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

[EvilBivol-1]

I don't think the Soviets, nor the Russians, ever dismissed BVR in favor of WVR. They simply did the best they could in both areas and continue to evolve both today.

[Boneski]

Like EB said it is the evolution of the science. Every air force is a deadly one. Every weapon is deadly.

 

No one item in air combat is the keystone... or the magic bullet. The system as a whole is what makes this such a deadly game.

 

That system includes many things that have nothing to do with the airplane.

Aircraft designers do not put their stock in one place.

[Starlight]

Then bring the fight close in between 150-180 knots. I can almost always win, even with enemy AI set to ace.

 

I'm not a lomac ace, but I remember Mirage2000 and F-5s as really tough opponents. very good in knife fight range (in Lomac). small to spot and to hit, and even when hit they could sustain heavy damage (extremely unrealistic)

 

 

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

 

???????

sorry but aviation writer Lou Drendel, one who knows something about this topic, states "If any one man could be considered the father of the F-15 it would be major John Boyd"

("Eagle" - by Lou Drendel - Modern Military Aircraft Series by Squadron Signal)

 

I read that he was part of what was called the "fighter mafia", an indipendent group of fighter pilots who in the 60's asked DoD to build aircraft as pilots wanted them... using experience gained in SEA... typical requirements of post-Vietnam/Korea fighters were bubble canopy with 360° view, internal cannon, good speed and good energy... while the F-16 can be considered as the true son of Boyd's ideas, I think that also the F-15 benefits from some of these ideas... I don't see Boyd as an F-15 killer, he just pursued a cleaner design, which was later adopted for the F-16 (and in many other designs)

 

While the article on Wikipedia about "fighter mafia" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighter_mafia ) suggests a kinda negative attitude towards the F-15 there are a lot of sources who suggest another, much milder view...

 

"Boyd continued to refine his theory and saw it used to a limited extent to enhance the capabilities of the F-15. [...] Boyd's theories are now used as a yardstick for measuring and comparing the maneuvering capability of all modern fighters. [...] His influences can be seen in such world-class fighters as the F-15, F-16, and F/A-18."

(Code One Magazine, http://www.codeonemagazine.com/archives/1997/articles/jul_97/july2a_97.html, which appears also in wikipedia bibliography.... maybe the author didn't read it well)

[000BIGMAC000]

Like EB said it is the evolution of the science. Every air force is a deadly one. Every weapon is deadly.

 

No one item in air combat is the keystone... or the magic bullet. The system as a whole is what makes this such a deadly game.

 

That system includes many things that have nothing to do with the airplane.

Aircraft designers do not put their stock in one place.

 

I remember listening to an interview with an Israeli fighter pilot. He said exactly that, you have to treat the enemy like he's the best fighter pilot in the world, flying the best machine. Everything else will fall into place. I still want to know how they overcame reverse compressor flow!!! :D

[Rhen]

One of the best questions I've seen around here in a long time!

 

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".

 

You're overgeneralizing Boyd's EM Theory. The Energy Maneuverability Theory is basically the scientific and mathematical description of what fighter pilots have know for a long time - having an agile aircraft that has the power to pull off sustained maneuvers, and still maintaining the ability to accelerate and decelerate rapidly will be characteristics of the best fighter aircraft that can be designed. Remember EM Theory is based upon excess energy (the initial name Boyd gave to his theory) to maneuver the aircraft.

 

So, we have a concept of excess energy being used to maneuver the aircraft, we've got to plot the following in a graph:

 

Aircraft Velocity - V

Aircraft G -G or n

Specific Excess Power - Ps

Turn Radius

 

Plotting all these variables gives you an idea of where and what an aircraft can do at a specific point in it's flight envelope. These plots are called EM Diagrams, or VG or Vn Diagrams, or more generically "doghouse" plots because they look like a doghouse.

 

Here's one for a T-38:

 

From this, you can tell that the T-38 has the following parameters:

Best instantaneous corner velocity: 400Kts

Turn Rate at instantaneous: 15.5 degrees/s

Turn Radius at instantaneous: 3000ft

Best sustained corner: 450Kts

Turn Rate at sustained: 12.2 degrees/s

Turn Radius at sustained: 4600ft

 

Sustained would be where best to operate the aircraft since it keeps your energy high while allowing the best sustained rate of turn for your money. This equates to more snap shots in a turning engagement even with an adversary with better rate & radius but with a slower corner. Boyd would say that this excess energy would give you more options to maneuver the jet and keep the bandit off balance.

 

We compare jets by taking their doghouse graphs and superimposing them upon the aircraft we want to fight. This will tell us where we have the advantage vs our adversary - this is where Boyd's theory comes into real play.

 

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.

 

As it should be! :smilewink: But I'd say that you're still a bit slow as you should be flying around sustained corner.

 

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

 

That's where you'd be wrong as well. I believe the Russians were well aware of the theories behind the development of the Eagle and Viper. They used Boyd's EM theory to come up with some superbly agile aircraft. Remember that the Flanker postdated the Eagle by some 20 years so they had plenty of time to come up with something that might be more maneuverable at specific points in their EM diagrams.

 

Boyd's theory has nothing to do with post stall maneuverability, where Cobras, Herbst maneuvers, post stall loops and mongoose maneuvers are performed. What it does is say that the aircraft that is highly agile with great acceleration, and excess power, can, in general, beat aircraft with less of these attributes - all other things being equal (the "all other things I'm talking about are pilots, of course :smartass:)

 

So you have Russian aircraft that can take advantage of high AOA post-stall regime, but they must be able to rapidly accelerate back to maneuvering speed.

 

This is one thing that's not in Boyd's theory and is called "combat cycle time." The combat cycle time is the time it takes to complete one cycle around the edges of the doghouse plot. The faster the aircraft can complete a combat cycle time compared to another aircraft (bandit), the more agile and maneuverable the aircraft.

 

So we have, from Boyd's EM theory, the following traits of a good fighter aircraft:

 

Agility - the ability to change direction and speed rapidly

Speed - the ability to accelerate, decelerate, and reaccelerate rapidly (this equates to a nice small aircraft of light mass - as opposed to behemoths like the F-4 or, arguably, the F-15) as well as making the decisions to perform specific tactical maneuvers just as rapidly

 

He went to further his theories by adding:

 

Lethality: Bringing sufficient force to bear

Precision: Employing your assets without significant error

 

This became his OODA loop, which is a discussion for another time.

 

Again, you must remember, we're still talking about the same paradigm. I just think your understanding is a little basic.

[RedTiger]

Thats probably THE best summation of EM theory (as I understand it, at least) that I've ever seen. Well put, Rhen.

 

So I guess we could say that the superior slow speed handling was there for a reason, but it wasn't supposed to take precedence over maintaining energy, nor did the Russians discount the importance of BVR.

[Surf]

I'm guessing that the Raptor excels in every aspect of this formula...other than cost of ownership!

 

-Surfer

[TucksonSonny]

Did the manoevrability deliver on the Mig-29? Seems not so, given its very poor record.

 

Because carpet bombing on parked Mig-29’s is not a good method to gather records!

[GGTharos]

I guess the ones that were blown out of the sky don't count either huh?

[D-Scythe]

"There hasn't been, nor ever will be, any MiG-29s shot down by Western aircraft."

 

[Boneski]

It's been a while since 2 well trained Air powers have clashed in anger.

God Willing ...it will stay that way.

 

_

[000BIGMAC000]

http://www.booksnation.com/a/coram%20robert/boyd/0316796883

 

Happened upon this at the bookstore today oddly enough!

[Captain R]

Great thread guys. A+++++ would read again!

[TucksonSonny]

I guess the ones that were blown out of the sky don't count either huh?

 

Accidents happen!

 

The rare ones that were missed by the 2 permanent airborne AWACS-planes were of course spammed with amraams in 1999…

 

Sure it was one on one…

(trail intercept=very effective tactic if one side has a large number of fighters)

 

Nr 1 F-16 fire and run, missed

Nr 2 F-16 fire and run, missed

Nr 3 F-16 fire and run, crap, can you believe it Nr 4 can go home because the Mig-29 was hit!

 

I am talking about the Yugo and Iraqi “war”; it was not really war but punishment.

 

Don’t get me wrong: it was the only way to do it right (though not the last Iraq “war” at least that way)

[TucksonSonny]

"There hasn't been, nor ever will be, any MiG-29s shot down by Western aircraft."

 

 

 

Of course not…

 

It was the Tomahawk BGM-109s

and the Tomahawk Land Attack Missile (TLAM) (the stock was 2200 missiles)

(In 1991 several hundreds were used against Iraqi targets and during the four-day attack on Iraq in December 1998, the US Navy fired some 300 TLAMs)

and the heaviest cruise missile: the AGM-86C (of which Boeing manufactured 1715)

Later Boeing had to convert 95 nuclear-armed cruise missiles to the non-nuclear version that B-52 bombers were launching at Yugoslavia because the stock was completely wasted! :helpsmilie:

 

Can you imagine? ;)

[GGTharos]

No, I'm getting you right. You're still ignoring the mass of single-shot kills. ;) So if by 'spammed' you mean 'killed with impunity' you would be right. That's the idea. But they were no accidents, and those MiGs never stood a chance if they hadn't been in an ambush CAP. Period.

 

In addition, there's the 'splash two' incident which is the only instance of TWS two-missiles-on-two-targets (also possible SSKs) being proven in combat. Those MiGs may or may not have known what was coming at'em. AWACS did not have them.

 

 

Accidents happen!

 

The rare ones that were missed by the 2 permanent airborne AWACS-planes were of course spammed with amraams in 1999…

 

Sure it was one on one…

(trail intercept=very effective tactic if one side has a large number of fighters)

 

Nr 1 F-16 fire and run, missed

Nr 2 F-16 fire and run, missed

Nr 3 F-16 fire and run, crap, can you believe it Nr 4 can go home because the Mig-29 was hit!

 

I am talking about the Yugo and Iraqi “war”; it was not really war but punishment.

 

Don’t get me wrong: it was the only way to do it right (though not the last Iraq “war” at least that way)

[nscode]

In addition, there's the 'splash two' incident which is the only instance of TWS two-missiles-on-two-targets (also possible SSKs) being proven in combat. Those MiGs may or may not have known what was coming at'em. AWACS did not have them.

 

What do you mean AWACS didn't have them? I mean, maybe it couldn't give a 10 minute notice, since they flew at 20m as long as they could, but when they were first painted by fighter radar (one of them had working RWR) they were climbing at 7000m. If awacs didn't have them than - it's one poor AWACS. :huh:

[GGTharos]

Nope, AWACS didn't see them for whatever reason. It's only because the F-15 has NCTR that it wasn't forced to VID in this situation.

[nscode]

Now there's an interesting thing :detective_2:

[IvanK]

Though Boyd is generally credited with Em theory in the modern era it dates back into the early years of WWII. Though Boyd developed and advanced and quantified the theory well beyond these early efforts. Rutowski should not be forgotten either countless cold war pilots used his technique for energy climb methods. A simple means to get yourself to a specific Energy state (Mach & altitude) in the most efficient manner.

 

The earliest "Fan Plot" or in US terms "Dog House" plot I have found is one from 1940 comparing the Spitfire I and Me109E3 sustained and instantaneous turn performance. All the same features of a modern fan plot are there other than a slight change in terminology. Ps=0 being quaintly described as "Angle of straight climb"

 

 

 

The USN also published a series of Fan plots in its study on the Buffalo with respect to the effect of Flap on sustained turn rates, also published in the early 40s.

 

 

There are also numerous "Energy height" diagrams in ME262 performance documents.

 

As to preventing reverse or backflow snuffing a jet engine you don't need louvres or bleed doors just good engine management systems, the Hornet tailslides quite happily in full burner.

 

On the the subject of drawing conclusions from the tiny number of engagements between the Russian and US fighters ,as Boneski said in a previous post it doesn't just come down to individual aeroplane versus aeroplane but the complete Air Force systems of both sides. So far in all the documented engagements its really been a one sided affair with a dramatically superior (both in numbers and training) western Air force against a relatively minor and poorly trained foe. Hardly the best environment to be drawing fundamental conclusions on.

[mvsgas]

Cool info, man i did not know that. I hope I can find more in the net. Thanks for the info.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

So what is the real reason Russians train these maneuveres?

To display advanced aerodynamics of super-maneuverable airplanes. And it (super-maneuverable) is usefull in combat situation. Of course, no one MiG-29 can take on ten F-15 or ten F-16 with AWACS support. But one on one, MiG-29 is more then a match for F-16 and same for Su-27 against F-15.

[RedTiger]

Nope, AWACS didn't see them for whatever reason. It's only because the F-15 has NCTR that it wasn't forced to VID in this situation.

 

Gotta love NCTR! Is it standard procedure to allow positive ID from NCTR?

[GGTharos]

Not NCTR alone IIRC, there's an ID 'list'. I think you need IFF + NCTR, and who knows what else - probably intel like 'they took off from that airfield, there's no friendlies flying there' etc. If you can't fulfill the list you need to VID.

[GGTharos]

Which is exactly why they got shot down when meeting in the sky in equal numbers ... oh wait ...

 

To display advanced aerodynamics of super-maneuverable airplanes. And it (super-maneuverable) is usefull in combat situation. Of course, no one MiG-29 can take on ten F-15 or ten F-16 with AWACS support. But one on one, MiG-29 is more then a match for F-16 and same for Su-27 against F-15.