To demonstrate I'm on it.
Legend of Abbreviations...
MF-Missiles Fired/
AC-Aircraft Claimed/
AL-Actual Losses and
MPAK-Missiles Per Aircraft Kill
1.
SA-2 COMBAT EFFECTIVENESS - VIETNAM 1965 - 1973
1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 Total
MF 109 590 1894 376 16 23 136 2032 72 5248
AC 87 186 411 96 2 2 32 415 62 1293
AL 13 3 61 12 0 1 7 72 3 203
MPKA 8.4 17.3 31 31 (-) 23 19 28 24 26(Avg.)
Sources: DOD and Center for Naval Analyses
2.
Weapons Causing All Aircraft Losses
AAA 31%/Small Arms Fire 45%/SAM 9%/MiG 4%/Fratricide 1%/Other/UnKn 10%
Source: Center for Naval Analyses
3.
Wild Weasel Losses by Cause 1956 - 1973
AAA 38%/MiG 18%/SAM 38%/Other 6%
Sources: Howard Plunkett Database and Center for Naval Analyses
Note: AAA includes Radar equipped as well.
The above are open source materials. However it would be unfair of me not to say these are also referenced in a absolutely wonderful book...
THE HUNTER KILLERS by DAN HAMPTON Lt.Col. USAF Ret. Credited with
151 Combat Missions with among his other awards, received
4 DFC's with Valor. He also wrote
VIPER PILOT.
The book is about how they started, weapons and technologies used about the pilots and the Vietnam War each section has a "time period" actual mission (You felt like you were in the cockpit with them.) which added flavor to the points made. Many of the surviving pilots and operators are a part of the story or have contributed to it.
Hopefully that's my
CYA above.
I was going to post this in the XXX Thread but got side tracked with my Patch Submission Post, sorry, but here it is.
Those were
3rd GEN planes with similar GEN missiles and you see above who the main killer was.
Though it needs to be understood, though, it only provides a baseline to start from and not a means to an end.
I think you'll find our SAM's are running fairly close or slightly better then the numbers above. We still have SAM's to come the Russian
S-500 for instance.
But PAT we have
5th GEN fighters but what about
4th GEN or 5th GEN SAM Systems? And I would respectfully disagree with you. We do have them already 4th GEN
S-300/400, 4th GEN ++
S-400 latest version and 5th GEN is harder, for now though the
S-500/MEADS/PATRIOT PAC-3++ so they're here and I believe working fine.
I'm only tweaking and making some correction as I pointed in one of my last posts for instance the
GRIPEN and disparities between the
Su-35 EW 10 while the
MiG-29SM has a EW 9. I haven't settled my "tiering" process but, the
Su-35 should have a
EW 14 but that's still up for evaluation. Some might be submitted to have a lower EW rating.
I asked for F-22 and B-2 to be raised so my number blocks will allow for expansion if you will i.e. 4th GEN Fighters is broken as 4th GEN/4th GEN+/4th GEN++ and some sources have 4th GEN+++.
Let's assume I find I'm looking at all four break downs for 4th GEN jets and I represent them (
EW) as 1, 2, 3, and 4, well that's where the work is.
So using the
HORNET, the A/B would be a 1/C/D 2/E/F 3 and E/F w/AESA and IRST a 4.
The tiers would allow a jet like the
PAK-FA to cross to a 5th GEN lower tier later if certain issues are upgraded etc. for that plane.
I'm not trying to make this hard on myself, Don or Andy. Apparently my reasons for this as I have already posted, have if nothing else, at least peaked their curiosity to see what direction this takes.
I'll copy all this over to the Jets/Planes Thread so everyone have a "crack at it" but I'll be doing this independently, I'll never get it done by committee. My next step is to establish the tiers (#'s) and assign the GEN's to them. I'll post them when done.
Need some sleep now - Good Night Everyone.
Regards,
Pat
