How is f-14 maneuverability?

[GGTharos]

Pretty much the worm approach!

[Stratos]

Thanks, I've only read very little Eastern stuff and a lot of Western. Edited my post. Do the tactics describe how to get within range-like the MiG-23 tactics of low altitude+beam and when in range, zoom in, shoot, and run?

 

Or do the tactics give any detail on defeating BVR shots while trying to get within range to employ your weapons?

 

Where can you check those MiG-23 tactics? Is that true? I mean low altitude aproach guided by ground control and then zoom and attack? Shouldn't the USAF planes be able to kill those low alt intruder with the lock down capacity?

Also I'm curious regarding the use of Phoenix against fighters (not export stuff, but soviet air force fighters and pilots), mayne launch at long range in order to gain the inititative and hit them with a AIM-7 later when range closes?

Edited March 14, 2015 by Stratos

[MBot]

Also I'm curious regarding the use of Phoenix against fighters (not export stuff, but soviet air force fighters and pilots), mayne launch at long range in order to gain the inititative and hit them with a AIM-7 later when range closes?

 

Iranian tactic was usually to carry two Phoenix per flight of two. The leader would carry 2 AIM-54A, 2 AIM-7E and 2 AIM-9P, the wingman 6 AIM-7E and 2 AIM-9P. The AIM-7E was a very unreliable weapon, even though Iran building on expierience and training by the USAF managed to double the PK compared to Vietnam performance. So when an important shot was taken, a AIM-54 was fired first even at close range (if I remember correctly, there were Phoenix shots down to 5 NM range). The AIM-54A was used very much for psychological effect. Iraqi aircraft could usualy not tell that they were under attack due to the poor RWR (see DCS MiG-21bis...), so when a plane in a large strike formation blew up seemingly spontaneously, the remainder usually turned around and run. So single AIM-54 were quite successful in defending against large strike packages.

[turkeydriver]

Iranian tactic was usually to carry two Phoenix per flight of two. The leader would carry 2 AIM-54A, 2 AIM-7E and 2 AIM-9P, the wingman 6 AIM-7E and 2 AIM-9P. The AIM-7E was a very unreliable weapon, even though Iran building on expierience and training by the USAF managed to double the PK compared to Vietnam performance. So when an important shot was taken, a AIM-54 was fired first even at close range (if I remember correctly, there were Phoenix shots down to 5 NM range). The AIM-54A was used very much for psychological effect. Iraqi aircraft could usualy not tell that they were under attack due to the poor RWR (see DCS MiG-21bis...), so when a plane in a large strike formation blew up seemingly spontaneously, the remainder usually turned around and run. So single AIM-54 were quite successful in defending against large strike packages.

 

Also at that time AWG-9's TWS didn't trip an RWR at range, it was designed that way, so you could take a missile shot and guide it with no warning. Once the AIM-54s radar went live, if it tripped your RWR you had something closing at ~Mach4-5, inside of 12 miles. You do that math, very little time to react.

[turkeydriver]

Where can you check those MiG-23 tactics? Is that true? I mean low altitude aproach guided by ground control and then zoom and attack? Shouldn't the USAF planes be able to kill those low alt intruder with the lock down capacity?

Also I'm curious regarding the use of Phoenix against fighters (not export stuff, but soviet air force fighters and pilots), mayne launch at long range in order to gain the inititative and hit them with a AIM-7 later when range closes?

 

While the F-15s amazing APG-63 proved themselves in Desert Storm, it's clear the Iraqis used this tactic to good effect. Despite all of the detection and kills, a good number of Iraqi aircraft escaped to Iran AND there were a few cases when superior American tactics were the only thing that saved them. MiG-29s attempted to ambush F-15s, and there more than a few surprise blips on the radar. So the tactics were definitely written as "your aircraft is inferior, so only do this" within saying exactly that.

[Stratos]

While the F-15s amazing APG-63 proved themselves in Desert Storm, it's clear the Iraqis used this tactic to good effect. Despite all of the detection and kills, a good number of Iraqi aircraft escaped to Iran AND there were a few cases when superior American tactics were the only thing that saved them. MiG-29s attempted to ambush F-15s, and there more than a few surprise blips on the radar. So the tactics were definitely written as "your aircraft is inferior, so only do this" within saying exactly that.

 

Then I will love to see this tactics ideas developed a bit, radar off? what altitude to start the climb? turn radar on and the shoot ASAP and guide your missile?

[GGTharos]

No, they didn't. They got shot down and the only time there were 'suprises' or any hesitation were when the IFF malfunctioned or otherwise there was an issue with positive bandit ID, causing the F-15 pilots to choose to come closer for a VID.

 

While the F-15s amazing APG-63 proved themselves in Desert Storm, it's clear the Iraqis used this tactic to good effect. Despite all of the detection and kills, a good number of Iraqi aircraft escaped to Iran AND there were a few cases when superior American tactics were the only thing that saved them. MiG-29s attempted to ambush F-15s, and there more than a few surprise blips on the radar. So the tactics were definitely written as "your aircraft is inferior, so only do this" within saying exactly that.

[Dudikoff]

No, they didn't. They got shot down and the only time there were 'suprises' or any hesitation were when the IFF malfunctioned or otherwise there was an issue with positive bandit ID, causing the F-15 pilots to choose to come closer for a VID.

 

It didn't hurt that the VID was still a relatively low risk option against a relatively numerous, but still poorly equipped air force such as the Iraqi one (with mostly obsolete Soviet planes, collapsed GCI and air defense system, etc.). Those poor MiG pilots never stood a chance.

Edited March 14, 2015 by Dudikoff

[lunaticfringe]

Despite all of the detection and kills, a good number of Iraqi aircraft escaped to Iran

 

That's not tactics- that's having a natural head start based on airfield position versus coalition CAP locations. If you never come out of burner under such terms, escape is a foregone conclusion.

 

It's also important to remember that the Iraqis had already dealt with the F-14 for a decade by the time of the first Gulf War; they knew exactly what they were up against, and so took the option of "the devil they didn't know"- that tells you how fearful they were of the Tomcat, given that they openly refused to take it on, and ran every time they were confronted during the conflict.

 

They got shot down and the only time there were 'suprises' or any hesitation were when the IFF malfunctioned or otherwise there was an issue with positive bandit ID, causing the F-15 pilots to choose to come closer for a VID.

 

You might want to have a conversation with Pitts and Tollini on that matter, GG.

[King_Hrothgar]

I don't think comparing the Iraqi airforce vs the USAF/USN in the 1991 Gulf War tells us much of anything. It was a terribly one sided affair. According to wikipedia (shudder), Iraq had 204 3rd and 4th generation fighters (MiG-29A, MiG-25, MiG-23 and Mirage F1). Of those, only 37 were fourth generation. Compare that to 1000+ F-14/15/16/18's flown by vastly better trained pilots and supported by AWACs continuously no matter where they went. And that's only looking at the US, never mind everyone else who piled on. It was no contest.

[turkeydriver]

I don't think comparing the Iraqi airforce vs the USAF/USN in the 1991 Gulf War tells us much of anything. It was a terribly one sided affair. According to wikipedia (shudder), Iraq had 204 3rd and 4th generation fighters (MiG-29A, MiG-25, MiG-23 and Mirage F1). Of those, only 37 were fourth generation. Compare that to 1000+ F-14/15/16/18's flown by vastly better trained pilots and supported by AWACs continuously no matter where they went. And that's only looking at the US, never mind everyone else who piled on. It was no contest.

 

I'm not doing a level comparison. Just stating that Iraq probably used Soviet tactics that described staying low and angling for weak coverage areas on the F-14/F-15/F-16 RWR. The MiG-29 maneuver kill was a case specifically where the pilots were surprised by a MiG-29 trying to ambush them. It's described as such by the pilots themselves.

The overall tone here is getting abrasive discussing possible Soviet tactics versus 4th gen US fighters....perhaps I've touched a nerve? I have no intention of doing so, just trying to be involved.

 

Back on topic, is the flight model going to be NATOPs specific? Or do you intend to "allow" NATOPs forbidden maneuvers that were used ( and increased ground maintenance time), such as flaps above a specific airspeed during ACM?

[lunaticfringe]

It was no contest.

 

Meanwhile, had the same comparable combination by volume of 3rd and 4th generation aircraft gone to war with NATO in Europe, we'd be hearing the same excuses.

 

Warfare is a "run what you brung" affair. It was a battle of *Iraq's* own making. At any time, the Baghdad regime could have openly contested the buildup by coalition forces, or capitulated from its holdings in Kuwait.

 

Instead, Saddam Hussein made a choice; whether that choice was based on disbelief, arrogance, or a steady stream of propaganda from his advisors (both from foreign suppliers and domestic), the choice was calculated.

 

Thus, squabbling over what constitutes a "fair" fight is useless.

[Basher54321]

I don't think comparing the Iraqi airforce vs the USAF/USN in the 1991 Gulf War tells us much of anything. It was a terribly one sided affair. According to wikipedia (shudder), Iraq had 204 3rd and 4th generation fighters (MiG-29A, MiG-25, MiG-23 and Mirage F1). Of those, only 37 were fourth generation. Compare that to 1000+ F-14/15/16/18's flown by vastly better trained pilots and supported by AWACs continuously no matter where they went. And that's only looking at the US, never mind everyone else who piled on. It was no contest.

 

Well yes the allies had every advantage - apart from pilot training - some Iraqi pilots had 8 years + of combat experience - this would not allow them to overcome the gulf in technology and numbers though.

[captain_dalan]

Considering the flying low and "worming" tactics. No matter how good your look down is, your cone can still only cover a fairly limited amount of space, so without a very good AWACS coverage, there are plenty of blind spots to sneak upon. Using radar modes and elevation is an art of it's own, and it's what i hope they will implement in this case. It is after all, one of the key factors that distinguishes a good RIO from an average one :)

[-Vampire-]

In the USA the Red Eagles sqd who flowed soviet planes has come to a conclusion in air combat trainings: MiG-21Bis can defeat the F-14A in a dogfight. It is becouse the "A" variant has a poor engine. The "B" variant with the new and stronger engine was better.

But still, the Tomcat is not a dogfighter.

[Basher54321]

In the USA the Red Eagles sqd who flowed soviet planes has come to a conclusion in air combat trainings: MiG-21Bis can defeat the F-14A in a dogfight. It is becouse the "A" variant has a poor engine. The "B" variant with the new and stronger engine was better.

But still, the Tomcat is not a dogfighter.

 

 

If you are talking a 1 v 1 BFM affair then its more down to pilot skill and luck in reality.

 

Have only seen reference to the Red Eagles (CONSTANT PEG) having MiG-21F-13 and J-7s.

[GGTharos]

No, the conclusion was that in some very specific, very slow and high AoA situations, the MiG-21 can have more nose pointing authority than an F-15. That was it. It's no general statement like 'MiG-21Bis can defeat F-14A in dogfight' ... all teen fighters can out-turn a MiG-21 all day long in a dogfight.

 

In the USA the Red Eagles sqd who flowed soviet planes has come to a conclusion in air combat trainings: MiG-21Bis can defeat the F-14A in a dogfight. It is becouse the "A" variant has a poor engine. The "B" variant with the new and stronger engine was better.

But still, the Tomcat is not a dogfighter.

[captain_dalan]

No, the conclusion was that in some very specific, very slow and high AoA situations, the MiG-21 can have more nose pointing authority than an F-15. That was it. It's no general statement like 'MiG-21Bis can defeat F-14A in dogfight' ... all teen fighters can out-turn a MiG-21 all day long in a dogfight.

Yep, pretty much this. The MiG-21 weren't all that good "dogfighters" themselves. Not in the way we usually think of dogfighting. However their small size, and tiny frontal cross section made them very good ambush fighters.

[turkeydriver]

In the USA the Red Eagles sqd who flowed soviet planes has come to a conclusion in air combat trainings: MiG-21Bis can defeat the F-14A in a dogfight. It is becouse the "A" variant has a poor engine. The "B" variant with the new and stronger engine was better.

But still, the Tomcat is not a dogfighter.

 

Do some research and you will revise your statement. The F-14 is every bit a dogfighter, but it is not an F-16. Don't take my word for it, talk to the people that flew it.

[lunaticfringe]

Do some research and you will revise your statement.

 

First mistake: expecting someone to *work*.

 

The F-14 is every bit a dogfighter, but it is not an F-16. Don't take my word for it, talk to the people that flew it.

 

Is the MiG-29 a good dogfighter? I'm not sure. An acquaintence of mine was over in Germany and spent a number of days taking pictures of it in all sorts of compromising positions...

[captain_dalan]

Is the MiG-29 a good dogfighter? I'm not sure. An acquaintence of mine was over in Germany and spent a number of days taking pictures of it in all sorts of compromising positions...

I'm sure there would be plenty of people that will call foul play, or "it was a setup" on that one ;) :megalol:

[lunaticfringe]

Funny how that Fulcrum's wing is all loaded up and pulling with nowhere to go but through the pipper... ;)

[captain_dalan]

Many people don't seam to realize that, once you have someone on your tail and you are out of energy, it's most likely over, no magic button, no g-limit, no fancy gadgets can save you :)

[BlackLion213]

First mistake: expecting someone to *work*.

 

 

 

Is the MiG-29 a good dogfighter? I'm not sure. An acquaintence of mine was over in Germany and spent a number of days taking pictures of it in all sorts of compromising positions...

 

Yes, thank you!

 

There is a long-standing mis-conception that the Tomcat was not designed as a dog-fighter - I suppose because it has such an impressive weapons system.

 

Actually, the Phantom is the one that was not designed to dogfight. All aircraft that followed learned from the mistake. The Tomcat was actually the first US Navy aircraft since the Cougar that was explicitly designed to be good at dogfighting. Hence, the bubble canopy, M61 cannon, huge control surfaces, etc.

 

After the F-111B project fell apart due to excess mass and poor performance in everything fighter related, Grumman decided to take a different approach. They engineered a carrier capable sparrowx4, sidewinderx4, cannon armed dogfighter, and figured out how to cram in the AWG-9 and phoenix later (which mostly involved widening the nose/cockpit area and designing the pallets/canoes).

 

The Tomcat proved to be a huge leap forward in dogfight capability compared to it's predecessors, but unsurprisingly, aircraft developed 10+ years later would be even better dogfighters. They would also easier to operate. Still, the Tomcat was a force to be reckoned with in BFM, especially as improvements came down the line. It was also a much better dogfighter than any of it's potential opponents till the Su-27 and MiG-29 became operational (by which time the F110 powered Tomcats were in the fleet).

 

The Tomcat also suffered from being an aircraft of many firsts - first afterburning turbofan, first high-pressure hydraulic system, first multi-engagement weapon system, etc. The aircraft that came after would reap the benefits of the Tomcat's experience.

 

It also needed to have several unique capabilities that the F-15 and F-16 didn't need to worry about: land on a ship (which made it much heavier), have a ~125 knot approach speed, carry a multi-engagement weapon system that could actually shoot down other missiles (F-15 couldn't do anything remotely like that till the mid-80s) and engage a much larger number of maneuvering targets, and carry 16000 lbs of internal fuel for en effective maritime combat radius.

 

BTW, the Phoenix was the first missile developed that could hit a target pulling 6+Gs and was much more effective than any version of the sparrow. It was designed to hit maneuvering targets from the get go and was better at it than the contemporary sparrow or sidewinder, mostly due to the power of it's rocket motor (not meant to hit maneuvering targets when launched from 50+ miles, it had a lot of different modes).

 

Well, this turned into a tirade...

 

-Nick

Edited March 15, 2015 by BlackLion213

[captain_dalan]

Maybe ironically, that need to land on the carrier and the low approach speed actually helped its low speed maneuvering capability :)