonstrate BFM maneuvers with our hands to each other over our beers! Sigh. I miss it.</p>
<p>But then I have to say, as a ex-flyer working in the office in the Puzzle Palace (aka. the Pentagon) that coordinates the AF’s fighter requirements for the next 30+ years, most of what Flieger just said here is spot in, and one of the major reasons while the military is leaning towards developing capabilities for the next generation of RPVs.</p>
<p>I’m leading the charge for the AF for the F-35, a “5th Generation” fighter, and it has been called the “last manned fighter” by quite a few in the know; their assumption is most likely true (but were planning for the F-35 to be around for next 50+ years or so). What the AF has just started to look at is the “6th Generation” of fighters and what capabilities they would need. Without getting into too much detail (and avoiding security issues), let’s just say that things will be “interesting”, and perhaps a little lonely in the actual aircraft… </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Nice discussion on the air-to-air aspects we are currently facing or will face. But flieger (the air-to-air guy that he is ) forgot the other side of the spectrum: the surface-to-air threat. Probably the biggest reason for our move towards stealth (I mean, the B-2 ain’t designed to go toe-to-toe with a Flanker!) The other portion of the “contested airspace” equation. Without an air-threat or a SAM threat, RPVs can ride around in impunity to their heart’s content, spying on camels and shooting bad guys in caves. With a threat? Not so much. </p>
<p>And that is where “future capabilities” come into play. Mostly, we will need our future RPVs to have better Situational Awareness (“SA”) of their surroundings and what the threats are. Can the RPV contain sensors that can data-link information about the current situation to a pilot at some ground station, or someone managing the battle from an airborne station miles away? That is what we’re working towards. </p>
<p>Case in point. The F-35 pilot’s helmet will have ALL the information from its sensor package displayed on the helmet’s visor. No more HUD for the F-35 required; in fact, there isn’t one (the first fighter in over 60+ years designed without one!). Gives the operator “fused” instantaneous information about the current situation, increasing SA. Now, I foresee that this same type of helmet could be worn by someone not even on the plane, and they could be receiving a pretty timely and accurate picture of the current situation, giving them better SA. Not quite there yet for some of our bigger threats and enemy capabilities, but were getting there.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>See above.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Again, pretty accurate assessment (flieger, you one smart cookie!) . It IS coming to a theater near you! Just think, in about a generation, we’ll have these really cool machines flying most of our dangerous combat missions for us! What a great world!
(Until they become so intelligent they become self aware, then start down a path of events that causes them to send assassin cyborgs back in time to kill Sarah Conner and her son John !) </p>
<p>But I will also say this, my office works “fighter requirements” for the AF, and we plan to have quite a few of today’s (and those being made today; the F-35) around long enough for some of YOUR kids to be flying them. I pity your grand-kids though…</p>
<p>flieger, I’m sure you’ve been following what has been happening recently with the F-35 program, and can understand that I been just a LITTLE busy these past few months, which has limited my time to get back on here. As I keep reminding the bosses there, my job is to monitor the program for them and tell the program office what the AF wants. (I’ve been warning the Stars on the E-ring that this was coming for months!). My message right now? Don’t shoot me, I’m just the messenger!</p>
<p>But I will say this about the F-35. Once Lockheed gets its head out of its collective rear and starts getting on track with delivery (they ARE improving, but OH SO Slowly), these kids here will get a jet they will absolutely LOVE, and will absolutely kick patootie! Think stealthy Viper, with an integrated avionics package that is generations ahead of even the Block 60 in capabilities. It is that good. And I’m proud to say I’m helping to ensure it is that way.</p>
<p>Now, if we can only get them to get off the production line faster…</p>
<p>“Futureafacadet-- you better lose that attitude pretty quickly, or I don’t think that you will be successful at the academy, or in the military.”</p>
<p>…considering i’ve basically said the same thing as one, two, and three stars that i’ve spoken with…i’d say i’m gonna keep my attitude. i guess the ideals of the old fighter pilots are irrelevant and i wont be succesful at the academy because i want to fly fighters…cool.</p>
<p>That’s absolutely correct. The “ideals” of the fighter pilots of past generations are history. I can guarantee that you won’t be able to get away with half the s*** that they pulled years ago. What you think you know about the Air Force is incorrect, and you will drop your attitude now.</p>
<p>he’s trying to give you honest feedback to help you out. take it or leave it. not saying lose your dream of flying fighters (which i share with you, and i’m starting to get into position since i’m headed to ENJJPT) but don’t think that being a fighter pilot means half of what it did 10, 20, or 30 years ago and understand that there is more to the Air Force than fighter pilots.</p>
<p>Well, to be honest, I don’t think he is in the position to give me “honest feedback” when i was merely trying to state my opinion about the UAV situation. I know the fighter pilot isn’t nearly the same as it was in the early 80’s and so on, but what I do know is that the same ideals of those fighter pilots are what drive our air force today. I’ll take or leave what i want, but I just don’t like when someone tells me I’m not going to be succesful at the academy(for which I worked very hard to get to this point) when basically all I was saying is I have a dream of becoming a fighter pilot. In my opinion its disrespectful for someone to say that. In all seriousness i do appreciate the feedback for what its worth, maybe I’ve been getting the wrong info all along.</p>
<p>Just out of curiosity, what do you think the “ideals of those fighter pilots” are, exactly?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>None of us said that. The only person who said something similar was your future classmate. Come June, your cadre will be telling you that you can’t do it, and your only support will come from those in your class. Make friends.</p>
<p>Considering most of our higher leadership in the Air Force were pilots, I’d say its pretty obvious. </p>
<p>Look I’m not trying to be hostile, and I know the cadre will be telling me, as well as everyone else, I can’t make it. But it’s when I’m on a internet site and someone about the same age as me tells me I’m not going to be successful because I spoke my mind about a situation…seriously what judgement do you have. Now, I’m not trying to make “enemies” before I even get there and I definitely do not have a problem with anyone, but I think I should be able to talk on here without getting told I have a bad attitude pertaining to UAVs or whatever it my be and WON’T be succesful because of that “attitude”. Well actually after writing this, I think the main “ideals” of the old fighter pilot is the competitive nature and camaraderie that they have in a squadron that carries over to just about every aspect of leadership and advancement in the Air Force. Again, I’m not trying to make enemies, just respect peoples opinion or insight on this website.</p>
<p>I was once told by a gent I greatly respect that “Fighter Pilot” is an attitude, and not an AFSC.</p>
<p>I laughed…you see, I grew up as the son of a TAC guy…lived on fighter bases all around the world until dad got a SAC assignment as an 0-5. The poster on my BB at the zoo said simply: “There are two types of aircraft in the world: FIGHTERS and targets!”</p>
<p>And I believed that.</p>
<p>Then I got to fly fighters! And I also got to fly little white jets…and heavies (KC-135s) too! You know what?</p>
<p>THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE IN THE PEOPLE!</p>
<p>They’re all highly qualified professionals, highly motivated, dedicated, etc…you name it.</p>
<p>AND THEN I realized…</p>
<p>He was right.</p>
<p>Maybe that’s why he wears 4 stars today and is a MAJCOM commander.</p>
<p>futurecadet- Don’t get offended; I’m trying to help you out…people at the academy want to develop Officers first, pilots second. It comes with the territory, I suppose. So have you already gained/accepted your appointment? I’m still waiting over here…hopefully we’ll both make it!</p>
<p>flieger- But does that sort of attitude come from being a figher pilot or from within the person itself? I feel that anyone who thinks what they do is their passion and what they are happy doing, and not just a job, has the sort of attitude that you are talking about (I think I’m divulging into the job vs. career thing here, correct?)</p>
<p>Surprised to see that this post has become so active!</p>
<p>JK2014- I think that the sort of attitude we’re talking about comes from both the person internally and comes with the territory of being a fighter pilot. One has be almost cocky(a better word would probably be very confident) but still stay humble and not become pompous or self-indulged in order to lead and get the job done in the best manner. I grew up around fighter pilots and it is a whole different mentality, atleast that is apparent to me, from the heavy guys to the fighter guys. Not degrading the heavy guys just pointing out there is a different culture and mindset that comes with the fighter pilot “title”. I really think it starts with UPT because the highest ranked of the classes have to be great pilots, and to be a great pilot you have to be confident, and to be at the top of your class you have to be great as well as confident; these great pilots receive the fighters when track select comes around. </p>
<p>And yes, I did receive my appointment already, around Feb 5. I was kinda suprised how early it came because i was told early march. I know exactly how you feel…it sucks to wait around for that letter to come. Good Luck man.</p>
<p>futureafacadet- very interesting…I wonder though, does anyone at the top of their class ever choose heavies, or are they forced to go into the fighter/bomber track? It’d be interesting to see the statistics on that. What about NAV’s and WSO’s, do you think that it has the same idea as pilots?</p>
<p>Thanks man. I’m really not expecting anything until mid-late April, because the guys over at service academy forums say that that is when the majority of letters get sent out</p>
<p>I can tell you categorically that a LARGE number of “top sticks” at UPT have chosen heavies as their track. Even in my class, decades ago, several of the BEST sticks chose heavies because of the missions/lifestyles.</p>
<p>And to answer JK’s question: “But does that sort of attitude come from being a figher pilot or from within the person itself? I feel that anyone who thinks what they do is their passion and what they are happy doing, and not just a job, has the sort of attitude that you are talking about …” YES!!!</p>
<p>The “attitude” of confidence breeds its own success and that breeds more confidence (start the circle here) and THAT is what you see in highly successful pilots, and other officers. I’ve seen what I call the “fighter pilot attitude” in MANY non-rated officers! They’re highly professional people that take great pride in what they do; bust their collective butts to be THE BEST, and then share that with others.</p>
<p>Wow I haven’t been here in a while. 2014 appointtee’s already. Seem like yesterday Eagle,Ramius, and Hornet were doolies passing advice to my daughter Potterfan, Petko, and several others. This thread caught my eye because Potterfan is pursuing RPV’s, and hopefully will know more thhis spring.</p>
<p>Futureafacadet I just looked at the most recent posts, but agree with Petko “Make Friends”. Potter did CAP back at Nellis (Home of the Fighter Pilot), it is also were she got to experience UAV’s (RPA’s) up close and personal. The kid who was her Cadet Squad Comm in CAP was a year behind her in HS. She was his 1st Sgt, and he was always very Cocky. Well Potter entered the class on 2011 back in the summer of '07 and left him and CAP behind. She went back at Christmas and he told her he would be going to Annapolis. Well turns out he ended up at USAFA Prep. Again she saw him during his time at Prep (still Cocky), and she tried to remind him that you really dont do this alone. </p>
<p>The next summer while he was entering 2nd BCT he was introduced to his new Cadre including Potterfan. She worked very hard to remind him all summer long that he wouldn’t get through it alone. He was still cocky. This semester has been very hard on him. He regularly see’s Potter because she is his 1st Sgt (He is learning not to be cocky).</p>
<p>He will make it through recognition, but it has been very hard for him. He has begun to realize the “Fighter Pilot” attitude he entered with really hasn’t served him well. He has grown, and both Potter and I hope he will continue to succeed. Now I like this kid a lot, but I will tell you his USAFA life has not been easy, and I hope he can repair some of the bridges he has burned.</p>
<p>Listen to the good advice of Petko “Make Friends”</p>
) forgot the other side of the spectrum: the surface-to-air threat. Probably the biggest reason for our move towards stealth (I mean, the B-2 ain’t designed to go toe-to-toe with a Flanker!) The other portion of the “contested airspace” equation. Without an air-threat or a SAM threat, RPVs can ride around in impunity to their heart’s content, spying on camels and shooting bad guys in caves. With a threat? Not so much. </p>