Air-to-Air dogfighter champ?
F6F's loss ratio was inevitably assisted by the fact that by late 1943 most of the decent Japanese stickmen were dead or (rarely) captured, and the aircraft were obsolete or obsolescent. The few decent aircraft the Japanese were able to field were hamstrung by tactics, inexperience and a lack of Avgas.
The same could be said for the F15 kill ratio - have they ever come up against quality opponents backed up by their own AWACS etc?
Strange - no one has mentioned the F3 yet...
Dead Pan,
The question was about F15, 16 and 18 in a visual fight. I've never found AWACS terribly useful in that scenario.
F-3 wasn't (sorry, isn't) a fighter.
The question was about F15, 16 and 18 in a visual fight. I've never found AWACS terribly useful in that scenario.
F-3 wasn't (sorry, isn't) a fighter.
Easy Street
Night dogfighting, now that would be a real danger sport!
Er, yes.
Late 60s, Middle East Hunter FGA9 Sqn. Me leading pair bouncing 4-ship dusk strike in very dusky conditions. All ac lights out at low level. We meet the opposition head on (far too close for comfort!) and rack it round into a turning match.
Result: everyone loses visual straight away because it’s dark – somebody should have thought of that! Also fortunate, because if we’d carried on someone would have speared in for sure.
Happy Cold War days!
Night dogfighting, now that would be a real danger sport!
Er, yes.
Late 60s, Middle East Hunter FGA9 Sqn. Me leading pair bouncing 4-ship dusk strike in very dusky conditions. All ac lights out at low level. We meet the opposition head on (far too close for comfort!) and rack it round into a turning match.
Result: everyone loses visual straight away because it’s dark – somebody should have thought of that! Also fortunate, because if we’d carried on someone would have speared in for sure.
Happy Cold War days!
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Sussex UK
Age: 66
Posts: 6,995
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
A few years ago, I was flying south somewhere near Wellingborough with a student doing his PPL Skill Test navigation diversion. Glancing out of the window, I was somewhat surprised to see a DR 1 flying north.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Midlands
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
that has little to do with real life capability in the Air-Air arena.
Last edited by Justanopinion; 25th Feb 2013 at 15:07.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Belgium
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think you make my point with the Vietnam example. The kill:loss ratio didn't suddenly improve because the US introduced a 9G wonder jet, it improved because they started to (re)train their aircrew proper BFM and improved on the weapons.
I'm not saying turn performance isn't useful, it is, but it isn't everything - it's not even top 3 important imho.
EDIT: But it does look good and it is fun!
I'm not saying turn performance isn't useful, it is, but it isn't everything - it's not even top 3 important imho.
EDIT: But it does look good and it is fun!
Last edited by Backwards PLT; 25th Feb 2013 at 17:25.
Backwards PLT,
I agree completely with most of what you say, but would just add this. Turn performance isn't just for a turning fight. The use of high energy manoeuvre at range costs incoming missiles a huge amount of energy and is, therefore, an important feature for air superiority/dominance fighters. Its benefit at closer range is obvious.
I understand your reticence in joining the debate, given the narrow scope of the question (which is still a valid one for interest). Perhaps it's time for another, all encompassing air-to-air tactics and hardware debate.
I agree completely with most of what you say, but would just add this. Turn performance isn't just for a turning fight. The use of high energy manoeuvre at range costs incoming missiles a huge amount of energy and is, therefore, an important feature for air superiority/dominance fighters. Its benefit at closer range is obvious.
I understand your reticence in joining the debate, given the narrow scope of the question (which is still a valid one for interest). Perhaps it's time for another, all encompassing air-to-air tactics and hardware debate.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Belgium
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Courtney
Agreed. 5G at 40k and M1.2 is more important than 9G at SL and 400kts. Discuss!
But that would be thread hijack............
Agreed. 5G at 40k and M1.2 is more important than 9G at SL and 400kts. Discuss!
But that would be thread hijack............
Last edited by Backwards PLT; 25th Feb 2013 at 17:38.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Midlands
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PLT I suppose I was confused as to your point then.
The original question was
You said that this (dogfighting) had little to do with "real life capability in the Air to Air arena" and then countered that improved BFM skills improved the kill: loss ratio in Vietnam.
I am more than in agreement that 9g capability is not everything as per my earlier post.
The original question was
which jet holds the advantage in dogfighting
I am more than in agreement that 9g capability is not everything as per my earlier post.
justanopinion,
I think the point is that
is, on its own, not a particularly relevant question to real-world capability, because the questions:
I think the point is that
which jet holds the advantage in dogfighting
- Which jet?
- Which weapons?
- Which role? (mud, swing, pure A-A)
- Which tactics?
- How much experience?
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Earth
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"I'm not saying turn performance isn't useful, it is, but it isn't everything - it's not even top 3 important imho."
Airliners can do the rest just fine (large radar, long legs, large load, etc.).
My 2c, anyway.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: NW FL
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When I went through UPT in the early '90s immediately post GWI, our flight commander was an F15C guy from the 33rd Nomads - they of 'combat kill' legend. 
On one of the many weather days at Columbus, one of the young studs asked what it was like to dogfight the other blue air. The reply was something along the lines of, "Take them vertical until they run out of energy, then roll in and kill them."
He said some of the very early F16A models had some built in software that was smarter than the pilot and would "recover" by rolling to the nearest horizon once it got too slow.
He said the F14 would swing its wings out once it got low on energy.
He said the F18 was the hardest to tell, so you just took them up until they couldn't stand it anymore.
He also told me their bold face/CAP was pretty simple, "Throttle good engine - as required".
On one of the many weather days at Columbus, one of the young studs asked what it was like to dogfight the other blue air. The reply was something along the lines of, "Take them vertical until they run out of energy, then roll in and kill them."
He said some of the very early F16A models had some built in software that was smarter than the pilot and would "recover" by rolling to the nearest horizon once it got too slow.
He said the F14 would swing its wings out once it got low on energy.
He said the F18 was the hardest to tell, so you just took them up until they couldn't stand it anymore.
He also told me their bold face/CAP was pretty simple, "Throttle good engine - as required".
Last edited by US Herk; 25th Feb 2013 at 23:13.
Minor thread hijack:
The overwhelming opinion was that the BVR missiles were junk - proved by the US experience in Vietnam. I was of the understanding that there was ROE that meant the bad guys had to be visually ID'd before letting fly - and when your opposition was as small and fast as a Mig 21, that meant letting them get inside the minimum engagement envelope of the Sparrows.
How much of the poor missile success was because of the restrictive ROE? Was there even a restrictive ROE? Or was it more to do with the early missiles developmental immaturity?
Thanks.
The overwhelming opinion was that the BVR missiles were junk - proved by the US experience in Vietnam. I was of the understanding that there was ROE that meant the bad guys had to be visually ID'd before letting fly - and when your opposition was as small and fast as a Mig 21, that meant letting them get inside the minimum engagement envelope of the Sparrows.
How much of the poor missile success was because of the restrictive ROE? Was there even a restrictive ROE? Or was it more to do with the early missiles developmental immaturity?
Thanks.