• There seems to be an uptick in Political comments in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religious comments out of the forums.

    If you recently joined the forums you were not presented with this restriction in the terms of service. This was due to a conversion error when we went from vBulletin to Xenforo. We have updated our terms of service to reflect these corrections.

    Please note any post refering to a politician will be considered political even if it is intended to be humor. Our experience is these topics have a way of dividing the forums and causing deep resentment among members. It is a poison to the community. We appreciate compliance with the rules.

    The Staff of SOH

  • Server side Maintenance is done. We still have an update to the forum software to run but that one will have to wait for a better time.

Off Topic: ACM and maneuvers

CodyValkyrie

CodyValkyrie

Charter Member 2016
Ok, I have been having some heated debates on various in flight maneuvers when in and I would like your opinions and thoughts please. I am finding more often than not that people "believe" that the super maneuverability of the latest canard flankers, thrust vectoring, etc gives planes an edge in combat. I tend to disagree, with exception. Let me please explain.

In ACM, and jet combat in general, life is speed. Keeping your energy high and keeping altitude under your wings is almost always more important than any particular ability to maneuver, especially at longer ranges. Now given that equally skilled pilots are going against each other, I would find that the ability to "cobra" or perform a "high alpha" would be detrimental as a standard ACM maneuver, especially considering the speed of most dogfights and the range. If a target enters such a maneuver unless the fight is VERY close in (WWII ranges), then the target becomes a "hanging" target, or rather loses it's energy and stays too motionless during the ACM, thus making them a rather easy target.

Lets say that an opponent on one's 6 o'clock and more than 2 miles away. The lead pilot performs such a maneuver. I would think (and from what little ACM experience I have) that most trailing pilots would have the ability to lock up such a target and easily punch one or two missiles at the lead, which in turn the missiles would likely not have many issues hitting their target considering the low speed (and the doppler effect of the missile's radar) and gain a hit or kill.

The only exception I might make as mentioned is if the knife fight is VERY close and both pilots have lost their energy, something that I feel would be very stupid of both pilots to do. In this case, such a maneuver might indeed make a difference, thus the need for such devices (much like a backup gun to a cop). The instances that may require this type of maneuver would be very limited, and certainly the presence and ability of these maneuvers would not be the deciding factor in 99% of ACM situations.

Perhaps I am wrong in my assumptions? I would like to hear your points of view.
 
The trend in fighter design has gone toward improving transient manuverability. This was the original raison d'etre for the F-16. In the rather lethal combat environment of today there is simply not time to hang around and win an energy fight. You will perhaps have one shot, and you had better be able to pull it. With high thrust to weight fighters, energy recovery can be rapid and there is an issue with entering a fight with too much energy given the speed/energy equations.

Transient manuverability has use in both offense and defense!

T.
 
It's long been my impression that the only time you'd actually have a one-on-one dogfight would be in a movie or a low budget training excercise.
The rest of the time there would be a whole team of different planes working together to accomplish a mission. In which case, the AWAC would be working very hard to prevent the kind of situation you wrote about.

But from my Navy experience I learned that nothing ever goes according to plan so there might be a chance for such a dogfight happening after all. Equipment seldom works as well as advertised. The history of aviation is full of accounts where things happened that shouldn't have, and some pilots survive when many others don't.

I think my attitude toward ACM is summed up in this tagline that I saw on a flightsim forum a long time ago;

"If ever you find yourself in a fair fight, consider yourself to be the victim of poor planning."
 
Interesting perspectives. Fliger, I am especially drawn to your conclusion. Fighter ability is always subjective, and not necessarily something I would like to totally get into, however the premis of this conversation rests on a conversation I had regarding the F-22 versus some of the newer prototype Flankers and such.

A lot of people explain away that the F-22 is over budget and simply cannot contend with some of the more maneuverable (subjective in my opinion) fighters like those demonstrated at many airshows coming from the Russian side. Nose on target obviously has huge benefits when in a knife fight, however I question the applicability of such maneuvers as those shown is such airshows and the absolute dominance some people seem to think that these Russian prototypes have. I tend to wholy disagree with these concepts in that:
A) Manouverability is not the single most important aspect
and
B) People are not taking into account the unique systems and integreation of them throughout the fighting force.

I tend to find that while such a plane "may" be more or less manouverable than the latest generation of U.S. fighters, I disagree that this is the single biggest factor in ACM if a 1 for 1 situation were to occur. I find it VERY hard to believe that a SU-37 would come out on top of an F-22 given similar pilots and loadouts. Then again, that may just be my PRO-U.S. stance skewing my perspective.
 
You've got two very well written and stated posts above, so I won't rehash what they've said, but I would like to add points for both. The educated gentleman will tell you that both sides of the debate are correct.

In this modern era of missiles, a merge is still possible and likely when fighting a sophisticated enemy. Such was proven in Vietnam. We paid the price for our assumptions that dogfights were ancient. Those that have read up on Vietnam will recall that some fighters were not even equipped with guns. So-called "supermaneuverability" has it's place. It is neither useless nor the deciding factor in a fight. Modern fighter sorties can consist of a 1X1, 2X2, 2X4, and yes, even a 1X4 engagement. (Without getting into classified tactics) I can say that even when playing Ace Combat you'll shoot as soon as you can to immediately place an enemy on the defensive while continuing to close the gap. If multiple enemies are present, multiple shots will happen while still continuing to close the gap. Sooner or later a merge is possible if one adversary aircraft is still in the fight. It is possible for one aircraft to take down four fighters (provided our example aircraft has superior avionics) by placing them on the defensive and merging for the last kill. The second to last aircraft may still be worrying about a missile while this happens. The real-life demonstrated visions of modern dogfights don't consist of a series of moves and counter moves like a wrestling match anymore. They involve strategically placing the aircraft upon the merge, and then continuously keeping the adversary targeted by managing AOA and attitude. Obviously, the concerns aren't the same as if you were pointing the nose of a decathlon with abandon while paying more attention to avionics. Why? Because the new fighters are Ace Combat simple. You can add power in any direction at any speed and accelerate. To never worry about attitude and pull any AOA to continuously paint your target no matter what your they're doing makes supermaneuverability priceless.

The Avionics side of the argument is arguably more important. I say this because I believe it marginally is. Successfully managing your piece of battlespace involves immediately placing aerial threats on the defensive. Like I said above, to do this requires superior ranging and solution creating LRUs. If the enemy can see you first, who's going on the offensive first? Exactly; they are, and that's bad news. Instead of prioritizing and managing threats one by one, you must now perform evasive maneuvers and configure the aircraft for low visibility, and doing such places you further from the offensive. Superior avionics and data sharing make it easier to manage threats on a large scale. If an unlucky aircraft finds itself on the defense, it may still benefit from data transferred from another aircraft's uplink. Netcentric warfare is a force multiplier, and turbocharges effectiveness. These days, the aerial battlespace and AOR are broken into smaller areas, and aircraft in a sustainability effort will be assigned a "vul" period (short for vulnerability) in which they must provide certain capabilities to a certain area, even if it means loitering with no action. Data sharing netcentric warfare means that assets can be seen via visual cues at a JAOC, a CAOC and several airbone control centers. These assets can be seemlessly managed and all conditions assessed with no delay. Noone is ever lacking someone else's knowledge, and there is no delay in information or orders.

No country can afford to sustain multiple large fleets of aircraft making multirole, netcentric and highly maneuverable advanced fighter aircraft priceless. Any aircraft missing either shoot first capability or super maneuverability has a gigantic vulnerability.:icon29:
 
Quite so! In the case of the F22 it has real assets in stealth technology (Beware the hun in the sun) and in mobility with high cruise speed.

Each fighter from day one has it's strengths and weaknesses, as noted earlier, the goal of tactics is to avoid a fair fight!
 
Gents, let's not forget the driver as well....

One of the main reasons to track, lock and kill ASAP is not only to win, as well to get out of the area sooner or to get the mission done with as less as problems possible..in first case ..to stay alive...

But sometimes a 1 on 1 combat isnt avoidable, in this case the training of the BFM (basic fighter manouvres) is going to be handy...still in a lot of cases indeed speed, energy is one of the things to keep an eye one....also the question is...how many g's can the oponent have, or you....when will the g-lock get in...on that point its not only the plane but also its driver who decides who will win, and when the bogey get's on your six? give him as much BFM problems you can give..
 
yeah this debate could go on forever, you mentioned performing an 'extreme-manouver' as we'll put it, lets say this is a backflip, in that 2 mile window of engagement if someones manouvering onto your six and you pull a backflip, it has a psychological effect as well as tactical, that backflip also means that the 'backflipp-er' can gain missile lock, make your moves fluid but yet un-predictable, and if possible lure the opponent into thinking you're at a constant speed, if they do get close (WW2 range) then that psychological impact and you having high energy when they do it bundles up together, you're amazed at the manouverability, dumbfounded i'd guess, and you've gone scooting past, leaving the 'prey' to become the hunter.... manouverability i see is a way of proving things, whether thats in combat, aerodynamics, or even hydrodynamics, combat it can be both a killer and a saviour, aerodynamics, look what we've gone from inside the last 30 years alone... and hydrodynamics, look at the latest seaplanes and boats, all can turn on a dime... the defining thing in aviation with super-manouverability will be the pilot, it's no good designing a plane that can take 20G if the pilot can only sustain 9G in his G-Suit, as that's just a recipe for G-LOC, balance needs to be between pilot skill, complexity and aerodynamics/FCS... i could go on forever but i'll leave it there for now....:icon_lol:
 
My fighter pilot friends tell me short fat smokers survive G's best, at least in the short term....
 
Smoothie said:
the defining thing in aviation with super-manouverability will be the pilot, it's no good designing a plane that can take 20G if the pilot can only sustain 9G in his G-Suit, as that's just a recipe for G-LOC, balance needs to be between pilot skill, complexity and aerodynamics/FCS... i could go on forever but i'll leave it there for now....:icon_lol:
Click to expand...

G-forces are irrelevant when speaking in terms of 90-180 degrees of AOA at 100 knots.
 
TAFKAM said:
Gents, let's not forget the driver as well....

One of the main reasons to track, lock and kill ASAP is not only to win, as well to get out of the area sooner or to get the mission done with as less as problems possible..in first case ..to stay alive...

But sometimes a 1 on 1 combat isnt avoidable, in this case the training of the BFM (basic fighter manouvres) is going to be handy...still in a lot of cases indeed speed, energy is one of the things to keep an eye one....also the question is...how many g's can the oponent have, or you....when will the g-lock get in...on that point its not only the plane but also its driver who decides who will win, and when the bogey get's on your six? give him as much BFM problems you can give..
Click to expand...


You're speaking about an antiquated dogfight. Energy management is no longer vital if and when an aircraft can fly any speed and point it's nose wherever it wants. In terms of energy management, a post-modern fighter need only merge at blinding speed for initial offense. Because of this, even 'simpler' aircraft such as the super hornet are built to bleed peed faster, which used to be a problem with fighters.
 
Energy management is always vital, even in a antiquated dogfight.....especially after bleeding the speed....
 
Especially if one is looking for an exit strategy, too much time in one place can be hazardous!

T.
 
All good points. WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam, and other conflicts where air to air engagements took place demonstrated the need for ACM tactics and it's development all of which led to success on the aerial battlefield.. When we first got into jets with guided missiles, someone in their ivory tower got the bright idea that ACM tactics were obsolete. The problem as we all know was that these air to air missiles were terribly unreliable in their early forms and had a lot of envelope limitations. ACM was refocused on to help increase the sagging kill ratios in Vietnam It worked. Even as missiles, radar, and advanced electronic warfare systems progressed, there was always a need to maintain basic and advanced fighter maneuver tactics as well as cross integration into tactics involving advanced systems and armaments. Today the deadliness of newer more advanced staring focal plane/array/sensors as well as advanced microprocessors active radar make the need for stealth, self protection and EW warfare systems to be able to help increase survivability odds. Such threats have existed for some time and will only get worse. The arguments on some of these "Combat" forums are filled with rhetorical nonsense about who's got the best planes and weapons. Supermaneuverability alone is of very limited value. But when integrated in a flow of tactics where a pilot ends up in a close merge with an adversary with maybe 1 missile left and his cannon, then it's use(Supermaneuverability) and ACM tactics are very relevant. Rule of thumb, never abandon old lessons learned and tactics taught and using any advantage you have to exploit the enemy.

Let's not forget the Pilot & Mk-1 Eyeball and the very best adaptive computer ever made, the human brain. Keeping on the right side of the fight require SA(Situational Awareness). With all the data & sensory inputs being thrown at the pilot, every single system vital for success must be integrated in a way that helps SA be more easily maintained while under stress. The new anti-g systems are quite impressive. Many of them are excellent. Combat Edge works but I think it is overly complicated compared to other systems. One Anti-G system I like is Libelle. Pretty impressive and far more simple than CE.

All being considered, the math is extensive, nothing can be overlooked or left out of possibility.

On a footnote, speaking of simpler & cheaper systems being a threat, some time ago we learned how a couple of small countries developed and integrated a new multi mode/advanced fire control radar and ECM system into old Mig-21 fighters giving them the ability to use the latest advanced BVR weapons and become nearly invisible to our "legacy" radar sets when in active ECM. A Mig-21Bis with a R-25 engine is a powerhouse as well!

BTW, here is a presentation of the Libelle Anti-G system.

http://www.safeeurope.co.uk/pdf/Presentation-Jorg%20Deitsche.pdf
 
CodyValkyrie, you're very welcome. Geez, hell of a job you guys had/have! That is an ever changing/ adaptive field to be in, very crucial. All the points made here even being a bit opposite here & there are valid nonetheless. The field of Air Combat has been highly evolutional from day one and doesn't slow down for a second. What is valid now can change in a week, a month, or a year quite easily. One thing is for sure, such discussions at various levels and pushing.exploring ideas are a must if any Air Force plans to stay a viable entity....

:ernae:

BTW, sorry for the "Fumblea$$" typos in my previous post. I am normally a bit more tidy than that. Is what happens when you try & do too many things at once...:icon_lol:
 
Hey, I know the feeling Deathfromafar. I run two monitors, which tends to distract me more than allow me to create coherent sentences.

Regardless, this discussion has been very interesting. It is nice to see it evolve into rather a pleasant one considering most of them turn into a heated discussion regarding which plane PWNS better. The drivel gets rather old, so this is a fresh breath of air.
 
How times change. :)

Although I possess an intimate knowledge of airfighting in both WWI and WWII I have almost no knowledge of current tactics, weapon systems, aircraft capabilities and jargon associated with modern era aircraft. Terms such as:
Transient manuverability
ability to "cobra" or perform a "high alpha"
Ace Combat simple
LRUs
Data sharing netcentric warfare
JAOC
CAOC
pull a backflip
G-LOC

are indeed totally incomprehensible. It's like another world altogether. :)
 
Yeah, I also understand the pride of those who build, fly, or maintain such machines and their inherent patriotism. All of them believe in what they do regardless of where they hail from. We Americans have much to be proud and boast of. So do folks in UK, France, Sweden, Germany, Russia, etc. A hell of a lot of knowledge and experience from all those aviation producers as well as huge contributions in expanding all types of envelopes. Pride in such things can't be easily contained so discussions are bound to flare here & there when there is boasting/bragging. Then there are the professionals being past, present and those who aspire to go into that field who mostly stick to the facts as they know em, and learn a thing or two here & there. I have personally witnessed men who were once dire enemies of each other make peace and act is if they were long lost friends. Seeing such things is yet another lesson learned in humility. We look at these combat aircraft in awe as well as the people who fly them and most rarely if ever stop to think about what happens when they fight against others just like them. If we could witness it first hand, nothing would likely ever be so horrifying.
In any other circumstance they would likely be the closest of friends and in war follow certain unwritten codes of conduct and chivalry between themselves. After all, it is a very Elite Brotherhood few in human history have ever been part of. I have the deepest respect of such distinctions and professionalism.

:medals:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top