New Mars Forums

kbd512

Administrator

Registered: 2015-01-02

Posts: 7,413

Fighter Jets and Meaningless Numerical Factoids

There seems to be considerable conviction amongst those who have never flown any kind of aircraft, that a faster jet or one that can turn tighter or sustain a tighter turn, will somehow produce a superior combat platform to all other competitors.  In that very narrow context, there is a minor statement of truth regarding that singular aspect of performance determined the outcome of an aerial engagement, but it does not have any practical effect on whether or not a jet is suitable for dogfighting, interception, bombing, or any other military role.

I can sustain tighter turns in my Cessna 172 than any fighter jet ever made.  That is a statement of absolute truth, it can be easily refuted if it's not true, yet it is true- any fighter pilot who has also flown a 172 can tell you the exact same thing, and despite being true, it does not make a Cessna 172 suitable in any way, shape, or form for dogfighting against combat jets that can fly many times faster than a 172 basic trainer aircraft.  The reason is quite simple.  While I can easily turn inside their minimum turning radius every single time, no competent fighter pilot will ever try to enter into a below-or-near-stall-speed (for them) turning engagement with me, and since 100% of their jets are many times faster than my 172, they don't have to, and will never fight that way.

Similarly, F-16 pilots have been warned repeatedly to never try to enter into a turning engagement with the A-10.  Those who have not heeded that warning have found that the A-10 pilot can easily keep his / her nose pointed at that F-16 at all times.  Once again, the A-10 is still not a suitable dogfighting airframe and no competent pilot facing down the A-10 would fight it that way.  The F-16 is widely regarded as a good yardstick by which to measure the dogfighting capabilities of other aircraft, because it is so maneuverable and capable of winning dogfights against jets with lesser kinematic performance qualities.

This is why, when discussing both instantaneous and maximum sustained turn rates, any competent fighter pilot will immediately ask, "At what aircraft weight / altitude / power setting is Aircraft A supposedly superior to Aircraft B?"

So then, why is my 172 not a suitable dogfighting platform?

1. For starters, I have no other sensors to detect / track / lock / shoot down enemy aircraft, apart from my Mark I Model 0 human eyeballs.  I'm functionally limited to Day VFR engagements, despite the fact that I technically have the instruments for IFR flights.  I'm also limited in IFR flights, in that I should never fly into known icing conditions.

2. My airframe of choice for "dogfighting" lacks all-weather navigation capabilities, an IRST set (for IR imaging and tracking of targets), a modern AESA radar set (electronically steered and scanned, vs mechanically), any type of counter-measures to interfere with the tracking devices aboard incoming enemy weapons (chaff or flares or decoy devices or electronic systems used to decoy inbound missiles), pylons to mount a pair of missiles (air intercept missiles like the IR-guided AIM-9 or radar-guided AIM-120), and despite the fact that it's equipped with 4 seats inside the cabin (2 more observers than most fighter jets can carry), it's so load-limited that it cannot carry full fuel and 4 passengers at the same time (so perhaps no additional pairs of eyes will be carried).

3. The general airframe design is a superlative radar and IR target (admittedly not the best of all time, but pretty darned good), with the propeller and large right-angle metal surfaces producing strong radar reflections.  The engine exhaust is still very hot, though not nearly as hot as the exhaust from a modern turbofan or turbojet or turboprop engine.  That makes little difference to any modern IR-guided missile with a seeker so sensitive and sophisticated that it can readily use aerodynamic heating or heat absorbed into the airframe via the Sun to track the movement of my aircraft.  It was never designed to be difficult to detect, because the airframe in question was intended for general personal transport utility and basic flight training, a job which the 172 does exceptionally well.

4. While I can, as previously stated, turn inside virtually any fighter jet ever made, outside of a dive my max speed also tops out around 130 knots or so in the 172RG model (RG = Retractable Gear), while jets flying at the speeds they'd use to engage me in a dogfight are closer to 350 to 450 knots.  Some will note that all modern combat jets can fly much faster than that using afterburners, and while that's certainly true and useful for interception, if they're going to engage in a dogfight, then they will typically visually identify the target first, which means positively confirming that the target is hostile and therefore desirable to shoot down.  Potentially shooting down one of your own fellow aviators learning to fly would be seriously frowned upon by your chain of command, and likely to cause your Commanding Officer to ground you after you land.  Basically, some kind of actual threat has to be present to warrant a belligerent response.  The only exception would be an active war zone, where combat pilots are still frequently required to visually identify what they're shooting at before they take a shot.  More importantly, my lack of speed means I can never give chase and fly fast enough to either run down the target aircraft or at least fly fast enough that I can get off a shot before my intended target zips past me.

5. Lacking all the features and equipment desirable for a modern fighter jet to have, it's fairly easy to determine why a Cessna 172 is not a suitable dogfighting aircraft.  However, what if we chose something that could feasibly carry all of that gear, such as a Cessna 208B, which is in fact a military aircraft used by less well-funded air forces?  Does that make it suitable for fighting jets?  Well, no, not really.  For all the considerable payload carrying capability that the Cessna 208 has, it loses quite a bit of the 172's maneuverability, while it's cruise speed is only around 55 knots faster than my top speed in the 172RG.  It's nothing to sneeze at when armed, but a decent dogfighter it will never be.

6. So, how about an advanced turboprop trainer like the Pilatus PC-21?  Well, that's a considerably better choice, seeing as how it's equipped with a powerful turbine engine capable of pushing it to 370knots at altitude (within the maneuvering speeds typical of modern jet fighters, except that this is the PC-21's top speed in level flight, so it will start losing speed during maneuvers), it has all-weather navigation, it can be equipped with various sensors suites to assist the pilot in acquiring targets, it comes with electronic counter-measures for CAS work to draw-off enemy ground fire, has pylons capable of carrying air-to-air missiles, and is also equipped with ejection seats.

7.  Well, if even the PC-21 is pushing the envelope when it comes to an aircraft that would be roughly comparable to a modern fighter jet when all design aspects are taken into account, then what would qualify as a minimally useful amalgamation of capabilities to compete with other fighter jets?  Basically, legacy jet trainers like the T-38 / F-5 or modern jet trainers like the Aero Vodocody L-159 is about where modern fighter jet performance, for purposes of dogfighting, starts at.  We're no longer talking about any kind of "dirt cheap" (comparatively speaking) propeller-driven aircraft, but then again, we also achieve practical fighter jet speed / turn rates / fuel and weapons payloads / sensors / range using these types of airframes or something substantially similar to it.

Within the context of interception of non-maneuvering / non-maneuverable targets, pure speed is a very useful design quality, but missiles always win the "pure speed" contests, which is why all modern stealthy tactical fighters don't have as-impressive straight-line speeds as the prior generation of aircraft, which could only achieve those speeds in clean configurations (no external fuel tanks and minimal to no weapons carried), and then they were out of gas very shortly after achieving those speeds.  If you run out of gas you will probably crash and then that impressively fast fighter jet is no longer of any use to your military.  When you load up those prior generation of jets with external fuel tanks and weapons, they can never achieve paper design speeds, so it really doesn't matter how fast they are without equivalent gas and weapons.  The new generation of stealthy jets can both cruise at the same high speeds as the prior generation, still have surplus gas for brief supersonic dashes, and carry enough weapons to complete practical missions, while retaining all of the maneuverability of the prior generation of jets when both are equivalently loaded for real combat missions.

So, beware of meaningless numerical factoids when discussing jets, because without context it's a data point that likely has little to no applicability in a real fight.

If you don't see or don't know how to read a diagram that looks like this when engaging in such discussions, then speed and turn rate are not meaningful (this kind of data is also a closely guarded secret for most new fighter jet designs):

Mars_B4_Moon

Member

Registered: 2006-03-23

Posts: 9,175

Re: Fighter Jets and Meaningless Numerical Factoids

Crash at an Airshow in Michigan

A collector was flying a retired MiG-23 the NATO reporting name 'Flogger' the video seems to show two pilots.

The 'Flogger' a Soviet era Aircraft Produced in 1967 and flying until the 1980s I am not sure if they are still in use and they might still be in use by India, Angola, North Korea, Sudan, Libya, Egypt, Syria, one defecting pilot once flew an aircraft in Israel,  in 2009, there were 11 privately owned MiG-23s in the United States, some foreign aircraft obtained by the USA were parked and studied at Nellis Air Force Base.

'MiG-23 Crashes During Michigan Air Show'

https://funker530.com/video/mig-23-cras … -air-show/

It's not clear what caused the crash, but the two pilots can be seen ejecting and their canopies deploying before the jet goes down. The aircraft then crashed into the parking lot of a nearby apartment building. Aftermath footage shows significant damaged to parked cars of the building's residents.

I think a lot of former USSR countries may have sold these aircraft to collection. People in social media channels do tours and walk around of the 'MiG 23' some are allowed to 'experimental flight' it falls under other classification as often it would not be a certified US Airplane. Visually I think the aircraft is very narrow and thin maybe more like a flying rocket shape, it does seem to have a big radar in the nose but the two seat seems to have a radar missing because of weight and balance issues, the wing seems to have a 'nothing' feature some might call it an ECM pod it has static discharge on the tail. It appears the Soviets copied many details of the McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom, the F4 barricade blade, the intake seems to almost be a copy of the F-4 Phantom. When East and West Germany unified after the fall of the USSR, no MiG-23s were transferred to the German Air Force, some people compare it to the French Dassault Mirage F1, Northrop F-5, or the Su-24 aircraft, MiG-23 has taken part in the Syrian Civil War or Libya Civil War and took part in the 1980s Iran–Iraq War. The Cockpit of the Mig-23 seems to have very poor visibility, the instructor seat seems to have even less visibility but there is a periscope system.

Last edited by Mars_B4_Moon (2023-08-14 12:57:40)

Mars_B4_Moon

Member

Registered: 2006-03-23

Posts: 9,175

Re: Fighter Jets and Meaningless Numerical Factoids

They will have F-16s

There were rumors Ukraine would get either F-15s the F-16 or A-10

in online gossip they say Russia might be holding back a Stealth Sukhoi Su-57 an aircraft perhaps known to the public when it featured in the new 'Top Gun' film but it seems like they only produced 10 of them, so maybe Putin is afraid his new aircraft would be shot down.

I read a lot on ships and aircraft and satellites when I was young and from what I know or think I know there are so many choice

The F-15 is a killer of the ColdWar, a long-range, high-speed without relying on escort Air to Air killer I believe looking at the old bulletin board forum days none were lost...but then again it depended who you asked because apparently a somewhat untrained elite Saudi idiot might have crashed one time long ago in a non event, but it still might count as not a loss. The Japanese and the Israelis use the F-15 for its time it had the most high tech avionics system and the most advanced radar ever seen
It even once test launched a type of anti-satellite multistage missile, the Eagle is very expensive but it seems it can not lose a fight in the air.

The F-16 would be the choice when you are look for more bang for the bucks you pay the bargain choice, the USAF upgraded older models, it has a a wide variety of air-to-ground missiles, rockets or bombs it can many roles such as fight air to air and has many electronic countermeasures the Falcon is classed as a Multirole fighter and  air superiority fighter, they will purchase a lot more F-16s.

The 'Thunderbolt' or A-10 Warthog is one of those old amazing Aircraft that brawls through the sky while supporting troops on the ground, from photos I used to see on board and forum I believe it has been shot, hit by missiles, blasted, almost ripped to bits by anti aircraft guns but it does not die it will keep getting back to home base safely, somehow this Aircraft from 1972 is still of huge importance, it provides close air support. The A-10 has a unique sound it has this weird sounding GAU-8 Avenger rotary autocannon it kind of sounds like a Dragon moaning or a giant prehistoric animal farting or some weird Burrrrrrrrrrt sound, during combat fights used to featured on video channels like 'Liveleak' and Twitter news. It would easily land intact after taking damage from ground fire however as great as it is to support fighters on the ground against a foe that try to over run troops for example a terrorist foe like the Taliban, the A-10 has limits it would be no match against more modern military with modern Air to Air Fighters.

I believe there was another aircraft looked at from the Sweden, the Saab JAS Gripen it is an impressive aircraft made by the Swedish but it seems it had some previous Accidents or a software glitch and incidents, the Swedish have a very strong home made aircraft and arms industry and are known to make impressive multi-role combat aircraft going back to the Saab 37 Viggen which I believe once kind of 'intercepted' an SR-71 Blackbird in training or 'peace time' identification.
Mach 3 is about 2223 mph = 3576.9 km/h ion one min you have traveled over 37 miles or more than 59 K in one minuet.
Young people today might recognize the shape of the Blackbird design from X-men comics or Marvel Disney movies. At one time even though it was one of the fastest aircraft it was in danger of being intercepted by Migs and sometime longer time after four Swedish pilots involved were awarded medals from the USAF https://web.archive.org/web/20181129194 … air-medal/ At a speed of Mach 3.2, the Blackbird plane was faster than anything the Soviet Union would have used, the reconnaissance aircraft SR-71 was Retired in 1998.

US pilots even have their own social media channels
'F-22 vs SU-57 | Thunderbird Pilot Reacts'
'Max Afterburner'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbvOQr67FLw

Russia's new aicraft, it does look like an impressive fighter
again from feeds and online gossip I believe Russians only made ten of these new Stealthy things before sanctions and maybe they were nervous about the skies and were afraid to lose them but the pilot gives a more experienced option on next generation aircraft

As with any aircraft it might depend on experience and combat training, in times of crisis people under pressure on any side can make mistakes and fall back on trained-in reaction or instincts.

the news

Netherlands and Denmark to donate up to 61 F-16 fighter jets to Ukraine
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/ … to-ukraine

F-16 fighter jets to Ukraine as Zelenskyy visits
https://www.euronews.com/2023/08/20/den … kyy-visits

Last edited by Mars_B4_Moon (2023-08-20 18:23:19)

Mars_B4_Moon

Member

Registered: 2006-03-23

Posts: 9,175

Re: Fighter Jets and Meaningless Numerical Factoids

BA flight narrowly misses horror 250mph crash with Drone 9,600 feet in the air
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/b … r-32466802

British military dress standards

Army lifts ban on serving soldiers having beards
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68691987

'Meet the British Army’s new jet-propelled Hydra 400 drone'
https://interestingengineering.com/mili … led-drones
A pioneering new generation of heavy-lift drones using hybrid propulsion technology (rotors and jet engines), the Hydra 400 is compact and portable, can be transported on a regular pickup truck, and can be prepared for flight in six minutes.

Why is Japan changing its ban on exporting lethal weapons, and why is it so controversial?
https://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireSto … -108485064

Why the A-10 Warthog Retirement Is a Disaster
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/ … ter-209827

Frogfoot: A Brief Guide To The Sukhoi Su-25 Close Air Support Jet
https://simpleflying.com/sukhoi-su-25-frogfoot-guide/
The Su-25 Frogfoot, designed for close air support, remains relevant in conflicts with its ballistic weapons. Soviet efforts to develop the Frogfoot began in the late 1960s

also used by the Ukrainians, the North Koreans and Peruvian Air Force not sure if Ukraine has any or many left, Iraqi ones fled the incoming US military and landed in Iran, Georgian government used Su-25s against separatists, the Ethiopian Air Force to strike Eritreans and in year 2000 Ethiopian Su-25 was shot down by an Eritrean Air Force MiG-29. Albanian jihadists attacked Macedonia and Su-25s were used by the Macedonian Air Force but flown by Ukraine born pilots, Su-25s seemed to also have been shot down in Armenian Azerbaijani fighting in the Nagorno-Karabakh War, the Russians used them effectively in intervention against ISIS in Syria, they might become an old extinct ColdWar dinosaur flying machine.

but lots of them Dying in Ukraine, you see them blasted out of the sky on social media feeds

a simulation that looks like a video game physics Dogfighting, Fox 2 or Fox3 infrared heat-seeking missile such as the AIM-9 Sidewinder. the Fox 3 refers to an active radar guided missile such as the AIM-120 AMRAAM, using turns  decoy flares, Air combat manoeuvring (ACM)

'Modern Air Combat Explained'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcGjIQGzvDo

20,000 Drone Pilots & Counting: Tale Of The Drone War
https://simpleflying.com/20000-drone-pi … drone-war/

Navy fends off Houthi drone attack for second day in a row
https://www.yahoo.com/news/navy-fends-o … 32756.html

Last edited by Mars_B4_Moon (2024-03-31 03:15:42)