Fighter pilot culture

Joined
Oct 31, 2013
Messages
1,551
Location
Georgia
As something of an adjunct to the F-18 Autoland thread there is a new book out that tries to examine the fighter pilot culture academically. I have not read the book and have only been through a fairly thorough review.

Michael W. Hankins, in Flying Camelot: The F-15, the F-16, and the Weaponization of Fighter Pilot Nostalgia
I will be reading the book (I'm a forever fan of Boyd, et al) but the review would seem to indicate the book itself is slightly at cross purposes to itself. Maybe to get attention it starts off at "Oh my goodness, look what they've done" with regard to how we got "here" via silk scarves, daring-do, dog fighting, knights of the sky...as if it were somehow questionable. And may end with how that yielded the best close-in Hi-Lo (cost) pair of fighters of the last 50 years - the F-15 and F-16. Notice I said pair, not to downplay the F-14. Those two have been exposed to way more combat opportunities worldwide than the F-14 just by the nature of things (fleet population, number of conflicts, etc. etc.). The review indicates the book is another tome on "the future is now" on how everything flying will be unpopulated....tomorrow and, we'll see if this is correct, too much emphasis on John Wayne and not enough emphasis on the desired unfair fight. At any rate I direct your attention to it if you're so inclined.
 
The review states "While Boyd and the Fighter Mafia were able to obtain their ideal fighters, they were ultimately employed during the Persian Gulf War contrary to their intended use." This statement alone demonstrates a fundamental lack of knowledge of the subject area. I also find the references to WWI dogfighting as being a basis for Air Force acquisition and planning to be tedious. Based upon the review, I am not sure of the value of the book, but perhaps the review has mischaracterized it.
The Air Force lost it's way during the 50s and 60s. The entire focus was on nuclear bombing. They ended up with fighters that couldn't fight. Nuclear bombers like the F-105 and interceptors like the F-104 and F-106. The only thing that saved them during the Vietnam War was the forced adoption of more capable Navy planes like the F-4 and the A-7.
I'm pretty sure history will show the Fighter Mafia was a force for good.
 
While in the Navy for several years I was attached to medical departments of USMC air wings. We had A6, Hornets and a Harrier squadron. The cadre of those fighter pilots were a different breed for sure. Might be because they are mostly 'type A' personalities and very intelligent or could be they are flying machines that want to kill them. I dunno. The rest of the support group 'wing nuts' are a lot like that too. Top Gun ethos wasn't Hollywood fiction. Just a subjective observation but I generally liked them all.

oorah to all my Marine friends!
usmc-crossed-flags-pin-5.jpg
 
Last edited:
While in the Navy for several years I was attached to medical departments of USMC air wings. We had A6, Hornets and a Harrier squadron. The cadre of those fighter pilots were a different breed for sure. Might be because they are mostly 'type A' personalities and very intelligent or could be they are flying machines that want to kill them. I dunno. The rest of the support group 'wing nuts' are a lot like that too. Top Gun ethos wasn't Hollywood fiction. Just a subjective observation but I generally liked them all.

oorah to all my Marine friends!
usmc-crossed-flags-pin-5.jpg
Airplane people are like that. I have a friend that was a Naval Aviator then an Airline pilot and at 70 years old he is now flying a Cessna Citation and have friends that are A&Ps They are motivated and seem to love aircraft. I admire pilots and A&Ps. The guy across the street has a twin engine plane with a pressureized cabin and the guy up the street flys a crop duster and where I used to live one of the neighbors flew Heuys from Vietnam to retiring from Cal Fire. Smart and movated ,stereotypical plane people.
 
They don't get the pick their call signs... iirc, a 2 or 3 star admiral chooses it for them. So, it can be a cool call sign, or embarrassing.
 
We are seeing the end of manned fighter planes from what I have read.
Seems to be the case over active modern ground forces in Ukraine atleast. Some parallels to battleships in the last half of WW2, too expensive to risk to use, and then often were lost in exchange for a tiny fraction of its value in enemy forces.
Over water or not over enemy ground forces, I guess manned fighters will have a place for a while yet. Building a drone to have the capabilities of Navy F-18 is probably nearly the same cost as a manned F-18, plus doing carrier landings would be a challenge.
 
Building a drone to have the capabilities of Navy F-18 is probably nearly the same cost as a manned F-18, plus doing carrier landings would be a challenge.
Iirc, the automated landing accuracy was too good for carriers, they had to introduce random variance to spread out wear and tear on the landing zone on the deck
 
We are seeing the end of manned fighter planes from what I have read.
Maybe my old age makes me think the fighter pilot is not replaceable by computers. But I'm 100% convinced that "if" a significant war breaks out, fighter pilots will be needed. Remember, in WW-II, P-51's were used to take out trains, ammo supplies, and innumerable other targets of opportunity. I don't believe data will flow freely in a major conflict. Leading to real "eyes" and "brains" making critical choices. My point is that fighters don't just fight other aircraft.
 
Last edited:
Maybe my old age makes me think the fighter pilot is not replaceable by computers. But I'm 100% convinced that "if" a significant war breaks out, fighter pilots will be needed. Remember, in WW-II, P-51's were used to take out trains, ammo supplies, and innumerable other targets of opportunity. I don't believe data will flow freely in a major conflict. Leading to real "eyes" and "brains" making critical choices. My point is that fighters don't just fight other aircraft.

Most drones aren't autonomous though. There has to be someone at the controls making those decisions. So Admiral Cain in Top Gun: Maverick was wrong.

These planes you've been testing, Captain, one day, sooner or later, they won't need pilots at all. Pilots that need to sleep, eat, take a piss. Pilots that disobey orders. All you did was buy some time for those men out there. The future is coming, and you're not in it.

The controllers still need to do all that, but unlike fighter aircraft, it should be possible to switch controls to a new controller. But disobeying orders is still possible, such as the fictional account in Amazon 's Jack Ryan series of a USAF drone controller disobeying orders and taking out someone who was threatening a woman.

I guess one of the issues with fighters for human pilots is that they have to support human life and human limits. A high performance drone should be able to exceed human limits, although it's certainly going to be like playing a video game. And to some degree the human in the back seat of some aircraft is doing that.
 
Maybe my old age makes me think the fighter pilot is not replaceable by computers. But I'm 100% convinced that "if" a significant war breaks out, fighter pilots will be needed. Remember, in WW-II, P-51's were used to take out trains, ammo supplies, and innumerable other targets of opportunity. I don't believe data will flow freely in a major conflict. Leading to real "eyes" and "brains" making critical choices. My point is that fighters don't just fight other aircraft.
A brain in a plane !
 
Maybe my old age makes me think the fighter pilot is not replaceable by computers. But I'm 100% convinced that "if" a significant war breaks out, fighter pilots will be needed. Remember, in WW-II, P-51's were used to take out trains, ammo supplies, and innumerable other targets of opportunity. I don't believe data will flow freely in a major conflict. Leading to real "eyes" and "brains" making critical choices. My point is that fighters don't just fight other aircraft.
Ninth AAF P-47’s did the vast majority of that duty. Much more suited to the task. Hence, the A10’s being originally called Thunderbolts after the WWII Jugs.
 
Maybe my old age makes me think the fighter pilot is not replaceable by computers. But I'm 100% convinced that "if" a significant war breaks out, fighter pilots will be needed. Remember, in WW-II, P-51's were used to take out trains, ammo supplies, and innumerable other targets of opportunity. I don't believe data will flow freely in a major conflict. Leading to real "eyes" and "brains" making critical choices. My point is that fighters don't just fight other aircraft.
An interview with a current Ukrainian pilot, it sounds like either side is quite far away from being able to cruise around finding targets of opportunity, as there are too many systems on either side capable of taking them down. But the Ukraine is getting some capability to strike at russian AA systems soon.
It seems realistically that the war will be won on the ground, and Ukraine air force's main goal is to keep the Russians from using their airpower effectively? Unless the west gives Ukraine the "good stuff" then maybe the air force will be more of an offensive option.
 
Considering the performance of drones and the ability to hit targets with missiles? I was never sure why we needed tech above an f-16. or an A-10
 
Considering the performance of drones and the ability to hit targets with missiles? I was never sure why we needed tech above an f-16. or an A-10
A narrow view that ignores the scenario and adversary capabilities.

The F-16 doesn’t have the weapons range, or legs, for many missions against a peer adversary.

The A-10 is a sitting duck against a real fighter.

Missiles may, or may not, work against many types of targets.

Your statement is like asking why anyone needs a socket set, when your adjustable wrench fits every bolt.
 
Last edited:
A narrow view that ignores the scenario and adversary capabilities.

The F-16 doesn’t have the weapons range, or legs, for many missions against a peer adversary.

The A-10 is a sitting duck against a real fighter.

Missiles may, or may not, work against many types of targets.

Your statement is like asking why anyone needs a socket set, when your adjustable wrench fits every bolt.
I guess we needed that f-35 POS. I have issues with imaginary enemies and insane spending. The problems with every country having a military/industrial complex aren't talked about.
 
Back
Top