6 ms·

Are we talking F-pole/A-pole tactics or WVR stuff?

by scarier 6y ago

Diesel555 6y ago
How many fighter pilots lurk hacker news?
- scarier 6y ago
  I think I've seen a handful here...
- thaeli 6y ago
  Probably a few actual fighter pilots, and quite a few more simulator enthusiasts who know a lot about the mechanics.
  - atlgator 6y ago
    Or perhaps even those that built the flight simulators that trained the pilots. Now we’ve come full circle.
- sandworm101 6y ago
  Fighter pilots are not what you think. They know thier planes and thier enemy's planes, but those are always many years old. Few pay any attention to cutting edge technology as it doesn't impact thier work. They are not experts in missile development nor even aerodynamics. Point to a bit on a plane and they can say what it does, but ask them to explain exactly why it is engineered as it is and they will not have specific answers. A cop is not an expert on ballistics just because he uses a gun. He knows his gun and how to best use it, but debates about the latest gun technology isn't necessarily his interest as they don't change how he uses the gun he has today.
  - scarier 6y ago
    For what it's worth, I'm pretty sure Diesel has met a few fighter pilots. It's not a monolithic culture--there are plenty of pilots out there who are exactly as you describe, but also a number who not only can explain why a thing is engineered a certain way, but actually did some of that engineering themselves. Even if they're playing supporting roles in flight test and weapons development, they absolutely take the lead in tactics development/refinement, which is intimately tied to current knowledge about both friendly and enemy systems and tactics. Besides, believe it or not, some of them are huge nerds...
sudosysgen 6y ago
Both. This would mainly be WVR, but there are variations for use in F-pole/BVR in general, especially if there is significant vertical angle between both. In theory this could be adapted as an F-pole manoeuvre against a plane with an altitude advantage in which you could defeat radar and shoot off a missile at the same time.
- scarier 6y ago
  Why do you need to turn your nose that far that fast in a BVR fight? It may not even be possible in the flight regime you're in. There are a lot of other potential issues with this kind of maneuvering. I agree that there are some potential uses in a WVR fight (particularly a 1v1 fight), but I think it's pretty fair to say that it's generally preferable to bleed off the missile's energy and preserve your own (which makes sense considering that countries tend to procure HMCS and HOBS missiles long before supermaneuverable aircraft). You don't get extra points for a missile making it to the target at a higher energy state, as long as it has enough energy to get there to begin with.
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    The idea in BVR is that in many situations the enemy aircraft has an altitude advantage compared to you. Therefore, the enemy radar is only able to detect the target if there is a significant Doppler shift compared to the ground. The combination of rapid deceleration as well velocity change drastically reduces the Doppler shift which would lead to a loss of lock. Meanwhile, the ~120+ degree change in AoA combined with HMCS means that there is a good possibility of shooting off your won missile, putting the enemy in the defensive. Given the advantage in energy of the R-77 this can lead to a situation where even if your missile fails, you have a subsequent energy and position advantage. Bleeding off the missile's energy and preserving your own is not necessarily the best strategy if your enemy has an energy advantage that is sufficient to prevent you from taking the other hand despite your energy being sufficient to get a kill in a vacuum. If you react fast enough you may be able to throw off the missile or lock entirely and also get your own missile on target.
    - 6y ago

Are we talking F-pole/A-pole tactics or WVR stuff?

Diesel555 6y ago

How many fighter pilots lurk hacker news?

scarier 6y ago
I think I've seen a handful here...
thaeli 6y ago
Probably a few actual fighter pilots, and quite a few more simulator enthusiasts who know a lot about the mechanics.
- atlgator 6y ago
  Or perhaps even those that built the flight simulators that trained the pilots. Now we’ve come full circle.
sandworm101 6y ago
Fighter pilots are not what you think. They know thier planes and thier enemy's planes, but those are always many years old. Few pay any attention to cutting edge technology as it doesn't impact thier work. They are not experts in missile development nor even aerodynamics. Point to a bit on a plane and they can say what it does, but ask them to explain exactly why it is engineered as it is and they will not have specific answers. A cop is not an expert on ballistics just because he uses a gun. He knows his gun and how to best use it, but debates about the latest gun technology isn't necessarily his interest as they don't change how he uses the gun he has today.
- scarier 6y ago
  For what it's worth, I'm pretty sure Diesel has met a few fighter pilots. It's not a monolithic culture--there are plenty of pilots out there who are exactly as you describe, but also a number who not only can explain why a thing is engineered a certain way, but actually did some of that engineering themselves. Even if they're playing supporting roles in flight test and weapons development, they absolutely take the lead in tactics development/refinement, which is intimately tied to current knowledge about both friendly and enemy systems and tactics. Besides, believe it or not, some of them are huge nerds...

sudosysgen 6y ago

Both. This would mainly be WVR, but there are variations for use in F-pole/BVR in general, especially if there is significant vertical angle between both. In theory this could be adapted as an F-pole manoeuvre against a plane with an altitude advantage in which you could defeat radar and shoot off a missile at the same time.

scarier 6y ago
Why do you need to turn your nose that far that fast in a BVR fight? It may not even be possible in the flight regime you're in. There are a lot of other potential issues with this kind of maneuvering. I agree that there are some potential uses in a WVR fight (particularly a 1v1 fight), but I think it's pretty fair to say that it's generally preferable to bleed off the missile's energy and preserve your own (which makes sense considering that countries tend to procure HMCS and HOBS missiles long before supermaneuverable aircraft). You don't get extra points for a missile making it to the target at a higher energy state, as long as it has enough energy to get there to begin with.
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  The idea in BVR is that in many situations the enemy aircraft has an altitude advantage compared to you. Therefore, the enemy radar is only able to detect the target if there is a significant Doppler shift compared to the ground. The combination of rapid deceleration as well velocity change drastically reduces the Doppler shift which would lead to a loss of lock. Meanwhile, the ~120+ degree change in AoA combined with HMCS means that there is a good possibility of shooting off your won missile, putting the enemy in the defensive. Given the advantage in energy of the R-77 this can lead to a situation where even if your missile fails, you have a subsequent energy and position advantage. Bleeding off the missile's energy and preserving your own is not necessarily the best strategy if your enemy has an energy advantage that is sufficient to prevent you from taking the other hand despite your energy being sufficient to get a kill in a vacuum. If you react fast enough you may be able to throw off the missile or lock entirely and also get your own missile on target.
  - 6y ago