Military Aviation > Air Power

Tactic vs. Tactic

(1/5) > >>

Raptor:
We all know the various combat doctrines in the world. BVR dogfighting, ie, stand-off weapons, cheap and light aircraft. The European Typhoon with it's incredible manueverability. Electronic warfare, complete multi-task capable aircraft. Longer ranges, "stealth." etc

Now which of these tactics or types of warfare in your very biased or not opinion  ;D, is the overall winner, past, present and future. No need to mention that EW does not stretch into WWI. Give any class of combat doctrine and explain it.

Personally, i can't make up my mind. Let's use objective: the destruction Air Force One along with it's fighter escort as the scenario. ;D btw, one pilot only.

Globetrotter:
so which airplanes will be escorting it? I guess F-22, right?

tigershark:
Raptor I'm a little confused and not sure what you really want. 
If I understand you right I think stealth is much bigger then most people realized.   I think in close dog fighting is basically dead with HMS AA-11/9X etc type missiles equipment aircraft.

Is your President on board with mind when Air Force One is shot down?  javascript:void(0);
Grin

alyster:

--- Quote ---Is your President on board with mind when Air Force One is shot down?
--- End quote ---

I think that would be your president not his  ;D

Only greatest military thinkers of 21st century can awnser to that question. I'm not sure yet we know who they are :)

However my thoughts: First of all air force doctrine depends on the overall doctine and the country. I mean the tasks and equipment of IRIAF and USAF are quite different. Israeli air force has to have planes that have to have capability of very accurate bombing, while they have to be able to maintain air supiriority against much larger air forces(67 war, Yom Kippur war - Israel was heavily outnumbered). Russian Air Force however has such a huge country to cover. Most of it is Siberia - a whole lot of land with nothing on it. So I dont think being invisble helps them as much as being fast in Eastern Russia. USAF has to carry out missions world wide. So range and stealth can be quite a bonus. Europe is heavily populated and well covered area. I think a crapy stealth plane can have its hard time here against good not stealth planes. So it all depends on a need of the air force.

About past, it depends on the era. In WW1 manuverability was the main goal. Winners in ww2 were the planes that had high speed and rate of climb, that means big stress per wing area meaning not as manuverable. So it is against the ideas of WW1. Alot can depend on small things. Nazi Blitzkrieg was a result of the fact that Weimar republic was allowed to have only a small 100 000 men army. H. von Seeckt's awnser to the limited army was smaller better equipted and more manuverable army. Totally oposite to french who were still thinking of the WW1 era slow position war. Nazis just improved the army - the idea remained the same. That conquered most of Europe.

I guess there is no supirior tactic. It depends on the era, tasks and also finacial status.

tigershark:
Hello alyster
You have some interesting views including Siberia with a whole lot of nothing. 
javascript:void(0);
Grin

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page