Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!apple!sun-barr!newstop!sun!amdcad!amdcad!military From: amichiel@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Allen J Michielsen) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: Can the backseater in f-18's bring it home? Message-ID: <1991May16.052726.17567@amd.com> Date: 15 May 91 21:33:31 GMT References: <1991May15.060850.3130@amd.com> Sender: military@amd.com Organization: Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY Lines: 47 Approved: military@amd.com From: amichiel@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Allen J Michielsen) >From: >Regarding the F-15 and an F-14 in a 1 v 1 dogfight, actually, the F-15 cannot >easily defeat the F-14. They're more pon equal ground with the difference What really muddies this 'argument' (and the whole discussion is moot anyway in my opinion) is HOW we define the term dogfight. If we determine a dogfight to be the longest range at which a fighter is (or can) carry a weapon which has a reasonable probability of taking out the enemy (or with which, cab be but at a manuverable disadvantage for the second shot....). Then 1 fighter would be better due to operational weapon differences. If the dogfight term is defined as the longest range which it can stand alone, under a set (and we can argue here also) of conditions, independantly identify and attack the enemy, a different fighter would be better. If the dogfight radius is decreased, at different size circles, different planes become the numerical victor. Whatever constraints we put on the definition, is flawed simply because no military engagement works 'by the book'. In this case, in order to get a really fair operational comparison we must do the following. The F-14 would be outfitted and used in a fleet defense role. It should only encounter a F-15 outfitted and used in a fleet attack role, on a 1-to-1 basis. The F-15 would be weighted down operationally with a large, heavy anti-ship weapon. Roughly, under this conditions, the F-14 would chewup and spit out the F-15: Meaning that the F-15 would be 'forced' to drop the anti-ship weapon. Then, even if the F-15 did win a engagement with the F-14, the F-14 has already won the engagement by definition either way because it defended the fleet, which is what it's job is. Taking this a step farther you could say that it could encounter 2 f-15's, 1 in a defensive role for the other F-15 (or following F-15). In that case, we need to add another F-14 to keep a 1-to-1 fight, and we start a 'chicken or egg' argument. The rules of engagement and mock air battle competitions have always had a real problem in this area. As a matter of fact, the old antique F-4 has performed very closely or better than any/all of the competition. This isn't to suggest military imcompetance or that the F-4 has the performance of new airplanes. It is to suggest that the SITUATION, Crew Performance, and Rules of Engagement, OPerational limitations are much more important.... (And further to suggest that the continuation of this nearly discussion can go at infinum/adnauseam..., without ANY real definitive answer. The world isn't black and white {well if you compared a P-38 & a A-10, or spartacus had a piper cub....}). -- Al. Michielsen, Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering, Syracuse University InterNet: amichiel@rodan.acs.syr.edu amichiel@sunrise.acs.syr.edu Bitnet: AMICHIEL@SUNRISE