mirage doing tail slide?

[504Goon]

The old crusty Weapon School guys who flew the MiG-21 for CONSTANT PEG would hit the merge at 450 knots in their Fishbed against an F-15 or F-16, and the first thing they did was reef the jet into this huge break turn that bled away nearly all of their knots within about the first 180 degrees. There was no point in them conserving their knots because their strengths lay elsewhere.

 

Interesting.. would the mig gain so much angles in the brake turn that it would force the other guy to expend significant amounts of his energy too in order to stay at least neutral? What i'm trying to say that if an energy fighter and angles fighter merge, and the latter expends a lot of his energy and does not get a snapshot, isn't the guy with more energy at advantage? Or will the angles fighter force the energy dude to use so much G too that he'll lose speed too?

 

I know that BFM is not that simple, but again i'm just thinking about the very first couple of turns where the fighters would merge with the same energy..:)

[Pilotasso]

Just adding anote, the mig-21 bled speed for its tail delta design, it was not a high AOA fighter.

[Steve Davies]

Thanks, Ivan :)

[Steve Davies]

Interesting.. would the mig gain so much angles in the brake turn that it would force the other guy to expend significant amounts of his energy too in order to stay at least neutral?

 

The key to that answer lies in who the other guy is.

 

If he's an experienced weapons school guy, then the chances are he's going to go into the vertical and use his energy to either yo-yo or extend away from the fight and either separate, or re-enter the fight with more knots. Knowing that these guys were too smart to be outwitted, the Fishbed pilot would rarely expend all of his knots in one big turn and would, as you suggested, try and conserve energy.

 

However, if he is inexperienced and gets sucked into the low-speed fight, then he will get slow and, against an angles fighter, is going to pay the price. The latter situation happened to very nearly all of the 'line' F-15 and F-16 guys that were exposed to CONSTANT PEG; on subsequent setups they would gradually learn from this and begin to use the vertical.

 

What i'm trying to say that if an energy fighter and angles fighter merge, and the latter expends a lot of his energy and does not get a snapshot, isn't the guy with more energy at advantage? Or will the angles fighter force the energy dude to use so much G too that he'll lose speed too?

 

It depends. What can the energy fighter do with his nose given the airspeed that he has? As a non-fighter pilot, that strikes me as the most important question: if he can't point at the guy, then he can't get a tracking shot or snap shot (of course, if you have the JHMCS/AIM-9X combo, then this becomes a moot point!).

 

So, in theory, the guy with more energy should be at an advantage. In practise, it's not as clear cut if the other guy is initimidating you from accross the circle with nose position.

 

 

Or will the angles fighter force the energy dude to use so much G too that he'll lose speed too?

 

Shack. That's exactly what an experienced guy in the angles fighter will hope that a less experienced guy in the energy fighter will do.

[Steve Davies]

Just adding anote, the mig-21 bled speed for its tail delta design, it was not a high AOA fighter.

 

It may not have been flown at high AoA by the vast majority of its many users, but it certainly could be in the right hands - the Americans would sit it on its tail, straight and level, at 90 knots, retain full nose authority, and still control the fight against less experienced guys. I don't know what the AoA was when they did that, but it must have been a lot! I am told that they could still point the nose, with the help of a lot of rudder stomping, as slow as 70 knots. Slower than that and the jet would stall out.

 

As for this concept of a 'high AoA fighter', I don't know that the fighter community ever uses that term or categorises adversary aircraft in such narrow definition. What I do know is that I hear in fighter squadrons time again that nose position and nose authority is everything (contrary to the old adage, 'speed is life'). Whether that means at high speed and low AoA, or low speed and higher AoA doesn't really matter.

 

The Americans developed a feign that took full advantage of the MiG-21's exceptional nose authority in the slow speed fight: they would get the tail up in the air at 90 knots, point at the Eagle or Viper as it overshot, and then hope that the other guy would be intimidated into extending away from the fight. At the moment that he did that, the Fishbed pilot would drop his nose to indicate loss of nose authority. Seeing this, the Eagle or Viper guy, still low on knots, would pitch back into the fight. As he did, the Fishbed pilot would snap the nose straight back up (since he had never really lost authority) and gun the hapless guy in the other jet. I am told that it worked a lot of the time.

[GGTharos]

Speed is life because having speed gives you rate (And AFAIK, rate kills) and it also gives you options. At the very least for the vertical fighter insofar as I've been able to understand.

 

It seems that it is the initial maneuvering that will give you offensive/defensive position, and the rest is just technique for getting the shot, where high alpha might be quite helpful.

 

I'm sure that as a low wing-loaded fighter against a higher wing-loaded fighter, I'd want to encourage him to do some angles fighting against me, while as a TWR fighter I'd try to go vertical instead - but this of course is a very broad generalization.

 

There are some very interesting and detailed scenarios described in R.Shaw's book concerning BFM in such conditions.

[Rhen]

Rate indeed does kill, and speed provides that, but there's many different speeds and their consequences to remember. But first, here's the things that matter in air combat.

 

Air combat really breaks down into very simple concepts:

1) The guy with the SA usually wins.

2) The guy who can run his OODA loop faster usually wins, even if his decision isn't completely sound.

3) The guy who can act to maneuver his jet to put the bandit into his weapons envelope while keeping out of the bandits weapons envelope usually wins.

Overall concept: NO GUTS, NO GLORY - you've got to show some aggressiveness in the arena of air combat, without this, you're not a fighter pilot. Aggressiveness being the intrinsic desire to succeed by bringing to bear, the skill, training, knowledge, and desire to win in aerial combat.

 

Up to this point, many will construe the discussion as a debate over what's the best kind of BFM machine - one with excess thrust and a high turn rate at high speed, compared to the opponent - or the opponent in an aircraft with post-stall maneuverability or moddest thrust to weight but lower wing loading, giving a higher turn rate at slower relative speed (smaller turn radii). While this discussion is very fascinating, to most virtual fighter pilots, in reality, it's like asking a Bug or Eagle driver who's got the better aircraft. You learn to fight to the strengths of the aircraft you fly, and capitalize on the weaknesses of the other guy's aircraft. But really, it's all about the above three concepts.

 

Regardless of whether this a BVR or WVR engagement, the concepts above apply. If you don't know you're fighting someone, you're gonna die. If you have to wait to visually ID the bandit, or if you've missed your sort, or if you've decided to buy a merge, then all bets are off. Anything can happen at the merge, but you use your aggressivenss and play to the strengths of your aircraft to win - as always - regardless of BFM fight or BVR. If you can effectively observe what's going on, orient yourself, decide upon a course of action, and rapidly execute - faster than the other guy - then you can react to what's developing and correct poor decisions before they become fatal. Finally, it's about rapidly maneuvering your jet into a position that maximizes it's capability to bring weapons to bear at the greatest distance possible, while minimizing the bandit's ability to get into WEZ. If you're going up against a guy with a knife, bring a gun. Don't let him get close enough to you to use his weapons, do something with his maneuverability, maintain his SA, or do something unexpected. That should sound like an Eagle driver (OBVIOUSLY!:smilewink:), not a Lawn Dart, Bug, or Fulcrum pilot trying to invite you into a phone booth (do those exist anymore?) for a knife fight.

 

Let's talk BFM. First you must decide whether to go to the merge in the first place. Who's got the advantage in energy, geometry, weapons, etc. What are the threats around the container you're gonna fight in? Are there SAMs close, are there other bandits within Factor Bandit Range, what's an acceptable merge ratio (how many bandits will you engage with your formation), what's the experience/skill level of your flight? Remember many vs many (4v4 or greater) is a recepie for chaos - SA degrades and other factors become necessary to win. Is there an acceptable level of risk for buying this merge, or will I just get anchored here and become unable to accomplish my mission (fighter sweep, escort, CAP, air sovereignty). Once those decisions are made and you're going to the show, then you've got to know something about the opponent's abilities (pilot, aircraft, weapons, etc.). You do this by putting in long hours in the vault, studying your mission, your opponents, and their weapons/aircraft capabilities.

 

BFM is about problems and solutions:

The problems:

1) Range - you need to get into guns/heater position

2) Closure - how quickly is your range changing

3) Angles - aligning fuselages to finally be able to pull lead to shoot

 

The solutions:

1) Speed or Velocity - the appropriate speed to get the best rate at the best time

2) Pursuit - Lag/Pure/Lead pursuit to control range & closure and solve angles problems

3) G - The G I have available determines how quickly I can rate my nose

 

Back to our discussion on speed/velocity and aerodynamics; you must know the difference between sustained/instantaneous turn rates and what specifc excess power advantage you have over your opponent. Instantaneous turn rates are always higher than sustained turn rates, but will result in bleeding energy like a stuck pig, so can only be maintained for a short period of time until you turn into a peeled grape (slow speed with no control authority and thusly a floating/falling target - unless you have post-stall maneuver capability). Instantaneous turn rates can be achieved at both high and low speeds.

 

High speed instantaneous turn rates depend upon the structural capability of the aircraft or G-limiter, and the lift it can develop at any given speed. The differences here between modern fighters is negligable, since most aircraft are usually rated to 9G. However, this is problematic in LOMAC since you'll usually GLOC here if using "Realistic G" while defending against a bandit/missile/or trying to square off the corner to get into a controlling position behind the bandit (the bandit's elbow, but that's another discussion). Your rate is large here, you're maintaining this rate longer at a higher entry speed (relative to low speed instantaneous turn rate), but your turn circle (turn radius) is larger than if you did this at a slower speed. This is the speed you want to have to perform an orthogonal roll/last ditch missile defense, or to square off that corner to get on a bandit's 6, because it gives you a better shot at having some speed after the maneuver - to continue maneuvering.

 

Slow speed instantaneous turn rates are more interesting in that here's where major differences lie. This turn rate depends simply upon wing loading - the lower the wing loading (either through large wing surface area or combo with wing plus body lift), the higher your instantaneous turn rate at a slower speed. You must also remember that here's where the small turn circle (smallest turn radius) are made for a given turn rate. In other words, you've got a guy that can rate his nose rapidly and make an itty bitty little circle doing it. This becomes very important later in the discussion. The drawback is that you're not far from being too slow to maneuver if you have that stick full aft and the throttles full forward, and are getting all the aircraft can give. Keep this in mind: if you've been flying around for a while with your stick full aft and your throttle in MAX, enjoying the bumpy ride (aerodynamic buffet), and are looking out the top of your canopy across the circle at your bandit, then you've been screwing up.

 

Both low/high speed instantaneous turn rates are where the angles fighter lives. They will try to sucker you into a low (where their engines perform better) and slow (where they can out rate and make little turn circles) fight.

 

Now let's look at the other side of the equation. The guy with a high thrust/weight ratio or a relatively higher wing loading will depend upon sustained turn rate. Low wing loading helps here and I'm not saying that you can't have low wing loading and have a nice sustained rate of turn at high/low speed. However, up at altitude, the advantage goes to the Eagle vs Fulcrum/Flanker with respect to thrust/weight ratio - at combat weight. In the Eagle, the faster you are, the faster you go faster - or the higher your starting airspeed, the faster you can accelerate, since you're cramming lots of air into the inlet that the engine translates into thrust. Now with this specific excess thrust, use of the vertical is more important. Here's where the energy fighter comes in. These guys will try to keep the fight high (where they perform better) and fast (where they have the acceleration and turn advantage), and make the kill before you knew what hit you.

 

There's an old addage - "You meet a better class of people in the vertical" which holds true for my community. Instead of getting pulled into a turning fight, our jet's capability make it possible to pull into the vertical, pirouette, and come down into or across the bandit's plane of motion, to set up for a snap (shot) or enter the bandit's elbow. Remember above when we talked about the itty bitty little turn circle? Well, here's a pearl for you. If you've found yourself inside a bandit's turn circle, regardless of whether you're offensive or defensive, you are going to be - for a time - bulletproof, as long as you're out of a WEZ. What I'm saying is that it's impossible for a bandit to turn inside his own turn circle. Now here's where the advantage of a tiny turn circle comes in. It's very difficult to turn inside a bandit's turn circle if he's an angles fighter with superior (lower) wing loading. You don't get into a turning fight with an A-10 (you kill the SLUFF before the merge :megalol:), you use the vertical and snap him.

 

A good air superiority aircraft would have the following ingredients - if I was designing it:

1) Exceptional SA through data link and a LPI AESA radar, along with best electronic warfare suite money can buy (ECM/ECCM), countermeasures

2) Large supply of weapons that can reach out and touch you at large ranges that give very little/no warning, HOB/LOAL + helmet mounted targeting

3) Supercruise

4) Large combat radius

5) Small size (visual, electronic, infrared)

6) High T/W ratio - large specific excess power

7) Low wing loading

8 ) Thrust vectoring, or post-stall maneuvering capability - alway a good thing to be able to change directions quickly or throw a WEZ over the bandit quickly

9) Twin engine

10) Single pilot

 

It's not really who's aircraft is better. The real question is whether the person at the controls can fly and fight well with what he/she is given, versus an adversary flying another aircraft of dissimilar capability.

[Steve Davies]

Rate indeed does kill, and speed provides that, but there's many different speeds and their consequences to remember.

 

Very interesting post, Rhen.

[504Goon]

Rhen, you should post more often! :)

[Beaker_VBA]

Beaker VBA u miss understand me, what Im trying to say is, because Mig-29/Su-27 or F-18 can go to higher AOA witch means bleeding alot of speed, doesnt mean that they will always go there its a choice that F-16/F-15 pilots dont have, so simple is that.

 

 

Goon I liked Ur poem :)

 

 

Yes, they can attain higher AOA. No, they don't have to use it. But an aircraft designed for low-speed and high AOA maneuvering is generally most effective in that regime, and not in a high speed/energy fight of rate. The Stones will tell you... you can't always get what you want. Thrust vectoring is revolutionary in that it allows aircraft designed for high turn rate capabilities to employ a small radius at high AOA should they need it.

 

 

In the classic eagle-vs-flanker argument, the Eagle's higher corner (not to mention excellent excess power) allow him a greater degree of freedom in maneuvering, especially in the vertical.

 

 

Actually, there are instances where a pilot will want to slow the fight down and use superior nose authority in order to get a guns tracking kill, snap shot or to intimidate his opponent with nose position.

 

 

Of course! Nobody's saying otherwise. The crux of the matter lies in WHEN and WHERE the application of high-AOA/low speed maneuvering becomes effective. I'll leave it to the Raptor community.

[Steve Davies]

Of course! Nobody's saying otherwise

 

Actually, that's exactly what Goon said.

[Beaker_VBA]

Well now I'm lost, but I thought you were replying to my post.

[mikoyan]

so.. is the mig-29 trust to weight ratio lower than the f-15? I though that it was the other way around. The way I see the energy maneuver discussion is this:

Energy maneuver was developed to counter jets that could turn tighter than the american jets, in other words the russian jets could turn tighter and faster. exp: f4 vs mig-19 and 17

Energy maneuver is not only about keeping your airplane from getting too slow, it is also about maneuvers that can help you get angles to counter your enemy aircraft superior maneuverability (I think you guys already know this)

 

The f-16 is a great airplane but the thing I don't like about it is that it is preprogramed to fly in certain way. You can't go any-further in aoa or gs. Airplanes like the f-15 or russian jets, don't have this limitation, being able to push the jet further can save your life. (it can also kill you)

where I'm going is that being limited to 25 degrees of aoa denies the possibility of doing a quick snap-shoot as the f-18 or migs or sus. I rather have a jet that have less restricted alfa limits than a restricted f-16; But that programed and scripted f-16 is been programmed to give you the best and safest aoa and gs for the airplane, and in the right hans it can still kick some mig a@s. Anyway I don't think that high aoa is bad, What I believe is that if your are in a situation on which a quick pull into high aoa can help put the piper into the enemy to end the fight then a high aoa limits is a good thing to have. (like in jets like f-18 or the su-30 mki)

Edited November 28, 2008 by mikoyan

[504Goon]

Actually, that's exactly what Goon said.

 

Well, what i said was more like if the angles fighter loses all of his smash in the first break turn or from neutral position AND the other guy is smart enough to maintain his energy and goes vertical, the situation gets bad for the angles fighter. Must have been my english and lack of thinking while typing if you got the picture that my belief is that nose authority at slow speed isn't whats wanted. I do believe those matter the more the longer the fight lasts, but i also do believe that the longer it last the more difficult it is to compare aircraft because of different experience between the pilots.

[Beaker_VBA]

Nobody said that, "mikoyan," but I suppose it's close to on-topic. Yes, the MiG-29 is superior to the F-15 in almost every manner, WVR. Thrust to weight goes to the MiG-29 by a small margin, something like 0.01.

 

Yes, everything you said is true, but you're missing the point, again, and dragging me off topic. (Again!) The point is, the USE of high-AOA maneuvering is generally in desperation. A good pilot is not going to let you just haul around without paying for it. The pilot who plays defense is about to be in a bad way.

[RedTiger]

*Disclaimer*: Rhen makes some excellent points about SA, the OODA loop, etc. We do often forget about this in the discussion and I appreciate him reminding us of this. Virtual pilots and aviation fans tend to have a hardon for hardware (:D) and forget the human element. We also forget that fighter pilots typically have to make whatever plane they fly work for them. They don't get to hop in a Flanker one day and then and Eagle the next. That being said, anything I say from this point onward is assuming the "human element" is equal for both pilots.

 

And since I can't rep you again for a time Rhen, yes do as Goon says and post more often! :)

 

***

 

Taking what Rhen described, energy vs. angles, I have always had the feeling that ultimately, if you had both but could only choose one for your life to depend upon, the smartest choice by far would be the tactics based on the energy fight and the fighter that allows you to do so.

 

The reason I feel this way comes from reading about WWII fighters and how faster and more powerful fighters could be seemingly omnipotent as long as the pilot didn't get suckered into the other guy's fight. There was one particular P-47 ace...Gabreski, I think, I remember talking about how much of an advantage the power of the P-47 gave him -- fighting at altitude, the ability to simply pull up and away from his enemy, extend at will, re-enter at will, or just escape if he needed to. He could fight on HIS terms.

 

Ok, yeah, so this is WWII and we're talking about modern fighters. If were talking guns or rear-aspect missiles only, I'd still bet money on the energy fighter over the angles one, any day, again assuming for the moment that you can't have both! And I'd do it for this very same reason. You can fight on your own terms -- if you're smart and skillful! I can understand where a less experienced pilot gets suckered into fighting low and slow against a plane that can keep nose authority at slow speeds, but I cannot see that being a situation that lasts very long. Either this is training and the pilot learns from his mistakes or washes out, or this is the real thing and he doesn't get a second chance because he's dead. But if the pilot survives and wises up...wtf is the angles fighter going to do about it? Take snap shots at him head on as he dives straight for him? Nothing says you can't do this, but isn't that a little too far away from "optimum" and pretty damn close to "desperate"? At that point you've lost the initiative and are now reacting, on the defensive. What if the energy guy flies to your six for a brief tracking shot before pulling away again to rinse and repeat? Please enlighten me, because I don't see how you're NOT screwed at that point!

 

So, to sum that one up, I would guess the key is for the pilot to be able to remember this when it really counts, not forgetting this in all the adrenaline of the fight and finding himself suckered.

 

Now, in terms of all aspect missiles...you've got me there. That's an area I'll admit I'm lacking a lot in understanding the dynamics. I'd almost say the the slow nose authority guy will have the upper hand here since parameters for the shot could be as simple as just pointing and shooting. Then again, I'm not sure. Couldn't you always say that it is better to be moving fast than slow when you have a missile shot at you? Isn't the slow guy still screwed since he's slow and may very well have a missile headed right for his nose?

 

If I'm simplifying this, please tell me. Its not very common in many subjects and disciplines for the armchair quarterback to get to spout off his opinion with the experts and practitioners, let alone have them maybe listen and comment. :D

Edited November 28, 2008 by RedTiger

[nscode]

Flying into the missile has been a standard procedure for early heaters. So why not point your nose at the diver and put a few rounds around him, coloring his flight suit inside-out.

[X-man]

Taking what Rhen described, energy vs. angles, I have always had the feeling that ultimately, if you had both but could only choose one for your life to depend upon, the smartest choice by far would be the tactics based on the energy fight and the fighter that allows you to do so.

This choice would mean something like F-15 vs A-10. It's not like modern angles-fighters doesnt have any energy at all. In your scenario, I would go for energy aswell...

 

In the end it's all about training, experience and SA (newer aircraft usually increases SA). :)

Edited November 28, 2008 by X-man

[Beaker_VBA]

Totally. As technology progresses, the line between angles and energy fighters are being blurred. Aircraft like the Su-35 and F-22 can perform incredibly well on both ends of the spectrum.

 

I'm interested to see where aircraft designed to provide incredible SA, like the F-35, tend to take the fight. It doesn't appear to be a turner. :(

[Teknetinium]

Had a merge in Hyper lobby yesterday, was in su-27 as usal, merged whit f-15.

I lost SA after first pass and missed my first chance to fire, instead I need to avoid aim-9s.

 

Here come the funny part, both off us knew that we couldn't save to much energy to not risk get heater in face.(I was almost out after avoiding)

 

the F-15 pilot decided to use its strong side, save energy just fo a litle while, witch gave me angle to fire for a kill.

 

what Im trying to say is that every time u save energy against F-18, mig-29,su-27 u risk to die.

 

My conclusion is again .

 

the only time u can save energy and let the other guy get his helmet or vertical on u, is when u are sure that ur opponent dont have heaters,

if u are not sure I bet u are trying to put the nose at him or stay as close as possible to him not giving range for shot.

 

Then again experience is the biggest contribute to anything.

just knowing the BFM book dont help mutch.

Edited November 28, 2008 by Teknetinium

[Pilotasso]

So you are validating high AOA manuevering over energy management in ONE match in a SIM for a real world aplication?

 

is that what your implying?

 

Also, and again our original discussion was that the F-16 was a "flawed" design for not being able to to hit 40º AOA, we did not even talked about heaters.

 

BTW the AIM-9's in LOMAc wont hit squat unless you fly straight at them. And against half compentent oponent loosing SA right after the first pass usualy means defeat.

Edited November 28, 2008 by Pilotasso

[Beaker_VBA]

If that pilot were smarter, teknetinium, he would have maneuvered out of plane and/or extended out of reach as you sold your energy to close aspect. And let's be careful when we use LockOn for examples. ;)

[RedTiger]

If that pilot were smarter, teknetinium, he would have maneuvered out of plane and/or extended out of reach as you sold your energy to close aspect. And let's be careful when we use LockOn for examples. ;)

 

Also...was this 1 v 1 or did either of you have a friend to help? Teknetinium, if you're willing to use LOMAC as a reliable indicator of reality you should refer to what Rhen said earlier. A real air force doesn't just send out one guy, the smallest group is a two ship.

Edited November 28, 2008 by RedTiger

[nscode]

I know of a real air force that sent singles in combat missions. Pilots were agenst it, but no one asked them for opinions.

[Teknetinium]

why is it so hard to understand for u that u put ur nose at the bandit as fast as possible. plz stop living in training exercises.

In real life u dont know if ur Russian friend has a heater or not.

(He probably do):) or are u taking the chance like the other guy in HL.

 

 

There is no end to this discussion, Pilotasso U can continue to believe in F-16/F-15,

strange enough that American air force chose to upgrade F-18 design to super hornet.

 

ask u self Why not to super Eagle/super falcon :)?

Edited November 28, 2008 by Teknetinium