Mathematical model of air-to-air combat and loses

thunderchief

thunderchief

Senior Member
Jura said:
Isn't the Blue Force winning too easily? :)
Click to expand...

It all depends on coefficients , of course . Considering authors natural bias (he is American :D ) he assumed that Chinese Flankers are worse then American F-15C . Also , prediction was based on data available in 2011. If you change coefficients in such way that Flanker and F-15 are equal , you will get vastly different results .
 
vesicles

vesicles

Colonel
thunderchief said:
It all depends on coefficients , of course . Considering authors natural bias (he is American :D ) he assumed that Chinese Flankers are worse then American F-15C . Also , prediction was based on data available in 2011. If you change coefficients in such way that Flanker and F-15 are equal , you will get vastly different results .
Click to expand...

Sorry that I haven't gotten a chance to go through it carefully. However, did the author validate his model by simulating an existing event? By that, I mean whether his model can predict correctly the outcome of an air battle that actually happened between an F-15 and a Su-XX? The model has to be validated before it can be used to predict future events.
 
Jura The idiot

Jura The idiot

General
thunderchief said:
... If you change coefficients in such way that Flanker and F-15 are equal , you will get vastly different results .
Click to expand...

Here you go, thunderchief (both alpha and beta (cf. Table 4) are now set to 1.0):

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

and

>> eval(x(win))

ans =

2.225...

>> eval(z(win))

ans =

2.090...

Meaning: To wipe out all 20 Su-27s, 10 F-15s and 4 F-22s would be lost.

If the values of attrition coefficients used in the paper were wrong, should one read the rest of it? LOL
 
Last edited:
Jura The idiot

Jura The idiot

General
vesicles said:
Sorry that I haven't gotten a chance to go through it carefully. However, did the author validate his model by simulating an existing event? By that, I mean whether his model can predict correctly the outcome of an air battle that actually happened between an F-15 and a Su-XX? The model has to be validated before it can be used to predict future events.
Click to expand...

In principle, yes. Instead, wishful thinking can be used. LOL
 
L

latenlazy

Brigadier
Jura said:
In principle, yes. Instead, wishful thinking can be used. LOL
Click to expand...
The USAF does have a Su-27 or two lying around that they could have used to base a simulation or model around, but of course that's still leagues away from accurately replicating your enemy's tactics and systems.
 
Jura The idiot

Jura The idiot

General
latenlazy said:
The USAF does have a Su-27 or two lying around that they could have used to base a simulation or model around, but of course that's still leagues away from accurately replicating your enemy's tactics and systems.
Click to expand...

A question: Do you know the attrition coefficients for, e.g., Spitfire vs. Messerschmidt; Hellcat vs. Zero; Mustang vs. Focke-Wulf; Sabre vs. Mig-15?
 
thunderchief

thunderchief

Senior Member
Jura said:
Meaning: To wipe out all 20 Su-27s, 10 F-15s and 4 F-22s would be lost.

If the values of attrition coefficients used in the paper were wrong, should one read the rest of it? LOL
Click to expand...

That sounds more reasonable to me , although fans of USAF or PLAAF might disagree :D . Coefficients are of course matter of opinion and educated guess . Author did explain how he got what he got .

On the other , when calculating coefficients for historical encounters (lets say Bf-109E vs Spitfire I ) you could start with one assumption , and then tweak a little until you get historical results .
 
L

latenlazy

Brigadier
Jura said:
A question: Do you know the attrition coefficients for, e.g., Spitfire vs. Messerschmidt; Hellcat vs. Zero; Mustang vs. Focke-Wulf; Sabre vs. Mig-15?
Click to expand...

I do not, nor am I sure knowing them would really illuminate anything. If I'm not mistaken all of those attrition coefficients were derived from very real combat experience. They are tested numbers. Furthermore, the calculation must've gotten more complicated with the modern emphasis on force multipliers.
 
Jura The idiot

Jura The idiot

General
thunderchief said:
That sounds more reasonable to me , although fans of USAF or PLAAF might disagree :D . Coefficients are of course matter of opinion and educated guess . Author did explain how he got what he got .
....
Click to expand...

I read on the paper and realized different coefficients were used for the encounter with China (Table 14, 15). Using them, the model (see my previous posts for details) now says all 20 Su-27s together with 12 F-15s and 6 F-22s would be down at about the same time ...

>> eval(x(win))

ans =

-0.085...

>> eval(z(win))

ans =

0.820...

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


P.S. Don't worry about numbers smaller than 1.0 (or even negative), they obviously mean "no airplane of that type still flies".
 
Last edited:
Jura The idiot

Jura The idiot

General
latenlazy said:
I do not, nor am I sure knowing them would really illuminate anything. If I'm not mistaken all of those attrition coefficients were derived from very real combat experience. They are tested numbers. Furthermore, the calculation must've gotten more complicated with the modern emphasis on force multipliers.
Click to expand...

I don't see your point ... are you against modeling in general, or just the Lanchester equations??
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top