norm from canada Posted December 30, 2010 Share Posted December 30, 2010 Just wondering if USAF is still flying fluid four or has now adapted the USN's leuce deuce formation? Now that the F-22 is in service, they must have changed something due to it's revolutionary manueuverbility and avionics, right? Also wondering what formation the RAF flies. TIA Norm Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Litvyak Posted December 30, 2010 Share Posted December 30, 2010 I assume by now they've switched to whatever is most suitable for the "shoot from as far away as possible and pray we don't get into knife-fight range against a Flanker" mission profile. ;) (I'm teasing, lighten up!!) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Murph Posted December 30, 2010 Share Posted December 30, 2010 Just wondering if USAF is still flying fluid four or has now adapted the USN's leuce deuce formation? Now that the F-22 is in service, they must have changed something due to it's revolutionary manueuverbility and avionics, right? The USAF stopped flying "fluid four" as a tactical formation back in the mid-70s. Regards, Murph Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TheHarleyMan2 Posted December 30, 2010 Share Posted December 30, 2010 With all the countries we are having conflicts in, there is "NO AIR FORCE" for us to fight. So generally 2 planes picking targets from afar then boom.....you get he idea. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Bigasshammm Posted December 30, 2010 Share Posted December 30, 2010 Fire... Forget... Repeat... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
11bee Posted December 30, 2010 Share Posted December 30, 2010 Modern air combat ops (fast jet / bomber) today consist of the following: Take off, fly to patrol station and circle, go to tanker, return to station and circle, go to tanker again, return to station and circle, return to base and land. Note the successful completion of yet another combat mission in log book. Once in a blue moon, one will enter a GPS coordinate provided by someone on the ground and pickle off a JDAM or two. As far as air combat tactics, I would think that they are a bit more complex than some have mentioned. One of these days, we just might go up against someone with better air defense capability than the cavemen we are fighting in Afghanistan and I would assume that contingency is being actively practiced. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
GreyGhost Posted December 30, 2010 Share Posted December 30, 2010 Modern air combat ops (fast jet / bomber) today consist of the following:Take off, fly to patrol station and circle, go to tanker, return to station and circle, go to tanker again, return to station and circle, return to base and land. Note the successful completion of yet another combat mission in log book. Once in a blue moon, one will enter a GPS coordinate provided by someone on the ground and pickle off a JDAM or two. As far as air combat tactics, I would think that they are a bit more complex than some have mentioned. One of these days, we just might go up against someone with better air defense capability than the cavemen we are fighting in Afghanistan and I would assume that contingency is being actively practiced. TOPGUN and Red Flag ... Gregg Quote Link to post Share on other sites
sanmigmike Posted December 30, 2010 Share Posted December 30, 2010 Modern air combat ops (fast jet / bomber) today consist of the following:Take off, fly to patrol station and circle, go to tanker, return to station and circle, go to tanker again, return to station and circle, return to base and land. Note the successful completion of yet another combat mission in log book. Once in a blue moon, one will enter a GPS coordinate provided by someone on the ground and pickle off a JDAM or two. As far as air combat tactics, I would think that they are a bit more complex than some have mentioned. One of these days, we just might go up against someone with better air defense capability than the cavemen we are fighting in Afghanistan and I would assume that contingency is being actively practiced. Heard a talk by a guy that shot down one or two bad guy airplanes less than 15 years ago. He and his wing man were doing race track patterns. They and an AWACS were tracking two bad guy aircraft. The bad guys crossed a line in the sky. The two "good guys" were told to launch a couple of weapons...they did. Both bad guys were shot down...after they checked all the data it seems as if one of the good guys got both of them. No cranking and banking...not sure they even actually had a visual on the kills. Made it about as exciting as the usual NASA launch. Of course as a pilot I have to admit that I enjoy having little excitement when I fly so I assume for the good guys it was about perfect. Did race track patterns in the sky, shot down two other aircraft and came home... I know I am making a bit light of it but really the object was to shoot down two other aircraft and they did it and to be honest looking at it from the outside it was boring. I am sure that the stress level in the cockpit what with all the possible things that might happen was a bit different. But no fur ball, no cranking and banking or any of that. You could have set up a 737 to do the job. A friend of mine that used to fly the F-18 said that if in a real fight you get close enough to see your target, to have to maneuver...you have done something wrong and you are well on your way to coming in second. All that time spent practicing that cranking and banking is kind of a worse case thing. But I get the impression that cranking and banking as you try to deliver something to the ground isn't obsolete...still got to watch out for that golden BB among other things. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Murph Posted December 30, 2010 Share Posted December 30, 2010 ...not sure they even actually had a visual on the kills. Both of the fireballs were visble in "Claw's" HUD tape. Regards, Murph Quote Link to post Share on other sites
GreyGhost Posted December 30, 2010 Share Posted December 30, 2010 (edited) I have a documentary made in the 80s called "The Real Top Guns" and at one point they are interviewing an F-14 crew on what their ultimate kills would be. The RIO says he'd love to be able to do a 100 mile Phoenix Missile shot ... The pilot chuckles and says, "Would John Wayne take a 100 mile missile shot, no, he want's to get in close and go for a guns kill ..." ... B) Gregg Edited December 30, 2010 by GreyGhost Quote Link to post Share on other sites
sanmigmike Posted December 30, 2010 Share Posted December 30, 2010 Both of the fireballs were visble in "Claw's" HUD tape.Regards, Murph No doubt you are right...I guess I should have said no visual contact with the aircraft before the shots. A fireball, depending upon size, can be seen a heck of long way away. Thanks for the correction. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
norm from canada Posted December 31, 2010 Author Share Posted December 31, 2010 The bad guys crossed a line in the sky. The two "good guys" were told to launch a couple of weapons...they did. No cranking and banking...not sure they even actually had a visual on the kills. Made it about as exciting as the usual NASA launch. Of course as a pilot I have to admit that I enjoy having little excitement when I fly so I assume for the good guys it was about perfect. Did race track patterns in the sky, shot down two other aircraft and came home...But no fur ball, no cranking and banking or any of that. You could have set up a 737 to do the job. Well I guess that's it then; But if that's the case why is everyone still making fighters that have ACM capabilities built in? Why do we need Red Flag, Top Gun, Maple Flag, etc... AND why is Boeing's 737 not the newest fighter jet in the every nations inventory? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
GreyGhost Posted December 31, 2010 Share Posted December 31, 2010 Well I guess that's it then; But if that's the case why is everyone still making fighters that have ACM capabilities built in? Why do we need Red Flag, Top Gun, Maple Flag, etc... AND why is Boeing's 737 not the newest fighter jet in the every nations inventory? Because, once you ain't got it, you find out you still need it ... :lol: Gregg Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Scooby Posted December 31, 2010 Share Posted December 31, 2010 If you want to die do the useless Cobra! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
C-130CrewChief Posted December 31, 2010 Share Posted December 31, 2010 Airborne SAMs! Kinda... I seem to recall AIM-9s on a Nimrod during the Falklands war. The recent Nimrod kit does have AIM-9 included! Curt Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Murph Posted December 31, 2010 Share Posted December 31, 2010 Well I guess that's it then; But if that's the case why is everyone still making fighters that have ACM capabilities built in? Why do we need Red Flag, Top Gun, Maple Flag, etc... AND why is Boeing's 737 not the newest fighter jet in the every nations inventory? Numerous reasons; the first is that BVR engagements can require high speeds and high Gs. Second, fighters are expected to last for at least thirty years now, and nobody can predict the shape of wars in that time. Third, these fighters are designed to operate in an IADS, which means SAMs and AAA also; try that in a 737. Fourth, sometimes missiles miss or a mistake is made and the engagement turns into a WVR fight. Fifth, it makes a hell of a lot more sense to train for the worst case scenario and then find out the actual combat is easier. Regards, Murph Quote Link to post Share on other sites
norm from canada Posted December 31, 2010 Author Share Posted December 31, 2010 Thanks for taking the time to explain it all Murph. So I guess to summerize it all, it's just racetrack patterns in the sky with air to air refuelings to break the monotony until a bogie shows up and trhen ....WHAM, the guy gets gang-banged by everybody in the area. Now, assumming that a conflict takes place where the bad giys actually have a credible air force that poses a threat (ie. Iran or North Korea) I guess then the tactic would be a wall of F-15's, F-18's, F-22's, etc..... that would fly in front of the strikers (ie. F-16's, F-15e, UAVs) to create a zone of death where anything that dares to pop up in front dies while the launching fighters then perform a F-pole manuever and return to their assigned position in the wall of death? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
RockyController Posted December 31, 2010 Share Posted December 31, 2010 :) Doubt that will be answered for just about every reason known to mankind.... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
sanmigmike Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 (edited) I hope for a lot of reasons we don't get that answer. But I'd guess that strictly for air to air the idea is to avoid the cranking and banking and end the fight before it gets anywhere near that. Kind of like personal defense...if you got a gun don't get into a knife fight. But you still need the cranking and banking if things don't work out the way you hope and I'd say that cranking and banking is still vital in the mud moving line of work. The golden BB still might get the latest and greatest. Plus flying around a modified 737 just would not do much for the fighter pilot image... All kidding aside fights are lost by assuming that things will happen the way you want/plan/hope. Just like a lot of other things in life...you spend a lot of time training for the worst case. (In 20,000 hours of flying I never lost an engine right at V1 but I did a V1 cut every check ride). Edited January 2, 2011 by sanmigmike Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.