Air Combat Maneuvering Thread
- Thread starter Air Force Brat
- Start date
Can you give any clue as to who that guy is that only seems to "post" using a synonym and whose blog(?) doesn't precisely look professional in any way?
And were he comes up with numbers for turn rates and so on for all the fighters that are presumably precise to a tenth of a degree?
And most of all, what I couldn't get from reading your excerpt, how he came up with that completely random looking score system?
Moreover, even that "source" of yours comes up with a myriad of items that decide the value of a fighter in areal combat, while you seem to again be fixed on a single one.
Then I also have issue with the relevance of the metrics that guy applies. Primarily the loaded role capability. Once you are engaged in rolling / flat scissors will that be an issue, with speed constatly decaying towards stall, trying to get behind the other guy. By that time, role rates will be really sluggish anyway and you'll revert to rudder as well to role the aircraft. As long as you're even remotely close to having energy left, the rule is "unload, role, set, pull. Get the stress off the wing, quickly & aggressively set your bank, and then pull. That will give up a bit of turning room by "letting off", but you won't waste time and room performing a really slow role.
While being besides the topic here, and I hope I'll not get smacked for this, I would also like to challange your earlier statement of swept wing designs being unable to strafe and a fixed wing being needed for that. (Btw even the Su-25 mentioned by you doesn't have a straight wing)
Jets like the Tornado, Eurofighter, F-15, F-16, F-18, Mirage F1, Super-Étendart, Harrier can and have strafed even though they don't have a straight wing or armored cockpit.
I am also unsure as to what all the gun cam photos are supposed to show. That Rafale, Eurofighter and F-22 play in the same league kinematics wise? I don't believe there is a particular challange to that statement. Maybe there is. I believe those three are comparable. However, it is a singular metric. The contention is what happens before the contestants eventually arrive at that point.
A question here is how the eventual clash of 5th gen / VLO desigs will change the metrics of ACM.
And were he comes up with numbers for turn rates and so on for all the fighters that are presumably precise to a tenth of a degree?
And most of all, what I couldn't get from reading your excerpt, how he came up with that completely random looking score system?
Moreover, even that "source" of yours comes up with a myriad of items that decide the value of a fighter in areal combat, while you seem to again be fixed on a single one.
Then I also have issue with the relevance of the metrics that guy applies. Primarily the loaded role capability. Once you are engaged in rolling / flat scissors will that be an issue, with speed constatly decaying towards stall, trying to get behind the other guy. By that time, role rates will be really sluggish anyway and you'll revert to rudder as well to role the aircraft. As long as you're even remotely close to having energy left, the rule is "unload, role, set, pull. Get the stress off the wing, quickly & aggressively set your bank, and then pull. That will give up a bit of turning room by "letting off", but you won't waste time and room performing a really slow role.
While being besides the topic here, and I hope I'll not get smacked for this, I would also like to challange your earlier statement of swept wing designs being unable to strafe and a fixed wing being needed for that. (Btw even the Su-25 mentioned by you doesn't have a straight wing)
Jets like the Tornado, Eurofighter, F-15, F-16, F-18, Mirage F1, Super-Étendart, Harrier can and have strafed even though they don't have a straight wing or armored cockpit.
I am also unsure as to what all the gun cam photos are supposed to show. That Rafale, Eurofighter and F-22 play in the same league kinematics wise? I don't believe there is a particular challange to that statement. Maybe there is. I believe those three are comparable. However, it is a singular metric. The contention is what happens before the contestants eventually arrive at that point.
A question here is how the eventual clash of 5th gen / VLO desigs will change the metrics of ACM.
Last edited:
Brumby and b787, as much as it pains me, you are both being officially waned.
I moderated this discussion yesterday with this:
THE VERY NEXT POST you guys continued on like it had not happened.
So, you are now warned. more will get you suspended.
In addition, as I indicated I am going back and deleting the on and on and on back and forth.
Sorry...but please follow moderation.
DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS MODERATION
I moderated this discussion yesterday with this:
Jeff Head said:
THE VERY NEXT POST you guys continued on like it had not happened.
So, you are now warned. more will get you suspended.
In addition, as I indicated I am going back and deleting the on and on and on back and forth.
Sorry...but please follow moderation.
DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS MODERATION
Engineer
Major
That's was when post-stall maneuvering is still new and countering tactics have yet to be developed. Then was also an era where post-stall maneuvering was thought to be the next best thing since slice bread, and nobody dare to raise skepticism. Diagrams in journal papers envisioning benefits of post-stall maneuvers could be physics-defying at times, it was comical!
Much has changed since then. Now days, an aircraft going into post-stall maneuver loses the dog fight right away.
The real-world result is completely opposite to what was envisioned. Die-hard thrust-vectoring fan boys who never set foot in a cockpit just couldn't admit it.
I agree Scratch, some of my further research, showed the low altitude A2G took the brunt of the AAA and SAMs in the years since Desert Storm, as you have alluded, the rolling scissors was/is one of the maneuvers that can be applied to defend against other aircraft, but AAA and SAM are very dangerous, and the main reason that JSF designers have attempted to keep the JSF out of the very low altitude environment, and make its weapons more of a stand-off smart weapons?? This will at least give you some time/distance from the threat??
So my main focus in creating this thread was not to be obtuse or obnoxious, but gain a real world understanding, of number one the threat?, even highly maneuverable four gens "bit the dust" due to AAA and SAMS?? while only Scott Speicher's F-18 fell to a Mig 25? I am fairly certain that 5 gens will fair better against the AAM threat, but how much better??? I was under the impression that AAM will continue to try to make the "kill" until their fuel is exhausted or the LOCK ON is broken, or decoyed by chaff?
I understand it is supposed that the Raptor and other 5th gens will operate inside the threat bubble with relative impunity, so my question is basically can you defeat an AAM with Air Combat Maneuvering, and if so, will the same Metric allow you to defeat SAMs or AAA?
Master Jeff, if you would please delete the "supermaneuverability" from the title, as many understand that to be tied to OVT/Thrust Vectoring, although I was specifically considering all the new 5 gens to have that capability, only the T-50 brings that to the mix, the J-20 and J-31 dispensing with OVT as unnecessary?
Engineer
Major
Yeah. That's exactly what thrust-vectoring does, nothing more.
Think about it. If thrust-vectoring really adds to maneuverability, everyone would retrofit thrust-vectoring nozzles to legacy planes. There would be no need to design new aircraft when MiG-21 could compete with F-22 just by replacing the engine nozzle. So, it goes without saying that thrust-vectoring isn't a game changer, and is now nothing more than marketing gimmick.
b787
Captain
it is off topic but you misunderstood me, any aircraft can strafe, but the best wing to fly slow and low will be straight and the Su-25 has a straight wing
To understand it think what wing setting a Panavia Tornado will have at slow and low flight.
Engineer
Major
Strawman arguments. It is not the goal of stealth to remain hidden. It is not the goal of AAM to have 100% kill rate. They are there to reduce reaction time of the opponent, and to force the opponent to waste time dodging missiles while the stealth aircraft closes in. By the time the opponent outran the missiles, that aircraft is depleted of energy, and the stealth aircraft will be right on top to deliver the final blow at WVR.
There is no reduction in maneuverability, because F-22 almost always kicks butts WVR.
A non-stealth aircraft encounters a lot of drag due to external stores. Stealth aircraft has no such issue. So, a non-stealth fighter is aerodynamically inferior to a similar sized and powered stealth aircraft.
Last edited:
