AIM-54 Phoenix missile

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...

And, of course, we must note that a high percentage of Iranian pilots
were USAF trained while the Iraqi were Soviet trained. During the
years I was in Air Training Command at Williams, we had a large number
of Iranian students come through the program. Some better than others,
but all getting the USAF T-37/T-38 syllabus and then progressing to
operational qualification at a USAF course as well.

As a matter of fact, all the Iranian F-5, F-4 and F-14 pilots that qualified
before 1978 were trained in the USA. They usually started with T-38s, then
went on to F-5s (either in the USA or at home). The F-14-pilots were trained
by the VF-124 and VF-101. Nobody would get even a rear seat in the F-4
without at least 400 hours on fast jets: front seat only after 400
additional hours in the rear (bear in mind the IIAF had the USAF-philosophy
of putting two pilots into the Phantom, not a pilot and a WSO). To get the
place in the front seat of the F-14 one needed at least 1.000 hours plus
between two and four tours with the USAF, USN, IDF/AF, RAF, Luftwaffe etc.

So, what they've got in F-14s were really experienced people. BTW, by 1978
also up to 80% of their pilots were qualified on all three main types.

The situation started to change only because of the F-16 program: in
preparation for acquizition of the first 160 Falcons they started training a
huge number of new pilots, majority of these in Iran. Most of these,
however, never finished their pilot-training (in fact, quite a few joined
the revolution and became "morale" officers, Mullah's watchdogs, all the
time keeping an eye on the "Shah-pilots" during the war with Iraq).

When he advanced to T-38s, the higher-ups decided to let him solo in
the Talon. On about his third solo sortie, he jumped out of the
airplane. The airplane landed inverted, with full flaps down, full
forward trim, both throttles in AB and both engine fuel controls
cavitated and the engines flamed out. The determination was that he
was trying to see how long he could fly inverted (despite the dash-1
prohibition against inverted flight over 30 second.) When the engines
flamed out, he tried a "tiger airstart" by going to AB, but they
wouldn't relight because of the cavitation of the fuel controls. He
panicked and jumped out, costing us the airplane.

The Moroccans lost a great deal of their good pilots after the coup attempt
in 1972: at the time several of their early F-5-pilots intercepted the
Boeing 727 carrying the King from a visit in France, and shot it up,
damaging two engines and most of the tail. The plane landed safely and the
King then purged the FARM massively. They started recovering only during the
1980s, when the air force became badly needed because of the war in West
Sahara. The need for pilots was such at the time that the FARM became the
first Arab air force to have female pilot.

Tom Cooper
Co-Author:
Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988:
http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php
and,
Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat:
http://www.osprey-publishing.co.uk/t...hp/title=S6585

Ed Rasimus wrote in message . ..
On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 22:45:17 -0500, "Tony Volk"
wrote:

A few armchair comments for this great thread inserted below.

"anything but high-subsonic speeds" is ruling out where all reasonable
dog-fighting is done! If you aren't doing it at "high-subsonic" speed,
you're going to die in short order.
Sorry Ed, by all respoect, I'm not so sure about this. Certainly, it is a
very good method in peace-time exercises. But I don't think that more than
5-10% of war-time dogfighting done in the last 20 years would confirm
this.
As a matter of fact, I talked with quite a few folks who were dogfighting
in different wars of the 1980s, and these do not think that dogfighting at
high subsonic speeds (or dogfighting at all), makes much sence. In fact, most
of them preferred the efficiency of the initial "slash attack". If there was
anything left after this one, they'd then use low-speed/high AoA turns to
point their weapons at another target and the superior acceleration to
start another attack. So, while the opponents were turning around them at high
subsonic speeds, they were swiftly repositioning and shooting down one
after the other... The tactics proved superior even against numerically superior
opponents - and this dozens of times.

Well, I can't disagree with anything you've said (except for the
"repositioning and shooting down one after the other..") You missed my
regular and frequent rants in this forum that "dogfighting" is stupid.
The preferred sequence of event is always: first shoot BVR, second
shoot in the face at first opportunity WVR, third slash through with
high angle gun shot, fourth separate and reposition. Lather, rinse,
repeat. But, don't "turn and burn" with an opponent if you can
possible avoid it. If you do turn, follow the Israeli maxim of not
staying for more than 30-45 degrees of turn. At all times stay fast.
Do not dissipate total energy, although you may exchange kinetic for
potentical occasionally.

Given all that, the underlying principle remains, always stay at or
above your aircraft's corner velocity. Failure to do so, even with
high T/W systems is foolish. This isn't a game. It's living and dying.


It's always seemed very unusual to me that the super-maneuverability of
current Russian fighters gets so much bad press from many writers (and some
pilots). I can try and get names (I have them somewhere), but I'm sure
we're all familiar with general comments about how current super-maneuvers
look pretty at airshows, but mean f**k all in real combat. The old "speed
(energy) is life" dictum dominates.

As the Baron often said, "anything else is rubbish." Speed is life.
Period! Slowing down to kill one adversary only means that you are now
vulnerable to the adversary's wingman. No one should be in a combat
arena without mutual support.

However, Tom's comments draw light to
my thoughts on the matter (again, only as a deadly flight-sim ace and avid
reader) that in current dogfights, conventional energy management is less
effective than pointing your nose and getting off a missile ASAP.

Correct, but don't confuse pointing and shooting with squandering
your energy.

It would seem to me that blowing through the merge and maintaining
energy would be much less effective than doing a maneuver that wasted your
energy but gave you terrific turn rates and/or high AoA (e.g., circle,
cobra-type high AoA maneuvers).

It's the wingman! The threat is always paired (at the minimum.)
Slowing leads to vulnerability. Better to separate and reposition for
an attack at high energy.


Doing so allows you to fire the very agile,
and very capable (from a seeking point of view) IR missiles at your
opponent. These missiles surely have enough energy to be deadly at any
reasonable dogfighting range (assuming you're not making Mach 2 slashing
attacks on each other). So by quickly getting a missile in the air, you've
got a chance of killing your opponent, and you've got a great way to keep
him pointed away from you while superior thrust-weight ratios give you back
your lost energy (to make a follow-up attack if required).

Did I mention the wingman?

The idea that you'd need speed/energy to counter "unexpected" opponents
appears less plausible with modern combat (low number of fighters combined
with quality of SA provided by data links and airborne radar). The same
high thrust-weight ratios should let you quickly get back your energy after
your missiles have splashed the current bandit (I'll assume that your
wingman is keeping his wingman busy).

First assumption (low plausibility of unknowns) is wrong. Nothing
attracts maggots like a swirling fight with missile cons visible for
miles. Second assumption regarding wingmen is wrong. It happens that
engagement break up into multiple one-v-ones, but the desired
situation is to maintain mutual support. If support breaks down, the
priority should be to separate.


So the combination of super-agility,
very capable missiles, and very high thrust-weight ratios seem to me to
represent a significant shift in the way dogfights should occur (from an
emphasis on energy management to quick nose-pointing and snap missile
shots). No longer are we dealing with primarily nose-tail engagements (due
to weapons limitations), with large numbers of fighters, that do not have
today's high thrust-weight ratios.

You are basically correct here, but you still shouldn't be squandering
energy. The engagements aren't turn & burn with the offensive
dedicated to sweetening the tracking shot and the defensive
frantically trying to defeat solution. They are, by definition, going
to be slashing attack with high off-boresight excursions by weapons.
The ability to defeat the threat is linked to high energy state. No
energy, no missile defense. You die.

I'm aware that some CF-18 pilots in the RCAF have expressed genuine
concern with regards to the AoA abilities of the Su-27 family in close-in
engagements (RAF pilots I've met also speak grimly on the topic), and I also
know that typically, US pilots (and especially Eagle pilots) refer to a
dogfight as something that happens only if you've screwed up your BVR
engagement.

Can I hear an AMEN?

I'm also aware that high speed initially gives you a better
chance of achieving that most deadly advantage, surprise. However, I'd be
interested to know if there still is the mentality that speed/energy is life
or has this changed(inside a dogfight, I'm aware of how important speed is
in BVR, as well as in deciding whether or not an engagement will occur in
the first place, and generally agree that speed is life)? How much does the
choice of the F-22 over the F-23 reflect this kind of mentality? I'd be
interested in hearing further opinions on this matter. Regards,

Having been on F-23 development, I don't get the last question. Both
systems were high stealth, supercruise required, high agility, passive
sensors and generally BVR oriented as first option. The desires
somewhat outstripped the technology capability, but the aircraft
didn't have a lot of difference in performance.

There are tradeoffs between stealth and agility. The two concepts
aren't mutually exclusive, but optimizing both is a difficult
aerodynamic task. With less currrent capability to meet the exotic
goals of the program, the result is a skewing of the production
aircraft toward agility. Either proposal could do that.

First, most jets do not turn best at high subsonic speeds. Second, the
decision to turn or run will be made long before the merge. If the
decision to run is made, the pass will be min sep as fast as possible.
If the desision is to fight, the merge will be at or near corner (325
KCAS for the CF-18). Though we always fight in elements for mutual
support, you would be a fool to not fight your bast turning jet as the
engaged man. Third, when was the last time a NATO?coalition pilot was
allowed to use a BVR weapon, e.g. VID was not required?


Tony
p.s.- Tom, you talked briefly about it, but I'd love to find out more about
how the TF-30's performed (or didn't!) for the Iranians in dogfights

On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 22:56:37 GMT, "Tom Cooper" wrote:

The Moroccans lost a great deal of their good pilots after the coup attempt
in 1972: at the time several of their early F-5-pilots intercepted the
Boeing 727 carrying the King from a visit in France, and shot it up,
damaging two engines and most of the tail. The plane landed safely and the
King then purged the FARM massively. They started recovering only during the
1980s, when the air force became badly needed because of the war in West
Sahara. The need for pilots was such at the time that the FARM became the
first Arab air force to have female pilot.

They still have female pilots?

On the same note, I recall a case in Israel where a female went to the
Supreme Court and eventually got admitted into pilot training; What's
the numbers in terms of females in combat ait units there?

John

Tony Volk wrote:
I would say third, turn like hell and get a missile on you. Screw
missile defense, your best defense is a good offense.

I don't care what you're flying, if you "turn like' hell" you have blown
off all your energy, or at least enough that you can't do anything
about me if you even get a glimpse.


If your wingman can attack me, what's my wingman doing?

If your wingman is off medal-hunting, who's covering your butt?

While you two are slashing and extending,
we've used as much energy as possible to get our noses pointed at you
first
(within the limits of our missile's abilities). Our noses are now
pointing
at you, my missile is launched, and you now have to use that energy you've
saved to dodge the missile.

Ed's kept his energy and you've lost a lot of yours getting your nose
pointed at him... amazing what that much delta v does to a missile's range.


Your slash kept you out of guns range, but
certainly not out of missile range (especially considering that the
AIM-120
and R-77 are agile enough to be used in a dogfight). I have the leisure
of
regaining my energy, or shooting another missile, or getting out of dodge,
etc. My wingman is occupying your wingman. I'll keep launching missiles
until they connect, while you are frantically on the defense against my
missiles.

Uh-huh. And while your head is up and locked, my section comes
through the fight at the speed of heat and thoroughly ruins your day.

It's the one you don't see that kills you.

You are betting your life that it's just you 'n' him, and it just may not
be so. Regardless of AWACS or any other technology, you can't
ever be sure how many bad guys are in the fight.


Jeff

On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 16:07:30 -0500, "Tony Volk"
wrote:

Great comments, Tony. We're trying hard to raise the level of
discourse here and maybe it will pay off. It's apparent that you've
thought a lot about this. I've just got a brief response.

I would say third, turn like hell and get a missile on you. Screw
missile defense, your best defense is a good offense.

There are a load of cliches about that. Boots Blesse is noted for "no
guts, no glory" and of course there is "fortune favors the bold."

Here's my timid response: "I didn't always win, but I never lost."

You can't be afraid of your shadow, and you're out there to do a job,
but if the odds aren't in your favor, it is prudent to rethink the
situation. I'm proud that in more than 250 combat missions, 150 of
which were to MiG/SAM country, I never lost a member of my
flight--never a leader that I was supporting, never a wingman that I
was dragging to war. It might be luck, it might be skill, it might
just be coincidence.

I knew you were on the team, which is why I asked (didn't that used to
be in your signature a long time ago?). It has been reported that the F-23s
emphasis on speed and stealth was not as well accepted by the TAC (and
TAC-dominated ACC) as the F-22s more balanced emphasis that included
super-maneuverability through thrust vectoring (referred to tongue in cheek
as giving the USAF what it wanted, instead of what it asked for). The
fighter generals wanted to move a little further away from a pure BVR
fighter (a move that I think has its pluses and its cons). Heck, I'd love
it if you spilled the beans on the F-23 as far as you legally could! Thanks
for the comments Ed (and Tom). I appreciate that you're a pro talking to an
amateur, but hey, at least we're talking tactics and not logistics!

With regard to "bean spilling", I was on ATF development at Northrop
in '87-'88 during Dem/Val and left before the FSD phase started (Full
Scale Development). A lot changed when the heavy iron rolled out the
hangar door.

I don't think TAC was driving the decision. Acquistion in those days
was through Systems Command and input came from all three operator
commands (TAC/PACAF/USAFE). We regularly had customer visitations and
both demos and discussions. They came in and took briefings, talked
requirements and flew our simulators. A lot was devoted to concepts of
operations and the influence was heavily oriented toward
stealth--shoot and scoot without ever being detected.

My suspicion to this day is that the choice was driven by Lockheed's
prior stealth production of F-117 and Northrop's poor record of
delivery on B-2 and other programs. While the -23 was arguably
superior in many ways, there was serious question about deliverability
compared to Lockheed.

The Navy liked this idea so much that they started the VFX program in 1974,
but so the Air Force couldn't say the Navy copied them, the Navy chose the
F-18 (larger development of the YF-17) in early 1975. Sometime in late 1976
Northrop started a program to find a buyer for its land based F-17 Cobra.

And that's the truth as I know it.

Red

The navy prefers multi-engined aircraft.

Al Minyard

On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 22:45:17 -0500, "Tony Volk" wrote:

A few armchair comments for this great thread inserted below.

"anything but high-subsonic speeds" is ruling out where all reasonable
dog-fighting is done! If you aren't doing it at "high-subsonic" speed,
you're going to die in short order.
Sorry Ed, by all respoect, I'm not so sure about this. Certainly, it is a
very good method in peace-time exercises. But I don't think that more than
5-10% of war-time dogfighting done in the last 20 years would confirm
this.
As a matter of fact, I talked with quite a few folks who were dogfighting
in
different wars of the 1980s, and these do not think that dogfighting at
high
subsonic speeds (or dogfighting at all), makes much sence. In fact, most
of
them preferred the efficiency of the initial "slash attack". If there was
anything left after this one, they'd then use low-speed/high AoA turns to
point their weapons at another target and the superior acceleration to
start
another attack. So, while the opponents were turning around them at high
subsonic speeds, they were swiftly repositioning and shooting down one
after
the other... The tactics proved superior even against numerically superior
opponents - and this dozens of times.

It's always seemed very unusual to me that the super-maneuverability of
current Russian fighters gets so much bad press from many writers (and some
pilots). I can try and get names (I have them somewhere), but I'm sure
we're all familiar with general comments about how current super-maneuvers
look pretty at airshows, but mean f**k all in real combat. The old "speed
(energy) is life" dictum dominates. However, Tom's comments draw light to
my thoughts on the matter (again, only as a deadly flight-sim ace and avid
reader) that in current dogfights, conventional energy management is less
effective than pointing your nose and getting off a missile ASAP.
It would seem to me that blowing through the merge and maintaining
energy would be much less effective than doing a maneuver that wasted your
energy but gave you terrific turn rates and/or high AoA (e.g., circle,
cobra-type high AoA maneuvers). Doing so allows you to fire the very agile,
and very capable (from a seeking point of view) IR missiles at your
opponent. These missiles surely have enough energy to be deadly at any
reasonable dogfighting range (assuming you're not making Mach 2 slashing
attacks on each other). So by quickly getting a missile in the air, you've
got a chance of killing your opponent, and you've got a great way to keep
him pointed away from you while superior thrust-weight ratios give you back
your lost energy (to make a follow-up attack if required). Surely, even if
the bandit is still extending, you can lob an R-77, -27, or AIM-120 at them.
The idea that you'd need speed/energy to counter "unexpected" opponents
appears less plausible with modern combat (low number of fighters combined
with quality of SA provided by data links and airborne radar). The same
high thrust-weight ratios should let you quickly get back your energy after
your missiles have splashed the current bandit (I'll assume that your
wingman is keeping his wingman busy). So the combination of super-agility,
very capable missiles, and very high thrust-weight ratios seem to me to
represent a significant shift in the way dogfights should occur (from an
emphasis on energy management to quick nose-pointing and snap missile
shots). No longer are we dealing with primarily nose-tail engagements (due
to weapons limitations), with large numbers of fighters, that do not have
today's high thrust-weight ratios.
I'm aware that some CF-18 pilots in the RCAF have expressed genuine
concern with regards to the AoA abilities of the Su-27 family in close-in
engagements (RAF pilots I've met also speak grimly on the topic), and I also
know that typically, US pilots (and especially Eagle pilots) refer to a
dogfight as something that happens only if you've screwed up your BVR
engagement. I'm also aware that high speed initially gives you a better
chance of achieving that most deadly advantage, surprise. However, I'd be
interested to know if there still is the mentality that speed/energy is life
or has this changed(inside a dogfight, I'm aware of how important speed is
in BVR, as well as in deciding whether or not an engagement will occur in
the first place, and generally agree that speed is life)? How much does the
choice of the F-22 over the F-23 reflect this kind of mentality? I'd be
interested in hearing further opinions on this matter. Regards,

Tony
p.s.- Tom, you talked briefly about it, but I'd love to find out more about
how the TF-30's performed (or didn't!) for the Iranians in dogfights

If all of this were true, the Harrier would be the world's premier dog fighter.
it is not.

Al Minyard

Great comments, Tony. We're trying hard to raise the level of
discourse here and maybe it will pay off. It's apparent that you've
thought a lot about this. I've just got a brief response.

I've always enjoy reading your posts, as well as those of the folks here
who care more about discussing aviation than political platforms, personal
attacks, or screwy conspiracy theories.

There are a load of cliches about that. Boots Blesse is noted for "no
guts, no glory" and of course there is "fortune favors the bold."
Here's my timid response: "I didn't always win, but I never lost."
.. I'm proud that in more than 250 combat missions, 150 of
which were to MiG/SAM country, I never lost a member of my
flight--never a leader that I was supporting, never a wingman that I
was dragging to war. It might be luck, it might be skill, it might
just be coincidence.

I agree 100% with your comments, and I'm sure you would've hung it out
as far as needed to do a critical job (e.g., shoot down a rogue Bear) or to
save a buddy. My comments are only meant to reflect that I think the best
way to never lose is to be 100% aggressive in modern ACM (assuming of course
that you've been screwed into ACM). You should be very, very proud of your
combat record, that's quite the achievement! Your last comment reminds me
of Yeager's "I'd rather be lucky than good any day!". I'm sure that while
there was some luck involved in your record, just as with Yeager, there's a
heck of a lot of skill involved too. You don't play Weasel and get off
lucky (well, maybe G.I. Basel did that one time ).

A lot was devoted to concepts of
operations and the influence was heavily oriented toward
stealth--shoot and scoot without ever being detected.

Definitely the way to fight.

My suspicion to this day is that the choice was driven by Lockheed's
prior stealth production of F-117 and Northrop's poor record of
delivery on B-2 and other programs. While the -23 was arguably
superior in many ways, there was serious question about deliverability
compared to Lockheed.

Good to know, thanks for the info! I wonder if the same was true for
the more exotic Boeing X-32 in the F-35 competition. Well, thanks again
for the good discussion Ed. Have a good one,

Tony

Jeff, I think you've missed the point of a lot of my post (or I didn't
make it clear enough).

I don't care what you're flying, if you "turn like' hell" you have blown
off all your energy, or at least enough that you can't do anything
about me if you even get a glimpse.

I can get off a missile before you can, and that's a heck of a
something!

If your wingman is off medal-hunting, who's covering your butt?

He's covering me by being aggressive. Proactive defense vs. reactive.

Ed's kept his energy and you've lost a lot of yours getting your nose
pointed at him... amazing what that much delta v does to a missile's
range.

Velocity shouldn't be a big issue in ACM ranges. If it is too far for a
heater, I'll lob an active-seeker MRAAM.


Uh-huh. And while your head is up and locked, my section comes
through the fight at the speed of heat and thoroughly ruins your day.
It's the one you don't see that kills you.
You are betting your life that it's just you 'n' him, and it just may not
be so. Regardless of AWACS or any other technology, you can't
ever be sure how many bad guys are in the fight.

I would argue that this would make it even more imperative to do
everything possible to end the fight ASAP. If I can use all my energy to
make a kill on the 2nd turn (after merge), then I'm better prepared to react
to any incoming threats than if I'm still caught up in a confusing and
energy-demanding dogfight. You can argue different scenarios and how they
might change the tactics, but as a basic rule of thumb with modern jets,
avionics, and missiles, I'd say it's best to go for the throat and do
everything to be within the right parameters to fire your missiles ASAP.
Regards,

Tony

If all of this were true, the Harrier would be the world's premier dog
fighter.
it is not.

No offense Al, but you're not giving me enough information to be helpful
with this comment. As a very quick reply, I would say first that the
Harrier has proven itself to be a very dangerous a-a opponent. Second, I
would argue that many of the traits of the Harrier would be found in a
premier dog fighter (although I'm afraid I don't have detailed performance
data on the Harrier). However, more modern designs (Su-37, F-22) have
thrust vectoring, with higher t-w ratios, better avionics, more fuel, better
AoA performance (I'd assume), and better missiles. So should you have said,
the Harrier would posses qualities that make it a dangerous dogfighter in
modern ACM, I would immediately agree, and I think both history and training
results would back me up. But as the Harrier lacks several of the key items
I mentioned in my analysis, it doesn't follow that it'd be the perfect test
of my theory.

Tony