Col.Boyd's E-M fighter theory and PST

[DaveRindner]

I own both LOMAC and F4:Allied Force. Used them for years, and have gone through Shaw's Fighter Combat end to end. Back in the day (llate 60's early '70s), this guy (actually an American jet Ace) Col. John Boyd came up with Energy-maneveuverability theory of fighter design and fighter tactics. Which have been central guidance to US Fighter design. The philosophy basiccally sas "Speed is life". I can't imagine reallife F-16 driver fighting at high AOA at 200 knots. Yet for close combat, slow speed is central to fighting in a Mig-29. I find that in LOMAC if I can survive iniital AMRAAM and long range AIM-9 shots, and get into F16, F-15, and F-18. Then bring the fight close in between 150-180 knots. I can almost always win, even with enemy AI set to ace.

 

In F4:AF if my fight speed goes below 400 knots, MIG eats my lunch. My best chance for visual range victory is head on launch of 120C, 9M or 9X at 8nm with my velocity between 380-420 knots. Little bit below 16's corner velocity.This forces bandit 29/30 to break, which allows me to convert to his (6-9) for a follow on kill shot, if head on missies. I cannot let the fight degenerate into a hollywood style furball. I always loose. Below 350 knots ,in F4 AF, the nose authority is limited. Yet 29's or '30's out turn my F16. Well at least thats sim-reality in F4. However if I keep my elbow long, the F4 AI will break slow down the 29/30 in an attempt for me to overshoots. Thats gets his energy low, and I eat AI's lunch with a gun.

 

OK, so my belated point, is that it seems that Russians have different take on Boyd's E-M theory, as reflected in LOMAC and F4. They beleive that slow speed is life, Americans belive that high speed is life. F16 instructors, teach to fight at 16's corner velocity and it can't be beat.

So I see all these cool aerobatics vids on youTube and LiveLeak. Cobras, Kossack turn, and (my fave) SU-37's VT assisted, post stall loop. All of them require entry velocity of 230 kph(180 knots). In a fight with a 16 or a 15 at its corner velocity with long elbow. These guys would be toast. They are at high AOA, nose high, low energy. Easy targets. Reallife 16 or 15 driver is not AI, he would never get himself snookered into a low speed fight. So what is the real reason Russians train these maneuveres?

I see the same thing with F/A-22 when it shows off its 80 AOA flight. In a real fight , why would the Raptor slow down to such slow speed as to require 80 AOA?

 

DaveR

[GGTharos]

I think you are fundamentally mistaken; the Russians too believe that speed is life, but their aircraft have an advantage at low, slow, high-AoA fights (BTW. F-16's do fight at those low speeds. There's plenty of youtube HUD footage to prove it) so they'll try to drag you into them if they can. They want you to turn with them, they're typically better at it in terms of aerodynamics.

 

As to why you might need so much AoA?

1. Every fight will mature to low, slow, unless you make the kill quick.

2. At high altitude, you slow down FAST.

 

Finally, these are controllability demonstrations.

 

As far as LOMAC goes, the AI is not a worthy opponent, and that's all there is to that. If you want a challenge, you need to find and fight someone online.

[Guest Sidewinder]

I know that F-15's don't like to fight 16's up close.

[GGTharos]

F-16's don't like F-15's up close either if the fight's high and fast.

[Guest Sidewinder]

F-15's don't like F-16's cause they are small, and F15's are bullies.

[mvsgas]

They way I understood it; F-16, F-18, SU-27 and Mig-29 had a better fighting chance in the turn fight because of their aerodynamic design.(All of theses aircraft got similar design ideas right?, AFAIK, please correct me if I'm wrong) The leading edge extensions, some form of FBW, etc. The all like different engagement zone (an again AFAIK) like the F-18 can handle very slow turn fight better than a F-16 but the F-16 has more immediate power and so on. But I think they all would have similar advantages against a F-15 for example, witch is very good at high altitude, lots of power etc, but will lose energy...(when I say energy I refer to the ability to turn at the same degrees per seconds) at faster rate. I think the F-15 design did not take full advantage of Col.Boyd's E-M fighter theory. In the book John Boyd http://books.google.com/books?id=6kRhHgAACAAJ&dq=John+boyd it said that he only help little (IIRC) with design and the top brass keep changing what he wanted. I thought that was one of the reasons why the "fighter mafia" try to push the YF-16 and YF-17. I has been a while since I read that book, sorry if I'm incorrect.

 

I think this games (LOMAC and most if not all falcon versions) have very misleading things. I don't think an AI aircraft worries about coming home (you know saving fuel) or ensuring the are only shooting a bad guy, they already know they are or not. Even as a player , I not afraid of shooting a good guy like it might happened IRL. Plus it is so different to have and A2A engagement when the only view of the world you are fighting comes form a small window depending on the size of you monitor. I'm really, really bad at dog fights to so that does not help.:D

 

Most of dose air show or videos are just demonstration of what the aircraft can do in the extreme, not necessarily what would happen in a dogfight or A2A engagement.

 

Obviously, a lot of factor (discus in many different threads) determine who wins in a dog fight, mainly training I think. But ease of use for some weapons systems, different weapons etc. will also determine the outcome .I don't think is one thing, like design alone, or weapons alone that is the definite factor.

[Surf]

In my case I tend to never attempt to track a target beyond a 180

degree turn max. *90 degree max is better yet for energy retention* If I

can't get off a snap shot within 180 degrees I'll unload

*as in wing loading/reduce g loading* in order to maintain what energy

I have left, accellerate back to corner speed, then reverse and reaquire.

 

I can push those limits the most with the Mig 29/73 combo *thank you

thrust vectoring/off boresight/high AoA* but in the end I try not to ever

get too slow.

 

Then I die.

 

*wink*

 

-Surfer

[GGTharos]

No, the F-15 won't lose energy. It's the opposite. The F-15 is an ENERGY fighter, and energy means speed ... that is its definition used in air combat. If you stay high up against F-15 you're the one in trouble, not the other way around ;)

[S77th-konkussion]

Discovery Wings did an amazing profile on Col. Boyd. Genious. And a badAzZ pilot too.

[GGTharos]

Yet he still made mistakes (if things were done his way there'd be no F-15. Or F-22.)

[RedTiger]

Yet he still made mistakes (if things were done his way there'd be no F-15. Or F-22.)

 

You can't totally blame him for that. If he had a crystal ball and could see 20 years into the future where missiles are actually worth a damn and the USAF isn't run by a bunch of hide-bound bomber generals who are obsessed with nuclear strikes, I'm pretty sure that it would have affected his thinking. The E-M comparisons between those little MiGs and those bomb trucks passed off as fighters, along with the kill ratio in Vietnam couldn't have helped his point of view either.

 

Still, I grant him quite a bit of leeway since his most profound contributions to national defense go far beyond E-M theory.

 

Anway, I'm glad someone brought this up because I've often wondered this myself.

 

@GGTharos

 

How can you say that "speed is life" for Russian BFM when their planes perform so well in that slower envelope? The whole notion of the Cobra was to show that the engines wouldn't flame out under slow speeds and high alpha manuevers. It all just seems too likely that they intended this to be their favorite flight regime to fight in.

[GGTharos]

I never said he should be dismissed :) His stuff is textbook material.

 

And yes, speed is life. Without speed, you won't evade a missile.

Without speed, you won't be able to do a guns jink.

Without speed, you're gonna get peeled by the other guy's wingman because it's a team sport.

 

They have a great advantage in that they can get into the merge and turn reaaaaaally hard, plus that HMS - it expands their shooting envelope beyond that of the 9M (At least in the mod2 version), but if you're just hanging there, no amount of counter-measures will save you.

 

LOMAC demonstrates this nicely in fact, despite the fickleness of the missiles and other issues.

[RedTiger]

I think you might be misunderstanding me. I'm not asking about the importance of speed, I'm asking you if you've seen any evidence that the Russians put as much emphasis on this as the West has. If their best A/A offerings of the day were all good slow speed fighters, was this on purpose?

[GGTharos]

Well, no. In fact, the only evidence I've found is that they are confident they can bring the fight to WVR where the archer gives them an advantage - but I've seen no evidence whatsoever that they are looking for a dogfight.

All the MiG-29 doctrine was for example was take off, drop tank, get to intercept point fast, fire a bunch of missiles and run back to reload.

[Boneski]

To answer the original question about training. In Viper school and others you learn to max perform the Jet..

Slow Speed, High Speed, Your Advantage, Your Disadvantage and much more. The Motto is drive the fight.

at least it was in 96' :)

 

You learn what the other guy can do as well. You learn where he can kill you and how not to put yourself onto his plate.

You do these things by learning the jet's operational envelop.

 

Russian airframes are amazing when it comes to aerodynamics. They could do amazing things with very little computer assisted processing power.

 

The slow speed stability you see in regards to the Russian airframe is just a notching up of what was already there but now backed up with computer processing power, improvements and modifications.

 

Combat training much like any Air force is no different. They have learned to expand the envelope.

So it's more about that then maneuver / counter maneuvers

 

Systems will dictate the type of fight... but you must train for every possibility.

 

Hope that helps

[RedTiger]

Well, no. In fact, the only evidence I've found is that they are confident they can bring the fight to WVR where the archer gives them an advantage - but I've seen no evidence whatsoever that they are looking for a dogfight.

All the MiG-29 doctrine was for example was take off, drop tank, get to intercept point fast, fire a bunch of missiles and run back to reload.

 

Ok, same here. I've never heard or read anything, in a book or anecdotally, that says they specifically were going for slow high-AoA fights over what the West teaches its pilots. I ask because it still just seems coincidental.

[Boneski]

Well here is a quiz question. What (use to) happen(s) when you get slow and reach Max Alpha?

[D-Scythe]

Combat training much like any Air force is no different. They have learned to expand the envelope.

 

Training can do many things...but actually, physically expanding the envelope of a jet fighter is a new one to me.

 

Since when did BFM lessons teach the pilot to stick his hand out of the cockpit to alter the airflow dynamics of the plane in mid-flight? :unsure:

[Boneski]

Training can do many things...but actually, physically expanding the envelope of a jet fighter is a new one to me.

 

Since when did BFM lessons teach the pilot to stick his hand out of the cockpit to alter the airflow dynamics of the plane in mid-flight? :unsure:

 

Hi D.

 

Maybe there will be something on the Discovery channel about it.

[D-Scythe]

Hi D.

 

Maybe there will be something on the Discovery channel about it.

 

Haha, I'll be there.

[000BIGMAC000]

Well here is a quiz question. What (use to) happen(s) when you get slow and reach Max Alpha?

 

are you driving at exceeding critical AoA and (wing)stalling? or compressor stall? just a guess...

[Boneski]

Bingo! A slow fight against a jet that can fly slower becomes a problems. As one jets is near stall and the other has a few extra knots of smash before stalled... the guy that still has more control authority has the advantage. Classic Viper vs Bug fights off the East Cost.

 

To keep it basic....in training, including academics.. the goal is to find the best rate and radius for your turn... Corner... but after that yours goals become very simple and that's to keep your smash up... and don't get killed.

 

Yesterday.... a fight was a race to see who would get to the wall last(meaning be the last one to lose speed / energy ... lose rate... and become the first to lose the fight as 20mm cracks through your skull... don't worry they say it would not hurt since you would pretty much be headless)

 

But really... Today Jets like the 22, EF2000,Flanker and MiG jets have the thrust, computer power and aero to fight in this slower flight regime.

 

A turning fight gets slow... it's just how it is... as you try to get the Kill geometry.

 

So jets that can turn 180 degrees in less then 400' of sky at a high rate with full aerodynamics or thrust control become very deadly close in.

 

Hope that helps

[000BIGMAC000]

It was my understanding that the ventral openings under the engine necelles on the Su-27 and on the top of the Leading edge extensions on teh mig-29 is what allow them to keep the engine breathing during the extreme AoA maneuvers like the cobra? The tail slide I don't know how they overcome reverse flow back up to the compressor section....

[tflash]

I stilll find the original question very pertinent. I wonder what let the soviets think supermanoevrability was the answer to the tactical challenges of the moment? Compare this with the Mig-25 design philosophy, which was the absolute opposite. In hindsight, the Mig-25 design proved successful. Speed did deliver on the Mig-25. Did the manoevrability deliver on the Mig-29? Seems not so, given its very poor record.

 

They really must have thought the US would never overcome the problems of the Sparrow missile and that BVR would only be valid against bombers?

[GGTharos]

The idea is that they have more planes, so some will come close and will win by being more maneuverable. Unfortunately the AMRAAM put a bit of a dent in that plan, since vectored thrust and all that other cool slow-speed stuff will get you killed when a missile is coming at you - you basically have no chance of out-turning in any way it at that point.