![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
... Danny Deger wrote: "Dudley Henriques" wrote in message ... Danny Deger wrote: snip I'm not a Naval Aviator but I've done quite a lot of energy maneuverability research with them flying T38's and have a few hours in the F14 doing ACM. Section is the common term used in the Navy for an element pair whether in fighting wing or double attack spread formation which is the old loose deuce section. The section in DA can be split between lead and the wing as to who is engaged at any instant in time. Is DA line abreast about 6,000 feet apart? We called this "tactical" formation in the Air Force and we used it 99% of the time when egaging an enemy. Like you said, number 2 is just as likely as number 1 to become the primary offensive guy post merge. Nuke strike was single ship, so we didn't have to worry about all that formation stuff on that mission. Danny Deger P.S. Did you get any stick time doing ACM in the F-14? Double attack is just another name for loose deuce. Formation changes between the engaged and free fighter are common and position is usually held by yo yo'ing high or low on the call into or away from lead. Your AF counterpart would be fluid two or fluid four. Never flown the F4, but the lateral separation sounds about right. It's usually a consideration of turn radius and lead would usually have the section a little above corner to account for snatch factor in a switch. Double Attack I think works much better for the wingman than fighting wing where if lead suddenly pulls max allowable g the trailer can be sucked in trail. In double attack, the trailer yo yo's and either goes high or low maintaining position. Sounds like you were definitely working with 100% air-to-air guys. We were air-to-ground and got to fly our 6 air-to-air sorties a half and not much more. We were tail only in a close fight, because the Air Force would not buy the Navy version of the all aspect AIM-9 with the bottle in the missile and wouldn't mod our pylons to put the bottle in the pylons. Tail only in a F-4 really sucks when doing DACM against an all aspect F-14, 15, or 16 :-) We could throw a couple of AIM-7s in before the merge, but were seriously outclassed in the close-in turning fight. I developed a tactic custom made for tail only fighting. It worked well, but I couldn't get other F-4 drivers interested in it. Download a free copy of my book from my web site and you can read about it in detail. I would like your opinion of it. www.dannydeger.net Danny Deger |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
PENTAGON CONSIDERING MILITARY BUILD UP AGAINST IRAN (Scroll down to comments section - see page 2 of the comments section as well): | [email protected] | Naval Aviation | 0 | December 19th 06 08:37 PM |