Prev: Re: Universal Constants Next: Re: Some FT background stuff (guidelines for writers)

Re: [OFFICIAL] Some FT background stuff (guidelines for writers) - LONG POST!

From: Jerry Han <jhan@c...>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 02:15:28 -0500
Subject: Re: [OFFICIAL] Some FT background stuff (guidelines for writers) - LONG POST!

Los wrote:
> This is MOST definately wrong. It's exactly the opposite. A good pilot
> usually win over an inferior piloy in a better plane. Even some
> study of air combat history or any discussion about Red Flag or Top
> will show that.
> instructors at ARed Flagg in F5s and A7s are constantly whipping dudes
> F18s and F14s and f16s.
> Los

I hear Chuck Yeager saying: 'It's the Man, not the Machine.'  (8-)

But, on the flip side, pilot skill will only take you so far.  Give me a
pilot just out of the USAF Academy, and the Baron von Richtofen, and
the newbie an F15 and Richtofen his Fokker DVII, and see what the hell
happens.  (Big Hint:  Sonic Boom at Mach 2 (8-) )

Pilot quality counts as long as both aircraft are within the same
(defined very loosely.)  ROEs can bring an advanced fighter down to 
its knees.  For example, F22 v. MiG 17; F22 is the Energy fighter, MiG
Angles.  Now, it looks like the F22 is going to kick major butt, right?

Then I slap on a ROE stating the F22 must visually ID the target before
engagement.  Now, the F22 is in trouble; the pilot will have to resist
the temptation to try to turn with the MiG, and will have to fight an 
energy fight, which takes a hell of a lot more discipline and sense of

However, if the F22 has clearance to shoot BVR, and that MiG is hovering

around 20k ft, well... pilot quality don't mean nothing vs 4 AMRAAMs.

> Allan Goodall wrote:
> > One thing modern fighter combat has taught us is that technological
> > advantages more than make up for pilot skill. Put a novice pilot in
> > F22 against an excellent pilot in a MiG 17 and the F22 still wins in
> > most situations. The unmanned fighter has the advantage in turning
> > accleration. The fact that it might be predictable (still debatable)
> > or lacking in instinct is irrelevant. It can still out react a
> > The human pilot becomes a liability.

An unmanned figher is only as good as its programming.	In a combat 
scenario, where mission execution may depend on the unexpected, human 
participation in the decision loop is essential.  

Human liability is mostly centered on human fraility; our sustained G 
tolernace is 'low.'  

I do believe that missiles and other unmanned drones/aircraft can play a

larger role than conservative military elements will allow them to play.
However, I don't believe that manned fighters will ever be replaced.  
Any scenario which can't be programmed for will mean you will want human
pilots e.g. any scenario one step down from a full out hot-war. 

More random babbling from the nightshift.  (8-)


Jerry Han -  CANOE Canada - -
  ***** Visit the Canadian Online Explorer! => *****
The opinions expressed are mine, and not necessarily those of CANOE
	 "Is there no escape from the words that plague me so?"

Prev: Re: Universal Constants Next: Re: Some FT background stuff (guidelines for writers)