F-18F Question

[Gorilla]

As far as the Flanker, what I've read is pretty eye watering. The systems onboard (IRSTS, Slotback II, HMS) as well as it's ability to employ the AA-10C and AA-11... oh, and the Mach #'s it can achieve. Add to that the EW capabilities... and anyone with an internet connection has seen video's of it's manuverability. Scarey stuff.

Good discussion. Nose position vs energy.

Flankers - They may have a kick-a$$ platform, but if they don't train on it, if they're getting 40 hours annually, then they may as well be flying MiG-15's. However, I'm assuming that there are flankers exported to countries that can afford the training. It demands respect.

Turning/burning: One thing training never prepares you for... having half your flight blow up pre-merge. That was what the F-15 excelled at, and still does, while maintaining respectable turning powers. In Gulf war 1, 98% of the AA kills were high-speed, hit and run. There was only one sustained fight that I'm aware of, and that was a 58th TFS Gorilla pilot who I know driving a MiG-29 into the dirt in a Lufberry-ish turning fight. Everything else was 600 KIAS+ shots, haul a$$, and the majority were AIM-7's, not AIM-9's.

I've often thought that we should practice combined arms more often, in the sense that a tremendous fighting flight would consist of 2-4 F-15's paired with 2-4 F-16's. Use the F-15 strengths - excellent radar discipline, pre-merge sorting, long range death. At the merge, the F-16's would mop up with point and shoot heaters. Then everyone haul a$$ and do it again the next day.

That was not a new concept. We were tossing it out in the '80's, but the brass never bit on it. I still think it makes sense.

 

[ExAF]

"Combined Arms"

I flew red air at a few Marine WTIs at Yuma in the 80s and they were already pairing F-18s with A-4s in a similar fashion. Great concept that worked pretty well. I think one of the reasons the AF brass never bit on 15/16 blend was the logistics that would have been involved to train regularly. Also, they would have probably come up with some kind of ridiculous qualification and currency requirement in order to participate in those tactics.

 

[SMOOTHRIDE]

Hornet can't really use the vertical in the true sense like the Viper can. And thats a no kidding double immelman to the Viper (esp the big motor version). Advantageous to gain alt when your opponent is out of energy, and can't get his nose up to pressure you.

As far as the Flanker, what I've read is pretty eye watering. The systems onboard (IRSTS, Slotback II, HMS) as well as it's ability to employ the AA-10C and AA-11... oh, and the Mach #'s it can achieve. Add to that the EW capabilities... and anyone with an internet connection has seen video's of it's manuverability. Scarey stuff.

Sig;

Roger the double immelman, never heard of that before, maybe some of the really new aerobatic planes can do it: SU-29/31, extra 300, pitts-12, etc...

If the SU-37 has thrust vectoring, and HMS, doesn't that throw conventional weapons release envelopes out the window, AND any and all tactics to get behind the guy to kill him (from the bad guy point of view)?

It would make for something I would want to kill from far away (but what the hell do I know). The question is if we can kill from further away than they can kill?

Any pointy nose ACM/BFM "knowledge" I have is from Robert Shaw's "combat fighter tactics and maneuvering" from the naval institute press back in the 80s when I was a kid. Needless to say, it's dated knowledge. I wish I still had that book though, it was a classic.

--SR

 

[bagasticks]

didnt a gorilla (cherry) bust a 25 with a heater in a turning fight (short)?

 

[SIG600]

didnt a gorilla (cherry) bust a 25 with a heater in a turning fight (short)?

That would be a short fight, seeing as how the Mig-25 can't turn inside of one zip code, let alone any Cat-IV fighter.

 

[tomgoodman]

A-37

Roger the double immelman, never heard of that before, maybe some of the really new aerobatic planes can do it: SU-29/31, extra 300, pitts-12, etc...

A clean A-37 would easily do a double immelman, and almost a third one. Of course, it wasn't an air-to-air platform, and 400 kias was about the speed limit.

 

[SIG600]

A clean A-37 would easily do a double immelman, and almost a third one. Of course, it wasn't an air-to-air platform, and 400 kias was about the speed limit.

You can double imm. a lot of things... having tactical airspeed at the top is another argument. I wouldn't compare an A(T)-37's capability to that of a Viper.

 

[ExAF]

Tactical is Relative

You can double imm. a lot of things... having tactical airspeed at the top is another argument. I wouldn't compare an A(T)-37's capability to that of a Viper.

True, but after a double immelmann in an A-37 you could still have tactical speed at the top. Of course tactical speed was as low as 230KIAS for an A-37. Those J-85s make it a totally different animal than a T-37, so don't compare the T-37s capability to the A-37[A(T)-37]. I could easily hamfist a double immelmann in a viper and NOT have tactical airspeed at the top. "Hamburger in any wrapper is still hamburger." Or "A grape is a grape no matter what it flies."

 

[SIG600]

"Hamburger in any wrapper is still hamburger." Or "A grape is a grape no matter what it flies."

Two of the strangest quotes I think I've ever heard.

 

[ExAF]

Maybe before your time

Two of the strangest quotes I think I've ever heard.

Passed on from some Viet Nam era fighter pilots and older FWS grads/instructors.

 

[SIG600]

I've often thought that we should practice combined arms more often, in the sense that a tremendous fighting flight would consist of 2-4 F-15's paired with 2-4 F-16's. Use the F-15 strengths - excellent radar discipline, pre-merge sorting, long range death. At the merge, the F-16's would mop up with point and shoot heaters. Then everyone haul a$$ and do it again the next day.

That was not a new concept. We were tossing it out in the '80's, but the brass never bit on it. I still think it makes sense.

Load up 16's with -9X, follow the Eagles to the merge. Not a bad idea.

 

[Gorilla]

On the A-37 vs F-16 thing - One set of parameters often cited for fighter performance was turn rate, and turn radius. Turn rate is a function of lift. We soon discovered that a Cessna, or pretty much any prop AC, especially an acro bird, has a sustained turn rate and radius that on paper looks like flying death. Add other parameters like thrust to weight, ceiling, wing loading - then you have AC like the U2, which again on paper looks like the greatest fighter of all time.

A good fighter is a total packge. Engines, payload, range, wing loading, avionics, radar, weapons load, and the guy flying it. Everything is a compromise. Improve one function, only at the expense of another.

As for eXAF "Burgers and Grape" quote - I've heard it many times, but it only goes so far. The greatest stick of all time cannot beat an RTU student if the equipment is grossly mismatched. An example... I was with a group of vastly experienced air-air Holloman AT-38B IP's when the call came from Luke to support their F-16 RTU, mainly because they couldn't find anybody better. We were their last choice for DACT.

Noob F-16's pounded us mercilessly despite every trick, every subtle maneuver we could come up with. It was very frustrating for us, and probably boring for the Luke IP's. So Yeager in his P-51 would be instantly smoked by the lowliest student in a modern fighter.

 

[SIG600]

Noob F-16's pounded us mercilessly despite every trick, every subtle maneuver we could come up with. It was very frustrating for us, and probably boring for the Luke IP's. So Yeager in his P-51 would be instantly smoked by the lowliest student in a modern fighter.

I agree to an extent. Experience counts for a lot... especially BFM. A 20 hour/year SU-27 is gonna be a supersonic cheerleader in a 1V1 engagement. Anything more complex than that and he's probably gonna have a full on 5 alarm helmet fire. Plus I would bet a pay check he's gonna go level across the horizon post merge. On paper a Hornet should crush an F-5, but I've been in the hud of one a few times. The guy at the stick I think is the most important factor.

Gorilla to add to what you were saying about numbers on paper, and the actual package. You should read John Boyd's bio. Great book and goes into detail on his development of EM, and breaking the higher/faster/farther mindset.

 

[Gorilla]

Gorilla to add to what you were saying about numbers on paper, and the actual package. You should read John Boyd's bio. Great book and goes into detail on his development of EM, and breaking the higher/faster/farther mindset.

I did read the book; I agree, it's greatness. Anyone interested in military fighters should read it, you won't be sorry: http://www.amazon.com/Boyd-Fighter-Pilot-Changed-War/dp/0316881465

After reading it, I was in awe of this man. One of the deepest military thinkers of this century, and probably the least known.

 

[SIG600]

Ya, the guy was brilliant.