Fighter Speed

[ThunderBolt]

Okay this is going to be a very open ended question.

Okay we all know the rules of engagment have changed alot from the WWII, and so have the tactics. What I am wondering is that lets say that country A's squadron enters the airspace of country B and so for defencive perposes country B sends out interceptors to well intercept the A squadron. My questions are:

1: How would the dog fight begin for example how one could be on the enemies tail even though they are heading for each other.

2: At what speed would the whole dof fight would happen, ie same speed for both planes and same speed through out the fight or variations, and if so what kind of variations? And also lets pretend that these planes have run out of their missiles and shot down first few planes from each squadron with these missilies.

3: Would these planes fight ubove or below the sonic speed. Lets say F16's vs Mig29's because they come pretty close in specs.

 

[Magoo]

Okay this is going to be a very open ended question.

Okay we all know the rules of engagment have changed alot from the WWII, and so have the tactics. What I am wondering is that lets say that country A's squadron enters the airspace of country B and so for defencive perposes country B sends out interceptors to well intercept the A squadron. My questions are:

1: How would the dog fight begin for example how one could be on the enemies tail even though they are heading for each other.

2: At what speed would the whole dof fight would happen, ie same speed for both planes and same speed through out the fight or variations, and if so what kind of variations? And also lets pretend that these planes have run out of their missiles and shot down first few planes from each squadron with these missilies.

3: Would these planes fight ubove or below the sonic speed. Lets say F16's vs Mig29's because they come pretty close in specs.

So many ifs and buts to consider...

Let's assume the dogfight degenerated from a BVR to a WVR engagement, and lets assume both countries have closely matched equipment, weapons, similar fuel states, similar crew training standards, and closely matched support assets...

One side would try to gain the high ground off the nose of the other, so as to be in a higher energy position and to be able to see their foes from a side aspect. Closure rates would likely be high subsonic.

If one side were attacking and the other defending, then the attacking side is likely flying an OCA mission in support of strike assets, so it is their interest to keep the defending fighters engaged as long as possible so as to allow the strike assets to get through to their targets. The attackers will therefore be trying to drag the attackers more or less away from the strikers attack heading so as to open up some airspace between them.

Most modern IR AAMs have a frontal aspect kill ability these days, and many can be shot 90 degrees off boresight or even 'over the shoulder', so you don't need to get into a tail chase in order to get a kill. Guns of course still need to be shot more or less straight at the intended target, but if your jet is 4th or 5th gen, it probably has the ability to momentarily point the nose up to 30 degrees off axis to loose off a cannon burst.

The more turning you do, the slower you will likely get and you may to disengage momentarilty in order to build up some energy before re-engaging. This is an advantage stealthy jets have - they're able to engage and disengage almost at will compared to 'legacy' fighters.

Like I said, lots of ifs and buts...

Cheers

Magoo

 

[heyjoe]

The "merge"

To add to Magoo's response, fighters generally try to get an advantage or (target) "aspect" on their opponents. Mutually aware opponents will try to negate each other's advantage usually resulting in a head-on pass (baring sucessful exchange of head-on weapons) at which time each endeavors to get to a firing position by turning hard. Several things can happen at instant of the "merge". if the opponents turn in same direction, the fight becomes a one (or same) circle fight and likely will degrade to a scissors engagement. If they turn opposite each other, it becomes a two circle fight and anothe rmerge will likely result. Of course, one or both opponents can execute a slice or oblique turn (going up vertically or slicing down using the "tactical egg").

The basic maneuvering options haven't changed over the years although the newer aircraft have more energy with which to go vertical and weapons have become more lethal. A helmet mounted cueing system (like JHMCS or HMD) integrated with a high off boresight SRM (AA-11, Python 4, ASRAAM, MICA IR, IRIS-T or AIM-9X) makes the Within Visual Range (WVR) arena very lethal, but improved IRCM (flares) can help with survivable.

The so-called dogfight was supposedly dead in 1960 with the advent of Sparrow and Sidewinder missiles, but history proved many pundits, analysts and engineers wrong. Same thing with advent of AIM-9L and forward quarter SRMs in 1980 timeframe. We'll see with the latest generation of SRMs.

As to questions 2 and 3; it depends because each aircraft has specific design characteristics like corner speed above which they cannot achieve their minimum turn radius so entering a fight at supersonic speed will result in "arcing" that gives an opponent an opportunity to exploit. Traditional delta wing designs like the Mirage III bleed energy very quickly so they can enter a fight at a faster speed. There are no simple formulas per se. Each pilot tries to studythe characteristics of potential opponent's aircraft to maximize employing the strengths of one's own aircraft while avoiding that of the opponent and seeking to exploit an opponent's weak points like the MiG-17 poor roll rate or poor visibility over the nose of the MiG-23 and MiG-25.

 

[Tasman]

To add to Magoo's response, fighters generally try to get an advantage or (target) "aspect" on their opponents. Mutually aware opponents will try to negate each other's advantage usually resulting in a head-on pass (baring sucessful exchange of head-on weapons) at which time each endeavors to get to a firing position by turning hard. Several things can happen at instant of the "merge". if the opponents turn in same direction, the fight becomes a one (or same) circle fight and likely will degrade to a scissors engagement. If they turn opposite each other, it becomes a two circle fight and anothe rmerge will likely result. Of course, one or both opponents can execute a slice or oblique turn (going up vertically or slicing down using the "tactical egg").

The basic maneuvering options haven't changed over the years although the newer aircraft have more energy with which to go vertical and weapons have become more lethal. A helmet mounted cueing system (like JHMCS or HMD) integrated with a high off boresight SRM (AA-11, Python 4, ASRAAM, MICA IR, IRIS-T or AIM-9X) makes the Within Visual Range (WVR) arena very lethal, but improved IRCM (flares) can help with survivable.

The so-called dogfight was supposedly dead in 1960 with the advent of Sparrow and Sidewinder missiles, but history proved many pundits, analysts and engineers wrong. Same thing with advent of AIM-9L and forward quarter SRMs in 1980 timeframe. We'll see with the latest generation of SRMs.

As to questions 2 and 3; it depends because each aircraft has specific design characteristics like corner speed above which they cannot achieve their minimum turn radius so entering a fight at supersonic speed will result in "arcing" that gives an opponent an opportunity to exploit. Traditional delta wing designs like the Mirage III bleed energy very quickly so they can enter a fight at a faster speed. There are no simple formulas per se. Each pilot tries to studythe characteristics of potential opponent's aircraft to maximize employing the strengths of one's own aircraft while avoiding that of the opponent and seeking to exploit an opponent's weak points like the MiG-17 poor roll rate or poor visibility over the nose of the MiG-23 and MiG-25.

Hi heyjoe. Welcome to the forum. It's good to see another person with expertise in this area. I reckon Magoo will appreciate it as it may give him some respite from what must often seem like inane comments from people like me.

I was interested in your comment about dogfights being supposedly dead in 1960. I seem to recall reading that a similar belief was held by some of the RAF top brass in 1939 but they were quickly proven wrong! Over the years we keep hearing that something is dead. Apart from dogfighting other things that come to mind are the gun and manned aircraft. Comments made recently by some Australian air force leaders suggest that the Lightning II will be the last manned fighter in the RAAF- shades of the RAF's Lightning, which the British Defence Secretary of the time said would be the last manned fighter in 1957! nfloorl:

I was wondering how important you, Magoo or other professionals, feel the gun is in a modern fighter. It does seem that air forces are now hedging their bets about future combat not always being BVR and the gun seems to be part of the armament of all modern fighters, even though I'm aware that the RAF was originally planning not to fit it to their Typhoons.

The answers given so far seem to suggest that a fighter will most likely spend more time engaging at subsonic speeds and it seems to me that the ability to accelerate, decelerate, climb, dive and turn, together with stealth, would be more important for a fighter than sustained high speed. What are the scenarios for a fighter where supersonic speed would be an advantage? I can see that it would be a plus for intercepting attacking aircraft prior to engagement but other than being useful for running away I can't think of any other situations.

Cheers

BTW Mods - Should this thread be merged with the Fighter Tactics thread?

 

[Magoo]

I was wondering how important you, Magoo or other professionals, feel the gun is in a modern fighter. It does seem that air forces are now hedging their bets about future combat not always being BVR and the gun seems to be part of the armament of all modern fighters, even though I'm aware that the RAF was originally planning not to fit it to their Typhoons.

The answers given so far seem to suggest that a fighter will most likely spend more time engaging at subsonic speeds and it seems to me that the ability to accelerate, decelerate, climb, dive and turn, together with stealth, would be more important for a fighter than sustained high speed. What are the scenarios for a fighter where supersonic speed would be an advantage? I can see that it would be a plus for intercepting attacking aircraft prior to engagement but other than being useful for running away I can't think of any other situations.

I'll let heyjoe take this one - judging on him being in Virginia Beach, I suspect he's an 'end user', not just a 'wannabe' like me!

Welcome heyjoe - good to have you on board!

Cheers

Magoo

 

[heyjoe]

I'll let heyjoe take this one - judging on him being in Virginia Beach, I suspect he's an 'end user', not just a 'wannabe' like me!

Welcome heyjoe - good to have you on board!

Cheers

Magoo

LOL, I have a couple thousand hours of fighter time in my logbook and green ink from Libya and Desert Storm if that is what you mean.

Before retiring (from wearing a uniform/flight suit to work that is) I was the AAM Requirements Officer for Navy so to answer Tasman's question....

The love affair and belief in potency of missiles led to removal of gun(s) from the F-4 Phantom. History shows that was a mistake. Being in the Pentagon in early to mid 90s, the debate raged over the gun for JSF....every pound saved in avionics, gun, other systems is a big deal so the gun had to earn its way onto the F-22 and all other aircraft. Many folks argue it isn't needed, but Tomcats and Hornets were strafing in just about every conflict in past 16 years, but I suspect you mean for air-to-air. Simple answer: I think it stays until laser/directed energy is refined to replace it and SRM.

As to speed...dash speed is great to get where you need to be or get away from where you don't want to be. USAF loves the supercruise concept and it fits their employment doctrine...just ask Kurt Plummer (he's a big fan). I like a jet that can turn and keep its energy. The focus on speed reminds me of the love affair with speed that led to numerous Mach 2 designs that paid for that extra mach that could only be sustained for a brief period of time and was rarely used if at all (perhaps the MiG-25 being only aircraft that used speed as a tactic except for SR-71, which is in another class altogether). Supersonic speeds are a liability if you to turn...you arc like a big dog and your opponent and use that against you.

 

[Raptor.22]

other than the F-22, what other jets have a sustainable supercruise??

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Deleted

 

[rjmaz1]

other than the F-22, what other jets have a sustainable supercruise??

The meaning of supercruise is the ability to sustain supersonic speeds for long distances.

Super means supersonic, and is higher than the transonic region. Transonic is the draggy region when the aircraft becomes supersonic, you do not want to cruise at transonic speed as its very bad for fuel economy. So yea either cruise at Mach 0.9 or Mach 1.4+

The word cruise is used in terms of the speed that will extract the most range out of an aircraft. At Mach 1.4+ the F-22 does not get the most range out of the aircraft. Even the F-22 cannot supercruise as such due to its small-ish fuel fraction.

Current infortmation shows that the F-22 rarely sustains supersonic speeds. Most of the time they cruise at subsonic speeds to get the most range and endurance out of the aircraft. On average they are no quicker than other 4th generation fighters.

The F-22 will only supercruise over enemy territory or when it is engaging the enemy. Even then it is restricted by its fuel capacity. No fighter aircraft can cruise at supersonic speeds for the entire mission. The Eurofighter and Rafale are even more restricted with fuel than the F-22 so they will have to stay subsonic for nearly all of the mission. They may be able to reach supersonic speeds without afterburners. Just because they aren't using afterburners doesn't mean they are cruising.

The main advantage of the F-22 is its ability to accelerate to Mach 1.6 in seconds and is able to sustain it with relatively good fuel consumption compared to all other aircraft. When the enemy detects the F-22 it will be travelling supersonic, which means that the F-22 has already detected the enemy and accelerated to increase its weapons range and survivability.

I believe dogfights are over. The USAF will never get within visual range of an enemy fighter again. Some people said this prematurely in Vietnam.. in the gulf war it was starting to become true. Now with the accuracy and reliability of the AMRAAM and the stealth of the current USAF fighters i dont think the enemy will get within visual range, unless by accident.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Current infortmation shows that the F-22 rarely sustains supersonic speeds. Most of the time they cruise at subsonic speeds to get the most range and endurance out of the aircraft. On average they are no quicker than other 4th generation fighters.

But you dont judge the effectiveness of high dry or wet speed because of transit time, it virtually has no effect whatsoever on the combat scenario. So just outlining the fact that the F22 transits in the same way as other fighters compleatly overlooks the huge advantage its massive wet and dry speed give it in a combat scenaio. A kinemetic advantage that great can be used in many many ways.

I believe dogfights are over. The USAF will never get within visual range of an enemy fighter again. Some people said this prematurely in Vietnam.. in the gulf war it was starting to become true. Now with the accuracy and reliability of the AMRAAM and the stealth of the current USAF fighters i dont think the enemy will get within visual range, unless by accident.

They still teach 'em in red flag. For the most part i agree with you. BVR cambat is the name of the game. But a crafty and enterprising enemy will find a way to duck inside your punches, and a fair bit of technology/training are going into WVR at the moment. R74, ASRAAM, AIM 9X, JHMCS and current IRST+ Laser range finder technology are all intended for the WVR environment. So i rekon that might be a bit premature too.

 

[alexsa]

I believe dogfights are over. The USAF will never get within visual range of an enemy fighter again. Some people said this prematurely in Vietnam.. in the gulf war it was starting to become true. Now with the accuracy and reliability of the AMRAAM and the stealth of the current USAF fighters i dont think the enemy will get within visual range, unless by accident.

Unless your opponent has similar LO characterics and support .... the WVR become quite likely. Best to keep the skills.

 

[rjmaz1]

But you dont judge the effectiveness of high dry or wet speed because of transit time, it virtually has no effect whatsoever on the combat scenario. So just outlining the fact that the F22 transits in the same way as other fighters compleatly overlooks the huge advantage its massive wet and dry speed give it in a combat scenaio. A kinemetic advantage that great can be used in many many ways.

Yes but too many people picture the F-22 as an aircraft that flies its entire mission supersonically. Im just pointing out that this is not true. Air Power Australia for example on many occasions bring up sortie rate of the F-22 saying that it can fly twice as many missions if i remember correctly. This is bending the facts to suit an argument.

When in USAF service the F-22 transit speed is similar to other 4th generation aircraft. Combat speed would be much quicker but at the very most the F-22's sortie rate would only be fractionally better than 4th generation aircraft.

Its pretty funny when people suggest the Eurofighter and Rafale can supercruise when even the almighty F-22 stuggles to travel supersonically with reasonable range.

 

[Raptor.22]

thanks for the reply rjmaz1. i agree with you that there aren't gonna be anymore dogfights again.

the f-22 raptor is just too superior

 

[jaffo4011]

raptor,

thats a very simplistic view and we have yet to see any realistic evidence of the f22's genuine superiority.i can see you are a fan of the f22 but it hasn't bested the typhoon or rafale in exercises yet(as far as im humbly aware) and quite the opposite in the case of the typhoon (both in bvr and close in...see previous posts re this....)

my point is,that i am sure that the Russians are not that far behind the latest western efforts so any combat between roughly comparable types will still,inevitably,lead to close in combat.and thats where the gun and good maneuverability may still come to the fore.....:nutkick

 

[Tasman]

thanks for the reply rjmaz1. i agree with you that there aren't gonna be anymore dogfights again.

the f-22 raptor is just too superior

I agree with Jaffo's comment that” manoeuvrability may still come to the fore” along with Alexsa's comment that it is “best to keep the skills.”

As Rjmaz said, dogfights were written off prematurely in Vietnam. Whilst it is true AFAIK that WVR A2A combat did not occur in the Gulf War it is probably also true that the USAF and USN have not really been tested by a determined enemy in a sustained A2A campaign since Vietnam.

Another factor that might become a problem for an air force relying totally on BVR technology in A2A combat is that in a UN type operation pilots may still be stuck with rules of engagement that require visual identification before a missile can be fired. In such a situation, agility, acceleration and a good close range armament will still be important IMHO.

Cheers

 

[Wale14]

raptor,

thats a very simplistic view and we have yet to see any realistic evidence of the f22's genuine superiority.i can see you are a fan of the f22 but it hasn't bested the typhoon or rafale in exercises yet(as far as im humbly aware) and quite the opposite in the case of the typhoon (both in bvr and close in...see previous posts re this....)

my point is,that i am sure that the Russians are not that far behind the latest western efforts so any combat between roughly comparable types will still,inevitably,lead to close in combat.and thats where the gun and good maneuverability may still come to the fore.....:nutkick

i'm kinda new at this so help me out here guys, anyways i agree that we haven't seen all of the F22's genuine superiority yet but there is no doubt that its skill can excell that of the typhoon or rafale.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Yes but too many people picture the F-22 as an aircraft that flies its entire mission supersonically. Im just pointing out that this is not true. Air Power Australia for example on many occasions bring up sortie rate of the F-22 saying that it can fly twice as many missions if i remember correctly. This is bending the facts to suit an argument.

When in USAF service the F-22 transit speed is similar to other 4th generation aircraft. Combat speed would be much quicker but at the very most the F-22's sortie rate would only be fractionally better than 4th generation aircraft.

Its pretty funny when people suggest the Eurofighter and Rafale can supercruise when even the almighty F-22 stuggles to travel supersonically with reasonable range.

Fair enough. I have to agree with all of those points.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

raptor,

thats a very simplistic view and we have yet to see any realistic evidence of the f22's genuine superiority.i can see you are a fan of the f22 but it hasn't bested the typhoon or rafale in exercises yet(as far as im humbly aware) and quite the opposite in the case of the typhoon (both in bvr and close in...see previous posts re this....)

Achem...... It hasnt bested a typhoon or rafale in BVR???? The opposite in fact?????? Pray tell how did said typhoon or rafale even aquire a firing soloution in BVR with pulse doplar radars????? I've read reports of F16's not being able to get a target lock with RF & IR guided weapons when they could actually see the aircraft and were behind it. Yet typhoon and Rafale can somehow defeat an F22 in BVR which was probably in a head on engagement, the F22's stealthiest hemosphere???? Somehow i'm having a hard time believing that.

And in WVR??? Wing loadings are allmost identical, the F22 has significant IR supression and has 2D TVC. I read a report of a typhoon pilot saying they held their own againt the F22 in WVR but not that they beat it, which again woiuld require a weapons lock.

my point is,that i am sure that the Russians are not that far behind the latest western efforts so any combat between roughly comparable types will still,inevitably,lead to close in combat.and thats where the gun and good maneuverability may still come to the fore.....:nutkick

The ruskies new stuff is pretty capable, and if your not in an asymetric battle then there is a decent chance that there will be some WVR, especialy if the enemy intends to push int WVR. BVR is were A2A combat is at, but WVR is allways relevent and the skills and technology needed to fight in that environment should allways be retained and improved IMO.

 

[jaffo4011]

i dont intend to start a typhoon v f22 discussion on this thread(again) but my point is that i have yet to see any evidence in any publication of any proven capabilities over the typhoon by the f22 but in contrast i have read of the typhoon proving to be more manoeverable during close combat exercises when the two recently met in the u.s and that this was pretty much an accepted fact by both sides......in addition the f22 was detected by the captor radar of the typhoon at bvr which was a surprise to the f22 pilot!.what i dont know,obviously,is the circumstances during which it occurred.......

 

[Wale14]

i dont intend to start a typhoon v f22 discussion on this thread(again) but my point is that i have yet to see any evidence in any publication of any proven capabilities over the typhoon by the f22 but in contrast i have read of the typhoon proving to be more manoeverable during close combat exercises when the two recently met in the u.s and that this was pretty much an accepted fact by both sides......in addition the f22 was detected by the captor radar of the typhoon at bvr which was a surprise to the f22 pilot!.what i dont know,obviously,is the circumstances during which it occurred.......

thats not completely true jaffo. Mostly all of the F-22's capabilites are far better than the typhoons. and there is no way that the f-22 ways detected first by the typhoon at BVR because the raptor has a great LPI. the f-22 has a much better radar and combat radius than the typhoon.

not only that, but the raptor also has the better stealth technology and intercept range. i'm not saying in any way that the typhoon is a bad jet, because its one of the best. but what i am saying is that the capabilites and skills of the f-22 are more enhanced than the typhoons.

cheers