Xavven

What's the best performing KIAS for a clean F-16 at 5,000 ft? I'm assuming you mean sustained turn rate?

Yep, even if we were to take the EM diagram as true (which I can't yet without seeing the source material), we see him operating in this area of the chart for quite long periods of time without losing airspeed or altitude even though above Ps=0. This is to say nothing of the pilot's G-tolerance -- the point of you titling the video as you did. My favorite is the 5 seconds leading up to the kill shot (4:25) where he pulls 9-10G while keeping all his speed and gains a little altitude too. Fun, fun! Classic rope-a-dope

I found that chart on the left also with a Google search, but unfortunately it doesn't seem to have a reliable source. I believe someone made this chart from a video game, not from actual MiG-15 and F-86 data.

+1 I'll agree with all that. Regarding slammers missing and against the MiG-15 AI in particular, they seem especially vulnerable to AIM-120 BVR. I tested out a few rounds of one F-16 armed with AMRAAMs vs four MiG-15s Ace AI. It looks like in a head-on intercept, you can shoot pretty close to max aerodynamic range and I haven't had a single miss yet, as the MiG-15 AI does not appear to react when launched upon. Parameters were 6 AMRAAMs, 2 bags, angels 10, mil power, straight and level (no cranking or any other maneuver), ~500 KCAS, TWS, against 4 MiG-15 Ace AI at 10,000 ft, head on, with AWACS backing them up. So yeah, it was a "clubbing baby seals" moment, even more so than what TobiasA demonstrated with AIM-9's. But TobiasA's video is in many ways more applicable depending on RoE. If you have to confirm visually before engaging, attempt to communicate or escort the pilots out of your airspace first, such that BVR shots are off the table, you might find yourself making a few max performance turns to get some valid AIM-9 shots.

Snappy is right, Theodore42. You talk but you do not listen, and miss the entire point of each post responding to you. I admit it's rather frustrating attempting to help you understand any other point of view. I'm satisfied with the overwhelming consensus from other posters who agree that the MiG-15 Ace AI is pretty broken. You disagree, but that's not harming anybody, so carry on I guess!

Theodore... I've read Shaw too, and so have a bunch of people on these forums. Firstly, wing loading is not aircraft weight. It is the mass of the aircraft divided by its wing area (and also lifting body area if you ask Shaw). My statement was to dispel the myth that a lighter fighter is automatically more maneuverable, a myth you repeated: Secondly, Shaw goes on to explain that in a dissimilar aircraft fight, the higher TWR craft should ideally pull the fight nose-to-tail (i.e. 2-circle) and use vertical maneuvering to maximize the advantage in turn rate and climb rate, respectively. A lower wing-loaded fighter with worse TWR should try to keep the fight horizontal and 1-circle, aka flat scissors. I think I've proven the F-16 has a higher TWR. Yet when you employ the Shaw-blessed tactics in a DCS F-16 vs MiG-15 guns only fight, you find the MiG-15 keeping up in the vertical loops where it should not, and keeping up in turn rate or outrating the F-16 in a 2-circle. Your own video demonstrates both of these phenomenon. When you followed the MiG up after your first turn was completed, it had godmode energy. Your oblique turn was a complete loop, meaning you went up and then down (you went from 17,000 to 27,000, then back down to just under 20,000 before going back up again). You regain energy when you descend. But by the looks of his contrails, the MiG went up, leveled off (sort of like an Immelman), did not drop altitude to regain speed and yet went up again and still won the energy fight against you. Later, you have a neutral pass at around 8:35 and you get into a 2-circle rate fight and it gained angles on you by the next pass, meaning it outrated you. Shaw, you and I all agree the F-16 should be winning an energy fight against an accurately modeled MiG-15. Hop on over to page 141 of Shaw: "On the other hand, the pilot of a high-T/W fighter should concentrate on energy tactics when he is engaging a low-wing-loaded opponent." I just don't think we will agree on this one, but that's ok. It's been a good discussion.

In DCS it might be the case. IRL, not a chance. Here's some performance data, admittedly from Wikipedia, but it cites is sources as OKB Mikoyan,[110] MiG: Fifty Years of Secret Aircraft Design[111] and USAF sheet,[64] International Directory of Military Aircraft,[71] Flight Manual for F-16C/D Block 50/52+[326]: MiG-15 Empty weight: 3,681 kg (8,115 lb) Gross weight: 5,044 kg (11,120 lb) Powerplant: 1 × Klimov VK-1 centrifugal-flow turbojet, 26.5 kN (5,950 lbf) thrust Rate of climb: 51.2 m/s (10,080 ft/min) Thrust/Weight: 0.54 F-16 (wet thrust) Empty weight: 18,900 lb (8,573 kg) Gross weight: 26,500 lb (12,020 kg) Fuel capacity: 7,000 pounds (3,200 kg) internals[64] Powerplant: 1 × Pratt & Whitney F100-PW-229 afterburning turbofan (for Block 52 version), 17,800 lbf (79 kN) thrust dry, 29,560 lbf (131.5 kN) with afterburner Rate of climb: 72,000[326] ft/min (370 m/s) (sustains 72,000 feet/min in 4.2 g ascending turn)[326][N 2] Thrust/Weight: 1.095 (1.24 with loaded weight & 50% internal fuel)[329] --- F-16 has over 7x the rate of climb and 2x the TWR. I don't know the figures for the MiG-15bis, as it was an improved version, but certainly not twice the aircraft the former was. If you want to calculate TWR for empty weight (to simulate close to 1% fuel conditions), that can be done as well. MiG-15: 5950 lbf/ 8115 lb = 0.73. F-16: 29,560 lbf / 18,900 lb = 1.56. We've gotta stop this "lighter fighter = faster and more maneuverable" nonsense. If that were true, the Tomcat should be among the worst fighters in the world.

It looks like 18:49 mark here. While defensive, the hostile brings his nose up to take a shot, you pull more G to tighten the turn, which shoots you out of his HUD and creates an overshoot past your 6. You reverse the turn initiating scissors. However, unlike the video below, sometimes the MiG-15 goes stupid and just flies straight for like 5 to 8 seconds and while I do shoot him down, it really ought not to have lost sight of me. The AI usually climbs at the first merge to exchange speed for altitude and tighten turn radius. Thanks for the advice. I've been employing a multitude of tactics including the ones you mentioned. It's not impossible to beat the MiG-15 Ace AI, and as I've said I've gotten several kills on it with various tactics, many of them exploiting the F-16's higher top speed to reset the fight whenever I need to, but after spending several hours against it and finding it to be the hardest to get to the control zone of any of the planes in DCS, like I said my problem isn't finding a way to kill it, it's that it doesn't appear to be behaving like I would suspect it or any fighter of that era to behave. Thanks for the advice though. This appears to be a contradiction. I think you are saying the MiG-15 is designed to climb as fast as possible, so you shouldn't go vertical. That implies the MiG-15 has a TWR advantage over the F-16. I think you are also trying to say the F-16 gains speed much more quickly, so you should go to 440 knots, then trade speed down to 330 because your superior TWR would let you regain more quickly, resulting in an advantage. I don't think both of those statements can be true at the same time. An aircraft with superior TWR will generally win a vertical energy fight. This is precisely why the F-15 Eagle prefers vertical against most opponents.

Sorry, I wasn't intending to invalidate your entire video. Yes, it helps OP get a guns kill on the MiG-15 and it's relevant to that question. What I really meant to say is that it doesn't explain the MiG-15's turn performance. I've said this like 3 times now.

Radius plays a small part in a two-circle fight, but a 2-circle is very predominantly about turn rate. I made a little diagram that shows that when the turn circle of your opponent (on the right) is much, much, much larger, you don't have to get around your circle quite as much before you have a shot, but it's only a few degrees even in this vastly exaggerated diagram. That said, I don't think you and I have been performing the same tests against the MiG-15. I started at 1,000 ft (to minimize the effects of simply trading altitude for airspeed), head on, and gave a few nautical miles of separation so that each fighter can come up to speed. I then initiated and held a level turn and changed the amount of G pulled in order to maintain different speeds in different tests. In some tests I attempted to hold about 450 knots. In other tests I would hold 420 knots, or 350 knots, or 330 knots since you had suggested that earlier. In further tests I would begin the fight at 500 knots and spend that airspeed on more G until at the desired lower airspeed (450, 420, 350, or 330) or I would trade my 1000 ft of altitude to get a little more turning rate at the cost of total energy. In most cases the MiG-15 would gain as much as 90° of advantage by the second merge (meaning in one turn). That cannot be explained away by a tighter turning radius. We're talking the MiG is getting something like 5 degrees per second more turn rate than the F-16 and isn't losing energy while doing it. If the numbers were closer, then I would say there's an argument to be had. The issue I have here is that the MiG-15 is outperforming by SO MUCH that I think any reasonable analysis would conclude there's something wrong. Now you would never fight an opponent by just holding a level turn. This was just to hold some variables constant while I adjusted my turn to see how the AI would perform so I could gather data. I may not be the best dogfighter, but when I went free-form and tried every technique I know to get to the MiG-15's control zone, it would usually result in a stalemate until I ran out of fuel. Could you answer me this, though? Why is the Su-27 so vastly easier to kill than the MiG-15 in a guns only dogfight, and do you believe that DCS has accurately modeled both aircraft as closely as possible to their IRL performance? Sorry, that was a result of slight hyperbole. I do remember losing a bit of airspeed when turning, but my point was that it was not nearly as much as you would expect in a realistic flight sim. Do you have the River Run map? Have you tried the course using both the F-18 and the Sabre? I think it would be an enlightening experience.

I want ED to re-examine the flight model for the MiG-15 because something is extremely fishy about it. Don't we want DCS to be the most realistic simulation out there? I think it's great that you are able to get a guns kill on the MiG-15... I mean, so am I, and I'm probably a below-average guns-only dogfighter. If all I cared about was winning under the specified conditions, I'd be extremely satisfied with your demonstration. In fact, there are 3 ways to kill the MiG-15 Ace AI guns only that I have pulled off so far: Shoot him head on, either at the first merge, or after resetting the fight using the tactic you demonstrated When defensive, tighten turn using 9G to get out of his gun sight, then reverse the turn (Growling Sidewinder has been demonstrating this a lot lately on his YouTube channel). 50% of the time this confuses the AI and it commits a BFM error, sometimes flying away in a straight line and giving me a shot. Fly away and avoid the fight until the MiG-15 runs low on fuel, then turn around and shoot him while he is going home to land. All of these = a win. None of these are a satisfying experience, and none of these address the real issue -- in my opinion after analyzing the replay, the MiG-15 appears to have an inaccurately modeled flight model and/or TWR. Again, thanks for showing a MiG-15 gun kill but it's irrelevant IMO.

I'm having trouble understanding what you mean by the first sentence. I think the F-16 should outrate the MiG-15 in a 2-circle, in STR. Are you saying that statement is only valid vs a human player flying the MiG? The Sabre has flight model problems as well, IMO. During one of the DCS free module time periods when COVID first hit, I got obsessed with the racing map that comes with the F-18 called "River Run". I copied it and edited it so I could fly the course in a bunch of different aircraft. To my surprise, I could easily get record times in the Sabre, even besting the F-15 Eagle. In the Viper it was much more difficult and I'd have to fly the course with no errors to get even close to the same times. In particular, the Sabre wouldn't lose speed in sharp turns and was 100% responsive with no sluggishness. I mean, it really felt closer to Ace Combat than DCS. I agree with you here. I was beating around the bush with my initial commentary, so I'll be more blunt now. By flying up high and turning around, razo+r is really just resetting the fight / merge shaping. If we're going to allow head on shots, then why not just shoot him at the first merge? There's an oft-spoken rule in guns only 1 vs. 1 fights that you don't do that because the point of the exercise is to fly BFM, and a head-on shot at the merge is... not practicing BFM. On the other hand, by flying up high and shooting the MiG-15 in the face while diving, while the MiG is climbing and probably at or near stall speeds, you have nose control and he has less nose control, so you have a gunnery advantage. Still, I come down on the side of that defeating the purpose of practicing a dog fight. If all we cared about was shooting the MiG-15 down in a no-holds-barred, realistic fight, then I'll take AMRAAMS and shoot him from 25 miles away, and an AIM-9X in case he gets the jump on me. But again, that's not actually the point of dogfighting, nor the point of this thread. OP is wondering why the MiG-15 AI is so difficult in guns-only. In my experience, the Su-27 Ace AI is an absolute calkwalk in comparison to the MiG-15 Ace AI, and the Su-27 is an actual peer aircraft to the F-16 (well sort of). That just doesn't pass the gut check to me.

OK, I did a test and found that the MiG-15 doesn't appear to be rating faster than physics allow at a given speed and G. I clocked him at about 21 seconds to go 360 degrees. He was at between 320 and 350 knots and was pulling 4 to 7 G but probably averaged around 6 G, at about 1000 ft in a level turn, which checks out with a calculator I found on http://www.csgnetwork.com/aircraftturninfocalc.html. However, he didn't bleed very much speed, if at all, in a near-level turn when pulling close to 7 G, full fuel, and he has no afterburner. I believe the issue with the AI flown MiG-15 in DCS is not UFO physics, but rather a higher TWR than the real MiG-15 has, or extremely under-calculated drag. With a TWR of around 0.55 to 0.75 on its best day, it should not be able to sustain that turn. In the F-16, I can sustain about 5.7 G in the same flight regime, but only if I have under 40% fuel and full afterburner, and my TWR is greater than 1 at that point. Now wing design plays a role, but I think it's clear to me there's an issue with the MiG-15 flight model and/or its thrust.

I do get what you are saying. Just because something is a higher generation, it doesn't mean it is automatically superior in a 1 vs. 1 dogfight, and training made a huge difference in that era. That said, while your first comparison is maybe valid, your second one I don't really accept as a rebuttal, because the F-4 is a 3rd gen fighter and the MiG-17 and -19 are 2nd/3rd gen fighters depending on who you ask. They're closer to each other in development and capability and so I wouldn't expect there to be as big an advantage to the newer plane. To clarify what I was trying to say, if I'm not mistaken the F-16 was influenced heavily by Boyd's work, who famously gave birth to EM theory. Wouldn't a lightweight fighter designed to dominate the dogfight right from the design phase, 20 years after the development of the MiG-15 have numerous advantages over it? Am I wrong to expect that an F-16 with afterburner on should win a rate fight against a MiG-15 without afterburner when both are flown correctly? But this is speculation on my part. I think it's time for me to hop into DCS and see if the MiG-15 Ace AI is defying physics like I found the L-39 to be. I am willing to bet that it pulls too little G for the turn rate it gets. Also, rizo+r, while your kill is valid and I'm not against head-on shots as a matter of principle, the issue I personally have with the MiG-15 is its sustained turn rate (Ps=0). I find it extremely difficult to get to its control zone. Otherwise, yeah, take high aspect gun shots all day if you want.

Good show! I agree the MiG-15 is fun as a challenge, but only from a "this is a video game and I want to beat something on boss-level" mindset. The fact that it's so difficult pushes you to get better. If I'm in the mindset that I want a realistic experience, this pulls me out of it. I believe the MiG-15 is not performing anywhere near real-life accuracy. I'm not basing that on any stats or charts since I don't have them, just that that a 4th gen fighter (F-16) should probably easily handle a 1st/2nd gen fighter (MiG-15) in BFM.

I'm using a TM Warthog HOTAS and the Viper feels responsive and smooth. I am able to get about 5000 lbs of fuel in AAR with 0-2 disconnects. Nothing worth bragging about, just trying to give more data points to the guys with x52s and not having a good time. I will say, though, that the roll rate of the Viper seems really low compared to the Hornet. It really feels like a boat even with maximum stick deflection, and yes I'm in a clean jet with the switch in Cat I.

I think there's more going on here than just wing sweep being optimized for a certain flight regime, and the MiG-15 being lighter or having a good TWR. I haven't looked at a MiG-15 track file yet, but I did this earlier with the L-39 on Ace level a couple weeks ago when I noticed it was surprisingly hard to beat. I posted about this on reddit after watching the track file and finding it defies physics. If you plug these numbers into a calculator, like this one:http://www.csgnetwork.com/aircraftturninfocalc.html ...you find that thrust-to-weight, drag, etc. are not part of the equation. At a certain G and speed, you get a certain turn rate, period, and you just can't make 360 degrees in 27 seconds at only 2 G at 180 kts. My suspicion is that after catching the L-39 red-handed, that the MiG-15 is also cheating.

This happens in single player also. I fix it using TMS aft to break lock and then TMS fwd again to lock with the HMCS. Usually fixes it on the first re-lock.

Right now I've found the fastest way to get sensors on target if you don't have a Maverick is: Press SP on TGP (snowplow) Ensure zoom is all the way out (for faster slewing) Turn F-16 nose toward target of opportunity TMS up to ground stabilize TGP and allow slewing Slew TGP to target. There's a cue on the HUD in the form of a boxed dot [.], and assuming you have eyes on the TOO this is the best way to get TGP in the right vicinity If you do have a Maverick, it's even faster: On the SMS page of the Maverick, select VIS mode DMS fwd to select HUD TMS aft to slew Maverick to your flight path marker Now slew the boxed dot [.] on the HUD to the target. Both the mav and TGP will be looking at that location now.

Can you post a track?

Seems like that would be useful for a wild weasel role. Any idea if that is carried for F-16 SEAD/DEAD?

Thanks! That explains it perfectly

Are you sure a MWS or MAW needs active radar or even a passive radar receiver at all? The A-10C has the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN/AAR-47_Missile_Approach_Warning_System which just detects UV emissions from the rocket motor. I'm not sure if our DCS F-16 bl 50 is supposed to have a launch warning, but I can confirm that I do in fact get a launch warning from an SA-10. Whether that's accurate to real life I'm not qualified to answer.

I believe I read that the A-10C has a very detailed ground terrain altitude database, so combining that with aircraft position and attitude data, the TGP can ground stabilize and the aircraft can calculate impact points for munitions. Is that correct? And does the Viper have the same database, or does it use ground radar to achieve this? Or something else?

Yes, I get launch warnings against the SA-10. I thought missile launch warnings were based on detecting emissions from the missile's booster, so it wouldn't matter what kind of guidance is being used.