shafer@elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov (06/30/89)
From: shafer@elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov
The most important principle in dogfighting is to keep the fight on
your terms, rather than your opponent's.
For example, if you're in an F-15 against an F-16, you'll try to keep
the fight vertical, because the F-16 can't go vertical as well as the
F-15 can. You'll be in control and you'll get the weapons solution
first. On the other hand, if you're in the F-16, you'll try to keep
the fight horizontal, because the F-15 can't go horizontal as well as
the F-16 can.
To quote Col Harry Thyng, USAF (10 Victories, WWII and Korean
Conflict):
Suddenly you go into a steep turn. Your Mach drops off. The MiG
turns with you and you let him gradually creep up and outturn you.
At the critical moment you reverse your turn. The hydraulic controls
[F-86] work beautifully. the MiG [-15] cannot turn as readily as you
and is slung out to the side. When you pop your speed brakes, the
MiG flashes by you. Quickly closing the brakes, you slide onto his
tail and hammer him with your "50's."
To quote Lt Dave Pace, USN (Topgun Instructor):
Know and use all the capabilities in your airplane. If you don't,
sooner or later, some guy who does use them all will kick your ass.
We talk in general terms about dogfighting tactics, but it's important
to realize that the tactics are different for different aircraft as
well as different opponents.
Missiles and guns, and their characteristics, are another important
factor in tactics. The F-4 is a better heat source than the MiG, so if
you're 2 v any, it's best not to use a Sidewinder, since you might kill
your wingman rather than your opponent. Your choices are then
Sparrows, which aren't `fire-and-forget', or guns.
--
--
M F Shafer shafer@elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov
NASA Ames Research Center arpa!elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov!shafer
Dryden Flight Research Facility ames!elxsi!shafer
Of course I don't speak for NASA
"A MiG at your six is better than no MiG at all."
--Unknown US fighter pilot.wxh@alpha.lanl.gov (Billy Harvey) (07/05/89)
From: wxh@alpha.lanl.gov (Billy Harvey) In article <7884@cbnews.ATT.COM>, shafer@elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov writes: [other stuff deleted] > Missiles and guns, and their characteristics, are another important > factor in tactics. The F-4 is a better heat source than the MiG, so if > you're 2 v any, it's best not to use a Sidewinder, since you might kill > your wingman rather than your opponent. Your choices are then > Sparrows, which aren't `fire-and-forget', or guns. An AIM-9 Sidewinder might be a good choice to use even in a tight dogfight, for several reasons. Depending on the version of missle you are carrying a lock on could be obtained at various angles off the tail of the target, and so would allow a quick point and shoot weapon in some instances. This might be really important depending on just how close your wingman was to getting shot himself. The missle is also relatively fast, since it is comparatively small and can accelerate quickly (ever try to follow a bottle rocket with your eyes on the way up - its _fast_). The ability to discriminate between your wingman and the target will depend mostly on the angular difference between them vs you - judgement is required if its going to be close. Conversely, an AIM-7 Sparrow, which comes in several versions also, is a larger and slower weapon. There are inherent discrimination problems with a radar guided weapon also. If your wingman and the target are close together, the resolution cell of the radar may prevent a good distinction between the two returns, or the shot may transition from one return to the other. However the weapon does allow you to step back from the fight a little way, allowing you to look for other threats (with Migs, there _will_ be more) while planning your shot. Yout do have the ability to retract the shot, so to speak, by switching off the continuous wave energy the missle uses to guide to the target, or by simply breaking the lock, if it becomes obvious you shot towards the wrong guy. Various countermeasures (chaff, flares, jamming pods) can defeat or seriously degrade the capability of missles. Hence, the weapon which was added to the F-4 in later versions - the gun. (BTW, the F-4 had no gun originally because _the_powers_that_were_said_"Our missles are so good, we don't need something as archaic and _simple_ as a GUN.) (Someone told me or maybe I read it in Aviation Leak that the Air Force dropped the requirement for a gun from the ATF, because our missles are so good, we don't need a GUN - somebody tell me this is an untruth.) The gun is simple, and its hard to jam bullets. It must be defeated (and employed) by maneuvering of the aircraft. These maneuvers, like most of dogfighting, make you as the fighter, very predictable. This allows the friends of the Mig (and they have more airplanes than us) to eat your lunch. The point of the dribble above is that one cannot specifically say what weapon is best always, it just depends. Additionally, I'd like to put in my 1/50 $1.00 about what use a back seater is in an F-4, and whether an F-4 is a fighter or not. Yes, the F-4 is a fighter - there are quite a few around with red stars painted on the intakes. The F-4, more than any of the newer airplanes, is a machine. It must be _put_ where you want it, with realization of its limitations and unique abilities as a two seat fighter. An F-15 or F-16 can use its superior thrust and maneuverability to outfly an F-4, so the two minds in an F-4 must learn to work _together_ to defeat a better-flying aircraft by using better-flown tactics. The pilot in the front seat is just that - the pilot. He maneuvers the aircraft to achieve weapon parameters, and employs the weapon. However the backseater runs the radar, and if he knows his business, is constantly on the lookout for those friends of the Mig while the pilot is flying his predictable flight path. He is a parallel processor, with the ability to interrupt the current task (of killing the target) with a higher priority task ("BREAK RIGHT, 2 Fishbeds 4 o'clock low!"). He is directly responsible for controlling the jamming pod in its multitude of modes (sure it has automatic modes, but like most things, higher performance can be obtained by proper _manual_ use of the tool - however it requires knowledge and judgement). Since he can see behind the aircraft better, he directs the fight when the pilot cannot see the attacker, so the backseater had better understand the air combat arena himself. Any pilot of an F-4 who thinks little of the backseat is STUPID. He is not using his probably outclassed aircraft to its optimum, which will be required to survive and to kill. However I know F-4 pilots (and obviously pilots of single seat aircraft) who think and say they would rather have the extra gas... The backseater has a vested interest in the capability of the pilot in the front. After all, he runs into the ground a millisecond after the frontseater does. Some other comments about remarks about F-4s I've seen here: The F-4 is currently on active duty in the F-4E (sort of the basic these days), and the recce version, and the F-4G Wild Weasel. The unique abilities of the Wild Weasel will probably keep it around for a lot longer. The pilot bails out both crewmembers if he initiates the ejection. If the backseater initiates the ejection, he may go solo or both may go, depending on the crew brief between the crew, and the setting of a handle in the rear cockpit. Backseaters are not formally taught to fly, but they obviously like flying or they wouldn't be there, and will tend to fly as much as the front seater allows them. Many become fairly proficient, and many have their private pilot certificates. The F-4 is not real easy to land from the rear seat, so most crews brief the back seater to initiate a dual-ejection in case the front seater is disabled, however you find many opinions on this. Many of the more experienced back seaters could (and have) landed from the rear, given _favorable_ conditions. Bad weather, a disabled aircraft, and a disabled front seater are not usually favorable conditions. F-4 engines used to smoke, but the newer versions installed in the F-4G smoke much less. The F-15 engine if detuned smokes, but not nearly as bad as the original F-4 engines. F-4 engines were/are very reliable. Large birds, parts of trees, parts of engines have been ingested by running F-4 engines without a hiccup. There is usually damage, but the engines usually keeps running. Conversely, the ability of the F-16's _only_ engine to die if you whisper the word "ice" near the intake is legendary, and many engine losses are due to foreign object damage. Forgive me for carrying on so, but the F-4 is something I know a little about. Cheers. Billy Harvey wxh@a.lanl.gov
bsmart@uunet.UU.NET (Bob Smart) (07/05/89)
From: vrdxhq!vrdxhq.verdix.com!bsmart@uunet.UU.NET (Bob Smart) In article <7884@cbnews.ATT.COM>, shafer@elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov writes: > > > From: shafer@elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov > The most important principle in dogfighting is to keep the fight on > your terms, rather than your opponent's. > > For example, if you're in an F-15 against an F-16, you'll try to keep > the fight vertical, because the F-16 can't go vertical as well as the > F-15 can. You'll be in control and you'll get the weapons solution > first. On the other hand, if you're in the F-16, you'll try to keep > the fight horizontal, because the F-15 can't go horizontal as well as > the F-16 can. I'm not sure about this. Most F-15 pilots that came thru my maintanence debriefing shop had no problems turning with an F-16, they just had to have selective hearing. You see an F-15 is old technology the stick is actually connected to the control surfaces. an F-16 is different It's stick is a little joystick that only suggests to the computer where the pilot would like to go. In a fighter this is a big difference. If an eagle driver wants to make a tighter turn he pulls the stick tighter. if he passes certain limits he hears a tone in his headset. If he turns tighter the tone gets harsher. If he persists a voice comes in with 'over g, over g' until he gets below the pescribed limit ( determined by weight,airspeed, altitude, etc). In an F-16 the pilot pulls his joystick suggesting he wants to turn tighter. when the aircraft hits what it feels are it's limits it stops tightening the turn. Therefor a pilot with selective hearing in a 15 can out turn a 16. If the unit is being evaluated and someone asks why the over G indicater is tripped the pilot just looks you in the eye and says "I guess we better right up the warning system I didn't hear a thing except the growl" ( the AIM-9 lock on tone). We write it up crew chief asks the pilot on next flight if it worked okay or has comm shop check out the comm system and signs it off. The other comment about the 15 vs 16 I heard was that the 16 lost momentum faster in a turn and therefor if the two turned together the 16 would 'fall out' first due to lost air speed. I guess 2 F-100s are better than one :-) Don't get me wrong the F-16 got plenty of respect from the eagle drivers but they did not respect the fly by wire. as one put it "If I have a mig or a missle on my a-- I dont want a f---ing computer telling me I might bend the plane I WANT TO BEND THE F---ING PLANE better a bent plane than no plane at all." Oh , how high is over G? Before the fancy sesor system it was an arbitrary figure ( I think 7.2 G) because that was the worst case for speed,altitude weight. With the newer system ( on F-15C&D models) it varied to over 9 G At redflag we saw 12G regularly and our wing had a plane take 19+ for a very short time and come home. The wings werepermanantly bent, the tips were 2-3 inches higher than they were supposed to be and the wing tanks leaked some but it flew back to St Louis to be evaluated. The 19 Gs were not done on purpose ( but the 12-13 were) > > To quote Lt Dave Pace, USN (Topgun Instructor): > Know and use all the capabilities in your airplane. If you don't, > sooner or later, some guy who does use them all will kick your ass. see my comments above > -- > M F Shafer shafer@elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov > NASA Ames Research Center arpa!elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov!shafer > Dryden Flight Research Facility ames!elxsi!shafer > Of course I don't speak for NASA > > "A MiG at your six is better than no MiG at all." > --Unknown US fighter pilot. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Doesnt surprise me at all. sounds like several I knew. Bob Smart (bsmart@verdix.com)