Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!att!cbnews!military From: wxh@alpha.lanl.gov (Billy Harvey) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: Dogfighting tactics Message-ID: <7937@cbnews.ATT.COM> Date: 5 Jul 89 12:36:48 GMT References: <7884@cbnews.ATT.COM> Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory Lines: 123 Approved: military@att.att.com From: wxh@alpha.lanl.gov (Billy Harvey) In article <7884@cbnews.ATT.COM>, shafer@elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov writes: [other stuff deleted] > Missiles and guns, and their characteristics, are another important > factor in tactics. The F-4 is a better heat source than the MiG, so if > you're 2 v any, it's best not to use a Sidewinder, since you might kill > your wingman rather than your opponent. Your choices are then > Sparrows, which aren't `fire-and-forget', or guns. An AIM-9 Sidewinder might be a good choice to use even in a tight dogfight, for several reasons. Depending on the version of missle you are carrying a lock on could be obtained at various angles off the tail of the target, and so would allow a quick point and shoot weapon in some instances. This might be really important depending on just how close your wingman was to getting shot himself. The missle is also relatively fast, since it is comparatively small and can accelerate quickly (ever try to follow a bottle rocket with your eyes on the way up - its _fast_). The ability to discriminate between your wingman and the target will depend mostly on the angular difference between them vs you - judgement is required if its going to be close. Conversely, an AIM-7 Sparrow, which comes in several versions also, is a larger and slower weapon. There are inherent discrimination problems with a radar guided weapon also. If your wingman and the target are close together, the resolution cell of the radar may prevent a good distinction between the two returns, or the shot may transition from one return to the other. However the weapon does allow you to step back from the fight a little way, allowing you to look for other threats (with Migs, there _will_ be more) while planning your shot. Yout do have the ability to retract the shot, so to speak, by switching off the continuous wave energy the missle uses to guide to the target, or by simply breaking the lock, if it becomes obvious you shot towards the wrong guy. Various countermeasures (chaff, flares, jamming pods) can defeat or seriously degrade the capability of missles. Hence, the weapon which was added to the F-4 in later versions - the gun. (BTW, the F-4 had no gun originally because _the_powers_that_were_said_"Our missles are so good, we don't need something as archaic and _simple_ as a GUN.) (Someone told me or maybe I read it in Aviation Leak that the Air Force dropped the requirement for a gun from the ATF, because our missles are so good, we don't need a GUN - somebody tell me this is an untruth.) The gun is simple, and its hard to jam bullets. It must be defeated (and employed) by maneuvering of the aircraft. These maneuvers, like most of dogfighting, make you as the fighter, very predictable. This allows the friends of the Mig (and they have more airplanes than us) to eat your lunch. The point of the dribble above is that one cannot specifically say what weapon is best always, it just depends. Additionally, I'd like to put in my 1/50 $1.00 about what use a back seater is in an F-4, and whether an F-4 is a fighter or not. Yes, the F-4 is a fighter - there are quite a few around with red stars painted on the intakes. The F-4, more than any of the newer airplanes, is a machine. It must be _put_ where you want it, with realization of its limitations and unique abilities as a two seat fighter. An F-15 or F-16 can use its superior thrust and maneuverability to outfly an F-4, so the two minds in an F-4 must learn to work _together_ to defeat a better-flying aircraft by using better-flown tactics. The pilot in the front seat is just that - the pilot. He maneuvers the aircraft to achieve weapon parameters, and employs the weapon. However the backseater runs the radar, and if he knows his business, is constantly on the lookout for those friends of the Mig while the pilot is flying his predictable flight path. He is a parallel processor, with the ability to interrupt the current task (of killing the target) with a higher priority task ("BREAK RIGHT, 2 Fishbeds 4 o'clock low!"). He is directly responsible for controlling the jamming pod in its multitude of modes (sure it has automatic modes, but like most things, higher performance can be obtained by proper _manual_ use of the tool - however it requires knowledge and judgement). Since he can see behind the aircraft better, he directs the fight when the pilot cannot see the attacker, so the backseater had better understand the air combat arena himself. Any pilot of an F-4 who thinks little of the backseat is STUPID. He is not using his probably outclassed aircraft to its optimum, which will be required to survive and to kill. However I know F-4 pilots (and obviously pilots of single seat aircraft) who think and say they would rather have the extra gas... The backseater has a vested interest in the capability of the pilot in the front. After all, he runs into the ground a millisecond after the frontseater does. Some other comments about remarks about F-4s I've seen here: The F-4 is currently on active duty in the F-4E (sort of the basic these days), and the recce version, and the F-4G Wild Weasel. The unique abilities of the Wild Weasel will probably keep it around for a lot longer. The pilot bails out both crewmembers if he initiates the ejection. If the backseater initiates the ejection, he may go solo or both may go, depending on the crew brief between the crew, and the setting of a handle in the rear cockpit. Backseaters are not formally taught to fly, but they obviously like flying or they wouldn't be there, and will tend to fly as much as the front seater allows them. Many become fairly proficient, and many have their private pilot certificates. The F-4 is not real easy to land from the rear seat, so most crews brief the back seater to initiate a dual-ejection in case the front seater is disabled, however you find many opinions on this. Many of the more experienced back seaters could (and have) landed from the rear, given _favorable_ conditions. Bad weather, a disabled aircraft, and a disabled front seater are not usually favorable conditions. F-4 engines used to smoke, but the newer versions installed in the F-4G smoke much less. The F-15 engine if detuned smokes, but not nearly as bad as the original F-4 engines. F-4 engines were/are very reliable. Large birds, parts of trees, parts of engines have been ingested by running F-4 engines without a hiccup. There is usually damage, but the engines usually keeps running. Conversely, the ability of the F-16's _only_ engine to die if you whisper the word "ice" near the intake is legendary, and many engine losses are due to foreign object damage. Forgive me for carrying on so, but the F-4 is something I know a little about. Cheers. Billy Harvey wxh@a.lanl.gov