一地鹰毛——1977年F-14与F-15的较量

F风

There were two distinct fighter disciplines that occupied my mind: 1v1 Air Combat Maneuvering (ACM); and multiple aircraft tactics. Although we all seemed to have our own strengths, making it into the finals required being good at both.

In 1v1, if you're fighting yourself in similar aircraft and you don't make any mistakes, the inevitable outcome is a vertical, descending, rolling scissors. If nobody knocks it off, both airplanes fly into the ground. There's a bit more to the story, but, except for flying into the ground, that's what happened to Hoser and me.

I was fortunate to fight, mano y mano, with some outstanding fighter pilots. In my experience there was none better than Hoser. That determination is based on the unique opportunity to observe and document hundreds of engagements during AIM/ACE. After a few back-in-the-saddle sorties prior to AIM/ACE (I'd been out of the cockpit for 12 months), Hoser and I decided not to fight 1v1 against each other any more. In addition to his extraordinary ability to handle his aircraft, Hoser could always press one incremental unit closer to the absolute edge than the rest of us. Head on passes were separated by coats of paint. On my best day, we'd wind up canopy to canopy, so close we couldn't roll unless we rolled together. We could only separate, very carefully, to avoid hitting each other, or the ground. I remember losing a couple to him, during our pretest work ups, because I made a dumb mistake at the onset of the rolling scissors. No one can make a mistake with Hoser and win. If you do everything right, you fight to a draw, at best. When it came to multiple aircraft engagements, we developed, and consistently executed, some extraordinarily complicated tactics.  

Bushwacker and I developed multiple aircraft tactics for the Tomcat during the formation of VF-1. We picked fights with everybody who'd answer the phone; F-5s, F-106s, Crusaders, Mongeese, TA-4s, some interesting foreign aircraft, A-6s, A-7s, F-86Hs, NASA's YF-12A and probably several more I've forgotten. We fired the gun against the dart and shot Sparrows and Sidewinders at drones. Before we left on the first cruise, Bush wrote the 2v1, or more, section of the Tactical Manual and I wrote the 1v1 section. We worked very closely for many months on tactical development, but we didn't fight each other. We never talked about the reason, but I remember thinking that it wasn't necessary, and might have even been counter productive. Bush is a Hoser class fighter pilot and I was the first VF-1 weapons training officer. Like Hoser, Bush handled fighter pilot egos with care, but if he thought I was a dick weed, he would have told me. If he'd kicked my ass, it would have affected my credibility and might have undermined the effectiveness of our tactical development efforts. He always spoke the truth, but was careful not to crush the spirit.  Bush could develop it, do it and teach it...a rare combination. Teamed with either Hoser, or Bush I always felt like we could take care of business.

This discussion doesn't include lots of great fighter crews with whom i crossed paths, but didn't fight 1v1. I didn't get to fly with Smash, Frosty, Mel and many more, but I listened closely and tried to learn from what other fighter pilots said about them.

For now,

Turk out!

F风

What Ho!   Turk you O'l reprobate!   Go For It!       VR   D-Hose   

Thinking bout it.... how  do you breif a 1v1 similar on how to go from a 600kt, 3mile lead turn to a canopy to canopy slow speed rolling scissors??  There lies a fuzzy area that escapes me!   It just seems to happen but dag nabbit, hell if I can pontificate on it?    Alittle help here Turk, Magic, Scogs and LTF.....       March 2007, Snort's nephew was here( Hornet one hole driver)    Reed Foster.... Snort and D-Hose explained the slow speed rolling scissors to Reed but left out discussing prezactly how it was entered from a 600kts beak to beak encounter.
Snort felt it necessary to straighten out a few miss conterceptions the LeMoore RAG Hornet instructors has bestowed upon Reed about "the rolling scissors".   Both Snortly and I thought from Reed's explanations about how the RAG described the 'slow speed rolling scissors',,,, it was a  'lost art'!                  VR   Hoser


Seems starting out 1mile abeam at 360kts.... fights on!,,, would usually result in a "SSRS" if each pilot did not make a mistake

F风

OK girls, follow me!

Before we had magic BB's, winning a dogfight meant maneuvering to a position from which you could shoot (Gun/Fox 2) your opponent, without being gunned back. The best position from which to do that is at his six o'clock, within weapons range. I almost went off on a tangent about lateral separation and lead turns at the merge, but decided to postpone that discussion, or we'll be here for days trying to write our way into a rolling scissors. So rewind back to what we were thinking about as we press toward his six. Two factory models on 3 ft sticks make this a lot easier than hands and wrist watches.

In a dog fight, as in life, I need to know where I am relative to the bandit. My rule is that if I'm behind his wing line, with less than 180 degrees to align my fuselage with his , I'm on the offense and winning. If the opposite is true, then I'm defensive and losing. That's an important distinction, because the two roles require doing something very different.

If I'm winning, then I need to stay out of his plane of turn until I'm ready for a shot. That's because anytime I'm in his plane of turn, it won't be long before I'll overshoot his flight path. (Don't want to overshoot because that means I'm about to be out front.) To stay on offense and get an effective shot I avoid being in the bandits plane of turn until I'm within weapons range and ready to briefly align my fuselage with his. If the defender is maneuvering relative to me, the window of opportunity for a shot opens only briefly. As the window closes, I move out of his plane of turn, with my lift vector aft of flight path, so I can maintain lateral separation and stay on offense, e.g., aft of his wing line.

If I'm defensive, the opposite is true; I need to maneuver to keep him in my plane of turn until I can force him to overshoot my flight path and move aft of his wing line. I try to keep him in my plane of turn by continuously pointing my lift vector at him. As soon as he overshoots, I point my lift vector 90 degrees away from his plane of turn and aft of his tail.

At all times throughout the maneuvering, everything I do has to be, as precisely as possible, relative to the bandit; relative to where he is and what he's doing. (Bushwacker said anything else was just a dozen eggs.)

The need for the attacker (offensive airplane) and the defender (the guy most out front) to maneuver as I described results in both airplanes constantly changing their planes of turn. If we're both doing the right thing at all times, our lift vectors are approximately perpendicular our lateral separation is decreasing. Now we're in a rolling scissors. Because our thrust is limited, we can't keep our noses above the horizon and we begin to roll around an axis perpendicular to the earth. The lateral separation between the airplanes continues to decrease until we're canopy to canopy and losing altitude, unable to roll independently of each other. Neither of us can quit with out giving the other guy a shot.

Flying dissimilar airplanes, with a significant difference in energy maneuverability, changes the game, as does a very slight difference in talent. Either can determine the outcome of the fight. The advent of all aspect missiles and continuing improvements in aerodynamic performance will continue to reduce the operational importance of dog fighting; but, it will always define the soul of the fighter pilot. It's what we're all about!

Hoser, Skoggs and Magic...you're cleared in hot!

F风

Excellent, Turk.  Not much to add to that great explanation.  Exactly correct in that these tactics all a result of needing to get to the 6 o'clock, with the higher nose to fuselage angles eventually reduced for these rear quarter sidewinder and gun shots.  Face missiles change things a lot!!

Sometimes (its been so long), if one of the fighters is becoming more and more "defensive" as you describe in the roller, a last ditch hard pull (to try and generate an overshoot) combined with a nose high reversal (of turn direction) could then turn the fight into a "FLAT SCISSORS."

You did such a great job on the roller, looking forward to you describe the flat scissors too!!

Skoggs... agree... my watch is always on my left hand!

VR Magic

F风

Tim,

Sometimes, you would use "lag pursuit," where you put your nose behind the aircraft turning ahead of you, thereby avoiding a bad overshoot.  There is also "pure pursuit," where you have your nose on the other aircraft all the time, and "lead pursuit," where your nose is in front of the other aircraft.  For a tracking guns kill, you have to be in "lead pursuit."  For snap guns you don't.  As Turk discussed above, pulling in the same turn plane as the defensive aircraft will result in an overshoot, eliminating most or all of your advantage.  The only time "lag pursuit" works really well is if the defensive aircraft is doing what's called a "dumb bogey" fight.  That's when he intentionally eases his turn to try to entice you into overpressing your advantage so he can generate a big overshoot.  If you recognize it, you take what he gives you, then drop into "lag pursuit" before you get to the overshoot point.  Most times, though, guys use the vertical plane to avoid overshooting.  I used to describe it as looking like a cereal bowl.  The defensive airplane is maneuvering in an arc along the inside of the cereal bowl, and the offensive airplane maneuvers up and down the inside of the bowl to manage kinetic energy.  As long as you can maintain your relationship of being in the same "bowl" as him, he can't generate significant overshoot.  That being said, an adept driver will always be able to generate an out of phase relationship (at least with similar aircraft).  To take that one step further, in your belly shot scenario, as soon as you were outside his turn, he would reverse hard and pull into you to try to maximize the angles off.  VR Skogs

F风

Like most budding fighter pilots, I've been in lots of flat scissors. Thinking back on my path to enlightenment, I don't recall being in very many after I figured out the difference between being offensive and defensive at any point in the fight. In a flat scissors, both aircraft are out of energy and maneuvering in the same, or closely parallel planes. The only ways out are superior airmanship, or a greater thrust to weight ratio.

Since you're trying to gradually generate some nose-to-tail separation, anything you can do to fly slower, or transit a longer flight path than your bandit helps. If we're equally talented and resourceful, we both probably have it all hanging out. It's a bad place to be for lot's of reasons. After thinking about it, I think we all wound up in our flat scissors because we made mistakes. Otherwise, maybe we out fought a dissimilar airplane that had an energy maneuverability advantage.

If the airplanes were matched and we didn't make any mistakes, we wound up in a rolling scissors. Another aspect that we haven't talked about yet is gaining the experience and maturity to recognize as early as possible in the fight that you're about to get your ass kicked and bug out. Learning that takes a while.

Turk

F风

Magic,
I just remembered your comments about a last ditch, break turn to force an overshoot, followed by a nose high reversal into a flat scissors. I think that's an excellent description of how we get into a flat scissors. In your scenario, it seems to me that one, or both pilots made mistakes. The defender's mistake was waiting too long to lay his plane of turn over the attacker, which resulted in the need to bleed off energy in a last ditch break. The nose high reversal is a must at that point. Continuing the initial flight path just gives the attacker nose to tail separation and helps him stay behind the defender's wing line.

The attacker's mistake was in not aligning his fuselage and getting a tracking solution before he was forced into the overshoot. The attacker should have followed Skogs' advice and gone perpendicular to the defender's plane of turn, probably nose high, as soon as he realized he couldn't get a shot before the overshoot. The defender would have lost a lot of energy in the break turn making it difficult to get his nose around for a shot after the reversal. If the attacker still had an energy advantage, he should try to out vertical the defender. Trying to continue the turn into the reversing defender probably puts him in the lead unless he rapidly bleeds off lots of energy. The "what ifs" just keep coming, but it seems to me that they're all a result of trying to salvage a deteriorating situation.

Come on back Magic,

Turk

F风

Quick response... (it's late here).  Excellent points, Turk!  (And I knew you would have them).  No wonder I saw so many flat scissors!  The mistake deal!  

The attacker, with slightly more energy, if ever so slightly late (split second timing) in reacting nose high with the slightly greater energy package on the defenders big move to flat, could then get "tree-ed" (i.e. stuck up in a tree)... finding that he has more potential energy with the, say, 100 ft altitude advantage which one can do little with if co-wingline, or worse, if spit slightly out front and high ("tree-ed") then a big problem presents itself in the flat scissors.  VERY difficult to fly that "perfect" on the edge airplane when your opponent disappears under your belly each pass of the flat scissors... wing/nose drop tendencies (in just trying to keep sight at high buffet, high AOA) pushing one further out in front.  The low fighter does not have that problem... perfect sight of the opponent the whole time above your canopy as you pass beneath and being able to time reversals MUCH easier waiting for mistakes to happen above (even though low fighter can't get the nose on for the shot... yet... muwahahahahaha!).

It's the old adage that it is difficult to fight what you can't see... or, can only see "most" of the time.  Roller or flat, a slight position advantage in looking more forward quarter than rear, helps a lot... looking even slightly over the shoulder more of the time than forward makes it much harder to fly that mistake-free jet.  Ouch... my neck hurts

Mutha

你打算把204页都搬过来吗？

F风

First clip (computer generated) attempts to show a "scissors"... but is really more of a high speed, "blue" is defensive, causing overshoots of "red" and then shooting "red" (if you watch it over and over closely -- the video is way to quickly presented).  The figures are actually meeting at very high angles in the video... not so in a flat scissors.  Red is making big mistakes because never once is an out of plane maneuver used (a high yo-yo in this case) to maintain nose to tail and energy and help chip away at angles for the shot with the higher turn rate and smaller radius (top of "egg" nose low with God's "g" assisting... see my former lecture pages ago! ).  Normally blue reversing in front of the the attacker is a big mistake (with nose to tail) as it would normally help red reduce angles each time (i.e. never reverse in front of the bogey... unless abrubt lift vector, out of plane jinking is needed to keep bullets off your back!).

If the video intent is "scissors", then it would have to be flat scissors depiction attempt... since EACH fighter does reverse direction at the pass but is presented ten times too fast.  In the real world, both fighters are doing so with gentle RUDDER rolls at max AOA near stall.  It is a constant, EXTREMELY slow fight (as slow as the fighter can possibly be flown!) with slow crossing rates and the nose of each never getting much more than 30 degrees off the central flat scissors basic heading and angle-of-bank never much more than 30 degrees in the RUDDER ROLL reversals.

I emphasize RUDDER ROLL (rather than rolling/banking... pointing lift vector... with lateral stick or "aileron") because with aileron/elevon/differnetial tail inputs in the F-14/F-4/A-4 type a/c would cause abrupt adverse yaw departure to the opposite side of lateral stick input  with accompanying large wing/nose drop which points your lift vector the opposite of intent and accelerates you out in front even more as you need to "unload" slightly to reduce AOA to recover back to "edge of stall AOA" flight.  One had to keep lateral stick centered and you rudder rolled with your feet (controlled yaw increasing lift ever so slightly on the outside wing going ever so slightly faster through the air than the wing into which rudder applied).

IOW, our old stallions, without computer fly by wires translating bad -- albeit "natural" -- left/right lateral stick input for roll control was transferred to the feet and rudder at high AOA to prevent abrupt adverse yaw departures.  I.E. (as I understand it) the new generation jets' pilots can use aileron or rudder for roll always because the computer says, "WHOA, pilot really wants rudder, not aileron here at this high AOA!" to prevent departures and put in the "correct" controls anyway; and same with simple holding stick full aft have computers keeping steady MAX AOA with elevator.  Not our old steeds; had to actually USE the reins smartly, and constantly, on them... had to actually FLY without computer voting.

So, in a flat scissors, both fighters are flying as SLOW as possible, with gentle rudder roll reversals (timing these correctly important) to point lift vector slightly aft of opponent to slowly gain nose to tail for the gun shot.  Like in a tight rolling scissors, it can get DANGEROUSLY close at the pass if co-altitude and directly abeam... a game of chicken to see who will "go low" -- thereby accelerating slightly more out in front  .

The other two videos depict the ROLLING scissors well... the "over Tracy" one from the cockpit, and the "YAK" video from an outside observer.

VR Magic

F风

Great points as usual, Turk!

For those unfamiliar... Generally, the more "unstable" the design, the greater the maneuverability -- like F-14 glove vanes... used to actually REDUCE stability at high speed as one function (as I recall).  So, "stability augmentation systems" (stab aug, or "SAS") were developed for early jet fighters and since... also on airliners for passenger comfort (like yaw dampers).   Stab aug systems are electronic boxes measuring air data parameters like airspeed, AOA, rates of nose movement in all axis, pilot control inputs, etc etc, and adding stability with very slight electronic inputs to flight control hydraulic actuators to counter any natural, "bad" unstable characteristics of a particular design... independent of pilot input.  As I recall, in the F-14, we actually turned the "Roll SAS" off for air combat... didn't want that "stability"!!

Nowadays, though, besides simple "SAS," a whole control input by the pilot can be "out-voted" and another control (like rudder vs. aileron) can be wholly substituted!  Probably can't do the Skog's F-14 "controlled departure roll" even!  Yet, these technology and computer breakthroughs do make for huge maneuverability improvements in all flight axis of the modern fighter... they could probably make a barely average pilot like me even seem pretty good!!

Great comment on the Duke's long fight.  Fuel and bug-out plans essential.   As "No Points For Second Place" pointed out... "Running out of fuel is tantamount to a kill for the opponent."   Real world, do not want to get into a tight 1v1 slow speed scissors unless you know others not around (Libyan Gulf of Sidra ops were sort of like that... they always came out in pairs) and wingie is handling opponent's wingie well.  I know Duke's killed Mig still had SOME fuel... OTOH...

VR Magic

F风

Hey Tim,
In training, we all had a tendancy to fight down to bingo fuel and call "knock it off. It's an artificial environment in which we develop lot's of other bad habits such as calling Fox 2, or guns without having a missile tone, a good tracking solution, or even the weapons swithches in the armed position. Time on  the ACMR is invaluable in overcoming bad habits and self delusion.

At any point in a real life engagement, you've got to have a plan to disengage if you're losing, or approaching bingo and haven't yet managed to kill all of the bandits. That's what Hoser and I were doing when we blew the doors off the house trailer at Barrego Springs back in 1976. Bunky and other of the Deans of air combat used to remind us that "you fight like you train." The first order of business in training is to develop aircraft handling skills and become competent in 1v1 maneuvering. Until that's accomplished, the larger strategic issues can wait. After you've got a handle on 1v1, learning how to manage the strategic issues. Not letting the bandit, or your wingy, run you out of gas is priority #1.The scope of the issues also includes operating in rapport with your RO and wingman and successfully employing your weapons.

I probably didn't give you an adequate answer to your question about yo-yos a few posts back. Yo-yoing is simply getting out of the bandit's plane of turn as necessary to stay on the offensive and close for a shot. If you've stagnated behind him and can't pull lead for a shot, you move out of his plane of turn by rolling to the inside of his turn with your nose low and unloading enough to gain airspeed without letting him increase your angle-off any more than necessary. Once you've regained enough energy to create closure, you maneuver back toward a tracking solution, which means you've got to lead him (for guns and older heat seekers). Once you've got a closing rate, if you can't yet get a shot before overshooting his flight path, you move out of his plane of turn on the high side, so you can maintain nose-to-tail separation as you reposition to stay offensive. There's more, but that's the Cliff Notes version.

As you think about it, remember that your maximum turn rate, minimum radius of turn and ability to create closure are, at all times, limited by your indicated airspeed and the aerodynamic capabilities of your machine. Pushing beyond results in an accelrated stall and much more, depending on your skill level.

Turk

F风

Thanks to Hoser who passed this to me. Email was originally from Snort to Rattler describing a hop in the Corsair:

Rattler.... It was f---ing perfect.... Belching smoke on start, unfolding the wings, 5 cessna/piper spam cans parting and paying homage at the hold short, 3000 RPM and 52 inch's on take off, down the beach at 50 ft making the feathered gull wing birds scatter as their "Klingon War Vessel" brother roared on top of the surf, climb and then dive into the aerobatic box next to the runway at 325 knots, Oil coolers open and the sound of whistling death rifling through skys over the intercoastal waterway and St Augustine Beach, a pull to the vertical, holding the vertical line until knot meter showed 135 (4000 ft) then a gentle pull back to a 90 degree down line, knot meter saw 50 as nose broke the horizon....perfect, One potato two potato three potato on down line then half roll and smooth accelerating pull into a full Cuban, followed by graceful barrel rolls, slow rolls and point rolls.  Down the runway at 20 feet 300 kts, pull, roll to 90 deg pull to downwind, throttle back to 20 inches, gear dwn at 170 kts, 20 deg of flaps, rudder trim to 6 right, off the 180 at 150 kts, Perfect 180... 2/3 of a mile 1200 ft, 45 deg angle of bank, 30 deg of flaps, boost pump on, mixture full rich,thru 90 50 deg/full flaps, double check gear, slight overshooting crosswind., little throttle 30 inches, prop full fwd, little more throttle to compensate for full pitch, easing out angle of bank just prior to threshold 115 knot, throttle to idle going wings level in flare, wheels squeak on the numbers (no ****), hold tail up, dancing rudders stay straight, left aileron to keep left wing down in crosswind, lower tail, rudder and brake dance to stay on center line... Which you can't see. Down to taxi speed... Flaps up, canopy open, almost stopped, unlock tail wheel, mixture to normal, taxi to parking, fold wings, 1300 rpm for 60 sec's to scavange oil, mixture off, mags off, radios off, batt off, unstrap and take a deep breath knowing you maybe the luckiest old guy in the world at that moment.

Snort

F风

Well, D-Hose had a long talk with Boomer Wilson yesterday.(he essentially wrote the AIM/ACE final report)  Seems there are still a few areas of data/intel manipulation which will probably never be laid to rest. No big deal!   The basic final cold hard facts were/are,,, 1. In the visual arena, 'A small' supersonic, highly maneuverable fighter, packing all aspect heaters/guns 'against' a 'large', highly maneuverable fighter packing "all" aspect radar / heat missiles/dual seat VTAS and guns..  survives better, cost wise, than the 'big boys'. 2. If the 'Big Boys' can 'not accept a kill ratio of 2 to 1, they best stay out of the visual arena. 3. Wahlla! Solution for higher 'Big Boy' survivabilty/kill ratio=  "AMRAAM" type weapon!   Launch and leave and never subject your Big, High $$, Aerospace War Machine to the visual arena!  Just cain't have no fun no more!    Of course there are a few alternatives, but that' a whole nother story.       VR  D-Hose


That's bout as succinct as D-Hose can make it. The over all kill ratio for the Blue Force, A.F. and Navy was about 2.5 to 1. The 'R' Op and 'R' Max AIM-7F capability of the Blue Force was the reason for the .6  increase in over all kill ratios. You must remember that if you launch a 'R' max and a 'R' Op, Aim-7, you must illuminate the bogey/ ride it out till it goes terminal. That means, at the moment of intercept or miss, the shooter is now inside visual range. So, as missile time of flight counted down it became abundantly obvious that the shooter would need to be in a substantial turn with the radar ant. approaching its bottom gimbal limits. So if it was a 1v2 and you did not smoke one of the bogeys by 7.5 miles, you were already bout 68 degrees into your exit course too be a dot!  If ya got one, 'idle', resume on the remaining bogey followed by flares at 4.5miles to the lead turn merge.  Hah! we had no flares...we didn't need no 'stinking' flares...improvise, adapt and overcome!     Oh ya! we had no AIM-54's either(a good thing) but that's a whole nother issue.   

Turk and D-Hose just recounted a tactic that our section spawned. We called it the "Piston". One of those complicated and difficult to execute profiles. This, for a while, drove our 2v2 and 2v1 kill ratio up into about the 6 to1 realm of magnificence!    Seems, this major spike could not be digested/understood by the "Data Base Twidgitz". In data collection, some times the

F风

Hoser speaks the truth and draws the right conclusions. Boomer assigned sections of the reports to several contributers, with the tactics sections going to me. Several others of our intrepid little det wrote sections. Boomer wrote significant portions and compiled the rest. Both reports were huge. Boomer edited everyone's work and took responsibility for the final products. He did an honest and excellent job, as did our other Tomcat authors.

The intrique and drama surrounding the Air Force (Blue Force) could be the subject of another sizable report. They undermined the validity of the tests by having moles tell them when intruders were going to be in their engagements. The intruders were intended to ensure that the both Blue Forces complied with the requirement to visually ID bandits before launching missiles. The Eagle drivers tried to justify their average 7 NM head on ID range by installing Weaver rifle scopes in the F-15 cockpits. Ahhhhhbbbulll****. Pardon me; I sneezed. That was greater than the average head on ID range of the TVSU equipped Tomcats. I get a little emotional about that.

Later, the Eagle ONC, Lt. Col Joe Griffith, lied in his final report about the recommendations of the Joint Services Operational Requirements (JSOR) for the Advanced Short Range Air-to-Air Missile (ASRAAM). No, he didn't slightly misrepresent the results; he outright lied. I was the Tomncat representative on the committee. After the tests, Boomer was successful in getting the report of the JSOR corrected to reflect the actual recommendation for a high off boresite capability, more like Hey Joe's Agile than the 30 degree off boresite, low capability Lady Finger that Griffith had been directed by the Air Force to endorse. Griffith and those who directed his activities committed fraud.

The published statistics were as Hoser described, but their validity was diminished by some dishonest indviduals who were more interested in furthering their own careers than adopting effective future weapons technology. It was a very expensive white elephant, but we had a great time; "and at the end, we got a piece of cantalope" (spoken with a French accent). I leave it to our readers to decide which smilely face to insert.