Flying a less capable fighter ?

[Fonsini]

The costs of modern FJs are becoming prohibitive, even for the wealthier nations. I was reminded of this watching a documentary about the history of the Hunter, which featured a swarm of early F.2s roaring off for a squadron formation flight which all looked very impressive.

Quite how useful 500 Hunters would be in a modern shooting war is difficult to quantify, but it would be a force with some defense in depth through sheer numbers. Today's equivalent would be an aircraft like the Textron Scorpion.

So if you as a front line pilot, were faced with opponents who were flying superior aircraft, albeit fewer of them, would you still be willing to go into combat in them, or is there an expectation that you must have the best kit ?

[Lima Juliet]

The thought of the Britsh military going to war with crap kit would never happen, would it? :rolleyes: Can you just imagine the Daily Fail or Stun's headlines?

Quantity has got a quality all of its own, but only if you are willing to accept 'cannon fodder' like attrition rates. There is no appetite for this in the UK right now; we even get "wrapped around the 'horror of war' axle" when we lost such small numbers as we did in the recent Afghanistan/Iraq skirmishes - we lose more in a single Harris bomber raid in one night than we lost in 8 years on TELIC in Iraq or on HERRICK in Afghanistan!

Just sayin'

LJ :cool:

Figures: In Mar 44 we lost 64 Lancasters and 31 Halifaxes in a single raid on Nuremburg - 670 men. :eek:

[MPN11]

ISTR the Hawk Air Defence role faded quietly away, despite the potential numbers that could be deployed.

[Heathrow Harry]

Good point Leon - don't even think of suggesting loss rates that say the Red Army had in WW2 or anything like UK losses in WW1

But if you are ever really up against it some times people are willing to fight those battles........

[Pontius Navigator]

MPN, AFAICR, the Hawk remained in vogue until the need to defend against mass raids was over.

[Pontius Navigator]

LJ, a good case of the quality of quantity was the Tiger v Sherman one where an exchange ratio of 5:1 only worked with limited numbers of Tigers and unlimited numbers of Shermans.

[Just This Once...]

MPN, AFAICR, the Hawk remained in vogue until the need to defend against mass raids was over.

The last time I tried it in a Hawk was in the early '90s supporting Leuchars and Leeming TacEval with predictable results. Flying in cooperation with an F3 was a non-starter really as just keeping-up was a challenge. So most of the time we operated independently as a GCI visual fighter.

It is quite a sobering exercise flying an aircraft with no radar, no RWR or self-protection miles out over the North Sea. Other than for soaking-up shots it was not easy to see what effect we could provide. At medium level a clean Hawk is reasonably quick and agile, but with 2 draggy missiles and a gun it's not that great at all.

If tasked against something as quick as a Bear it is difficult exercise to get an armed Hawk into the right bit of sky, let alone into missile parameters. Tasked against a simulated inbound Su-27 threat we didn't stand a chance. GCI update rate was just about good enough to defeat the first shots some of the time but beyond that we were toast, usually without ever seeing our adversary.

[Pontius Navigator]

JTO, probably beneath their notice to expend ammunition on. However you might have caused them a moment or two to honour the threat before they swept passed. I understood you went in as extra missiles :) with the F3 until he got contact, thereafter you were looking at his burners and on your own.

[Not_a_boffin]

Quite how useful 500 Hunters would be in a modern shooting war is difficult to quantify, but it would be a force with some defense in depth through sheer numbers. Today's equivalent would be an aircraft like the Textron Scorpion

There's this little problem that lots of cabs requires lots of (expensive) aircrew and consequent training time. Unless one is signed up to the "autonomy will save the day" theory, which is often (but not exclusively) the product of drinking turps......

[Willard Whyte]

Flying in cooperation with an F3 was a non-starter really as just keeping-up was a challenge.

Couldn't the F3 put its burners in for a bit to keep up?

[PDR1]

The UK couldn't afford to operate 500 low-cost fighters. The procurement cost (say £10bn-ish) of the aircraft is irrelevant - 500 fighters is (say) 50 squadrons, which means ~20 airfields with base maintenance facilities, supply, fuel never mind the drivers and their initial/currency training.

Fast jet pilots are supposed to have something like a minimum of 160hrs/yr (with the RAF working to a higher figure) to remain current aren't they? So 500 sortiable aircraft means 500 pilots, which means 80,000 fast jet operating hours per year just for currency (never mind ops). Even if we just take the manufacturers figures the direct operating costs (at ~£2500/flg-hr) would be over £200m/yr. Then factor in the additional 20 airfields, the drivers, the airworthiness organisation to support them etc etc.

This is way more than Mr & Mrs Taxpayer are prepared to fork out for the Royal Airshow Force.

PDR

[NutLoose]

If tasked against something as quick as a Bear it is difficult exercise to get an armed Hawk into the right bit of sky, let alone into missile parameters. Tasked against a simulated inbound Su-27 threat we didn't stand a chance. GCI update rate was just about good enough to defeat the first shots some of the time but beyond that we were toast, usually without ever seeing our adversary.

http://www.pprune.org/images/statusicon/user_online.gif So what we need to do is ditch all these manned fighters and go over to an all missile defence system. Ahhh, good old Duncan Sandy was right :p

To be honest if Russia did invade, one feels the pitiful air defence we could put up would last days at the most.
It's not just the attrition that is the only worry, it is the fact that unlike WW2 you do not have the facilities to replace those lost in any meaningful time frame.

[Pontius Navigator]

C195, you assume an integrated civil/military infrastructure. Set up a small air base and your local council will be there with a rates bill for starters. Then there is the noise factor and NIMBY. We produced a bomber capable of operating off highway strips. the only highway it ever took off from was a motorway before it was opened. Imagine the outcry if we closed several motorways for an annual exercise.

The Cypriots have a highway strip, possibly more than one. The Swiss certainly do but I believe their robust neutrality has national support, as indeed the Swedes do. As far as neutrality goes, the Irish clearly don't feel the same imperatives.

[PDR1]

We produced a bomber capable of operating off highway strips. the only highway it ever took off from was a motorway before it was opened. Imagine the outcry if we closed several motorways for an annual exercise.


You'd need to have a 2-mile stretch of motorway that was free of contraflows, so thast would make it more of a once-per-decade than an annual exercise...

PDR

[RRNemesis]

Ahh Fledermaus not so much a reinforcement plan but an excellent method of getting lots of QWIs and QFIs to Germany for a beer calls!:D

[Pontius Navigator]

C195, given the gap between Leuchars as was and Wattisham we did use Teeside and Newcastle but mixing military unscheduled traffic with scheduled civvie traffic was never easy.

[Wetstart Dryrun]

Aaaahh..... One of my best days out was part of MFF ( I was 'Tiger slow'). Tiger fast had run out of petrol burning up to attack a cranbury which turned a bit. i had an hour or so to potter about the north sea, just me, neatishead and a few targets.

It was a crap night out, cos the bar was shut.

this was 35 years ago.

...what does BVR stand for?

[SASless]

If Russia invades....shy of a going out of business one time nuclear barrage....the UK would be better served to offer a Full Honors State Visit to the Russian Head of State for his presentation of the Surrender Document for signature.

It is not like the RAF and RN will have a hope in Hell in defeating the Russians.

How they could mount such an invasion without NATO nations being able to see it coming or themselves being taken is impossible.

Just as in WWII....it will take a while for the USA to get there.

95% of our Army Brigades are not combat ready, 60% of of our Naval aircraft are not flyable, and the USAF is in dire straits as well.

The question is how capable are the Russians compared to NATO and other Nations they would have to go up against?



So what we need to do is ditch all these manned fighters and go over to an all missile defence system. Ahhh, good old Duncan Sandy was right :p

To be honest if Russia did invade, one feels the pitiful air defence we could put up would last days at the most.
It's not just the attrition that is the only worry, it is the fact that unlike WW2 you do not have the facilities to replace those lost in any meaningful time frame.

[PDR1]

Shame that a fleet of single engine fighters spread around the country could not just utilise some of our less busy civil airports and infrastructure. Would make more sense than having a lot of expensive assets at one or two major airbases. As an extreme example, having 2-4 up in Shetland would certainly reduce the response times from threats from the North.

But a detachment of 2-4 aircraft at a satellite base still needs an engineering establishment to maintain them and load stores, a weapons dump (presumably with the odd guard of two, ubless G4S are available!), a full sortie-generation capability (crew rooms, briefing facilities, mission-data generators) a communications facility of some sort etc etc. Speading the available air assets over a larger number of bases makes them MORE expensive to operate rather than less - the same reason why 2-SHAR detachements onto frigates using skyhooks was a complete non-starter.

Again, I stress that whether the actual aircraft are Typhoons or Grippens (or even Hawks) won't be the major cost-driver here.

PDR

[NutLoose]

[quote] Originally Posted by Pontius Navigator http://www.pprune.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/590911-flying-less-capable-fighter.html#post9675635)
We produced a bomber capable of operating off highway strips. the only highway it ever took off from was a motorway before it was opened. Imagine the outcry if we closed several motorways for an annual exercise.

Ahh yes and carrying really light dummy bombs I believe, ( told to me by one of the armourers involved.)

[Pontius Navigator]

...what does BVR stand for?
BVR=All targets Hawks didn't see.

[Arclite01]

SASless

I think the Russians are largely in a similar situation with many older assets with questionable serviceability.

What they do have, is a larger pool of assets to draw from. Which means they can nearly always put up an airframe to fulfill the task. We on the other hand, have no spare capability, so when something goes U/S the game is up.

I do wonder if the Russians decided to do a multiple points attack concurrently, whether we would actually be able to cover them all.................

Arc

[Arclite01]

Another thought..............

Actually what is the USAF commitment to UKADR ?? - are the F15's at Lakenheath committed in any way to interceptions ?? - or is it just down to the RAF ?

Arc

[Pontius Navigator]

Arclite, we more of less agree, I would say evenly matched. Add General Winter and the SU27s affinity to each other :)

[Herod]

Yes but, short of going nuclear, they would still need boots on the ground, and a lot of them. When God (or whatever you believe in) created the North Sea, he knew what he was doing.

[ShotOne]

Im sure the "less busy civil airports" will be grateful to you, C195 for your scheme to bring them new business. Unfortunately even the less busy civil airports have more movements than many RAF bases these days.

And (yawn!) yet another tale of how we'd last two minutes against the terrible Russian bear. NATO has enormous superiority over Russia and we're fully paid-up members. Why the constant scaremongering?

[SASless]

God may have given you the North Sea but the Parliament dis-armed the Home Guard!

Pikes look cool but against AK-47's....they are very range limited!

[BossEyed]

...but the Parliament dis-armed the Home Guard!

Pikes look cool ...

Don't tell him that! :E

[NutLoose]

..what does BVR stand for?

Beyond Visual Range

[NutLoose]

It is not like the RAF and RN will have a hope in Hell in defeating the Russians.
Just as well, all those prisoners would be a logistics nightmare, heck we cannot even cope when we get 300 child refugees, what chance with three million odd Russian prisoners, you would never get them all into Knightsbridge, even with overspill into Belgravia... ;)

[PDR1]

Don't tell him that! :E

Your name vill alzo go on ze liszt...

PDR

[Herod]

Look at the Thread "Rebirth of Conscription" post 18. A couple of million middle-aged men could make a difference.

[ORAC]

Another thought..............

Actually what is the USAF commitment to UKADR ?? - are the F15's at Lakenheath committed in any way to interceptions ?? - or is it just down to the RAF ?

None, yes.

NATO commitment is elsewhere.

[mahogany bob]

Call me stupid but when was the last serious dogfight?


Korean war perhaps?


So- why not have a non state of the art médium to large aircraft - equipped with state of the art air to air missiles and control with the ability to loiter for long periods?


Surely this would provide maximum defence for mimimum cost?

[theonewhoknows]

Blimey, you're a genius! Why hasn't anyone else thought of that?

[Willard Whyte]

A bt like this, as envisioned almost 50 years ago?

Douglas F6D Missileer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_F6D_Missileer)

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/2c/Douglas_F6D_Missileer_artists_impression.jpg

[Pontius Navigator]

MB, we did. We opted for an interceptor over a fighter 30 years ago, then we opted for a multi-role fighter. :)

[mahogany bob]

Q. Is our 11g (sorry 4g ) supersonic Typhoon able to evade a well aimed modern missile?

I was thinking of a less agile missile platform - perhaps the good old B747 Jumbo - there must be hundreds lying around the 'boneyards' !!
In the meantime why not strap a few missiles on our Sentry , Rivet Joints and P8s ?

Back in the 70s I remember some of us questioned Vectacs where a Nimrod MR would detect and shadow enemy shipping for hours ( days ) before Vectoring a pair of Buccs - who probably needed AAR out and back - in for the the kill.
Why not fit a few missiles to the Nimrod and press a few switches?

We were laughed at by the 'experts' but low and behold shortly later the Falklands conflict saw Nimrod crews rushing around practice bombing - missiles - albeit rearward facing Sidewinders were fitted post haste!
( I am sure PN will furnish the details or denials ! )
War is the mother of invention but would we have time?

Realise that positive i/d would be a problem but when the balloon goes up every potential threat should be taken out at say 150 miles before it is too late!

[PDR1]

This is the flawed "aerial battleship" concept which has been floated [sorry!] several times over the last hundred years, most notably by Seversky and Disney in the film "Victory through Air Power" (1943). It is flawed because it overlooks the detail that when the "battleship" has missile range on the fighters, the fighters also have missile range on the battleship. And the fighters are far more able to evade than the aerial dreadnought.

The idea worked with ships (for a while) because it was technically possible to armour ships so that they could survive incoming fire. It isn't technically possible to equip a large aircraft with missile-resistance armour or fit it with any anti-missile systems that can't also be fitted to the smaller, more agile fighters.

But this idea started from the premise that the RAF needed something to reduce costs. I struggle to see how operating a fleet of post-life 747s is ever going to be a low-cost solution, and also struggle to see how the integration and clearance of BVR missile systems onto such airframes (together with the required sensors and systems) is going to be "cheap".

Yes, studies have been done (usually on a UOR basis) for fitting short-range dogfight missiles onto aircraft like Nimrods, but this was solely for last-ditch self-defence where these aircraft might need to operate inside hostile air cover and well beyond the range of any potential fighter escort.

IIRC the nimrod bombing studies in 1982 were simply a matter of the RAF looking at all the possible aircraft they might be able to place over the Falklands (or even Argentina itself) that had a bomb bay. This ultimately led to the Black Buck missions, although the Nimrod fraternity remained sore that they weren't allowed to have a go as well...

PDR

[Just This Once...]

Bob, I think you misunderstand how AAMs and the aircraft bolted to them work. The ability to give your missile energy and open-up its effective envelope whilst being able to manoeuvre and reduce or defeat the missiles from the opposing aircraft are pillars of BVR air combat.

Large slow aircraft do not manoeuvre well and do not fire missiles particularly far. BVR capable fighters wear the opponent's missile engagement envelope around them. Their goal is to make this as small as possible and keep the opposing force out of this bubble, hopefully whilst bringing their weapon system to bear. This is not benign flying from a missile truck.

[mahogany bob]

Missile technology must be improving on an annual if not monthly basis??

I find it difficult to understand why a large ac could not carry larger more powerful AAMs which basic common sense tells me would give them a longer range than the smaller missiles carried by agile fighters??

Please enlighten me!

[Wetstart Dryrun]

Have you not seen 'Star Wars'? ... the Death Star didn't do much for Darth and his mates.

X-wing gets it every time.

[Just This Once...]

The constants like the atmosphere remain the same. If you want a missile to go further then it needs more thrust and more fuel and it just gets bigger. When you want a missile to be able to track from further away the seeker tends to get bigger too.

Bigger missiles have more drag and unfortunately drag squares with speed so flying faster becomes a problem. Why the need to go faster, well if you double the range the time of flight increases to the point where your adversary has the opportunity to be somewhere else by the time the missile gets there. Pushing a missile such as Meteor to Mach 4 is not an easy task, getting a bigger missile to something close to Mach 6 to 8 through thick atmosphere is a whole different ballgame.

Big fast missiles have a massive problem when it comes to end-game manoeuvring. Very high speeds requires very high g for terminal manoeuvring. High g requires strong missiles with powerful controls, adding more weight and drag.

Achieving viable large long range AAMs is not easy and rapidly becomes self-defeating. The closest we have come to this is with Phoenix, but even this large missile had limitations at range. It didn't require much manoeuvre by the target aircraft to reduce its effective range by a surprising amount.

Launching from a slow (below M1.0) aircraft will handicap an AAM; just to compensate for this would require a bigger missile motor and the death-spiral of missile dynamics begins. For the adversary this large slow aircraft will artificially improve the kinematics of his own missiles - even in a pure tail-chase his missiles will go further.

As it is it is not always possible to keep large aircraft out of harms way, even if they are set back from their fighter screen by 100 to 200nm. An old high and fast M2.5 adversary leaves a very small shot opportunity even for an F-15 / AMRAAM. Pushing large aircraft further forward would not give them a viable escape option.

My final point regarding slow-speed missile trucks is just that - slow speed. It is totally reliant on the threat coming to it with zero ability to go to the threat. Try chasing down a car on a bicycle - we can all think of scenarios where the bicycle might win, but it's not a great way to go to war.

[SASless]

Call me stupid but when was the last serious dogfight?

I shall not comply with your request....but will remind you there were some serious dogfights during a period of unpleasantness over North Vietnam.

One example....Three Migs in one engagement...then being shot down by a SAM and rescued from the South China Sea by Helicopter.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSKWV1LxTks

[AR1]

Beyond Visual Range

Thers some Irony here that I just put my reading glasses on..

[PDR1]

Call me stupid but when was the last serious dogfight?


Dogfights are a feature of symetrical (or near-symetrical) air warfare. The last example of such was probably vietnam or one of the arab-israeli conflicts. You might include the Falklands, but I'm not sure it qualifies because whilst the aircraft were comparable the argenitian aircrft were operating at the limit of their range and couldn't afford to get entangled in dogfights for long. I don't know enough about events between india and pakistan to know whether they may have examples that post-date this.

The recent engagements have ben very much asymmetrical in terms of air-action. Gulf War 1 *could* have been a symmetrical fight, but they declined the invite.

But the fact that our recent air-actions have been asymmetric doesn't mean that all future air actions will be the same, so it would be a mistake to base RAF doctrine on just the recent events - the same mistake that was made by Sandys and the same mistake that necessitated the Mirromar school. There are lots of very capable dogfighting aircraft out there, and Murphy says that we're bound to come into conflict with some of them sooner or later, so we must sustain the required skills and equipment to do so.

€0.03 supplied,

PDR

[NutLoose]

Why Boeing's Design For A 747 Full Of Cruise Missiles Makes Total Sense (http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/why-boeings-design-for-a-747-full-of-cruise-missiles-ma-1605150371)

http://www.bisbos.com/air_canc_vc10.html

[NutLoose]

As for carrying lots of armament

Now if they were sidewinders LOL

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0b/F89-D_Scorpion_Air_Force_interceptor_1958.jpg/745px-F89-D_Scorpion_Air_Force_interceptor_1958.jpg

original nose mounted rockets

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/377/693/1600/F-94%20FFAR.2.jpg

Nothing like overkill

http://images.yuku.com.s3.amazonaws.com/image/jpeg/d0f3549495ded06364b599855a6daf39e05b8c1.jpg

and if that wasn't enough, you could always tack a few under the wing

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/b7/dc/03/b7dc03f97341fd09f0b251f80accc1d9.jpg

[PDR1]

Why Boeing's Design For A 747 Full Of Cruise Missiles Makes Total Sense (http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/why-boeings-design-for-a-747-full-of-cruise-missiles-ma-1605150371)

Bisbos.com :: Aircraft : Cancelled : VC10 (http://www.bisbos.com/air_canc_vc10.html)

Those are air-surface rather than air-air weapons, of course...

PDR

[Pontius Navigator]

MB, sadly after my time and no doubt Dick Larkin got the honour June 21, 2012s.

[NutLoose]

PDR, I realise that, but half of the battle is having a credible and feasible launch system in place. One should imagine you could adapt it.

[mahogany bob]

Obviously a subject very close to a lot of hearts and discussed ad nausiam in crewrooms all over the globe.
Thanks for all the interesting info.


However this doesn't mean the subject should be abandoned - just been mugging up on the latest-Nov 2016 info - Chinese LRAAM -300nm kill??? ok make that 150nm or less but with all the built in goodies certainly a potent threat.


IF this works and could be fitted to a large ac your agile low endurance fighter might not even get close??

[Heathrow Harry]

I'd have thought you have to be damn sure who is out there before firing a BVR missile............ and that they are real and not some electronic ghost..........

[itsnotthatbloodyhard]

However this doesn't mean the subject should be abandoned - just been mugging up on the latest-Nov 2016 info - Chinese LRAAM -300nm kill??? ok make that 150nm or less but with all the built in goodies certainly a potent threat.


IF this works and could be fitted to a large ac your agile low endurance fighter might not even get close??

Unless one day someone could somehow invent a fighter that doesn't show up on radar. You'd be in a world of hurt in your B747 missile carrier if anyone ever managed that. ;)

[chopper2004]

Call me stupid but when was the last serious dogfight?


Korean war perhaps?


So- why not have a non state of the art médium to large aircraft - equipped with state of the art air to air missiles and control with the ability to loiter for long periods?


Surely this would provide maximum defence for mimimum cost?
Falklands perhaps? When we had the SHAR and GR3 toting AIM-9 lol

cheers

[Pontius Navigator]

I'd have thought you have to be damn sure who is out there before firing a BVR missile............ and that they are real and not some electronic ghost..........
Interesting point. In other scenarios RoE require either two electronic sources or visual observation by a competent observer. That would imply a single source radar detection would not be adequate, however . . .

[CoodaShooda]

Our local lads in their trusty F/A-18A's will shortly be having sport with a visiting squadron of F-22's.

I'll let you know how they get on. :E

[Bigpants]

On the Front Cover

Only the Spirit of attack borne in a brave heart will bring success to any fighter aircraft no matter how highly developed it may be.

Galland

Enough said?

[KG86]

When was the last dogfight?

Well I can confirm that at least one took place in Op Desert Storm in 1991, as I watched it on the downlink from AWACS.

It was between a US F15 and an Iraqi Mig 29. I was not involved in the upper air war, but I was led to believe that it was a ROE thing. The issue was that the biggest danger from an Air to Air engagement was from a blue on blue accident. So fighters could not use BVR weapons, but had to have a vis ident to positively confirm that their target was hostile.

The engagement lasted many minutes, with both ac manoeuvring harshly. Eventually, the F15 got an ident and a solution, and the Mig 29 symbol extinguished.

There may have been others.

[Lyneham Lad]

Perhaps these might fit the bill...
India rolls out new Advanced Hawk aircraft (http://www.janes.com/article/67817/aero-india-2017-india-rolls-out-new-advanced-hawk-aircraft)

The smart weapons-enabled Advanced Hawk prototype, scheduled to undertake its maiden test flight in the United Kingdom in March, features an upgraded wing for greater agility and 13% enhanced thrust in its Full Authority Digital Engine Control (FADEC) Rolls-Royce Adour Mk951 powerpack.

[Bevo]

KG86: but I was led to believe that it was a ROE thing. The issue was that the biggest danger from an Air to Air engagement was from a blue on blue accident. So fighters could not use BVR weapons, but had to have a vis ident to positively confirm that their target was hostile.

Actually the ROE required two separate forms of ID. The F-15s had the on-board systems to allow this and as a result there were several F-15 BVR missile launches during Desert Storm

[melmothtw]

Obviously not an issue for the Draken L-159 / A-4 pilots that scored 7 F-35 kills during Red Flag:

Via Twitter

More Red Flag 17-1 info, courtesy of Harris:
-105 air to air kills
-7 losses
-dropped 51 simulated weapons against SAMs, killed 49 of them

[NutLoose]

So fighters could not use BVR weapons, but had to have a vis ident to positively confirm that their target was hostile.

Same as happened in Vietnam, resulting in the requirement for the Phantom to have a gun fitted.

[Mogwi]

Dogfights are a feature of symetrical (or near-symetrical) air warfare. The last example of such was probably vietnam or one of the arab-israeli conflicts. You might include the Falklands, but I'm not sure it qualifies because whilst the aircraft were comparable the argenitian aircrft were operating at the limit of their range and couldn't afford to get entangled in dogfights for long. I don't know enough about events between india and pakistan to know whether they may have examples that post-date this.

The recent engagements have ben very much asymmetrical in terms of air-action. Gulf War 1 *could* have been a symmetrical fight, but they declined the invite.

But the fact that our recent air-actions have been asymmetric doesn't mean that all future air actions will be the same, so it would be a mistake to base RAF doctrine on just the recent events - the same mistake that was made by Sandys and the same mistake that necessitated the Mirromar school. There are lots of very capable dogfighting aircraft out there, and Murphy says that we're bound to come into conflict with some of them sooner or later, so we must sustain the required skills and equipment to do so.

€0.03 supplied,

PDR

Actually the Brits and Argies were very closely matched for gas. On the worst day, I had 2 mins on CAP before Bingo. Luckily the death ray (Blue Fox) scared a few bogies off. A4s were often refuelled on the way in and sometimes on the way home as well.

Lowest fuel on recovery for me was 2 mins to dry tanks - luckily I had got rid of drag (2xAIM9L and 120x30mm) during the sortie! Mind you, it was my first ever night recovery, in peeing rain, under the duty CB. Beer tasted good though.

[PDR1]

I happily concede the point!

PDR