So what!
Someone will be along to dig up how successful the NVAF was.
Two huge things about that. Stupid rules of engagement and the poor performance of the missiles with all our eggs in the single "use missiles" basket.
The third thing is the poor tactical thinking that came from acting as if the missiles behaved liked the sales brochure rather than as they behaved.
Most Sparrows dropped off the plane and fell to the earth when fired over Vietnam. Hardly any lit and few of those guided and even fewer scored a hit.
But when you compare the AIM-7E to the AIM-7E-2 you see a marked contrast in performance.
The AIM-9B Sidewinder is about useless against MiG-17F and MiG-21F. But the AIM-9D actually started doing what the manufacturer claimed the B could do...
And in the past 40 years we've not sat on our hands in weapons development.
The AIM-7E-2 Sparrow, despite being far FAR better than the AIM-7D and AIM-7E it supplanted was still called "the great white hope". A fire and pray missile.
The AIM-7M is greatly improved, and it's not much carried any more when they're serious.
The AIM-120 AMRAAM is the present "medium" range radar guide. It's known as "Fido" to the pilots, as in "sic 'em Fido!" From ranges that nothing ISIS has access to can reply.
If things get to where they can shoot, the AIM-9X shoots farther than many of their semi-active radar guided missiles, and that assumes they lay hands on a MiG-23 or two.
Their best hope is to lay hands on a MiG-29 which has excellent missiles, but it also has a far more western maintenance requirement... You know extensive, intensive and knowledgeable.
The couple of pictures I've seen of their "air force" have been in L-39 Albatros', a trainer that can carry a light load of air to ground munitions. They might have some MiG-21s, but those are getting very long in the tooth to take on a first world opponent.
People might bring up our air-to-air record over the Balkans. It's noteworthy that we flew with ordnance we were "getting rid of". Older Sparrows and Sidewinders.
And there's always Israel to compare with concerning how things go for Russian gear supplied to iron age heathens...
Another thing to remember about modern Russian aircraft is they have always been willing to accept many fewer hours between overhauls than we were. It makes their engines give a bit more thrust per mass, but it also means you need more engines and have a lower mean times between replacements and failures. This is also very true of their electronics. They've also not yet internalized the "make things easy to access" lesson we learned the hard way so they often end up taking an entire plane apart to get at a module that has failed.
Click here to submit $0.00 US for a lifetime subscription
Posts
Comments
It has been suggested to me by a retired USAF Ordnance officer that part of the problem of the early AAM was that the electronics were simply not rugged enough. A missile that was taken up on its virgin flight had a better chance of connecting than one that had experienced multiple prior flights before being used.
ReplyDeleteHe's not wrong. The Navy in particular had problems with missiles being down checked after recovery. Arrested landings are not easy on the things.
DeleteLots of people forget that these early missiles were tube electronics not solid state.
I recall an incident where an F/A-18 had a Sidewinder pop off a wingtip station and go bouncing down the flight deck during an arrested landing. I remember hearing the "ting - ting - ting" over my head as it went skipping along to it's splash check. Warshot, too, not a blue practice missile. So a bit extra pucker factor.
DeleteThe three pictures at the bottom of this page show the event in question. My workshop was right under the flight deck, on the angled portion of the flight deck.
My uncle once told us about the pucker factor the ordies had when removing fired but failed munitions from the planes in 'Nam. Is it armed or not? You, in the red shirt! Flip a coin!
Delete