What would John Boyd have thought of the JSF?
 

Gentlemen (and respectfully a few ladies who wear speed jeans)
am reading this:
I can highly recommend it - a superb biography of a man I had never heard of - yet a legend in the fighter pilot community for having developed energy management theory - a contemporary also of another legend - Pierre Sprey.
I wonder what Boyd would have made of the F-35?
Would be intrigued to hear your thoughts - I suspect the likes of Spaz will have strong views?
I assume much of it's EMT profile would be somewhat sensitive information?
It appears to be a bit of a compromise, not much of a dog fighter, and I lack the expertise to make a truly informed judgment.
But then maybe the turning, shooting fight is an anachronism today?
Discuss...

It is when you sacrifice your perfomance for other attributes.

Boyd
 

I agree completely - it's a superb book and describes in detail just what a genius Boyd was and how much he pissed off the VSOs in the USAF by proving just how wrong they were. Sadly, he ended up being more appreciated by the USMC than the USAF. A great book about a great man.

He would probably turn around and around in his grave. :}

Very good Cows - he'd probably complete an outside roll in his grave :}
Very interesting though - I know this is a source of eternal debate among fighter pilots.
You read so much about BVR kills, and how amazing missiles are now.
But from what this book says a jet flown or positioned in the right way could use energy to out manouvere a missile - certainly in the past.
Is that still true for today's air to air missiles?
I'd just assumed that the days of the dog-fight and guns kills were gone forever, and that a modern air to air missile would just follow you round the sky until it killed you.
But I see the JSF will carry a gun, which from what I can see online, seems to be primarily intended for ground attack?
Can anyone provide any further insight?

More like an OODA "loop" Cows! Boyd was a master and much loved by my son and his colleagues during his 12 years in F15C's . Please read Grant Hammond's Harmon Memorial lecture from 2012 which final recognizes his massive contribution to fighter tactics. The lecture heads with this:


I would like to end this lecture the way I ended The Mind of War— as a salute to John Boyd and a charge to all of you. "[T]he integrity of the man and his ideas should be celebrated. We would all do well to emulate Boyd’s dictum: ‘Ask for my loyalty, I’ll give you my honesty. Ask for my honesty, you’ll have my loyalty.’ Rest in peace, John.

Yes, the OODA loop which has relevance in so many environments, not just that of a fighter engagement. :D:D

90% of the combat missions flown by US fighter aircraft in the past 23 years were missions that Boyd & Sprey said fighters shouldn't be designed to do... so forgive me if I think they were well below the level of "genius".

Everyone gets one or two moments of brilliance, but pretending that that makes everything they say or do infallible in a major mistake.

Out of curiosity - what kind of missions do you mean?
Ground attack, close air support etc?

What would John Boyd have thought of the JSF?
 

In simple terms? how about hand the keys back?

I suspect that John Boyd would have embraced the technology offered in the F35. With the first O of the OODA loop done by advanced and possibly remote sensors, the second O done automatically by the aircraft, with suggestions for D thrown in, the man-in-the-loop is left to concentrate on the D and A. That is the part of the process in which the human brain still has the edge.

Perhaps Boyd would have though the F35 to be the victory of the 'Be-ers' over the 'Do-ers'...? So many careers have been made on the back of it.

I agree that he would likely have appreciated the information edge that the technology in the F35 gives - but then that's really what the F22 was all about. He would probably despair at the cost and compromises in other areas. But, much as we respect his drive and determination (and his refusal to profit from his wisdom) we must put the 'ghetto Colonel' into context. His battles were with a nuclear dominated USAF with whiz kids telling everyone that BVR was all that mattered with radars and AAMs. The world is more nuanced now - though I'm sure Boyd would realise that and Orientate himself accordingly.

Google 'a discourse in winning and losing' and be prepared to write off the rest of the day.....

Saw a TV programme on the F35. The bit that baffled my would be how do you use a 'touch screen' when pulling 'g'? I have enough trouble with a screen sitting in my armchair.

The more I read about air-to-air missiles, BVR, medium range and short range, seems to suggest that even those with thrust vectoring can in certain circumstances still can be out-manouvered by a jet.
Very interesting.
The impression that once it's off the rail - you're dead - is far from accurate.
What is surprising as I read the Boyd book is that he is absolutely scathing of both the F-111, and the Phantom in relation to EMT - two jets that I think are just the pooches parts.
Also a revelation that the F-14 was the Navy's alternative to the F-111.
The politicking and wastage of money and resources at the Pentagon is just absolutely staggering.
Well known of course, but to read about it in a book like this somehow brought it home - what a byzantine bureaucracy.

Can you give a single example of a pilot visually acquiring an inbound weapon that was out of the boost or sustain phase and successfully employing a last ditch kinematic manoeuvre to defeat it?

(In the contemporary arena of Adder, Mica, Iris-T, Archer or 9X would add weight to the argument.)

No - not off the top of my head.
As I said, I'm not an expert.
But then until recently, if you'd asked me if a supersonic guns kill was possible, I would have said no.
Yet it happened in Vietnam.
If I'm wrong, then please feel free to tell me - I'm not a fast jet pilot.

I'm not convinced, although I recently flew with a bunch who preach and practise anti missile defence for the situation when you see a missile inbound in time to do something about it.

It would mean seeing an inbound weapon that's incredibly small and at or about the number.

There is value (obviously) in giving the inbound weapon a kinematic and seeker head problem followed by an attempt to get outside the lethal radius of the warhead. But even if you did manage it once (which I personally consider unlikely) you would be poorly placed.

However we are talking about the end game here. An awful lot of BVR shots will be defeated kinematically by aborting (not necessarily the correct term) at the right point, as they will have been fired assuming that the target will continue in a certain way. i.e. Only manoeuvre so much.

Cheers,

Orca.

Orca, "seeing" is, I believe, a subjective term :ok:

I have always wondered about ultra low level flight and missile proximity fusing myself, purely from a technical standpoint, as a form of self defence.

gr

I take your point about defeating BVR missiles, Orca, but that would only hold true for those shots taken close to Rmax (Ra, Rnm, etc). Those are not terribly high Pk shots anyway, which is a problem for the shooter, especially if he only has 2 AAMs in his mixed load. Many, if not all, "max range" shots would be beaten by a simple abort. Unless one is firing for effect (disrupt an attack, for example) it would be more usual to launch at much closer range, depending on stealth, superior missile, higher launch velocity and high manoeuvrability to survive the bad guy's exchange.

Visual range launches are much harder to beat, but you can still make a missile work for its living, especially if taken at the edge of the missile's manoeuvre envelope. Better to do some sort of defensive manoeuvre than just sit there and assume you're going to die anyway.

Glad rag, you are right to wonder. There are a number of issues with firing at a very low/fast target. Thicker air = reduced missile range. Better target manoeuvre. Ground proximity for the missile (it doesn't necessarily know where the ground is unless it gets into its fuze range). Ground clutter is massive. Etc, etc.