AIM-54 Phoenix missile

From what I know so far (bear in mind that the research is still very much
going on), I'd say that during one out of ten air combats in which Iranian
F-14s were involved something would happen to one of the engines.

Thanks for the info Tom. Any chance you're working on a book on the
F-14 specifically? Cheers,

Tony

On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 15:23:19 -0500, "Tony Volk"
wrote:

You don't play Weasel and get off
lucky (well, maybe G.I. Basel did that one time ).


G.I. was a strike pilot, not a Weasel. (And, I'm only a Weasel by
association, not by AFSC.) G.I. was shot down during his first tour on
mission #87 I believe.

He's still kicking, but not in the best of health. I hear from him
occasionally through a River Rats list-server. First class guy. Proud
to know him.

"Tom They experienced all the usual stuff caused by the poor stall margin
of the
TF-30: afterburner pops resulting in catastrophic engine stall, engine
compressor stalls at high AoA, flame-outs during IFR, turbine failures
etc.

And this not only once, or two, but dozens of times: just for example, one
pilot alone experienced no less but three catastrophic engine stalls on
the
same F-14A between 1980 and 1993, two of which already after the war, when
he had no less but 2.000 hours in combat.

Usual stuff? The TF-30 was not the best engine, but in five years of flying
the F-14 with it installed I only experienced one case of compressor stall.
It was instantly recoverable with reduction of AOA (and repeatable at 28
units AOA ... an NQR motor). I've been in tail slides, pegged AOA, 750KIAS
accelerating (canoes slow you down), 1.88IMN accelerating (gradual reduction
of throttles to avoid exceeding artificial NATOPS speed limit). Not a great
engine, certainly not enough thrust for the airframe, but not as bad as you
report.

OTOH, I would not recommend abrupt throttle movements at the corners of the
flight envelope. That issue was pretty much resolved by the F-110 ... the
motor the airframe really deserved.

I'd say the "usual stuff" might be a function of maintenance quality or lack
thereof.

R / John

In message , Tony Volk
writes
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!

Missile effectiveness is a pretty direct function of the energy of the
launching aircraft. There's a reason why (for example) ground-launched
Chapparal SAMs are credited with much less range than air-launched
Sidewinders, despite being the same missile.

If you launch your missile from a slow platform, and then demand it
makes a hard turn right off the rail as well, then you just birthed it
with a serious energy deficit: while the same missile launched from a
fast aircraft at a target pretty much ahead, has much more chance of
intercepting.

(Conversely, a fast target is hard to catch and has lots of ability to
turn speed into turn; a slow target is much more like unto a sitting
duck)

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.

You're making this decision in the space of a few eyeblinks: either blow
past and think about repositioning, or make a high-G turn to get your
nose pointed in the general direction of the foe.

Firstly, do you have _time_ to then calculate relative envelopes, select
the best weapon, set up the switchology and fire?

Secondly, does your MRAAM reliably support a high-off-boresight
short-range engagement with a low-speed high-G launch?

Thirdly, assuming you fire at each other, do you want to be fast
(increasing missile lethality and your own survivability) or slow
(handicapping your weapons and carving into your ability to evade)?


Historically, the A6M was remarkably good at pointing its nose at the
enemy... but if the enemy blew through with enough crossing velocity,
they remained very hard to hit. Similar factors apply even in the
missile age: speed is life, not least because it can be turned into
height or angles to evade an incoming missile while adding to the
lethality of own weapons.

Once you're slow, you're vulnerable: even if you _can_ zap a seriously
threatening missile at the enemy, your ability to escape his shot is
grossly reduced.

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.

Including "don't squander energy". If he's fast and you're slow, your
missiles are disadvantaged, reducing each shot's Pk while making you
more vulnerable to counterfire. To win, stay fast.

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.

Do not get into a dogfight.

Simple as that. Fight through the merge, blow through, then either
extend away or come back for another pass. Slowing down for a turning
fight just invites an unexpected enemy to kill you: if the enemy starts
turning hard, he just expended his speed and you know where to find him
for a while.

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.

Trouble is, one of those parameters is "as fast and as high as possible"
- because the more energy a missile has, the more lethal it is.

Deliberately going slow is _not_ getting into missile parameters, it's
castrating your weapons.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

You don't play Weasel and get off
lucky (well, maybe G.I. Basel did that one time ).
G.I. was a strike pilot, not a Weasel. (And, I'm only a Weasel by
association, not by AFSC.) G.I. was shot down during his first tour on
mission #87 I believe.

G.I. got to play Weasel one mission, much to his apparent dismay
(initially). After the first Shrike shot, he was on the wrong side of his
lead when his lead broke (was briefed that lead breaks left, so he should be
on the right, but he ended up on the left), so he went up in the vertical.
Quickly losing speed, he watched with horror as a SAM tracked him. His lead
told him (using his name and not callsign, which signaled to G.I. a real
disaster) to bring it down, but he didn't have the energy (couldn't resist
that little plug). At the top of the loop, jamming his rudder and praying,
he saw the SAM explode as their Shrikes hit its guiding radar. He brought
the Thud back down, and as they started another approach, he whispered, "Do
we have to", but didn't key his mike (perhaps a literary embellishment, but
a nice testimony to the fact that he was a real human being who feared death
and did his job any way). As they come off target, GI calls- "Otter Lead, I
can't catch you. What's your speed?" Lead- "A thousand miles per hour" GI-
"Oh." A nice laugh to break the tension of the chapter! The weasels gave
him a SAM Slayer badge for his work.
All this is from his book. A great read! Cheers,

Tony
p.s.- his book states that he flew 78-1/2 missions (1/2 for his last mission
where he flew the outbound part)

Boy, I'm sure getting a lot of mileage out of my posts!

Missile effectiveness is a pretty direct function of the energy of the
launching aircraft.

Let me make an even more direct function. Missile effectiveness is an
absolute direct function of whether or not it's on your rails on in the air.

Firstly, do you have _time_ to then calculate relative envelopes, select
the best weapon, set up the switchology and fire?

In modern fighters, this shouldn't be a problem for well-trained pilots
(the F-22 has engagement envelopes, etc.). In fact, the F-22's software is
reportedly designed to do just that more or less automatically.

Secondly, does your MRAAM reliably support a high-off-boresight
short-range engagement with a low-speed high-G launch?

If the enemy is beyond the range of a short-range IR missile, you have a
much lower chance of having to resort to a high-angle, high-g launch than in
a quick slashing attack. And even then, the AIM-120C and R-77 are
reportedly quite agile.

Thirdly, assuming you fire at each other, do you want to be fast
(increasing missile lethality and your own survivability) or slow
(handicapping your weapons and carving into your ability to evade)?

This is the critical assumption. You are NOT firing at each other.
Because of your energy-gobbling turn, your missile is in the air first. He
can see it, and he'd have to be an idiot, insanely good, and/or a Kamikaze
to return fire instead of immediately initiating a break turn. Even if you
bluff a shot a little outside of your parameters, can HE judge whether it
has sufficient energy? Not very likely (and that'd be one HECK of a
gamble!). So you've put him on the defensive, eliminating the need to avoid
his missile (see previous conversations for his wingman and other players),
and making him use up energy while you can safely regain yours.
The BEST way to avoid his missile is to make sure it never comes off his
rail. Dodging one of today's advanced missiles is an iffy proposition, it
is far better to gain the offensive, and stay in the driver's seat. You can
regain all the energy you like while he's breaking away from your
missile(s). So again, I think the best idea is to get your weapons in the
air (within reasonable, if not optimum, parameters) ASAP without worrying
about saving energy to dodge his missile or defeat other bandits. That's
the best way to win (and survive) a modern dogfight IMHO (bearing in mind
that I have no access to classified missile/aircraft performance data).
Regards,

Tony

"Tony Volk" wrote in message
...
From what I know so far (bear in mind that the research is still very
much
going on), I'd say that during one out of ten air combats in which
Iranian
F-14s were involved something would happen to one of the engines.

Thanks for the info Tom. Any chance you're working on a book on the
F-14 specifically? Cheers,


Yep: "Iranian F-14 Units in Combat" is to be published by Osprey, in "Combat
Aircraft" series, sometimes in the spring next year.

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

"John Carrier" wrote in message
...

"Tom They experienced all the usual stuff caused by the poor stall
margin
of the
TF-30: afterburner pops resulting in catastrophic engine stall, engine
compressor stalls at high AoA, flame-outs during IFR, turbine failures
etc.

And this not only once, or two, but dozens of times: just for example,
one
pilot alone experienced no less but three catastrophic engine stalls on
the
same F-14A between 1980 and 1993, two of which already after the war,
when
he had no less but 2.000 hours in combat.

Usual stuff? The TF-30 was not the best engine, but in five years of
flying
the F-14 with it installed I only experienced one case of compressor
stall.
It was instantly recoverable with reduction of AOA (and repeatable at 28
units AOA ... an NQR motor). I've been in tail slides, pegged AOA,
750KIAS
accelerating (canoes slow you down), 1.88IMN accelerating (gradual
reduction
of throttles to avoid exceeding artificial NATOPS speed limit). Not a
great
engine, certainly not enough thrust for the airframe, but not as bad as
you
report.

Shouldn't this depend on the engine version too (see bellow)?

AFAIK, there were earlier TF-30s, which were really notorious for compressor
stalls, and there were later versions...

OTOH, I would not recommend abrupt throttle movements at the corners of
the
flight envelope. That issue was pretty much resolved by the F-110 ... the
motor the airframe really deserved.

I'd say the "usual stuff" might be a function of maintenance quality or
lack
thereof.

Certainly, there were immense problems with the maintenance, foremost due to
the lack of qualified technical personnel (in percentage, the Iranians
haven't lost as many flying crews, as ground personnel due to the
revolution), but - IMHO - the main problem were actually the engines. They
still had some TF-30-412s, even if most of the fleet was equipped
with -414s.

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

"John Penta" wrote in message
...
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?

They rather "had" them: there were three ladies flying Mirage F.1CH/EHs in
the 1980s. Don't know what's going on there now to this topic.

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?

Sincerely: I don't have a slightest clue how many female pilots are there
with the IDF/AF. I only know they have them since something like six years,
initially mainly as navs, but meanwile also as combat pilots.

Sorry, I'm kind of "speclized" in "other" Middle Eastern and African air
forces (but the Israelis).

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

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, "Tony
Volk" blurted out:

Let me make an even more direct function. Missile effectiveness is an
absolute direct function of whether or not it's on your rails on in the air.

OK...so an AAM can't kill if it's still on the rail. But you *can*
surely **** away a missile if you're going to simply point and
pickle.

In modern fighters, this shouldn't be a problem for well-trained pilots
(the F-22 has engagement envelopes, etc.). In fact, the F-22's software is
reportedly designed to do just that more or less automatically.

Just for the sake of discussion...are we *ONLY* discussing operational
fighters and missiles? Or are you embracing everything on the chalk
board...meaning you're giving some adversary the latest and greatest
russian jet/missile combo and the good guys get the latest "wish you
were dead" AAM?

If the enemy is beyond the range of a short-range IR missile, you have a
much lower chance of having to resort to a high-angle, high-g launch than in
a quick slashing attack.

I'm missing something. You're the bad-guy, real world, and I'm simply
an F-16 guy. I've got more wingmen (I really do!) and AWACS, SADL,
adaptive RWR and towed decoys...and a healthier supply of AAMs in the
logistics pipeline...and some pretty decent air-to-air training. The
biggest advantage IMO is the last one.

You're a DPRK MiG-29 guy that flies a mean jet...and you get almost 24
hours of flying a YEAR.

If I'm decent I'll shoot some slammers your way, get you on the
defensive first (maybe you'll fly right into one); I'll drag or beam
or grinder and let another pair of F-16s get an unobserved shot.

If *we* can keep you "at arm's length" and keep you hard maneuvering
your jet, I feel pretty good about beating your dick into the dirt.

This is the critical assumption. You are NOT firing at each other.

You mean we came to the merge and NOBODY fired? Or simply we both
arrived unscathed and have now passed each other?

Because of your energy-gobbling turn, your missile is in the air first. He
can see it, and he'd have to be an idiot, insanely good, and/or a Kamikaze
to return fire instead of immediately initiating a break turn.

You're hacking a square corner, I'm keeping my energy up and check
turned enough to maintain a tally...at least until you are "nose on."
I'm guessing you'd blow up from missile fired by the trailing F-16s
somewhere in your turn while you're padlocked on me.

You never said I was limited to an artificial 2-v-2.

Even if you bluff a shot a little outside of your parameters, can HE judge whether it
has sufficient energy? Not very likely (and that'd be one HECK of a
gamble!).

Sure, all of us would react defensively...I'm dragging a towed decoy.
And perhaps your radar's auto-acq mode locked onto your wingman during
the turn (been there...done that).

So you've put him on the defensive, eliminating the need to avoid
his missile (see previous conversations for his wingman and other players),
and making him use up energy while you can safely regain yours.

I suspect that your MiG-29 formation is more defensive than my F-16
flight. YMMV

The BEST way to avoid his missile is to make sure it never comes off his
rail.

You bet.

Dodging one of today's advanced missiles is an iffy proposition, it
is far better to gain the offensive, and stay in the driver's seat.

Indeed...I used SADL to acquire you BVR, I shot at you without
triggering your RWR.

You can regain all the energy you like while he's breaking away from your
missile(s).

Given a choice, I engaged you with a big altitude difference. If I
ramped down on you, I'm gonna keep running like a scalded ass ape. If
you ramp down on me as we merge, I like the idea that your nose is
buried below the horizon as you try to square the corner. You'll be
soooo slow as you pull on the pole trying to get your nose pointed
"uphill" at me spiralling above you (you're off my wingtip...at arm's
length). This too works in real jets. You will become the "grape's
grape."

So again, I think the best idea is to get your weapons in the
air (within reasonable, if not optimum, parameters) ASAP without worrying
about saving energy to dodge his missile or defeat other bandits.

Indeed...that's why I came with more playmates than you, am dragging
towed decoys, left my radar in STBY while BVR, stayed fast.

That's the best way to win (and survive) a modern dogfight IMHO...

That actually sounds pretty close to the F-16 mantra twenty years ago,
regarding a dogfight (if you found yourself in one). The logic goes
like this.
1] Am I inside the bandit's turn circle?
Yes...go kill him cause he can't out-turn you.
No...fly to his turn circle...now go kill him cause he can't out-turn
you.

In the final analysis you may indeed get one F-16 to your credit. But
you will die fairly soon for the DPRK.

Fun discussion.

Juvat