Another F-16 Topic

KODIAK · Post by **KODIAK** » 02 Jun 2006, 13:46

Currently watching a programme on the Discovery Wings channel. While discussing manouevering and tactics, a comment was made by an experienced F-16 pilot @ Hill AFB, which went pretty much like this:

" . . . . it's probably most advantageous for the F-16 to enter the fight somewhere right around the Mach.(obviously meaning Mach1 I should imagine)"

Now, I realise that we are all armchair pilots, and pretty much know jacksh*t about the real thing. But what do you guys have to say about that? What's your take on things, and experiences within the FalconAF with regard to this comment made by a realtime experienced on type pilot?
Personally, I may just have to bear that in mind and try to employ that to some degree in the sim. See what it does for me. What are we talking about there, about 760 mph @ SL?
http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay ... r/DI94.htm
There are many websites but this one keeps it simple enough for everyone to read quickly.

Grifter · Post by **Grifter** » 02 Jun 2006, 14:48

Advantages:
Fast closure rate allows for firing off weapons. Quick on the draw.

Disadvantages:

The Migs have longer range missles, or at least it seems so. This means that moving faster towards them may be faster towards your doom with little options for jinking.

Turning will be far more difficult at that speed, putting stress on pilot and a/c. So the turning fight is out at least for the first pass. Boom and Zoom would be the only option.

No escape once you've moved in? You might be able to zoom away on first pass I suppose.

Jedi Master · Post by **Jedi Master** » 02 Jun 2006, 21:31

I guess the rationale is that it's easier to slow down quickly than speed up quickly.

KODIAK · Post by **KODIAK** » 03 Jun 2006, 01:37

That definitely makes sense I think.

Grifter · Post by **Grifter** » 03 Jun 2006, 08:09

At those speeds, you're rushing headlong into danger. No, I disagree with the strategy. Though it does give the enemy less time to react..hmm.

Hudson · Post by **Hudson** » 03 Jun 2006, 10:14

A lot of real life strategies call for rushing in fast and furious. You would think that this would be counter to good strategy, but with ground pounding, when you have squads alternating rushing and covering you can press in on the enemy in an unrelenting manner.

Such attacks serve to cause confusion, the feeling that there more of you than there actually are, and a rapidly approacing enemy force may cause them to start retreating. An enemy running from you cannot shoot you, although their back sides still make great targets.

Obviously flying is different, but I wonder if some of the same mentality goes into it.

And the MiG 29 has greater range, but if you are approaching at Mach 1 and you close that gap where he can hit you and you can't him before he has much chance to do anything, then it turns into an even fight. If you are going to move slow, and skirt along his outer range, then as soon as he can get close enough, he can make you suck dirt... you never even had a chance to shoot....

Grifter · Post by **Grifter** » 03 Jun 2006, 18:17

TRUE.

KODIAK · Post by **KODIAK** » 04 Jun 2006, 07:24

Yes, that does make good sense. Both from the distance closure to gain benefit of first shot off the rails, and also from the 'rushing the enemy' pshycological approach - just think how many times you've gotten excited because you couldn't see the enemy on the scope and couldn't pick him up using padlock . . . . . .IA drill is pretty much run and hide behind a hill or building, anything that will give you that extra second or two you need to find him and bring weapons to bear. All the time he's got you locked up and you keep getting the weapon launch warning. Hairy stuff, eh?
So, perhaps a transsonic approach as you pick him up on RWR, until you reach what would translate into "within range" for the big stick. Preferably off radar for him (down in the weeds?), or using jammer to hold off a launch?
And, of course, by bringing your own weapons into range of intended target you automatically pull the scales over in your favour, because the AIM-120 will generally go autonomous sooner after launch than any of the Soviet long sticks.
Talking of the long stick, I was looking at a forum thread regarding technology sharing and all the usual crap that was raging about - why are we(USA) sharing our technology with Europe, and so on. Of course we all know that the technology train (esp with USA & UK) is a two way train pretty much. But what do the US have in the works to overtake the AIM-120? You are aware of our BVRAAM (Meteor), which is intended to kick arse out to approx 60Km, and no doubt the autonomous flight envelope will be beyond the range of AIM-120 and any of the Soviet weaponry.
The ones to watch IMHO, are the Israelis. Their missile technology is awesome and I believe they hold the advantage over almost anyone, especially in the shorter range IR weapons.

Hudson · Post by **Hudson** » 04 Jun 2006, 07:51

I just did a google search for "replace the AIM-120" and got this:

Three new air missiles are being planned by the US Air Force and US Navy in order to maintain air combat supremacy. They will be two variants on the Raytheon AIM-120C-7 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM), and a new missile to replace the AIM-120 series.

which is supposedly quoted from Janes:
Jane's Missiles and Rockets (ISSN: 13654187), Volume 8 Number 9 Sep 2004, pp1-2

I read similar from the Janes website as well. I'm sure they are watching and have their own ideas on the table on this side of the pond too... just remains to be seen what they actually do about it...

Being allies as we are, it would be very possible that an American company could license the BVRAAM for use with its aircraft, just as others do with American technology all the time. I doubt it will be the first time it's happened in reverse; just I don't personally know of any examples.

But, the British were responsible for the design principles of American Aircraft Carriers. It was just too large to suit the needs of the British Navy, and they went with an alternate smaller design suitable for VSTOL and Light Aircraft takeoff/landings...

KODIAK · Post by **KODIAK** » 04 Jun 2006, 07:57

I wouldn't be surprised to see the US asking to make use of the Meteor as an interim if they come up against problems with their own replacement. Having said that, I would also imagine they would look first to the Raytheon C-7, wouldn't you?

Hudson · Post by **Hudson** » 04 Jun 2006, 08:08

If it were that successful a program, and the weapon was that combat effective, I am quite sure they would. Lord knows, if that was true, and they had any common sense, they would...

Jedi Master · Post by **Jedi Master** » 04 Jun 2006, 17:01

The 120D is also in development, concurrent with the C-7. I'm not sure why, aside from perhaps the -7 will be capable of being retrofit while the D will be new build only?

KODIAK · Post by **KODIAK** » 07 Jun 2006, 16:35

Obviously the -7 is intended as interim for some aircraft, and some aircraft being in themselves interim, it'll give them better capabilities until transition to new aircraft is complete.

RLGaming.com

RLGaming's Forums

Another F-16 Topic

Another F-16 Topic

A lot of real life strategies....

Just did a...

If it were that successful...