zipper730
F-106 Skilled
Currently: Offline
Posts: 214
Location:
Joined: September 2016
|
Post by zipper730 on Oct 16, 2016 12:39:21 GMT 9
Until very recently, I remember reading that the low-altitude penetration was generally the means that we were to achieve an element of surprise when attacking enemy air-space, as well as a means for allowing aircraft without sufficient speed & altitude, maneuverability and ECM to slip through defenses, particularly for the delivery of a nuclear bomb. For some time I was told that this was a dismal failure because of the fact that the AAA was able to exact a much more punishing toll than had been expected.
Unfortunately, it's come out that the State Department fed North Vietnam information about the targets that were to be struck (this data was given to intermediaries in the Swiss Embassy): In addition to being treason, it gave the North Vietnamese an edge that they would not normally have, and raises two sets of questions
I. Loss Rates to AAA: 1964/1965-1973 (NVN)
- Would the loss-rates have been sufficiently low as to allow high-speed low-altitude attacks with the following aircraft: F-105, F-104, F-4, F-111, A-4, A-6, A-7, B-52?
- Were any of the initial airfields heavily defended with AAA: By this I mean either August 1964, or February to March, 1965?
I noted the B-52 because the original plans for Arc Light called for a low altitude approach to Kep followed by a pop-up and bombardment of the field; the F-111 and A-7 weren't in service in 1964, but would be operational by 1967, within the 1964-1973 period.
II. Loss Rates to AAA: 1958-1975 (Communist Block, fUSSR, and China)
- Would loss-rates have been sufficiently low enough as to allow a high-speed, low-altitude penetration into the fUSSR using the following aircraft: F-105, F-104, F-4, F-111, A-4, A-6, A-7, B-52, B-58 provided it's not classified (my primary interest is not so much the exact loss rate, more so as an answer to the question whether it would, or would not have been effective with AAA defenses of )?
- Would it be logical to say that targets such as air-fields, counter-force targets, and vital population centers have significant amounts of AAA around them?
As I understand it, the gunnery radar-direction systems used for AAA over these areas would be far more sophisticated than those used over NVN.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Oct 16, 2016 14:09:19 GMT 9
Until very recently, I remember reading that the low-altitude penetration was generally the means that we were to achieve an element of surprise when attacking enemy air-space, as well as a means for allowing aircraft without sufficient speed & altitude, maneuverability and ECM to slip through defenses, particularly for the delivery of a nuclear bomb. For some time I was told that this was a dismal failure because of the fact that the AAA was able to exact a much more punishing toll than had been expected.
Unfortunately, it's come out that the State Department fed North Vietnam information about the targets that were to be struck (this data was given to intermediaries in the Swiss Embassy): In addition to being treason, it gave the North Vietnamese an edge that they would not normally have, and raises two sets of questions
I. Loss Rates to AAA: 1964/1965-1973 (NVN)
- Would the loss-rates have been sufficiently low as to allow high-speed low-altitude attacks with the following aircraft: F-105, F-104, F-4, F-111, A-4, A-6, A-7, B-52?
- Were any of the initial airfields heavily defended with AAA: By this I mean either August 1964, or February to March, 1965?
I noted the B-52 because the original plans for Arc Light called for a low altitude approach to Kep followed by a pop-up and bombardment of the field; the F-111 and A-7 weren't in service in 1964, but would be operational by 1967, within the 1964-1973 period.
II. Loss Rates to AAA: 1958-1975 (Communist Block, fUSSR, and China)
- Would loss-rates have been sufficiently low enough as to allow a high-speed, low-altitude penetration into the fUSSR using the following aircraft: F-105, F-104, F-4, F-111, A-4, A-6, A-7, B-52, B-58 provided it's not classified (my primary interest is not so much the exact loss rate, more so as an answer to the question whether it would, or would not have been effective with AAA defenses of )?
- Would it be logical to say that targets such as air-fields, counter-force targets, and vital population centers have significant amounts of AAA around them?
As I understand it, the gunnery radar-direction systems used for AAA over these areas would be far more sophisticated than those used over NVN.
A bit of right rudder, about 5 degrees right stick and a rate of climb of about 10k per minute at full throttle should help evade AAA, right after you pickled your bomb load.......... Zipper, go buy a flight simulator and fly your ass into the ground, or quit trying to impress us with bullschmitt, and leave the dazzling us with brilliance to the experts. This is what several of us here ask you not to do, delta2477 or robyn. I have referred these questions or ones similar to flying experts and their answers are in here.. Would it, and would it be logical . Believe your sources for the above post have answered your questions as well. You are looking for us to prove or disprove your theories. Doubt if you will find anyone willing to engage..
|
|
|
Post by LBer1568 on Oct 17, 2016 1:04:03 GMT 9
Until very recently, I remember reading that the low-altitude penetration was generally the means that we were to achieve an element of surprise when attacking enemy air-space, as well as a means for allowing aircraft without sufficient speed & altitude, maneuverability and ECM to slip through defenses, particularly for the delivery of a nuclear bomb. For some time I was told that this was a dismal failure because of the fact that the AAA was able to exact a much more punishing toll than had been expected.
A simple web search resulted in this article about AAA Effectiveness in SEA. But since the F-106 was never deployed to SEA and it was never designed for Close Air Support or SAM Destruction, why ask it of F-106 veterans? Lorin Surface to Air Missile Effectiveness in Past Conflicts Technical Report APA-TR-2010-1001 Dr Carlo Kopp, AFAIAA, SMIEEE, PEng October, 2010 "Perhaps most contentious matter in this discussion is what constitutes the best “measure of effectiveness” for assessing the PAVN SAM force. Over North Vietnam (NVN), most losses were statistically produced by PAVN Anti-Aircraft Artillery (AAA) batteries, in fact total US Air Force losses of 740 F/RF-4, F-105 and F-100 tactical fighters between 1964 and 1973 can mostly be credited to AAA in NVN and Laos. Declassified US statistics show a good fraction of the these losses resulted from low altitude attacks on SAM sites, and most others from low altitude attacks on other targets in an attempt to stay below the medium to high altitude engagement envelope of the SA-2. While direct losses to SAM firings appear modest, the percentage of kills to SAMs was as high as 31.5% for F-4 in 1971-73, and 17 B-52s were lost, mostly to SAMs."[/font]
|
|
|
Post by Mark O on Oct 17, 2016 11:53:46 GMT 9
Oh come on! We've beat this to death here before. Please stop with why the Six was never deployed to SEA. That was NOT it's mission. For one thing, it did not have self-sealing tanks, and although it was clear that a Six could clearly mix it up in a "fighter-vs-fighter" engagement, the doctrine at the time was that it's mission was as an interceptor.
Mark O
|
|
zipper730
F-106 Skilled
Currently: Offline
Posts: 214
Location:
Joined: September 2016
|
Post by zipper730 on Oct 17, 2016 12:14:44 GMT 9
Lorin,
1. I posted this in "Other Aircraft Info" specifically because it wasn't related to the F-106: There were people here who flew other aircraft (F-101, F-104, possibly a few F-105 pilots), and I figure they'd have real life experience on the matter. 2. I'll google the report: Thank you
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Oct 17, 2016 14:03:38 GMT 9
Lorin, 1. I posted this in "Other Aircraft Info" specifically because it wasn't related to the F-106: There were people here who flew other aircraft (F-101, F-104, possibly a few F-105 pilots), and I figure they'd have real life experience on the matter. 2. I'll google the report: Thank you How many times are you going to beat the horse before you shove it in the grave?? And, just what value does 40-50 year old statistics on airplanes that now fly on sticks have for you? Why do I have the feeling that we are approaching
|
|
zipper730
F-106 Skilled
Currently: Offline
Posts: 214
Location:
Joined: September 2016
|
Post by zipper730 on Oct 18, 2016 2:00:44 GMT 9
Jim,
I'm a history and aviation buff: I'm fascinated about many facets of aviation, both modern and ancient.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Oct 26, 2016 4:00:55 GMT 9
|
|
zipper730
F-106 Skilled
Currently: Offline
Posts: 214
Location:
Joined: September 2016
|
Post by zipper730 on Oct 26, 2016 4:29:26 GMT 9
Jim,
Great picture!
|
|