F-15/16 vs MiG-29 Article

[rassy7]

Not exactly sure where this belongs so I'm just posting it here. Might even already be posted, I don't know, but I came across this article and thought it was excellent. Gives some good insight to the era of fighters DCS uses.

 

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/how-to-win-in-a-dogfight-stories-from-a-pilot-who-flew-1682723379

 

"While I said that the F-15 is like a Mercedes, The F-16 is like a Formula One race car. The cockpit is tight and it gives you more of the sensation that you're actually wearing the jet than actually sitting in it. The side-stick controller takes about as much time to get used to as it takes to read this sentence."

 

"From BVR (beyond visual range), the MiG-29 is totally outclassed by western fighters. Lack of situation awareness and the short range of the AA-10A missile compared to the AMRAAM means the NATO fighter is going to have to be having a really bad day for the Fulcrum pilot to be successful."

 

"First, a little thrust vectoring history. The USAF tested a 3D nozzle on the Multi-Axis Thrust Vectored F-16 in the early 1990s. It was found that thrust vectoring was really only useful at speeds below 250 knots (with the F-16; the speed will vary with other jets). Above that speed the jet had enough g available and was maneuverable enough that thrust vectoring didn't add anything. Also, at high speeds, if the nozzles start to swing the jet violently around you're apt to induce unacceptable loads on the airframe."

 

Lot of good stuff in there.

[Weta43]

Lack of situation awareness and the short range of the AA-10A missile compared to the AMRAAM means ...

 

I take it you missed this bit :

 

We did not employ the Fulcrum as the Warsaw Pact had intended. We employed it using western tactics. Mostly like the F-16 before it got AMRAAM.

 

The MiG-29 was fielded as a defensive fighter heavily integrated with GCI - GCI order take-off on the basis of EWR/AWAC info, GCI could even control the radar and select targets based on what they see from AWAC EWR.

 

This may or may not have been as effective as giving more autonomy to individual aircraft, but removing the GCI support from the Su-29G & trying to use it as an F-16 is effectively crippling the aircraft BVR, & having done so to then claim that the lack of S.A. in that state is a fair representation of the aircraft's potential as an adversary is disingenuous - & is misrepresenting what the author actually wrote.

 

What he actually wrote was :

When it came to tactically employing the jet there were surprises and disappointments. The radar was actually pretty good and enabled fairly long-range contacts. As already alluded to, the displays were very basic and didn't provide much to enhance the pilot's situational awareness.

 

and as we've already covered, part of the reason for the displays being the way they were was that the SA was supposed to be provided by GCI, and they weren't using that...

 

Also - the A-10A ?

 

AA-10A Alamo, has nowhere the same legs as an AMRAAM and is not launch-and-leave like the AMRAAM. Within its kinematic capability, the AA-10A is a very good missile but its maximum employment range was a real disappointment.

 

Which is why the R-27ER & R-27ET were fielded.

Would you carry the R-27R or R-27T on any aircraft in DCS if the R-27ER & R-27ET were available ?

Why would you chose to use them as your baseline for assessing the capabilities of the Su-27 or MiG-29 ?

It's not what the Russians would be fielding...

 

Oh yeah - thrust vectoring..

When the west had no thrust vectoring aircraft fielded they said they'd investigated thrust vectoring & it was just a useless gimmick when it came to real life combat aircraft.

Then they put 2D trust vectoring on the F-22.

When the West saw the very high AoA capabilities of the Su-27 & MiG-29, they said they'd investigated very high AoA capabilities, & they were just a useless gimmick when it came to real life combat aircraft.

Yet pretty much every design started since that time has ended up featuring very high AoA capabilities (F-22 now regularly displays its own 'Cobra' at air shows, etc., etc.)

 

Now only the 3D vectoring that only the Russians have is a gimmick on real life combat aircraft.

 

Sorry - forgot to say thanks for posting the link. I'd read it before, but it is interesting & definitely worth a look if you haven't read it.

Edited June 26, 2015 by Weta43

[wilky510]

 

Oh yeah - thrust vectoring..

When the west had no thrust vectoring aircraft fielded they said they'd investigated thrust vectoring & it was just a useless gimmick when it came to real life combat aircraft.

Then they put 2D trust vectoring on the F-22.

When the West saw the very high AoA capabilities of the Su-27 & MiG-29, they said they'd investigated very high AoA capabilities, & they were just a useless gimmick when it came to real life combat aircraft.

Yet pretty much every design started since that time has ended up featuring very high AoA capabilities (F-22 now regularly displays its own 'Cobra' at air shows, etc., etc.)

The F-22 vectoring thrust was apparently added for high speed turning, not low speed high AoA, which the Russians usually like to show off about thrust vectoring.

 

 

They never said it was a useless gimmick. They said it was not worth the extra weight and extra complexity on current aircraft.

[Weta43]

& yet you only have to go to the top of this page to find what the official line used to be,,

 

First, a little thrust vectoring history. The USAF tested a 3D nozzle on the Multi-Axis Thrust Vectored F-16 in the early 1990s. It was found that thrust vectoring was really only useful at speeds below 250 knots (with the F-16; the speed will vary with other jets). Above that speed the jet had enough g available and was maneuverable enough that thrust vectoring didn't add anything.

[streakeagle]

I need some clarification: At which point does a MiG use thrust vectoring... before or after the AIM-120 passes within detonation range? :)

[Sierra99]

Man what a great article! Thanks for posting that.

[Emu]

& yet you only have to go to the top of this page to find what the official line used to be,,

I think the line is correct in cases where the turn isn't drag limited, however at high supersonic speeds, drag is the limiting factor in STRs and TV helps reduce drag and that's the main benefit of TV.

[wilky510]

& yet you only have to go to the top of this page to find what the official line used to be,,

That was on an F-16. Not the F-22. The F-22 will most likely will be always high and going fast. Especially during AMRAAM shots, TV helps turn at higher speeds when they're pushing for a long range/medium range shot and then go defensive.

 

Yes, it does have it's benefits at slow speed, but you're playing with fire down there. F-22's have learned the hard way and have even been mocked for using TV too much at low speed by fellow F-16/15/18 pilot's.

 

When i said it wasn't worth the extra weight/complexity, i said current aircraft IE F-16, F-15, F-18; they felt they were fine without it. The F-22 was built from the ground-up to have it, which is a huge difference.

 

I've never saw any western official say it was a useless gimmick. Maybe Western fanboys. But i've seen Flanker fans back in the day claim stealth was a useless/wasted concept. Doesn't mean it's true.

 

I think the line is correct in cases where the turn isn't drag limited, however at high supersonic speeds, drag is the limiting factor in STRs and TV helps reduce drag and that's the main benefit of TV.

Bingo.

[Weta43]

& yet you only have to go to the top of this page to find what the official line used to be

"The USAF tested a 3D nozzle on the Multi-Axis Thrust Vectored F-16 in the early 1990s. (& the official line after this testing was..) It was found that thrust vectoring was really only useful at speeds below 250 knots (with the F-16; the speed will vary with other jets). Above that speed the jet had enough g available and was maneuverable enough that thrust vectoring didn't add anything. Also' date=' at high speeds, if the nozzles start to swing the jet violently around you're apt to induce unacceptable loads on the airframe."[/i']

That was on an F-16. Not the F-22

(..for) the F-22 (..) TV helps turn at higher speeds when they're pushing for a long range/medium range shot and then go defensive

 

..and so it seems my point is proven..

Edited June 28, 2015 by Weta43

[Dudikoff]

Which is why the R-27ER & R-27ET were fielded.

Would you carry the R-27R or R-27T on any aircraft in DCS if the R-27ER & R-27ET were available ?

Why would you chose to use them as your baseline for assessing the capabilities of the Su-27 or MiG-29 ?

It's not what the Russians would be fielding...

 

The article was based on the baseline WP export variant which could only use the short burn Alamos.

But, I'd agree that these kind of comparisons sound superficial since it's logical to expect the Mig-29 configuration from the early 80s and stuck in limbo with the upgrades to be outclassed in the mid 90's (even though it still had an edge in WVR with the Archer/HMS combo).

[Hummingbird]

Don't really see how thrust vectoring would help at high speed, and for the exact same reasons already explained by Lt. Col. Fred "Spanky" Clifton.

 

No I'm pretty sure it was put on the F-22 because of the reason that lower speed high alpha capability was deemed worthwile incase the fight ever degenerated into a WVR brawl for what'ever reason - for example if they were worried about the advances in counter measures or stealth rendering long range missiles ineffective.

[Exorcet]

It's similar to the lifting tail, remove/reduce trim drag.

[Hummingbird]

It's similar to the lifting tail, remove/reduce trim drag.

 

Sure but you're changing the thrust vector as well, which means you redirecting some of your thrust away from the direction you want to go, hence I don't see it helping at high speed - esp. not with 2D paddles which will cause some trim drag on their own.

 

I'm convinced it's there to improve the high alpha capability at lower speeds, not to mention to eliminate uncontrollable departures.

[Basher54321]

Many years ago an F-22 test pilot (Paul Metz) put this in an interview.

 

 

What is not widely known is that thrust-vectoring plays a big role in high speed, supersonic maneuvering. All aircraft experience a loss of control effectiveness at supersonic speeds. To generate the same maneuver supersonically as subsonically, the controls must be deflected further. This, in turn, results in a big increase in supersonic trim drag and a subsequent loss in acceleration and turn performance. The F-22 offsets this trim drag, not with the horizontal tails, which is the classic approach, but with the thrust vectoring. With a negligible change in forward thrust, the F-22 continues to have relatively low drag at supersonic maneuvering speed. . But drag is only part of the advantage gained from thrust vectoring. By using the thrust vector for pitch control during maneuvers the horizontal tails are free to be used to roll the airplane during the slow speed fight. This significantly increases roll performance and, in turn, point-and-shoot capability. This is one of the areas that really jumps out to us when we fly with the F-16 and F-15. The turn capability of the F-22 at high altitudes and high speeds is markedly superior to these older generation aircraft. I would hate to face a Raptor in a dogfight under these conditions.

[Exorcet]

Sure but you're changing the thrust vector as well, which means you redirecting some of your thrust away from the direction you want to go, hence I don't see it helping at high speed - esp. not with 2D paddles which will cause some trim drag on their own.

 

I'm convinced it's there to improve the high alpha capability at lower speeds, not to mention to eliminate uncontrollable departures.

Even with 20 degrees deflection, you have 93% thrust for propulsion. You get 34% thrust for lift.

 

The small angle approximation basically makes thrust loss zero. This also offsets drag on the nozzles because they will essentially be level.

[Hummingbird]

Many years ago an F-22 test pilot (Paul Metz) put this in an interview.

 

 

What is not widely known is that thrust-vectoring plays a big role in high speed, supersonic maneuvering. All aircraft experience a loss of control effectiveness at supersonic speeds. To generate the same maneuver supersonically as subsonically, the controls must be deflected further. This, in turn, results in a big increase in supersonic trim drag and a subsequent loss in acceleration and turn performance. The F-22 offsets this trim drag, not with the horizontal tails, which is the classic approach, but with the thrust vectoring. With a negligible change in forward thrust, the F-22 continues to have relatively low drag at supersonic maneuvering speed. . But drag is only part of the advantage gained from thrust vectoring. By using the thrust vector for pitch control during maneuvers the horizontal tails are free to be used to roll the airplane during the slow speed fight. This significantly increases roll performance and, in turn, point-and-shoot capability. This is one of the areas that really jumps out to us when we fly with the F-16 and F-15. The turn capability of the F-22 at high altitudes and high speeds is markedly superior to these older generation aircraft. I would hate to face a Raptor in a dogfight under these conditions.

 

Pretty funny how we have two test pilots completely contradicting each other.

 

Based on what I've read from Typhoon & Rafale pilots however it is at slow speeds that the F-22 has an advantage due to its nose pointing ability provided by the TV, whilst the Typhoon & Rafale dominate in the higher speed sustained maneuvers.

Edited June 28, 2015 by Hummingbird

[Weta43]

Pretty funny how we have two test pilots completely contradicting each other.

The difference is timing..

 

Which was exactly my point above - when the Russians had TV & the US didn't - it wasn't worth having.

 

Once the US has aircraft with TV, suddely it's advantages become apparent...

 

Same being true for airraft with high AoA capabilities - remember all that talk between when the Su-27 & MiG-29 started appearing at airshows & the appearance of the F-22 (you can find it on these boards) about the Su-27/MiG-29 High AoA capabilities only being airshow gimmicks with no application in the real world ?

"High AoA manuovers - Just a way to get yourself killed in a real dogfight ! "

Then suddenly the F-22 is showing off exactly the same manuovers at airshows...

 

Not saying the Russians don't make simillar kinds of statement - but I don't read Russian so I don't have to suffer through them...

[Basher54321]

Pretty funny how we have two test pilots completely contradicting each other.

 

Based on what I've read from Typhoon & Rafale pilots however it is at slow speeds that the F-22 has an advantage due to its nose pointing ability provided by the TV, whilst the Typhoon & Rafale dominate in the higher speed sustained maneuvers.

 

 

Who says there is a contradiction here - Metz doesn't compare with any front tailed jets does he.

 

Where is the account?

[Exorcet]

Based on what I've read from Typhoon & Rafale pilots however it is at slow speeds that the F-22 has an advantage due to its nose pointing ability provided by the TV, whilst the Typhoon & Rafale dominate in the higher speed sustained maneuvers.

 

Is it high speed, or very high speed? You don't usually dogfight at Mach 1.5. It might just be a matter or words meaning slightly different things in different context.

 

The difference is timing..

 

Which was exactly my point above - when the Russians had TV & the US didn't - it wasn't worth having.

 

Once the US has aircraft with TV, suddely it's advantages become apparent...

 

Same being true for airraft with high AoA capabilities - remember all that talk between when the Su-27 & MiG-29 started appearing at airshows & the appearance of the F-22 (you can find it on these boards) about the Su-27/MiG-29 High AoA capabilities only being airshow gimmicks with no application in the real world ?

"High AoA manuovers - Just a way to get yourself killed in a real dogfight ! "

Then suddenly the F-22 is showing off exactly the same manuovers at airshows...

 

Not saying the Russians don't make simillar kinds of statement - but I don't read Russian so I don't have to suffer through them...

 

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Yes there are biased people, but I think opinions have remained pretty consistent. The F-22 airshow performance is an airshow performance and doesn't really matter when it comes to combat. The US doesn't seem to have changed its mind on TVC as the F-22 is the only plane that use it. The F-35 doesn't have it despite there being a F-35B which might have made the argument for TVC on the A/C easier (though it's also less air to air oriented). The 4.5 teen series don't use thrust vectoring either. They don't supercruise so it's not going to help them as much as the it will the F-22.

[Kuky]

Conclusions based on picking bits a pieces that suits you is just rubbish, typical "mine is better than yours" propaganda. As Weta pointed out, when US didn't have TV they say its useless, now its useful... I can only roll my eyes about this. And again, they used the MiG-29 as they would use their jets... again useless comparison and "test". If they wanted to see how it performs then they should use it how it was/is meant to be used... they are just fooling themselves, actually fooling "you" as their actual military experts DO know better ;)

[Exorcet]

when US didn't have TV they say its useless

On forth gen fighters at low speeds.

now its useful

On a 5th gen high speed fighter.

 

Maybe they're being dishonest, but this isn't a contradiction.

 

And again, they used the MiG-29 as they would use their jets... again useless comparison and "test". If they wanted to see how it performs then they should use it how it was/is meant to be used... they are just fooling themselves, actually fooling "you" as their actual military experts DO know better ;)

Well, you don't always get ideal conditions. The Iraqi MiG's didn't have a net of EWR's to rely on because those were all destroyed by the time the fighting started. Not a useless comparison, but one in which knowing context is important.

[Kuky]

On forth gen fighters at low speeds.

 

On a 5th gen high speed fighter.

 

Maybe they're being dishonest, but this isn't a contradiction.

 

 

Well, you don't always get ideal conditions. The Iraqi MiG's didn't have a net of EWR's to rely on because those were all destroyed by the time the fighting started. Not a useless comparison, but one in which knowing context is important.

 

4th gen or 5th gen doesn't matter... TV on any jet of any generation will make a difference (physics doesn't pick type of generation, it works the same for all air frames)

 

No you don't always get ideal conditions... but saying a jet is useless based on very non-ideal conditions which is not even how the jet was designed to be used is, plain and simple, one sided and not the real truth. And when such statements are thrown around and people read it... they come up with conclusions which are not correct... in another words, they make you believe what they want you to believe.

 

I think anyone with decent knowledge and interest in aviation should already know that MiG-29 was not designed to fight BVR like the American planes... that is no secret... and what is left out (intentionally) is that those same American planes are not to get in close combat with that same MiG-29... which is the OTHER part of the missed story.

Edited June 29, 2015 by Kuky

[gavagai]

Of course F-15 and F-16 pilots train for BVR. I got to watch them practice once over the gulf of mexico via satellite link at Eglin AFB. When F-15s and F-16s set up a grind there isn't much chance for an adversary that doesn't have a similar BVR capability.

 

I don't think the dogfighting scenario is so much in the Mig-29s favor as some of you are making it out to be. With the jhmcs and xray sidewinder the Mig-29's largest advantage in a close fight is gone.

Edited June 30, 2015 by gavagai

[Exorcet]

4th gen or 5th gen doesn't matter... TV on any jet of any generation will make a difference (physics doesn't pick type of generation, it works the same for all air frames)

Physics doesn't know what a fighter generation is correct. Still 5th gen is flying in very different conditions. M 1.5+ cruise, 50,000 ft altitude. This is why gen very much does matter. The physics (or at least the conditions) are different. Drag is a bigger deal for the F-22 because it flies faster. Control authority is a bigger deal for the F-22 because it flies higher. Physics are physics, but delta wings are useless on a P-51 despite being great on a Mirage.

 

No you don't always get ideal conditions... but saying a jet is useless based on very non-ideal conditions which is not even how the jet was designed to be used is, plain and simple, one sided and not the real truth. And when such statements are thrown around and people read it... they come up with conclusions which are not correct... in another words, they make you believe what they want you to believe.

The MiG is not useless, I agree. To use this article properly you need to understand the context (the plane is not used to its full potential). As such, it's an unfair comparison. There is still information in the article, but you need to understand where that info is useful.

 

I think anyone with decent knowledge and interest in aviation should already know that MiG-29 was not designed to fight BVR like the American planes... that is no secret... and what is left out (intentionally) is that those same American planes are not to get in close combat with that same MiG-29... which is the OTHER part of the missed story.

Perhaps then the article was aimed at people with some of that knowledge?

 

Now I didn't read the entire thing, but correct me if I'm wrong, someone did quote the article as admitting that the MiG was not in ideal conditions, right?

[wilky510]

4th gen or 5th gen doesn't matter... TV on any jet of any generation will make a difference (physics doesn't pick type of generation, it works the same for all air frames)

 

No you don't always get ideal conditions... but saying a jet is useless based on very non-ideal conditions which is not even how the jet was designed to be used is, plain and simple, one sided and not the real truth. And when such statements are thrown around and people read it... they come up with conclusions which are not correct... in another words, they make you believe what they want you to believe.

I see Russian bias on these forums all the time, including on these very forums from time to time. So exactly what are you trying to prove?

 

Someone finally links an article talking nicely about Western aircraft and everyone is suddenly up in arms? I mean god sakes, there's even a Russian Airforce aircraft photo only stickied here, but none for the USAF. Now i see why.

 

 

The difference is timing..

 

Which was exactly my point above - when the Russians had TV & the US didn't - it wasn't worth having.

 

Once the US has aircraft with TV, suddely it's advantages become apparent...

Just like the Russians did with stealth aircraft? We've heard for years how useless stealth is, easily countered by S400, not worth the development time or the "high" maintenance costs of these aircraft. Now Suddenly the PAK-Fa is released and Russian sources states it already has a lower RCS than the F-35?... Ok.