Certainty in Uncertain Times (Part 2)

Who Wins During Chaotic Times?

In part 1 of this series, we examined the impacts of the pandemic, climate change, and the war in Europe. We noted that due to the seeming smallness of our world due to globalization, global events could and do have profound impacts on business here at home. What was initially thought to be an innocuous respiratory infection in one city in China spread rapidly and, within months, shut down the entire world. Extreme climate events have continued to disrupt nearly every industry, whether causing complete shutdowns of resin production or shipping interruptions due to both flooding and droughts. And finally, we dove into the ongoing war between Russia and Ukraine. With Ukraine’s significant global market share in wheat, barley, corn, and sunflower oil, the conflict increased global food prices and food insecurity. In addition, European countries faced rationing of energy sources and skyrocketing prices as Russia was the leading supplier of these resources.

We dove into John Boyd’s OODA loops, exploring how the Ukrainian military’s restructuring between the loss of Crimea in 2014 and the invasion by Russia in February 2022 aligns with this decision-making process. To recap:

Observe: The Ukrainian Military examined the loss of Crimea for areas of weakness.
Orient: They identified specific issues to address.
- Decision-chain style led to slow reaction times and ineffective strategies.
- Vulnerability of their critical defenses.
- Limited cyber defense systems.
- Airforce needed to prepare better.
Decide: Military officials determined the best action to address the issues.
- Chose to transition to the American decision-chain style.
- Identified alternative locations for strategic defenses.
- Collaborated with the US to bolster cyber defenses.
- Sought additional support and training from NATO members to improve Airforce capabilities.
ACT: simultaneously worked on these areas to comprehensively overhaul its military from the top down.

If you missed Part 1 and would like to dive deeper into the observations above and our game-time analysis of how Ukraine’s military improvements have enabled it to survive, you can find it here: Certainty in Uncertain Times (Part 1). As promised at the end of part 1, today’s portion will examine a historical example and dive into the factors that led to its outcome.

Who Wins? Dogfighting in North Korea

Entering the Korean War, the Soviet MiG-15 was considered one of the best modern fighter planes in the world. Compared to its competitors, it could climb faster, turn tighter, fly higher, and carry deadlier firepower than its competitors. Equipped with two 23mm cannons, one 37mm cannon, and 2x 220lb bomb load or unguided rockets, it was a formidable foe of the US B-29 Superfortresses.

The US brought its new F-86 Sabre to the fight, designed in response to the MiG-15. It was slower, less agile, and less powerful, with 6x .50cal machine guns, 2x 1000lb bombs, air-to-ground rockets, and napalm canisters.

By the accepted standards of what comprised the better fighter, the MiG-15 rated even or better in almost every category than the F-86.

However, the F-86 pilots did have two advantages, though their impact was unknown going into the conflict.

A bubble canopy that allowed them to see more of their surroundings, like having an all-glass car versus just a windshield and two windows.
And the first set of hydraulic controls fitted to a fighter aircraft. Think power-steering versus non-power.

Which of these two combatants would you want to fly? The faster, more agile, more powerful MiG? Or the slower F-86 with “power-steering” and a bubble canopy that allows you to see just a bit more over your shoulder than your opponent? Which set of advantages would you bet your life on?

The nice thing is that you don’t have to try this out; we already know the answer. Let’s look more closely at how the head-to-head played out.

The F-86 Sabre defeated the MiG-15 ten times out of 11 conflicts. Ten to one. Ten victories to every defeat. Think about that. The plane dominated its competition in a situation where all cards were on the table, and everyone was playing for keeps. The F-86 literally blew the MiG-15 out of the sky.

Could the superior training of the American pilots explain such an advantage? It turns out that it did not. When the US Airforce obtained some MiG-15s and tested them using US pilots, the F-86 Sabre still won more than capabilities would predict.

But why? How did a bubble canopy and hydraulic controls seemingly win the day, battle after battle? Experience showed that fighters with better acceleration and turning ability, referred to as energy maneuverability (EM), typically had an advantage. Even though the MiG-15’s performance in these areas was as good or better than the F-86, through the advantages of the bubble canopy and hydraulics, the F-86 stood above.

Boyd concluded that the F-86 canopy gave the pilot better situational awareness. At the same time, the hydraulic controls enabled the pilot to achieve much quicker response times in shifting from one maneuver to another. This combination allowed the American pilot to “set up novel and unexpected conditions and exploit them before the Russian could react with his sometimes superior EM capability.”¹ By the time the MiG pilot and his plane responded to the situation, the American pilot and his F-86 were on to the next maneuver. In the end, fast transients were the key, a by-product of combining improved visibility with quicker responding controls.

So...Who Wins During Chaotic Times?

Those who can see and react quickest to new information.

The F-86 won through the chaos of war through two simple concepts:

The pilot could see more information and could see it sooner.
The pilot and plane could both react to that information more quickly.

Their whole decision loop was shorter because they have access to better information - ACTIONABLE intelligence, and this part is critical… they are EMPOWERED to act on this intelligence. It does you no good to see the missile coming if you don’t have the ability or authority to do something about it.

Interviews with former MiG pilots carry a common theme. By the time they could locate and react to an F-86, that Sabre pilot had already made several more moves. The Sabre's appeared to be “moving randomly,” and a common refrain, translated, was “What the f***!"

For every move the MiG pilot would make, the Sabre pilot could make 2-4. Dwell on that.