History, Politics And Current Affairs

Opinions expressed here are personal views of contributors and do not necessarily represent the companies, organizations or governments they work for. Nor do they necessarily represent those of the Board Administration.
It is currently Sun Jan 21, 2018 5:51 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 25 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Dec 30, 2017 8:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 10:49 pm
Posts: 10917
Russia Factor Year
Polikarpov R.1 20.91 1924
Tupolev R.3 22.67 1926
Polikarpov Po.2 5.40 1928
Polikarpov R.5 25.85 1930
Polikarpov R.Z 38.83 1935
Su-2 65.86 1940
Il-2M1 66.29 1941
Il-2M3 66.34 1942
Il-10 85.25 1945
Yak-38 269.43 1976
France Factor Year
MF-11 -0.97 1913
Voisin 3 -0.95 1913
MS-P 7.46 1914
Voisin 5 2.84 1915
Bre-14 18.54 1917
Salmson 2 13.83 1917
Bre-19 22.31 1922
Potez 15 18.10 1923
Potez 25 19.88 1925
PL-2 (Navy) 18.74 1926
Potez 27 22.01 1925
PL-7 (Navy) 19.48 1930
Bre-270 28.30 1930
Etendard IV 240.56 1962
Super Etendard 277.37 1974
Italy Factor Year
Savoia SP2 2.54 1915
Savoia SP3 8.40 1917
Savoia SP4 11.04 1918
Fiat BR.1 28.49 1919
Fiat BR.2 33.40 1923
Caproni 73 20.44 1925
Caproni 308 45.47 1935
Breda Ba.64 40.40 1935
Breda Ba.65 49.68 1937
Breda Ba.88 73.11 1940
Caproni 310 48.38 1940
Caproni 311 45.80 1940
Caproni 313 60.32 1940
Caproni 314 58.48 1941
MB-326 115.76 1962
MB-339 150.23 1979
AMX A-11B 265.36 1986

_________________
Nations do not survive by setting examples for others.
Nations survive by making examples of others


Last edited by Francis Urquhart on Sat Dec 30, 2017 9:01 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Dec 30, 2017 8:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 2:37 pm
Posts: 7568
Location: BM-9, BB-30
I think the Italians might be annoyed to be designated as Southern France there. ;)

_________________
RLBH wrote:
I'm sorry, but I prefer to carpet-shark my enemies. Much more mayhem, though it must be admitted that the laser-guided shark is cheaper.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Dec 31, 2017 6:04 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2008 10:51 am
Posts: 2072
Location: Georgia
Gotta say, I'm really surprised by the Yak-38. What's up with that?

_________________
To do much in this life, you must learn much.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Dec 31, 2017 11:59 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 10:49 pm
Posts: 10917
By a glaring oversight, I haven't included a number of the more modern light attack aircraft yet including the Harrier/AV-8 and Alphajet families. The Yak-38 seems to fall into the light attack average for its era; its comparable with the Skyhawk and the AMX for example. I'm going to put the missing aircraft in ASAP but I suspect the pattern will be that they fall into the 250-300 bracket. It looks yo me as if the Yak-38 was an OK light attack aircraft when seen in that context but it was asked to do things that were beyond its skill level and thus did not shine at. In some ways, I suppose that its a bit like using the SBD as a fighter for CAP in WW2; yes, one can do it but it won't be good at it.

The other thing is that this is a hard data listing; the faults that limited the Yak-38 were not things that show up in a statistical analysis. It's not alone in that; the Italian Breda-88 for example looks good but it was withdrawn from service after a year due to structural and instability problems. The Barracuda and Firebrand in the UK have similar issues; they don't look too bad in the listings but they all had perennial issues that prevented them fulfilling their promise. As a direct comparison with the Yak-38, the AMX had crippling engine problems that turned a really good basic design into a lame duck. I've heard those engine issues have been addressed now but its too late. A pity because I liked the AMX.

What this list achieves as one of its side-effects is that it gives us an indication of how good or bad the soft issues are. An aircraft that has a good "real" reputation (by which I mean a reputation with people who know what they are talking about ie pilots and operators) but uninspired stats would suggest that its "soft" qualities were very good. The A-4 Skyhawk and A-7 Corsair are possibly good examples there. their ranking understates the position they hold by those who know them well. On the other hand, the Yak-38 is an excellent example of an aircraft whose ranking is much higher than its service reputation would suggest, indicating that its "soft" data is truly horrible.

A fun exercise might be to go through these lists after everything is done and mark the aircraft as being "better than one might expect" "What one would expect" or "worse than one would expect" and then trying to find out why. That would need a lot of care though. The trouble is that we've already found a couple of examples where the "popular legend" doesn;t hold up under close evaluation.

_________________
Nations do not survive by setting examples for others.
Nations survive by making examples of others


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Dec 31, 2017 1:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 10:18 am
Posts: 6964
Location: Where the grass is green and the girls are pretty
Francis Urquhart wrote:
By a glaring oversight, I haven't included a number of the more modern light attack aircraft yet including the Harrier/AV-8 and Alphajet families. The Yak-38 seems to fall into the light attack average for its era; its comparable with the Skyhawk and the AMX for example. I'm going to put the missing aircraft in ASAP but I suspect the pattern will be that they fall into the 250-300 bracket. It looks yo me as if the Yak-38 was an OK light attack aircraft when seen in that context but it was asked to do things that were beyond its skill level and thus did not shine at. In some ways, I suppose that its a bit like using the SBD as a fighter for CAP in WW2; yes, one can do it but it won't be good at it.

The other thing is that this is a hard data listing; the faults that limited the Yak-38 were not things that show up in a statistical analysis. It's not alone in that; the Italian Breda-88 for example looks good but it was withdrawn from service after a year due to structural and instability problems. The Barracuda and Firebrand in the UK have similar issues; they don't look too bad in the listings but they all had perennial issues that prevented them fulfilling their promise. As a direct comparison with the Yak-38, the AMX had crippling engine problems that turned a really good basic design into a lame duck. I've heard those engine issues have been addressed now but its too late. A pity because I liked the AMX.

What this list achieves as one of its side-effects is that it gives us an indication of how good or bad the soft issues are. An aircraft that has a good "real" reputation (by which I mean a reputation with people who know what they are talking about ie pilots and operators) but uninspired stats would suggest that its "soft" qualities were very good. The A-4 Skyhawk and A-7 Corsair are possibly good examples there. their ranking understates the position they hold by those who know them well. On the other hand, the Yak-38 is an excellent example of an aircraft whose ranking is much higher than its service reputation would suggest, indicating that its "soft" data is truly horrible.

A fun exercise might be to go through these lists after everything is done and mark the aircraft as being "better than one might expect" "What one would expect" or "worse than one would expect" and then trying to find out why. That would need a lot of care though. The trouble is that we've already found a couple of examples where the "popular legend" doesn;t hold up under close evaluation.


What I can think of with the Yak-38: that thing is a very complex beast in the service of a nation and a service branch that lacked the depth of technical skill or service organizational structure needed to support that level of complexity.

I was Marine in the 6046 military occupational specialty (aircraft maintenance administration clerk). I worked in the maintenance department, and I crawled around aircraft during phase inspections. I messed with and lived with the wrench-turners, tron-chasers, bubbleheads, and metal-benders. For a lot of them, that was their life--not just in the shop. They tinkered with their cars, they were radio hams and electronic gadgeteers, they worked in auto body repair shops for some extra money, etc, and they'd been doing that sort of thing since junior high school (shop classes before those disappeared, etc). So when they reported to A School at NAS Memphis, they already had a foundation of skill for the instructors to build on, and they continuously developed that skill in the fleet, and they worked to retain those persons. A lot of guys were getting Airframes & Powerplant certifications, or they were pursuing other technical education.

The Soviet Navy's surface fleet just didn't have that depth to begin with (you didn't have a lot of tinkerers and shade-tree mechanics back in the USSR), and they were WAY down on the priority list (behind the Strategic Rocket Forces, Frontal Aviation, Naval Aviation, and submarines) for what technical talent existed, and the real work was being done by warrants and commissioned officers.

_________________
"The double tap is a myth. Shoot the threat until it goes away. Only then will his soul find peace." -- Dalai Lama


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Dec 31, 2017 4:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 2:37 pm
Posts: 7568
Location: BM-9, BB-30
Francis Urquhart wrote:
As a direct comparison with the Yak-38, the AMX had crippling engine problems that turned a really good basic design into a lame duck. I've heard those engine issues have been addressed now but its too late. A pity because I liked the AMX.


I'd always wondered why the AMX wasn't more (as in, at all) popular outside its countries of origin, given it seemed a handy aircraft coming around at the Right Time to replace a lot of the 1950s-1960s types (like, say, the Greek Thunderjets) that were on their way out as it was coming in. That would explain why...

_________________
RLBH wrote:
I'm sorry, but I prefer to carpet-shark my enemies. Much more mayhem, though it must be admitted that the laser-guided shark is cheaper.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Dec 31, 2017 6:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 10:49 pm
Posts: 10917
gtg947h wrote:
Gotta say, I'm really surprised by the Yak-38. What's up with that?

I've done the various members of the Harrier family now and the data comes out rather interestingly
Harrier GR.3/AV8A 364.5
AV-8B 365.18
AV-8B+ 448.78
Sea Harrier 432.85
Yak-38 269.43

_________________
Nations do not survive by setting examples for others.
Nations survive by making examples of others


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jan 01, 2018 1:21 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 2:37 pm
Posts: 7568
Location: BM-9, BB-30
Which version of Sea Harrier is covered? Since FRS.2's ability to carry AMRAAM would give it a substantial boost over FRS.1.

_________________
RLBH wrote:
I'm sorry, but I prefer to carpet-shark my enemies. Much more mayhem, though it must be admitted that the laser-guided shark is cheaper.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jan 01, 2018 12:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 10:49 pm
Posts: 10917
The Sea Harrier is listed in its light bomber role so its missile capability and so on isn't significant. As a fighter, the Sea Harrier FRS-1 came out at 514.99 and the Sea Harrier FA.2 as 572.69

_________________
Nations do not survive by setting examples for others.
Nations survive by making examples of others


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jan 01, 2018 3:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 2:37 pm
Posts: 7568
Location: BM-9, BB-30
Ah, right; my brain automatically jumps to Certain Roles regarding SHAR. :D

_________________
RLBH wrote:
I'm sorry, but I prefer to carpet-shark my enemies. Much more mayhem, though it must be admitted that the laser-guided shark is cheaper.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jan 01, 2018 6:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 10:49 pm
Posts: 10917
The Bushranger wrote:
Ah, right; my brain automatically jumps to Certain Roles regarding SHAR. :D

The interesting thing is that the Sea Harrier is the first fighter-bomber to have ratings for both its fighter and bomber roles. We're nearly done with the various types of aircraft now. I just have the medium-light bombers and the "other" light bombers left to do. Then we can go back and revise the fighter rating to give them the corresponding bomber ratings as fighter-bombers. That update will also include the date of introduction.

_________________
Nations do not survive by setting examples for others.
Nations survive by making examples of others


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jan 01, 2018 7:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2011 3:07 pm
Posts: 311
Just a suggestion for the final tables, would it be an idea to add the names of the aircraft currently listed by designation eg P47 Thunderbolt instead of P47? This would be useful for those of us less than au fait with the US systems for example.

Another thought on the above stats for the Harriers, they do far better than the legendary Buccaneer as bombers. Different ranking system or real?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jan 01, 2018 9:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 10:49 pm
Posts: 10917
Timbo W wrote:
Another thought on the above stats for the Harriers, they do far better than the legendary Buccaneer as bombers. Different ranking system or real?

Very real. A lot of it is electronic but the aircraft simply performs much better over a wide spectrum of conditions.

_________________
Nations do not survive by setting examples for others.
Nations survive by making examples of others


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jan 01, 2018 11:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2008 8:21 am
Posts: 1127
Location: SSN-766, BB-55
Negative numbers for the first couple French entries are interesting.

Limits of the model? User better of using them as pure observation a/c?

Jeff

_________________
"To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions."


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Jan 02, 2018 4:23 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2011 3:07 pm
Posts: 311
Interesting on the Harriers as bombers, they also perform as well as or better than the Victor and Vulcan!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Jan 02, 2018 5:43 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2008 10:51 am
Posts: 2072
Location: Georgia
Timbo W wrote:
Interesting on the Harriers as bombers, they also perform as well as or better than the Victor and Vulcan!

I don't think you can cross categories like that...

_________________
To do much in this life, you must learn much.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Jan 02, 2018 9:07 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2012 8:48 am
Posts: 7252
Location: BB-61 (the ship, not the state)
Timbo W wrote:
Interesting on the Harriers as bombers, they also perform as well as or better than the Victor and Vulcan!

Well, that's an entirely new perspective on Black Buck.

_________________
Intelligence can be identified by its rejection of self-deception; by its willingness to admit that it might be wrong; by its insistence upon evidence rather than mere impression; by reasoning that cannot easily be assailed. - Orson Scott Card


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Jan 02, 2018 9:28 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 9:40 pm
Posts: 5748
JPaulMartin wrote:
Negative numbers for the first couple French entries are interesting.

Limits of the model? User better of using them as pure observation a/c?

Jeff

Trust the French to make planes so good, their air forces get better as the enemy shoots them down.

_________________
(English doesn't) just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary.--James D. Nicoll


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Jan 02, 2018 10:00 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 10:49 pm
Posts: 10917
KDahm wrote:
[ quote="JPaulMartin"]Negative numbers for the first couple French entries are interesting. Limits of the model? User better of using them as pure observation a/c?

In fairness they were the world's first combat aircraft, essentially flying cavalry scouts with a few hand-tossed bombs. Then, when the war started getting serious, they were thrown in as real attack aircraft. Essentially, everybody who brought in light attack aircraft afterwards built on their lessons.

KDahm wrote:
Trust the French to make planes so good, their air forces get better as the enemy shoots them down.

I think most air forces get better as they get their initial schooling . .. . . . :twisted: On the other hand though, if the French hadn't flown those primitive aircraft in combat, we wouldn't have had all the later ones in the same time frame. So I think we should give those old MF-11s and Voisins a respectful salute.

The MF-11
Attachment:
MF11.jpg
MF11.jpg [ 41.65 KiB | Viewed 154 times ]


The Voisin 3
Attachment:
Voisin_3.jpg
Voisin_3.jpg [ 52.73 KiB | Viewed 154 times ]

_________________
Nations do not survive by setting examples for others.
Nations survive by making examples of others


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Jan 03, 2018 9:26 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2008 10:51 am
Posts: 2072
Location: Georgia
ByronC wrote:
Timbo W wrote:
Interesting on the Harriers as bombers, they also perform as well as or better than the Victor and Vulcan!

Well, that's an entirely new perspective on Black Buck.

To expand on my earlier quote now that I have a real keyboard to type on... and Stuart please correct me if I'm wrong... but I don't really know if the scores for light bombers and medium/heavy bombers are compatible. My guess is they probably rate different things. Otherwise you have the AV-8A outscoring the A-7E, which is pretty preposterous.

_________________
To do much in this life, you must learn much.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 25 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group