Air to Air combat is procedural

[GGTharos]

Gun fights are fairly procedural as well, you just have a couple more cues to watch for and a somewhat compressed timeline.

 

1v1 BVR fighting is a fairly procedural affair (unlike WVR gun fights)

[Azraeil]

Gun fights are fairly procedural as well, you just have a couple more cues to watch for and a somewhat compressed timeline.

 

Got any literature you could point me in the direction of? Or some tips of you're own. I've found in merge fights I just pull lead and lag, monitor my speed, and use the vertical when the differences in speed become to great. But there isn't much strategy to that is there....

 

As for the SA-10, why is that exactly. I am sure launch distance is a factor. But say if it is a semi-active system, the flux density of the incident radar should pick up when it goes from track mode to lock mode (and in usual cases your EWR gives a warning). Unless of course the missile uses radio-command guidance. Or the illumination from the tracking radar is sufficient for the missile to intercept without a hard lock....?

 

EDIT: Quick look on wiki, I am thinking it is command radio guidance and enters a very brief SARH phase. Scary missile system.

Edited April 18, 2013 by Azraeil

[GGTharos]

Got any literature you could point me in the direction of? Or some tips of you're own. I've found in merge fights I just pull lead and lag, monitor my speed, and use the vertical when the differences in speed become to great. But there isn't much strategy to that is there....

 

Sure there is ... did you try to make your bandit to go in a particular direction before the merge? Did you select a one or two circle based on what he is and what he's doing before the merge?

 

Every step of the fight is subject to this analysis. You're already doing some of it during the fight, and a choice of lead/lag/pure is already procedure based on what your bandit is doing.

 

As for literature, I can reccomend Robert Shaw's Fighter Combat and Tactics, but keep in mind that you need to keep in mind that as thick as that book is, it doesn't tell you everything. You can't learn quite as fast or as completely without an instructor in the vast majority of cases.

 

As for the SA-10, why is that exactly. I am sure launch distance is a factor. But say if it is a semi-active system, the flux density of the incident radar should pick up when it goes from track mode to lock mode (and in usual cases your EWR gives a warning). Unless of course the missile uses radio-command guidance. Or the illumination from the tracking radar is sufficient for the missile to intercept without a hard lock....?

If you're being tracked by a -300 or Patriot, you'll have that radar beam on you a lot more often than if it is doing a volume search probably (unlike say, an aircraft's TWS). When the missile is launched you may also potentially detect the missile uplink.

[Azraeil]

Sure there is ... did you try to make your bandit to go in a particular direction before the merge? Did you select a one or two circle based on what he is and what he's doing before the merge?

 

Every step of the fight is subject to this analysis. You're already doing some of it during the fight, and a choice of lead/lag/pure is already procedure based on what your bandit is doing.

 

As for literature, I can reccomend Robert Shaw's Fighter Combat and Tactics, but keep in mind that you need to keep in mind that as thick as that book is, it doesn't tell you everything. You can't learn quite as fast or as completely without an instructor in the vast majority of cases.

 

If you're being tracked by a -300 or Patriot, you'll have that radar beam on you a lot more often than if it is doing a volume search probably (unlike say, an aircraft's TWS). When the missile is launched you may also potentially detect the missile uplink.

 

Oh you misread my meaning. What I meant was that there wasn't much strategy in my approach to WVR fighting when there probably should be a lot more thought involved (by me). In public games, i.e not in dedicated guns practice missions, I find he who sees first wins, in the rare event the merge is equal for both sides, i.e. both have visual and good energy to spend, things get a little more interesting for me. In that event, although it's not usually a conscious decision, my initial instinct is to always go one circle in the F15 as things get chancy imo in two circle, especially against those scary R-73's. If he makes the mistake of keeping the fight at my turn speed I'll commit, otherwise if he brings it down to 300 knots and I don't have a decided advantage at this point I'll start looking for ways out.

 

Myself and a few of the squadron mates have done a bit of practice in all permutations of SU-27/F15C/MIG29S guns fighting. We have seen seemingly messed up things that the Russian fighters can do at absurdly low speeds where the F15C is practically falling out of the sky.

 

Another seemingly anomalous difference to me, and although somewhat true in both cases, occasional gun hits appear to do zero damage for either RED or BLUE aircraft. You see the hit land, the shell explode yet nothing happens. On a slightly related point, it also seems the F15C requires an absurdly high number of hits before the russian aircraft will go down. Anecdotally (although not all representative) I once counted 30 hits on an SU-27 before the aircraft was unflyable. On the otherhand the 30mm cannon of the SU-27 and MIG29 makes short work of any aircraft, a small burst is usually sufficient. Can you comment on any of this? Is the difference in caliber really that much of a difference in lethality. How about the flight characteristics at the low end, because man, I've seen some BS lol and wanted a comment on the realism of said BS.

Edited April 18, 2013 by Azraeil

[GGTharos]

Oh you misread my meaning. What I meant was that there wasn't much strategy in my approach to WVR fighting when there probably should be a lot more thought involved (by me).

 

Ok, that's pretty common :)

 

In public games, i.e not in dedicated guns practice missions, I find he who sees first wins,

 

This is generally true of all kinds of combat.

 

in the rare event the merge is equal for both sides, i.e. both have visual and good energy to spend, things get a little more interesting for me. In that event, although it's not usually a conscious decision, my initial instinct is to always go one circle in the F15 as things get chancy imo in two circle, especially against those scary R-73's. If he makes the mistake of keeping the fight at my turn speed I'll commit, otherwise if he brings it down to 300 knots and I don't have a decided advantage at this point I'll start looking for ways out.

 

Sure, Rminning those 73's is a good thing to do, but what do you know about your bandit before the merge, and why aren't you shooting him in the face and vice versa? A one circle with a flanker is generally a stalling action, hoping for your wingman to kill him.

 

Myself and a few of the squadron mates have done a bit of practice in all permutations of SU-27/F15C/MIG29S guns fighting. We have seen seemingly messed up things that the Russian fighters can do at absurdly low speeds where the F15C is practically falling out of the sky.

 

That's how it should be.

 

Can you comment on any of this? Is the difference in caliber really that much of a difference in lethality. How about the flight characteristics at the low end, because man, I've seen some BS lol and wanted a comment on the realism of said BS.

 

Lethality should increase with increased round size, but that's a bit too much. Six shells of 20mm should reliably mission-kill any fighter if not destroy it. I don't know if the damage ratings on all aircraft have been fixed, but that's basically where the problem lies, IIRC.

[Kaktus29]

@GG how much efficiency do you think there is in an event of gun dogfight? i mean, procedural-wise.. for instance dropping iron bombs on target is also procedural, no wild weird moves, pretty much following a script of altitude, angle, speed and dropping the bombs.. but the ability for 99% of pilots of performing this act within 100% accuracy is pretty huge.. how close to repeating such performance and proficiency is there in gun fights in dogfights?..

 

i mean, if you pass the enemy and soon start pulling high G turns towards you, the tactic does it change according the enemy plane or doesn't.. and if it does are pilots really trained so much they can make this split second decision and alter their dogfight approach because the enemy plane is different..

 

like, sometimes even altitude will change the way you dogfight, maybe do less bleeding turns and more altitude gaining if your engines are better, or if the enemy is better with engines maybe dive with low yo-yo.. i don't know.. what i mean is, how efficient are pilots to repeat this on any day.. or is it more of a "feel it" strategy.. still being procedural but not so procedural as your take-off routine or releasing dumb bombs..

[Grim_Smiles]

We have seen seemingly messed up things that the Russian fighters can do at absurdly low speeds where the F15C is practically falling out of the sky.

 

I'm assuming that when you say messed up, that you are meaning that it was unrealistic that the Flanker was able to do maneuvers at low speeds while the F-15 isn't. The Flanker doing that is actually accurate, some aircraft have very good maneuverability at low speeds (Flanker, Fulcrum, Hornet) while other aircraft are just trying to keep from falling out of the sky.

 

If I'm misunderstanding your meaning, I apologize ahead of time.

[GGTharos]

@GG how much efficiency do you think there is in an event of gun dogfight? i mean, procedural-wise.. for instance dropping iron bombs on target is also procedural, no wild weird moves, pretty much following a script of altitude, angle, speed and dropping the bombs.. but the ability for 99% of pilots of performing this act within 100% accuracy is pretty huge.. how close to repeating such performance and proficiency is there in gun fights in dogfights?..

 

Do you mean real life pilots or virtual pilots?

 

For real life pilots, this is life and death - they do significant book study of their adversaries and complete briefings with respect to them. They will know exactly which part of the envelope to try and take advantage of, etc. But in reality this sort of 1v1 fight will probably not happen, and your turn rate and other such characteristics are not important when you get dragged and bagged.

 

i mean, if you pass the enemy and soon start pulling high G turns towards you, the tactic does it change according the enemy plane or doesn't.. and if it does are pilots really trained so much they can make this split second decision and alter their dogfight approach because the enemy plane is different..

 

Ok, I'm not sure what you mean exactly, and there are details to think about ... like, what sort of planes are we talking about, what sort of information are the pilots getting? In WW2 planes, you might not know what type of plane you are fighting until you pass right by him - or, if you have good intel and you know where they came from, you may know the type so you can set up your tactic beforehand ... but again, in reality the long turning 1v1's seemed to be rare, you were more likely to just get shot down by a wingman that you did not see.

 

If we are talking about modern planes, you can at minimum have speed and altitude of the bandit long before you see him, thanks to radar, and you can set up your fight accordingly.

 

like, sometimes even altitude will change the way you dogfight, maybe do less bleeding turns and more altitude gaining if your engines are better, or if the enemy is better with engines maybe dive with low yo-yo.. i don't know.. what i mean is, how efficient are pilots to repeat this on any day.. or is it more of a "feel it" strategy.. still being procedural but not so procedural as your take-off routine or releasing dumb bombs..

 

It is very efficient, and you are also correct that it is more dynamic, but still pretty procedural. I will give you a very simple example, of course in practice things can be more complicated:

 

You encounter another fighter and go head to head with him. You notice he is flying slowly, so his turn radius will be smaller than yours. Both he and you know that he will choose a one-circle fight because he will win it if he is slower.

 

So, you can try to choose a two-circle fight, but you know he might reverse and bring it back to a one circle ...

 

So you pass him, you go two-circle and predictably he reverses to force a one-circle. You carefully relax the g's. You will not win the one-circle, so there is no point in trying ... instead you begin a high-speed spiral-up, and watch as he tries to point his nose at you but he is not able to keep up, and eventually he drops the nose to gain speed but now ... you have speed (so turn rate) and turning room, and he has nothing.

 

Now, suppose he is carrying short range dogfighting missiles, and everything changes :)

 

But it's still a procedure of if this, then that. Whoever makes a mistake first loses as long as the fight is neutral.

 

As a rule of thumb, the aircraft to get offensive first wins, unless the offensive pilot makes a fairly big mistake.

[Kaktus29]

@GG tnx 4D answers..

 

i meant about real pilot efficency of course, virtual pilots is so-so when it comes to proficiency of pretty much anything from take-off to landing we can see huge discrepancies not even going into more complicated attack runs on ground targets or bvr and wvr fights..

 

just thought about what you said in dogfight when pilot looks whether its going to a 1 circle or 2 circles turn, and lets imagine both pilots wait for the other to make the move))lol.. wouldn't it be fun to see nobody makes the move, they just pass and pretend this didn't happen)).. then coming back to base and explaining it to superior officers what happened?))

 

"well, you see sir, i waited for him to move, he probably did the same, so we just kept going and eventually we lost interest in each other"))

 

Also, do you think pilots take low Pk gun shots or rather wait for a better Pk probability since its not like they have lots of gun rounds-especially the russian fighters.. its like you get to have 3-6 "shots" and its empty..

 

do you think this procedural air-to-air will still be fought by humans in 20-40 years time.. considering the amount of information that 5gen planes will be having and computers making split-second decisions especially in an environment where the tiniest radar blip could prove the way to victory or defeat?.. i can't see how human pilots will be able to take advantage of all that will be happening.. i'm thinking patriot and s-300 series that have computers deciding if a radar blip is a target or not according to algorithms that are advanced enough to make a calculated decision that matters in real life.. the speed of all this will just increase and push people out of the envelope ..until 5gen pilots or 6 gen if they still will be in the plane will just occupy a post where they as a computer technician decide which strategy to implement and how, plus push a couple of buttons..the rest will be super-computers doing the calculated moves, even of the plane when its dodging the missile..

 

if i look at the f-35 or f-22 and think, what is faster, pilot receiving the alert message that missile is inbound and then takes 0.7 seconds to ACT, or the computer that will act within 0.0 seconds from the time of the alert message?..

 

i think the human will be pushed out, sooner or later.. the systems are just to complex for him to efficiently employ them..

 

maybe not 5gen, but 6gen i'm beginning to see lots of pilots on the unemployment list..

[Hellfire257]

While we're on the subject, can anybody share some tips for the F-15 vs the more agile jets?

[GGTharos]

Keep your corner ... between 380-450 depending on weight, and be patient.

 

It's a really deep subject to cover though, I mean just because the other jet is 'more agile', it doesn't mean he's set up to make use of it.

 

For example, if you've got a Su-27 screaming in at M1.2, one-circle him starting from 0.9. He can't win that. On the other hand if he has the same speed or is slower, you might not want to one-circle him, or you may want to do it but add vertical and hope he doesn't have the same idea.

 

And again, are talking about pure guns or are missiles involved? Because missiles change everything.

[FLANKERATOR]

While we're on the subject, can anybody share some tips for the F-15 vs the more agile jets?

 

Like GG said, there could be plenty of possible scenarios, so it's potentially a vast topic. We could start a discussion if you narrow it down to a more specific scenario (bogey/bandit - number of frames - ROE - Payload - ID capabilities...etc).

[Hellfire257]

Let me put it this way.

 

I always used to attempt to keep the Flanker at arms length by winning the BVR duel. With 1.2.3, that went out of the window as the AMRAAM always seems to fail me unless I'm < 5 miles away or the target is not maneuvering. Neither of these scenarios are good for me as it forces me out of my comfort zone.

 

Now, post merge, the majority of my experience comes from Strike Fighters 2 in the F-4. So let's say against the MiG-17/9, I would always keep my speed above 400kts and fight in the vertical. This would generally work because those early missiles are crap, and I would play boom and zoom. Now fast forward to the era of the R-73, and that no longer works and I can't get away with it.

 

What do I do?

 

Assume head on merge at same altitude, ~600kts, typical mixed loadout for the participants.

Edited April 20, 2013 by Hellfire257

[GGTharos]

In this case, all you can really do is use your missiles to force him to give up angles for you. It's silly to fly into them head-on.

[Azraeil]

I'm assuming that when you say messed up, that you are meaning that it was unrealistic that the Flanker was able to do maneuvers at low speeds while the F-15 isn't. The Flanker doing that is actually accurate, some aircraft have very good maneuverability at low speeds (Flanker, Fulcrum, Hornet) while other aircraft are just trying to keep from falling out of the sky.

 

If I'm misunderstanding your meaning, I apologize ahead of time.

 

No you have the gist of it. There were some circumstances that I would have expected that Flanker to stall as well, basically when he was at 150? knots with high AOA.

 

While we're on the subject, can anybody share some tips for the F-15 vs the more agile jets?

 

Keep the fight at >10nm. You're AMRAAM just outranges his ET in 1.2.3. Close to 12 miles using maneuvers that maintain radar lock but whilst turfing the enemy's missile speed. Launch the kill shot at 12-10nm. Lull him into a false sense of security with your TWS and lack of return fire. With any luck he will continue to close head on for the ET shot. After the 12 mile launch you should immediately perform a break turn and run at full speed dumping flare and chaff.

 

Let me put it this way.

Assume head on merge at same altitude, ~600kts, typical mixed loadout for the participants.

 

Don't push to wvr with RU CAP head on. Ever. But if for some random reason this has happened (due to terrain masking or some other circumstance) and assuming you have already dropped tanks (this will determine whether you live or not). You have a few options, If you have buckets of speed like mach 1.1-1.2, you may want to go vertical to bleed some of this speed off, remembering that the cornering speed is 400-450ish knots. Otherwise a horizontal one circle or two circle brake turn are your other options. As GG said earlier, which one of those you take is dependent on your velocity, the bandits velocity, terrain constraints etc... If in doubt though, just place your lift vector on the bandit and pull or continue to burn through, he won't catch you if you don't hesitate to run.

 

 

In other circumstance, it all really depends on the merge parameters. Some mergers are about pulling the fastest turn for a snap missile shot. Others are about conserving your speed while scaring the bandit into turfing his.

 

I suppose here is a youtube video showing some of my WVR kills this build. There are some lessons to be had from each dogfight, I make at least one mistake in every one. Dogfights three and four are the kind of safe merge scenarios you want to try to get into. EDIT. The rendering compression made me seem like I was far more blacked out then I really was.

 

Edited April 21, 2013 by Azraeil

[FLANKERATOR]

Assume head on merge at same altitude, ~600kts, typical mixed loadout for the participants.

 

Assuming 1on1 you should get rid of extra pounds (fuel tanks, dump fuel if necessary) to increase maneuverability.

Expect the Flanker to fire couple 73's head on (maybe more) so you don't want to keep burners on while defending, be generous with flares especially against multiple missiles but keep some for later, make sure you get extra speed ahead of time. You should also do the same to force him into defense and give up angles for you. You should defend aggressively but turn back into him as soon as possible, if you don't recommit on time, he could easily end up on your tail and fire more missiles at you. This is probably where most of the fights will be won or lost.

 

Assuming the fight progresses to the actual merge, you should force either a one circle or 2 circle fight depending on your opponent speed and angle at the merge. Don't go vertical with a heat seeking equipped adversary. Generally speaking, the Su-27 has a tighter turn radius so try to avoid a one circle fight unless he's way faster and over corner speed in which case he won't be able to turn tighter on you. To invite a 1 circle, create separation, turn into him faking a 2 circle then reverse and pull maximum G's at the merge. Keep nose down as you reverse for a steeper slice turn (Low Yo-Yo). Keep in mind to turn as tight as you can inside his turn to keep him outside minimum missile range, if too close, switch to guns. If he sees your reversal on time, he could reverse too to stay close which could invite a dangerous flat scissors. At this point, accelerate and force a rolling scissors instead.

 

On the other hand, F-15 has a better sustainable turn rate so if he tries to merge at corner speed, you'd better be slightly faster (50 knots or so) while inviting a 2 circle. Never loose sight of him, 73's are designed as off bore dogfights missiles so you should pull just enough to keep him between 90-100 deg angle off. Gently try to spiral up, be patient and trust your thrust to weight advantage, if you can keep him around 90-100 off your tail, he will be forced to nose down sooner of later which gives you the option to trade altitude for angles and apply pressure.

 

This analysis is based on my opinion and it sounds easy on paper than when actually doing it. A lot of practice is required to get the hang of it. Also what goes around comes around, your opponent can out-trick you the exact same way (you go for 1 circle, he reverses or vice versa) so it comes down to pilot's training, focus, SA and mental strength.

[SgtPappy]

More and more I'm learning the lesson of fighting at CV. I too come from a Strike Fighters 2 background so I'm used to fighting in that kind of style. Corner velocity is important there too, but I bet it's even more important here. I've seen videos of some amazing F-15 pilots keeping there speed right up until the end when they pull hard to get a shot out.

 

But until I get some cash and the missing cockpit glitch in FC3 sorted out, I'm going to get myself a copy of the beta. After that point, Hellfire, I'd be glad to train heaters/gunzo with you. I still have FC2 installed though, and it's probably a good idea to practise there first.