[MarkN]

When, after WW2 when Russia had captured the V2 and basically just painted a red star on the side, thus immediately gaining a working tech, compared to Nasa+von Brauns who had to start from the scratch, with theory in mind?

After world war 2 the russians took a V2 factory, while the Americans took components for 300 units. Also the Americans were much better off at copeing the technology as not only did they have the lead designer (von Braun), but also the majority of the engineers, while the russians only had the factories and factory workers. In fact immediately after the war, the Americans were ahead with the Bumper project (firing a sounding rocket from the nose of a V2 at the top of it's flight).

As for dogfighting, it's still there but not in the old style. in the recent war in Iraq, there was only one aircraft kill with a gun, and that was a helicopter being hit by an A-10's GAU-8.
Most modern dogfights seem to involve wide high-speed turns and the aim of getting a missile lock, while avioding the enemies lock and missiles, which between them result in fighting at much longer ranges than even in Vietnam.

[Nuke]

dogfighting will immideately become more common if we ever go to war with a country thats capable of maintaining a large airforce. even then entering a dogfight is the last thing you want to do as a pilot. ideally you want to get in, take the shot, and get out, before the enemy's wingman figures out that you just shot down his buddy.

[jr2]

Actually, you select multiple targets BVR and, being stealth, fire two missiles & take out said fighter and his wingman. 

[Mefustae]

Actually, you select multiple targets BVR and, being stealth, fire two missiles & take out said fighter and his wingman. 

...Shortly before you get reprimanded for violating the rules of engagement.

[Janos]

When, after WW2 when Russia had captured the V2 and basically just painted a red star on the side, thus immediately gaining a working tech, compared to Nasa+von Brauns who had to start from the scratch, with theory in mind?

After world war 2 the russians took a V2 factory, while the Americans took components for 300 units. Also the Americans were much better off at copeing the technology as not only did they have the lead designer (von Braun), but also the majority of the engineers, while the russians only had the factories and factory workers. In fact immediately after the war, the Americans were ahead with the Bumper project (firing a sounding rocket from the nose of a V2 at the top of it's flight).

Yup, checked again and it went like that. Mein mistake, kamrade.

[jr2]

Actually, you select multiple targets BVR and, being stealth, fire two missiles & take out said fighter and his wingman. 

...Shortly before you get reprimanded for violating the rules of engagement.

What!?    Please tell me you aren't serious.  Or are we being redcoats again, and trying to "play by the rules"?

[IceFire]

Actually, you select multiple targets BVR and, being stealth, fire two missiles & take out said fighter and his wingman. 

...Shortly before you get reprimanded for violating the rules of engagement.

What!?    Please tell me you aren't serious.  Or are we being redcoats again, and trying to "play by the rules"?

It happened in Vietnam and Korea.  Its not new.  In Korea it was certain parallels that weren't supposed to be crossed (although they were) and in Vietnam there was a huge problem with IFF and trying to figure out how to shoot.  Thats when they realized that the Sparrow was pretty much useless to them because even if they did have good ID the missile wouldn't work...and if they didn't have good ID then it was just dead weight as they closed to Sidewinder range and with no gun to back you up from that point it was just bad news.

So its nothing new.  Depending on modern day operational requirements, the level of sophistication, active and passive jamming being employed...it may be required to get in close with the enemy and ignore your BVR capability altogether.  Its still handy to have stealth even at that point but its not impervious to either being locked on radar/IR or detected using some sort of electroptical sight and so forth.  AWACs and Datalink and all of those things benefit figuring out who to shoot but I think you have to wisely assume that you don't have those abilities when you go ahead and put together a fighter.  The enemy could take out the AWACs or send out so much electronic interference that things get dicey.

Given how all of this can go down...its perfectly possible that formations of fighters will exchange BVR shots at each other, kill some of the opposing forces, and then continue to close after the initial engagement to visual range and continue the battle till its over.  Even with the AIM-120C and locking up multiple aircraft at the same time and all of that...you can be only half (or a bit more than half) sure that the missile will kill its target.  And thats with a pretty good missile.

[jr2]

No, I meant being court-marshalled for violating the rules of engagement?!?  with that?

[IceFire]

No, I meant being court-marshalled for violating the rules of engagement?!?  with that?

Probably depends on what happened.  I'm sure you could be court marshalled for violating the rules of engagement. The rules are generally in place for a reason.  Could be political or strictly military.  Either way...its the military...thats what they have.  Rules and discipline and thats about it.

Going back to the Korea thing for a moment...its well documented that F-86 Sabres engaged outside of the rules of engagement and generally speaking so did the Mig-15 pilots and it was either covered up or swept aside and the incident forgotten or glossed over.  WWII was much simpler for the combat pilot...

[jr2]

Politicians need to learn that wars are not to be fought with one hand tied behind your back.  More people end up dying, despite the glowy feeling the pols get when they make insane rules like they always do.  Fight a war all out, win quick, and you won't have as much of a problem (ala Vietnam... we pretty much won that war before we lost it).

[Flaser]

Politicians need to learn that wars are not to be fought with one hand tied behind your back.  More people end up dying, despite the glowy feeling the pols get when they make insane rules like they always do.  Fight a war all out, win quick, and you won't have as much of a problem (ala Vietnam... we pretty much won that war before we lost it).

Actually ROE were made to insure you don't shoot down your own planes.
Sometimes, it simply couldn't happen, so ROE could be ignored....other times things could be really dicey.

[Mefustae]

Politicians need to learn that wars are not to be fought with one hand tied behind your back.  More people end up dying, despite the glowy feeling the pols get when they make insane rules like they always do.  Fight a war all out, win quick, and you won't have as much of a problem

I was really surprised you actually held that sentiment. But then, I read this:

(ala Vietnam... we pretty much won that war before we lost it).

...and it all made sense.

[Janos]

Politicians need to learn that wars are not to be fought with one hand tied behind your back.  More people end up dying, despite the glowy feeling the pols get when they make insane rules like they always do.  Fight a war all out, win quick, and you won't have as much of a problem (ala Vietnam... we pretty much won that war before we lost it).

Does war serve politics or do politics serve the war? Which one is more important? Against whom?

I know these kind of blanket statements are cool and you can always blame "them". Whoever they might be. I'll bet 5$ that ten years from now people will blame Democrats or media for losing the Iraq war and say that if only, if only the military would have had free hands then US would have win. But hey, military is the hand of the nation, not the nation itself - military is supposed to gain a set of goals, not to define what those goals are.
Vietnam is a great example: Full of mission creep, failing military objectives and finally everyone figures out that they had fought for nothing. I shudder to think what would have happened if military hadn't been kept on a leash - leash was long but it existed. 

I personally find this kind of "what-iffing" really annoying. It has the suspicious reek of military worship, even though it is not on the surface. People like to talk about all-out wars - but against whom? Against a huge enemy which actually stands a chance of hurting you? Sure, most nations do that every time they face a really great threat. Against some goatherders in the middle of somewhere? Well - just how would you go about it?
So, I'll ask you a question: Just what do you mean in your post? In what circumstances?

[Mika]

I have a couple of comments about this aircraft controversy:

JSF seems to fit well in to current US doctrine, the only problem is that it sounds a bit same like the F-111 fiasco where secretary of defence wanted to make a single air plane for the US Navy and Airforces. The configurations are vastly different, but they might have been able to solve them today when more advanced manufacturing techniques are available. But the stealth capabilities might suffer in the naval climate as there is more water and humidity around the aircraft.

However, I'm slightly afraid that in the long run the advances in stealth technology might turn against US. My understanding is that the stealth technology was necessary to counter Russian radar SAM technology which admittedly has gotten better and better. Current systems have quite high probabilities of kills - which are probably exaggerated but still remarkable, the performance of the recent shoulder launched IR systems (was it SA-13?) have been quite devastating against Allied aircraft (Dropping a flare? Switch to UV!).

According to my understanding, Russians have favored semi-active missiles (cheaper!) with a strong base radar system that transmits guidance commands and have gotten them quite ECM proof. Also thinking that the Russian SARH missiles have longer range than US AMRAAM, a SARH missile will warn US pilot immediately when it is launched thus forcing the US fighter to stop whatever he is doing and start evading the missile which distracts him from firing an AMRAAM. So based on this context stealth was a good idea.

However, now when Russians either develop or "obtain" the manufacturing techniques for stealth materials, they might (read: probably) decide that the aircraft is stealthy enough when say only half hemisphere of the aircraft doesn't have mentionable radar cross section. This will give quite a reduction of cost in the manufacturing, and in the end they will have an aircraft which is stealthy enough to avoid detection from the frontal section (the most important direction), but have them in higher numbers.

Consider a scenario, where US has 450 F/A-22s (real number) distributed around, they might locally quickly run out of fighters when the radar-guided missiles cannot be used and the air combat goes back to within visual range fighting (which is Russia's game plan from the beginning!). And given that Russians have the more advanced IR technology already installed, I do hope US has thought a counter for this also.

Mika

[jr2]

I know these kind of blanket statements are cool and you can always blame "them". Whoever they might be. I'll bet 5$ that ten years from now people will blame Democrats or media for losing the Iraq war and say that if only, if only the military would have had free hands then US would have win. But hey, military is the hand of the nation, not the nation itself - military is supposed to gain a set of goals, not to define what those goals are.
Vietnam is a great example: Full of mission creep, failing military objectives and finally everyone figures out that they had fought for nothing. I shudder to think what would have happened if military hadn't been kept on a leash - leash was long but it existed. 

I personally find this kind of "what-iffing" really annoying. It has the suspicious reek of military worship, even though it is not on the surface. People like to talk about all-out wars - but against whom? Against a huge enemy which actually stands a chance of hurting you? Sure, most nations do that every time they face a really great threat. Against some goatherders in the middle of somewhere? Well - just how would you go about it?
So, I'll ask you a question: Just what do you mean in your post? In what circumstances?

I was speaking of the BS such as "you are not allowed to operate north of xx parallel", these are not created by military commanders; they are created by negotiators in Washington.  Wars should be fought like we did in Japan:  all-out, make 'em surrender, then build them up to be the ally they are today.  Instead, we hamstring ourselves.  In Vietnam, we wouldn't bomb the NV like we should have.  Endless talks & negotiations... we should have told them: "look, you either stop your attacks southwards in 1 week, or we will destroy you."  And then we should have done it. 

Now, we did finally reach a sort of acceptable compromise in that we trained the South Vietnamese to fight for themselves, and pulled most of our troops out, with the promise of matching the SVs with equipment equivalent to whatever the USSR was giving the NVs.  Then Congress cut the funding.  Oopsie.  Way to treat your allies. 

War is not nice, and it would better be avoided, but if you have to do it, do it right.  Pols seem to think the enemy thinks like we do.  No, because if they did, they would not be fighting.  The only thing the enemies seem to understand (Nazis, Commies, Militant Islamics) is overwhelming brute force.  You try to show them mercy or compromise, and they think you are weak, and try to exploit that to their advantage.  Look at Hitler taking over Europe.  USSR expansion in Europe & 3rd world countries.  Need I mention the Radical Islamic terrorists? 

Their reasoning is corrupt; they do not understand that we really want to just get along, or if they do, they don't consider accepting, except as part of a plot for using it for our eventual downfall.  So the only option is to fight until they wave the white flag, and then still keep both eyes on them. 

About Iraq: if we hadn't tried to "get along" with Saddaam for so long, and had taken him out when he first used WMDs (better yet, not give them to him in the first place), we wouldn't have such a mess.  But no, we were trying to use Saddaam to counter Iran, because we didn't want to make war with Iran.  Heck, squash them both. 

I would be all for negotiating and compromise if it could be done with honest good will on both sides.  But think about it.  They attacked/invaded/pillaged/raped/took hostages/blew up innocent civilians, and you think they are going to play nice with you??  Whatever you are smoking must be pretty potent.  Perhaps it started as a misunderstanding, but by the point you get this far into the game it is too late to change the perception; their mind is made up; you can only stop it by force.  You can't be nice to them and hope that they'll come to the conclusion that they were wrong about you.

[Mefustae]

I was speaking of the BS such as "you are not allowed to operate north of xx parallel", these are not created by military commanders; they are created by negotiators in Washington.  Wars should be fought like we did in Japan:  all-out, make 'em surrender, then build them up to be the ally they are today.  Instead, we hamstring ourselves.  In Vietnam, we wouldn't bomb the NV like we should have.  Endless talks & negotiations... we should have told them: "look, you either stop your attacks southwards in 1 week, or we will destroy you."  And then we should have done it.

Rules that that are generally made for a reason. Orders that come down telling soldiers "not to cross such-and-such parallel" aren't arbitrary, they usually have a damn good reason. Wars have rules because wars need rules. Let's not even go into the fundamental problems of comparing the War in the Pacific to the Vietnam War.

It's also worth noting that Vietnam is probably a poor example for what you're trying to argue. There was just too much going on behind the scenes and on the greater political stage for such simple conclusions to be drawn from it.

Now, we did finally reach a sort of acceptable compromise in that we trained the South Vietnamese to fight for themselves, and pulled most of our troops out, with the promise of matching the SVs with equipment equivalent to whatever the USSR was giving the NVs.  Then Congress cut the funding.  Oopsie.  Way to treat your allies.

What exactly are you trying to say? Politicians screw up wars? Yeah, we know. That doesn't mean governments should let their military run riot without any oversight. Wars don't take place in isolated bubbles, everything that occurs during a conflict is closely watched by the rest of the world and can gravely affect global politics.

And, for the record, it's worth noting that - again - the collapse of South Vietnam is a poor example for what (I believe) you're trying to argue. By the time the US finally pulled out, the South had become so hopelessly dependent on American support that collapse was all but inevitable. Aside from the mounting economic and social pressures at home, there was no real way to justify that kind of expenditure on a nation that was doomed to collapse regardless. Moreover, global politics had simply moved beyond the region, it no longer served any real purpose and was most definintely in the interest of US leaders to move on and try to forget the whole thing had happened.

War is not nice, and it would better be avoided, but if you have to do it, do it right.  Pols seem to think the enemy thinks like we do.  No, because if they did, they would not be fighting.  The only thing the enemies seem to understand (Nazis, Commies, Militant Islamics) is overwhelming brute force.  You try to show them mercy or compromise, and they think you are weak, and try to exploit that to their advantage.  Look at Hitler taking over Europe.  USSR expansion in Europe & 3rd world countries.  Need I mention the Radical Islamic terrorists?

Do you honestly believe all war is black and white? Do you honestly believe that there has always been, and always will be, a clearly defined barrier between right and wrong? Good and evil?

Their reasoning is corrupt; they do not understand that we really want to just get along, or if they do, they don't consider accepting, except as part of a plot for using it for our eventual downfall.  So the only option is to fight until they wave the white flag, and then still keep both eyes on them.

Yeah! Blow them to itty-bitty pieces with our biggest and most expensive weapons, that'll show 'em we just want to get along and be friends!

About Iraq: if we hadn't tried to "get along" with Saddaam for so long, and had taken him out when he first used WMDs (better yet, not give them to him in the first place), we wouldn't have such a mess.  But no, we were trying to use Saddaam to counter Iran, because we didn't want to make war with Iran.  Heck, squash them both.

And Iraq relates to this discussion... how?

Okay, now your sentiments of overbearing military worship and delusions of total conquest are really starting to scare me. "Crush them both"? Are you simple or something?! Do you have any idea what the hell you're talking about, or are you just spouting patriotic, "us-against-them" drivel?

I would be all for negotiating and compromise if it could be done with honest good will on both sides.  But think about it.  They attacked/invaded/pillaged/raped/took hostages/blew up innocent civilians, and you think they are going to play nice with you??  Whatever you are smoking must be pretty potent.  Perhaps it started as a misunderstanding, but by the point you get this far into the game it is too late to change the perception; their mind is made up; you can only stop it by force.  You can't be nice to them and hope that they'll come to the conclusion that they were wrong about you.

Who is this phantom enemy you speak of? Who is this group that opposes everything you stand for, wretches at your continued existence, and will stop at nothing to destroy everything and everyone you hold dear? This shadowy collection of sub-human, warmongering evil-doers? Who are these dastardly individuals so that we might set the military loose of all restraints and annihilate them in the name of peace?

I hope you realise the irony here, because that phantom enemy is actually people who think like you.

[Janos]

I know these kind of blanket statements are cool and you can always blame "them". Whoever they might be. I'll bet 5$ that ten years from now people will blame Democrats or media for losing the Iraq war and say that if only, if only the military would have had free hands then US would have win. But hey, military is the hand of the nation, not the nation itself - military is supposed to gain a set of goals, not to define what those goals are.
Vietnam is a great example: Full of mission creep, failing military objectives and finally everyone figures out that they had fought for nothing. I shudder to think what would have happened if military hadn't been kept on a leash - leash was long but it existed. 

I personally find this kind of "what-iffing" really annoying. It has the suspicious reek of military worship, even though it is not on the surface. People like to talk about all-out wars - but against whom? Against a huge enemy which actually stands a chance of hurting you? Sure, most nations do that every time they face a really great threat. Against some goatherders in the middle of somewhere? Well - just how would you go about it?
So, I'll ask you a question: Just what do you mean in your post? In what circumstances?

I was speaking of the BS such as "you are not allowed to operate north of xx parallel", these are not created by military commanders; they are created by negotiators in Washington.  Wars should be fought like we did in Japan:  all-out, make 'em surrender, then build them up to be the ally they are today.  Instead, we hamstring ourselves.  In Vietnam, we wouldn't bomb the NV like we should have.  Endless talks & negotiations... we should have told them: "look, you either stop your attacks southwards in 1 week, or we will destroy you."  And then we should have done it. 

Those rules are in place for a reason. Flight 665 would be one and it's a pretty damn good reason.

Wars are not fought in a vacuum. Wars are part of the greater scheme, whatever that scheme might be - usually to gain a set of goals. I don't know how much to stress this, because you don't apparently understand since you spew the same empty rhetoric again. If and when war follows politics, then restrictions that take place in peace-time politics must and will in some way exist in wartime as well.

As for Vietnam - well yeah, it worked really well in Cambodia! And what with 2,5 - 5 million Vietnamese dead and absolutely nothing gained. And for funny thing is - people saw USA as an occupier so they fought mainly against the US, not for communism. It was quite a shock for some people.

Now, we did finally reach a sort of acceptable compromise in that we trained the South Vietnamese to fight for themselves, and pulled most of our troops out, with the promise of matching the SVs with equipment equivalent to whatever the USSR was giving the NVs.  Then Congress cut the funding.  Oopsie.  Way to treat your allies.   

But well before that Australia and New Zealand had already withdraw, and US had cut their participation in Vietnam? Besides, what the hell was the US even doing there? And if a congress of a country decides something then very well. They cannot be bogged down in these kind of moral dilemmas, since their mission is to defend their own country's goals and in these case they clearly favoured withdrawal.

Someone once pointed at me that this entire "OH NO FIFTH COLUMN" only appeared like 10 years after the Vietnam war. I have no idea if it is true.

War is not nice, and it would better be avoided, but if you have to do it, do it right.  Pols seem to think the enemy thinks like we do.  No, because if they did, they would not be fighting.  The only thing the enemies seem to understand (Nazis, Commies, Militant Islamics) is overwhelming brute force.  You try to show them mercy or compromise, and they think you are weak, and try to exploit that to their advantage.  Look at Hitler taking over Europe.  USSR expansion in Europe & 3rd world countries.  Need I mention the Radical Islamic terrorists? 

Are there only one kind of wars? I have no idea what your Hitler-thing is doing there. First you were talking about Vietnam, then about Hitler. We're dealing with wars in general, do not try to muddy the waters.

Do you think that one set of rules for wars is enough? And if you go with this - well, just who do you bomb?

Their reasoning is corrupt; they do not understand that we really want to just get along, or if they do, they don't consider accepting, except as part of a plot for using it for our eventual downfall.  So the only option is to fight until they wave the white flag, and then still keep both eyes on them. 

holy ****
"we want to live in peace so we bomb them"

About Iraq: if we hadn't tried to "get along" with Saddaam for so long, and had taken him out when he first used WMDs (better yet, not give them to him in the first place), we wouldn't have such a mess.  But no, we were trying to use Saddaam to counter Iran, because we didn't want to make war with Iran.  Heck, squash them both.

And risk oil and possible ammo exchange with Soviet Union (I think we're talking about 1980s)? Cool! 

I would be all for negotiating and compromise if it could be done with honest good will on both sides.  But think about it.  They attacked/invaded/pillaged/raped/took hostages/blew up innocent civilians, and you think they are going to play nice with you??  Whatever you are smoking must be pretty potent.  Perhaps it started as a misunderstanding, but by the point you get this far into the game it is too late to change the perception; their mind is made up; you can only stop it by force.  You can't be nice to them and hope that they'll come to the conclusion that they were wrong about you.

Who? Where? When? What? What are you talking about? Whom are you talking about? What do you mean by this? I see a lot of bad, empty rhetoric which does absolutely nothing to raise the bar of this discussion (this thread is horribly derailed but so it goes). Who are these people you refer to?

[Mars]

Guess what, there's almost never a country bent on total destruction of the entire world, and when there is it's called Germany, the USSR, or the US

[jr2]

Eh.. sorry to bust your bubble, but if the US was bent on the destruction of the world, it would be rubble.  Nucular is da bomb, man!    Seriously, if we didn't have moral considerations, it wouldn't take too much...  We'd just build nuclear proof bunkers and let 'em rip.  The rest of the posts before that will have to wait until I have time to reply in further detail.

[MarkN]

The main reason for avoiding BVR engagements is not to make the enemy make the first move, but to avoid friendly fire incidents, especially when an allied force is in the theatre of operations (allied forces are notoriously bad at informing each other where their forces are).