Why Red Flag exercises are not indicative of aircraft performance

[Basher54321]

According to flight manual , aim-120 + launcher + adapter on station 2, 8 , 3 ,7 of F-16 , each have drag index of 4

Seem reasonable enough

 

Pretty sure you need to add LAU-129s - run through the example you will see.

[Hummingbird]

What if F-16 was armed like this ?

Belly tank dropped in dogfight , 6 Aim-120 +pylon have drag index of 16

 

You need to add the drag of the pylons as well.

 

The centerline pylon alone adds 7 to the DI.

[Hummingbird]

Drag index with 6 missiles + two empty fuel tank pylons:

 

4 x LAU-129's + adapter (4x6) = 24

4 x AIM-120's (4x4) = 16

2 x Fuel tank pylons (2x8) = 16

________________________________

Drag index = 56

 

 

Drag index with 6 missiles and one empty centerline fuel tank pylon:

 

4 x LAU-129's + adapter (4x6) = 24

4 x AIM-120's (4x4) = 16

1 x Fuel tank pylon (1x7) = 7

________________________________

Drag index = 47

[Hummingbird]

In the context of BFM the F-14A was an underpowered airbrake, nobody will deny that - the later versions were better with added thrust.

 

At high altitude yes, but the F-14A was actually very impressive at low altitudes where it still beat out the F-15, albeit not the F-16.

 

EM charts might be good and might show some similarity with specific versions (and obviously will be tailored to the favour of the person comparing it :thumbup: ) - but they don't show the whole picture - even Boyd recognised that.

 

The EM charts simply take the pilot out of the equation and place both aircraft on level ground, but they also only show two things and that's STR & ITR, they don't factor in climb rate or level acceleration, both things which a pilot can use to make an equal fight into and unequal one.

 

This also explains how against the X-31 the F-14 eventually lost as it didn't have the climb rate to extend and thus it had to turn fight the X-31, which besides actually being the F-14's strength is not a good idea against a thrust vectored delta :P Yet is still won twice, which is impressive. As for the F-15, well it couldn't hope turn fighting the X-31 at all, so it simply went vertical with its superopr climb rate and thus won the mock fights with diving attacks.

[garrya]

Drag index with 6 missiles + two empty fuel tank pylons:

 

4 x LAU-129's + adapter (4x6) = 24

4 x AIM-120's (4x4) = 16

2 x Fuel tank pylons (2x8) = 16

________________________________

Drag index = 56

 

 

Drag index with 6 missiles and one empty centerline fuel tank pylon:

 

4 x LAU-129's + adapter (4x6) = 24

4 x AIM-120's (4x4) = 16

1 x Fuel tank pylon (1x7) = 7

________________________________

Drag index = 47

Drag index of AIM-120 it self is zero I think , as shown in this photo , AIM-9 on station 1 and 9 have drag index equal 4 , but AIM-120 on station 1 and 9 have drag index equal 0

 

 

 

Oh and since 2 aim-120 at wing tip have drag index of 0 already , you left with 4 Aim-120+ lauch-129 +adapter = 4*4 = 16

 

 

There a centerline pylon but judge by the size I think it has lower drag index than wing tank pylon

Total drag index of 6 aim-120 +centerline pylon = 23 I think

Edited January 6, 2016 by garrya

[garrya]

At high altitude yes, but the F-14A was actually very impressive at low altitudes where it still beat out the F-15, albeit not the F-16.

 

 

 

The EM charts simply take the pilot out of the equation and place both aircraft on level ground, but they also only show two things and that's STR & ITR, they don't factor in climb rate or level acceleration, both things which a pilot can use to make an equal fight into and unequal one.

 

This also explains how against the X-31 the F-14 eventually lost as it didn't have the climb rate to extend and thus it had to turn fight the X-31, which besides actually being the F-14's strength is not a good idea against a thrust vectored delta :P Yet is still won twice, which is impressive. As for the F-15, well it couldn't hope turn fighting the X-31 at all, so it simply went vertical with its superopr climb rate and thus won the mock fights with diving attacks.

 

This bring an interesting point if you look at the graph

 

 

 

 

At 10k feet both F-14 and F-16 have compatible sustain turn rate (P=0 )of around 14-15 degree per seconds

But F-14 achieve that at mach 0.55 while F-16 achieve that condition at mach 0.85 , that mean while F-14 have smaller turn radius , f-16 will have more speed to go vertical

Edited January 6, 2016 by garrya

[Hummingbird]

The drag index for the AIM-120 itself is 4, the reason it is set at 0 for station 1-9 is because the basic aircraft already equips 2x AIM-9's there (as described under *) and there is no appreciable drag difference between those two.

 

As such if you want to mount 4 extra AIM-120's you will have to count in their drag as well, which is 4 pr. store plus the drag of the LAU-129 + adapter.

 

Hence the drag index for 6x missiles + 2x empty fuel tank pylon is 56, whilst the same only with 1x centerline pylon is 47.

[Hummingbird]

This bring an interesting point if you look at the graph

 

http://i.imgur.com/VKK60YS.png

 

 

http://i.imgur.com/hlpncUr.png

 

At 10k feet both F-14 and F-16 have compatible sustain turn rate (P=0 )of around 14-15 degree per seconds

But F-14 achieve that at mach 0.55 while F-16 achieve that condition at mach 0.85 , that mean while F-14 have smaller turn radius , f-16 will have more speed to go vertical

 

Yes, it will be a close fight with equal pilots.

 

The F-14 has the additional advantage of a higher ITR and nose pointing ability, whilst the F-16 enjoys a climb rate advantage.

[mvsgas]

Those F-14A charts are for the updated engine correct? (Same engine on the F-16, the F110-GE)

[Hummingbird]

Here's a small video of the F-14 demonstrating it's impressive nose pointing ability and the 75 deg AoA pitch up explained by Maj. Ali in Iranian F-14 Tomcat units in Combat:

 

We1T-FxY9Bs

 

 

 

Those F-14A charts are for the updated engine correct? (Same engine on the F-16, the F110-GE)

 

Yes, those are F-14B (also known as A+) and D charts, don't be fooled by the F14AAP-1.1 description on the top right ;)

 

Front cover:

 

 

Edited January 6, 2016 by Hummingbird
Condensed two posts into one

[garrya]

The drag index for the AIM-120 itself is 4, the reason it is set at 0 for station 1-9 is because the basic aircraft already equips 2x AIM-9's there (as described under *) and there is no appreciable drag difference between those two.

 

As such if you want to mount 4 extra AIM-120's you will have to count in their drag as well, which is 4 pr. store plus the drag of the LAU-129 + adapter.

 

Hence the drag index for 6x missiles + 2x empty fuel tank pylon is 56, whilst the same only with 1x centerline pylon is 47.

 

Alright , I just open the manual again , 2 aim-9 on station 1 and 9 have total drag index equal 2

so drag index of F-16 with 6 Aim-120 is 4 +16 = 20

And adding the centerline tank then total drag index equal 27

[Hummingbird]

Alright , I just open the manual again , 2 aim-9 on station 1 and 9 have total drag index equal 2

so drag index of F-16 with 6 Aim-120 is 4 +16 = 20

And adding the centerline tank then total drag index equal 27

 

Again you are not adding the drag of the LAU-129 + adapter for the remaining stations:

 

DI pr. LAU-129 + adapter = 6

DI pr. AIM-120 = 4

DI pr. empty fuel tank pylon = 8

 

The wing tip launcher + adapter + AIM-9 is already applied to the basic aircraft, thus adding two AIM-120's instead of two AIM-9's equals ~0 on the drag index (infact a little under as the AIM-120 is less draggy than the AIM-9 [DI = 5]), as described under *.

 

For the rest of the stations however you need to add the drag of the additional LAU + adapters needed as well as the stores, in this case 4x LAU-129's + adapter with a drag index of 6 each and 4x AIM-120's with a drag index of 4 each.

 

It is all explained on the page right after the one you just posted:

 

 

 

 

In short four under the wing mounted AIM-120's constitute the following on the Drag Index:

 

Four LAU-129 + adapter = 4 x 6 = 24

Four AIM-120 = 4 x 4 = 16

_______________________________

Total = 40

 

 

Add an additional 7 to the DI if a single empty centerline pylon is added, or an additional 16 if two empty wing mounted fuel tank pylons are added.

 

Thus we get the following:

 

4 x LAU-129's + adapter (4x6) = 24

4 x AIM-120's (4x4) = 16

2 x Fuel tank pylons (2x8 ) = 16

________________________________

Drag index = 56

 

 

4 x LAU-129's + adapter (4x6) = 24

4 x AIM-120's (4x4) = 16

1 x Fuel tank pylon (1x7) = 7

________________________________

Drag index = 47

 

 

I hope this finally clears things up ;)

 

 

.

Edited January 6, 2016 by Hummingbird

[Beamscanner]

The Tomcat, with it's superior pilots, radar, fuel load and missiles(pre-AMRAAM period), would have crushed F-16s (from that period) from BVR..

 

Yeah, it might be easy to defeat an AIM-54C launched at 80 miles.. but good luck defeating one launched at 20 miles when your trying to launch and fully support a AIM-7 fired at less then that.

 

A smart tomcat pilot would use his long range active missiles well inside their envelope, and could probably take on several F-16s at once due to the nature of his weapon system.

 

No pilot would let themselves go into the merge if it wasn't absolutely necessary, that's a big risk.. Even for a Flanker or a Rafale.

 

 

Modern F-16s would stand a much better chance today with their AIM-120s.. but that's if they can make to that missiles envelope without dying or losing too much of their energy defeating aim-54s(thus reducing the range of the AIM-120).

Edited January 6, 2016 by Beamscanner

[Hummingbird]

The Tomcat, with it's superior pilots, radar, fuel load and missiles(pre-AMRAAM period), would have crushed F-16s (from that period) from BVR..

 

Yeah, it might be easy to defeat an AIM-54C launched at 80 miles.. but good luck defeating one launched at 20 miles when your trying to launch and fully support a AIM-7 fired at less then that.

 

A smart tomcat pilot would use his long range active missiles well inside their envelope, and could probably take on several F-16s at once due to the nature of his weapon system.

 

No pilot would let themselves go into the merge if it wasn't absolutely necessary, that's a big risk.. Even for a Flanker or a Rafale.

 

 

Modern F-16s would stand a much better chance today with their AIM-120s.. but that's if they can make to that missiles envelope without dying or losing too much of their energy defeating aim-54s.

 

Add to that had the F-14 still been active it would've no doubt been equipped with AMRAAM's as well as a more modern upgraded version of the AWG-9 amongst other things.

 

However being as maintenance heavy as it was and having not been manufactured for so long (because the government stupidly cut orders short) the Tomcat was eventually decommissioned due to cost. A real shame.

[Sierra99]

well... :)

 

kSlnAhSxPWY

 

F-14s lost their lunch money AND got wedgies!

 

But to be fair, I think my mom could out fly an F-14 in on of the Navy's F-16Ns...They were optimized as aggressors.

 

Although the (T)F-16N's are based on the early-production small-inlet Block 30 F-16C/D airframe, they retain the APG-66 radar of the F-16A/B. However, they have no cannon or ASPJ and carry no missiles.

Edited January 6, 2016 by Sierra99

[SDsc0rch]

adding amraams to the tomcat would have been very expensive

 

the phoenix guidance signal was encoded in to the radar beam, from what i understand - very different from how the amraam receives its midcourse guidance --- the tomcat fire control system would have needed substantial tweaking to make it compatible with the amraam, and i believe that (plus the fact that it already had an active missile) were the primary factors that lead the powers-that-be to not opt in to the slammer

[Sierra99]

adding amraams to the tomcat would have been very expensive

 

the phoenix guidance signal was encoded in to the radar beam, from what i understand - very different from how the amraam receives its midcourse guidance --- the tomcat fire control system would have needed substantial tweaking to make it compatible with the amraam, and i believe that (plus the fact that it already had an active missile) were the primary factors that lead the powers-that-be to not opt in to the slammer

 

OK but with that in mind, How hard would it have been to replace the AWG-9 with the APG-79?

 

Phase out the AIM-54 in Favor of AIM-120's...

[BlackLion213]

well... :)

 

kSlnAhSxPWY

 

Do you have any others? Preferably not Instructor F-16Ns vs Student F-14As? Or is it a "one hit wonder"...;)

 

Well I have a few, mostly F-14As vs other excellent dogfighters.

 

MiG-29 Luftwaffe aggressors vs VF-14 F-14As:

 

 

F-14A vs Hornet:

 

 

F-14B vs Hornet:

 

 

F-14 vs Mirage 2000:

 

 

F-14A/B vs F-15C:

 

Another F-14A/B vs F-15C:

 

 

And...one last F-14A vs MiG-29:

 

 

I think the F-14 can hold it's own...and gun a few Vipers on the way. ;)

 

-Nick

Edited January 6, 2016 by BlackLion213

[Hummingbird]

The aggressor F-16's are the hottest birds in the US inventory for sure, being completely clean and lighter than even the F-16A. They'd easily wax a regular F-16.

[Hummingbird]

Do you have any others? Preferably not Instructor F-16Ns vs Student F-14As? Or is it a "one hit wonder"...;)

 

Well I have a few, mostly F-14As vs other excellent dogfighters.

 

MiG-29 Luftwaffe aggressors vs VF-14 F-14As:

 

 

F-14A vs Hornet:

 

 

F-14B vs Hornet:

 

 

F-14 vs Mirage 2000:

 

 

F-14A/B vs F-15C:

 

I think the F-14 can hold it's own...and gun a few Vipers on the way. ;)

 

-Nick

 

Add to this that the Luftwaffe MiG-29 aggressors proved a very tough match for the F-16 in WVR, infact I believe MiG-29 was infact considered slightly superior.

 

Interestingly I remember reading that the Tomcats were considered the toughest opponents for the LW MiG-29's in WVR according to one pilot, albeit with some mention around that it might have been because of the F-14 pilots being excellent, but so were the LW aggressors so I think it evens out :)

 

I guess part of the reason for that would be that the MiG-29 didn't have an ITR advantage against the F-14 like it did against the F-16.

Edited January 6, 2016 by Hummingbird

[BlackLion213]

The aggressor F-16's are the hottest birds in the US inventory for sure, being completely clean and lighter than even the F-16A. They'd easily wax a regular F-16.

 

The F-16Ns were so high performance that they lasted about as long as a gallon of milk!

 

Snowballed and G'd into oblivion, then retired for airframe cracks after only 10 years. I suppose thats what happens when you strap a 29,000 lb of thrust F110-GE-100 to a ~17,000 lb airframe. They were seriously impressive machines!

 

-Nick

Edited January 6, 2016 by BlackLion213

[mvsgas]

F-16A? Retired? GE went into block 30 and above (40, 50, etc. C models) Not the same airframe, it's larger with several different components. Also, if your talking about the F-16A (which I'm not sure ), Belgium, Chile, ROCAF, Denmark, etc still used them and they are as capable as newer blocks ( in terms of avionics and missions available)

Edited January 6, 2016 by mvsgas

[Sweep]

F-16A? Retired?

 

Think he meant the F-16N aggressors specifically.

[BlackLion213]

Think he meant the F-16N aggressors specifically.

 

Yes, thank you. :)

 

And I edited my post to be more specific.

 

-Nick

[mvsgas]

The aggressor F-16's are the hottest birds in the US inventory for sure, being completely clean and lighter than even the F-16A. They'd easily wax a regular F-16.

 

Aggressors fly with tanks and other gear as well.