DOCSLIB.ORG

University Microfilms, a XEROX Company, Ann Arbor, Michigan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
University Microfilms, a XEROX Company, Ann Arbor, Michigan 72-4533 JONES Jr., Chester George, 1936- ATTRITION OF BOMBERS AS A FUNCTION OF WEAPON LOAD AND GROUPING OF THE AIRBORNE DEFENSE. The Ohio State University, Ph.D., 1971 Engineering, industrial University Microfilms, A XEROX Company , Ann Arbor, Michigan THIS DISSERTATION HAS BEEN MICROFILMED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED ATTRITION OF BOMBERS AS A FUNCTION OF WEAPON LOAD AND GROUPING OF THE AIRBORNE DEFENSE DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Chester George Jones Jr., B.M.E., M.S.E.E. ****** The Ohio State University 1971 Approved by Adviser Department of Industrial Engineering ACKN CWLEDGMEN TS The author wishes to express his appreciation to all those who encouraged his continuation of this effort I am especially appreciative of the support given to me by Mr. Paul Nosker and Mr. Duane Dunlap who were my supervisors at Wright Patterson Air Force Base during this effort. I also wish to express my gratitude to two of my co-workers at Wright Patterson Air Force Base Dr. Clifford Fawcett and Mr. Vladimir Vukmir. It was my association with Dr. Fawcett and Mr. Vukmir that provided the initial catalyst for the work presented in this volume. I wish to thank my advisor, Professor Albert B. Bishop for his help and patience during this effort. His many suggestions have added greatly to the content of this volume. I also wish to thank the other members of the Industrial Engineering Department for their many invaluable contributions to my education. Finally, I wish to thank my wife, Clara, and children, Pamela, Daniel, and Michael for their understanding and patience. My wife’s help in preparing this manuscript greatly exceeded what one would normally expect. In addition to typing the drafts, her many suggestions greatly improved the content of this volume. VITA May 14, 1936 ......... Born - Utica, New York 1960 ............ B.M.E., Syracuse University 1960-1961 ............ Design Engineer, Remington Rand Corp., Norwalk, Conn. 1961-1962 ...... Manufacturing Engineer, Remington Rand Corp., Ilion, New York 1964 .... ......... M.S.E.E., University of Illinois 1964-1966 ...... Design Engineer, NCR Company Dayton, Ohio 1966-1971 ............ Operations Research Analyst, Aeronautical Systems Division, WPAFB, Ohio PUBLICATIONS “Effectiveness Determination of Bombers Penetrating Through an Air-to-Air Defense", Co-Author, Operations Research, Vol. 18, No. 3, May - June, 1970, pp 516-525. "Further Thoughts on the Formulation of the Bomber Penetration Problem", ASBES Working Paper Number 67-10, Nov. 1967. iv "Sensitivity Analysis of Parameters Affecting Bomber Penetration Through an Air-to-Air Defense", SES 67-3 July, 1967, "Generalized Aircraft Performance Model", Co-Author, SES 67-2, May, 1967, FIELDS OF STUDY Major Field: Operations Research Optimization and Control Theory. Professor Albert B. B ishop Operations Research, Professor Walter C. Giffin Mathematical Programming. Professor Richard L. Francis Decision Theory and Management Information Systems, Professor William T. Morris Experimental Design. Professor John B. Newhardt v TABLE OF CONTENTS P age ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...................................... ii VITA ........................................ iv LIST OF TABLES ..................................... LIST OF FIGURES ..................................... CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION ............................. 1 The Options Available to the Offense The Options Available to the Defense II. HISTORICAL R E V I E W ........................ 19 Lanchester's Formulations More Exact Solutions Thomas1 Formulation A More Recent Approach III. ESTABLISHING A LOWER BOUND ............ 44 Interpretation of Defensive Weapon E f fects Derivation of the Model IV. ESTABLISHING AN UPPER B O U N D ............ 71 V. AN EXPECTED VALUE SOLUTION ............ 89 Model Description Markovian Nature of the Model Probabilistic Versus Deterministic Weapon Load vi Page VI. SENSITIVITY ANALYSES ................... 130 Deviations From the Solution Found in Chapter V Variation of the Problem Formulation Uncertainty Remaining After the Bounding Analysis VII. MIXED DEFENSIVE WEAPON LOADS ......... 155 Determination of the Number of Possible Weapon Loadings A Lower Bound on Bomber Survivability for Mixed Defensive Weapon Loadings An Upper Bound for Mixed Defensive Weapon Loadings An Expected Value Solution for Mixed Defensive Weapon Loadings VIII. ALLOCATION OF OFFENSIVE WEAPONS . 175 Problem Definition The Bomb Allocation Model IX. CONCLUDING REMARKS ..................... 195 Limitations of the Solution Procedure APPENDIX A ............................................... 207 211 C ............................................... 223 ............................................... 238 LIST OF R E F E R E N C E S ................................. 241 vii LIST OF TABLES Tabic Page 1. Description of Defensive Weapons .......... 65 2. Lower Bounds on Bomber Effectiveness . • . 67 3. Upper Bounds on Bomber Effectiveness When Decoys Are U s e d ................. 81 4. Upper Bounds on Bomber Effectiveness When Defensive Missiles Are Used . 82 5. Remaining Candidates for the Optimum Solution ...... ................... 87 6. Analysis of One Battle Cycle .......... * . 94 7. Probability of Bomber Survival ...... 101 8. Number of Surviving Bombers ....... 102 9. Transition Matrix for the First Two Transitions ............. 106 10. Transition Matrix for the Third and All Succeeding Transitions ................ 107 11. Comparison of Deterministic and Probabilistic Weapon Load Models . 110 12. Probability of Attack of ith Bomber . 115 13. Number of Offensive Weapons Delivered as a Function of Defensive Weapons Carried and Interceptor Group Size . 125 14. Analysis of One Battle Cycle ....... 173 viii Table Page 15. Optimum Allocation of Bombs for Various Weapon Loadings ....................... 189 16. Upper and Lower Bounds on Reaching T a r g e t s ................................. 191 17. Optimum Allocation of Bombs for Bounding and Average Solutions ........ 191 18. Upper Bound on the Number of Offensive Weapons Delivered as a Function of the Number of Number Six Defensive Missiles Carried and Interceptor Group S i z e ....................... 213 19. Expected Number of Offensive Weapons Delivered as a Function of the Number of Number Six Defensive Missiles Carried and Interceptor Group S i z e ....................... 217 20. Reduced Payoff Matrix for the Two-Player Zero-Sum Game Problem ........... 219 21. Summary of Solutions for the Three Situations Considered ........ 222 22. Probability Distribution of Available Defensive Weapons at the Start of Each C y c l e ................ ....... 233 23. Expected Number of Bombers Surviving Cycle One as a Function of Defensive Weapons Carried and Interceptor Group Size ......... 234 24. Expected Number of Bombers Surviving Cycle Two as a Function of Defensive Weapons Carried and Interceptor Group Size ..................... 235 25. Expected Number of Bombers Surviving Cycle Three as a Function of Defensive Weapons Carried and Interceptor Group Size ....... 236 26. Upper Bounds on Bomber Effectiveness When Defensive Missiles Are Used . 239 ix LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. MODEL OVERVIEW ............................ 92 2. MAXIMUM AREA SEARCHED ................... 121 3. AN UNREACHABLE BOMBER ................... 121 4. THE EFFECT OF THE NUMBER OF DEFENSIVE WEAPONS CARRIED ON THE NUMBER OF BOMBS DELIVERED ..................... 134 5. THE EFFECT OF INTERCEPTOR GROUP SIZE (NjJ ON THE NUMBER OF BOMBS DELIVERED ............................ 136 6. THE EFFECT OF MISSILE SIZE ON BOMBER EFFECTIVENESS . ................... 142 7. THE EFFECT OF DECOY SIZE ON BOMBER EFFECTIVENESS . ..................... 143 8. THE EFFECT OF MISSILE EFFECTIVENESS ON THE NUMBER OF BOMBS DELIVERED . 144 9. THE EFFECT OF INTERCEPTOR FORCE SIZE ON THE NUMBER OF BOMBS DELIVERED . 145 10. THE EFFECT OF INTERCEPTOR KILL PROBABILITY (Pu^) ON THE NUMBER OF BOMBS DELIVERED ................ 146 11. THE EFFECT OF THE INTERCEPTORS' ABILITY TO REACH BOMBERS ON THE NUMBER OF BOMBS DELIVERED ..................... 147 X Figure Page 12. UNCERTAINTY IN THE BOUNDING ANALYSIS VS THE NUMBER OF DECOYS/BOMBER .... 150 13. UNCERTAINTY IN THE BOUNDING ANALYSIS VS THE NUMBER OF ANTI-INTERCEPTOR m i s s i l e s /Bo m b e r ....................... 151 14. UNCERTAINTY IN THE BOUNDING ANALYSIS VS THE NUMBER OF ANTI-MISSILE m i s s i l e s /Bo m b e r ....................... 152 15. STEP ONE OF THE M O D E L ........................ 226 16. STEP TWO OF THE M O D E L ........................ 228 17. STEP THREE OF THE M O D E L ......................230 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION A large portion of today's military resources are devoted to manned bomber and interceptor aircraft. Despite the growth of long range missile capabilities, it is generally considered likely that bombers will continue to be an important attack weapon in the future. Since interceptor aircraft appear to offer one of the best means of defending against bombers, it is also probable that interceptors will remain to represent a significant portion of the world's military resources. Modern aircraft, both bombers and interceptors, have become very complex and therefore increasingly expensive. No nation can afford to purchase such expensive weapons without a justification of the expenditure. It is also apparent that the worth of such systems is dependent upon the weapons that will be carried in a typical mission. Any analysis of these
Load more

Recommended publications
  • P-38 Lightning
    P-38 Lightning P-38 Lightning Type Heavy fighter Manufacturer Lockheed Designed by Kelly Johnson Maiden flight 27 January 1939 Introduction 1941 Retired 1949 Primary user United States Army Air Force Produced 1941–45 Number built 10,037[1] Unit cost US$134,284 when new[2] Variants Lockheed XP-49 XP-58 Chain Lightning The Lockheed P-38 Lightning was a World War II American fighter aircraft. Developed to a United States Army Air Corps requirement, the P-38 had distinctive twin booms with forward-mounted engines and a single, central nacelle containing the pilot and armament. The aircraft was used in a number of different roles, including dive bombing, level bombing, ground strafing, photo reconnaissance missions,[3] and extensively as a long-range escort fighter when equipped with droppable fuel tanks under its wings. The P-38 was used most extensively and successfully in the Pacific Theater of Operations and the China-Burma-India Theater of Operations, where it was flown by the American pilots with the highest number of aerial victories to this date. The Lightning called "Marge" was flown by the ace of aces Richard Bong who earned 40 victories. Second with 38 was Thomas McGuire in his aircraft called "Pudgy". In the South West Pacific theater, it was a primary fighter of United States Army Air Forces until the appearance of large numbers of P-51D Mustangs toward the end of the war. [4][5] 1 Design and development Lockheed YP-38 (1943) Lockheed designed the P-38 in response to a 1937 United States Army Air Corps request for a high- altitude interceptor aircraft, capable of 360 miles per hour at an altitude of 20,000 feet, (580 km/h at 6100 m).[6] The Bell P-39 Airacobra and the Curtiss P-40 Warhawk were also designed to meet the same requirements.
    [Show full text]
  • IB81107: Bomber Options for Replacing B-52S
    BOMBER OPTIONS FOR REPLACING B-52s ISSUE BRIEF NUMBER IB81107 AUTHOR: Mitchell, Douglas D. Foreign Affairs and National Defense Division THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE MAJOR ISSUES SYSTEM ' DATE ORIGINATED 06/17/81 DATE UPDATED 05/03/82 FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CALL 287-5700 0528 CRS- 1 ISSUE DEFINITION To deter a nuclear attack against this country and its allies, the United States maintains a strategic force of land-based missiles (ICBMs), submarine-based missiles (SLBMs), and bombers. The bomber leg of this "triad" primarily consists of about 343 B-52 bombers operated by the Strategic Air Command (SAC). Many believe that by 1990, the B-52's vulnerability to improving Soviet air defenses will imperil its effectiveness as a penetrating bomber. There is strong sentiment in Congress and in the Department of Defense to replace the B-52s before that time. The FY81 Defense Authorization Act (P.L. 96-342) directed the Secretary of Defense to develop a "multi-role bomber" for initial deployment by 1987. Candidate aircraft were to include the B-1, a derivative of the B-1, the FB-111B/C, and an advanced technology aircraft, which would incorporate "Stealth.'' Months before the choice of aircraft was announced, the new Reagan Administration added $2.4 billion to the FY82 defense budget, to initiate a bomber procurement and research and development program called Long Range Combat Aircraft (LRCA). In a long-awaited announcement on Oct. 2, 1981, President Reagan designated a modified B-1 -- also known as the B-1B -- as the aircraft to be built for LRCA.
    [Show full text]
  • Aircraft of Today. Aerospace Education I
    DOCUMENT RESUME ED 068 287 SE 014 551 AUTHOR Sayler, D. S. TITLE Aircraft of Today. Aerospace EducationI. INSTITUTION Air Univ.,, Maxwell AFB, Ala. JuniorReserve Office Training Corps. SPONS AGENCY Department of Defense, Washington, D.C. PUB DATE 71 NOTE 179p. EDRS PRICE MF-$0.65 HC-$6.58 DESCRIPTORS *Aerospace Education; *Aerospace Technology; Instruction; National Defense; *PhysicalSciences; *Resource Materials; Supplementary Textbooks; *Textbooks ABSTRACT This textbook gives a brief idea aboutthe modern aircraft used in defense and forcommercial purposes. Aerospace technology in its present form has developedalong certain basic principles of aerodynamic forces. Differentparts in an airplane have different functions to balance theaircraft in air, provide a thrust, and control the general mechanisms.Profusely illustrated descriptions provide a picture of whatkinds of aircraft are used for cargo, passenger travel, bombing, and supersonicflights. Propulsion principles and descriptions of differentkinds of engines are quite helpful. At the end of each chapter,new terminology is listed. The book is not available on the market andis to be used only in the Air Force ROTC program. (PS) SC AEROSPACE EDUCATION I U S DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH. EDUCATION & WELFARE OFFICE OF EDUCATION THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRO OUCH) EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROM THE PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIG INATING IT POINTS OF VIEW OR OPIN 'IONS STATED 00 NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENT OFFICIAL OFFICE OF EOU CATION POSITION OR POLICY AIR FORCE JUNIOR ROTC MR,UNIVERS17/14AXWELL MR FORCEBASE, ALABAMA Aerospace Education I Aircraft of Today D. S. Sayler Academic Publications Division 3825th Support Group (Academic) AIR FORCE JUNIOR ROTC AIR UNIVERSITY MAXWELL AIR FORCE BASE, ALABAMA 2 1971 Thispublication has been reviewed and approvedby competent personnel of the preparing command in accordance with current directiveson doctrine, policy, essentiality, propriety, and quality.
    [Show full text]
  • Air Base Defense Rethinking Army and Air Force Roles and Functions for More Information on This Publication, Visit
    C O R P O R A T I O N ALAN J. VICK, SEAN M. ZEIGLER, JULIA BRACKUP, JOHN SPEED MEYERS Air Base Defense Rethinking Army and Air Force Roles and Functions For more information on this publication, visit www.rand.org/t/RR4368 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available for this publication. ISBN: 978-1-9774-0500-5 Published by the RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, Calif. © Copyright 2020 RAND Corporation R® is a registered trademark. Limited Print and Electronic Distribution Rights This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited. Permission is given to duplicate this document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions. The RAND Corporation is a research organization that develops solutions to public policy challenges to help make communities throughout the world safer and more secure, healthier and more prosperous. RAND is nonprofit, nonpartisan, and committed to the public interest. RAND’s publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors. Support RAND Make a tax-deductible charitable contribution at www.rand.org/giving/contribute www.rand.org Preface The growing cruise and ballistic missile threat to U.S. Air Force bases in Europe has led Headquarters U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Defending Attack from the North: Alaska's Forward Operating Bases
    DEFENDING ATTACK FROM THE NORTH: Alaska’s Forward Operating Bases During the Cold War Photo: Eleventh Air Force History Office Archives DDTTACKEFENDING FROMATTACK THE NORTH FROM: THE NORTH: Alaska’s Forward Operating Bases During the Cold War The Alaskan forward operating bases (FOBs) played a significant role in the United States’ strategic air defense in the early Cold War. Because the Alaskan FOBs were located close to the Soviet Union, and more importantly, close to Soviet bases used for bomber opera- tions, the fighters stationed there could and Must Watch Both North and West did intercept the major share of Soviet aircraft that ventured into American airspace. This booklet presents the history of the FOBs and was compiled from a variety of sources, including recently declassified military histories and interviews with veterans and long-time contractors at the installations. The Soviet Threat in the 1950s Soon after World War II, the military emphasis for U.S. forces in Alaska shifted from coun- tering a threat from the western Pacific to countering a threat from the Arctic north. The Soviet Union, which lacked access to foreign bases within bombing distance of North America, established numerous airfields in northern Siberia beginning in 1945. Because those airfields were one thousand miles closer to the heartland of the United States than any other potential military base in the U.S.S.R. and because Soviet bombers lacked adequate range to attack from other bases, the Siberian bases represented the most significant threat This map created and published by the 49th Star newspaper illus- of Soviet attack on North America.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Paper
    BUILDING AN AGILE FORCE: The Imperative for Speed and Adaptation in the U.S. Aerospace Industrial Base L INS EL TIT CH U IT T E M f s o e r i Ae ud By Lt Gen David A. Deptula, USAF (Ret.) rospace St and Heather R. Penney BUILDING AN AGILE FORCE: The Imperative for Speed and Adaptation in the U.S. Aerospace Industrial Base By Lt Gen David A. Deptula, USAF (Ret.) and Heather R. Penney The Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies Air Force Association Arlington, VA May 2021 About the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies The Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies is an independent, nonpartisan policy research institute established to promote understanding of the national security advantages of exploiting the domains of air, space, and cyberspace. The Mitchell Institute goals are: 1) to educate the public about the advantages of aerospace power in achieving America’s global interests; 2) to inform key decision makers about the policy options created by exploiting the domains of air, space, and cyberspace, and the importance of necessary investment to keep America the world’s premier aerospace nation; and 3) to cultivate future policy leaders who understand the advantages of operating in air, space, and cyberspace. Mitchell Institute maintains a policy not to advocate for specific proprietary systems or specific companies in its research and study efforts. Disclaimer: Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies would like to recognize that this publication is based upon work supported by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). Any opinions, findings and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of DARPA.
    [Show full text]
  • April 30, 2007
    Hangar Digest THE AIR MOBILITY COMMAND MUSEUM Page 1 Hangar digest VOLUME 19, NO. 2 APR—JUN 2019 THE AMCM HANGAR DIGEST IS A QUARTERLY PUBLICATION OF THE AMC MUSEUM FOUNDATION INC. Page 2 Volume 19, Issue 2 Air Mobility Command Museum Mission Statement The mission of the Air Mobility Command Museum is twofold: ● To present the history and development of military airlift and tanker operations. ● In a goal closely aligned with the first, to portray the rich history of Dover Air Force Base and its predecessor, Dover Army Airfield. AMC Museum Staff AMC Museum Foundation Director Board of Directors The AMC Museum Hangar John Taylor President Digest is published quar- Deputy Director Col. Don Sloan, USAFR (Ret.) terly and is dedicated to Eric Czerwinski Vice President the preservation of our Senior Archivist Lt. Col. Paul Gillis, USAFR (Ret.) airlift and tanker herit- Lt. Col. Harry E. Heist, USAF (Ret.) Secretary age. All articles, unless Photo Archivist MSgt. Jeff Brown, USAF (Ret.) otherwise noted, are writ- SMSgt. Larry Koewing, USAF (Ret.) Treasurer ten by the editor. Collections Manager Mrs. Chris Godek Viewpoints in this publica- Hal Sellars Members tion are those of the contrib- Educator Mr. Robert Berglund uting authors and do not nec- Tricia Upchurch Mr. Carleton E. Carey Sr. essarily reflect the opinions of Museum Store Manager Lt. Gen. Bob Dierker, USAF (Ret.) Kelly Hurlburt The AMC Museum Founda- CW4 Jim Fazekas, USA (Ret.) Volunteer Coordinator/Scheduler Mr. Skip Ford tion or of the Museum’s staff. Paul George Subscriptions are free and CMSgt. George Roof,, USAF (Ret.) Librarian CMSgt.
    [Show full text]
  • The Hawker Hunter Ebook
    THE HAWKER HUNTER PDF, EPUB, EBOOK Tim McLelland | 336 pages | 01 Jan 2009 | Crecy Publishing | 9780859791236 | English | Cheshire, United Kingdom The Hawker Hunter PDF Book The Hunter is not very fast but i can fly it very scale.. Jackson, Robert. Language: English. The installer will give you an option of what simulator you would like to install the aircraft to, being either FSX or Prepar3D. Longevity, grace and flight technology combined with a sleek appearance which was typified by round edges and smooth contours are the characteristics that define this distinctly British-designed aircraft and are the very principles that have inspired AVI-8 to design the Hawker Hunter Collection of watches. The Hawker Hunter. Please read our Help For New Flightsimmers. Griffin, David J. During the s, following the introduction of the supersonic English Electric Lightning in the interceptor role, the Hunter transitioned to being operated as a fighter-bomber and for aerial reconnaissance missions, using dedicated variants for these purposes. May 30, , PM. This means that every time you visit this website you will need to enable or disable cookies again. The Hunter fleet endured several attempts to procure successor aircraft to the type; in the case of the Dassault Mirage III this had been due to excessive cost overruns and poor project management rather than the attributes of the Hunter itself. In accordance with this policy, aside from a small number of exceptions such as what would become the Hawker Sea Hawk for the Royal Navy , the majority of Specifications issued by the Air Ministry for fighter-sized aircraft during the late s were restricted to research purposes.
    [Show full text]
  • The Phantom Menace: the F-4 in Air Combat in Vietnam
    THE PHANTOM MENACE: THE F-4 IN AIR COMBAT IN VIETNAM Michael W. Hankins Thesis Prepared for the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS August 2013 APPROVED: Robert Citino, Major Professor Michael Leggiere, Committee Member Christopher Fuhrmann, Committee Member Richard McCaslin, Chair of the Department of History Mark Wardell, Dean of the Toulouse Graduate School Hankins, Michael W. The Phantom Menace: The F-4 in Air Combat in Vietnam. Master of Science (History), August 2013, 161 pp., 2 illustrations, bibliography, 84 titles. The F-4 Phantom II was the United States' primary air superiority fighter aircraft during the Vietnam War. This airplane epitomized American airpower doctrine during the early Cold War, which diminished the role of air-to-air combat and the air superiority mission. As a result, the F-4 struggled against the Soviet MiG fighters used by the North Vietnamese Air Force. By the end of the Rolling Thunder bombing campaign in 1968, the Phantom traded kills with MiGs at a nearly one-to-one ratio, the worst air combat performance in American history. The aircraft also regularly failed to protect American bombing formations from MiG attacks. A bombing halt from 1968 to 1972 provided a chance for American planners to evaluate their performance and make changes. The Navy began training pilots specifically for air combat, creating the Navy Fighter Weapons School known as "Top Gun" for this purpose. The Air Force instead focused on technological innovation and upgrades to their equipment. The resumption of bombing and air combat in the 1972 Linebacker campaigns proved that the Navy's training practices were effective, while the Air Force's technology changes were not, with kill ratios becoming worse.
    [Show full text]
  • F-104S Starfighter CIO - 1985
    F-104S Starfighter CIO - 1985 Italy Type: Fighter Min Speed: 350 kt Max Speed: 1150 kt Commissioned: 1985 Length: 16.7 m Wingspan: 6.4 m Height: 4.1 m Crew: 1 Empty Weight: 6350 kg Max Weight: 14760 kg Max Payload: 3400 kg Propulsion: 1x J79-GE-19 Sensors / EW: - NASARR F-15G - (F-104S, CIO) Radar, Radar, FCR, Air-to-Air & Air-to-Surface, Short-Range, Max range: 29.6 km Weapons / Loadouts: - 170 USG Drop Tank - Drop Tank. - 195 USG Drop Tank - Drop Tank. - AIM-7E2 Sparrow III - (1969, AAM-N-6b) Guided Weapon. Air Max: 29.6 km. - AIM-9L Sidewinder - (1980) Guided Weapon. Air Max: 18.5 km. OVERVIEW: The Lockheed F-104 Starfighter is a single-engine, supersonic interceptor aircraft originally developed by Lockheed for the United States Air Force (USAF). One of the Century Series of aircraft, it was operated by the air forces of more than a dozen nations from 1958 to 2004. DETAILS: The F-104 served with the USAF from 1958 until 1969, and continued with Air National Guard units until 1975. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) flew a small mixed fleet of F-104 types in supersonic flight tests and spaceflight programs until 1994. USAF F-104Cs saw service during the Vietnam War, and F-104A aircraft were deployed by Pakistan briefly during the Indo-Pakistani wars. Republic of China Air Force (Taiwan) F-104s also engaged the People's Liberation Army Air Force (China) over the disputed island of Quemoy. The operational service of the Starfighter ended with its retirement by the Italian Air Force in May 2004.
    [Show full text]
  • An Air Force for an Era of Great Power Competition
    AN AIR FORCE FOR AN ERA OF GREAT POWER COMPETITION MARK GUNZINGER CARL REHBERG JACOB COHN TIMOTHY A. WALTON LUKAS AUTENRIED AN AIR FORCE FOR AN ERA OF GREAT POWER COMPETITION MARK GUNZINGER CARL REHBERG JACOB COHN TIMOTHY A. WALTON LUKAS AUTENRIED 2019 ABOUT THE CENTER FOR STRATEGIC AND BUDGETARY ASSESSMENTS (CSBA) The Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments is an independent, nonpartisan policy research institute established to promote innovative thinking and debate about national security strategy and investment options. CSBA’s analysis focuses on key questions related to existing and emerging threats to U.S. national security, and its goal is to enable policymakers to make informed decisions on matters of strategy, security policy, and resource allocation. ©2019 Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. All rights reserved. ABOUT THE AUTHORS Mark Gunzinger is a Senior Fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. Mr. Gunzinger has served as the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Forces, Transformation and Resources. A retired Air Force Colonel and Command Pilot, he joined the Office of the Secretary of Defense in 2004 and was appointed to the Senior Executive Service and served as Principal Director of the Department’s central staff for the 2005–2006 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR). He served as Director for Defense Transformation, Force Planning and Resources on the National Security Council staff. Mr. Gunzinger holds an M.S. in National Security Strategy from the National War College, a Master of Airpower Art and Science degree from the School of Advanced Air and Space Studies, an M.P.A.
    [Show full text]
  • Specification AIR 7-3" in April 1953
    CANADA AVIATION AND SPACE MUSEUM AIRCRAFT AVRO CANADA CF-105 ARROW RCAF SERIAL 25206 (NOSE SECTION & COMPONENTS ONLY) Introduction The CF-105 Arrow was a delta-winged interceptor aircraft, designed and built by A.V. Roe (Avro) Canada as the culmination of a series of design studies that originally began in 1953. The Arrow is considered by many to have been one of the most advanced technological achievements by the Canadian aviation industry. The CF-105 design was capable of near-Mach 2 speeds at altitudes in excess of 15,250 meters (50,000 feet) and it was intended to serve as the Royal Canadian Air Force’s (RCAF) primary interceptor in the 1960s and beyond. However, in February 1959, in the midst of its flight test program, the development of the CF-105 Arrow (including all of its associated programs, such as the Orenda Iroquois jet engines, Astra fire control system and missile armament systems) was abruptly cancelled before a scheduled final project review had taken place, sparking an intense and often bitter political debate. The controversy engendered by this cancellation, and the subsequent destruction of all of aircraft then in production, still remains a topic for debate amongst historians, politicians, authors and aircraft enthusiasts. This decision not only resulted in the termination of the aircraft program but also led to the demise of Avro Canada. Background Prior to 1939, as “war clouds” loomed on the horizon, the Canadian government encouraged a number of "shadow factories" to be set up in order to produce British aircraft designs in relative safety.
    [Show full text]