hnkst2@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Hanhwe N. Kim) (04/17/91)
From: "Hanhwe N. Kim" <hnkst2@unix.cis.pitt.edu> I have a question about the 2-seater planes the US navy likes: Can the guy in the back seat bring the plane home if the pilot is incapacitated in any way? And generalizing from there, why are 2-seaters considered more survivable? Recently in Korea, the air force reversed an earlier decision to get f-18's and got f-16's instead. In the previous debates, it was argued that pilots liked the f-18 better because of its higher survivability due to its being a 2-seater. Obviously, there are positive human factors from dividing the workload, but are there purely technical factors involved as well? Just curious. -Han Kim
silber@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Ami A. Silberman) (04/18/91)
From: silber@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Ami A. Silberman) The Bristol Br-f2/b (in service from 1916 or early 17 into at least the early thirties) had ruder and elevator controls in the rear cockpit. (I don't think that the engine had throttle controls, many of the WWI planes didn't.) It was sometimes used for insertion of agents behind enemy lines as well. ami silberman - janitor of lunacy
consp04@bingsuns.cc.binghamton.edu (Dan Boyd) (04/19/91)
From: consp04@bingsuns.cc.binghamton.edu (Dan Boyd) hnkst2@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Hanhwe N. Kim) writes: > In the previous debates, it was argued that pilots liked the f-18 > better because of its higher survivability due to its being a > 2-seater. The F-18 is a single-seater. The two-seat version is a trainer. It's not supposed to be used in combat. > Obviously, there are positive human factors from dividing the workload, > but are there purely technical factors involved as well? The single best all-around sensing device for air combat is the Mark I Eyeball. Adding another guy adds another pair of eyes. This is extremely important. This can save your life. Watch some of the fighter engagements in 'Top Gun'. You'll note that the main function of the pilot is to fly the airplane and look out the window, and the main function of the RIO is to work the radars and look out the window. You can tell the back-seater to keep his eyes on something while you do something else. The HOTAS concept (Hands On Throttle And Stick) is, in some sense, important for similar reasons as touch-typing. HOTAS means all the controls you're likely to need during a dogfight are implemented as switches and buttons on the throttle and stick, so you don't have to let go to do things.. A touch-typist can look for mistakes in the copy because he doesn't have to look at the keyboard to hit keys. A pilot in a HOTAS-configured cockpit can concentrate on the single highest priority in air combat maneuvering: Looking Out the Window. Daniel F. Boyd consp04@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu
PAISLEY%auvm.auvm.edu@VM1.gatech.edu (04/19/91)
From: <PAISLEY%auvm.auvm.edu@VM1.gatech.edu> The backseater in most navy fighter-attack type aircraft is a navigation/ weapons person. His job is to keep track of the enemy fighters or ground targets so that the pilot can concentrate on flying the plane. Since the pilot doesn't have to worry about such details, he can concentrate on flying and just let the backseater tell him where to go. In this sense, such aircraft are more survivable. Besides that, there isn't a huge difference. Almost any casualty that took the pilot out would either destroy the plane outright, or get the backseater, too. Even if he lived through something like this, the backseater can't 'drive' the plane anyway--he doesn't have the controls to do so. L. Gordon Paisley, paisley@auvm.auvm.edu THE AMERICAN UNIVERSITY WASHINGTON, DC USA
scott@xcf.Berkeley.EDU (Scott Silvey) (04/19/91)
From: scott@xcf.Berkeley.EDU (Scott Silvey) > From: "Hanhwe N. Kim" <hnkst2@unix.cis.pitt.edu> > And generalizing from there, why are 2-seaters considered more > survivable? > get f-18's and got f-16's instead. In the previous debates, it was > argued that pilots liked the f-18 better because of its higher > survivability due to its being a 2-seater. I know that aircraft with a weapons officer tends to do better in combat because (as you meantioned), the work load gets divided. Also, the extra pair of eyes helps tremendously in spotting potential threats. The positive impact of the backseater has been demonstrated in mock dogfights. The weapons officer can keep an eye out for threatening aircraft while the pilot concentrates on lining up his target. I wasn't aware that South Korea was interested in purchasing F-18B's. Another reason these might be considered more survivable is the fact that they have two engines. If one gets damaged, the plane can often make it home on the other. -- Scott Silvey scott@xcf.berkeley.edu Flames to /dev/null
shafer@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) (04/19/91)
From: Mary Shafer <shafer@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov> Hanhwe N. Kim <hnkst2@unix.cis.pitt.edu> writes: > I have a question about the 2-seater planes the US navy likes: > Can the guy in the back seat bring the plane home if the pilot > is incapacitated in any way? No. If it has a back seat and is operational, it cannot be flown from the back seat. Just to explain the slightly evasive working in that sentence, there are two kinds of F-18 two-seaters. The F-18B has no controls in the back seat. The TF-18A, however, does have controls in the back seat, although you can't do everything back there. You can't, for example, shut down the engines. The catch is that there were no production TF-18s built. There were three preproduction TF-18As built and we (Dryden) have one of them. I don't know where the others are. So, in real life or the Navy (you pick), the F-18 cannot be flown from the back seat. The F-14 is the same. > And generalizing from there, why are 2-seaters considered more > survivable? By whom? The two-seaters are regarded as more effective in the high workload tasks. Good examples of this are the F-4 Wild Weasel, with the F-4 being selected because it was a two-seater. The F-15E is also a two-seater, with the air-to-ground task regarded as a very high-workload task. (I'd better add that there are other considerations, before the nitpickers start pointing at the F-117. Who knows, it might be a lot better with a WSO.) You also have twice as many people looking for the enemy. But better at surviving battle damage--no. In fact, the two-seat versions of the F-15, F-16, and F-18 are more departure prone, particularly with a centerline store. And we all know that the F-14 has a nasty departure problem, as did the F-4. > Recently in Korea, the air force reversed an earlier decision to > get f-18's and got f-16's instead. In the previous debates, it was > argued that pilots liked the f-18 better because of its higher > survivability due to its being a 2-seater. The F-18B is a two-seater, but the A is a single seater. The F-16B and D are two-seaters, the A and C are single seaters. You can order either style in either plane. -- Mary Shafer shafer@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov ames!skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov!shafer NASA Ames Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA Of course I don't speak for NASA "A MiG at your six is better than no MiG at all"--Unknown US fighter pilot
ltf@ncmicro.lonestar.org (Lance Franklin) (04/19/91)
From: ltf@ncmicro.lonestar.org (Lance Franklin) }From: "Hanhwe N. Kim" <hnkst2@unix.cis.pitt.edu> }I have a question about the 2-seater planes the US navy likes: }Can the guy in the back seat bring the plane home if the pilot }is incapacitated in any way? }And generalizing from there, why are 2-seaters considered more survivable? I beleive the Navy liked the F18 better because it had 2 engines, not two seats. Two engines means that if one goes out on final approach to the carrier, you still have power to maneuver. In a single engine aircraft, you're in the water. }Recently in Korea, the air force reversed an earlier decision to }get f-18's and got f-16's instead. In the previous debates, it was }argued that pilots liked the f-18 better because of its higher }survivability due to its being a 2-seater. My memory may be playing tricks with me, but I beleive the F16 comes in a two-seat version as well. Confirmation? -- Lance T. Franklin ltf@ncmicro.lonestar.org
jabishop@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu (Jonathan A Bishop) (04/19/91)
From: jabishop@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu (Jonathan A Bishop) ltf@ncmicro.lonestar.org (Lance Franklin) writes: >My memory may be playing tricks with me, but I beleive the F16 comes >in a two-seat version as well. Confirmation? Yes. The F-16B is a two seat trainer counterpart to the A model. The F-16D is a counterpart to the C. -- jabishop@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu
jln@leland.stanford.edu (Jared Nedzel) (04/19/91)
From: jln@leland.stanford.edu (Jared Nedzel) >From: "Hanhwe N. Kim" <hnkst2@unix.cis.pitt.edu> >I have a question about the 2-seater planes the US navy likes: >Can the guy in the back seat bring the plane home if the pilot >is incapacitated in any way?, Some 2 seat planes have sticks in back, some don't. The back seater is not a pilot, so he may or may not be able to land the plane (provided, of course, that he has a stick in the first place). >And generalizing from there, why are 2-seaters considered more survivable? That's not the reason that some people think that 2-seaters are more survivable. The advantage of a 2-seater is that you have 2 sets of eyes during air combat. >Recently in Korea, the air force reversed an earlier decision to >get f-18's and got f-16's instead. In the previous debates, it was >argued that pilots liked the f-18 better because of its higher >survivability due to its being a 2-seater. You've made a bit of a mistake here. The F-18 is primarily a single-seater. Korea originally chose the F-18 because it has 2 engines, while the F-16 only has one. This was considered especially important because Korea is a peninsula nation, so many flights are over water. Many feel that twin-engine planes are more survivable than single-engine planes. >Obviously, there are positive human factors from dividing the workload, >but are there purely technical factors involved as well? >Just curious. There were several other issues in Korea's decision not to get the F-18. First off, the price on the F-18 escalated significantly, resulting in a significantly lower price for the F-16. Second, the F-18 has a much shorter range than the F-16. Recent issues of Aviation Week have covered this story -- you can probably find them in your engineering library. -- Jared L. Nedzel nedzel@cive.stanford.edu jln@portia.stanford.edu
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (04/19/91)
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >From: <PAISLEY%auvm.auvm.edu@VM1.gatech.edu> >the backseater can't 'drive' the plane anyway--he doesn't have the controls >to do so. Depends on the aircraft, and indeed the exact model of aircraft. If I recall correctly, one of the minor changes made to the Phantom when the USAF adopted it was flight controls for the backseater. -- And the bean-counter replied, | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology "beans are more important". | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
tighe@convex.com (Mike Tighe) (04/20/91)
From: tighe@convex.com (Mike Tighe) From: "Hanhwe N. Kim" <hnkst2@unix.cis.pitt.edu> > I have a question about the 2-seater planes the US navy likes: Can the guy > in the back seat bring the plane home if the pilot is incapacitated in any > way? (Two assumptions: 1) rear seater knows how to fly the plane, 2) excludes two-seat trainer versions.) Depends on the specific plane, and then even on the specific configuration of the plane. I know some versions of the F-4 allowed the back seater to fly. I don't know if they all did. The proposed F-18F will have two-seats. The rear seat can be configured with either stick & throttle, or weapons systems controllers. So this the F-18F will vary configuration to configuration. (AW&ST 25-Mar-91, p. 25) > And generalizing from there, why are 2-seaters considered more survivable? ^^^^^^^ > In the previous debates, it was argued that pilots > liked the f-18 better because of its higher survivability due to its being > a 2-seater. ^^^^^^ I think you meant 2 engines. From: Lance Franklin > My memory may be playing tricks with me, but I beleive the F16 comes in a > two-seat version as well. Confirmation? I think your memory is recalling the F-15E, which is a two seater. -- Mike Tighe, Internet: tighe@convex.com, Voice: (214) 497-4206
greg@sif.claremont.edu (Tigger) (04/22/91)
From: Tigger <greg@sif.claremont.edu> ltf@ncmicro.lonestar.org (Lance Franklin) writes: > My memory may be playing tricks with me, but I beleive the F16 comes > in a two-seat version as well. Confirmation? As a trainer, yes. My impressions is that such planes really aren't intended for combat. Can someone with the appropriate references tell us the differences between the single and double seat versions of the F-16? Is the rear seat an exact duplicate of the front (as its job as a trainer would suggest) or can it serve as a 'weapons' position similar to the role of the back seat in an F-14? Can the two-seater carry the same ordnance as the single seater? -- Greg Orman greg@pomona.claremont.edu
tafi3@syma.sussex.ac.uk (Ian Deeley) (04/22/91)
From: Ian Deeley <tafi3@syma.sussex.ac.uk> Whilst not strictly relevant, I thought fellow dot mil netters might be interested in an article which appeared in our national press last week. It concerned a two seater Tornado (unspecified type #), in which the "back seater" with no pilot training at all, brought back & landed the aircraft after the pilots parachute had deployed in flight, & disabled the unfortunate pilot. The story brought a terse "no comment" from the MOD. Which usally means the facts are quite accurate! -- Ian Deeley School of Applied Science BITNET tafi3%syma.susx.ac.uk@uk.ac University of Sussex JANET tafi3@uk.ac.susx.syma England
amichiel@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Allen J Michielsen) (04/23/91)
From: amichiel@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Allen J Michielsen) henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >>From: <PAISLEY%auvm.auvm.edu@VM1.gatech.edu> >>the backseater can't 'drive' the plane anyway--he doesn't have the controls >If I recall correctly, one of the minor changes made to the Phantom when the >USAF adopted it was flight controls for the backseater. I think you will find all F4's in service for the U.S. or NATO have dual controls. Further, without finding the written ref's, I believe it's true that only prototypes or thereabouts were made with single controls. The total number was about 12 if I recall. More importantly, while the backseat has a 'set o controls' he doesn't have a full set. He can't select throttle settings over 100% (no afterburner) {but he can deselect afterburners, and once in after he can move within that range}, no flap settings (up or down), no gear control (up or down), and limitations on the ejection system (he can eject himself but not the pilot only or both of them {activate the ejection system}). I also believe that the backseat can- not operate the fuel control system and has different limitations on the radio and intercom than the front seat. -- Al. Michielsen, Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering, Syracuse University InterNet: amichiel@rodan.acs.syr.edu amichiel@sunrise.acs.syr.edu
vince@cerberus.bhpese.oz.au (Vince Stanton) (04/23/91)
From: vince@cerberus.bhpese.oz.au (Vince Stanton) [EIGHTEEN lines of unneeded quoted text deleted. :-( --CDR] ltf@ncmicro.lonestar.org (Lance Franklin) writes: >My memory may be playing tricks with me, but I beleive the F16 comes >in a two-seat version as well. Confirmation? Yes, both the 18 and the 16 came with two-seat variants. TF/A-18L - tandem two-seat dual-control vesion of the F/A-18L for transitional training; retaining full tactical capability. CF-18B - tandem two-seat dual-control trainer. EF-18B - tandem two-seat dual control derivative of single- seat EF-18A for the Spanish A/F. F-16B - two-seat operational trainer/multi-role fighter. F-16D - two-seat dual-control version of the F-16C with :- fighter, close support, tactical strike, tactical recon AND trainer capability. There is also a vesion designated F-16E, formerly F-16XL which is the 'cranked arrow' vesion, also comes with the dual-seat variant. -- Vince STANTON BHP Information Technology, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. INTERNET: vince@bhpese.oz.au PHONE: +61 49 402102
scott@xcf.Berkeley.EDU (Scott Silvey) (04/23/91)
From: scott@xcf.Berkeley.EDU (Scott Silvey) jln@leland.stanford.edu (Jared Nedzel) writes: |> You've made a bit of a mistake here. The F-18 is primarily a single-seater. Actually, the F-18B is a two-seater. I suppose some are trainers and some perhaps have a weapons officer. All of Canada's F-18's are two-seat F-18's. Scott Silvey scott@xcf.berkeley.edu
jabishop@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu (Jonathan A Bishop) (04/24/91)
From: jabishop@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu (Jonathan A Bishop) [11 lines of unnecessary quote deleted. --CDR] I don't know if this is the general case, but I know for sure that the back seater in a Wild Weasel has flight controls. -- jabishop@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu
dela@thermal.ee.rochester.edu (Del Armstrong) (04/24/91)
From: dela@thermal.ee.rochester.edu (Del Armstrong) > [lots of discussion about which planes have flight controls for the > Guy In Back] Maybe somebody already posted this and I missed it? My understanding has always been that the Navy (and Marines) don't believe in letting the backseater fly, and the Air Force does. I've always assumed that this was because the Navy expects a pilot to be able to land on a carrier, and a backseater probably wouldn't get enough traps to stay proficient. (Actually, I wonder if the backseater of some planes has the required visibility to land on a carrier?) Del Armstrong (dela@ee.rochester.edu)
AERE6921%Ryerson.CA@VM1.gatech.edu (04/25/91)
From: <AERE6921%Ryerson.CA@VM1.gatech.edu> I beg to differ with you. Canada's CF-18 are not two-seaters. If you caught the rare pictures of them stationed in the Gulf you can see that they are single seat versions. I'm sure that there are a few two-seat trainers but not the whole fleet. I was out near Cold Lake, Alberta, a few months ago and the planes in the air were single seaters. You can always tell a Canadian CF-18 from the American ones by the false canopy painted underneath the real one. When that planes comeing in at you at a few hundred knots its hard to tell if its right side up or not. But I digress... Sean Martin AERE6921@Ryerson.Ca
A.G.Poole@newcastle.ac.uk (Ford (Alex Poole)) (04/25/91)
From: A.G.Poole@newcastle.ac.uk (Ford (Alex Poole)) >From: Ian Deeley <tafi3@syma.sussex.ac.uk> > Whilst not strictly relevant, I thought fellow dot mil netters >might be interested in an article which appeared in our national press >last week. It concerned a two seater Tornado (unspecified type #), in >which the "back seater" with no pilot training at all, brought back & >landed the aircraft after the pilots parachute had deployed in flight, & >disabled the unfortunate pilot. The story brought a terse "no comment" >from the MOD. Which usally means the facts are quite accurate! What actually happened was the drouge 'chute deployed, after the pilot accidently nudged a lever. Had the full chute deployed, he would have been dragged clear, as happened with a Harrier a few years back (in that case, widely reported at the time, the 'plane kept going over the sea, and there were some nifty pictures taken (somehow) of the plane flying with no canopy or pilot). The navigator didn't actually land the plane, he fed instructions to the pilot, [who] was not disabled, but merely blind, as the drouge was wrapped around his head. How the nav could see with the chute over the canopy wasn't mentioned. BTW, according to the RAF, the navigators are all given basic flying training alongside the pilots, and are only seperated when the pilot goes to the tactical weapons training unit at (I think) RAF Valley. I believe that includes flying a Hawk for a while, but it would still be difficult (though in theory possible) for the nav to land, assuming he had had dual controls in the first place. Incidentally, a friend of mine went in a GR1 simulator last week, after about 12 hours basic traing, and managed to take off, land, and kill two other a/c inbetween. We suspect the supervisor may have made the sim slightly easier for the trip! P.S. It was a GR1. Alex
marks@math.mscs.mu.edu (Mark Storin) (04/26/91)
From: marks@math.mscs.mu.edu (Mark Storin) In regards to the discussion on backseaters: in the navy it had been the policy to use the backseater as a weapons officer. Neither the F4 nor the F14 backseat had controls for flying the aircraft. When the Air Force became interested in the F4 they had the backseat redesigned with flight controls. With the advances in computerised avionics, the trend has been away from weapons control officers as being unnecessary. Hence the two seated versions of aircraft (F15B/D, F16B/D, F18B, etc.) are generally training platforms, though they lend themselves easily to other roles where a second person is required (Wild Weasle). Much arqument has been made over the advantages/disadvantages of a weapons officer in a backseat. Despite advances in avionics and computer controlled radar and weapons systems, it is felt that pilots are still overloaded with data. I've read about F14's in dogfights against more manuverable aircraft gaining the upper hand because the pilot of the F14 was free to fly the aircraft without the distraction of all the data the other pilot had to filter through. In Vietnam Thud drivers routinely disabled sensors and alarms as being too distracting during combat situations. Maybe newer advances in technology will handle even more of the load for pilots. Obviously the services feel this is so, the Navy's F18 is a single seater, and there is no new trend towards two seaters in the Air Force (the YF-22 is a single seater). -Mark A. Storin
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (05/01/91)
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >From: A.G.Poole@newcastle.ac.uk (Ford (Alex Poole)) >[pilot] dragged clear, as happened with a Harrier a few years back (in >that case, widely reported at the time, the 'plane kept going over the >sea, and there were some nifty pictures taken (somehow) of the plane >flying with no canopy or pilot). When air traffic control couldn't raise the pilot, they asked a nearby aircraft on a similar course -- I think it was a C-5A -- to take a look. Presumably someone aboard had a camera. (To head off another query, the most probable cause of the accident was a cockpit map light falling down under the ejection seat and getting caught under an actuating rod when the pilot lowered the seat. The purpose of the flight was equipment testing -- I forget the details -- and since the aircraft was heading more or less into a low sun, it's plausible that after reaching altitude and setting course the pilot would have lowered the seat for a better view of the instruments. Had a small hard object, say the map light, been in the wrong place under the seat, it could have bent the actuating rod enough to fire the parachute-deployment system. A guard was added over the rod.) -- And the bean-counter replied, | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology "beans are more important". | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
curt@uunet.UU.NET (Curt Fennell) (05/09/91)
From: fmrco!curt@uunet.UU.NET (Curt Fennell) I have a couple of comments to add to the backseater discussion: 1. The various Navy/Marine versions of the F-4 do not have flight controls in the back seat. The GIB (Guy In Back) in Navy/Marine F-4's is called a RIO (Radar Intercept Officer) and is a NFO (Naval Flight Officer), not a pilot. NFO's are not trained to fly the aircraft, and although they pick up a lot of knowledge about flying in general and their aircraft in particular, they are not pilots. The AF versions of the F-4 do have flight controls in the back seats (why, I don't know ). The GIB in an AF F-4 is called a WSO (Weapons System Officer) and, I was told, the WSO is a pilot; ie, a guy who is fully qualified to fly the aircraft. Can some AF expert tell me if this is true? If this is true, it would be possible for an AF F-4 to be flown by the WSO if the pilot were incapacitated but not for a Navy/USMC F-4. 2. Basically, the advantage to having a backseater in a fighter/attack aircraft is to divide the workload and allow more efficient use of the systems. In a visual environment, this translates into allowing the pilot to concentrate on manuvering and tracking the target while the GIB checks six for bad guys. Since a significant fraction of air combat losses never even see the aircraft that shoots them (One fighter pilot told me that 80% of air combat losses never see or loose sight of the aircraft that shoots them), the extra pair of eyes becomes a real life-saver. For anecdotal evidence, my brother is a Navy RIO, flying F-14's. He says that in a one vs one visual engagement, the F-15 can easily defeat the F-14, but that in 2 vs 2 ( or more ), the F-14s become the better aircraft, because the backseaters help the F-14s keep track of the other aircraft in the fight. "I want SOMEBODY back there, even if it's a scared Lance-Corporal!" -Unknown Marine Fighter pilot commenting on the single seat configuration of the F-18. -- Curt Fennell fmrco!curt@uunet.uu.net (617) 570-2614
U38956%uicvm.uic.edu@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU (05/14/91)
From: <U38956%uicvm.uic.edu@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU> Regarding the F-15 and an F-14 in a 1 v 1 dogfight, actually, the F-15 cannot easily defeat the F-14. They're more pon equal ground with the difference being in the quality of the pilot. F-14 Tomcats have been known to defeat F-15 Eagles in dogfights in 1 v 1, or multiple. One of the outstanding reasons for this is the F-14 Tomcat's ability to bat-turn among its other maneuverability factors. "The quality of the crate matters little. It is the quality of the man sitting in the crate that counts" --Baron von Richtofen "The Red Baron" Bones SN0514911038 u38956@uicvm.bitnet
amichiel@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Allen J Michielsen) (05/16/91)
From: amichiel@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Allen J Michielsen) >From: <U38956%uicvm.uic.edu@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU> >Regarding the F-15 and an F-14 in a 1 v 1 dogfight, actually, the F-15 cannot >easily defeat the F-14. They're more pon equal ground with the difference What really muddies this 'argument' (and the whole discussion is moot anyway in my opinion) is HOW we define the term dogfight. If we determine a dogfight to be the longest range at which a fighter is (or can) carry a weapon which has a reasonable probability of taking out the enemy (or with which, cab be but at a manuverable disadvantage for the second shot....). Then 1 fighter would be better due to operational weapon differences. If the dogfight term is defined as the longest range which it can stand alone, under a set (and we can argue here also) of conditions, independantly identify and attack the enemy, a different fighter would be better. If the dogfight radius is decreased, at different size circles, different planes become the numerical victor. Whatever constraints we put on the definition, is flawed simply because no military engagement works 'by the book'. In this case, in order to get a really fair operational comparison we must do the following. The F-14 would be outfitted and used in a fleet defense role. It should only encounter a F-15 outfitted and used in a fleet attack role, on a 1-to-1 basis. The F-15 would be weighted down operationally with a large, heavy anti-ship weapon. Roughly, under this conditions, the F-14 would chewup and spit out the F-15: Meaning that the F-15 would be 'forced' to drop the anti-ship weapon. Then, even if the F-15 did win a engagement with the F-14, the F-14 has already won the engagement by definition either way because it defended the fleet, which is what it's job is. Taking this a step farther you could say that it could encounter 2 f-15's, 1 in a defensive role for the other F-15 (or following F-15). In that case, we need to add another F-14 to keep a 1-to-1 fight, and we start a 'chicken or egg' argument. The rules of engagement and mock air battle competitions have always had a real problem in this area. As a matter of fact, the old antique F-4 has performed very closely or better than any/all of the competition. This isn't to suggest military imcompetance or that the F-4 has the performance of new airplanes. It is to suggest that the SITUATION, Crew Performance, and Rules of Engagement, OPerational limitations are much more important.... (And further to suggest that the continuation of this nearly discussion can go at infinum/adnauseam..., without ANY real definitive answer. The world isn't black and white {well if you compared a P-38 & a A-10, or spartacus had a piper cub....}). -- Al. Michielsen, Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering, Syracuse University InterNet: amichiel@rodan.acs.syr.edu amichiel@sunrise.acs.syr.edu Bitnet: AMICHIEL@SUNRISE