How is f-14 maneuverability?

[captain_dalan]

Boyd is a good read, but he's also a guy with an agenda. Although some of his ideas are solid, his obsession with the day fighter just doesn't make any sense.

[turkeydriver]

Problem with geniuses is that their smarts take on their own personality and they get idolized, they stop working with other ideas, and adopt an all or nothing attitude. That's asking for it.

[lunaticfringe]

Kill ratio also can be put down to opportunity - so can probably forgive him for that.

 

Two problems with that argument:

 

1. IAF, 1982.

2. "Opportunity" is granted to he who sees first; that is, the F-15 gets opportunities that the F-16 doesn't for the *exact reasons* that Boyd hated it (primarily, weight given to the large radar).

 

For the slim margin that the F-15 sacrifices in the Action step, it dominates the aspect of Observation, Orientation, and Decision based on its relative strengths. A little bit of G (against the A, no margin against the C) can only make up so much, or go so far. And the Eagle holds its own on his concept of fast transient maneuver relative to the Viper, so that's out as well.

 

So no- he doesn't actually need to be forgiven for it. As turkeydriver alluded to: he was captivated with his own scent, and failed to acknowledge errors in perception. And his acolytes are even worse.

[BlackLion213]

Two problems with that argument:

 

1. IAF, 1982.

2. "Opportunity" is granted to he who sees first; that is, the F-15 gets opportunities that the F-16 doesn't for the *exact reasons* that Boyd hated it (primarily, weight given to the large radar).

 

For the slim margin that the F-15 sacrifices in the Action step, it dominates the aspect of Observation, Orientation, and Decision based on its relative strengths. A little bit of G (against the A, no margin against the C) can only make up so much, or go so far. And the Eagle holds its own on his concept of fast transient maneuver relative to the Viper, so that's out as well.

 

So no- he doesn't actually need to be forgiven for it. As turkeydriver alluded to: he was captivated with his own scent, and failed to acknowledge errors in perception. And his acolytes are even worse.

 

Your posts are fun to read.

 

Great stuff around here!

 

-Nick

[Basher54321]

Two problems with that argument:

 

1. IAF, 1982.

2. "Opportunity" is granted to he who sees first; that is, the F-15 gets opportunities that the F-16 doesn't for the *exact reasons* that Boyd hated it (primarily, weight given to the large radar).

 

For the slim margin that the F-15 sacrifices in the Action step, it dominates the aspect of Observation, Orientation, and Decision based on its relative strengths. A little bit of G (against the A, no margin against the C) can only make up so much, or go so far. And the Eagle holds its own on his concept of fast transient maneuver relative to the Viper, so that's out as well.

 

So no- he doesn't actually need to be forgiven for it. As turkeydriver alluded to: he was captivated with his own scent, and failed to acknowledge errors in perception. And his acolytes are even worse.

 

 

What I actually meant by that - kill ratio is irrelevant if one jet is in a conflict and gets opportunity for kills when the other doesn't - the F-15 has over 100 kills and the F-22 has 0 kills - so is the F-15 a better performer in combat??

 

 

In the 1982 conflict figures vary (no one can really prove them anyway) - e.g. a good source states 33 F-15 kills - another has 40 claims by F-15 pilots and 44 claims by F-16 pilots. Israel had radar coverage of the entire area - unlike the Syrians you will find this provided them with better SA - not the crap 1970s tech radars.

 

You also need to remember that despite some BVR claims this was still mostly a visual environment.

 

 

Boyd has a lot of respect from past and present military aviators - and despite his big head a lot of it is valid regardless - you will find it is Uber luddite Sprey that drags his name through the mud.

 

I don't really agree on the Fast Transients thing - but that's just me ;)

Edited March 20, 2015 by Basher54321

[captain_dalan]

 

Didn't get much out of the book to be honest, he lost me at F-20 the super fighter.

He seamed to be of the mind that (for some reason) in the next big A-A war, everyone would turn off their radars, and all fighting will turn into one giant WVR brawl... :noexpression:

So the idea was to fill the sky with cheap, high performance, low capability day fighters...... a somewhat romantic notion i guess, as long as the enemy decides to play by your rules. Can't remember the last time that was the case in a hostile environment though...

 

 

For the slim margin that the F-15 sacrifices in the Action step, it dominates the aspect of Observation, Orientation, and Decision based on its relative strengths. A little bit of G (against the A, no margin against the C) can only make up so much, or go so far. And the Eagle holds its own on his concept of fast transient maneuver relative to the Viper, so that's out as well.

 

Not to mention initiative and ordinance advantage on top of the SA.

 

Problem with geniuses is that their smarts take on their own personality and they get idolized, they stop working with other ideas, and adopt an all or nothing attitude. That's asking for it.

 

Maybe not all geniuses, but certainly some of them and definitely Boyd.

 

EDIT:

 

 

You also need to remember that despite some BVR claims this was still mostly a visual environment.

 

 

Boyd has a lot of respect from past and present military aviators - and despite his big head a lot of it is valid regardless - you will find it is Uber luddite Sprey that drags his name through the mud.

A top cover, heavy AS fighter, with better, larger and stronger sensor package, sensor fusion, comparable/adequate maneuvering capability in combat configuration and superior raw performance will always dominate over light weight, nimble, daytime "blind" fighters. Even when outnumbered. The will have the luxury of first look first kill, starting point/energy advantage, the ability to disengage if needed. All of the above acts as a force multiplier, especially in the post AMRAAM era.

Edited March 20, 2015 by captain_dalan

[Basher54321]

A top cover, heavy AS fighter, with better, larger and stronger sensor package, sensor fusion, comparable/adequate maneuvering capability in combat configuration and superior raw performance will always dominate over light weight, nimble, daytime "blind" fighters. Even when outnumbered. The will have the luxury of first look first kill, starting point/energy advantage, the ability to disengage if needed. All of the above acts as a force multiplier, especially in the post AMRAAM era.

 

Yes I see what you are saying - but you need to understand the 50s/60s era - it's alright with hindsight but the tech was a massive let down in this era so that is what Boyd was trying to address - the lessons from Vietnam.

 

You are talking about technology today - in Vietnam the US outnumbered the VPAF massively but it really was a formality for VPAF MiGs to get in close to US formations.

 

There is nothing an F-15 could do in the 70s to stop vast quantities of Soviet MiGs getting in close with that radar and missile technology regardless of numbers.

 

Not having a radar would have been ridiculous - however I'm pretty sure this slight emanates from Sprey who was a massive luddite even back then.

[Dudikoff]

You are talking about technology today - in Vietnam the US outnumbered the VPAF massively but it really was a formality for VPAF MiGs to get in close to US formations.

 

There is nothing an F-15 could do in the 70s to stop vast quantities of Soviet MiGs getting in close with that radar and missile technology regardless of numbers.

 

I beg to differ. It was a formality only because the Air Force was flying these big and rigid strike packages with severe BVR engagement restrictions and closely tied escort packages. The technology level at the time didn't really allow for look-down radars so when the Vietnamese GCI was functioning, it was really not a problem for them to guide their low-flying MiG-21 pilots to strike these rigid formations from behind and run away. Whenever these poorly trained MiG-21 pilots tried to put up a fight, they usually lost without exception.

 

The F-15's with their capable radar sets, improved missiles and jammers and guided by AWACS which would remove the BVR restrictions would make those attempting to sneak in to pay dearly. And the F-16's could mop up the rest. You don't need a better example than the '82 war over Lebanon.

Edited March 20, 2015 by Dudikoff

[Basher54321]

I beg to differ. It was a formality only because the Air Force was flying these big and rigid strike packages with severe BVR engagement restrictions and closely tied escort packages. The technology level at the time didn't really allow for look-down radars so when the Vietnamese GCI was functioning, it was really not a problem for them to guide their low-flying MiG-21 pilots to strike these rigid formations from behind and run away. Whenever their poorly trained pilots tried to fight, they usually lost without exception.

 

The F-15's with their capable radar sets, improved missiles and guided by AWACS which would remove the BVR restrictions would make those attempting to sneak in to pay dearly. And the F-16's could mop up the rest. You don't need a better example than '82 war over Lebanon.

 

 

You beg to differ but at the same time pretty much agree with me on the tech front?

 

The VPAF didn't lose without exception - what are you on about? perhaps you need to research the conflicts a bit more - they did exceptionally well.

 

BVR was not totally restricted - even before combat tree was used in 72.

 

As I have already stated Isreali SA was made up from more than the APG-63/65 which were not what you think they were. If you also consider with the AIM-7 you barely have time to sit there for one shot if they are coming head on. The conflict is in no way to be used as a comparison for a potential CW scenario - there are many other factors you are not considering.

Edited March 20, 2015 by Basher54321

[MBot]

The F-15's with their capable radar sets, improved missiles and jammers and guided by AWACS which would remove the BVR restrictions would make those attempting to sneak in to pay dearly. And the F-16's could mop up the rest. You don't need a better example than the '82 war over Lebanon.

 

But 1982 had exactly those BVR restrictions still in place. Israeli Eagles could not engage without a visual identification, except in some rare exceptions (just like Phantoms in Vietnam). And contrary to mopping up, F-16 scored even more kills than F-15.

[Dudikoff]

You beg to differ but at the same time pretty much agree with me on the tech front? The VPAF didn't lose without exception - what are you on about? perhaps you need to research the conflicts a bit more - they did exceptionally well.

 

You said the F-15's would have been useless against numbers and I was countering that:

There is nothing an F-15 could do in the 70s to stop vast quantities of Soviet MiGs getting in close with that radar and missile technology regardless of numbers.

 

Again, as you apparently don't read, the VPAF did exceptionally well ONLY due to the stupid USAF tactics and radar/IFF limitations which allowed them to sneak up flying low and attack from behind when their GCI network was functioning. When those same MiG-21 pilots tried to dogfight, they were beaten, period. So, perhaps you need to research the conflict some more. In the '82 war you saw what happened with that numerical superiority when the GCI support was taken out and the Israeli planes with modern radars and AWACS support had no problems searching for low level flying targets. The planes were blind, the pilots were lost and it was a slaughterhouse.

 

But 1982 had exactly those BVR restrictions still in place. Israeli Eagles could not engage without a visual identification, except in some rare exceptions (just like Phantoms in Vietnam). And contrary to mopping up, F-16 scored even more kills than F-15.

 

Granted, but that was the closest real life example for his theory of the effectiveness of numerical superiority of technologically inferior Soviet airplanes over the technologically superior Western planes. The BVR engagement and F-16's mopping up was related to the potential Cold War conflict over Europe. The USAF was certainly more proficient and better equipped than Israelis in this coordination and the Soviets were also much more dangerous than Syrians so I don't expect that the USAF could have afforded to use exactly the same tactics and restrictions as Israelis did in '82.

Edited March 20, 2015 by Dudikoff

[Basher54321]

You said the F-15's would have been useless against numbers and I was countering that. The VPAF did exceptionally well due to the stupid USAF tactics and limitations which allowed them to sneak up and attack from behind when the GCI network was functioning. In the '82 war you saw what happened with that numerical superiority when the GCI support was taken out.

 

 

 

That was an example for his theory of the effectiveness of numerical superiority of Soviet airplanes over the technologically superior Western planes.

 

 

Until the transponders were hacked the US had no idea where the MIGs were regardless of tactics. The BVR restrictions were not just part of the ROE they were because there was no reliable way to ID the jets as foe - so nearly all the fighting would have been visual anyway.

 

And no they didn't always fly in predictable formations - sometimes they even used that to their advantage (See Op Bolo).

 

You are not countering the argument and it is not a theory.

 

With the AIM-7F you only have 1 shot max against a formation that knows you are there - and the chances of it hitting at low level if the other guy knows its coming are <10%

 

Not only that but if the targets spilt you lose SA on the other MiGs - there is no standoff ability like you get with active types - in reality the AIM-7 is only a BVR weapon against something that doesn't know its coming.

[Dudikoff]

Until the transponders were hacked the US had no idea where the MIGs were regardless of tactics. The BVR restrictions were not just part of the ROE they were because there was no reliable way to ID the jets as foe - so nearly all the fighting would have been visual anyway.

And no they didn't always fly in predictable formations - sometimes they even used that to their advantage (See Op Bolo). You are not countering the argument and it is not a theory.

 

Yes, exactly. They had no true AWACS planes and their radars were not look-down capable. Something which didn't bother the F-15's in the late 70's (when they were introduced).

 

If you dare to study the VPAF MiG-21 kills, you will find that almost without exception they were made with missiles from close range, from behind and against an unsuspecting enemy. This was only possible due to the combination of USAF tactics, radar/IFF limitations and babysitting GCI support.

 

With the AIM-7F you only have 1 shot max against a formation that knows you are there - and the chances of it hitting at low level if the other guy knows its coming are <10%

Not only that but if the targets spilt you lose SA on the other MiGs - there is no standoff ability like you get with active types - in reality the AIM-7 is only a BVR weapon against something that doesn't know its coming.

 

Wow. FYI, the USAF F-15's don't fly in single ship formations and they practice exactly that coordinated engagement against the opponents with advantage in numbers. That generic <10% you just made up and doesn't warrant a comment. And yes, those Soviet planes in the 70's you mentioned with their primitive radars, RWR's and no ECM and countermeasures without effective GCI support (taken out or simply jammed) won't really know where you are and that it's coming at them. And even if they did see something coming, there won't be much they could do. Those that would survive the BVR salvos would be mopped up by all aspect short-range missiles, something they didn't really have so they would generally hardly get a chance to find themselves in a firing position.

Edited March 20, 2015 by Dudikoff

[Basher54321]

Again, as you apparently don't read, the VPAF did exceptionally well ONLY due to the stupid USAF tactics and radar/IFF limitations which allowed them to sneak up flying low and attack from behind when their GCI network was functioning. When those same MiG-21 pilots tried to dogfight, they were beaten, period. So, perhaps you need to research the conflict some more. In the '82 war you saw what happened with that numerical superiority when the GCI support was taken out and the Israeli planes with modern radars and AWACS support had no problems searching for low level flying targets. The planes were blind, the pilots were lost and it was a slaughterhouse.

 

 

Looking at that I think you are a bit out of your depth on this subject - both VPAF and USAF/USN/MC records have been researched and have been matched up so I have a very good idea of what happened. Some of the VPAF guys had years of experience in 72 they were not all useless and the cause is never down to one simple factor you may have read on Wiki.

[Basher54321]

Wow. FYI, the USAF F-15's don't fly in single ship formations and they practice exactly that engagement against multiple opponents. That generic <10% you just made up and doesn't warrant a comment. And yes, those Soviet planes in the 70's you mentioned won't really know that its coming.

 

Its all black and white to you ;)

 

Pulse doppler modes weren't that great in the 90s - they were **** in the 70s

 

Where did I say it was a single ship? the example is outnumbered - and we don't want to get into the technicalities too much but suffice to say in war you might be a single if your wingman get blown out the sky :thumbup:.

 

USAF F-16s flew constant exercises against F-4s and F-15s in the 80s - there were many ways to get to the merge against AIM-7 foe.

Edited March 20, 2015 by Basher54321

[Dudikoff]

Its all black and white to you :)

 

It's not, but I don't really see a different outcome being probable for this scenario and would appreciate if you could expand my limited views. And I actually like Soviet stuff from the late Cold War.

 

Pulse doppler modes weren't that great in the 90s - they were **** in the 70s.

Where did I say it was a single ship? the example is outnumbered - and we don't want to get into the technicalities too much but suffice to say in war you might be a single if your wingman get blown out the sky :thumbup:.

USAF F-16s flew constant exercises against F-4s and F-15s in the 80s - there were many ways to get to the merge against AIM-7 foe.

 

There were some issues with the F-15A radars initially, but those were still like two generations ahead of what the Soviets had at the time.

 

You said this piece:

With the AIM-7F you only have 1 shot max against a formation that knows you are there

 

In reality, it would be maybe a 4-ship formation, so that's a 1 shot per plane per attack. There is nothing stopping those F-15's to extend away after each salvo as their opponents are most probably blind as bats due to ECM and their GCI being out of range or jammed and their primitive radar sets. And with the all-aspect short range missiles, they could finish off what's left if they perceive the situation to allow for that. Now, tell me which part of this is generally wrong and how would those primitive types from the late 70's flown by poorly trained pilots get a chance? Or we're talking about some hypothetical scenario where it's just these planes duking it out alone? They would still be blind and helpless and their training didn't really allow for some creative tactics.

 

USAF F-16s flew constant exercises against F-4s and F-15s in the 80s - there were many ways to get to the merge against AIM-7 foe.

 

Yes, let's equal the F-16's to those primitive MiG-21/23 planes, USAF pilots to those Soviet ones and disregard the support packages (AWACS, ECM) while allowing for some phantom offensive unjammed GCI support.

Edited March 20, 2015 by Dudikoff

[Dudikoff]

Looking at that I think you are a bit out of your depth on this subject - both VPAF and USAF/USN/MC records have been researched and have been matched up so I have a very good idea of what happened. Some of the VPAF guys had years of experience in 72 they were not all useless and the cause is never down to one simple factor you may have read on Wiki.

 

I based my thoughts on reading the "Clashes: Air Combat over North Vietnam, 1965-1972". Granted, it's been awhile, but that was the impression I've got about the MiG-21 kills. If my impression is grossly mistaken or those accounts are proven wrong, then I sincerely apologize, but I'd appreciate more than your word to show up for your claims.

Edited March 20, 2015 by Dudikoff

[Basher54321]

In reality, it would be maybe a 4-ship formation, so that's a 1 shot per plane per attack. There is nothing stopping those F-15's to extend away after each salvo as their opponents are most probably blind as bats due to ECM and GCI jamming and their primitive radar sets. And with the all-aspect short range missiles, they could finish off what's left if they perceive the situation to allow for that. Now, tell me which part of this is wrong and how would those primitive types from the 70's flown by poorly trained pilots get a chance.

 

 

 

I'm trying to give you an example of outnumbered - which was supposed to be the point of having a cheaper LWF to supplement the F-15.

 

let go for 2 F-15s v 4 x MiG-23s - in this scenario both are aware of each other and are pretty much head on.

 

So both F-15s sort out their IDs and fire - now when I say one shot regardless of how many F-15s - they only have one shot each in this type of situation - and it is really down to the closing speed.

 

Now lets say the MiGs don't fire but 2 of them get indications they are fired on and both go off in the same direction.

To maintain a lock the F-15s have to focus on the 2 targets - so say both MiGs are hit - great - but the other 2 MiGs which you may or may not know where they are due to the closing speed will not only be WVR but could have already launched weapons at you.

 

Even if things go for the best the end result is precarious to say the least.

 

Should also note that one reason the AIM-7 was called the great white hope because coming in head on you could see it launch miles away in reasonable weather.

[captain_dalan]

 

And no they didn't always fly in predictable formations - sometimes they even used that to their advantage (See Op Bolo).

 

I would actually take Operation Bolo as an example of what happened when USAF didn't fly their predictable "turkey" flights.

 

With the AIM-7F you only have 1 shot max against a formation that knows you are there - and the chances of it hitting at low level if the other guy knows its coming are <10%

 

Not only that but if the targets spilt you lose SA on the other MiGs - there is no standoff ability like you get with active types - in reality the AIM-7 is only a BVR weapon against something that doesn't know its coming.

 

And how exactly would they know you were there? They don't have any radar worthy of notice. Then didn't have any AWACS. No RWR or ECM systems to match. They would be at a serious disadvantage bot in detection and engagement range. And without all aspect heat seekers, even head on merges would be a suicidal affair for them. Especially against an opponent with better SA, cockpit visibility, energy management and nose pointing ability. And it is all of this that would allow for stand off tactics to be used and for finger fours to be able to execute BVR tactics. Even against numerically superior but electronically inferior enemies. Splitting them of and peeking them out 1 or 2 at a time.

 

To put it mildly, in the very worse of situations, the F-15 would be at least able to chose their engagements.

[Basher54321]

I based my thoughts on reading the "Clashes: Air Combat over North Vietnam, 1965-1972". Granted, it's been awhile, but that was the impression I've got about the MiG-21 kills. If my impression is grossly mistaken or those accounts are proven wrong, then I sincerely apologize, but I'd appreciate more than your word to show up for your claims.

 

 

A Hungarian chap called Istvan Toperczer was allowed access to VPAF files and has compiled a few books including:

 

https://ospreypublishing.com/mig-17-and-mig-19-units-of-the-vietnam-war

 

http://www.stellabooks.com/books/istvan-toperczer/mig-21-units-of-the-vietnam-war/1603873

 

They also do very in depth books on the US side e.g.

 

https://ospreypublishing.com/usaf-f-4-phantom-ii-mig-killers-1972-73

 

and from an Isreali Historian

 

https://ospreypublishing.com/israeli-f-15-eagle-units-in-combat

 

 

There is a lot declassified stuff out there now - but well researched books like the above often include that anyway.

 

I have most of that series and a lot more on the Vietnam Air War and have spent years looking at the detail so my opinions may seem odd.

[Hummingbird]

We're moving rather far off topic atm aren't we ? ^^

[Dudikoff]

A Hungarian chap called Istvan Toperczer was allowed access to VPAF files and has compiled a few books including:

https://ospreypublishing.com/mig-17-and-mig-19-units-of-the-vietnam-war

http://www.stellabooks.com/books/istvan-toperczer/mig-21-units-of-the-vietnam-war/1603873

 

There is a lot declassified stuff out there now - but well researched books like the above often include that anyway.

 

While VPAF records could perhaps offer a reliable insight on their losses, I fail to see how it can offer anything remotely reliable on their kills. The MiG-17 and MiG-19 kills I didn't discuss because those planes were used differently (mostly as a bait/distraction later on IIRC) and when treated properly (like not getting low and slow with them) offered no real threat to faster U.S. planes.

 

And Osprey books are not really something I'd call a reliable source. E.g. their book on Iranian F-14A units with the vastly exaggerated number of Iraqi planes shot down based strictly on Iranian pilots' claims. After the fall of Saddam, access to Iraqi secret documents on their accounted losses in that war apparently painted a very different picture.

 

That's all you have against the "Clashes"?

Edited March 20, 2015 by Dudikoff

[Basher54321]

VPAF records could offer a reliable insight on their losses, but much less so on their kills. The MiG-17 and MiG-19 kills I didn't discuss because those planes were used differently (mostly as a bait/distraction later on IIRC) and when treated properly (like not getting low and slow with them) offered no real threat to faster U.S. planes.

 

And Osprey books are not really something I'd call a reliable source. E.g. their book on Iranian F-14A units with the vastly exaggerated number of Iraqi planes shot down based strictly on Iranian pilots' claims. After the fall of Saddam, access to Iraqi secret documents on their accounted losses in that war apparently painted a very different picture.

 

 

I think the Tom Cooper issue is up for contention - but everything else isn't - you wont find better resources other than the classified and you could probably learn a few things - or you can spend a few years learning about this era and then tell me I was right ;)

 

 

I could say clashes is poor resource because it has a lot of mistakes also - but it is quite old now.

 

Not aware there was any documentation on the Iraqi side - most say it was destroyed by the Iraqis - any sources on that?

Edited March 20, 2015 by Basher54321

[Basher54321]

I would actually take Operation Bolo as an example of what happened when USAF didn't fly their predictable "turkey" flights.

 

 

 

And how exactly would they know you were there? They don't have any radar worthy of notice. Then didn't have any AWACS. No RWR or ECM systems to match. They would be at a serious disadvantage bot in detection and engagement range. And without all aspect heat seekers, even head on merges would be a suicidal affair for them. Especially against an opponent with better SA, cockpit visibility, energy management and nose pointing ability. And it is all of this that would allow for stand off tactics to be used and for finger fours to be able to execute BVR tactics. Even against numerically superior but electronically inferior enemies. Splitting them of and peeking them out 1 or 2 at a time.

 

To put it mildly, in the very worse of situations, the F-15 would be at least able to chose their engagements.

 

 

RE Bolo - they had fly predictable large formations because the F-4s were pretending to be F-105s so the MiG-21s would take the bait.......

 

 

Look I see where you are coming from in the second paragraph but its more of an ideal and doesnt reflect this era. (e.g. AIM-9Ls not available till 79 / Soviet Tech maybe worse but did work)

[Basher54321]

Poor old SithSpawn has to clear this thread up now - I do apologise :)

 

 

 

 

I cant comment on F-14 maneuverability - would upset too many people :)

 

 

carry on

Edited March 20, 2015 by Basher54321