Why Red Flag exercises are not indicative of aircraft performance

[mvsgas]

F-16N where retired same time all the aggressor programs where. They could have upgraded the F-16N, but money rules with a iron fist.

[Hummingbird]

Aggressors fly with tanks and other gear as well.

 

The aggressor F-16N's usually came equipped like this, esp. for WVR:

[BlackLion213]

Aggressors fly with tanks and other gear as well.

 

Generally true, but I've not yet seen a single F-16N (specifically the "N") with any external stores excluding an ACMI pod.

 

My 2 cents,

 

-Nick

[mvsgas]

They also carry the ALQ-188 and similar pods AFAIK

the old ones

and the new ones ( this are F-16B)

It depended on the mission. Remember, the aggressors are not there to win, the opposite could be said. Now that I mention, I do I agree with the tittle of the thread. Exercises are for achieve a specific training goal. Nothing to do with aircraft A is better than B or system C is better than D. You could go to a flag exercise with Kfirs or Hawker Hunters and dominate if that is the point of the exercise.

Edited January 8, 2016 by mvsgas

[Hummingbird]

Looking into it the Navy's F-16N's mostly went out completely clean for WVR (same as in the video shown):

Edited January 6, 2016 by Hummingbird
Added new picture

[mvsgas]

They are not "N" anymore. The "N" where block 30 IIRC, now they are suing A models

Look for PMA-226’s Adversary Team

Edited January 6, 2016 by mvsgas

[Hummingbird]

They are not "N" anymore. The "N" where block 30 IIRC, now they are suing A models

Look for PMA-226’s Adversary Team

 

Yes I know, I am thinking of before 1993-4.

[Basher54321]

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

 

The premature cracking was partly to do with the use of different (Titanium) wing brackets. The original small Inlet Block 30s put out a bit less thrust (Less airflow)

[Basher54321]

 

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.

 

 

Not quite what I meant but anyway - they also often show turn radius and energy loss/gain.

[Hummingbird]

The premature cracking was partly to do with the use of different (Titanium) wing brackets. The original small Inlet Block 30s put out a bit less thrust (Less airflow)

 

Still by far the hottest aggressor the US have ever used, IIRC the max sustained turn rate at SL was an insane 23+ deg/sec :shocking:

[Hummingbird]

Not quite what I meant but anyway - they also often show turn radius and energy loss/gain.

 

Well yes, that's a given. They are all about the turn performance however, and as such can't be taken as the single measure of a fighter's WVR capability, climb rate and level acceleration are of major importance here as well.

[mvsgas]

The premature cracking was partly to do with the use of different (Titanium) wing brackets. The original small Inlet Block 30s put out a bit less thrust (Less airflow)

 

To add to that,

All F-16 have similar problems with cracking. From A to D. If you look at most older F-16 you can see the braces/patches/reinforcements added. Its just a F-16 thing

http://wiki.scramble.nl/index.php/Lockheed_martin_f-16_fighting_falcon

 

http://archive.airforcetimes.com/article/20140905/NEWS04/309050038/Fix-decided-F-16-cracks

[Basher54321]

To add to that,

All F-16 have similar problems with cracking. From A to D. If you look at most older F-16 you can see the braces/patches/reinforcements added. Its just a F-16 thing

 

As far as I know the F-16N was a unique case - this is a good thread:

 

http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=32&t=2028&p=290989&hilit=titanium+crack#p290989

 

 

Long story there, I'll try to be as brief as possible. The design mission usage of the F-16A/B was 55% air to air, 45% air to ground, but the F-16N was used almost 100% air to air in aggressor training. Some parts of the airplane had an easier time of that (weapon hardpoints, for example), but some parts had a more severe experience of high g events. The N airplanes were delivered with titanium wing attach brackets in place of aluminum brackets on the A/B. The Navy would not pay for a full analysis and durability test of those parts, since they were easily inspected. Bad idea, as the brackets started cracking at a relative young age.

 

But there is more to the story. USAF uses a structural technology called fracture mechanics to track crack growth and allows airplanes to keep flying with cracks so long as the cracks remain within specified lengths. The Navy, being old fashioned and ultra conservative still used fatigue crack rules which say that any crack is reason for grounding. Because fatigue analysis and test is much more primitive than fracture mechanics, it requires a more conservative approach. So if USAF had those same F-16N airplanes, they would not have grounded them.

[garrya]

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 ;)

 

 

.

 

 

I checkedthe manual again , and yes you are correct:thumbup: my bad , should be more careful when reading the manual. , it quite surprising how a small missiles can add so much drag to F-16

Still wouldnt it more logical if they launched some of their missiles at each others before get in to the merge ?

BTW do you have the graph for F-14 turn rate at sea level or 5000 feet ? , I wonder how it fare again F-16 at these altitude ?

At high altitude then I bet F-14 is better since F-16 is (for all intend and purpose ) a slug at 50000 feet

Edited January 6, 2016 by garrya

[garrya]

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.

Radar at pre amraam perid probably not good in lock down /shot down role so it likely that F-16 can get in close by take advantage of ground clutter

But you are right that an AIM--54 is better than AIM-7 in BVR role

 

 

 

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).

I think defeating AIM--54 should be easier than defeating a AIM-120 especially at close range

F-14 has better radar but F-16 has low RCS so they probably balance out

Edited January 6, 2016 by garrya

[Emu]

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.

You're right about navy pilots based on historical data. In Vietnam, Navy pilots were 6:1 with F-4s vs 3:1 for USMC and USAF pilots. The data is somewhere on the old militaryphotos.net site, I had the archived link and my old computer. I'll test how strong the force is in Google..... Da da!

 

http://web.archive.org/web/20121031043534/http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?180731-Modern-fighter-combat-records

 

For anyone surprised by the hilarious crap that can happen in training exercises, listen to this video at 30:50. Tornado F3s and Hawks vs F-14s. All about tactics.

 

http://www.aircrewinterview.tv/episode-6/

 

A very interesting WVR opponent is actually the Mirage III. Very good ITR, but poor rate. 400:69 combat victory:loss ratio.

 

http://web.archive.org/web/20121031050311/http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?180731-Modern-fighter-combat-records&p=6337406&viewfull=1#post6337406

Edited January 6, 2016 by Emu

[mvsgas]

As far as I know the F-16N was a unique case - this is a good thread:

Not unique, it just boils down to the USN did not want or could spend the money to fix it. This at the time all other aggressor units where closing, right? It makes sense.

 

At any rate, we still talking about Red flag and similar exercises being indicative or not of aircraft performance?

[Hummingbird]

I checkedthe manual again , and yes you are correct:thumbup: my bad , should be more careful when reading the manual. , it quite surprising how a small missiles can add so much drag to F-16

Still wouldnt it more logical if they launched some of their missiles at each others before get in to the merge ?

BTW do you have the graph for F-14 turn rate at sea level or 5000 feet ? , I wonder how it fare again F-16 at these altitude ?

At high altitude then I bet F-14 is better since F-16 is (for all intend and purpose ) a slug at 50000 feet

 

It's the same deal at 5000 ft, the balance stays the same from SL to 35,000 ft which is the height the F-14 charts go to, and since they carry similar engines I'd suspect it to stay that way for the entire height band.

[garrya]

It's the same deal at 5000 ft, the balance stays the same from SL to 35,000 ft which is the height the F-14 charts go to, and since they carry similar engines I'd suspect it to stay that way for the entire height band.

I don't think it would stay the same even if 2 aircraft use exactly same engine they still have complete different inlet system and different aerodynamic

like the F-15 vs F-16 , at sea level the F-16 dominate but at high altitude the situation is revert

anyway at 10000 ft wouldn't F-16, F-15 vs F-14 be similar to F-16 , F-15vs X-31 ? ( the F-16 , F-15 will use their speed , T/W advantage to dictate the engagement )

Edited January 7, 2016 by garrya

[Hummingbird]

I don't think it would stay the same even if 2 aircraft use exactly same engine they still have complete different inlet system and different aerodynamic

like the F-15 vs F-16 , at sea level the F-16 dominate but at high altitude the situation is revert

 

Thing is the situation is the same from sea level to 35,000 ft, thus there is no reason to suspect any difference in balance above that altitude.

 

anyway at 10000 ft wouldn't F-16, F-15 vs F-14 be similar to F-16 , F-15vs X-31 ? ( the F-16 , F-15 will use their speed , T/W advantage to dictate the engagement )

 

I think you're investing a little too much into that test, there are simply too many variables to make any conclusions based on it, three large ones being pilot proficiency, aircraft load outs and specific aircraft restrictions.

 

In regards to the F-14 vs F-16 & -15, keep in mind that the F-14 wouldn't bleed as much energy during maneuvers as the pure delta X-31 would, esp. if the X-31 is doing extreme AoA maneuvers using thrust vectoring. Thus the F-14 wouldn't find it as hard to follow the climb of a F-16 or F-15 after a merge as it wouldn't have bled as much speed through the first 180 deg turn. Proof of this is the fact that the F-14 managed to beat the F-15 in mock dogfights every time during the extensive testing of both aircraft conducted by the IAF to help decide which one to purchase, if the F-15 had simply been able to climb away this wouldn't have been the case.

 

As for the F-14 vs X-31 this is a more tricky match up seeing as both have a similar climb rate whilst the greatest offensive strength of both is their turning performance, the F-14 having a better sustained turn rate but the X-31 having thrust vectoring which really is decisive in an all out angles fight as it allows it to be the first to get guns on target after the initial 180 following the merge. Thus against the X-31 the F-14 really is forced to stay and fight as it can't effectively outclimb the X-31, which in turn means probably being in the X-31's sights after the first turn (you simply can't hope to match the first 180 deg of a TV aircraft in one without it) after which point the F-14 pilot can just hope that the X-31 misses the shot so he can take advantage of the F-14's superior STR and get on his tail.

 

In other words the two times the F-14 won was probably due to the X-31 failing to get lined up properly after the first 180, allowing the F-14 to utilize its superior sustained turn rate and get in behind the X-31.

 

Finally it needs to be mentioned that the F-14 might have been hampered by the 6.5 G load limit put upon the D model by the Navy in order to preserve the longevity of the airframe. I am sure the pilots would've been very aware of not crossing these limits, despite the aircraft easily being able to handle 9+ G's from the factory (as designed) and featuring no built in measures to restrict the pilot from pulling as many G's as he wished. In short the F-14 almost certainly wasn't flown to its actual limits in the X-31 tests, or in other words it wasn't flown to the same limits that an actual frontline pilot would push it to during an actual combat situation.

 

As fighter pilots say: "G limits are for when you're doing acrobatics at an airshow, in a life or death dogfight there are no G limits!"

Edited January 7, 2016 by Hummingbird

[garrya]

Thing is the situation is the same from sea level to 35,000 ft, thus there is no reason to suspect any difference in balance above that altitude.

sorry I don't quite follow what you mean by the situation is the same from sea level to 35000 ft

2 aircraft have complete difference aerodynamic and inlet , iam pretty sure there would be difference , I don't have the chart for F-14 , but at F-14D limited by the 6.5 G limit should turn a lot worse than an F-16 turning at 9G :noexpression: from sea level to around 5000 feet

 

by contrast going high altitude( 37k feet up ) the variable inlet of F-14 should allow it's engine to have much better pressure recovery result in better T/W and speed than F-16

I think you're investing a little too much into that test, there are simply too many variables to make any conclusions based on it, three large ones being pilot proficiency, aircraft load outs and specific aircraft restrictions.

 

In regards to the F-14 vs F-16 & -15, keep in mind that the F-14 wouldn't bleed as much energy during maneuvers as the pure delta X-31 would, esp. if the X-31 is doing extreme AoA maneuvers using thrust vectoring. Thus the F-14 wouldn't find it as hard to follow the climb of a F-16 or F-15 after a merge as it wouldn't have bled as much speed through the first 180 deg turn. Proof of this is the fact that the F-14 managed to beat the F-15 in mock dogfights every time during the extensive testing of both aircraft conducted by the IAF to help decide which one to purchase, if the F-15 had simply been able to climb away this wouldn't have been the case

.

wasn't there only 1 or 2 dogfight between F-15 and F-14 ? and they also affected by the same criteria you listed above ?

as I understand it F-14 is good at slow speed around mach 0.55 , while corner speed of F-16 , F-15 is is around 0.8- 0.85 mach , so I think the climb ability of F-15 , F-16 should be much better ( they literally have extra 366 km/h to trade for altitude ) , so F-14 better stick to horizontal turning and nose pointing but its horizontal turning is worse than X-31

btw according to this chart F-15 sustain G limit at 10k feet is 8.5 G , so shouldn't it be much better than both the F-16C and F-14D ?

.

Finally it needs to be mentioned that the F-14 might have been hampered by the 6.5 G load limit put upon the D model by the Navy in order to preserve the longevity of the airframe. I am sure the pilots would've been very aware of not crossing these limits, despite the aircraft easily being able to handle 9+ G's from the factory (as designed) and featuring no built in measures to restrict the pilot from pulling as many G's as he wished. In short the F-14 almost certainly wasn't flown to its actual limits in the X-31 tests, or in other words it wasn't flown to the same limits that an actual frontline pilot would push it to during an actual combat situation.

 

As fighter pilots say: "G limits are for when you're doing acrobatics at an airshow, in a life or death dogfight there are no G limits!"

actually iam under the impression that even though sometime pilot managed to pull extreme G , the limit are there so that the pilots wouldn't accidently break their airframe ( same reason why there is G limit when you start carry heavy bomb and missiles )

also seem like all Navy aircraft have that limit F-18E , F-35C also have limit of 7.5G , the F-14 probably have lower limit because it's swing wing is more fragile

nevertheless , I think it really hard for an aircraft that have G-load of 7.5G (or lower )to sustain 9G as long as the one that doesn't have Glimit ( or have limit at 9 G )

Edited January 7, 2016 by garrya

[garrya]

a bit of an extreme example is the SR-71 , at low altitude it is slower than most other fighter , cant even go pass mach2 until 50k feet , but at high altitude it is faster than any jet aircraft ever buit

[garrya]

Btw can you upload F-14D flight manual or tell me where you got it ? ( like the link and stuff )

[Hummingbird]

garrya I'm at work atm so this will be short (will address the rest later)

 

1) The F-15 chart you just showed is for a completely clean aircraft, thus it cannot be compared with the F-14 & F-16 charts which are for loaded aircraft. You need to look at the same chart for an F-15C loaded with 4x AIM-9's + 4x AIM-120's (or AIM-7's) the same as on the F-14 chart. I can provide that later.

 

2) The IAF did several tests (I recommend the book referenced earlier)

 

3) You can buy the F-14 manual online (on ebay for example), I will provide you with a link later

 

4) As already explained the F-14's 7 G and later 6.5 G load limit was a Navy instruction to pilots, it wasn't an actual airframe limit, also there was no built in G limiter as on the F-16 or F-15 so the pilot could at any point pull as many G's as he wanted. There were several incidents were F-14's pulled as much as 14 G's momentarily without any signs of structural stress afterwards (incredible yes). Infact the actual design ultimate load limit of the F-14 was exactly the same as that of the F-15 with similar loads.

 

5) When I say the balance stays the same from SL to 35,000 ft I am talking about the relative difference between the two aircraft. When looking at the charts the relative difference in both ITR & STR between the F-14 & F-16 stays the same.

 

 

.

Edited January 7, 2016 by Hummingbird

[garrya]

1) The F-15 chart you just showed is for a completely clean aircraft, thus it cannot be compared with the F-14 & F-16 charts which are for loaded aircraft. You need to look at the same chart for an F-15C loaded with 4x AIM-9's + 4x AIM-120's (or AIM-7's) the same as on the F-14 chart. I can provide that later.

Iam aware that it is a clean chart , however both F-15 , F-14 are massive aircraft so i think it is unlikely that an aim-120 would really affected their performance

Another factor need to consider is logically speaking aircraft would have lauched a 2-4 missiles fromBVR before get into the merge ,it quite unlikely that aircraft get in dogfight with total amount of missiles they carried from start .For expample : i dont think F-14 would have dogfight with AIM-54 , AIM-7 is not that much better either

 

2) The IAF did several tests (I recommend the book referenced earlier)

NASA did many test as well and they also tested different set up too

and regradless how many test they did i think it still partly affected by human factor and the set up like you said earlier

 

3) You can buy the F-14 manual online (on ebay for example), I will provide you with a link later

Thank you

 

4) As already explained the F-14's 7 G and later 6.5 G load limit was a Navy instruction to pilots, it wasn't an actual airframe limit, also there was no built in G limiter as on the F-16 or F-15 so the pilot could at any point pull as many G's as he wanted. There were several incidents were F-14's pulled as much as 14 G's momentarily without any signs of structural stress afterwards (incredible yes). Infact the actual design ultimate load limit of the F-14 was exactly the same as that of the F-15 with similar loads.

I think the incident should be treated as the exception rather than the rule, there is also incident where F-15 turn 15G or Mig-25 turn 10G and pilot survive , but i think we can all agree that it not something that can always happen , if turning 9G make not much different to F-14 airframe then i think it is unlikely that they would have limited it down to only 6.5G , surely you can argue that they want airframe to last longer but F-16 , F-15 have 9G limit and they still working now even after F-14 retired

About F-14 G limit here is something i can find

The F-15C is probably the premier BFM fighter and more capable in that area than the Tomcat. You have to remember, the F-15C has a 9G turning capability versus 6.5 to 7.0 G for the Tomcat. But the F-15C is strictly air-to-air, so there are trade-offs in capabilities between the two jets.They don't drop bombs, we do. Another thing: a lot of success in BFM has to do with the pilot's ability to maximize the jet's capability. Fortunately, the best trained guys who fly the F-15C are on our side!

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/an-elite-f-14-airman-explains-why-the-tomcat-was-so-imp-1610043625

During validation of the existing NATOPS rolling G envelope, the primary F-14 test asset sustained extensive structural damage to the starboard engine weekly doors and aft fixed cowl when certain structural limits were exceeded. As it turned out, the problem was not due to DFCS but was related to a NATOP�s operational envelope which had not been previously verified. This resulted in the fleet-wide rolling G restrictions from NAVAIR. The impact to the program is going to be felt in an initial envelope for DFCS with reduced rolling g above and beyond the cutbacks for AFCS roll SAS-on, simply because the Navy cannot support any further structural testing until the F-14 test aircraft is repaired. Data is still being analyzed and the restrictions haven�t been fully defined yet, but it was anticipated that the initial envelope would still include 6.5 g�s symmetric throughout for gross weights of 49.5K or less. For the clean configuration: 4 g�s rolling to 570 KCAS, 3 g rolling to 700, and 1 g rolls/no abrupt stick inputs above 700/1.4 For external tanks or Pylon mounted AIM-54s: the "region 3" from NATOPS will begin above 570 KCAS/1.15 TMN at low alt, or 500 KCAS above 25K.

 

5) When I say the balance stays the same from SL to 35,000 ft I am talking about the relative difference between the two aircraft. When looking at the charts the relative difference in both ITR & STR between the F-14 & F-16 stays the same.

.

Which is what iam really confuse and skeptical about , because at 10K feet the max sustain turn rate of the 2 aircraft isnt much better than 6G ( within the structure limit of F-14 ) and F-16 already have quite significant advantage at mach 0.85 , so by logic at sea level till 5000 feet where F-16 can turn 9G ( much higher than F-14 structure limit ) it would totally dominate F-14 at mach 0.75-0.85 range

And i think i did read somewhere that F-14 pilot say F-16 is a monster at sea level ( not sure that an F-14A or D though )

 

Can you posted F-14 turn performance at sea level ? Or 5K feet ? ,i want to see them

Edited January 7, 2016 by garrya