Again, there is no way to evaluate which missions were “more dangerous” in any independent way. The F-117 may well have fared worse than the F-16 if assigned the same mission as the F-16, flown in daylight, etc. On the other hand, the same may be true of the reverse and F-16s flown over Baghdad during the opening hours of the war even at night might have fared poorly.
It is almost as if mission planners would want to take into account each platform’s capabilities when assigning targets and designing missions… :rolleyes:
Crazy concept I know, but maybe, just maybe, you can’t simply throw out some numbers and try to draw overly broad conclusions from them. 😀
The bottom line is that drawing from all available information in 1991 the US concluded that stealth was an incredibly powerful enabler and sought to incorporate it into their next generation aircraft. They weren’t alone in drawing this conclusion as seen by the wide participation in the JSF program, and the desire of many forces around the world to incorporate low-observable strike aircraft into their forces.(whether as UCAVs or manned aircraft)
Well, daytime strikes like package Q where the most dangerous missions. Daytime strikes where a lot more dangerous than night time strikes. Low alt strikes where more dangerous than medium alt strikes. IR SAMs and AAA where more effective than radar guided SAMs. The F16 flew more of the low alt and daytime strikes (and thus exposing itself to the shorter rangedged air defences), ie the F16 flew more dangerous missions. Simple as that.
And I say it again, these are just the facts. 72% of all aircraft combat damages and losses occured during the day (less than 20% of all strike sorties).
Pls tell me that those are not the most dangerous missions.
… somehow I am not surprised that you are once again seeking to avoid acknowledge your errors. Let me repeat, a missile need not match its target’s turn radius in order to successfully intercept it. In the case above the target was turning hard and the missile made only minor adjustments.
Yes, hypothetically the target could have attempted an evasive maneuver after the missile lined up its intercept, forcing the missile to correct its course in a more meaningful way, but manned aircraft can not simply pull Gs in whichever direction they wish at any moment. A fighter needs to roll first if it wishes to execute a hard course change in a new direction, and even once a pilot pulls back on the stick G onset is not instantaneous. It is possible to dodge a missile of course… but modern missiles are sufficiently maneuverable that actually doing so within a missile’s NEZ is unlikely.
You are just debating your own straw man arguments here. Im talking about what happens outside the NEZ with a change in lead, you are talking about what happens inside NEZ.
If anything it makes me remember this paper, The effects of self-affirmation and graphical information on factual misperceptions
I have really enjoyed your straw man debating technique and the use of emoticons, but I think this is the last time I waste my time on you for a while.
Sign In
