Tomcats gone by fall of 2006

"Pechs1" wrote in message
...
Certainly it's better to shoot them in the lips from miles away.
BRBR


BUT if you find yourself in amongst them, you better have the skill to
survive
and win. Many after getting into the F-4 thought closein fighting was dead
and
they became dead. In a multi bogey envirnment, with so many A/C looking
similar, with a VID requirement, you are going to go to the merge.

Sure you don't pull your pants down and grovel, but you had better have
the
skills to visually fight your enemy.
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye
Phlyer

I didn't mean to suggest you abandon the skill (albeit in rereading my post,
that appears to be the implication). Rather, I think we don't emphasize
some of the underlying problems encountered in the "knife fight in a phone
booth" engagement.

R / John

On 6/19/04 7:15 AM, in article , "John
Carrier" wrote:

Been there and done that as well, albeit in an A-4. It's the sticky little
problem of the wild card that gets thrown into that otherwise controllable
mix. Particularly sticky, even after a 2 kill result, because you must
leave the hostile arena (perhaps 50-100 NM from feet wet) starting with 150
knots and a wee bit less fuel than you'd probably like.

Perhaps we've entered an era in which air supremacy is a given. In every
encounter we've experienced since Vietnam, we've so thoroughly owned the
arena that we could do our thing with impunity with regard to the airborne
threat (of course ground fire, etc can still rear its ugly head ...
particularly if you get low). In sanitized airspace, your 1v2 may well be
guaranteed to remain a 1v2 and your egress can be a fuel efficient profile.

You have a good point. For instance, I often find myself arguing that
multi-plane engagement training (4v4 minimum... Which seem to be getting
rarer and rarer) are still necessary, but since we've seen such air
supremacy, I fear that dwindling budgets will further limit multi-plane 4vX
events in the future.

Or not. Current training often reflects the preferred methods of
engagement: AMRAAM at F-pole, break to notch the bogey's system, and then
leave without a merge. That's good. But it's sometimes (often?) BFM
oriented: call all the forward quarter shots, then continue to the merge
and "fight's on!" Maybe not so good. How many of your kick ass, take names
engagements ended with a 3rd bogey entering the arena at an inopportune
time? How many had a bugout that lasted more than 30 seconds?

That situation--essentially a 3v1 with a head start on the first two--has
only happened once, and the third guy shot me. But had I not taken the
energy excursions to shoot his brethren, I'd have been fighting all three of
them with no kills whatsoever.

I'm not arguing against the relative merits of your aircraft or your
consummate skill. But I am suggesting that more often than not, our
"training" leaves out some of the important stuff. IIRC the last guys to
enjoy similar success (3 kills in one engagement) had to ride the helo back
to the ship, and were damn lucky to do so.

I have little "consummate skill," and we both know that the Hornet has its
limitations--a fact I freely acknowledge. I agree that our training
sometimes gets too artificial (and as training rules tighten down it gets
even more limited as time goes on). I know you're not Hornet bashing or
Hornet pilot bashing.

The art is: When do you trade energy for nose position? You wait for a
moment in the fight (if ever) when you're willing to trade your airspeed for
angles, pull, and shoot. Then gain it back by locking both arms. This is
not cosmic. No pilot goes to the merge thinking that he should immediately
slow down.

Your points are good ones--it's not often that we bug for more than 30
seconds... or even supersonic (because of range limits), and that mindset
needs to be refreshed every now and then.

--Woody

Tony- Of course, stealthily smacking him in the teeth BVR from outside his
range
is really the best way to go! BRBR

Remember that stealth, and
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

John- I didn't mean to suggest you abandon the skill (albeit in rereading my
post,
that appears to be the implication). Rather, I think we don't emphasize
some of the underlying problems encountered in the "knife fight in a phone
booth" engagement. BRBR

I knew what you meant John, I was posting for those w/o real world experience
that the days of being w/i visual range of a bad guy are not over. In fact,
with stealth, multi A/C looking similar, poor GCI, and the fog of war, visual
engagements are going to increase, not decrease.

Ya better be able to see and defeat the bad guy.
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

John Carrier wrote:

Current training often reflects the preferred methods of
engagement: AMRAAM at F-pole, break to notch the bogey's system, and then
leave without a merge.

The best thing about this group is reading the posts from the guys who
have been there, and done that. But sometimes the jargon frustrates this
armchair naval aviatior wannabe. If the assembled august personages don't
mind, some translations please. (Using only unclassified information, of
course.)

I've read about the "F-pole" before in the group. From context, I
understand the F-pole is the ideal place in time and space to launch a BVR
missile shot. How is it calculated and why does it have such a strange
name?

What does it mean to "break to notch the bogey's system?" Again, from
context I assume this is a manuever designed to make it more difficult for
the bad guy to track you using sensors like radar (and others?). Is this
the same as "beaming?" What kind of maneuvers are used and how do they
defeat the bogey's ability to track at beyond visual range? Does this
manuever also defeat an enemy's ground-based sensors? Or does it assume
that they have been degraded by other means?

GENERALLY SPEAKING...In 2v1 "the hard way", I've always felt that giving up
energy for the first shot is a good move since it essentially makes the
fight a "2v2." One can certainly be stupid about what kind of angles you're
giving the "free" fighter (as well as late entering wild cards), but how
many times have we also seen folks "preserving their Ps" so well that they
do little but execute bogey-gathering turns? Since I'm already at a gross
disadvantage, if I'm given a shred of an opportunity to dictate the fight,
I'm gonna do it by going offensive first. If I get even slightly offensive
and the free fighter makes any kind of mistake (for example, "extending"
with his wingman defensive) it is now two 1v1s that I can fight
sequentially. There are plenty of scenario driven "yeah, buts" and "what
ifs," but its nice to be able to "point" when you need/want to.

I didn't read each of the comments, but hasn't anybody talked about AA-11s,
Python 4/5s and AIM-9x with HMCS or similar capabilities? Its now less
about pointing the jet than it is the HMCS and the weapon.

"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" wrote in message
...
On 6/19/04 7:15 AM, in article , "John
Carrier" wrote:

Been there and done that as well, albeit in an A-4. It's the sticky
little
problem of the wild card that gets thrown into that otherwise
controllable
mix. Particularly sticky, even after a 2 kill result, because you must
leave the hostile arena (perhaps 50-100 NM from feet wet) starting with
150
knots and a wee bit less fuel than you'd probably like.

Perhaps we've entered an era in which air supremacy is a given. In
every
encounter we've experienced since Vietnam, we've so thoroughly owned the
arena that we could do our thing with impunity with regard to the
airborne
threat (of course ground fire, etc can still rear its ugly head ...
particularly if you get low). In sanitized airspace, your 1v2 may well
be
guaranteed to remain a 1v2 and your egress can be a fuel efficient
profile.

You have a good point. For instance, I often find myself arguing that
multi-plane engagement training (4v4 minimum... Which seem to be getting
rarer and rarer) are still necessary, but since we've seen such air
supremacy, I fear that dwindling budgets will further limit multi-plane
4vX
events in the future.

Or not. Current training often reflects the preferred methods of
engagement: AMRAAM at F-pole, break to notch the bogey's system, and
then
leave without a merge. That's good. But it's sometimes (often?) BFM
oriented: call all the forward quarter shots, then continue to the
merge
and "fight's on!" Maybe not so good. How many of your kick ass, take
names
engagements ended with a 3rd bogey entering the arena at an inopportune
time? How many had a bugout that lasted more than 30 seconds?

That situation--essentially a 3v1 with a head start on the first two--has
only happened once, and the third guy shot me. But had I not taken the
energy excursions to shoot his brethren, I'd have been fighting all three
of
them with no kills whatsoever.

I'm not arguing against the relative merits of your aircraft or your
consummate skill. But I am suggesting that more often than not, our
"training" leaves out some of the important stuff. IIRC the last guys
to
enjoy similar success (3 kills in one engagement) had to ride the helo
back
to the ship, and were damn lucky to do so.

I have little "consummate skill," and we both know that the Hornet has its
limitations--a fact I freely acknowledge. I agree that our training
sometimes gets too artificial (and as training rules tighten down it gets
even more limited as time goes on). I know you're not Hornet bashing or
Hornet pilot bashing.

The art is: When do you trade energy for nose position? You wait for a
moment in the fight (if ever) when you're willing to trade your airspeed
for
angles, pull, and shoot. Then gain it back by locking both arms. This is
not cosmic. No pilot goes to the merge thinking that he should
immediately
slow down.

Your points are good ones--it's not often that we bug for more than 30
seconds... or even supersonic (because of range limits), and that mindset
needs to be refreshed every now and then.

--Woody

"Paul Michael Brown" wrote in message
news
John Carrier wrote:

Current training often reflects the preferred methods of
engagement: AMRAAM at F-pole, break to notch the bogey's system, and
then
leave without a merge.

The best thing about this group is reading the posts from the guys who
have been there, and done that. But sometimes the jargon frustrates this
armchair naval aviatior wannabe. If the assembled august personages don't
mind, some translations please. (Using only unclassified information, of
course.)

I've read about the "F-pole" before in the group. From context, I
understand the F-pole is the ideal place in time and space to launch a BVR
missile shot. How is it calculated and why does it have such a strange
name?

F-pole is range which results in the earliest bogey kill (least raid
penetration and most chance to kill him before he kills you), maximum
effective range. A function of your speed, his, and missile flight
dynamics. Rule of thumb: 85% of maximum aerodynamic range for the missile.

What does it mean to "break to notch the bogey's system?" Again, from
context I assume this is a manuever designed to make it more difficult for
the bad guy to track you using sensors like radar (and others?). Is this
the same as "beaming?" What kind of maneuvers are used and how do they
defeat the bogey's ability to track at beyond visual range? Does this
manuever also defeat an enemy's ground-based sensors? Or does it assume
that they have been degraded by other means?

A nose low hard turn to place the bogey in the beam and high. Gives PD
radars problems (no closure, the "notch"), gives pulse radars problems
(clutter), minimizes his missile range (your vector is no longer toward his
aircraft ... you don't contribute to missile performance), creates some
problems for the missile (radar missiles generally prefer a bit of look-up
or a a lot of look down). Given modern radar/missile capabilities, not a
panacea, but if your AMRAAM is on the way, you've maximized your
opportunities and minimized his.

R / John

I have little "consummate skill,"

Come on Woody. Modesty is not required here. I helped train you. You've
got skill up the wazoo!

R / John

Particularly sticky, even after a 2 kill result, because you must
leave the hostile arena (perhaps 50-100 NM from feet wet) starting with
150
knots and a wee bit less fuel than you'd probably like.

How long would it take a (now-lightly loaded) -14 or -18 to accelerate
from 150 to 500 knots? 800 knots? Is there likely to be an undetected bad
guy loitering close enough to be able to pounce on you before you reach that
speed? I mean, it's possible that your jet will be knocked out of the sky
by a recreational sky diver, but is it worth worrying about (a smart-ass way
of asking will there likely ever be big, unAWACSed or datalinked dogfights)?

The art is: When do you trade energy for nose position? You wait for a
moment in the fight (if ever) when you're willing to trade your airspeed
for
angles, pull, and shoot. Then gain it back by locking both arms. This is
not cosmic. No pilot goes to the merge thinking that he should
immediately
slow down.

As Frijoles mentioned, how does the new generation of IR missiles and
HMCS change this? Is it worth maintaining energy if the "newest" missile
can pull more g's than your plane and has enough energy to just that even if
it's launched from a bad angle? Are the newest IR missiles at this level of
capability (does anyone know if the now 20-yr old R-73 is being updated)?
Can you tell us any of this without violating national security?
Thanks for the interesting and informative discussion!

Tony

p.s.- about the Python 4 from:
http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapo...n/Python4.html

"A passing target on a reciprocal heading can be engaged in most of the
forward hemisphere, if the Python fails its first opportunity to hit, it
will maintain track on the target and continue a tail chase geometry pursuit
on a reciprocal heading to the launch aircraft, running down the target for
a tail-aspect hit. The missile is claimed to have sufficient turning
performance to defeat high G evasive manoeuvre by any existing fighter
aircraft"
- I recognize it's probably optimistic manufacturer PR, but the capability
looks pretty impressive any how

Snip.

As Frijoles mentioned, how does the new generation of IR missiles and
HMCS change this? Is it worth maintaining energy if the "newest" missile
can pull more g's than your plane and has enough energy to just that even
if
it's launched from a bad angle? Are the newest IR missiles at this level
of
capability (does anyone know if the now 20-yr old R-73 is being updated)?
Can you tell us any of this without violating national security?
Thanks for the interesting and informative discussion!

Marine F-18 friend got to play with the Germans and their Mig-29's a couple
years ago. Somewhat similar match as the F-18 vs F-16. If they threw out
the anchor and used the Bug's superior radius versus the Mig's somewhat
superior rate, the Mig driver would call a shot well off boresight, and well
before the Bug driver reached a firing solution. Given an all-aspect
missile in the air, energy and airspeed (creating some tracking problems for
the missile and displacement of your target aircraft from the
countermeasures you'll deploy) versus no energy and no airspeed (a point
source of IR in the sky) would be the preferred state. Hardly ideal, but
preferred.

R / John