CMB56 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 206 posts, RR: 0 Posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 4048 times:
I have a question that has origins in the Vietnam war. At the time the rules of engagement for American fighter pilots over the North required a visual ID before they could engage enemy Migs. Given the very political environment that any conflict will bring with it could these same rules be impossed by a political leadership more worried about perception that the lives of our own pilots. Could the president by a rules of engagement decree simply negate the value of stealth? If an F-22 had to visually ID the SU-27s or Mig-29s it was hunting then most if not all the stealth value is gone and you are stuck in an old fashioned dog fight and the guy that gets inside gets the kill.
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11708 posts, RR: 52 Reply 1, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 4008 times:
Yes, the President can set the ROE for any conflict during his administration. You may remember that President Clinton restricted bombing operations to 15,000' or above as a ROE. He did not want any US aircraft shot down, and possibly have a POW. Of course, that did not work very well, as the US bombed the Chinese Embascy, unintentionally. Also the Serbs ripple fired SAMs and successfully shot down a F-117 stealth fighter.
Other ROEs that contributed to the shoot down were all aircraft flying the same routes and times every day.
11Bravo From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 1646 posts, RR: 11 Reply 2, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 3954 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 1): Of course, that did not work very well, as the US bombed the Chinese Embascy, unintentionally.
The bombing of the Chinese Embassy had nothing to do with the ROE or the altitude restrictions. The target was misidentified. The attack was very accurate, they just picked the wrong target prior to the mission.
BMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 14326 posts, RR: 26 Reply 3, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 3846 times:
Quoting CMB56 (Thread starter): Could the president by a rules of engagement decree simply negate the value of stealth?
In a word, yes.
Quoting CMB56 (Thread starter): If an F-22 had to visually ID the SU-27s or Mig-29s it was hunting then most if not all the stealth value is gone and you are stuck in an old fashioned dog fight and the guy that gets inside gets the kill.
While the "first look, first shot, first kill" mantra of the F-22 would be history, the Raptor is a more than capable dogfighter and should be able, with a well trained pilot, to at least match the Flankers and probably beat the MiG-29.
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 1): Also the Serbs ripple fired SAMs and successfully shot down a F-117 stealth fighter.
There was also the fact that the Serbs used visual spotters, and the lack of electronic warfare aircraft also worked against the Nighthawk. Furthermore, if I recall correctly, just as in Bosnia some years before, the allies fell into a fairly predictable pattern of attack routes in the area.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
UH60FtRucker From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 5, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 3640 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 1): You may remember that President Clinton restricted bombing operations to 15,000' or above as a ROE.
Do you have ANY evidence to back this up??
Because from what I've read, it was General Short who made that determination. You need to stop throwing out bogus statements.
Quoting 11Bravo (Reply 2): The bombing of the Chinese Embassy had nothing to do with the ROE or the altitude restrictions. The target was misidentified. The attack was very accurate, they just picked the wrong target prior to the mission.
Exactly. I have no idea where he got the idea that the bombing was a result of piss poor ROE. I think it's pretty obvious that he's more interested in grinding a political ax.
In fact, SecDef Cohen later said, "...one of our planes attacked the wrong target because the bombing instructions were based on an outdated map." I know of no investigation that fingered the ROE as the cause.
Anyway, it would be nice to think that after the lessons of Viet Nam, politicians would know to minimize their meddling in military operations. Micromanaging the fine details from the Situation Room has never been a wise move.
...But we still manage to trip over our own feet. Hell, Donald Rumsfeld was one of the biggest micro-managers to run the Pentagon. He literally got involved in which specific units would/would not deploy to Kuwait, for the invasion of Iraq. The idea of the SecDef taking charge of the TPFDL is the epitome of a broken system.
par13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 5901 posts, RR: 8 Reply 6, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 3612 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 1): Also the Serbs ripple fired SAMs and successfully shot down a F-117 stealth fighter.
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 3): Furthermore, if I recall correctly, just as in Bosnia some years before, the allies fell into a fairly predictable pattern of attack routes in the area.
The primary reason, no need to get up to the presidential level, there are enough "managers" at the lower levels to mess things up.
Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 5): Anyway, it would be nice to think that after the lessons of Viet Nam, politicians would know to minimize their meddling in military operations. Micromanaging the fine details from the Situation Room has never been a wise move.
When the B-52 bombing campaign of the North began it was not the politicians back home who decided that the slow turn was the only manuever to get out of dodge.
Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 5): ...But we still manage to trip over our own feet.
Unfortunate that this still occurs, my simple solution is that commissioned officers have to serve in the field for at least 5 years before being kicked up the promotion ladder to desk jobs, now they may mess up the day to day operation of the military but hopefully the 5 years will train and or weed out the "boarderline" cases. Simplistic I know, but we cannot always rely on wars to bring better leaders to the fore, uncessary casualties always preceed such events.
KingairTA From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 445 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 3563 times:
Back on subject. I'd suspect that the stealth craft would still have the upper hand if it had to visually identify the target. Because he knows where the target is at and has the surprise advantage.
HaveBlue From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 2069 posts, RR: 1 Reply 8, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 3453 times:
I like CBM56's point... we've long had capabilities that we weren't allowed to use. Hell the F-14 could track 24 targets at once and fire 6 Phoenix missiles simultaneously at 6 different targets from over 100 miles away... but do you think we'd ever get to use it that way? Nope, nothing short of a full on war with the USSR and if we had tons of Soviet bombers headed this way. The point is that even with all that capability at hand, it was useless most of the time because ROE's state you have to 'see' the target and make sure it isn't friendly. The fact is a Tomcat could kill an enemy long before the enemy would know a F-14 was there... but it would never be allowed to.
I think this handicaps the F-22 as well... it doesn't matter how far away he can kill a percieved enemy, he's still going to have to get close enough to 'see' that he's not one of ours.
XT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3130 posts, RR: 4 Reply 9, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 3104 times:
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 3): While the "first look, first shot, first kill" mantra of the F-22 would be history, the Raptor is a more than capable dogfighter and should be able, with a well trained pilot, to at least match the Flankers and probably beat the MiG-29.
Likely in this case you would use the F22 as backup to older frames. So if some F16's ID a formation of planes as hostile, the F22 can then support from BVR.
CMB56 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 206 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 3033 times:
Sounds like an interesting tactic. Sort of like the Sptifires take on the Me-109s while the Hurricanes attack the bombers. But if the friendlies and bad guys start to mix it up how do you support that from BVR. The same rule then comes into play. Visually identification required. I also don't think anyone in the USAF wants to consider a situation where the F-22 is simply a "goood match" for any enemy aircraft. That sounds like a kill ratio of 1 : 1.
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11708 posts, RR: 52 Reply 11, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 2822 times:
Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 9): Likely in this case you would use the F22 as backup to older frames. So if some F16's ID a formation of planes as hostile, the F22 can then support from BVR.
I doubt the F-22 would fire from BVR, if friendly F-16s were close enough to get a visual ID on the enemy. The F-16s would simply take the kill shot themselves.
Quoting CMB56 (Reply 10): Sounds like an interesting tactic. Sort of like the Sptifires take on the Me-109s while the Hurricanes attack the bombers. But if the friendlies and bad guys start to mix it up how do you support that from BVR. The same rule then comes into play. Visually identification required. I also don't think anyone in the USAF wants to consider a situation where the F-22 is simply a "goood match" for any enemy aircraft. That sounds like a kill ratio of 1 : 1.
Even though the Sptifires were mostly sent after the Bf-109s and the Hurricanes went mostly for the Ju-88s, each would not pass up an attacking German aircraft they were close to. The Hurricanes, although never given as much credit as the Spitfire was, was still a good dogfighter and could hold its own against the Bf-109s.
XT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3130 posts, RR: 4 Reply 12, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 2697 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 11): I doubt the F-22 would fire from BVR, if friendly F-16s were close enough to get a visual ID on the enemy. The F-16s would simply take the kill shot themselves.
Unequal numbers, and the problems of maintaining contact with modern highspeed jets make BVR still very critical even if the intial contact is capible of winning 1 on 1. The stealth and speed of the F22 would be well used to assist the more numerous conventional fighters. Certainly we don't have enough F22 to leave everthing to it.
par13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 5901 posts, RR: 8 Reply 13, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 2515 times:
Best equipment for any stealth a/c is a visual sighting system like what was on the F-14's unless one is in an all out war, ROE will always negate the value of stealth as positive ID's will be required. A long range visual tv system in this digital age with proper magnification would be priceless on any a/c which carries BVR weapons and has some stealth capabilities.
HaveBlue From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 2069 posts, RR: 1 Reply 14, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 2483 times:
Quoting par13del (Reply 13): Best equipment for any stealth a/c is a visual sighting system like what was on the F-14's unless one is in an all out war, ROE will always negate the value of stealth as positive ID's will be required. A long range visual tv system in this digital age with proper magnification would be priceless on any a/c which carries BVR weapons and has some stealth capabilities.
Aesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 4784 posts, RR: 9 Reply 15, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 2470 times:
It's not just some political/PR move not to allow shoot first ask questions later, there are situations where this would lead to a war you don't want to fight.
And what would each pilot think, knowing any of his allies (including his coworkers) could shoot him if there is a doubt about his ID ?
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 206 posts, 
From Germany, joined Nov 2006, 4248 posts, 
From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 5901 posts, 
From France, joined Nov 2009, 4784 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
