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.