correct as-is F-16 performance in dogfight

[Cab]

3 hours ago, Stackhouse said:

To be fair @BIGNEWY @plaiskool is one of the few people who have mastered BFM. When it comes to competitive BFM on DCS he is one of the highest ranked competitors that there have ever been.

 

DCS itself is a small community but the competitive BFM community within DCS is even smaller so everyone worth their salt kind of knows each other. There are definitely certain aspects that the pilot can influence but past a certain skill level (including the one that PS is within) the differences between pilot capabilities are so marginal that aircraft performance differences make up a far greater differential than will meaningfully come out between different pilots alone. 

For example if I fought Plaiskool 18 v 18 it would be good competitive fights nearly every merge. If he took an 18 and I took a 16 it would be an absolute route, I'd have literally no chance in the typical competitive BFM configurations. Maybe I'd win 1 out of 35 or 40 merges at best. 

 

With that said I'm sure there are individuals who may read this at some point and think 'who is this guy he's full of crap!' and I respect that worldview. For any F16 lovers out there who believe I am full of it I welcome any challenge from any individuals to prove that the F16 is a formidable aircraft in a competitive 1v1 guns only merge. You can find us at:

 

Discord.gg/Dogfighters

 

Does the F/A-18 pilot need to use the paddle to dominate the F-16 or does it not matter?

[GGTharos]

It does not matter, neither can dominate the other.  Both give you the ability to get in the other's OODA loop.

[Cab]

4 minutes ago, GGTharos said:

It does not matter, neither can dominate the other.  Both give you the ability to get in the other's OODA loop.

You should accept @Stackhouse‘s invitation and demonstrate that to them at the DCS Dogfighters server. 

[Glide]

Regardless of the public data, YT videos of viper pilots don't agree that the FM is correct.  It's as correct as they can get it within the limits of the sim, I suppose.  I wish it was faster and didn't bleed energy like a popped balloon.  Then it would be more fun.  If it's "realistic" and not fun, it's a fail.

[Cab]

3 minutes ago, Glide said:

Regardless of the public data, YT videos of viper pilots don't agree that the FM is correct.  It's as correct as they can get it within the limits of the sim, I suppose.  I wish it was faster and didn't bleed energy like a popped balloon.  Then it would be more fun.  If it's "realistic" and not fun, it's a fail.

Just make sure your referencing YT videos made since the latest updates. 

[Stackhouse]

56 minutes ago, GGTharos said:

It does not matter, neither can dominate the other.  Both give you the ability to get in the other's OODA loop.

Would you be willing to add me on discord and demonstrate?

[Cab]

4 hours ago, Stackhouse said:

To be fair @BIGNEWY @plaiskool is one of the few people who have mastered BFM. When it comes to competitive BFM on DCS he is one of the highest ranked competitors that there have ever been.

 

DCS itself is a small community but the competitive BFM community within DCS is even smaller so everyone worth their salt kind of knows each other. There are definitely certain aspects that the pilot can influence but past a certain skill level (including the one that PS is within) the differences between pilot capabilities are so marginal that aircraft performance differences make up a far greater differential than will meaningfully come out between different pilots alone. 

For example if I fought Plaiskool 18 v 18 it would be good competitive fights nearly every merge. If he took an 18 and I took a 16 it would be an absolute route, I'd have literally no chance in the typical competitive BFM configurations. Maybe I'd win 1 out of 35 or 40 merges at best. 

 

With that said I'm sure there are individuals who may read this at some point and think 'who is this guy he's full of crap!' and I respect that worldview. For any F16 lovers out there who believe I am full of it I welcome any challenge from any individuals to prove that the F16 is a formidable aircraft in a competitive 1v1 guns only merge. You can find us at:

 

Discord.gg/Dogfighters

 

 

1 hour ago, Cab said:

Does the F/A-18 pilot need to use the paddle to dominate the F-16 or does it not matter?

So, paddle or no paddle?

[Stackhouse]

36 minutes ago, Cab said:

 

So, paddle or no paddle?

As of last patch, paddle or no paddle was largely irrelevant. The fight is a slighty closer without the paddle (and by slightly closer I mean the difference between a complete rout and marginally closer fight. The difference would come out most at high altitude but the inability of the 16 to close down it's turning radius quickly below transonic/supersonic works against it. Funny enough if the viper can get the hornet on it's 6 and extend to the transonic regime where both aircraft are going transonic/supersonic then quickly close down it's turning radius the opposite is true (works best in a descent), if a non-paddling hornet is not very, very careful to arrest their speed before getting to turn circle entry they will overshoot as the aoa limiter in the transonic regime is very aggressive on the hornet and if they commit to a nose low entry and don't arrest their speed they'll overshoot by many thousands of feet and without that extra G to arrest airspeed there won't be much they can do. So that is a bit of a nuance to the fight.

 

Once you bring in useful fuel loads/weapons loads and no paddles then the viper begins to shine and the fights play out similarly to common real world testimony that real world pilots typically reflect on. But in competitive configs where the jets are clean & fuel is balanced for time? No, it generally has no shot. And it lines up quite nicely with the publically available data on the 16.

 

The no-paddle 18 matchup against the 16 might change with this latest patch given the g-model changes. But on the competitive side, you're never going to run into a virtual 18 pilot that is not going to paddle.

Edited April 10 by Stackhouse

[Cab]

3 minutes ago, Stackhouse said:

As of last patch, paddle or no paddle was largely irrelevant. The fight is a slighty closer without the paddle (and by slightly closer I mean the difference between a complete rout and marginally closer fight. The difference would come out most at high altitude but the inability of the 16 to close down it's turning radius quickly works against it. Funny enough if the viper can get the hornet on it's 6 and extend to the transonic regime where both aircraft are going transonic/supersonic then quickly close down it's turning radius (works best in a descent), if a non-paddling hornet is not very, very careful to arrest their speed before getting to turn circle entry they will overshoot as the aoa limiter in the transonic regime is very aggressive on the hornet and if they commit to a nose low entry and don't arrest their speed they'll overshoot by many thousands of feet and without that extra G to arrest airspeed there won't be much they can do. So that is a bit of a nuance to the fight.

 

Once you bring in useful fuel loads/weapons loads and no paddles then the viper begins to shine and the fights play out similarly to common real world testimony that real world pilots typically reflect on. But in competitive configs where the jets are clean & fuel is balanced for time? No, it generally has no shot. And it lines up quite nicely with the publically available data on the 16.

 

The no-paddle 18 matchup against the 16 might change with this latest patch given the g-model changes. But on the competitive side, you're never going to run into a virtual 18 pilot that is not going to paddle.

 

Thanks for the thorough answer.

But there are a few purest who prefer to not use it. I certainly understand using the paddle against a fully exploited Eagle, Tomcat, M2000, etc., but given the F-16 has no such exploits (that I’m aware of) I don’t use it fighting them.

[Keith Briscoe]

what's the exploit for Eagle?

[wilbur81]

On 4/10/2024 at 1:05 PM, Kefa said:

 So at .9 mach the Hornet is not going to out sustain turn the F-16.  And that GAO document also gives SL turn rate of 19.2 and at 15Kft of 12.3.  Doing a little math at 10,000ft max turn rate should be about 14.6dps.  Though this 14.6pds most certainly isn't occurring at  or near mach .9. 

So the Hornet turns well at slower speeds.  In addition,  the 402 F-18 was somewhat of a rare commodity. 

True statements. Interestingly, for what it's worth, here's a little break turn video clip of (I do believe) a small-motored GE F402-400 Canadian CF-18 in 1988 doing 360 degrees in about 16 seconds... averaging 22 degrees per second through the turn, and with energy enough to spare for some mild climbing and maneuvering afterwards (he basically sets up for a high speed pass right after). It's obviously slicked off for demo purposes...but still impressive for, essentially, an A-model Hornet.

 

Edited May 2 by wilbur81

[Wizard_03]

Yeah The idea that the viper should outrate the hornet in all situations is outdated and doesn't reflect the states of those jets and how they compare in the mid 2000s. But confirmation bias plays a role in perceptions of the viper and what it can do. Either way guns only rate fighting is a thing of the past and the hornets nose authority and high alpha controllability is FAR more relevant in the HOBS environment. Modern aircraft like F-22, and F-35 focus on nose authority and slow speed control rather then pure STR. Because that's what wins today. Even Russian aircraft follow that trend in emphasizing ITR. I see the vipers inability to quickly point it's nose and take a snap shot at the cost of energy as a major disadvantage, against a HOBS missile armed aircraft that can.

The legacy hornet is a very effective dogfighter. Even more so with the EPEs the viper shouldn't expect to just thrash it in 2 circle and definitely not in 1 circle. But at the end of the day it comes down the the pilot. Because both aircraft are very competitive and in the same ballpark. 

[TobiasA]

The 9X tracks like 90 degrees off the nose, so dogfights are probably very short these days.

[darkman222]

The thing with the F18 is that in a guns only dogfight that thing just points at you all the time. You expect it to have it bled its energy at some point. You take the fight up hill in the F16 but the F18 still follows.

WIth the M2K before the flight model update you could do that exact thing. Let it point at you and let it bleed its energy. After the FM update one year ago it also got a nuclear powerplant installed.

So what is to question is not the performance of the F16 but the drag modelling of the F18 and especially the M2K with its delta wings, which should be just like an air brake at slow speeds.

For comparison you can do it with F15s. It only has the energy to point your nose at you while youre at rate speed twice. After the second time, hopefully defended the gun two gun shot opportunites of the F15 its nose will drop and its payback time for the F16.

This is at least my observation on the dogfight servers. Talking about guns only scenarios.

[Kefa]

On 5/1/2024 at 9:22 AM, wilbur81 said:

True statements. Interestingly, for what it's worth, here's a little break turn video clip of (I do believe) a small-motored GE F402-400 Canadian CF-18 in 1988 doing 360 degrees in about 16 seconds... averaging 22 degrees per second through the turn, and with energy enough to spare for some mild climbing and maneuvering afterwards (he basically sets up for a high speed pass right after). It's obviously slicked off for demo purposes...but still impressive for, essentially, an A-model Hornet.

 

 

I've timed that turn a number of instances and between the roll in, and figuring where the roll out should be in space as the pilot obviously keeps his turn going past 360 degrees ---  I've estimated time to be approximately 17.5 to less than 18 seconds for the entire 360.  And that basically corresponds with 'public data' espousing the legacy Hornet -the very light early A models (of which this CF-18  from 1988 is)  and the big motor 402 GAO's 19.2dps SL figure re-estimate for 50% internal fuel.  And the best performing legacy Hornets probably have a peak SL sustained turn rate of somewhere around 20.5dps.   That's just my guess.   Now I don't know just the exact difference in performance between the later big motor C's and the early light A's.  It might not be all that much regardless of the 3400lbs increase in engine thrust and that is because while no doubt the lot 15 and beyond received the 'big motors' vs the early lot A's.  The early lot A's were lighter than any of the later lot C's.   

 

Here is a pretty impressive turn of a Turkish Block 40, seems to me at least to be a few ticks less than 15 seconds.  This is a full aft stick limiter turn in the F-16.  

 

 

and a F-16 Block 50 from 1994.

 

 

 

Edited May 3 by Kefa

[wilbur81]

4 hours ago, Kefa said:

4 hours ago, Kefa said:

 And the best performing legacy Hornets probably have a peak SL sustained turn rate of somewhere around 20.5dps.   That's just my guess.   

 

That's probably about right, with one DPS room for error.

[RyanR]

AI controlled F-16's are brilliant. They can pull 20 degrees/sec and not only sustain 450 knots..... they can still accelerate. 

-Ryan

[NineLine]

19 hours ago, RyanR said:

AI controlled F-16's are brilliant. They can pull 20 degrees/sec and not only sustain 450 knots..... they can still accelerate. 

-Ryan

The AI does not make many mistakes if the player flies like this then he should be able to as well, but regardless we would need to see a track of this if you are reporting an issue. Thanks!

[PawlaczGMD]

21 hours ago, RyanR said:

AI controlled F-16's are brilliant. They can pull 20 degrees/sec and not only sustain 450 knots..... they can still accelerate. 

-Ryan

The AI is not using the full realistic flight model. I don't have much experience with the AI F-16, but some AI types blatantly outperform. AI should not be used as an indicator of what numbers you, the player, can pull off.

[Dragon1-1]

Which isn't to say they should cheat too much. It's still worth reporting blatantly unrealistic performance, AI FM might be simplified, but it's not supposed to be completely detached from reality.

On 5/1/2024 at 8:01 PM, TobiasA said:

The 9X tracks like 90 degrees off the nose, so dogfights are probably very short these days.

Tracks=/=hits. A shot at 90 degrees off the nose is at a huge kinematic disadvantage. If you try fighting with AIM-9X you'll notice that particularly up close, you can easily get a lock in a situation where the missile has no way of actually hitting the target. If you take the shot the moment you hear the tone, most of them will miss. That's why nose authority is important, it allows you to improve kinematics of your shot, as the less the missile has to turn, the more energy it has for actually chasing the enemy. Also, harsh maneuvers are susceptible to countermaneuvers, especially up close. Minimum range is higher for HOBS shots than for when you've got the bandit on the nose.

That's why I don't think guns are quite obsolete yet. HOBS missiles force the fight into a tight one circle contest, where both fighters attempt to keep themselves too close for a Fox 2 shot. It's in this environment where guns, with no minimum range and more or less total immunity to countermeasures, can really make the difference. If nothing else it gives you something to shoot at your enemy without risking opening the distance enough for a missile shot.

[RyanR]

2 hours ago, NineLine said:

The AI does not make many mistakes if the player flies like this then he should be able to as well, but regardless we would need to see a track of this if you are reporting an issue. Thanks!

He ran out of gas well before I did, so I'm betting his fuel state was quite a bit lower. I've been really impressed with AI in DCS. Before the merge, the AI kept the plane perfectly at cornering speed, while I let my speed creep up past it. I was definitely making mistakes, and the AI was not.

This thread has been very helpful. It's amazing how different guns-only ACM is with these planes compared to WWII prop fighters. A lot of similarities, but the differences are very different. I've been pulling lessons out of everyone's posts. Thanks!

-Ryan

[NineLine]

If you guys have tracks of AI doing something outside what you think is real then you need to make sure you save a track and report it in the AI bug section of the forum as well. The AI doesn't really make many mistakes but generally is not unbeatable. 

[PawlaczGMD]

2 hours ago, NineLine said:

If you guys have tracks of AI doing something outside what you think is real then you need to make sure you save a track and report it in the AI bug section of the forum as well. The AI doesn't really make many mistakes but generally is not unbeatable. 

It is difficult to show this definitely with numbers, but anyone who has flown BFM in an F-5 vs another F-5 or a Mig-21 both against AI and a player will know that the AI outperforms in these types. 

The AI retains energy far better than the player. They are able to jink, turn on a dime, and go vertical without loosing much speed. These types are often harder to fight against than aircraft much superior on paper. It is not that they don't make mistakes, they don't seem to follow the same physics as us. 

[RyanR]

11 hours ago, PawlaczGMD said:

It is difficult to show this definitely with numbers, but anyone who has flown BFM in an F-5 vs another F-5 or a Mig-21 both against AI and a player will know that the AI outperforms in these types. 

The AI retains energy far better than the player. They are able to jink, turn on a dime, and go vertical without loosing much speed. These types are often harder to fight against than aircraft much superior on paper. It is not that they don't make mistakes, they don't seem to follow the same physics as us. 

I read somewhere that disabling the auto flaps for certain maneuvers will help with energy retention. Dunno if there are nuances here. The F-5 was the second module I got. Not satisfying. It doesn't maneuver as much as it simply increases angle of attack.

Back on subject, I found it easy to exploit the F-5's weaknesses with the F-16C.

-Ryan

[TobiasA]

vor 19 Stunden schrieb Dragon1-1:

Which isn't to say they should cheat too much. It's still worth reporting blatantly unrealistic performance, AI FM might be simplified, but it's not supposed to be completely detached from reality.

Tracks=/=hits. A shot at 90 degrees off the nose is at a huge kinematic disadvantage. If you try fighting with AIM-9X you'll notice that particularly up close, you can easily get a lock in a situation where the missile has no way of actually hitting the target. If you take the shot the moment you hear the tone, most of them will miss. That's why nose authority is important, it allows you to improve kinematics of your shot, as the less the missile has to turn, the more energy it has for actually chasing the enemy. Also, harsh maneuvers are susceptible to countermaneuvers, especially up close. Minimum range is higher for HOBS shots than for when you've got the bandit on the nose.

That's why I don't think guns are quite obsolete yet. HOBS missiles force the fight into a tight one circle contest, where both fighters attempt to keep themselves too close for a Fox 2 shot. It's in this environment where guns, with no minimum range and more or less total immunity to countermeasures, can really make the difference. If nothing else it gives you something to shoot at your enemy without risking opening the distance enough for a missile shot.

To be honest, the best strategy to land a 9X hit against most planes is to wait until they are out of flares. The sidewinder refuses to track most targets with dual flare dispensers, especially helicopters and MiG-29 / Su-27.
But, yes, you are right, even though my best kill with a 9X had 80° off-boresight. Guns are far from obsolete, but nowadays sensors and high off-boresight possibilities have made it difficult to actually enter a dogfight and survive initial contact.