Browsing other forums

[Darkbrotherhood7]

One of the biggest difference I see, is the Inner Cone, which keeps the high-velocity of the gases coming from the turbine (previous stage) and also it prevents turbulence, so it profits greater use of the power produced by the engine (more efficiency when using military power). Also the F-110 has less igniter plugs, probably that means more efficiency and less fuel consumption, because less fuel is used in the afterburner stage, so less ignitors you need, the Bypass duct looks smaller too. Also the exhaust nozzle looks smaller, which is a very important thing for the engine performance, if it's too large, power will be wasted.

 

Definitely when I look to this I know the reason for it being so much powerful than the TF-30.

 

Yep. The F-110 besides the better thrust, the GE F-110 also provided more range to the Tomcat.

F-14A Max range: 3.200km(1.730nm)

F-14B/D Max range: 3.800km(2.050nm)

 

http://www.anft.net/f-14/f14-specification.htm

 

It's a huge difference.

[Top Jockey]

Maneuvering hard is what gets you low on energy enough for someone to stay behind you in the first place. Both birds at 500 knots, 10000ft and pulling for all they got, is not likely to result in a tracking firing solution. The drivers would just black out. However, getting the other guy to "panic" and bleed more then needed or wise can give you the opportunity to settle in behind the enemy and stay there.

 

...

 

 

Hello captain dalan,

 

Didn't explain well, by "maneuvering hard", I meant that:

 

The Fulcrum or Hornet pilot start using their superior instantaneous / sustained turn rate; nose point authority; to get out of the Tomcat's 12 o-clock (by rapidly increasing Angle-Off), and start gaining angles and/or traveling faster around the circle to get on the Tomcat's 6 o-clock.

[captain_dalan]

Hello captain dalan,

 

Didn't explain well, by "maneuvering hard", I meant that:

 

The Fulcrum or Hornet pilot start using their superior instantaneous / sustained turn rate; nose point authority; to get out of the Tomcat's 12 o-clock (by rapidly increasing Angle-Off), and start gaining angles and/or traveling faster around the circle to get on the Tomcat's 6 o-clock.

 

Ah, i see what you mean. :thumbup:

 

Confusingly enough (for me), when i finally got my hands on some E-M charts for the Hornet (C/D), with combat load (60% internal fuel and 4 AAMs) it actually had slightly worse CLmax curve then the F-14 across multiple altitudes SL to 20kft. This makes me think that either:

a. External ordnance effects the smaller bird more then it does the larger one, which would lead

to the conclusion that only a clean or even more lightly loaded Hornet can out turn a Cat....

 

or

 

b. When jocks say that the Bug outpoints a Cat, they mean the actual authority of the control surfaces during high AoA, low speed engagements (for which the Hornet is famous and the Cat is well known to be handful).

 

I can't recall ever seeing the CLmax values for a Fulcrum. The Ps curves indicate that will comparative opponent, difficult to beat (in an Alpha), but not impossible. Clean, or very lightly loaded, it will be just as hard a clean or stripped out F-16, which is to say extremely difficult.

 

So..... STR against clean light weights? Yeah, you're in trouble. MRAAM's and SRAM's on board? Tough fight, but doable. You have your goldilocks, they have theirs. And you can still turn tighter then most if need be. I just wouldn't advise it as a default tactics.

[Hummingbird]

Should also note that many think the F/A-18 is worse at dogfighting than it really is, and that likely because in most fly offs it is carrying bags or at the least those big draggy high clearance weapons pylons.

 

Completely clean however the F/A-18C is reportedly very maneuverable, also in terms of sustained maneuvers. Infact the French made a comparison sheet where a clean F-18C & F-16C are presented as dead even when it comes to STR.

 

Completely clean, no pylons, the F-18 is also said to have a T/W ratio greater than 1:1, infact I heard that the stripped aggressor F/A-18C's have a thrust to weight ratio noticably greater than 1:1.

 

Finally I had a small correspondance with a navy F/A-18 pilot over email not too long ago in response to a video, and he as he told me in mock fights with F-15's (WVR neutral merge) the F-18 would always get on the F-15's tail after the first turn and stay there unless the F-15 takes the fight to the vertical where its greater T/W ratio really made a difference.

[Sideswipe]

The maneuverability of a clean hornet is kind of irrelevant when talking about ACM though, isn't it? It's never going to into combat clean, it's always going to have at least missiles hung on it, it could lose the drop tanks though.

[Hummingbird]

The maneuverability of a clean hornet is kind of irrelevant when talking about ACM though, isn't it? It's never going to into combat clean, it's always going to have at least missiles hung on it, it could lose the drop tanks though.

 

Sort of, for example the Swiss fly theirs with low drag AMRAAM pylons like these regularly:

 

In a dogfight the tanks would obviously be dropped if needed, and then those Swiss F-18's pretty much as good as clean.

 

But anyway it was in response to the article by the former aggressor pilot who rated the F/A-18 very highly in dogfights, pretty much on par with the F-16, which is not surprising considering that they were often flying clean stripped down hornets like these ones:

 

But even armed & with pylons the F-18 is no slouch in a dogfight (and that mainly thanks to its high alpha capability), it just isn't quite as capable as the armed F-14.

Edited June 30, 2016 by Hummingbird
picture wasnt working

[SUBS17]

The maneuverability of a clean hornet is kind of irrelevant when talking about ACM though, isn't it? It's never going to into combat clean, it's always going to have at least missiles hung on it, it could lose the drop tanks though.

 

A superhornet can still dogfight with a drop tank, any sort of aircraft eg F-16/ F/A-18C/ F-14 / F-15C can still maneuver with a load but there are limitations on what you can do. So F-16 is limited in G by the CAT limiter if CAT3 load out. You can still dogfight to a point but you are much more limited and in this case that's the advantage of the F/A-18E/F/G as they can still fight with a load but it depends on the what you're carrying at the time and how much. Most aircraft are also now carrying Aim 9x or R73 so its more of a he who sees the other guy first wins if missiles are involved.

[lunaticfringe]

In a dogfight the tanks would obviously be dropped if needed, and then those Swiss F-18's pretty much as good as clean.

 

This is not actually true.

 

Ever wonder why aircraft get sent out to the ranges against clean Aggressors while carrying bags and CATMs? Because they are expected to learn how to work through the problem while dealing with operational restrictions.

 

Bags and munitions are limited by the supply chain. We're used to seeing major run ups, massive stockpiling of manpower and material before conflict takes place; this is not an option when responding to a crisis. Losing rounds, drop tanks, and bombs to an unnecessary jettison in a situation a pilot can be trained to fight through and succeed puts undue stress and exerts limitations on the ability of a force to continue to remain a factor.

 

Two aircraft drop tanks. A cycle later, that's two aircraft that need to top off more often, or can't CAP as far. Both of these factors degrade the capability of the overall effort, meaning that patrol are either closer to the boat or strip, fuel fractions must be computed for lessening loads, or you need two buddy tankers to go forward in a package rather than one.

 

If you can learn to beat a clean bad guy bagged up (and you can), you can beat anyone, anytime.

[captain_dalan]

This is not actually true.

 

Ever wonder why aircraft get sent out to the ranges against clean Aggressors while carrying bags and CATMs? Because they are expected to learn how to work through the problem while dealing with operational restrictions.

 

Bags and munitions are limited by the supply chain. We're used to seeing major run ups, massive stockpiling of manpower and material before conflict takes place; this is not an option when responding to a crisis. Losing rounds, drop tanks, and bombs to an unnecessary jettison in a situation a pilot can be trained to fight through and succeed puts undue stress and exerts limitations on the ability of a force to continue to remain a factor.

 

Two aircraft drop tanks. A cycle later, that's two aircraft that need to top off more often, or can't CAP as far. Both of these factors degrade the capability of the overall effort, meaning that patrol are either closer to the boat or strip, fuel fractions must be computed for lessening loads, or you need two buddy tankers to go forward in a package rather than one.

 

If you can learn to beat a clean bad guy bagged up (and you can), you can beat anyone, anytime.

Doubly so for the F-14 and its unique 2000lbs conformals. Those were always in limited supply and according to a former aviator after the Iran revolution packing those was mandatory. And you were especially discouraged from ever ditching those, unless it was absolutely necessary.

[Hummingbird]

This is not actually true.

 

Ever wonder why aircraft get sent out to the ranges against clean Aggressors while carrying bags and CATMs? Because they are expected to learn how to work through the problem while dealing with operational restrictions.

 

Bags and munitions are limited by the supply chain. We're used to seeing major run ups, massive stockpiling of manpower and material before conflict takes place; this is not an option when responding to a crisis. Losing rounds, drop tanks, and bombs to an unnecessary jettison in a situation a pilot can be trained to fight through and succeed puts undue stress and exerts limitations on the ability of a force to continue to remain a factor.

 

Two aircraft drop tanks. A cycle later, that's two aircraft that need to top off more often, or can't CAP as far. Both of these factors degrade the capability of the overall effort, meaning that patrol are either closer to the boat or strip, fuel fractions must be computed for lessening loads, or you need two buddy tankers to go forward in a package rather than one.

 

If you can learn to beat a clean bad guy bagged up (and you can), you can beat anyone, anytime.

 

In Switzerland they train both with the bags on and off AFAIK (they never drop them in training ofcourse), also a pilot remarked that in an emergency war situation the centerline tank could simply be dropped, that's why I said if needed :) It would take quite a dire situation for them to be dropped ofcourse, but if you're up against a threat that you just can't quite get a beat on, well then you'll probably have to punch the bags :)

 

In short you're right, I just didn't word myself very well as I should've wrote "could" and not "would" :)

Edited June 30, 2016 by Hummingbird

[Basher54321]

The later FA-18Cs have higher thrust engines over the original ones so there is a bit of a difference in performance.

 

In any emergency situation all the stores go regardless that has almost always happened in actual conflict. There is a photo of an Israeli F-16 coming back after a combat mission (1982) with a centre tank after firing an AIM-9. Considering they only used 4 x AIM-9 and it was 9G with an empty tank - and the fact they still had such an advantage over anything if they had to merge could have meant they had that luxury.

 

In training you might want more fuel or in the past they might have been simulating other jets to reduce performance - or in some cases you might want drop tanks to simulate a drag level you might be stuck at in some loading's. However the the idea that you would give your self a disadvantage when your life is on the line seems to be an attitude right out of computer sims.

 

Israel were running out of tanks in the 60s - they just changed policy to only drop if they got a visual on actual bandits and risked they would get more in time.

The North Vietnamese made boats out of the F-4 tanks so many dropped - in fact you couldn't release AIM-7s properly without the CL tank jettison.

[Sideswipe]

You did say, "if needed", your statement was clear to me what you meant.

[lunaticfringe]

However the the idea that you would give your self a disadvantage when your life is on the line seems to be an attitude right out of computer sims.

 

Hank Kleeman, Larry Muczynski, Mark Fox, and Nick Mongilio must be hard core simmers, then.

[Basher54321]

Hank Kleeman, Larry Muczynski, Mark Fox, and Nick Mongilio must be hard core simmers, then.

 

Did they consider themselves to be in emergency situations, or like the example above were they confident they could handle the situation and were confident of the threat being faced?

[lunaticfringe]

Did they consider themselves to be in emergency situations, or like the example above were they confident they could handle the situation and were confident of the threat being faced?

 

That wasn't your contention. This was:

 

However the the idea that you would give your self a disadvantage when your life is on the line seems to be an attitude right out of computer sims.

 

Fast Eagle 102 and 107 carrying drops after the merge *is* a disadvantage.

The Sunliner pair being bagged up and each carrying four 2000lb bombs *is* a disadvantage.

 

They did this, knowingly, as a response to training that permitted them to do so.

 

A declaration was made. That declaration was false. Attempting to reinforce it by trying to shoehorn in some nuance where you yourself left none is nothing more than trying to move the goalposts after the kick.

[Basher54321]

Well that declaration still stands regardless of how literally you wish to take it. LOL - admit my last reply was lazy.

 

The Fast Eagles identified the Libyan Su-22s at what 8 miles? according to the USN pilots and appear to have a good idea what they were up against - technically they were never in any real position of disadvantage, although they got lucky the missile fired wasn't an all aspect type. If they were disadvantaged during the merge they would have had to drop tanks ( I take it the F-14 tanks are not much of a drag penalty anyway especially when empty?) - luckily they were up against Libyan Su-22s.

 

 

The Hornets (part of a large package?) didn't have to do much in the way of maneuver and it looks like the MiG was picked up at quite close range. Looking at the HUD tape of one - the MiG is flying into the strike package (as per other accounts) - the FA-18 switches modes, does some low G banking then fires head on. If the missile misses they may have had to ditch everything to get the nose around - regardless of training the FA-18 wont come round any quicker (although in this case another flight could have fired on the MiG anyway!).

 

 

The USAF guys in Desert Storm dropped tanks in a lot of situations, some going into the engagement, some when they were locked onto by MiGs and sometimes even holding onto the centerline until things got out of hand - it varied but the tanks were dropped at a certain point deemed by that pilot to be an emergency.

[turkeydriver]

Let me clarify something. F-14s don't have traditional drop tanks in the same sense the Air Force does. They are external tanks that don't carry near the penalty of the big underwing tanks of the F-15/16/18. There is no G limit with them empty and they can be flown to Mach 1.8 fixed. So the F-14 drop tank idea is really a moot point. You can drop them when necessary, but launching off a carrier headed to a fight- you will burn the gas off the tanks first. If you're in an F-14 and the you've put yourself in a situation where the minute performance gain is needed just means you're a crap aviator.

[turkeydriver]

The later FA-18Cs have higher thrust engines over the original ones so there is a bit of a difference in performance.

 

In any emergency situation all the stores go regardless that has almost always happened in actual conflict. There is a photo of an Israeli F-16 coming back after a combat mission (1982) with a centre tank after firing an AIM-9. Considering they only used 4 x AIM-9 and it was 9G with an empty tank - and the fact they still had such an advantage over anything if they had to merge could have meant they had that luxury.

 

In training you might want more fuel or in the past they might have been simulating other jets to reduce performance - or in some cases you might want drop tanks to simulate a drag level you might be stuck at in some loading's. However the the idea that you would give your self a disadvantage when your life is on the line seems to be an attitude right out of computer sims.

 

Israel were running out of tanks in the 60s - they just changed policy to only drop if they got a visual on actual bandits and risked they would get more in time.

The North Vietnamese made boats out of the F-4 tanks so many dropped - in fact you couldn't release AIM-7s properly without the CL tank jettison.

 

The bigger F-404-GE-401s really only offset the weight gain off the F/A-18C with the fat APG-73 in the nose. Best F/A-18 in ACM is a pre-mod Lot IX with the light nose and lower weight- you could fight that thing in high AoA at 70 knots and still point the nose. The heavier APG-73 nose didn't play as nice. That's from VFC aviator.

[Hummingbird]

The subject of dropping tanks was only in regards to the F/A-18C on my part as I've been told this would be done in an emergency situation such as in a full on dogfight.

 

However same goes for our Danish F-16 pilots, they are ready to punch their bags if needed in a real dogfight.

 

But ofcourse it is a choice made based on how serious the threat you are facing is percieved to be, and I'm sure pilots are taught to avoid dropping their tanks unless it's life or death. On that note over Iraq US fighter pilots knew they weren't going to be facing any jets that could match them in WVR regardless of wether they dropped their tanks or not, infact they knew the fight most likely would be over before any real dogfighting would occur - thus I can understand if they had a no-drop policy.

 

The emergency doesn't always need to be combat related though, sometimes you just need to get rid of the tanks to better your chances of survival:

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/f-16-drops-empty-fuel-tanks-over-eastern-colorado

[Vampyre]

In Switzerland they train both with the bags on and off AFAIK (they never drop them in training ofcourse), also a pilot remarked that in an emergency war situation the centerline tank could simply be dropped, that's why I said if needed :) It would take quite a dire situation for them to be dropped ofcourse, but if you're up against a threat that you just can't quite get a beat on, well then you'll probably have to punch the bags :)

 

In short you're right, I just didn't word myself very well as I should've wrote "could" and not "would" :)

 

Well, Switzerland is not the best country to use for comparison with other operators especially where drop tank use is concerned as it is only about 220 miles east/west and 140 miles north/south. Their bases being located within that area means the entire country is within the Hornets range without drop tanks. The defensive nature of the Swiss operations also helps with their view of dropping the tanks as, if it comes to them dropping the tank to fight, this means an enemy aircraft is engaging them within their airspace. They are not an expeditionary force that has to perform sustained operations over many years that includes daily use of their airframes so this affects their view on the expenditure of assets.

[lunaticfringe]

Well that declaration still stands regardless of how literally you wish to take it. LOL - admit my last reply was lazy.

 

Wasn't merely lazy- it was wrong.

 

The Fast Eagles identified the Libyan Su-22s at what 8 miles? according to the USN pilots

 

Patently false. Kleeman identified his victim as a Flogger; Muczynski, who had the best view of both, and got a close up of his opponent, confirmed they were Fitters on guard after the fact.

 

If they were disadvantaged during the merge they would have had to drop tanks ( I take it the F-14 tanks are not much of a drag penalty anyway especially when empty?) - luckily they were up against Libyan Su-22s.

 

They were shot at, with the wingman F-14 having an AWG-9 failure at the merge and only one available Sidewinder. That's a substantially disadvantaged situation demanding an expedient end, and yet- the tanks remained on, because they were trained to deal with it.

 

The Hornets (part of a large package?) didn't have to do much in the way of maneuver and it looks like the MiG was picked up at quite close range. Looking at the HUD tape of one - the MiG is flying into the strike package (as per other accounts) - the FA-18 switches modes, does some low G banking then fires head on. If the missile misses they may have had to ditch everything to get the nose around - regardless of training the FA-18 wont come round any quicker (although in this case another flight could have fired on the MiG anyway!).

 

It's amusing to see you want to discuss relative position and apparent lack of maneuver from a HUD tape with a merge against MiG-21s, yet as we'll see in a moment, Eagles were dropping them in BVR for everything- including MiG-23s and Su-22s. It's actually rather kind of cute.

 

The USAF guys in Desert Storm dropped tanks in a lot of situations, some going into the engagement, some when they were locked onto by MiGs and sometimes even holding onto the centerline until things got out of hand

 

There were only two actual turning engagements by F-15s over the course of Desert Storm- Underhill and Rodriguez against the MiG-29s, and Tollini and Pitts against the MiG-25. The only thing even close after those is a rundown of MiG-23s by Denney and Powell,

 

Dropping bags in BVR isn't exactly a good look, when even the Weasels weren't ditching them consistently when engaged up close.

 

it varied but the tanks were dropped at a certain point deemed by that pilot to be an emergency.

 

So ultimately, your argument stands on the idea that USAF pilots tend to react to situations as emergencies that USN pilots take as yet another day in the office.

 

Sounds about right. :D

[Hummingbird]

Well, Switzerland is not the best country to use for comparison with other operators especially where drop tank use is concerned as it is only about 220 miles east/west and 140 miles north/south. Their bases being located within that area means the entire country is within the Hornets range without drop tanks. The defensive nature of the Swiss operations also helps with their view of dropping the tanks as, if it comes to them dropping the tank to fight, this means an enemy aircraft is engaging them within their airspace. They are not an expeditionary force that has to perform sustained operations over many years that includes daily use of their airframes so this affects their view on the expenditure of assets.

 

Of course, but if it comes to a life or death situation where you are unsure of your chances against an enemy aircraft then you will drop the tanks to increase your chances. Better to lose some tanks than to lose an entire aircraft + its pilot after all ;)

 

It also needs to be noted that during wartime there will be a tank build up in addition to tank building teams at every forward base. i.e. in a war against a foe with capabilities remotely similar to your own a large expenditure of drop tanks is infact expected and taken into account.

[Vampyre]

The bigger F-404-GE-401s really only offset the weight gain off the F/A-18C with the fat APG-73 in the nose. Best F/A-18 in ACM is a pre-mod Lot IX with the light nose and lower weight- you could fight that thing in high AoA at 70 knots and still point the nose. The heavier APG-73 nose didn't play as nice. That's from VFC aviator.

 

Substantially correct except the engine was the -402 and it was physically the same size as the -400. The EPE just had improved parts which allowed for the better performance. Most pilots I have spoken with prefer the legacy Hornets over the Super Hornets for dogfighting as well, for the simple reason that they retain their energy better due to having cleaner aerodynamics.

[Basher54321]

The bigger F-404-GE-401s really only offset the weight gain off the F/A-18C with the fat APG-73 in the nose. Best F/A-18 in ACM is a pre-mod Lot IX with the light nose and lower weight- you could fight that thing in high AoA at 70 knots and still point the nose. The heavier APG-73 nose didn't play as nice. That's from VFC aviator.

 

Thanks I did wander about this - someone who moved onto F-16A (still USN) from big motor Cs stated he thought the big motor C had impressive T/W - so probably more down to T/D if there was a large weight gain - but looks like its handling may have been affected in some areas according to your guy.

[Basher54321]

Wasn't merely lazy- it was wrong.

I can only apologise if you didn't understand where I was coming from.

 

 

Patently false. Kleeman identified his victim as a Flogger; Muczynski, who had the best view of both, and got a close up of his opponent, confirmed they were Fitters on guard after the fact.

 

Source I have doesn't have Kleemans account

 

Mucynski continued:

 

At approximately eight miles I saw the two Su-22s on the nose. They were flying a formation we refer to as welded wing, within about 150ft (50m)

 

They were shot at, with the wingman F-14 having an AWG-9 failure at the merge and only one available Sidewinder. That's a substantially disadvantaged situation demanding an expedient end, and yet- the tanks remained on, because they were trained to deal with it.

 

Seeing a missile come off the rail at that range is a bit late to jettison tanks - but if the F-14 tanks really have tiny affect on performance then that is certainly a good reason to why they don't jettison them.

 

It's amusing to see you want to discuss relative position and apparent lack of maneuver from a HUD tape with a merge against MiG-21s, yet as we'll see in a moment, Eagles were dropping them in BVR for everything- including MiG-23s and Su-22s. It's actually rather kind of cute.

 

Well I have looked at the information I can find on the engagement and given you a reason why they did that - it has nothing to do with the range and everything to do with the situation.

 

Please provide me the USN doctrine from this era (in your next reply) that states all FA-18 drivers must do all AA with all AG and tanks on at all times regardless of the situation.

 

 

There were only two actual turning engagements by F-15s over the course of Desert Storm- Underhill and Rodriguez against the MiG-29s, and Tollini and Pitts against the MiG-25. The only thing even close after those is a rundown of MiG-23s by Denney and Powell,

 

Okay.............and totally Irrelevant.

Edited July 1, 2016 by Basher54321