This might be of some interest. Throw out all those other transition schedules
we've seen. <g>

<start>
DEFENSE DAILY 16 JUN 04

Tomcat Transition To Super Hornet Complete By Fall '06, Admiral Says

By Lorenzo Cortes

The Navy will successfully retire the remainder of its Northrop Grumman [NOC]
F-14 Tomcat fleet in fall 2006 thanks to an accelerated schedule that also
includes introducing Boeing [BA] F/A-18E/F Super Hornet fighter-bombers
earlier, according to the Atlantic Fleet's air forces chief.

"One of the things that we have been able to do as a result of some good
production with our industry partners with the success of the multiyear with
the E and F is we were able to look at and make a decision to accelerate the
transition of the last of the F-14 squadrons to the F/A-18E/F," Rear Adm. Jim
Zortman, commander of Naval Air Forces Atlantic, said last week during the
Association of Naval Aviation's 2004 convention in Vienna, Va. "That is taking
place right now,
and by fall of '06, we will have made that transition. ...
<end>

MW

On 6/16/04 2:03 PM, in article ,
"Mike Weeks" > wrote:

> This might be of some interest. Throw out all those other transition
> schedules
> we've seen. <g>
>
> <start>
> DEFENSE DAILY 16 JUN 04
>
> Tomcat Transition To Super Hornet Complete By Fall '06, Admiral Says
>
> By Lorenzo Cortes
>
> The Navy will successfully retire the remainder of its Northrop Grumman [NOC]
> F-14 Tomcat fleet in fall 2006 thanks to an accelerated schedule that also
> includes introducing Boeing [BA] F/A-18E/F Super Hornet fighter-bombers
> earlier, according to the Atlantic Fleet's air forces chief.
>
> "One of the things that we have been able to do as a result of some good
> production with our industry partners with the success of the multiyear with
> the E and F is we were able to look at and make a decision to accelerate the
> transition of the last of the F-14 squadrons to the F/A-18E/F," Rear Adm. Jim
> Zortman, commander of Naval Air Forces Atlantic, said last week during the
> Association of Naval Aviation's 2004 convention in Vienna, Va. "That is taking
> place right now,
> and by fall of '06, we will have made that transition. ...
> <end>
>
> MW

This is a good thing (as much as I personally hate to see the Tomcat go).

Just think. Soon, kids will be asking their dad's to see that Top Gun movie
with all the antique fighters in it.

--Woody

"Mike Weeks" > wrote in message
...
> This might be of some interest. Throw out all those other transition
schedules
> we've seen. <g>
>
> <start>
> DEFENSE DAILY 16 JUN 04
>
> Tomcat Transition To Super Hornet Complete By Fall '06, Admiral Says
>
> By Lorenzo Cortes
>
> The Navy will successfully retire the remainder of its Northrop Grumman
[NOC]
> F-14 Tomcat fleet in fall 2006 thanks to an accelerated schedule that also
> includes introducing Boeing [BA] F/A-18E/F Super Hornet fighter-bombers
> earlier, according to the Atlantic Fleet's air forces chief.
>
>
> MW

How does the range of the F-18 E/F compare with the F-14 Bombcat, with both
carrying equivalent attack loads? Afghanistan is a good example of why the
Navy needs a dedicated medium range attack aircraft. I imagine the phrase
"Wish we still had a few A-6's" was heard more than once in discussions on
Naval air planning regarding Afghanistan.....

On 6/16/04 10:12 PM, in article , "Kyle
Boatright" > wrote:

>
> "Mike Weeks" > wrote in message
> ...
>> This might be of some interest. Throw out all those other transition
> schedules
>> we've seen. <g>
>>
>> <start>
>> DEFENSE DAILY 16 JUN 04
>>
>> Tomcat Transition To Super Hornet Complete By Fall '06, Admiral Says
>>
>> By Lorenzo Cortes
>>
>> The Navy will successfully retire the remainder of its Northrop Grumman
> [NOC]
>> F-14 Tomcat fleet in fall 2006 thanks to an accelerated schedule that also
>> includes introducing Boeing [BA] F/A-18E/F Super Hornet fighter-bombers
>> earlier, according to the Atlantic Fleet's air forces chief.
>>
>>
>> MW
>
> How does the range of the F-18 E/F compare with the F-14 Bombcat, with both
> carrying equivalent attack loads? Afghanistan is a good example of why the
> Navy needs a dedicated medium range attack aircraft. I imagine the phrase
> "Wish we still had a few A-6's" was heard more than once in discussions on
> Naval air planning regarding Afghanistan.....
>

From what I understand the F/A-18E/F has slightly less range than the
Tomcat, but (with ATFLIR and the HMCS) is a much more capable Strike
Fighter... not to mention its much better maintenance numbers and radar.

I doubt the "Wish we still had a few A-6's" phrase was actually uttered any
more than "Wish we still had a few Whales." Except for old Intruder guys,
the plane's nearly forgotten.

--Woody

> From what I understand the F/A-18E/F has slightly less range than the
> Tomcat, but (with ATFLIR and the HMCS) is a much more capable Strike
> Fighter... not to mention its much better maintenance numbers and radar.

Kinda sad, 30 years design progress and we get an airframe that can't exceed
.... or even match ... the Turkey's performance (except at high alfa ... big
whoop!). Wouldn't have been a big deal to retrofit advanced WCS/Radar
capability. Of course the maintainability could not have been solved
without a clean sheet of paper redesign (pretty much what the E/F is
compared to the original Bug anyway).

R / John

John Carrier wrote:
> Kinda sad, 30 years design progress and we get an airframe that can't exceed
> ... or even match ... the Turkey's performance (except at high alfa ... big
> whoop!). Wouldn't have been a big deal to retrofit advanced WCS/Radar
> capability. Of course the maintainability could not have been solved
> without a clean sheet of paper redesign (pretty much what the E/F is
> compared to the original Bug anyway).

Yea, the "-ilities" are where a HUGE percentage of the costs accrue with
a weapons system. Huge. Guys who talk with their hands want it all of
course, but as soon as you start calculating dollars-per-kill, you have
to move away from the old airframes. Have to.

In article >, John Carrier
> wrote:

> > From what I understand the F/A-18E/F has slightly less range than the
> > Tomcat, but (with ATFLIR and the HMCS) is a much more capable Strike
> > Fighter... not to mention its much better maintenance numbers and radar.
>
> Kinda sad, 30 years design progress and we get an airframe that can't exceed
> ... or even match ... the Turkey's performance (except at high alfa ... big
> whoop!). Wouldn't have been a big deal to retrofit advanced WCS/Radar
> capability. Of course the maintainability could not have been solved
> without a clean sheet of paper redesign (pretty much what the E/F is
> compared to the original Bug anyway).
>
> R / John

The D is an incredible airplane the way it is but the "good stuff" like
upgrades to radar and such aren't what's killing it as much as a lack
of spares of the little stuff like valves, relays and widgets. This
lack of spares results in a high cannibalization rate that then results
in an obscene maint man-hour per flight hour ratio. I also understand
that there's some core fatigue issues that can't be overcome by simply
rewinging like the Prowler and Intruder went through (or are going
through with the Prowler) It all comes down to money. Not the best
capability but the best capability for the dollar and a "good enough"
capability to bridge to something better. Not what all of us wearing
gold wings want but fiscal reality.
My DS cruise was with CAG-8. A tremendous airwing of 24 Tomcats, 24
Hornets, 16 A-6's (no KA's) a bunch of S-3's, 5 Prowlers, 5 E-2's and
H-3¹s but I have to admit that for what they're doing now an E/F
airwing seems more effective. Times change. I mourned the loss of the
Intruder (and death of the A-6F) as much as anyone but that facet war
fighting has changed. Fortunately the continued need for brave crews
and dedicated maintenance troops keeps us connected with our past.

Pugs

kboatright-<< How does the range of the F-18 E/F compare with the F-14 Bombcat,
with both
carrying equivalent attack loads? >><BR><BR>

Good point but the answer isn't the F-14D. NAVAIR missed the 'boat' in the 80s,
when everything was being upgraded, new models introduced while the F-14
languished. It 'should' have been the USN version of the F-15E, the 'strike
Turkey' but wasn't, isn't.

The F-14D was a compromise from day 1, and it pales in comparison to some of
the other modern aircraft, many of which were much older, like the F-15E.

It needs to go. Upgrading the F-14 is just not possible today.
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

gaepps-<< The D is an incredible airplane the way it is but the "good stuff"
like
upgrades to radar and such aren't what's killing it as much as a lack
of spares of the little stuff like valves, relays and widgets. >><BR><BR>

Incredible compared to the F-14A, but here in 2004, it is miles behind other
aircraft of the day, both US and 'other'.

Like I have said, it should have been the F-14E, back in the 80's when Reagan
$$ was a flowin'. It languished, became stale. The 'D' is better but a
compromise from day one. When at VX-4, in the late
80's, I saw the 'D' at VX-4, also saw a brief about the F-15E. Embarassing when
you compare the two.
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

"Pechs1" > wrote in message
...
> kboatright-<< How does the range of the F-18 E/F compare with the F-14
Bombcat,
> with both
> carrying equivalent attack loads? >><BR><BR>
>
> Good point but the answer isn't the F-14D. NAVAIR missed the 'boat' in the
80s,
> when everything was being upgraded, new models introduced while the F-14
> languished. It 'should' have been the USN version of the F-15E, the
'strike
> Turkey' but wasn't, isn't.
>
> The F-14D was a compromise from day 1, and it pales in comparison to some
of
> the other modern aircraft, many of which were much older, like the F-15E.
>
> It needs to go. Upgrading the F-14 is just not possible today.
> P. C. Chisholm
> CDR, USN(ret.)
> Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye
Phlyer

Agreed. And the previous post hit it on the nail's head, logistics support
for the airframe is a nightmare.

I always found it odd how little was done to upgrade the Turkey when
compared with many previous and contemporary designs. Strike Tom ala F-15E
back in the mid-80's was the answer. Unfortunately nobody of significance
bothered to ask the question.

R / John

On 6/17/04 9:05 AM, in article ,
"Pechs1" > wrote:

> gaepps-<< The D is an incredible airplane the way it is but the "good stuff"
> like
> upgrades to radar and such aren't what's killing it as much as a lack
> of spares of the little stuff like valves, relays and widgets. >><BR><BR>
>
> Incredible compared to the F-14A, but here in 2004, it is miles behind other
> aircraft of the day, both US and 'other'.
>
> Like I have said, it should have been the F-14E, back in the 80's when Reagan
> $$ was a flowin'. It languished, became stale. The 'D' is better but a
> compromise from day one. When at VX-4, in the late
> 80's, I saw the 'D' at VX-4, also saw a brief about the F-15E. Embarassing
> when
> you compare the two.
> P. C. Chisholm
> CDR, USN(ret.)
> Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

Not to mention the fact that there wasn't enough money for AMRAAM on the
F-14. That hurt too.

--Woody

On 6/17/04 7:11 AM, in article , "John
Carrier" > wrote:

>> From what I understand the F/A-18E/F has slightly less range than the
>> Tomcat, but (with ATFLIR and the HMCS) is a much more capable Strike
>> Fighter... not to mention its much better maintenance numbers and radar.
>
> Kinda sad, 30 years design progress and we get an airframe that can't exceed
> ... or even match ... the Turkey's performance (except at high alfa ... big
> whoop!). Wouldn't have been a big deal to retrofit advanced WCS/Radar
> capability. Of course the maintainability could not have been solved
> without a clean sheet of paper redesign (pretty much what the E/F is
> compared to the original Bug anyway).
>
> R / John
>
>

You know me, John. Kool-Aid drinker. I'm telling you though. 2v1 or 1v1,
that high alpha's a big positive deal--against F-14's, F-15's, and F-16's.

Admittedly, that low top speeds a big negative deal too. Gotta stay and
fight. Can't run.

--Woody

(Pechs1) wrote in message >...
> kboatright-<< How does the range of the F-18 E/F compare with the F-14 Bombcat,
> with both
> carrying equivalent attack loads? >><BR><BR>
>
> Good point but the answer isn't the F-14D. NAVAIR missed the 'boat' in the 80s,
> when everything was being upgraded, new models introduced while the F-14
> languished. It 'should' have been the USN version of the F-15E, the 'strike
> Turkey' but wasn't, isn't.
>
> The F-14D was a compromise from day 1, and it pales in comparison to some of
> the other modern aircraft, many of which were much older, like the F-15E.
>
> It needs to go. Upgrading the F-14 is just not possible today.
> P. C. Chisholm
> CDR, USN(ret.)
> Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer



I thought the A and B models were gonna go first. Wern't the Ds gonna
stick around till the Navy JSF comes online? Speaking of the JSF does
the Navy really want it? They've already got a medium range strike
fighter in the shape of the super hornet whats gonna be the F-35's
job? short range strike fighter and fast FAC?

> You know me, John. Kool-Aid drinker. I'm telling you though. 2v1 or
1v1,
> that high alpha's a big positive deal--against F-14's, F-15's, and F-16's.
>
> Admittedly, that low top speeds a big negative deal too. Gotta stay and
> fight. Can't run.

Yep, and in the real world it's the guy that's not part of your personal 1v1
that gets his silver star equivalent while you were dazzling his buddy.
Great fun, great way to be a target, great way to activate your SGLI.

R / John

>From: (Prowlus)
>Date: 6/17/2004 16:14 Pacific Daylight Time

>I thought the A and B models were gonna go first.

The A's are gone w/ 211, and supposedly 31 (w/ the D) will be the last to
convert.

The compressed time-frame really means it doesn't matter which airframe is
last.

>Wern't the Ds gonnastick
>around till the Navy JSF comes online?

Already the JSF has slipped. As has been mentioned, it all comes down to money
in any event.

Even the S-3 retirement has been pushed forward.

MW

"Mike Weeks" > wrote in message
...
> >From: (Prowlus)
> >Date: 6/17/2004 16:14 Pacific Daylight Time
>
> >I thought the A and B models were gonna go first.
>
> The A's are gone w/ 211, and supposedly 31 (w/ the D) will be the last to
> convert.
>
> The compressed time-frame really means it doesn't matter which airframe is
> last.
>
> >Wern't the Ds gonnastick
> >around till the Navy JSF comes online?
>
> Already the JSF has slipped. As has been mentioned, it all comes down to
money
> in any event.
>
> Even the S-3 retirement has been pushed forward.
>
> MW

All the O&MN and COW funding issues will be solved by BRAC. OBTW, Rummies
got a couple acres of swampland in Florida he's trying to sell too.

R / John

John-<< Unfortunately nobody of significance
bothered to ask the question. >><BR><BR>

I think the question was asked, certainly by the F-4 guys that ended up in the
F-14. Too many 0-6 and above types weren't listening tho.

NAVAIR/DCNO-Air types.
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

bfoong-<< I thought the A and B models were gonna go first. Wern't the Ds gonna
stick around till the Navy JSF comes online? >><BR><BR>

The 'D' was essentially an 'A/B' airframe with some whizbangery avionics wise.
It still is an OLD design that is really hard to maintain.

<< Speaking of the JSF does
the Navy really want it? >><BR><BR>

It's gonna need something to replace the 'Bug', which is now an old design.
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

Doug-<< Not to mention the fact that there wasn't enough money for AMRAAM on
the
F-14. That hurt too. >><BR><BR>

Concur. Even the USAF F-16 weenies got AMRAAM, along with AIM-7-
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

Prowlus wrote:
> I thought the A and B models were gonna go first. Wern't the Ds gonna
> stick around till the Navy JSF comes online? Speaking of the JSF does
> the Navy really want it? They've already got a medium range strike
> fighter in the shape of the super hornet whats gonna be the F-35's
> job? short range strike fighter and fast FAC?

The F-35C has a greater range than the Super Hornet, not to mention stealth.

-HJC

> Doug-<< Not to mention the fact that there wasn't enough money for AMRAAM
on
> the
> F-14. That hurt too. >><BR><BR>
>
> Concur. Even the USAF F-16 weenies got AMRAAM, along with AIM-7-
> P. C. Chisholm
> CDR, USN(ret.)
> Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye
Phlyer

And the cost for the software val/ver (it was already developed) was a
pittance. Personally, I find the decision to not configure the F-14 for
AMRAAM (could have been done in the late 80's) an example of unpunished
criminal behavior. Based on recent headlines, unpunished criminal behavior
is a fairly common occurrence within the halls of the pentagon.

R / John

"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" > wrote...
>
> You know me, John. Kool-Aid drinker. I'm telling you though. 2v1 or
1v1,
> that high alpha's a big positive deal--against F-14's, F-15's, and F-16's.

....but only if you let them get close!

(Pechs1) wrote in message >...
>
>
> It's gonna need something to replace the 'Bug', which is now an old design.
> P. C. Chisholm
> CDR, USN(ret.)
> Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

thats what the "Superbug" is there for aswell

On 6/17/04 9:07 PM, in article , "John
Carrier" > wrote:

>> You know me, John. Kool-Aid drinker. I'm telling you though. 2v1 or
> 1v1,
>> that high alpha's a big positive deal--against F-14's, F-15's, and F-16's.
>>
>> Admittedly, that low top speeds a big negative deal too. Gotta stay and
>> fight. Can't run.
>
> Yep, and in the real world it's the guy that's not part of your personal 1v1
> that gets his silver star equivalent while you were dazzling his buddy.
> Great fun, great way to be a target, great way to activate your SGLI.
>
> R / John
>
>

We've been down this road before.

It is not uncommon for me to engage a flight of two as a singleton bandit
and shoot both fighters because of that high alpha capability. If it works
against Tomcats/Vipers in training, then I doubt it will be different in the
"real world."

--Woody

On 6/18/04 11:53 AM, in article i6FAc.134315$Ly.127603@attbi_s01, "John R
Weiss" > wrote:

> "Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" > wrote...
>>
>> You know me, John. Kool-Aid drinker. I'm telling you though. 2v1 or
> 1v1,
>> that high alpha's a big positive deal--against F-14's, F-15's, and F-16's.
>
> ...but only if you let them get close!
>
>

Certainly it's better to shoot them in the lips from miles away.

--Woody

> unpunished criminal behavior
>is a fairly common occurrence within the halls of the pentagon.

Throughout government, sad to say. The private sector, too.

vince norris

Mike Weeks wrote:

> This might be of some interest. Throw out all those other transition schedules
> we've seen. <g>
>
> <start>
> DEFENSE DAILY 16 JUN 04
>
> Tomcat Transition To Super Hornet Complete By Fall '06, Admiral Says
>
> By Lorenzo Cortes
>
> The Navy will successfully retire the remainder of its Northrop Grumman [NOC]
> F-14 Tomcat fleet in fall 2006 thanks to an accelerated schedule that also
> includes introducing Boeing [BA] F/A-18E/F Super Hornet fighter-bombers
> earlier, according to the Atlantic Fleet's air forces chief.
>
> "One of the things that we have been able to do as a result of some good
> production with our industry partners with the success of the multiyear with
> the E and F is we were able to look at and make a decision to accelerate the
> transition of the last of the F-14 squadrons to the F/A-18E/F," Rear Adm. Jim
> Zortman, commander of Naval Air Forces Atlantic, said last week during the
> Association of Naval Aviation's 2004 convention in Vienna, Va. "That is taking
> place right now,
> and by fall of '06, we will have made that transition. ...
> <end>
>
> MW
Does that mean we will see QF-14 drones soon?

Bob



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

> We've been down this road before.
>
> It is not uncommon for me to engage a flight of two as a singleton bandit
> and shoot both fighters because of that high alpha capability. If it
works
> against Tomcats/Vipers in training, then I doubt it will be different in
the
> "real world."

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.

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?

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.

R / John

<< Certainly it's better to shoot them in the lips from miles away. >><BR><BR>


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

> 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.

Some comments from an airchair amateur here (had a similiar discussion
with Ed and a few others in r.a.m. last year or so). I'm with Doug 100% for
the following reasons: modern missiles, modern agility, modern thrust,
modern awacs. Modern missiles make dogfighting much more dangerous, and
reduce the importance of maintaining speed. Sure, keeping up your E for a
break is good, but unlike a gun solution or early a-a missiles, you might
not be able to spoil a good R-73 or -9X shot by pulling anything less than
13g's. Modern agility (and modern missiles) means that the bad guy has far
more opportunities to fire those missiles (doesn't have to maneuver to a
strong tail position). Modern thrust lets you get that energy back in a
hurry, and modern awacs keeps you apprised of the situation. I suppose you
could also add that modern speed and missiles make it very difficult to
disengage (without getting a BVR missile up the tail).
Even assuming there's no awacs (something very rare for a U.S.
engagement), I would still imagine the best thing to maneuver as
aggressively as realistically possible (i.e., worrying about angles more
than energy), get a super-agile missile off at the bad guy pronto, put him
on the defense (I'm going to assume that anyone with a missile launched at
them is going to attend to it rather than returning the favor), then take
advantage of his missile evasion to get better position (assuming he manages
to dodge the missile). Repeat (you've got 4 IR and 4 BVR shots in most
fighters). Deal with the possibility of an unknown by ending the fight
ASAP. Also, deal with low fuel by ending the fight quickly, rather than a
longer, higher-speed engagement. By going full offensive ASAP (= high alpha
vs. high speed), you trade a lower ability to quit or dodge a missile (less
e) for a lower chance of him shooting at you (put him on the defense), and a
higher chance of you hitting him and ending the engagement. Given that the
odds of being able to quit the fight or dodge a missile are low any how, and
that you can regain e like never before, I would think that the advantages
of cashing in that speed, currently or will soon (unlike in the past),
outweigh the disadvantages.
It boils down to the best defense being an extremely aggressive offense.
Of course, stealthily smacking him in the teeth BVR from outside his range
is really the best way to go! And that's my two cents (again, with the
caveat of being an armchair pilot who has no firm data on the performance of
new-gen missiles).

Tony

"Pechs1" > wrote in message
...
> << Certainly it's better to shoot them in the lips from miles away.
>><BR><BR>
>
>
> 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! >><BR><BR>

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. >><BR><BR>

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
...
> 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/weapons/missile_systems/air_missiles/python/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

(Pechs1) wrote in message >...
> 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.

This is interesting. I always got the impression that I didn't believe
visual range fighting was a thing of the past because I'm completely
lacking in real world experience. Sounds like there may actually be
another reason :-)

How much, if any, use would stealth technology be in a visual range
engagement?

The current doctrine/hype seems to be to shoot BVR before the target
even sees your stealthy plane, whether the target is on the ground or
in the air. I always though that was a bit like the late fifties,
early sixties magic missiles optimism.

Rob

robvr-<< How much, if any, use would stealth technology be in a visual range
engagement? >><BR><BR>

None but it will reduce detection ranges to where visual engagments will occur.
The question is whether or not these costly A/C will be committed during the
day. If the bad guys choose to fight during daylight, then the F-22s and F-35s
will also.

robvr<< The current doctrine/hype seems to be to shoot BVR before the target
even sees your stealthy plane, whether the target is on the ground or
in the air. I always though that was a bit like the late fifties,
early sixties magic missiles optimism. >><BR><BR>


Sure, assuming perfect conditions and perfect GCI, perfect information. Even in
training, on TACTS ranges, this doesn't happen. Don't expect it to happen in
the real thing.

If the bad guys put up hundreds of anything, some will get thru.

I flew an exercise in Egypt, we had nearly perfect GCI, in the F-14, 4 of us,
with working radars. The Egyptians put up 80 Mig 21s..I'll bet you can predict
what happened.
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

On 21 Jun 2004 12:59:26 GMT, Pechs1 wrote:

> robvr-<< How much, if any, use would stealth technology be in a visual range
> engagement? >><BR><BR>
>
> None but it will reduce detection ranges to where visual engagments will occur.
> The question is whether or not these costly A/C will be committed during the
> day. If the bad guys choose to fight during daylight, then the F-22s and F-35s
> will also.

The Air Force is currently testing a grey F-117 for daylight use so it
looks like the old thinking of stealth only at night is going by the
wayside.

--

-Jeff B.
yeff at erols dot com

> The current doctrine/hype seems to be to shoot BVR before the target
> even sees your stealthy plane, whether the target is on the ground or
> in the air. I always though that was a bit like the late fifties,
> early sixties magic missiles optimism.

Three huge differences are the vastly improved missiles available today,
vastly improved radar/avionics, and most important, the vastly improved
non-cooperative target recognition systems available (that allow you to ID
planes without using IFF- e.g., using your radar to identify their engine
type). As NCTR is about as classified as it gets with jets, I don't know
any specifics, but the word is that the newer jets (Super Bug, Raptor, F-35)
all have pretty darn spiffy NCTR. That solves a lot of the ROE problems
that crippled BVR/magic missile combo in the sixties/Vietnam. Combine that
with increased use of datalinks and AWACS, and you have a much more reliable
employment of BVR techniques. The stats since GW 1 onwards bear out that
fact (and those were mostly with -15s and -16s).

Tony

> 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.

*interesting story snipped*

Here's the results from the Mig-29 vs. F-16 engagements (yeah, it's AF, but
it's a good read):

http://www.510fs.org/CodeOne/c1s4ff.htm

They rate the -29 as being superior to the -18 in the slow speed (and
the -16, although the latter beats it in the high speed). Their conclusions
also run counter to my idea of cranking ASAP, but I'm curious how much of
that is due to the performance of the R-73 (impressive compared to AIM-9M,
but not so much to the Python-4 or -9X; 45 degrees -73 vs. roughly 90
degrees -4,-9X) and the awful avionics of the -29. Those "across the
circle" shots the Viper drivers talked about respecting are exactly where
the -4 and -9X are supposed to shine, and combined with a better jet, might
further edge the feasibility of BFM out the window. With my lack of hard
data, I'd firmly agree that keeping your speed up is the best idea now
(against the -73), but I wonder how much the new generation of planes and
missiles will change that. Cheers,

Tony

> I flew an exercise in Egypt, we had nearly perfect GCI, in the F-14, 4 of
us,
> with working radars. The Egyptians put up 80 Mig 21s..I'll bet you can
predict
> what happened.

Hmmm, four Tomcat pilots...I'll predict that when they landed they said
the score was 80 - 0 ;). How did they get so many planes in the air at the
same time? I would imagine managing airspace would get very tricky about
then!
On a related note, have you read (and have an opinion on) Tom Cooper's
book about the -14 in Iranian service? Lots of Tomcat a-a engagements there
that you don't find in other sources.

Tony

"Pechs1" > wrote in message
...
> robvr-<< How much, if any, use would stealth technology be in a visual
range
> engagement? >><BR><BR>
>
> None but it will reduce detection ranges to where visual engagments will
occur.
> The question is whether or not these costly A/C will be committed during
the
> day. If the bad guys choose to fight during daylight, then the F-22s and
F-35s
> will also.
>
> robvr<< The current doctrine/hype seems to be to shoot BVR before the
target
> even sees your stealthy plane, whether the target is on the ground or
> in the air. I always though that was a bit like the late fifties,
> early sixties magic missiles optimism. >><BR><BR>
>
>
> Sure, assuming perfect conditions and perfect GCI, perfect information.
Even in
> training, on TACTS ranges, this doesn't happen. Don't expect it to happen
in
> the real thing.
>
> If the bad guys put up hundreds of anything, some will get thru.
>
> I flew an exercise in Egypt, we had nearly perfect GCI, in the F-14, 4 of
us,
> with working radars. The Egyptians put up 80 Mig 21s..I'll bet you can
predict
> what happened.

A short and glorious battle?
Run away?

At least it was a target rich environment.

Tony-<< Hmmm, four Tomcat pilots...I'll predict that when they landed they said
the score was 80 - 0 ;). How did they get so many planes in the air at the
same time? I would imagine managing airspace would get very tricky about
then! >><BR><BR>

It was a simulated strike of their airfield and the final idea was to get gun
camera film of a Turkey.

It was supposed to be a 4v4, it wasn't.

The Egyptian military really owned everything back then, they could do whatever
they wished. I went to Alexandria for a ROE brief, the only building that
wasn't falling down was the EAF building. We lowly 0-4s were met by an
auditorium of Mig pilots, many general officers with many kills during the two
Israeli wars in 1967 and 1973.

tony-<< Tom Cooper's
book about the -14 in Iranian service? >><BR><BR>


Nope, won't.
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

John-<< A short and glorious battle?
Run away?

At least it was a target rich environment.
>><BR><BR>

We dropped our drawers and wallowed around with these guys. Geez, there were
Mig-21s everywhere, probably looked like flys around a trash can.

Great fun and of course we didn't run away. We then went over to the Pyramids,
took some pix and then got into hack for being over the pyramids. Weren't
supposed to fly over them. Oh well, got a great pic tho by my wingy.
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer