Yup, any type would perform well in a turkey shoot.

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.

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!

Was it a lover?

It swung both ways......

B/S referred to the other two types not every other fighter built...

Then I'll bet that was G-FOKK ... the Jasta Binks replica DR 1 out Sywell :ok:

http://www.jastabinksaviation.com/6077tvg.JPG

Wasn't that the same opinion prior to Vietnam; we have missiles now, BFM is dead? How did that go?

F6F
 

Still had to knock them down and in huge numbers

But didn't a MiG 29 get hosed by a lady flying a Su-27 in 1999?

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!

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. :E

Courtney

Agreed. 5G at 40k and M1.2 is more important than 9G at SL and 400kts. Discuss!

But that would be thread hijack............

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.

justanopinion,

I think the point is that
is, on its own, not a particularly relevant question to real-world capability, because the questions:

• Which jet?
• Which weapons?
• Which role? (mud, swing, pure A-A)
• Which tactics?
• How much experience?

(amongst others) all need to be considered together if a meaningful answer is to be obtained.

Useful, but it all depends - on many, many things. Kinetic anywhere is the key.

We getting back to Boyd, energy and OODA Loop?

I'd say the energy (and turning performance as its indicator) is crucial, for any kind of air-air activity, particularly in a small FIR.
Airliners can do the rest just fine (large radar, long legs, large load, etc.).
My 2c, anyway.

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". :E

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.