nobody@Kodak.COM (Rick Lafford (x37825)) (12/17/90)
From: nobody@Kodak.COM (Rick Lafford (x37825))
Reply-To: lafford@serum.Kodak.Com
Keywords: tactics, fighters
Henry Spencer notes:
>Turning tactics have two major flaws...
While I can agree with Henry, there is more to it than that. The
response will depend greatly on the aircraft involved, as I'm sure
he realizes. Two similar aircraft will almost always end up in some
type of turning fight as most protracted contacts will be in a scissors.
The key point is the fighter types which might be broken down
into energy fighters - those that rely on great power of acceleration
, and manuver fighters - those with a high turn rate.
The fighter having the higher energy has the option of
extending away from the fight where the manuvering
opponent cannot do this.
The second point is sustained turn rate - how long can
the fighter keep on manuvering before it is forced to use
gravity to assist, at which point it loses to the
higher energy fighter. Example: An F-16 has a great
turn rate but cannot maintain a high G turn for long.
The MiG-29 may not be able to turn quite as fast but
can maintain the turn longer because of the higher
thrust available to the pilot. The is one of the
reasons why the "guns" fight will become a
3-dimensional affair rather immediately. Energy
fighters can use slashing attacks but expose themselves
to missile attack as the attempt to disengage. The
manuver fighter can pull a lead-turn attack into his ad
advantage but may be stuck in a protracted fight
if his shot misses. Enough here, there is a
great book on all this available from the
Naval Association Press called Fighter Tactics. It
is good reading for the tacticians out there and is
an one of the best textbooks on fighter tactics today.
Re: Bjoern Andersen - Dog fight techniques
A fighter pilot needs to think in all three dimensions
at the same time. The forth element is speed/energy.
Two fighters passing each other head-on usually have
little choice but to pull into the vertical and attempt
to roll into the other aircraft. In general, the
aircraft covering the smallest horizontal distance
will end up on the tail of the other. Pulling vertical
conserves energy while covering mininum horizontal
space. Any other manuver would seem to be an attempt
to extend away from a fight.
Rick Lafford
Eastman Kodak lafford@serum.kodak.comshafer@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) (12/18/90)
From: shafer@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer)
Rick Lafford (nobody@Kodak.COM) writes:
Enough here, there is a
great book on all this available from the
Naval Association Press called Fighter Tactics. It
is good reading for the tacticians out there and is
an one of the best textbooks on fighter tactics today.
A good reference, except that the book is "Fighter Combat: Tactics
and Maneuvers" by Robert Shaw.
Not only am I familiar with it, it's where I got the quote in my .sig!
--
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