FJ or Fighter Pilots HARD QUESTIONS
 

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) :)

Grow up.

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 ]

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!!!!

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 ?

"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:

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.

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. ;)

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!

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?)

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.

What reasons? Give us all a clue. ;)

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 ]

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.

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.............

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. ;)

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.......

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 ]

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:

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. :)