Jump to content

Cat vs Flanker or Fulcrum at BFM Range


Horns

Recommended Posts

If an F-14B was going to join a fight, you'd think its go-to would be its BVR capability, but for whatever reason, sometimes the distance closes before you get a BVR shot off. I'm trying to work out how much a real-world F-14B pilot would want to engage in BFM vs the Flanker or Fulcrum, two of the best threat aircraft of its day. If the cold war had gone hot, how much of a contribution would pilots expect the F-14B's relevant dogfighting ability to have made to its kill outcomes against these airframes?

To make this a specific question: 1 F-14B v 1 Su-27 or MiG-29 with the objectives for each being to down the other and land safely. 20 000 ft ASL, 2 IR missiles each with Russians having HMS available, all other factors being neutral besides airframe, 10 nm range. Does the F-14B pilot seek to engage the threat aircraft in BFM? I would love your opinions on who would win, how and by how much, I worded the original question the way I did not to assume an outcome but because I was asking about the Tomcat pilot's decision-making, rather than how the fight might turn out.

Thanks for your attention.


Edited by Horns
Fix wording

 

 

Modules: [A-10C] [AJS 37] [AV8B N/A] [F-5E] [F-14] [F/A-18C] [FC3] [Ka-50] [M-2000C] [Mig-21 bis] [NTTR] [PG] [SC]

Intel i7-12700F, Nvidia GTX 3080, MSI MPG Z690 Carbon WiFi, 32GB DDR4 @ 1600 MHz, SteelSeries Apex Pro, Razer Basilisk 3

VKB Gunfighter 3 w/ F-14 grip, Thrustmaster Warthog throttle, Thrustmaster MFD Cougars x2, MFG Crosswind,

DSD Flight Series button controller, XK-24, Oculus Rift (HM-A)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Helmet mounted sight with the Archer puts the Tomcat at an extreme disadvantage, NATO did exercises to test this with the German Air Force MiG-29s and they absolutely clobbered the opposition NATO forces when unleashed with the Schlem and Archer combo. That 45 degrees off boresight shot capability does make a difference in who can shoot first in a turning fight and it isn't like a Tomcat is difficult to see.

The only way to really counter this would be to stay within the Rmin range of that Archer missile and keep the fight close and not allow the MiG driver to extend even a little bit less you get bit with an Archer. 

11 minutes ago, Baz000 said:

Schlemming with the Fulcrum
Hehs, Eric. Code One: Jul 1995. Vol. 10 No. 3: Pg 10-19.

Four Cyrillic letters adorn a toggle switch in the MiG-29 cockpit. The letters spell a word that sounds like schlemm. The switch activates a helmet-mounted sight system used to designate targets for one of the most formidable air-to-air missiles any USAF fighter pilot may ever face, and actually ever face-the AA-11 Archer. The system allows pilots of the MiG-29 to shoot the thrust-vectored Archer where their planes are not pointing. With a turn of the head, they can target opposing aircraft up to forty-five degrees off the nose of the MiG. When MiG-29 pilots of Germany's Jagdgeschwader 73 (Fighter Wing 73) use the helmet-mounted sight system in simulated engagements, they call it a schlemm shot. (Not surprising, schlemm means grand slam in German.)

Only a handful of US Air Force fighter pilots have ever been schlemmed. Those who have, though, consider themselves lucky. They have experienced what others have only read about or encountered in simulations. With experience comes credibility. And as of last May, the most credible squadron with it comes to fighting the MiG-29 is the 510th Fighter Squadron from Aviano Air Base in northern Italy.

Most people associate Aviano with Deny Flight Operations over Bosnia. Many pilots of the 510th Squadron and its sister F-16 squadron, the 555th, have been flying over Bosnia from Aviano for almost three years without much attention. Until recently, that is. These days, the squadrons fly these missions for two-month shifts every six months. The units spend two of the remaining four months training at Aviano and two months deployed. On one. such deployment last year to Decimomannu Air Base on the southern tip of Sardinia, Capt. Will Sparrow of the 510th learned about an upcoming German MiG-29 visit to the island. The Fulcrums, he heard, were looking for aerial adversaries. 'We were on the phone about thirty seconds later getting our name on the books to come back down here," Sparrow said.

A few months after that call, the 510th headed back to Sardinia with ten F16s and an able support team for a four-week MiG-29 Fest. The JG-73 sent ten Fulcrums and fifteen air-to-air German F-4Fs. The pilots flew a variety of setups, from simple one F-16 flying basic fighter maneuvers against one MiG-29, to more complex encounters of four F-16s teamed against four MiG-29s. Two F-16s also flew against two MiG-29s and two F-4Fs. "We called that two v two-plus two," explained Sparrow. "The MiGs practice a lot of tactics with the F-4s to make use of the F-4's radar."

The more complex engagements were simultaneously monitored by ground controllers who used the air combat maneuvering instrumentation facilities at Decimomannu to guide the aerial combatants. The ACMI facilities were also used by the aircrews to review the engagements. "Decimomannu is a fantastic place to train," said Sparrow, who was in charge of the deployment for the 510th. "The base has an ACMI that can't be beat for debriefing. And they have a bombing range nearby at Cappa Frasca."

"I hope this deployment receives a lot of attention because it deserves a lot," Sparrow continued. [Pictured on the left] "Not because we're here, but because we're learning about aircraft very similar to the German MiGs, aircraft that could cause us a lot of problems. As for what we expected before coming down here, we would get ten different answers from ten different pilots. We've heard a lot of things about the MiG-29. We all read the same stuff and get the same information. But we never really know what to believe. We now know they are a great adversary. They were everything I expected and more. Nothing can substitute for training like this. We go out and fight ourselves a lot and we try to make those encounters as realistic as possible. But this is the real thing. And these MiG pilots are really well trained.

"Germany's MiG29 unit is based at Laage Air Base near Rostock on the Baltic coast. Before German reunification in 1990, the aircraft flew for the former East Germany and the Warsaw Pact. After reunification, the Fulcrums became a test wing for the German Air Force. In 1993, the unit became an operational wing. Its twenty-four Fulcrums and twenty-eight pilots officially became a combined wing with an F-4 unit from Pferdsfeld Air Base in 1994. The unit formally maintains an alert role and polices the air over the five republics that comprise the former East Germany. Many of Germany's MiG29 pilots are former F-4 pilots who were trained in the United States. These pilots volunteered to convert to the Fulcrum, which currently represents the most advanced fighter in the German Luftwaffe.

The JG73 has also retained a number of former East German MiG-29 pilots who have had to tailor their knowledge of the airplane to fit western style tactics. Most of the Fulcrum pilots have less than 300 hours in the aircraft. Only a few have over 400 hours. No one in the unit, including former East German pilots, has over 500 hours in the MiG29.

This was not the JG-73's first encounter with advanced western aircraft. The wing flew against Dutch F-16s at Decimomannu last year and against Spanish F18s for two weeks in 1993. The Germans deploy to Sardinia because the ACMI facilities are there and because air-to-air combat training is restricted over the former East Germany, which covers Laage Air Base. The restriction, however, may be dropped later this year.

"The highlight of this deployment for me has been the BFM [basic fighter maneuvering, i.e., modern dog fighting] against a clean F-16C," explained Capt. Oliver Prunk, the operations officer for the JG-73. "The F-16C performs significantly better in terms of power when compared with the F-16A. I was also pleased with the proficiency of the American pilots. They take their jobs very seriously. We try to be the best adversary we can. I think they were surprised with the performance of the MiG-29 and with what we can do with it."

The most impressive aspect of the Fulcrum's performance for the American pilots was its low-speed maneuverability. "In a low-speed fight, fighting the Fulcrum is similar to fighting an F-18 Hornet," explained Capt. Mike McCoy of the 510th. "But the Fulcrum has a thrust advantage over the Hornet. An F-18 can really crank its nose around if you get into a slow-speed fight, but it has to lose altitude to regain the energy, which allows us to get on top of them. The MiG has about the same nose authority at slow speeds, but it can regain energy much faster. Plus the MiG pilots have that fortyfive-degree cone in front of them into which they can fire an Archer and eat you up."

The off-boresight missile, as described in the opening scenario, proved to be a formidable threat, though not an insurmountable one. "Some of their capabilities were more wicked than we originally thought," said McCoy. "We had to respect the helmet-mounted sight, which made our decisions to anchor more difficult. In other words, when I got close in, I had to consider that helmet mounted sight. Every time I got near a Fulcrum's nose, I was releasing flares to defeat an Archer coming off his rail."

"Before coming here, some of our pilots may have thought of the MiG's helmet-mounted sight as an end-all to a BFM fight," explained Lt. Col. Gary West, commander of the 510th. "We have found that it is not as lethal as we had expected. We encountered some positions-particularly in an across-the-circle shot or a high-low shot and in a slow-speed fight-where a Fulcrum pilot can look up forty-five degrees and take a shot while his nose is still off. That capability has changed some of the pilots' ideas on how they should approach a MiG29 in a neutral fight. Below 200 knots, the MiG-29 has incredible nose-pointing capability down to below 100 knots. The F-16, however, enjoys an advantage in the 200knot-plus regime. At higher speeds, we can power above them to go to the vertical. And our turn rate is significantly better. By being patient and by keeping airspeed up around 325 knots, an F-16 can bring the MiG29 to its nose. But the pilot must still be careful of the across-the-circle shot with that helmet-mounted display.

"We have done very well on neutral BFM engagements," continued West. "We have tried single- and two-circle fights, depending on how much lead turn we had at the merge. Without exception, we have been able to use finesse or power to an advantage after at least a couple of turns. I don't think any F-16 pilot has gotten defensive and stayed there. As always, and this applies to any airplane, success depends on who is flying."

Three pilots from the 510th received backseat rides in one of the JG-73's two-seat MiG-29 trainers. Capt. Sparrow was one of them. "The MiG is harder to fly than the F-16," said Sparrow. "The Soviet airframe is great, but the avionics are not user friendly. After flying in the backseat of the Fulcrum, I got a feel for how spoiled we are in the F-16. I always felt good about the F-16, but I wouldn't trade flying the F-16 for any other aircraft, foreign or domestic.

"The Fulcrum doesn't have the crisp movements of an F-16," Sparrow continued. 'You need to be an octopus in the MiG29 to work the avionics. Those German pilots have it tough. Just to get a simple lock on and fire a missile may take a half dozen hands-off switches or so. We can do the same with a flick of the thumb while we are looking at the HUD. F-16 pilots also have a significant sight advantage. A couple of hundred feet advantage can make a difference in air-to-air combat; the actual difference is more significant than that. MiG29 pilots have a tough time checking their six o'clock. Their canopy rail is higher. They can lose sight of us even when flying BFM."

"Their visibility is not that good," agreed McCoy, one of the other two pilots who enjoyed a spin in the Fulcrum. "Their disadvantage is a real advantage for us. F-16 pilots sit high in the cockpit. All the MiG29 pilots who sat in our cockpit wanted to look around with the canopy closed. They were impressed that they could turn around and look at the tail and even see the engine can."

"Besides visibility, I expected better turning performance," McCoy continued. "The MiG29 is not a continuous nine-g machine like the F-16. I tried to do some things I normally do in an F-16. For example, I tried a high-AOA guns jink. I got the Fulcrum down to about 180 knots and pulled ninety degrees of bank and pulling heavy g's I then went to idle and added a little rudder to get the jet to roll with ailerons. The pilot took control away from me in the middle of these maneuvers because the airplane was about to: snap. I use the F-16's quick roll rate like this all the time with no problem.

"I also tried to do a 250-knot loop," McCoy recalled. "I went to mil power and stabilized. As I went nose high, I asked for afterburner. I had to hamfist the airplane a little as I approached the top of the loop. I was still in afterburner at about 15,000 feet and the jet lost control. The nose started slicing left and right. I let go of the stick and the airplane righted itself and went down. It couldn't finish the loop. In the F-16, we can complete an entire loop at 250 knots."

Like Sparrow, McCoy climbed out of the MiG-29 cockpit feeling better about the F-16, especially its automation. "The biggest instrument in the MiG29 cockpit is the clock," McCoy said. "It took me a while to understand this. But a large clock is needed to keep track of the time after launching a missile. When they launch a missile, they have to consider their shot range and the type of missile they are shooting and estimate how long it will take to impact before firing. When they take a five-mile Alamo shot, for example, they have to calculate mentally the time required for the missile to reach its target so their radar can illuminate it for the duration. They fire and watch until they know when they can turn away. That procedure is a real disadvantage if they're flying against someone who shot a missile at them at about the same time.

"F-16 pilots don't have to think about these things," McCoy continued. "We have great automation. When we launch a missile, the airplane performs all the calculations and displays a countdown on the head-up display for us. When we're within ten miles, we want our eyes out of the cockpit looking for flashes or smoke from an adversary. That's why our head-up display is focused to infinity. We can view information without refocusing our eyes to scan the horizon. Inside of ten miles, Fulcrum pilots are moving their hands around flipping about six switches, some they have to look at. I am moving one, maybe two switches, without taking my hands off the throttle and stick."

German Fulcrum pilots realize the limitations, and advantages, of their aircraft. "If you define an F-16 as a third-generation fighter, it is not fair to speak of the MiG29 as a third-generation aircraft because of its avionics," said Lt. Col. Manfred Skeries, the deputy commander of the JG73. "Aerodynamics, now, are something different." Skeries is the former commander of all East German fighter forces and the first German pilot to fly the MiG-29. His comments came after he received his first flight in the F-16.

"The MiG-29's avionics are a shortcoming," admitted Capt. Michael Raubbach, a Fulcrum pilot of the JG-73. "Its radar-warning and navigational equipment are not up to Western standards. The Russian idea of hands-on throttle and stick is not the same as it is in the West. It is true that we have to look in the cockpit a lot to flip switches. And the way information is provided and the accuracy with which it is provided-in the navigational equipment in particular-doesn't allow full employment in the Western concept.

"Our visibility is not as good as an F-16 or even an F-15," Raubbach continued. "We can't see directly behind us. We have to look out the side slightly to see behind us, which doesn't allow us to maintain a visual contact and an optimum lift vector at the same time. This shortcoming can be a real problem, especially when flying against an aircraft as small as the F-16. But as a German, I can't complain about the MiG's visibility. The aircraft offers the greatest visibility in our air force."

Raubbach is one of many Western-trained pilots who volunteered for the first five MiG29 slots that became available after Germany made the JG-73 an operational wing. He is now an instructor pilot for the unit. "The helmet-mounted sight is a real advantage when it comes to engagements requiring a visual identification," Raubbach said. "It offers no advantage in a BVR engagement, however, unless you enter a short-range fight, which is not very likely against an AMRAAM-equipped opponent like we are facing here."

The Westernization of an Eastern aircraft has presented its own problems. The MiG-29's powerful Isotov RD-33 engines, designed as disposable commodities for a mass force, were designed to run about 400 hours before they had to be replaced. (By comparison, F-16 engines can run about 4,000 hours between overhauls.) The Germans have managed almost to double the RD-33's life span by detuning the engines by ten percent. Besides lowering thrust, the cost-saving fix has reduced range and dirtied the exhaust at lower altitudes. The move from JP-4 to NATO's standard fuel JP-8 has also hurt engine performance.

"The engines have been extremely reliable," commented Raubbach. "It goes from afterburner to military power, without problems, at various speeds and under varying g conditions. I can feel the difference detuning makes only at higher speeds. We have many spare engines. We had a shortage at one time, but we now have a big supply. Engines do not represent a shortcoming for us."

Though aerodynamically adept, the MiG-29's performance is constrained by avionics conforming to Soviet tactical doctrine. The aircraft was designed to rely heavily on a centralized system of ground controllers, which could take control of the aircraft's radar. The system could also land the plane if necessary. "Warsaw Pact pilots were not taught to evaluate a situation as it occurs in the air," Prunk explained. "Pilots were used to a system that made many decisions for them. The aircraft's guidance system had room for only six preprogrammed steerpoints, including three targets. The radio had twenty preselected channels at frequencies unknown to the pilot.

"The aircraft was not built for close-in dog fighting, though it is aerodynamically capable of it," Prunk continued. "The East Germans flew it as a point defense interceptor, like a MiG-21. They were not allowed to max perform the airplane, to explore its capabilities or their own capabilities. Sorties lasted about thirty minutes. The airplane was designed to scramble, jettison the tank, go supersonic, shoot its missiles, and go home." This relatively strict operational scenario presents its own limitations. Many of these involve the aircraft's centerline fuel tank. The MiG-29 cannot fly supersonic with the tank attached. Nor can pilots fire the aircraft's 30mm cannon (the tank blocks the shell discharge route) or use its speed brakes. The aircraft is limited to four g's when the tank has fuel remaining. The tank creates some drag and is also difficult to attach and remove. The MiG-29 can carry wing tanks that alleviate many of these shortcomings, but the Luftwaffe has no plans to purchase them from Russia.

Even given its drawbacks, the MiG-29 remains a formidable foe. "This deployment answered so many questions I had in my mind about the MiG-29," said McCoy, who flew in eight sorties against the Fulcrum and in one with it. "The experience confirmed what I knew about the MiG-29's ability to turn and to fight in the phone booth. It is an awesome airplane in this regime. The awe, though, fades away after that first turn in. The biggest adrenaline rush was getting to that point. After that, I started evaluating it as a weapon. The German MiG-29 pilots represent a worst-case threat for us because their skills are so good."

"When Western pilots merge with a MiG for the first time, they tend to stare at it in awe," said West, who flew in three sorties against the Fulcrum. "Instead of flying their jets and fighting, they are enamored by this Soviet-built aircraft that they have spent their lives learning about. Pilots lose this sense of wonder after a first encounter. It is no longer a potential distraction. They are going to know what type of fight to fight and exactly where they may be in trouble. No one can learn these things by reading reports. Air-to-air fighting is a perishable skill. But the lessons we learned here won't be forgotten. These pilots will know at the merge exactly what they are up against. They will have more confidence. And they know they are flying an aircraft that is superior in maneuverability, power, and avionics.

"When our pilots first arrived here, they almost tripped over themselves because their eyes were glued to the ramp and those MiG29s," West continued. "After a few days, though, those MiGs became just like any other aircraft. And that's the way it should be."

 


Edited by Baz000
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Dannyvandelft said:

I would think vs the MiG the Tomcat would stand a better chance than the Flanker in an equal left to left pass fight.
Other than that it would probably depend on who sees who first.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk
 

 

16 hours ago, Baz000 said:

The Helmet mounted sight with the Archer puts the Tomcat at an extreme disadvantage, NATO did exercises to test this with the German Air Force MiG-29s and they absolutely clobbered the opposition NATO forces when unleashed with the Schlem and Archer combo. That 45 degrees off boresight shot capability does make a difference in who can shoot first in a turning fight and it isn't like a Tomcat is difficult to see.

The only way to really counter this would be to stay within the Rmin range of that Archer missile and keep the fight close and not allow the MiG driver to extend even a little bit less you get bit with an Archer. 

 

 

 

14 hours ago, TLTeo said:

Yeah, if they have R73s then your best chance is to win a one circle fight I'd say.

Thanks everyone, really appreciate you weighing in, I'm convinced too :thumbup:

 

 

Modules: [A-10C] [AJS 37] [AV8B N/A] [F-5E] [F-14] [F/A-18C] [FC3] [Ka-50] [M-2000C] [Mig-21 bis] [NTTR] [PG] [SC]

Intel i7-12700F, Nvidia GTX 3080, MSI MPG Z690 Carbon WiFi, 32GB DDR4 @ 1600 MHz, SteelSeries Apex Pro, Razer Basilisk 3

VKB Gunfighter 3 w/ F-14 grip, Thrustmaster Warthog throttle, Thrustmaster MFD Cougars x2, MFG Crosswind,

DSD Flight Series button controller, XK-24, Oculus Rift (HM-A)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it devolves into a furball then you can pretty much toss a coin

 

unlike a growling sidewinder video, head-on shots are completely valid in this scenario. cat always benefits from that second set of eyes too

 

remember kids: don't box a boxer and don't wrestle a wrestler. Tomcats and Eagles have a big ass radar for a reason


Edited by henshao
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/28/2021 at 2:48 PM, Horns said:

To make this a specific question: 1 F-14B v 1 Su-27 or MiG-29 with the objectives for each being to down the other and land safely. 20 000 ft ASL, 2 IR missiles each with Russians having HMS available, all other factors being neutral besides airframe, 10 nm range. Does the F-14B pilot seek to engage the threat aircraft in BFM? I would love your opinions on who would win, how and by how much, I worded the original question the way I did not to assume an outcome but because I was asking about the Tomcat pilot's decision-making, rather than how the fight might turn out.

First, you specified 1v1 but, let's look at the big picture (which I guess probably doesn't really apply where you fly 🙂 )

The BVR payload is there to reduce your bandits to an acceptable merge ratio, like say 2:1.

If you cannot achieve this, you do not merge.

... but ok, you still want to merge, therefore (And it's going to be incomplete, too):

Your BVR payload now exists to get you to that merge with positional advantage, meaning something like a 30 degree turn advantage (so he has to turn a lot more than you do) and sufficient/correct speed to exploit this.  You can choose 2/1 circle based on payload here, but a 2-circle would probably suit you in most cases here if you have AIM-9s or 7s ready.  You do not want a head to head pass, that is not the goal.  You don't even want to be in his forward 45 deg when you fire, so don't make the 2 circle choice if that will be the result.

If you arrive without a positional advantage, a 1-circle is probably your best bet.  Make sure you've prepared for this before the merge, as going 1c while screaming past at 600kts is probably not wise.  With a 1-circle your goals are to jam his R-73 WEZ, not get shot in the face (notice how the don't accept a head on pass theme keeps returning?) and get on his 6.

If you end up accepting head on passes, the result is anyone's guess.  You've screwed up and your fate is in the hands of luck basically, which at this point you can only affect minimally.

Your other option, if you have the speed and you know you're merging neutral or at a disadvantage is to go even faster, wave hi/bye to your bandit and haul straight out of there.  Keep your eyes on him, make sure to turn such that you keep him on your six (if he merges with an advantage turn in the opposite direction from his turn to force him to turn longer, but don't blow your speed doing that) and you'll out-range his SRMs.  From there on, figure out if you want to run home or re-engage.

The who would win and by how much question in a neutral fight is irrelevant.  Do not accept a merge without an advantage - ie. do not start from neutral if you want to win.


Edited by GGTharos
  • Like 1

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, henshao said:

If it devolves into a furball then you can pretty much toss a coin

 

unlike a growling sidewinder video, head-on shots are completely valid in this scenario. cat always benefits from that second set of eyes too

 

remember kids: don't box a boxer and don't wrestle a wrestler. Tomcats and Eagles have a big ass radar for a reason

 

 

21 minutes ago, GGTharos said:

First, you specified 1v1 but, let's look at the big picture (which I guess probably doesn't really apply where you fly 🙂 )

The BVR payload is there to reduce your bandits to an acceptable merge ratio, like say 2:1.

If you cannot achieve this, you do not merge.

... but ok, you still want to merge, therefore (And it's going to be incomplete, too):

Your BVR payload now exists to get you to that merge with positional advantage, meaning something like a 30 degree turn advantage (so he has to turn a lot more than you do) and sufficient/correct speed to exploit this.  You can choose 2/1 circle based on payload here, but a 2-circle would probably suit you in most cases here if you have AIM-9s or 7s ready.  You do not want a head to head pass, that is not the goal.  You don't even want to be in his forward 45 deg when you fire, so don't make the 2 circle choice if that will be the result.

If you arrive without a positional advantage, a 1-circle is probably your best bet.  Make sure you've prepared for this before the merge, as going 1c while screaming past at 600kts is probably not wise.  With a 1-circle your goals are to jam his R-73 WEZ, not get shot in the face (notice how the don't accept a head on pass theme keeps returning?) and get on his 6.

If you end up accepting head on passes, the result is anyone's guess.  You've screwed up and your fate is in the hands of luck basically, which at this point you can only affect minimally.

Your other option, if you have the speed and you know you're merging neutral or at a disadvantage is to go even faster, wave hi/bye to your bandit and haul straight out of there.  Keep your eyes on him, make sure to turn such that you keep him on your six (if he merges with an advantage turn in the opposite direction from his turn to force him to turn longer, but don't blow your speed doing that) and you'll out-range his SRMs.  From there on, figure out if you want to run home or re-engage.

The who would win and by how much question in a neutral fight is irrelevant.  Do not accept a merge without an advantage - ie. do not start from neutral if you want to win.

 

Thanks, you both make a good point, there is no need to head in neutral. This is kinda what I was trying to get at - how/when would the ‘cat choose to get into the short range fight, and the answer is “to capitalize on a positional advantage”. A recurring theme here is the need to avoid an R-73 shot, that means no head-on passes. F-14 Probably doesn’t  want to hit the merge without positional advantage. If it can’t be avoided, use speed to pass without giving a good look, keep bandit at 6 (that second set of eyes are really helpful there), get out to a more comfortable range, reassess and go from there.

This advice is really valuable, I’m clear on how I’d make that decision now, much appreciated.

 

 

Modules: [A-10C] [AJS 37] [AV8B N/A] [F-5E] [F-14] [F/A-18C] [FC3] [Ka-50] [M-2000C] [Mig-21 bis] [NTTR] [PG] [SC]

Intel i7-12700F, Nvidia GTX 3080, MSI MPG Z690 Carbon WiFi, 32GB DDR4 @ 1600 MHz, SteelSeries Apex Pro, Razer Basilisk 3

VKB Gunfighter 3 w/ F-14 grip, Thrustmaster Warthog throttle, Thrustmaster MFD Cougars x2, MFG Crosswind,

DSD Flight Series button controller, XK-24, Oculus Rift (HM-A)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Choosing to merge with a foe that has a superior advantage in maneuverability and power is a Junior Officer decision.   The Tomcat wasn't built to win a war of attrition- but to kill many and come home.   Shoot your BVR shots- merge only with a numbers or angles advantage.    I mid fuel Flanker or Fulcrum with light weapons load should eat your lunch in BFM, bar none, every time.  You will need "tricks" to out smart him and force a mistake, but BFM?   You loose.  You're too heavy, despite the charts and the airshows, a tomcat has no business going against an equal pilot in a MiG-29 or Fulcrum one on one.   If you win, you trick them or played against their blind spot.   You're BFM is very good in a Tomcat, but the BFM capabilities for those two Red Air fighters is superior.     If you are the better pilot- do what you want, just know that those two airframes are better at gas guzzling BFM.   IRL you will have briefs on the readiness and status of your opponent to the best extent possible, and the question of merging will have been answered before you ever walked to your jet.

VF-2 Bounty Hunters

 

https://www.csg-1.com/

DCS F-14 Pilot/RIO Discord:

https://discord.gg/6bbthxk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Horns said:

Thanks, you both make a good point, there is no need to head in neutral. This is kinda what I was trying to get at - how/when would the ‘cat choose to get into the short range fight, and the answer is “to capitalize on a positional advantage”. A recurring theme here is the need to avoid an R-73 shot, that means no head-on passes.

R-73's can be shot from 45 degrees off-bore.  That isn't head-on (but it is high aspect, which is good to avoid as well), head-on gets guns on you ... so you want to avoid all the WEZs.  Your place is behind his 3/9 line.

2 hours ago, Horns said:

F-14 Probably doesn’t  want to hit the merge without positional advantage. If it can’t be avoided, use speed to pass without giving a good look, keep bandit at 6 (that second set of eyes are really helpful there)

They're not.  Your meat-stick actuator is connected to your eyes, no the RIO's 😉  If you're not keeping track of your BFM opponent, what are you doing in the front seat? 😉

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking off-boresight shots, you can sort of kind of more or less but not really match his 45 degree off bore capability if you get a VSL HI lock and slave your AIM-9 quickly enough. Realistically his envelope is much wider than yours (because obviously he's not restricted to acquiring above the canopy rail), but if you really screwed up by going to a neutral merge and screwed up again by being distant enough that heaters can be employed, you may sort of have a chance if you manage to lock him up and put a weapon in the air. It's a long shot, but it's less bad than just sitting there and getting an Archer to the face without trying anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, TLTeo said:

Speaking off-boresight shots, you can sort of kind of more or less but not really match his 45 degree off bore capability if you get a VSL HI lock and slave your AIM-9 quickly enough. Realistically his envelope is much wider than yours (because obviously he's not restricted to acquiring above the canopy rail), but if you really screwed up by going to a neutral merge and screwed up again by being distant enough that heaters can be employed, you may sort of have a chance if you manage to lock him up and put a weapon in the air. It's a long shot, but it's less bad than just sitting there and getting an Archer to the face without trying anything.

Understood, good to learn, and I think I get the situation here: F-14 wouldn't seek a BFM engagement with this in mind, but if the 'Cat strolled into the R-73 WEZ already then this is a low-odds gamble instead of passively waiting for death

5 hours ago, turkeydriver said:

Choosing to merge with a foe that has a superior advantage in maneuverability and power is a Junior Officer decision.   The Tomcat wasn't built to win a war of attrition- but to kill many and come home.   Shoot your BVR shots- merge only with a numbers or angles advantage.    I mid fuel Flanker or Fulcrum with light weapons load should eat your lunch in BFM, bar none, every time.  You will need "tricks" to out smart him and force a mistake, but BFM?   You loose.  You're too heavy, despite the charts and the airshows, a tomcat has no business going against an equal pilot in a MiG-29 or Fulcrum one on one.   If you win, you trick them or played against their blind spot.   You're BFM is very good in a Tomcat, but the BFM capabilities for those two Red Air fighters is superior.     If you are the better pilot- do what you want, just know that those two airframes are better at gas guzzling BFM.   IRL you will have briefs on the readiness and status of your opponent to the best extent possible, and the question of merging will have been answered before you ever walked to your jet.

Thanks, this last line in particular is really helpful: IRL 'Cat wouldn't be making the decision 10 miles out, but before they left the ground it would have been made for them.

3 hours ago, GGTharos said:

R-73's can be shot from 45 degrees off-bore.  That isn't head-on (but it is high aspect, which is good to avoid as well), head-on gets guns on you ... so you want to avoid all the WEZs.  Your place is behind his 3/9 line.

They're not.  Your meat-stick actuator is connected to your eyes, no the RIO's 😉  If you're not keeping track of your BFM opponent, what are you doing in the front seat? 😉

Roger, understood: F-14 must avoid the whole R-73 WEZ, which is much broader than head-on, 'Cat wants to be <90 degrees AOT if they're going to merge at all. I stand corrected on the comment about the advantage of the RIO's eyes on the bandit, as you say the 'Cat driver must have eyes on the bandit to be able to maneuver correctly,  the RIO having eyes on him is irrelevant. Thanks for the corrections.

 

 

Modules: [A-10C] [AJS 37] [AV8B N/A] [F-5E] [F-14] [F/A-18C] [FC3] [Ka-50] [M-2000C] [Mig-21 bis] [NTTR] [PG] [SC]

Intel i7-12700F, Nvidia GTX 3080, MSI MPG Z690 Carbon WiFi, 32GB DDR4 @ 1600 MHz, SteelSeries Apex Pro, Razer Basilisk 3

VKB Gunfighter 3 w/ F-14 grip, Thrustmaster Warthog throttle, Thrustmaster MFD Cougars x2, MFG Crosswind,

DSD Flight Series button controller, XK-24, Oculus Rift (HM-A)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MiGs advantage would be the R-73 missile, it can launch up to 45° off bore when AIM-9M up to 22-23° off bore. Tomcat would have another pair of eyes. Maneuverability is close enough F-14 being prefered at slow speeds and one circle wnen MiG-29 at higher speeds and two crcle. It can go either way. And MiG has to win fast due to it's fuel fraction.

I hope soon we will have both as full fidelity in DCS.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, bies said:

MiGs advantage would be the R-73 missile, it can launch up to 45° off bore when AIM-9M up to 22-23° off bore. Tomcat would have another pair of eyes. Maneuverability is close enough F-14 being prefered at slow speeds and one circle wnen MiG-29 at higher speeds and two crcle. It can go either way. And MiG has to win fast due to it's fuel fraction.

I hope soon we will have both as full fidelity in DCS.

Thanks for the advice, and regarding your last comment, I couldn't agree more!

 

 

Modules: [A-10C] [AJS 37] [AV8B N/A] [F-5E] [F-14] [F/A-18C] [FC3] [Ka-50] [M-2000C] [Mig-21 bis] [NTTR] [PG] [SC]

Intel i7-12700F, Nvidia GTX 3080, MSI MPG Z690 Carbon WiFi, 32GB DDR4 @ 1600 MHz, SteelSeries Apex Pro, Razer Basilisk 3

VKB Gunfighter 3 w/ F-14 grip, Thrustmaster Warthog throttle, Thrustmaster MFD Cougars x2, MFG Crosswind,

DSD Flight Series button controller, XK-24, Oculus Rift (HM-A)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/28/2021 at 8:48 PM, Horns said:

If an F-14B was going to join a fight, you'd think its go-to would be its BVR capability, but for whatever reason, sometimes the distance closes before you get a BVR shot off. I'm trying to work out how much a real-world F-14B pilot would want to engage in BFM vs the Flanker or Fulcrum, two of the best threat aircraft of its day. If the cold war had gone hot, how much of a contribution would pilots expect the F-14B's relevant dogfighting ability to have made to its kill outcomes against these airframes?

To make this a specific question: 1 F-14B v 1 Su-27 or MiG-29 with the objectives for each being to down the other and land safely. 20 000 ft ASL, 2 IR missiles each with Russians having HMS available, all other factors being neutral besides airframe, 10 nm range. Does the F-14B pilot seek to engage the threat aircraft in BFM? I would love your opinions on who would win, how and by how much, I worded the original question the way I did not to assume an outcome but because I was asking about the Tomcat pilot's decision-making, rather than how the fight might turn out.

Thanks for your attention.

 

Sorry to be this late for the conversation. You probably got most of the answers already.
I'd just like to add a few thoughts of my own if you don't mind.
Regarding face-shooters IRL, as much as i know, pretty much everything mentioned above isn't really F-14 specific. It was one of the conclusions of the AIM/ACEVAL that once forward quarter capability is brought to the merge, statistically speaking, the kill ratio tends to gravitate toward 1:1 long term, regardless of the plane capabilities. That is, the capability of the weapon system becomes the primary factor, not the plane you are in. Hence the above mentioned, you don't merge with a bandit you suspect can shoot you in the face. You shoot them in the face. Or if you must merge, you do so from some position of advantage. 

If however, you were referring to fighting HOBS capable missiles in DCS, yeah, there are ways to counter them. This usually involves fighting the kinetics, the sensors and the guy flying the other plane. For obvious reasons, i would not discuss them here. 

  • Like 3

Modules: FC3, Mirage 2000C, Harrier AV-8B NA, F-5, AJS-37 Viggen, F-14B, F-14A, Combined Arms, F/A-18C, F-16C, MiG-19P, F-86, MiG-15, FW-190A, Spitfire Mk IX, UH-1 Huey, Su-25, P-51PD, Caucasus map, Nevada map, Persian Gulf map, Marianas map, Syria Map, Super Carrier, Sinai map, Mosquito, P-51, AH-64 Apache

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/4/2021 at 10:13 PM, captain_dalan said:

Sorry to be this late for the conversation. You probably got most of the answers already.
I'd just like to add a few thoughts of my own if you don't mind.
Regarding face-shooters IRL, as much as i know, pretty much everything mentioned above isn't really F-14 specific. It was one of the conclusions of the AIM/ACEVAL that once forward quarter capability is brought to the merge, statistically speaking, the kill ratio tends to gravitate toward 1:1 long term, regardless of the plane capabilities. That is, the capability of the weapon system becomes the primary factor, not the plane you are in. Hence the above mentioned, you don't merge with a bandit you suspect can shoot you in the face. You shoot them in the face. Or if you must merge, you do so from some position of advantage. 

If however, you were referring to fighting HOBS capable missiles in DCS, yeah, there are ways to counter them. This usually involves fighting the kinetics, the sensors and the guy flying the other plane. For obvious reasons, i would not discuss them here. 

Hi, thanks for commenting. It’s interesting to note that AIMEVAL/ACEVAL conclusion, and if I understand it right it casts this as the HMD/Archer combination vs AIM-9 if I wander into the former’s WEZ, which makes the situation all the more stark. It seems like the same answer comes back time and again, if the ‘Cat driver is going to get within Archer range he’d better be able to stay behind the Russian airframe’s 3-9 line (and outside the R-73 WEZ) or he shouldn’t be in there at all.

Thank you all very much, I didn’t expect to get so much valuable information. I’m clear now on how a pilot of an F-14 would decide how to proceed against a bandit 10 nm out, much appreciated.

 

 

Modules: [A-10C] [AJS 37] [AV8B N/A] [F-5E] [F-14] [F/A-18C] [FC3] [Ka-50] [M-2000C] [Mig-21 bis] [NTTR] [PG] [SC]

Intel i7-12700F, Nvidia GTX 3080, MSI MPG Z690 Carbon WiFi, 32GB DDR4 @ 1600 MHz, SteelSeries Apex Pro, Razer Basilisk 3

VKB Gunfighter 3 w/ F-14 grip, Thrustmaster Warthog throttle, Thrustmaster MFD Cougars x2, MFG Crosswind,

DSD Flight Series button controller, XK-24, Oculus Rift (HM-A)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Horns said:

Hi, thanks for commenting. It’s interesting to note that AIMEVAL/ACEVAL conclusion, and if I understand it right it casts this as the HMD/Archer combination vs AIM-9 if I wander into the former’s WEZ, which makes the situation all the more stark.

No, it doesn't.  It's all-aspect sidewinders vs. no all-aspect sidewinders for those exercises.  AIMVAL was working on the HOBS missiles but as you can see, they got shelved at that time.

15 minutes ago, Horns said:

It seems like the same answer comes back time and again, if the ‘Cat driver is going to get within Archer range he’d better be able to stay behind the Russian airframe’s 3-9 line (and outside the R-73 WEZ) or he shouldn’t be in there at all.

Thank you all very much, I didn’t expect to get so much valuable information. I’m clear now on how a pilot of an F-14 would decide how to proceed against a bandit 10 nm out, much appreciated.

You might have to transit the WEZ, in which case do your IRCCM and don't stay in it.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The R-73 didn't exist at the time of those exercises.  In the E-E war it was fired a number of times with a fairly good Pk, I don't recall the details though, it's been a while.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was just wondering how much of a discrepancy real life vs. simulation may be. Simulations tend to always take best-case scenarios into account, whereas a lot of things work differently in real life. Even real-life tests with the Luftwaffe MiG-29 vs US Hornets only could give theoretical results.

I suppose it's always a problem since (thankfully!) so few air-to-air missiles get exchanged in real life. 

But when it happens, it can lead to surprising and possibly unexpected results (like that Rhino's AIM-9X seemingly getting spoofed by old-ass Syrian flares a couple of years ago) 🤷‍♂️

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Jayhawk1971 said:

But when it happens, it can lead to surprising and possibly unexpected results (like that Rhino's AIM-9X seemingly getting spoofed by old-ass Syrian flares a couple of years ago) 🤷‍♂️

OMG that myth really refuses to die.   There were no flares, the 9X malfunctioned or was shot inside Rmin.  

  • Like 2

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

vor 6 Minuten schrieb Naquaii:

Kinda like the "fact" that the AIM-54 was shit because the only three fired in anger by the US were old as shit and either malfunctioned/were prepared wrongly or fired at a fleeing target outside of weapon capability. 😁

I'd appreciate if you could kindly refrain from including me in some perceived group of people making such "bold" claims, because I did neither. I mentioned something that was all over the news at that time, with an IMO appropriate expression of skepticism 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Jayhawk1971 said:

I'd appreciate if you could kindly refrain from including me in some perceived group of people making such "bold" claims, because I did neither. I mentioned something that was all over the news at that time, with an IMO appropriate expression of skepticism 

And I was just joking. If that was seen as anything but, I apologize. That's all it was.

Sometimes it would be good if people gave the other side the benefit of the doubt, they're not always out to get you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, GGTharos said:

You might have to transit the WEZ, in which case do your IRCCM and don't stay in it.

Good to know, so I needn’t give up a good position or accept a bad one just because I have to briefly move through, I’ll just be quick and flare like one’s in the air.

2 hours ago, GGTharos said:

No, it doesn't.  It's all-aspect sidewinders vs. no all-aspect sidewinders for those exercises.  AIMVAL was working on the HOBS missiles but as you can see, they got shelved at that time.

I think I worded myself like I’d ignored the previous two pages, misunderstood captain_dalan and thought the AIMEVAL/ACEVAL conclusions meant my sidewinders were equivalent to the Archers with the HMS. I actually meant that boiling down the situation to comparative weapons systems validated the previous comments, and made it all the more stark that if the Archers became relevant the ‘Cat was screwed. Was that my error or am I still seeing this wrong?

Edit 2: Stepped on my deck with that one. The AIMEVAL/ACEVAL tells us there is unacceptable risk in a neutral merge with someone who can shoot you in the face, it doesn’t clarify anything about the Archer vs Sidewinder comparison.


Edited by Horns
Major rewrite/clarification

 

 

Modules: [A-10C] [AJS 37] [AV8B N/A] [F-5E] [F-14] [F/A-18C] [FC3] [Ka-50] [M-2000C] [Mig-21 bis] [NTTR] [PG] [SC]

Intel i7-12700F, Nvidia GTX 3080, MSI MPG Z690 Carbon WiFi, 32GB DDR4 @ 1600 MHz, SteelSeries Apex Pro, Razer Basilisk 3

VKB Gunfighter 3 w/ F-14 grip, Thrustmaster Warthog throttle, Thrustmaster MFD Cougars x2, MFG Crosswind,

DSD Flight Series button controller, XK-24, Oculus Rift (HM-A)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...