FJ or Fighter Pilots HARD QUESTIONS

[Low and Slow]

Ok, so some of the girls in Main Building are going to be very upset at me asking this question, but here goes,

Fighter Combat Manoeuvring

1. Why in a missile environment, do you need to out manoeuvre the other aircraft?
2. What are your realistic expectations of out manoeuvring a.) an AAM b.) a SAM? Please don't patronise me with tails of the IAF, diving under SA-6s. How about SA-19/11 etc.
3. Wouldn't the attendant rapid design and in-service date of high power to weight, inherently stable combat aircraft be preferable to what we do now?

No! This is not a Typhoon bashing exercise. That's all done and dusted and it's too late to have that debate. I'm interested in all thoughts. (even though I have a pretty shrewd idea of the answers) :)

[The Fin]

Grow up.

[Low and Slow]

The Fin:

Grow up? Please explain.

Ahhhh! Just had a phone call to explain the problem.

The manner of my original post is overly smug and confrontational.
I APOLOGISE UNRESERVEDLY, for my bad humour.
No excuse on my part. :( Mea Culper etc.
I'm not going to be wet and re-edit my original question. I'll just take the flak. The main points still stand.
SO IGNORE the tone and tell me what I'm missing.

[ 16 August 2001: Message edited by: Low and Slow ]

[stillin1]

Low & Slow,
Presuming you really are serious - Here is a starter for twelve.
a. Although there are missiles with fairly huge off-boresight capabilities the launch platform will frequently still need to bring the nose to bear to some degree. First one to a launch solution = first one with a kill chance. Launch and leave = leave right now & with feeling!
b. AAMD is possible with the use of defensive aids + manoeuvre. Long range Active Mx defense by manoeuvre alone is based on outranging the missile based on the likely launch range - trickier. A good TRD will ruin most peoples day to a significant degree.
c. No - you wanna chuck it about safely throughout the desirably enormouse flight envelope = unstable + a friendly computer or twelve.
d. I wanna fly expensive kit cos you always get wot you pay for. Yeah right!!!!

[Low and Slow]

Stillin. Yes, I am serious.
Thank you for a very competent and concise reply.
Just a few questions though.
I am not a fighter pilot, so I lack experience of these issues. I am merely dealing with open sources, physics, logic and the operational record.

The problem is, that all the accepted wisdom (which you present well) seems to be contradicted by the operational record. There are very few operational instances of Manoeuvre being a factor in air combat.
How big a factors are, Speed, sustainability (% fuel weight % Weapons) pilot training, weapons/sensors and C3I.

I suggest the holistic effect of those five are more important than manoeuvre as a goal in attempting to gain air superiority. What am I missing ?

[stillin1]

"There are very few operational instances of Manoeuvre being a factor in air combat".

Yikes! mon brave fighters are not heavy-weight boxers or battleships. It takes one hit to endex the game.
F16,15 = record speaks for its self. (Discount the slaughter of the inept by the well trained).
All the other stuff is important but still fundamentally icing on the cake. A manoeuvrable weapons platform, with good weapons, providing high SA is everything. Its no good having good toys if you can't bring em to the party or leg it when the other kids get too rough. Fighters must have the ability to out-manoeuvre the opposition. Even if you know where I am but can't follow me = you can't get me = happy me!
If I know where you are and can out manoeuvre you = happy tea&medals me.
Give me all the thrust to weight ratio, whooshbangs, fuel, air-picture and training you can but, in an inherantly stable (bathtub), I ain't gonna boogy at the merge, which is a shame cos I luv to boogy. :rolleyes:

[Low and Slow]

Ah ha, here the dog is buried, as we say in Hebrew!

So, Given parity in weapons, AIM-120 / 9L, how big an advantage does Typhoon ability to manoeuvre, give it over F-15X, (or what ever the latest iteration may be)

To me, F-15 does not represent a super manoeuvrable fighter. (The design is 1969, with the first flight in 72, I believe) Given better avionics, weapons etc, does the F-15 still do the biz?? EG > Joust Simulation type test, when going 1 v 1 against Typhoon.

[stillin1]

Ah Ha indeed!
You kinda lost me right about the time the Red-Sea Pedestrian topped Lassie and then flew into the fantasy DACT game with the peculiar choice in weaponry. ;)

[Jackonicko]

Just because fighter-vs-fighter close-in manoeuvring combat has been rare in recent years doesn't mean that it won't ever happen again, but the real significance of Typhoon's agility isn't in the 'airshow end' of the envelope - its in supersonic manoeuvrability - where I understand today's fighters may be more lacking, and where the significance lies in being able to gimbal the other chap as quick as poss, or indeed to disengage before re-attacking.

There is (IMHO) a debate to be had about inherently unstable aircraft reliant on FBW versus aircraft like the MiG-29, with 'conventional' hydromechanical controls and aerodynamics which allow brief excursions into the 'tatty bits of the envelope', where the FCS of a Typhoon (for example) might simply prohibit the pilot from venturing. But whether this does any more than allowing spectacular airshow manoeuvres, I don't know, while Eurofighter's HAVV roll seems to offer a similar ability to point the nose (and sensors and seekers) off boresight!

[CleanScope]

Mr Low,

I have 3 points:

1. During the "Cold War", BVR was seen as the way forward. Lots of weapons, on very fast a/c that were optimised for "Shoot 'n' Run" tactics....Oops, the wall fell over, and they were largely redundant. What came instead, were conficts, and policing actions that almost always required a VID of a Target. That is why, you could be forced into a turning fight: Because you have to get that close.
2. For every technology, there will quickly emerge a counter. "Over the shoulder" missiles with "smart" seekers will be no exception. As other posters have noted, if I am actually behind you, not even a Python 4 is a threat.....
3. No amount of technical kit, and helmet mounted thingy-m-jigs will deflect a well aimed bullet! A 9g-out-of plane break might. It's a "known" in the fighter communities all over the world that, it is rarely the chap you see (either visually, or on radar) that will get you, it's the other chap you didn't see.......hence stealth on F22.

Here endeth the lesson.....
(So WHY did we take the gun out of Typhoon?)

[Low and Slow]

Great! We're digging up the dog, some very insightful observations.

1. I agree fighters have to have the CAPABILITY TO manoeuvre. I AM NOT SUGGESTING THEY DON'T. The debate is "how much?"
2. The question is, "is the manoeuvrability exhibited by F-15, MIG-29, and F-16, good enough for today's air-to-air environment." If so, what are we hoping to achieve by going beyond this?
3. If stealth is so essential, how come even BAe admit, that Typhoon is nowhere near as stealthy as F-22. There doesn't seem to be a consensus among fighter designers, or pilots on this issue.

I know this may seem like SAME OLD SAME OLD, but I do have very good reasons for wanting to go over this in some detail.

[stillin1]

What reasons? Give us all a clue. ;)

[Jackonicko]

As a civvy, and, worse still, a journo, I can at least make totally unclass. statements, if my more learned brethren will forgive me (and hopefully correct me where I talk @rse).

With regard to EF's manoeuvrability, it needs equal or superior manoeuvrability to any potential threat in the low-speed/close in regime for all the reasons given above. It's debateable as to whether F-16/F-15/F/A-18 have sufficient agility to defeat Su-27/MiG-29 in this area, though until those aircraft get a decent MMI and Western-equivalent radar, etc. they are patently 'beatable'.

But the money on EF agility is being spent to give superior supersonic agility as well, acceleration to impart maximum accel and range to the missile at launch, and turn performance for the reasons referred to earlier. Therefore, in short, YES, THIS DEGREE OF AGILITY IS USEFUL and is worth paying for.

With regard to stealth, there are huge classification issues, but my understanding is that there is a philosophical difference between F-22 and EF. F-22 is designed for 'all-aspect' stealth - like the F-117, because when it was designed it was expected to be a MR aircraft (or to perhaps be required to be one). All aspect stealth is most important and relevant in the air-to-ground role, where you need to be able to manage your RCS in order to avoid detection. NB that F-117 is not invisible to radar, but that when it presents certain aspects RCS is so low that detection range becomes negligible. The cleverest thing about -117 is thus the flight planner, which calculates RCS being presented to known threat radars, and tailors angle of bank, etc. to minimise exposure. That's how, by moving a mobile radar to where it wasn't expected, or by using high-altitude lookdown, or by using bistatic radar, -117 becomes detectable (and, as demod in Kosovo, even 'downable').

Because EF was designed first and foremost as an AD aeroplane, (and specifically as a BVR fighter-interceptor) the effort has gone into minimising frontal RCS, to make the head-on aspect as difficult to detect as possible, and to try and ensure that the EF pilot sees the enemy on radar before he can be seen himself.

There has been some effort to minimise RCS from other aspects, but that has not been accorded the same priority, as far as I understand.

I would suggest that the important factors are MMI/workload/information, weapon and sensor performance (agility and accel will actually enhance weapon performance), combat persistance, pilot quality and training, affordability and manoeuvrability - but you wouldn't want to do without any one of those attributes.

PS: Whatever you do to an F-15 radar, and weapons wise, it's a very poor competitor JOUST-wise (it did worse than F/A-18 in the EF and rivals versus Su-27 with weapons and radar parity), and is also horrifyingly expensive - costing more than EF or Rafale, though less (natch.) than F22.

[ 17 August 2001: Message edited by: Jackonicko ]

[Low and Slow]

Stillin1.

For some time, I have been working on a project, which may result in some sort of published work. Without boring you with detail:-

Subject: Victory in Air Warfare
Object: To examine what factors, historically and contemporary, have determined victory in the air warfare.

This is a fairly well covered subject, but most previous work has just been a re-stating of the accepted wisdom, so I've set out to rock a few boats.

Nowhere in the historical and operational record, can I find any conflict where aircraft manoeuvrability, (or even performance) has been a significant deciding factor in victory.
Pilot training yes. Weapons yes. Tactics yes Numbers yes. Logistics yes. Technology yes.

If anyone has any data to show the opposite, please contact me.

And yes, I am in contact with the Air Historical Branch, and a heap of other luminaries.

[Nozzles]

Low'n'slow,
Suggested reading: Fighter Combat by Robert L Shaw-many detailed descriptions of some of the best mano-a-mano scraps the skies have ever seen.

There's no kill like a guns kill.............

[stillin1]

L&S
I'm astonished you find no occasions where ac manoeurvability/performance has been a deciding factor in combat victory! Not one occasion where one ac has outmanoeuvred another?
GOSH! - I guess I've read different combat accounts, or I view what I read differently.
Tactics play to strengths and in a reasonably even fight the strong win.

I practice ACT/DACT on a very regular basis and, given the non-BVR constraint of a relistic scenario, usually find that the outcome of the frequently ensuing visual merge results in BFM. BFM is usually won by the best trained, capable, weaponed, powered and aware guys able to manoeuvre into a weapons envelope
That means turning ace!!!!
Clubbing baby seals from over the horizon doesn't count in the real world we expect to operate in. The bad guys are only infront of you at the push. Things get messy about 30" later! Find em, ID em and MANOEUVRE TO KILL EM or to stay alive. The manoeuvre may not be the only decisive part of the equation but its a huge "warm and fuzzy" to have in the bank. I think your narrow choice of specific ac is obscuring the fact that you will never find a fighter Pilot who wants to merge in a F104 (go on someone say "I do", - bugger!!!).
Follow the thread - it will lead you back into the light. ;)

[Jackonicko]

Nowhere in the historical and operational record, can I find any conflict where aircraft manoeuvrability, (or even performance) has been a significant deciding factor in victory. ......
If anyone has any data to show the opposite, please contact me.

Presumably you mean recently, right? Otherwise we only have to say Zero vs Hurricane/P-40, or Spit I vs 109E, or P-51D vs Bf 109G, or Sabre vs MiG-15 in Korea.

More recent examples of kills attributable to superior manoeuvrability would include:

Every VNAF MiG-17 vs F-4/F-105 etc. kill in Vietnam

Every VNAF MiG-21 victory

Some Falklands victories

Every Iraqi Hunter kill over the IDF/AF

Every PAF kill in 1965

Some Egyptian victories in 1973

Every exercise kill by the Luftwaffe's MiG-29s.......

[Low and Slow]

With reference to "No where in the historical record…etc."

I am not talking about individual encounters and combats. Think about it.

Jacko: Are you seriously suggesting the P-51D could roll faster or get a better initial or sustained turn than the 109G, and if so, which G model.

Battle of Britain. Aircraft performance was the deciding factor was it? If so, which types and why?

The Winter War. Finnish Air superiority, Why?

Battle for Berlin. How was AC type performance a factor?

Pacific 1941-45. Japanese aircraft are highly manoeuvrable, yet are lost in huge numbers. Aircraft performance a factor?

Korean War. US victory yet the MIG-15 generally out performed the F-86E.

War over North Vietnam. US Air superiority. Yet VNAF aircraft have superior agility in most types they employed.

Same as above for Arab Israeli conflicts.

India - Pakistan. Pakistan gains a greater number of kills. Why? Aircraft type?

Falklands. FAA get consistent AA kills with no (?) AA losses. Why? Sea Harrier?

Yes Jacko, your points are very well made and support my hypothesis. The Side that Gains Air superiority, seems to achive it with less manouverable aircraft!

In fact, the only GENERAL conclusion I have drawn from these studies, is that the side with the FASTER aircraft TEND to be the winning side.

[ 17 August 2001: Message edited by: Low and Slow ]

[stillin1]

Bugger! I found the F104 advocate.
L&S
I think the bee in yer bonnet is buzzing so loudly u can't hear the rest of us. And yes, I know u think we are all wrong.
Follow the thread - see the light. :cool:

[Low and Slow]

Stillin dear boy,

I don't think anyone is right or anyone is wrong.
I DO NOT DISPUTE the very real advantage manoeuvrability gives you.
FACT: If you have a better-sustained turn rate, skilful and aggressive flying YOU WILL BRING weapons to bear FASTER. I know this.

With equally skilled pilots an F-4 would jump all over an F-104 or a Lighting. Sea Vixens trashed Lightings in ACM, (so I am assured) because or better initial turn rate, and sustained turn below 20K

What intrigues me is the evidence that for one Air Force to gain Air Superiority over another, they do not necessarily have to posses the more manoeuvrable airframes. It seems that other Factors, (Pilots, C3I, Logistics) are far more important.

Now if you not agree with that statement, then fair enough. I am looking for evidence to counter it.

If you do see merit in that analysis, then why does Air Superiority continue to focus on Fighter design?
I accept that JTIDS, Link-16, Meteor/BVRAAM and AWACS receive a good deal of focus, but is the cake split effective, in terms of money and time invested?

I'm not an expert, that's why I ask the question. I'm not in the business of being right. :)

[Jackonicko]

"Am I seriously suggesting the P-51D could roll faster or get a better initial or sustained turn than the 109G, and if so, which G model?"

Yes, I'm suggesting that the late Defence of the Reich Gs were sluggish old mules, a far cry from the Es and Fs, and that despite its vicious departure characteristics, the Mustang was better.

"You ask about the Battle of Britain. Aircraft performance was the deciding factor was it? If so, which types and why?"

Let's not get into the 'Hurricane was the real hero of the BoB' can of worms, but simply acknowledge that (except in negative g push-overs) the Spit I had an edge over the 109E-4. Or think about aircraft performance (especially agility) to explain the high loss rates of the Defiant and 110. Case proven, I'd have thought.

I'm not saying that aircraft agility is always the deciding factor, and didn't mention the Winter War (though I think that your claims of Finnish Air superiority are simplistic) or the Battle of Berlin.

You say that in the Pacific Japanese aircraft were highly manoeuvrable, yet lost in huge numbers?

Performance was a factor, though obviously other factors will always come into play. In the Pacific, aircraft manoeuvrability was an enormous factor in the early days (Zero vs Hurricane/P-40/Buffalo) and again later when the later, heavier Jap aircraft came up against the F6F Hellcat.

You claim that in the Korean War "the MIG-15 generally out performed the F-86E".

The handling problems and departure characteristics (to say nothing of the pilot quality, training and methods of operation) of the MiG-15 meant that it was effectively and functionally less agile than the Sabre, hard or slatted. NB that virtually every kill was a guns kill in a turning fight - go figure!

War over North Vietnam. US Air superiority. Yet VNAF aircraft have superior agility in most types they employed.

Hype apart, the VNAF performed extremely well against the USAF and the USN, until the skills of manoeuvring combat were taught to the USAF and USN. Overall, of course, the VNAF lost the war, but poor tactics and training, massive numerical inferiority etc. were the reasons. Had they had less agile aircraft, US attainment of air superiority would have been swifter and cheaper.

and as you say: "Same as above for Arab Israeli conflicts."

India - Pakistan. Pakistan gains a greater number of kills. Why? Aircraft type?

Any assessment of either Indo-Pak conflict is difficult, because all published works on the two wars rely over-heavily on over inflated PAF propaganda accounts which are of dubious veracity. However, it's noteworthy that in most engagements, the more agile aircraft usually won.

Falklands. FAA get consistent AA kills with no (?) AA losses. Why? Sea Harrier?

Sea Harrier certainly more agile than bomb- and fuel-laden Daggers and A-4s.

Your GENERAL conclusion - that the side with the FASTER aircraft TENDs to be the winning side bears little scrutiny, BTW - you need think only of the Luftwaffe at the end of the war, with 262s, 163s and Ta 152s, or the Falklands with Mach 2 Daggers against subsonic SHars.

Unless you can guarantee superiority in all other respects, giving away the advantage of better manoeuvrability is simply stupid. You say yourself that you are "not talking about individual encounters and combats", yet clearly any air campaign will be a summation of those individual combats. Go out and lose every time, and you'll lose the war. Go out in a less manoeuvrable (but otherwise equal) aircraft and you'll lose.

And in the future we can expect numerical parity (or even inferiority), enemy aircraft with superior performance, and, in some aspects superior weapons, while the growth of the upgrade market makes it entirely possible that enemy aircraft may have near-parity in sensor and systems performance. Aircraft like the Su-27 and MiG-29 may already enjoy superior very low speed high Alpha agility, so spending money to narrow that gap, and to give better manoeuvrability in other ares is essential.

Remember that when EF was being designed, the Russians had helmet-mounted cueing systems and large-angle off boresight weapons in service, while NATO did not. To have deliberately designed EF as an aircraft no more agile than the F-15 would have been short-sighted and criminally irresponsible. However, I suspect you've made up your mind....

[Low and Slow]

Jacko dear boy,

Your analysis based on the evidence you present and state is flawless. I salute you, Sir.

Your point about the EF development requirement is well made. I wonder who was responsible for fielding Tornado F-3, when it's known and expected opponent, at the time, was the MiG-29? Presumably we have learn't from that mistake.

I am of course sorry to discover that General Yeager and Eric Brown were wrong in their belief that the 109G was a more agile aircraft than the P-51D. I will now treat all my sources and interviewees with increased suspicion.

Finding my case disproven, I will, proceed on the basis, that it is agile fighters that define air superiority.

Of course if any one else has an opinion......

edited to produce a more agreeable/less confrontational tone. Nothing more unsightly than two rivet counters swinging handbags.

[ 18 August 2001: Message edited by: Low and Slow ]

[Flatus Veteranus]

Low 'n Slow
Jackonicko

A fascinating thread (only wish I could understand all the abbreviations!) Only two points:

Surely we were committed to the F3 (remember MRCA?) in the late '60s - long before Mig 29 was a gleam in Mikoyan's eye. Was not Mig-29 an '80s aircraft?

Was not Dagger at such extreme range over E Falklands that it could hardly accelerate supersonic AND make it home? Anyway, is it not true that, after the first Vulcan raid and "Beetham's Bomb", the Daggers stayed at home to guard Mum?

I heard a story that a Dagger tried to land flame-out back at base, couln't make it, tried to bang out but the seat didn't fire because the cartridges were timex. The Argies blamed the Brits for being unsporting over the supply of cartridges from Martin Baker! (Or something like that)

[Jackonicko]

Confrontational? I'm sorry you feel that way - I'd taken your questions at face value and was trying to answer as best I could. My answers, by the way, are based on much more than the evidence I state, but yours was a nice bit of sarcasm, so for that, I salute you back! My own comment about your having appeared to have made up your mind may have been a bit harsh - if so, I apologise, but you have had it from the horse's mouth (Stillin seems to be a current AD practitioner) who seems broadly representative of the frontline view as I've heard it. Agility is still considered important - look back at the EF gun removal thread, for example.

I'm not a fighter or FJ pilot, but I've interviewed many, including participants from almost all of the wars which you list , and often participants from both sides (No Finns!). By challenging me on the Bf 109G vs Mustang you focused in on the one area where I was least confident - since both aircraft had pretty major problems as 'dogfighters'.

However, having had a chat with a couple of folk who've flown both types, and having re-acquainted myself with the writings of the great Eric Brown, I see that: "The Mustang could steadily outdive the Bf109G-6 and had no difficulty out-turning it" (Wings of the Luftwaffe). This was a comment based on a trial flown with an early G (a G-6 without external fuel and I believe with underwing cannon gondolas removed) which might have been expected to be as agile as any 109 variant, against a rather tired Mustang III (some way short of a late-war P-51D or K), which might be expected to be less agile than a typical 'stang. Despite this, the only advantage Brown claimed for the 109G was in climb-rate below 20,000 ft.

He made a great deal of the 'heaviness' of the Gs controls at high speeds, and the effect of the auto-slats, which caused aileron snatching in any high g manoeuvres. He also listed the cramped cockpit, poor quality of the glass and perspex, poor harmonisation of the controls, the over-light rudder and ailerons and the very heavy elevator as being weak points. And this, remember, was a G-6, he'd have found a late G or a K even less impressive against a P-51.

Many former Mustang drivers will describe their aircraft in glowing terms, but I believe that serious examination (there was a marvellous paper in the SETP journal comparing four US WWII fighters) gives a the Mustang a less glowing report, not least because of its tendency to depart, rather violently. There is no doubt, however, that it was agile, with a phenomenal rate of roll (described by Brown as being 'only slightly inferior to the Fw 190.... which set the standard for fighter rate of roll').

With regard to General Yeager, I'd personally be slightly cautious in accepting his value judgements about any aeroplane. Undeniably a great fighter pilot, he was also a great self publicist. Talking up the quality of his opponents makes his already impressive achievements look even more remarkable. He is, incidentally, the man who said of the Northrop X-4 that after he'd flown it and had such problems they 'junked it then and there'. In fact the X-4 flew on for many more flights, albeit in the hands of modest, publicity-shy and unassuming TPs, who would never have been his equal as a combat fighter pilot, but who perhaps had better 'hands'.

There are a whole bunch of guys who've recently flown both types (as warbirds) and while I'm cautious about the representativeness of a restored Bf 109G (with an engine which may be much less than its wartime best - or much better) it's worth noting that no-one I've spoken to felt that the G-6 was anywhere near to being a match for the Mustang. But that's pretty subjective, and may be unreliable.

I don't claim that agility defines air combat success - like many of your other respondents, I was merely cautioning you against the apparent belief that it was entirely irrelevant, and the claim that it always has been.

You are quite right in questioning whether for one Air Force to gain Air Superiority over another, it necessarily has to operate the more manoeuvrable airframes. In some cases, victory is possible without, and other factors, (Pilot quality and training, MMI, sensor and weapons performance, SA, etc. C3I) will sometimes be more important.

But when the margin is narrow (as it often is in air combat) then manoeuvrability is not an advantage to be given away lightly. This is perhaps more true now than ever before, when avoidance of casualties has assumed so great an importance. There is a real imperative to keep our fighter pilots safe, and exchange rates which may have been acceptable in WWII (where winning the battle was more important than comparative losses) or Korea would no longer be tolerated today.

Don't feel I'm having a go, please. But it's always worth re-thinking one's most cherished notions, if only so that you can back them up with more powerful evidence, and dismantle your critics with even more force!. Good luck with the book, BTW, who's the publisher?

Edited to answer Flatus:

MiG-29 entered service after F3's conception, but was probably known to be 'on the horizon' from soon after its first flight when it was spotted at Zhukhovskii (Ramenskoye) by satellite. I wouldn't want to be too harsh on those who failed to realise how agile it was going to turn out to be - that first Farnborough appearance with the tailslide and the amazingly tight (non FBW) turns took everyone by surprise!

The AD Mirages in the Falklands were 'kept back' but the Daggers flew FGA from start to finish, BTW.

[ 18 August 2001: Message edited by: Jackonicko ]

[BEagle]

FV - surely the universally-despised Tornado 'ADV' was intended to be just a forward area beyond visual range Backfire-plinker, never to mix it with air superiority fighters? Hence the feeble little engines and dismal 'knife fight in a phone box' performance??

I remember seeing 'certain information' about aircraft referred to as the Ram-J, -K and -L a while ago in JDW; didn't they eventually emerge as the Fulcrum, Flanker and Frogfoot?

Did you ever, as I did, have fun doing max rate turns in the Vulcan at FL 500+ knowing that none of our so-called air defence aircraft had a cat in hells' chance of getting a missile kill.......??

Training, tactics, agility, weapons....and luck!

As a footnote, I flew the first ever 'mission' against a couple of MiG 29s coming into the UK FIR for that Farnborough Air Show in the mighty Vickers Funbus. We were told to keep it v. quiet - which we did. Even the boss didn't know (which is just as well as he'd only have pinched the trip!). All went well and we met our 'Aeroflot' callsign MiGs as advertised - the F3s with us were a pain in the ar$e and wanted to be all aggressive, having struggled to do the 'intercept' all they then did was to get in the b£oody way of most of our camera shots, but the journos in the back got what they wanted and the piccies appeared on that night's 6-o'clock news on ITN and BBC. The journos with their conventional cameras got the best shots - Janice from Flight in particular. We felt a bit sorry for the poor $od from TASS with his Siberian pig-iron Zenit cameras though!

[ 20 August 2001: Message edited by: BEagle ]

[Archimedes]

L&S,

At the risk of repeating others, my four penn'orth, based purely on my interpretation of the historical examples (former victims of Air SCP, Swindonshire, groan inwardly and ignore the rest of this posting).

Your question is a good 'un. I think you've probably found out, though, that the answer usually can't be found in a single factor: for manoeuvre alone to be the decisive factor is rare. It presupposes that we take two fighter pilots of absolutely equal quality - ranging from experience, training, ability, getting out of the right side of bed, not having momentary brain fade that passes the advantage to the opponent, etc - in aircraft with similar weapons systems (i.e. visual range only), with similar fuel states so neither's thinking 'time to go home...'

Then, if all these improbable criteria are met, having your MiG-29 against an F-4, let's say, means one successful MiG pilot. As I'm certain you've discovered, examples of this are rare. I'd contend that the whole point of manouevre is that it gives the pilot of the more manoeuvrable aircraft an advantage. This may be the ability to disengage rather than press home the fight.

Tweo examples: 1917, Royal Naval Air Service Sopwith Triplanes versus Albatros series. The manoeuvrability of the Triplane enabled RNAS units to gain an advantage. When the RFC/RNAS had aircraft (e.g. FE8, BE 12) which were easily outmanoeuvred, the German Air Service gained air superiority. When the Triplane, followed by the Camel and SE 5a came along, their enhanced power of manoeuvre - amongst other things - altered the balance. In the case of the Camel and the Triplane, manoeuvre was arguably the key factor. That said, the dear old Red Baron et al were still able to rely on skill, cunning, experience, training, tactics, etc to make a fight of it.

Battle of Britain (sorry). Hurricane/Spit vs. Me109 can be debated for ages - but my view is the Hurri/Spit vs. Me110 is the better illustration. Goering (never the greatest judge) thought that the 110 would clear the skies - but, despite heavy armament, good pilots, etc, it didn't. The manoeuvre capability of the Hurri and Spit meant that it was at a disadvantage; given the Luftwaffe force structure, so was the Luftwaffe. Although not fighter v fighter, argubaly the most accurate bomber in the German arsenal, the Stuka, was withdrawn because it was slaughtered by more manoeuvrable aircraft.

OK, a word on the 109 - again, I'd argue that manouevre was a factor. The Hurricane was largely disadvantaged, but a case could be made to say that its ability to out-turn the 109, and thereby stand a chance of surviving was important. This was more so with the Spitfire. Not overwhelming decisive factors in the campaign, but important contributors, I'd say.

Post WW2, with BVR, IR, and a whole host of clever devices, the question isn't easy to answer. BEagle's right, though. The F3 was designed to splash bombers. The fancy manoeuvring on the central front would be done by USAFE F-15s, a whole array of F-16s and...er... 19 and 92 with FGR 2s.

It comes down, I think, to two points:
1. In certain circumstances, having the power to outmanoeuvre an opponent within visual range can offer an advantage. Since 'there are no prizes for coming second' (or other suitable axiom/cliche), it's worthwhile having enhanced power of manoeuvre.

2. Given that we can never be certain that zapping the enemy from BVR will be in the ROE, it helps to have the advantage described in (1).

But overall, I would contend that the record shows manoeuvre to be one of the 'have to have' features for any aircraft meant to go head to head with enemy fighters, even if, in practice, that quality is not often used. The factors of pilot quality, weapons systems superiority and so on can negate it, and there is much evidence of this (Vietnam, etc). But why risk it and not have it? The USN would have ended up with the F-111B or even the straight-winged F6D Missiler, which wouldn't have cut it over the Gulf of Sirte...

Many, many apologies for the length of the post.

[Low and Slow]

Jacko, It was I who was being confrontational. Not you. Apologies and salutations accepted, nuff said.

Now some useful stuff,

1. Yes, you are absolutely right. Eric Brown does say the Mustang III easily out turned the 109G-6. I had that wrong in my notes. I can't find any reference to the P-51's rate of roll though. Please forward me this reference. I have been trying to find the original AFDU tests at the PRO for some time. If you know the file name, please e-mail me.

2. Using an algorithm sent to me by a US aerodynamicist, the calculations seems to indicate, (and my maths is pants) the 109 G at a weight of some 6,500lbs out turning the P-51D at 9,000lbs or there abouts. I set pressure alt to 10,000ft. Bear in mind the G-6 had slats.

3. Personally, I agree the P-51D was a better fighter. No contest, but I would still want to explore the issue of the sustained turn.

Everyone else (and yes Jacko as well, J ) thanks for insightful and useful observations.
So here are my main points re-stated for discussion purposes.

a. I haven't defined manoeuvrability very well. I am mainly referring to sustained turn, rate of roll and climb. The relevance of any or all of these are debateable, and of differing relevance when looking at Jet or piston engine combat. There are also a few other vital ones I haven't mentioned. I would welcome some thoughts.

b. The F-3 and Mig 29 were near enough concurrent, and represent two differing views, and /or missions, but basically the aim was the same. - TO WIT, the question has to be asked, WHAT OPERATONAL analysis gave birth to the F-3 and what to Mig-29?

c. The point about designing in features that "WE MUST HAVE" but "WE USE RARELY" is absolutely the basis for my subject. EG. Lets have good sustained turn, but NO GUN??

d. History is full of fighters that have been designed for the wrong conflict or mission, and have had to be adapted, or modified, some times with great success, some times not. All most every successful fighter was a compromise or adaptation. Why do we think we are any better at it today then we were historically, when History shows us to have got wrong fairly consistently, and the saving grace is nearly always, non airframe factors.

edited cos I mizzpleedd MiGG-29

[ 19 August 2001: Message edited by: Low and Slow ]

[Jackonicko]

Without looking it up (always fatal) I'd say that your 109G weight may be on the light side for a fully-armed Defence of the Reich aircraft. Also, the uneven and unpredictable opening of the 109s slats were more of a hindrance than a help, making it a poor gun platform. With regard to roll rates, see Brown (Wings of Luftwaffe and Wings of the Weird and Wonderful parts 1 and 2 on the aircraft types discussed - 109G 190A Mustang). I remember seeing something more detailed (perhaps with parametrics in an Alf Price book (World War II fighter conflict/combat, if memory serves) but can't find it on the shelves.

With regard to the ORs of Tornado and MiG-29, my understanding is as BEags stated, that ADV was entirely optimised as a Northern Q, long range, high endurance BVR interceptor, intended primarily to stop enemy bombers and missile carriers steaming down through the GIUK gap. At that time, no-one expected the possibility of a 'Flanker' escort......

As such, the F2/F3 should perhaps be compared to the MiG-31, not the -29, which was conceived as a lightweight battlefield air defence/air superiority aircraft, operating from frontline strips (including roads) in good weather and with comprehensive GCI, and with a vital strike/attack capability (one squadron in every three squadron Regiment had a primary war role of nuclear strike using RN-40s, with the other regiments assigned to sweep and escort). It was the low element in a high:low mix of MFI and LFI (Su-27 and MiG-29), just as the F-16 was the low element in the FX:LWF mix.

Although Tornado, -29 and -27 entered service at much the same time, the development of the Russian types was quicker, and the two aircraft were not known about until they flew - five-six years before they entered frontline service.

The interesting allied MiG-29 counter would have been the aircraft which met AST409 (the RAFG FGR2 and Jag/Harrier replacement) - this eventually evolved into EF, of course, though without German prevarication and delays, and with off-the-shelf avionics (Blue Vixen and AMRAAM, perhaps, or APG-65) an aircraft could have been in service ten years ago. (Anyone remember the 'EAP?)

Archimedes' point about the 110 is an excellent one - in that aircraft you have one with superior SA (multi-crew), C3I (dedicated radio-op!) superior firepower, and well-trained, high quality crews (arguably the Luftwaffe's finest, since the Zerstorergruppen were Herman's pet project) with greater operational experience and better training. The aircraft was even fairly fast. But the more agile the opponent, the more of a 'sitter' it became.

[John Farley]

Cor wot a good thread

I have nothing of significance to add to what has been said by my betters here but for those who are not sure about the desirability of very good manoeuvrability imagine how you would feel going out to do your duty in say an F3 when you knew they had MiG-29s.

This situation applied for real at the start of the Gulf War and there were some very unhappy chaps looking to speak to anybody who had flown a MiG-29.

L&S
Re the point that sustained turn rate rather than instantaneous is important I agree it can make a very great difference in a simple 1 v 1 situation when all else is similar. On a light note, when we started to deliver the Hawk to the RAF weapons trainers, we found their car parks full of bumper stickers saying Keep Hunter stamp out Hawk. Then a few weeks later (when they had started to collect new aircraft themselves) one of their arch Hunter fans (and a v. good operator indeed) took me aside in the Dunsfold coffee bar and remarked that all fights Hawk v Hawk finished up higher than where they started, unlike the Hunter ones that always ended up on the deck. He was clearly embarrassed in asking why this should be. P****, I said “What do you do when you can’t handle the G available any more?” “Climb” he said. “Think about it” I said.

In the 70’s to sit in a Hawk and realise it could be flown at low level on its G limit until it ran out of fuel was a novel experience. The RAF had not previously experienced the advantages of a low induced drag wing. And neither I suspect had the USAF. One day a USAF General got up my nose by declaring you could not fight a war unless the aerodrome was big enough to land a C5 to keep things going. As this was just before I was going to take him for a ride in G-VTOL, I excused myself, told the hangar to put the jump-jet back in the shed and wheel out G-HAWK instead. I asked Andy Jones to fly him at 6G until he requested him to stop and awaited events. At lunch the General turned on me and demanded to know why the Hawk had no induced drag “It was our first fixed price contract Sir, and we ran out of money” I replied. Our General Manager immediately coughed up a prawn but Mr USAF was too busy transmitting his next Logistics point to consider what I had said.

[Jackonicko]

Just re-read your point D (History is full of fighters that have been designed for the wrong conflict or mission, and have had to be adapted, or modified, some times with great success, some times not.)

Unless you think you know what every future war will bring, the only answer to this is to design fighters that can do anything and everything, and certainly not accept any compromise aircraft which can't for example "turn all that well, 'cos it didn't prove necessary over Iraq/Kosovo".

One of John Farley's many lower/lesser/worsers!

[newshound]

From tomorrow's edition of Aviation Week:

Extract from an interview with Vladimir Barkovsky,
...first deputy general designer and director of MiG Russian Aircraft Corp.'s engineering center. He is a former star in Sukhoi's preliminary design department that was involved in early work on the experimental S-37.

...The amount of stealth built into the design will "always be a process of finding a compromise with flying characteristics, the capability of the sensors and the weapons," he said. "If we create a new aircraft that does not have stealth, we will waste the taxpayers' money." Barkovsky cited the British Avro Vulcan bomber of the 1950s as a low-radar-cross-section design that didn't require stealth materials and structures.

[Flatus Veteranus]

BEagle

I hesitate to stick my oar in amongst all these fighter tactics and historical wizzes. Yes, we had much fun splashing Lightnings and F4s at Waddo and Mirages at Butterworth and Darwin! I have forgotten the "g" limit on the Vulcan (2.5?), but I used to get the co to chant the "g" while I craned my neck. If you inadvertently pulled a bit hard you could usually get the Crew Chief to square the accelerometer, put if you picked up someone's turbulence while pulling the limit, the nasty little fatigue recorder down the back went ape and OC Eng was on the blower PDQ. We had no pressure jerkins in my day, so FL450 was supposed to be the limit. But if you wanted to sort out the Mirages you had to go for it. Max continous cruise (wire locked thrust limiters) with luck gave you about FL550 if I remember rightly (as long as the rear crew did not moan too loudly!). "Splash one F4" on the Fighter Control frequency usually drew some ripe banter! At CFS Type Sqn in 57 I used to fly the ex-fighter jocks in the Canberra T4 and the ex-heavy guys had a go in the Hunters. Now that was an interesting experiment! The ex-heavies used to try and mix it and were a bit put out to find the Canberra in their "six".

I am a bit confused between "agility" and "performance". To me the former means sustained turning ability and rate of roll and the latter means acceleration, level and diving speed and rate of climb. In WW2 the P47 "Jug" (the archtypical flying brick) did good work (in the right hands)against the ME109s and FW190s. But the golden rule was one pass only and keep on going down hill. Same with the Meteor against the Vampire or Sea Hawk, although we always had suckers who would get into a turning match and get hammered by the No 2, if he knew his job. (The 14 Sqn Kiwis did and the FAA Sqns often did not).

The faith in the OR staff of those who say that F3 was "intended to be a BACKFIRE buster" and ask about the "Op Analysis on which it was based" is touching. But the reality was more like "we can only afford one airframe to do the strike/attack and AD jobs, so this is what you are going to get - shut up and think of how you can use it". At Strike in 70/71 some of us tried to push for an up-dated Buccaneer for the Strike/Attack job and on "off-the-shelf" American fighter. F16 or F18 seemed to be the favourites. I even took soundings on using spare Vulcans with an AI radar instead of H2S and with a battery AAMs as a long-endurance BVR bomber-buster. DO NOT ROCK THE BOAT was the response from on (very) high. The future of the British aerospace industry (and my post-retirement directorship) are at stake! By 1974 when I did the Air Warfare course the likely capability of the ADV (in comparison with the F14,15,16 and 18) was becoming pitifully clear and the fighter jocks on the course were complaining loudly (but not too loudly in the presence of high-ranking visitors). In 75/76 I was in the bit of OR which was sponsoring R&D into future FCSs, FBW, and unstable platforms. We used to ponder questions such as the degree of redundancy needed in the computers and the desirability of emergency overrides for the "g" and Alpha limiters. We consoled ourselves with the thought that the Sovs might be able to do good airframes, but they couldn't do the avionics to exploit them fully. I suspect very strongly, BEagle, that the RAM J,K and L designators were highly speculative projections of industrial capacity. When were FULCRUM and FLANKER identified, given given configurations and named ? I do know but I don't propose to say here. I also know that when FULCRUM was first displayed there were some red faces around Whitehall.

My opinion (which is worth bugger-all!): Performance and agility are both goodies. If you have to compromise, weight it in favour of performance, which gives you the initiative in engagement/disengagement. But I know little of the capabilities of current missiles, sensors and target acquisition kit (helmet-mounted thingies!)

(Edited for spealing by FV)

[ 19 August 2001: Message edited by: Flatus Veteranus ]

[Red Snow]

Interesting stuff, but a couple of questions for Jacko or anyone who knows a bit about these things.

1) VNAF - my understanding was that the VNAF scored well against the US in the early days because they only attacked when everything was on their side, used very good tactics (basically the same thing!) and used their slow turning ability. When the US rediscovered high-energy manoeuvring and how to use it, the k/l ratio changed dramatically.

A point of manoeuvrability being better than agility?

2) In the BoB what were the actual 109 v Spit k/l figures? I could be very wrong but I seem to recall reading that the losses for both Spit and 109 during the battle were about equal, and as the 109 was being shot down by Hurricanes as well would actually give the 109 a better k/l ratio over the Spitfire.

L'n'S does have a point, though. There certainly are a great many occasions where speed and 'straight-line' performance have carried the day over agility - 109F v. I-16 in Russia being a classic case (at the time probably the world's fastest v. most agile). And just as the Zero's manoeuvrability made it completely ascendant in the early days in the Pacific, so surely it was the Hellcat's speed, strength and dive/climb performance which defeated the Zero, rather than its agility.

But...there can't be many air battles where you can point to one decisive factor - there is too much else to consider such as pilot skill and training, tactics, defensive or offensive posture etc etc. Most outcomes will be decided by a combination of all the factors - agility being just one - and which side has the most in its favour.

If you can build a Eurofighter with rapid acceleration, long range radar and missiles, flown by well trained pilots etc etc etc, then there is certainly no harm making it manoeuvrable as well. As others have said, you never know if that might just be the decisive factor next time round...

[Low and Slow]

Some cracking good stuff guys. Thanks. Very interested in the Meter v. Vampire and Seahawk notes, as well the Vulcan Canberra, observations.

Jacko, yes you are absolutely right, that you should design for the next war. Every fighter I am aware of, pretty much has been. The problem is, that the next war always produces some fairly massive surprises and that has been were the problem lies. The P-51A / A-36, the Me-110 etc, etc, The F-12!!!!

And this is the crux of my point lies. Most good aerodynamicists/pilots can look at a threat platform and pretty much predict it's performance in comparison to their own. What they can't predict, (thought they can often guess) is Pilot training, C3I, logistics, yaddah yaddah yaddah…..

The Flatus point, that cost, not the OR is often the constraining factor is very germane, incisive, and obvious and I feel a prat for not having spotted it. Some has mentioned to me that the one of the factors as to why EFA took so much time to develop was because it was more OR driven than Cost and the OR was constantly changing. (Wonder why?)

Granted, since the last 30 years (design and service cycle) has seen something like a 45-50% reduction in the types of fighter and combat aircraft fielded. N.B.> Types not numbers, this is now becoming less of a challenge. Typhoon can pretty much predict it's future threat, better than the F-104, F-4 or F3 could.

Red Snow. IMO, you are just about correct in your analysis of the VNAF tactics, and I have been re-scrutinising the BoB losses you mention. I don’t think you are that wrong. The 109 certainly was a fearsome aircraft, especially in the armament stakes, but not as good a turner as the Spit.

[Flatus Veteranus]

Don't feel a prat, L'n S; or if you must, console yourself that you are of a mind with the Int and OR staffs. I don't know whether the busty ladies who adorn the Whitehall Gardens entrance to the Mad House will survive the current refurbishment (they are are relics of the building's Board of Trade days and are supposed to represent plenteouness). If they do there ought to be inscribed over the entrance "'Neath these Tits have passed some Bigger Ones". :)

[Jackonicko]

Some early VNAF kills were high speed slash attacks - they'd been trained to use guns (didn't have 'owt else), whereas the bulk of US fighters were missle only at the start of the war. They were prepared and equipped for the close-in turning fight (with the -17 at lower speeds, with the -21 at all).

Re BoB. There is no accurate source of kills and losses by type. Kill claims were grossly over-exaggerated (and in the RAF, the extent of exaggeration varied by unit - No.41 claimed kills on days when enemy aircraft were lost in that area, at the right time, while No.242, for instance claimed large numbers of enemy aircraft on days when the Germans lost nothing at all!) and losses were often ascribed to causes other than enemy action, even when enemy action was the cause - and vice versa. Trying to assess exactly what type achieved what is a minefield! But, generally speaking, the Spit seems to have done better (in expert or experienced hands) than the 109 - you shouldn't count the fresh units manned by 20 hr FOs, really - the Luftwaffe didn't have any!

Re Ram-designations.

Ram- is short for Ramenskoye, the town nearest to the LII test centre at Zhukhovskii. They were provisional reporting names (perhaps US, rather than NATO ASCC?) allocated to aircraft seen at 'Ramenskoye' (as we thought Zhuk was called) before a type entered service and thus became eligible for a 'proper' ASCC name.

The Ram-J, -K and -L designations dated from late '77 when the 9-12, T10 and T8 (MiG-29, Su-27 and Su-25 prototypes) were at Zhuk. for their initial flight trials. The MiG-29 entered frontline service in 1983, with three Regiments, one at Kubinka, one at Ros, and I can't remember the third. The 'Fulcrum' designation probably appeared when the first ones reached the GSFG (Group of Sov Forces in Germany).

109 vs I-16 is an interesting one, with a real contrast between Spain and Barbarossa. Maybe Stalin's purges, leaving the Red Air Force denuded of anyone remotely capable explains the one-sided result as much as the merits and de-merits of any aircraft type involved. I believe that even Hs 123 dive bombers got air-to-air kills in '41 on the Ostfront!

[ 20 August 2001: Message edited by: Jackonicko ]

[Low and Slow]

Here are some stats on the first 18 months of air-air combat in SE-ASIA, not including the C-123 T-28 shoot down in Feb 64

Apr-65 to Jul-66

VNAF downed 23 US Aircraft. Icluding one Drone
18 by Mig-17 - Cannon
1 by Mig 19 - Cannon
3 unknown, but at least one was Mig 21 - Mar 66

US losses, were by significant type were
6 - F-105D
6 - F4
2 - F-104
4 - F-8/RF-8

US downed 26 aircraft.
25 Mig 17
1 Mig 21

7 kills by cannon,
1 by manoeuvre
18 by missile

F-4' scored 16 kills
F-8' scored 4 kills
F-105 cored 3 kills
A-1 got 2
And F-100 got one

Yeah, yeah, I am sad Air power history geek! But judging by the 5 or 6 e-mails I have some people a re interested.

[Busta]

L&S

Lots of stuff in this thread but nobody has mentioned the pk of AAM's; it's got better over the years but despite the sales patter it's still fairly dire.

I had the pleasure of flying F4's for the best part of ten years and enjoyed several practice firings; despite carefully controlled conditions, lots of practice and well prepared systems the results were problematic - as far as I know aim9l's and seasplash are still in use.

So even with BVR and 'over your shoulder' the outcome is uncertain before countermeasures are considered. You may not plan on a knife fight in a telephone box but it can't be ignored. As I recall, during a 1v1 ( or worse! ) whilst a lot of effort was spent trying for a 'close in' missile or guns kill, at least half of what little brain power remained was looking for a way out. With a more manouvreable airplane than an F4 (not difficult) and no gun I think that all my effort would be directed towards fighting another day!

As a matter of interest, during TLP I had the unrepeatable experience of watching guns tracking film on an RCAF F18 taken by a GAF F104, 2 seconds on the back of the canopy - JAM THAT!

Be careful out there.

[Jetsbest]

L&S and others,
Re Vietnam there are a couple of good boks covering the US perspective of the air war. Try 'Scream of Eagles' by Robert K. Wilcox (about the formation of Topgun) and 'On Yankee Station' by Cdr John B. Nichols and Barrett Tillman (about the USN air war). Another less known book which I found astounding in its analysis of the Vietnam air war is 'Clashes' by Marshall L. Mitchell III, printed in 1997 in the USA. The detailed (at times day-by-day) breakdown of combat results and changing tactics, along with political and man-management decisions in the U.S. corridors of power, explained a lot to me about the kill ratios between USA and NVNAF. You may find it a useful adjunct to your research. It's a clinical and analytical kind of'Thud Ridge' using declassified combat reports as its basis.
The most amazing ineptitude, in my mind, was the decision by USAF planners not to send anyone (except volunteers) for a second tour to the conflict until everyone had a 'combat tour'. This resulted in poorly trained (ie F-4 interceptor conversion with NO ACM!) ex-transport pilots being sent to strike Nth Vietnam with less than 100 hours on type! The book is riddled with accounts of aircraft losses and crew bailout/capture/death because they departed controlled flight in the first breakturn of an engagement. Couple these factors with the convoluted Rules of Engagement (ROE) applied by politcal masters and the whole story is another sobering lesson in how not to fight.
Maybe that's all obvious, but the best equipment/weapons and bravest of dedicated crews is no use if you are forced to play into the hands of the enemy, in this case largely by their own side!
As an ex-fighter pilot though, let me say that every fighter pilot, even a rookie, has one more thing in their favour if they have manoeuvrability AND all the rest...that lesson was reinforced me on more than one occasion! But it can still all come back to the old adage, 'I'd rather be lucky than good!'
ps good thread

[Sadbloke]

Top Thread - When John Farley agrees with Folks, you know you've hit the spot! Having flown whippy, turning, multi-role, Uncle Sam designed jets on exchange and then our Wasteofspace examples, I have to confess, I would rather go to war in our US cousins' machines. Having said that, I have recently done 'Ops' in the F3 and had no fears that despite the opposition having more manoeuvrable ac, I would whip their butts with my vastly superior weapons system.

Beags - As I've said before - hugely respect most of yer views, but I'm thinking you have a slight hangup against us F3 Dudes - Pray tell of yer switch fm F4's to gas station driver - no bad feelings there perchance?

[BEagle]

No mate - nothing at all against F3 dudes! Just huge sympathy for flying the least manoeuvrable 'fighter' in the world. Bureaufighter will be vastly better, but now that the F3 is at a state which it should have been when it entered service, in a Link 16 (particulalry BVR) environment, the usual synergy of RAF training and tactics - even hampered by the flight envelope of the aeroplane - means that as a weapons system, F3 is pretty good. When it's serviceable of course!

Re. my F4 to VC10 - I don't hide the fact that, despite having been operational on the jet for 18 months, I didn't make the required 'rate of progress' that was expected. Hence I was re-streamed; incidentally, I disliked the lifestyle prevailing at the time with a vengeance. For example, despite having lived-out for the previous 3 years, they expected me to live in the Mess for the first 6 months! Fortunately I challenged this successfully - the little to$$er who was my Flt Cdr thought that I was mad when I said "Sorry - not prepared to put up with such crap; let me live out or post me back to the grown-up world I just came from!" I thought (privately) that the 'leadership' was poor, counselling non-existent and the alcohol-fuelled rat-packs and cliques highly damaging and divisive. No room for individuals - you had to go with the herd!! There were a few good guys such as the highly professional QWI navigator, the GAF exchange officers were brilliant. But there were too many beer, bull$hit and bravado people around for my liking.......

[Flatus Veteranus]

The Vulcan stealthy? That's a laugh! The fighter jocks told us it stuck out like - er, you know what!

In this age of AWACs, how important is a powerful AI radar to a fighter? I heard the EF criticised, when the first mock-up was revealed, for having insufficient space for a decent sized scanner (compared to its contemporaries and potential adversaries).

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

By god but the Vulcan was one hell of an aircraft. Sorry but I just had to say that.

My last boss was ex-Vulcan and I now have such admiration for aircraft. Any news of getting the last one flying again?

Off topic I know,

WWW

[Sadbloke]

Beags

Nice one - luckily when I joined the same force, I wuz only 12, hence living in the Mess seemed a good deal! Seems like you stumbled on a duff outfit - with Germs on board - probably in Suffolk. Whilst there were cliques as you mention, as I've discovered in most outfits - good times come and go - just have to 'go with the flow at the mo'. My experience of 'bucking the system' normally ends in tears - eg flying tankers! (Just banter - no offence intended)Had some top service from you boys over the years - esp in some tricky, unmentionable places where tankers have appeared as if by magic just as I was dreaming up my 'running out of gas' excuses!

Soz to drift off thread.

[Magic Mushroom]

Flatus,
Beware assuming that AWACS (or any other AEW&C platform for that matter) is the all seeing god of the air. Whilst it is generally considered an essential asset for any major op, we have limitations. In the BH NFZ, political constraints placed our orbits in areas which meant we were looking across the steep and narrow valley's of the region. It was therefore important for the CAP assets to be able to augment Magic's picture by looking down the valley's with their own sensors. Given the increasing likeleyhood of coming up against a long ranged mobile SAM such as SA-10/12 etc, AWACS(not to mention SIGINT, AAR and all your other high value assets) will be forced to retire to a considerable distance from the threat in the next punch up.
Even given improvements in the E-3 capabilities with RSIP, this will reduce AWACS sensor (and comms) coverage.
Therefore, until HMG invest in decent self protection systems for our multies (ECM, DIRCM, TRD etc) or UAVs become able to act as bistatic sensors/relays for AWACS/SIGINT, it will remain important for tomorrows fast jets to maintain a robust sensor capability.
However, your comment highlights something that has not been touched upon much in this thread. Information superiority is now essential for air superiority.
Regards,
M2

[BEagle]

Which presumably means that it was a good idea to fit JTIDS to certain tankers - so that not only did the crew have decent SA and could expedite RVs with thirsty customers, but could also link the picture from F3 back to E3 and vice versa?

But although it worked very well, the usual bleat came up: "There's no money to support it", so the world first in JTIDS which the RAF briefly had was thrown away..........

[stillin1]

Beags - yep JTIDS all over the place would have been great. In fact to get in ALL the F3s would have been kinda good!!! Shoot the penny pinchin, ignorant Tw@@ts I say. Gimme more GOOD toys. :mad:

[BEagle]

Our JTIDS went from the first paper being written on 9 May 99 to a successful VC10 test flight on 29 Sep 99; the system became operational in Oct 99. The prime contractor worked all hours of the day and night and we had the luxury of a large screen colour display! That was all achieved under a UOR; if it had been a conventional programme, it would have taken much longer but would have been particularly Gucci!
I once flew a VC10 sortie over the North Sea with both JTIDS and RWR working 100% as they should; the SA was amazing and enabled us to do everything we'd always said we could. We were still seeing the AWACS over Scotland as we flew the approach at Brize.......
So I am absolutely sold on the idea of data links in tankers and other HVAAs, it was a real shame that we received such poor support from the Wyton shiny-ar$es and our Group staffs whilst we had the kit. Let's just hope that a better job is done on FSTA............

[Magic Mushroom]

BEagle,
I am a huge fan of JTIDS on you AAR chaps, however, you may have missed the point a little regarding 'linking the F3 picture back to the AWACS.' I was thinking more of a high SAM threat area where no HVAA can venture. Therefore, if AWACS was unable to go there, then AAR wouldn't either. However, AAR are an excellent platform to use as 'gateways' to, for instance, retransmit JTIDS data as IDM data or vice versa. Basically however, as BEags has discovered, a link picture amazes assets who have not come across that sort of SA before. JTIDS is NOT just an AD link!!!! It is also very amusing to send text messages to fast jet mates describing how the in flt curry is going down! Trouble with JTIDS is that until the knobbers at CAA/FAA are persuaded that multi nets will not cause every airliner to instantly drop out of the sky, there just aren't enough time slots to go around for everyone.
Regards,
M2

[BEagle]

Inded, MM, the biggest problem with JTIDS is definitely the CAA and its restrictions! The system was once described as 'the most significant development since radar'. Shame we can't apparently afford it.......

[ 28 August 2001: Message edited by: BEagle ]

[NoseGunner]

As magic said JTIDS amazes anyone who hasn't seen it. Everyone needs it now, but unfortunately that aint gonna happen.

It is very satisfying showing to yanks - they get a bit of a shock when they realise that the F3s have by far the greatest SA of any FJ - hurrah, we have 1 thing better than them! Pity they are buying thousands and will rapidly overtake us.

Just on the "do fighters need decent radars" bit. Err, yes. For lots of reasons.
:p

[Met-Loada]

Zzzzzzz!! :D