Thread 64178264

I'm watching this video and it seems like beyond John Boyd and his energy theory, everyone in the Figher Mafia was certifiably retarded. It seems like they had these boomer 'tech no work' mindset in the 90s even before they got paid by puccia to talk reformer bullshit. How does one continue to double down despite overwhelming evidence saying otherwise?
https://youtu.be/1Pgiq-TlmSo

>>64178264 (OP)
Getting paid by russia is all you gotta know for how useful their advice is to americans

>>64178264 (OP)

I mean, if the United States found itself on the losing end of an attritional total war where F-35s are being shot down faster than they can be replaced, the Fighter Mafia's critiques of its per-unit cost and over-engineering might have some merit to them, but those aren't the wars we're fighting right now or will be in the foreseeable future.

Ironically their advice would have been fairly sensible to Nazi Germany (and would have gotten them purged as well), which is probably where they're approaching it from.

>>64178325
Seems like even with drones to 'level' the playing field, it feels won't hold true with AHEAD and Laser SHORAD being quickly fielded. The low end high-low mix is still gonna be a lot higher than kamikaze drones.

>>64178325
Seems like even with drones to 'level' the playing field, it feels like it won't hold true with AHEAD and Laser SHORAD being quickly fielded. The low end of the high-low mix is still gonna be a lot higher than kamikaze drones imo.

>>64178264 (OP)
>Be in a group whose most qualified member is theoreticion/flight instructor who flew F-86 Sabers in Korea without seeing any combat
>Rest of the group are "analysts" with no military or engineering backgrounds
>Despite this group annoints themselves as experts on all things related to military strategy and weapon system design
>Proceed to come off as massive retards
It's not that mysterious when you actually break it down.

>>64178325
there are more F-35s than russia and china have modern jets combined

>>64178264 (OP)
So Lazer pig Israel no longer paying your wages?

>>64178287
These people were known to be retarded decades before they started taking checks and doing interviews for Russia. Take a look at the developmental history of the F-15, F-16, Abrams, Bradley etc. and you'll see that they actually were just that fucking dumb.

>>64178482
Lazerpig straight up hated Boyd so no

>>64178494
Wow that went straight over your head

>>64178264 (OP)
They didn't have the practical experience to make good evaluations of details or the theoretical comprehension to understand the fundamental principles, let alone both. They couldn't differentiate between things good at one time, things in multiple times, and timeless things.

They were vibing. To midwits of their generation born into the same vibes they felt plausible and realistic, but once the moment passed not even the midwits could miss the stench of BS.

A combination of reasons, but short version is their flawed understanding of how the nature of air combat had changed meant they all think that something like an F-4 or MiG-21 sits neatly on the max cost-effectiveness curve while the F-35 is paying 10x more for marginal improvements. Meanwhile the reality is that its probably the things they hate that actually sit on the curve.

Why haven't we done this yet, are we just stupid?

>>64178704
Too many eggs in one basket, and wars arent won by individual weapon systems, they are won by combinations of different shit.

Boomer lead-poisining autism is so strange, feels surreal reading it.

>>64178771
>Too many eggs in one basket
Sparky has you covered then

>>64178771
Thanks for reminding me of Chinman, that story is a riot.

>>64178483
>These people were known to be retarded decades before they started taking checks and doing interviews for Russia.
My zoomer friend, russians have been running around and paying niggers (both literal and figurative) since like 1920s.

>>64178264 (OP)
Boomer proto contrarians, basically. Attach your self worth to how different you are from your peers.

>>64178325
What's going to shoot down there F-35s? S-400? We've seen how well those work.

Revolt of the Majors covers all this in much greater detail and more accurately than any youtube sloppa.

The one word answer is Autism. the more detailed answer is Autism but also flawed lessons from early missile combat, general post-vietnam malaise, people whose experience ended in WW2 and Korea but thought modern fast jet combat is the same, self-important think tanks and a political tailwind from people who wanted the defense budget slashed.

Sprey himself was incredibly petty even to the point of undermining himself. For example he hated the harrier due to petty 70s squabbles about the acquisition of the AV-8A (what all the twinks who post here would call "tea") and a general boomer distrust of UNKNOWN TECHNOLOGY like VTOL. Sprey had always championed small day fighters with no radar. When the Sea Harrier (an adorably tiny day fighter with short legs and IR only missiles) stood toe to toe with supersonic BVR capable mirage IIIs he refused to ever use the only example ever in history that might (conceivably if you squint) prove his point because "'ate the Harrier, just don't like it"

>>64178786
The weather started getting rough
The tiny ship was tossed....

>>64178942
>and a political tailwind from people who wanted the defense budget slashed.
Yeah. Iron Major's is nice for pointing out that most of the notable mainstream approval the Reformers received back in the day came from pundits/congresscritters who were already unhappy about the Carter/Reagan defense spending increases. For some reason they were really receptive to the guys telling saying that the cheapest weapons were the best no matter the context.

>he refused to ever use the only example ever in history that might (conceivably if you squint) prove his point because "'ate the Harrier, just don't like it"
while that's funny, I think the reformers were more just largely indifferent to any actual real world military happenings because in their minds they knew their theories were already perfect. Keep in mind in this period the Reformers were very aggressively ignoring everything the IAF was doing with the techno crap F-15's and F-16.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F33h9-oUfDU&t=685s&ab_channel=TheOperationsRoom

>>64178264 (OP)

They weren't too wrong when they started, they were very wrong by the 90's, and they were dribbling idiots getting worse every decade after.

>>64179200
Correct. They were thinking of how to shoot down the expected hordes of cheap Mig-21s. After the Soviets collapsed, their planes rotted and withered away.

>>64179307
>>64179200
>reformers were right about the F-15
Really?

>>64179429

"Weren't too wrong" is not the same thing as "Right about everything."

>>64178325
>if

>>64178264 (OP)
Turns out it's so easy to hoodwink retards that even other retards can do it

>>64178264 (OP)
They were all nobodies who were only tangentially related to designs. Based on merit they'd remain nobodies but they wanted attention. That's really it. They just took stupid opinions that got them validation that they sought. Feeling smarter thane everyone else and getting media attention felt really good.

>>64178264 (OP)
>How does one continue to double down despite overwhelming evidence saying otherwise?

it's just human psychology, especially for those quirky outsiders with weird theories that they think they've found some hidden secret knowledge. These people never changed, and instead died.

The F-35 has been stress tested by Israel's strikes into Iran and Yemen and came out with flying colors. Anyone still thinking the F-35 isn't the coolest shit ever is a dupe.

>>64178264 (OP)
>>64178483
>>64178414
Also, I think another aspect is the Vietnam War's lingering cynicism. US lost a lot of aircraft during the war, and there was this persistant belief that the "military industrial complex" was a giant scam, building crap vehicles that can't perform that well and put American's lives in danger. The Fighter Mafia and reformers cashed in on that cynicism by spinning a tale that there's massive military corruption and companies are selling over-priced junk to make the most money rather than be the best vehicle. Thus they were initially seen as whistle blowers speaking truth to power.

The irony is that US military itself saw the problem, and tried to innovate so that it wouldn't happen again and it's these very innovations that the Fighter Mafia and Reformers opposed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_losses_of_the_Vietnam_War

>>64178942
>stood toe to toe with supersonic BVR capable mirage IIIs he refused to ever use the only example ever in history that might (conceivably if you squint) prove his point because "'ate the Harrier, just don't like it"
Because one big reason Harriers stood against Mirage III is advantage in missiles. AIM-9L is massive leap over AIM-9M. But one mention that missiles are capable made Sprey shake in anger.

>>64178325
>the Fighter Mafia's critiques of its per-unit cost and over-engineering might have some merit to them,
In current war Russian "attritable Fighter Mafia aircraft" SU-25 and KA-50 are nowhere been seen near frontlines, and when they crossed frontlines they just just provide spectacular "shoot down aircraft shows". They are replaced by guided glide bombs, weapons Sprey adamantly believed that they don't work.
Main anti tank weapon of fighting sides is FPV drones and ATGMs, both guided weapons Pierre believed they don't work, only aircraft cannon works vs tanks.
There were zero gun fights bettwen fighter aircrafts in this war, type of combat Pierre believed is to be central for air war, its all long range missiles that "are overpriced, overrated, and don't work".
Real attritable largest since WWII war is completely oppositely to what Pierre believed and envisioned. No guns and guided weapons everywhere.
You can't be more wrong then Sprey envisioning "the real war"

>>64179812
First internet trolls and rage harvesting influencers before internet.

>>64178325
NavAir seems to think this is exactly what is to come if the bitching of the engineers is any indication. I have heard more gripes about the production pipeline from gov't employees than any MIC shill, but I'm just listening to them bitch over beers, not sitting in a briefing room.

>>64178325
Nah,not even the nazis.They had to make the Tiger 2,you can't win a war by defending.

And if the mafia made a tank for the jerries it would be Panzer 38s or Pz IV Js.Both subpar.

>>64178325
Problem is that their shitty fighters will be mowed down faster and achieve less.

>>64179962

True, all too true.

Although in the specific case of the early engagement with a Mirage IIIE BARCAP the shots were rear aspect and it came down superior British air combat training. The Mirage IIIs operating from Stanley had probed the taskforce's air defenses several times but had always used their extreme brainmelting speed to zoom off like sanic instead of merging. On May 1st they didn't zoom off and merged into a (very slow for the Mirage and perfect for the harrier) dogfight that ended badly for them.

It's sort of like fighting against a skinny 5'4 BJJ blackbelt and deciding to get on the mat with him instead of picking him up and powerbombnig his astolfo cosplaying ass head straight through the canvas Bob Sapp style. The Mirage IIIs the speed to dictate the fight but gave it up for the chance at a kill

>>64178264 (OP)
They were right. Swarms of cheap "aircraft" is what will dominate the battlefield

>>64178264 (OP)
Because most of them were know-nothing scammers

>>64179962
>AIM-9L
Not a single 9L was launched from the frontal aspect or against the sun. The Harrier pilots used it just as they would a 9B. Its main advantage is more reliable electronics.

>>64180248
>Operating from Stanley
Lol. Lmao, even. Stanley's airbase, Mount Pleasant, was too short and rough to house fighter jets; it can now, because the RAF expanded it after the war. The reason the Mirages couldn't use their maximum speed was due to their extreme range; operating out of bases on the Tiera Del Fuego, they didn't have the fuel for afterburners and supersonic flight, hence why the Harriers had the drop on them.

>>64180248
>Although in the specific case of the early engagement with a Mirage IIIE BARCAP the shots were rear aspect and it came down superior British air combat training
AIM-9L has massively larger rear aspect engagement zone too, massively better rejection of flares and natural clutter, and it on the another level in maneveuerablirtty. It has solid no escape zone where fighter aircraft can't outmaneuver it at all. When you can outmaneuver AIM-9M in all it's engagement envelope with proper maneuver.

>The Mirage IIIs the speed to dictate the fight
Boom zoom works with gun fights, when missiles barge in, not so much, because your zooming away ass is a perfect target for missile shot.

>>64180269
Kinda. FPV drone is ultimate "cheap fighter spam.
But it's guided weapons and Pierre Sprey was adamantly against guided weapons.
Remember, Chud, your "smart weapons" don't work! Because... just because!

>>64180358
>no usable antitank sensor yet proposed
It so hilarious to read in the year of 4K drone videos compilations of fried Russian armor

>>64180363
I've only just noticed the
>*accuracy
Footnote

That's like saying the only way to fight is with 6-guns in Clint Eastwood style because of the "superior accuracy" of Wild West quickdraw shooting stunts

>>64180363
The worst part is that Sprey was saying this to kill the Maverick missile which was being fielded in FR Germany at the time. He straight up LIED and claimed that tests showed the weapon was totally inaccurate.
And then was nowhere to be found after 1991.
But suddenly popped up again in the 00s claiming to some kind of expertise on combat jets, including taking credit for the A-10's performance in Desert Storm... which was because they used the very same missile he said didn't work!

>>64180363
>4K drone videos
Fucking imbecile

>>64180378
>he doesn't know about DJI recon drones

>>64178325
But they're also building F-35s faster than any other country can put together their cheaper and less advanced aircraft.

>>64180283

Actually I was wrong and misremembered they did take off from the mainland but they had Port Stanley Airport (not RAF Mount Pleasant which wasn't even built yet) open and available as a diversion base if say theoretically they had to get in an extended air engagement and burn a lot of fuel or in another purely theoretical exercise if a Mirage IIIE piloted by Capt.Cuerva of Air Grupo 8 was damaged by a sidewinder missile at 4:10 pm on May 1st 1982 and diverted to Port Stanley.

As to why they weren't actually stationed there it wasn't because the runway was some tiny zambian dirt airstrip it was a pristine 4,000ft tarmac runway designed for narrow body jet airliners. The reason they didn't operate fast jets from it was because it only had a small apron for at best a handful of jets and was an overall very cramped for combat operations. You don't want extremely valuable fighter aircraft sitting tightly packed together along with fuel trucks, starter carts, etc. on an apron. Literally 6 hours before the may 1st air battle Sea Harriers shwacked the apron and other base facilities with BL-755 cluster bombs and Vulcan bombing raids on Argentinian positions in the Falklands were announced like a week before this point.

Capcha HPH82

>>64178325
>Ironically their advice would have been fairly sensible to Nazi Germany (and would have gotten them purged as well),
Absolute brainlet.

They literally kept on pumping out their early war shit boxes because that's what Pappi Hitler bestellt hat.
So the Fighter Mafia would have to suggest switching all of their arrament out for Mg34s or something.

>>64178325
This.
The Fighter Mafia assumed war was war and you fight in a slugfest where you need a combination of both quality and quantity. But the American MIC runs on the assumption of "I win, they lose, why worry?" It's the same retardation that produces high tech trash like the Armata. In peacetime they're impressive, but in a real war they're useless because you can't risk them getting destroyed in high numbers. An irreplaceable weapon is a useless weapon.

>>64180552
>Comparing American weapons to the Armata
So are you just an idiot or is there a more dishonest reason for this post.

>>64180552
The Fighter Mafia assumed "real war" would be piloted aircrafts doing gun runs against enemy aircrafts and tanks.

That gunfighting concept completely absolutely flopped in The Real war.
>>64179977
Guns don't work in The Real War.

>>64180563
The entire reason why the Armata isn't being used is because they can't be replaced in an attritional warfare scenario.

>>64180589
The reason they aren't being used is because they aren't even capable of deploying on parade without breaking down, they aren't a functional weapon

>>64180593
Nice hyperbolic fanfiction.

>>64180589
>The entire reason why the Armata isn't being used is because russia can't make them even in peacetime
FTFY

>>64180595
Mein negro, we literally saw that happen.
https://abcnews.go.com/International/russias-newest-tank-stops-working-parade-rehearsal/story?id=30872959

>>64180589
More like Russia can't make modern weapons to begin with, because they are markedly inferior to America.

Even their dick-swinging missile tests carried out to try and intimidate other countries during the war have repeatedly ended up with the launch site exploding instead.

>>64180611
>ONE INCIDENT
>THAT MEANS ALL ARE NON-FUNCTIONAL
Again, hyperbole.
The Armata is indeed trash, but it does in fact 'function'. Your retardation is no different than vatniks who post
>THE SERBS SHOT DOWN A STEALTH JET ONE TIME, LOL AT AMERICA

>>64178325
>if the United States found itself on the losing end of an attritional total war where F-35s are being shot down faster than they can be replaced
the US has never fought a war like this in its entire existence besides MAYBE the Revolutionary War
and it most likely never will
We always have a huge logistical advantage and value soldier's lives over expensive materiel because keeping soldiers alive is good for morale and the only way we can ever lose a conventional war is if the home front gives up on it

>>64180625
>This is the sound of a perfectly functional piece of equipment with no design problems whatsoever
https://youtube.com/shorts/_bT2MUtzOQQ?feature=shared

>>64180641
USA fought such Air War that Fighter Mafia envisioned during WWII.
Thunderbolts and Mustangs establishing air superiority over Germany but pew pew firing their guns. That was indeed Gorious Days if US and Fighter Mafia wants to replay it over and over, like Russian and their WWII victory parades.

But Now think how this type of gunfighting warfare is applicable in The Real War in Ukraine.

>>64180655
Don't forget that missilefags tried to push their own biased agenda in the 60's and it left the Phantom unable to properly dogfight with MIGs.
Missiles have gotten a lot better obvious, but it always takes two to tango. Overconfident technological supremacists vs stubborn skeptics. A lot of the literature on the Reformers is biased and written by the 'winners', and the fact is Reformers did have some good points to make along with some bad ones.
The Ukraine War has completely validated a lot of their concerns regarding technology. If you can't produce it at a reasonable rate, warfare just devolves. Even this whole drone war is a devolution, but of course now you'll get another crop of tech worshippers who think "human soldier bad, replace with drone" not realizing that every single decisive action during this war was undertaken by human operations with limited drone involvement - whether it's the push into Kharkov, the thunder runs, driving Russia from Kherson, or even the initial Russian defeat at Hostomel and Kiev. All done conventionally, but that's not the lesson that people will take because "drones have revolutionized warfare" is the more interesting narrative.

>>64180697
>Kharkov
Kursk, excuse me, mixing up the names.

>>64180697
>Don't forget that missilefags tried to push their own biased agenda in the 60's and it left the Phantom unable to properly dogfight with MIGs.
80% kills by Phantoms in Vietnam were missiles and Phantom fighters had 10:1 kill ratio against MiGs

>>64180708
A design flaw is a design flaw and trying to push technology before it is ready is a bad idea.
>BUT IT ALL WORKED OUT
Pilots didn't like it and wanted it changed, so it was changed. You're debating with people who actually used it.

>>64180697
>Even this whole drone war is a devolution
Drone war is absolute technological supermasism. It's pure march of tech advancements over boomer primitive weapons. FPV killing tank is complexity and brains defeating sheer power.

>>64180713
You are just parroting Russian propaganda
>left the Phantom unable to properly dogfight with MIGs.
Russian propaganda slogan sounds completely different when you look at actual air war combat stats.

>>64180728
>You are just parroting Russian propaganda
Projection.
It's historical record that "The Phantom suffered from issues due to being designed solely around missiles, and the design was later changed." There were cases when the Phantom ran out of missiles and could not dog fight. This was bad. This does not mean the Phantom was inherently bad, the missiles never worked, or anything else. "Missile only fighter planes" were simply not appropriate for the 1960's. The technology was not mature, and there were obvious problems.
None of this has to due with "America bad, Russia great". It has everything to do with technologists that are overeager.
>>64180719
Drones can't take or hold territory. It's just nu-Bomber Mafia.

>>64180746
>look at 20% it's more important that 80%
You can't analyze stats.

>Drones can't take or hold territory
Neither fighter aircrafts, tanks, APCs , all weapon system Reformers were concerned about.

>>64180769
>WHAT DO YOU MEAN PILOTS WOULD PREFER NOT TO BE SHOT DOWN DUE TO BEING OUT OF MISSILES? JUST LOOK AT THE STATS OF ALL THE CASES WHERE THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN!
This isn't a black or white issue. The Phantom can have great stats while also having a glaring design flaw.

>>64180775
Guns were deeply secondary and overemphasizing their worth don't achieve anything.

When having edge in missiles was winning wars
>>64179962

And now we have Ukrainian war where aircraft gun is totally dead. Total Missile Mafia Victory.

>>64180785
>Guns were deeply secondary and overemphasizing their worth don't achieve anything.
Who is overemphasizing them? You or me? All I did was say that you shouldn't overly rely on technology before it is ready. You are repeating tired kneejerk talking points of "everything was fine, there were no problems, just look at the favorable statistics and ignore what actually happened where the problem was reported, agreed it was a problem, and solved".
Missiles are a very useful technology, now. In the 1960's they had problems. This should not be a controversial opinion, but this is what the whole anti-Reformer movement is. Ignore skepticism and criticism, full speed ahead on everything, ignore when you fail and only point to where you succeed. And it's going to get people killed when an actual war starts and both the US and China lose all their high tech fighters in the first month and we're reduced to some stupid naval version of what's currently going on in Ukraine. Does this mean the F-35 is bad? Should be replaced by the F-16 with more upgrades than it deserves? No. Maybe have a really nice high tech plane, but also have a low cost plane that you can shit out by the hundreds.

>>64180794
>Who is overemphasizing them? You or me?
You.
Mirage III had excellent guns
But it had large design flaw, it's missiles were inferior to Harrier missiles and Mirage flopped.
Where is that fact in your analysis I ask?

>Missiles are a very useful technology, now. In the 1960's they had problems.
And way to go was improving them see sad Mirages who where yapping about guns but forgot about missiles.
And that overemphasizing on guns got Argentinas killed and losing when an actual war started.

>>64180746
>It's historical record that "The Phantom suffered from issues due to being designed solely around missiles, and the design was later changed." There were cases when the Phantom ran out of missiles and could not dog fight. This was bad. This does not mean the Phantom was inherently bad, the missiles never worked, or anything else. "Missile only fighter planes" were simply not appropriate for the 1960's
Except that the main reason for the Phantom performing badly was that American fighter pilots weren't trained well in air to air combat.

See, in statistical social studies, there's a very important concept called "effect size". TL;DR, it's about quantifying how much exactly a factor actually matters to the outcome. We use this because when there are many factors which all contribute to an outcome, we want to know which one is THE MOST IMPORTANT, the one which causes most of the problem.
>do all races and genders commit murder? Yes
>but 50% of them are committed by a particular 13% of the population

What you're doing is saying that the reason Phantoms couldn't dogfight Migs is because they didn't have guns, when that only mattered for like maybe 20% of the time. The far more important factor was pilot training. And ultimately after getting the training they needed, what did they use to shoot down 80% of the MIGs? MISSILES, not guns.

And you're disingenuously hiding this behind the claim about the Phantom's design being changed. Was it changed? Yes. Did it matter? Nowhere near as much as training programmes such as Top Gun.

>>64180697
>Reformers did have some good points to make along with some bad ones
The only good point that ever came out of their shit mouths was the OODA loop and the strategy to disrupt it.

>The Ukraine War has completely validated a lot of their concerns regarding technology
The only thing the Ukraine War validated is that if you don't prepare an army before the war you're in deep shit, and you're forced to use WW1 tactics and whatever you can beg or scrounge or repurpose from civilian use in the short time you have. That's it.

The real answer to this isn't "let's build more shells like it's 1915 not 2025", it's prepare the army even if there doesn't appear to be a war, because a war will pop up faster than you can see it coming. (Arguably, a war pops up BECAUSE enemies see that you're unprepared, but that's another story, strictly speaking)

>>64180846
>What you're doing is saying that the reason Phantoms couldn't dogfight Migs is because they didn't have guns, when that only mattered for like maybe 20% of the time. The far more important factor was pilot training. And ultimately after getting the training they needed, what did they use to shoot down 80% of the MIGs? MISSILES, not guns.
NTA, but to add on to this 2/3 of VPAF aces of the war piloted MiG-21 variants which either had an anemic gun or none at all. The vast majority of their kills were made with Soviet copies of the Sidewinder in hit and run attacks. Unless you think the Nguyens have +10 in accuracy stat missiles obviously worked in Vietnam. you just have to know how to actually use them effectively.

>>64180746
>Drones can't take or hold territory
Design problems require design solutions.

>>64180708

What percentage of air to air missiles fired during the conflict hit their target? How did that number change over time? I genuinely don't know, and it could very well prove the thesis that it was pilot training.

>>64180648
I have personally seen cartel victims scream less horribly than the Armata.

>>64178325
The point of the high unit cost F-35 is that you DON'T attrit
Your argument is like "Well sure guns are good but if you run out of ammo and up in extremely close quarters melee combat the man with the sword and shield will probably win out, so our soldiers should only carry those."

>>64180846
> Except that the main reason for the Phantom performing badly was that American fighter pilots weren't trained well in air to air combat
Also, the retards in charge forcing them to close to visual range because they didn’t trust IFF

>>64180846
>Except that the main reason for the Phantom performing badly was that American fighter pilots weren't trained well in air to air combat.
It's really notable that by the time Operation Linebacker kicked off the Airforce had already equipped their F-4's with gunpods based on their prior experiances, and they still got clowned on compared to the Navy who were running missile only Phantoms at the time. Made worse since the Navy didn't have the early IFF systems the Airforce Phantoms had. It just came down to the Navy Had implemented Top Gun (DAAAANGER ZONE) to address their pilots lousy combat proficiency levels, and the airforce hadn't yet.

>>64179859
>Also, I think another aspect is the Vietnam War's lingering cynicism.
>The irony is that US military itself saw the problem
More specificially it tended to be Vietnam Vets who'd actually flown hundreds of combat missions, and hadn't just seen the problems but experianced them first hand and were trying to unfuck them after the war. But that made them "establishment". So guys who'd never served or seen combat decided that they prefered "experts" like the Reformers (who predominantly had never served and none of whom had seen combat) to advise on what the Air-Force needed. So a lot of the cynicism in practice was very vibes based.
>Pic related: Creech's somberly repressing his horror when he realizes just how much tard wrangling he's in for

>>64181252
>the retards in charge forcing them to close to visual range because they didn’t trust IFF
There were nothing retarded about that. Out of 10000 flights you meet maybe 1 MiG. You absolutely couldn't afford wrong ID of you planes as enemy planes. With interrogation IFF it happens. Signal lost during transmission, electromagnetic interference, non working equipment. Bam! You aircraft didn't send response, marked as enemy and shot down. Bad.

This Vietnam experience pushed for development non co-operative IFF systems. TISEO, radar profile ID, tracking friendlies trajectory via AWACS etc.
BTW Soveits never bothered with any of such and believed that interrogation IFF is fine (like US mil before Vietnam).

>>64181353
Something else that comes to mind is how universal were IFF transponders on American and in theater allied aircraft in this period? Cause shooting down half the RVNAF in friendly fire incidents sounds decidedly counter productive.

>>64181252
IFF at the time *was* notoriously glitchy tbf

>>64179429
More like they weren't entirely wrong about the F-16 despite being wrong about the F-15

>>64181679
The F-16 only became good when it went directly against the ethos of reformers and became heavier and more complex.

On that note: the F-16 was almost exactly half the price of the F-15
Do you think that the "hi-lo mix" was a successful cost-saving measure, in the end?
Would NATO have been better off with notionally having half the number of F16s, but they're actually F15s?

>>64178325
>>64178325
>Ironically their advice would have been fairly sensible to Nazi Germany (and would have gotten them purged as well), which is probably where they're approaching it from.

Absolutely retarded take, and completely untrue.
Quality was the ONLY way Germany could've lengthened it's existence.
Germany was down on manpower compared to its enemies and struggling to replace experienced pilots and tank crews alike. Empty tanks don't kill anyone, and tanks filled with untrained children won't do much better.

Secondly, with what fuel would Germany have fielded these fleets of simple-and-cheap tanks? they were struggling to supply their armored columns as it were.

Going for quality to try to maximize the effectiveness of their units compared to the enemy was the ONLY way to try to survive

>>64181749
Only because the program had drawn out too long into the late 70s, it got caught in a weird middle ground where it initially wasn't yet a true multirole and lacked BVR capability in the fighter role, but it was still to heavy and complicated for what the reformers had initially envisioned.
Doesn't mean the idea of the High/Low mix of fighters was inherently flawed, if not for the reasons the reformers advocated for it.

>>64178325
There is no neer peer and there never has been.

>>64181830
NTA but if Germany had gone for quality above all else then it wouldn't have fielded any Bf109s in the late war, only Fw190s, and it would thus have completely lost the air war by 1943.
In 1944 they built 14,000 Bf109s and half that number of Fw190s.

>>64181870
Production of Bf109's had no effect on the production of the Fw190's.

Daimler Benz didn't have the tooling to start producing BMW 801's, they couldn't have started to produce them if they wanted, especially during the war. The fighter production was limited by engine availability, after all.

>>64178325
>let's replace our expensive but very capable and hard to shoot down fighters with cheaper less capable versions which are easier to shoot down because we cannot replace them fast enough!!
Hmmm

>>64181959
Right
And that is why
>Quality was the ONLY way Germany could've lengthened it's existence
is a silly statement
You can't immediately discontinue Bf109 use and switch over entirely to Fw190s
Also, speaking of
>fuel
Similarly, the Luftwaffe eked out its fuel supplies with 87 octane rather than only using 96/100 octane

>>64182556
>Can't figure out why you might want more than an HMG/unstabilized 20mm on your troop carrier facing the Soviets in Europe
>It can't be because I'm stupid/uninformed, it must be because the procurement officers are corrupt and incompetent!
>The infantry should just fend for themselves after their battle taxi drops them off in front of a Tank Guards Army and goes home