Dog Fights

[AbramsM-10]

The military needs to give more training on dog fights. There were so many dog fights in so many wars that it is just crazy not to train young pilots for it. IF you stick a sidewinder on a phantom you'd have a good fighter jet to use in a dog fight. I famous dog fight was in WW2 between the wildcat and the zero. The zero was faster but the wildcat was tougher. The zero had the upper hand with all it's guns. That was a good dog fight. The zero won because it's pilots new how to fight. Thus the the secret to winning a dog fight is training.

 

[Big-E]

The military needs to give more training on dog fights. There were so many dog fights in so many wars that it is just crazy not to train young pilots for it. IF you stick a sidewinder on a phantom you'd have a good fighter jet to use in a dog fight. I famous dog fight was in WW2 between the wildcat and the zero. The zero was faster but the wildcat was tougher. The zero had the upper hand with all it's guns. That was a good dog fight. The zero won because it's pilots new how to fight. Thus the the secret to winning a dog fight is training.

The reason the zero won because the wildcat turned like a rock. One way to defeat them was to turn head on into your opponent. The zero was held together by bubble gum and paper clips, the wildcat's superior firepower and heavier armour would blow Tojos outta the sky. The Japanese Bushido code demaded this face to face battle and they mostly obliged. It took a man with alot of faith in himself and especially his wildcat to see him thru this. Once they figured how to land the Hellcats it was no contest.

As far as training young pilots for combat, that comes later. We are too busy teaching NATOPS when they are young, we need them to be able to learn procedures first. Aggresor training comes last and is a constant refresher course among even veteran pilots.

 

[USNavySEAL3310]

With an increase in technology, maybe flight trainers are relying more on advanced weps systems that come out. Ever since the missile came out after WWII, there was a drastic reduction in dogfights. For obvious reasons, why use all the fuel to dogfight for half an hour when you can fire a -120 from 45 miles away.

Another point is that there still is missile dogfighting, if you can call it that. Planes today do have to fight to stay behind a target to launch a sidewinder. To a degree, that is dogfighting just without guns.

Training a pilot today is much more difficult than it was in WWII. They have to learn a lot more about their aircraft. There is a lot more avionics and weapons to learn. Missiles, radar detection, radar disruption, etc. are the new tools for attacking an enemy aircraft. Guns are a last resort.

For all we know, the next decade could reveal machine gun turrets that are mounted under the nose of fighters that track enemy fighters and engage them, leaving the pilot with less to do (like those on carriers).

In my opinion, guns are useful but they are getting more out-dated every day. Give it a decade and planes won't carry them anymore.

But don't listen to me. Aircraft aren't my strongest department.

 

[rattmuff]

Training is the most basic thing and incredibly important. Also by training dog fights all the personel involved learn new things about the aircraft and how to improve it. Gripen can be put in that categorie after the last crash when two Gripens had a dog fight and suddenly one of the planes got in a "only theoreticle position" where the airflow around the wings didn't respond to the rodders. After this incident they came up with a software upgrade to prevent the fighters from getting in this position.

 

[Big-E]

With an increase in technology, maybe flight trainers are relying more on advanced weps systems that come out. Ever since the missile came out after WWII, there was a drastic reduction in dogfights. For obvious reasons, why use all the fuel to dogfight for half an hour when you can fire a -120 from 45 miles away.

I don't train my pilots that way. It is too reminescint of the "Phantom Follies". Navy trains like she fights, thats why they send us to SFTI so we can spread the knowledge to our assignments, mine being SWATLANT. They don't send people to Fallon to keep that knowledge to themselves. Graduates are certified instructors and are expected to do a tour training advanced strike and fighter tactics.

 

[USNavySEAL3310]

Like I said, I probably don't know what I am talking about but I'm giving it a try.

Most air battles take place when the planes are 20+ miles away from each other. When they get close, they resort to sidewinders. There is rarely a case where you need to use your guns after you've used up sidewinders. When you're dry, you go back to re-arm. You don't stay up with just guns.

 

[Big-E]

Like I said, I probably don't know what I am talking about but I'm giving it a try.

Most air battles take place when the planes are 20+ miles away from each other. When they get close, they resort to sidewinders. There is rarely a case where you need to use your guns after you've used up sidewinders. When you're dry, you go back to re-arm. You don't stay up with just guns.

Your forgetting the need to ID your target which makes a dogfight much more probable.

 

[LancerMc]

Training is important, and the aircraft doesn't count for everything. That why the USAF has things like Red Flag with allies. The U.S. sends aircraft all around the world to train with foriegn airforces. Some of those countries fly "obsolete" jets, but combat has proven you can't ever count out aircraft like that. Many of our NATO allies do the same. Unfortunately not every pilot gets that chance to do so, but many do.

 

[USNavySEAL3310]

Your forgetting the need to ID your target which makes a dogfight much more probable.

Radar can detect aircraft up to 80 miles away, more with AWACS. Why would you need to detect aircraft by getting up close?

 

[Waylander]

He talked about ID=Identification and not about detection.
You often enough just cannot shoot at any blip you see without compromising the ROEs.

 

[chrisrobsoar]

I agree.

That’s where optical devices that enable a distance target to be positively identified come into play.

When not at war, Rules of Engagement (ROEs) require that a “bogie” be positively identified as a “bandit” before offensive action is commenced.

When close in having a gun is also useful when the “bogie” suddenly becomes a ”bandit”.

Dog-fighting is no longer a main part of war-fighting, but it is potentially part of skirmishing prior to all out war, and it makes the fighter pilot feel like a real fighter pilot, good for moral and good fun. If nothing else such training is a way to check out who is not quite as fit as they should be.



Chris

 

[Big-E]

Dog-fighting is no longer a main part of war-fighting, but it is potentially part of skirmishing prior to all out war, and it makes the fighter pilot feel like a real fighter pilot, good for moral and good fun. If nothing else such training is a way to check out who is not quite as fit as they should be.

I would like to point out that nations have spent almost a trillion dollars on having top dogfighters. Vectored thrust is a development that has cost billions for additions to aircraft which are mostly applicable to dog fights. The billions spent on the advanced training courses in Nevada at the weapons schools is not for "morale" or "good fun", they are for saving lives. There are environments where guns might be your only option. They make sidewinders for a reason. Jamming, ECM and EMP are making leaps and bounds and sometimes force us to rely on our skill rather than our technology. As stated ROEs dictate that the target must be IDed or you get another KAL 007 or Vincennes incident. With todays high levels of commercial traffic even in a stated war zone ID is still a standard ROE. It was the case in A-stan and Iraq, we did not have a free hot zone to shoot down anything we wished. Our camera pods are only conclusive in good weather to a distance for any kind of BVR. If there is so much as any poor visibility it becomes useless.

 

[chrisrobsoar]

I would like to point out that nations have spent almost a trillion dollars on having top dogfighters. Vectored thrust is a development that has cost billions for additions to aircraft which are mostly applicable to dog fights. The billions spent on the advanced training courses in Nevada at the weapons schools is not for "morale" or "good fun", they are for saving lives. There are environments where guns might be your only option. They make sidewinders for a reason. Jamming, ECM and EMP are making leaps and bounds and sometimes force us to rely on our skill rather than our technology. As stated ROEs dictate that the target must be IDed or you get another KAL 007 or Vincennes incident. With today’s high levels of commercial traffic even in a stated war zone ID is still a standard ROE. It was the case in A-stan and Iraq, we did not have a free hot zone to shoot down anything we wished. Our camera pods are only conclusive in good weather to a distance for any kind of BVR. If there is so much as any poor visibility it becomes useless.

@Big-E I had intended to post another sentence followed by a smiley, but failed to copy it from the word file.

The points I was attempting to make were: -

1 As you state. It is necessary to get in close to ID a target before attacking (this can be assisted by modern optical equipment).

2. Dog-fighting has become a smaller portion of war fighting than in the past.

3. For much of the time training for the long-range attacks using missiles etc is carried out by simulating attacks. Pilots rarely have the opportunity to fire real missiles.

4. Practicing Dog-fighting and also firing guns helps focus the mind of the fighter pilot on what is important about being a fighter pilot. (It is also fun and good for moral).

5. Maybe this should have been first. Although not the largest portion of the total war-fighting role Dog-fighting is the most demanding of the pilots skill and fitness. It also has to be practiced to remain sharp and ahead of the game with regard to current tactics.

Your comments on ACM training being for “saving lives”, is “as read” in my book, my comments relate rather to additional benefits where this form of training allows fighter pilots to demonstrate their flying skills, much more than in other areas of training, feeling like a “real fighter pilot” rather than a “button-pusher”.

Optical devices used for target recognition have lagged somewhat behind other equipments. I think that this has been remiss of the system developers, because getting a good ID is essential before attacking. Some of the newer targeting pods (and similar internally mounted equipment) have A to A modes, using visible and IR wavelengths to see targets in poor visibility. In particular, techniques similar to NCTI for radar signatures are being developed to enable IR signatures to be recognised where the actual image cannot be resolved to identify the target.

In the UK there have been studies on the possibility of modifying ROEs to permit attacks based on “signature recognition” rather than on visual ID.



Chris

 

[Big-E]

The points I was attempting to make were: -

1 As you state. It is necessary to get in close to ID a target before attacking (this can be assisted by modern optical equipment).

Optical devices used for target recognition have lagged somewhat behind other equipments. I think that this has been remiss of the system developers, because getting a good ID is essential before attacking. Some of the newer targeting pods (and similar internally mounted equipment) have A to A modes, using visible and IR wavelengths to see targets in poor visibility. In particular, techniques similar to NCTI for radar signatures are being developed to enable IR signatures to be recognised where the actual image cannot be resolved to identify the target.

To address visual ID I will say this: I have the ATFLIR in my Bug... I have played with it and found it is a wonderful piece of technology but does not really improve the quality of the picture from the previous generation. It has a better laser tracker, maintenance, and space saving capabilities but does hardly anything to improve the ID of targets. The problem is they spent all their time trying to improve IR function of the pod rather than the EO. While superior to any other pod the IR enhancements aren't helpful in making out the silhouette of an aircraft which is a must for proper ID. There are really only two useful IR modes and using these for example:

As you can see there is little chance of identifying these aircraft with any certainty.

In the UK there have been studies on the possibility of modifying ROEs to permit attacks based on “signature recognition” rather than on visual ID.

Basing the engagement of a target on the recognition of radar or IR sig is grounds for disaster. It would leave analysis in the hands of a computer algorithm. Even in the murky depths of the sea where nothing is seen, only audible, target acquisition is manually achieved. The ROEs for ID in a combat zone heir on the side of caution. You would be suprised at how unwilling commanders are to allow fire on a target not visually IDed, not with IR but by EO.

2. Dog-fighting has become a smaller portion of war fighting than in the past.

As compared to what? There have been practically no engagements in years of BVR or dog fights. The most recent examples of large scale air battles come from Eritria and those were mostly dog fights. The largest modern air combat I can remember is the 82' air battle of the Bekaa. Most of the kills came from dog fights... AIM9L, not BVR. Here is some footage, there are about half a dozen kills at the end of the video... good stuff.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O86rbFxgngc

3. For much of the time training for the long-range attacks using missiles etc is carried out by simulating attacks. Pilots rarely have the opportunity to fire real missiles.

More like next to never, we get to fire our guns much more which should point to the prevalence of the dog fight, well more strafing but it does hone targeting skills.

4. Practicing Dog-fighting and also firing guns helps focus the mind of the fighter pilot on what is important about being a fighter pilot. (It is also fun and good for moral).

Your comments on ACM training being for “saving lives”, is “as read” in my book, my comments relate rather to additional benefits where this form of training allows fighter pilots to demonstrate their flying skills, much more than in other areas of training, feeling like a “real fighter pilot” rather than a “button-pusher”.

I know you have no insult in mind... but we take our skills very seriously and we do see them as relevent. It is not a game, it is life or death. Fun is just climbing into the cockpit knowing you have the best job in the world. As long as you control the stick you are a "real fighter pilot", that ends when UCAV takes our place. I wish most engagements where BVR and that IR could succesfully ID these aircraft outside of their limited range but they can't always do that. The only true ID is off EO visuals that can make out markings. I haven't been in a combat situation yet where the gloves were fully taken off... I find that disturbing to tell you the truth but makes dog fights all the more likely. We just haven't come to the point, after Vincennes, where we will allow a computer algorith to ID target sigs nor will we change ROEs so losely that we will order a target shot down without visual confirmation.

Big-E

 

[Gremlin29]

I'm wondering if this post was the result of watching the show "Dog Fights" on the History Channel? They showcased Steve Richie and an engagement where both he and his wingman experienced multiple failures of their Sidewinders and Sparrows during the same engagement. During the commentary Richie stated that the Air Force had provided them with zero dog fight training at that time. IIRC he said either the Sparrow or Sidewinder had an 11% kill probability rate back then (68-72). Maybe somebody is deducing that this is the status quo, 34 years later.

Whatever happened to the IFF?

 

[chrisrobsoar]

@ Big-E

Thanks for your comments, I will reply as soon as I can, but it is back to work for a few days.

A few thoughts before I disappear.

I have the highest respect for fighter pilots. My eyesight was too poor even to be in the running as a fighter pilot. However, I have several thousand hours in other aircraft, and have trained many pilots who have become fighter pilots and commercial aircraft pilots.

All my working life I have been involved in developing defence avionic systems, mainly radar and ECM (including RF & IR), as a systems engineer and as a Program Director.

On the one hand we have developed agile aircraft to dog-fight and on the other systems to engage at BVR.

Where our systems are lacking is in the middle. Something to give the war fighter the opportunity to positively ID targets and engage without closing to eye-ball range.

The current UK studies are motivated by UCAVs operations and are closely linked to sense and avoid. (UCAVs cannot “see” so visual ID is not relevant, unless operating with a man-in-the-loop, the studies are looking at eliminating the this element; IMHO rather too scary for my taste).

I do not dispute that current dog-fight training is a matter of life and death, but it is still one aspect of training where there is room for flair and for pilots to feel the joy of flying at the limit.

I agree that the current systems do not have the required EO performance to enable the pilot to positively ID targets at BVR. However, the next generation will provide much better performance. One aspect that may help is that the signature recognition systems will provide visual cues in real time to highlight major recognition features. Examples of near matches can be provided as picture within picture. There are also other tricks, advisory tracks to be flown to change the aspect angle helping the recognition system to acquire additional data. (The use of LO aircraft should make better use of this tactic allowing the fighter to gain an advantagous postion before attacking).

Most of us in the systems development world would like to come up with techniques that can avoid the need for the fighters to get so close that dog-fighting might be a possibility.

Our aim is to develop systems that avoid the necessity for fighter pilots to be put at unnecessary risk. In the mean time having the capability to dog-fight is our “ace in the hole”.





Chris

 

[Defense Expert]

Well U.S. navy seal.... You are correct with the thinking that though aircrafts begin to engage before a visual is confirmed however there have been many dog-fights which have taken place in recent years. The F-16 has engaged other air crafts with its 20 mm cannons only. However, in this instance it was soviet jets invading pakistani airspace in the late 80s early 90s and several pakistan F-16s engaged and destroyed several soviet jets using the 20 mm cannons only... missiles are not always necessary, however the skill level of the pilot is very important to use the cannons instead of the missles.

 

[Ths]

At the risk of elaborating on what has already been mentioned:

There is a difference between military and civilian, and that difference is that there are somebody out there that is doing his very best to destroy you.

I'm all for BVR and all that; but the other smuck IS NOT just going to let you slaughter him. The enemy just might have invested a lot of time and effort into getting around your technological gadgets - and he might be successfull.

I'm all for devices that will let you ID on longer ranges: No matter what distance to draw in a picture: If you your basic aircraftspotting is deficient - all the technology is wasted.
This to illustrate that much advanced technology is best used by operators that have their basic military skills in place.

Doctor are still running around with stothoscopes. Why? Because a diagnose or treatment is to be done with the simplest adequate mean - less risk of screw-ups.

If your flyingskills (seamanship and streetwisdom) and basic military skills are in place you are less of a onetrick pony - thus less likely to be outsmarted.

This tendency is getting more and more significant. During the cold war it was thought that it would be so bloody, that the average life of soldier would not allow the deployment of more than one skill - then you had to train a lot of one trick ponies - or so the russians thought.

I'm all for maintaing teams like the Red Arrows, because it is a unit that maintains and develops individual and formation flying skills - and can diffuse that skill to all levels in the air force.

 

[Rish]

hey i was wondering, what are dog fights going to look like in 30 years when both sides have stealth fighters (no specific countries)? will air-to-air missiles be obsolete if stealth detecting radar isnt invented?

 

[Cailet]

hey i was wondering, what are dog fights going to look like in 30 years when both sides have stealth fighters (no specific countries)? will air-to-air missiles be obsolete if stealth detecting radar isnt invented?

No, they'll just pack more powerful radar in.

Even an F-22 head-on is still detectable by an AAM at some stage (albeit very close). They're harder to see but you can still detect them if you put enough power in.

BVR wouldn;t be as prevelant I guess but guns are still not gonna be the primary means of engagement if anyone can help it.

Not to mention that stealth will still be restricted to a relative few. The JSF nations, China, Russia, India maybe and Israel. Certainly no nation is going to sell them to a nation that could really muck up the status quo.

And of course the steady advance of UAV's which is going to change things quite seriously I would expect.