Balancing the F-14

Lastly, this discussion and the Higby paper raises the issue of what constitutes effective BVR - what are reasonable expectations? To me, BVR seems like a less reliable way to make a kill (longer ranges will affect kill probability alone), but is it reasonable to walk away from the concept when your enemies are prepared to employ it? That's the strangest part of the Higby paper - does he really feel that WVR is the only capability that the US should offer to it's crews? Even "lightweight fighters - aka the F-16 only" have progressively added capability and expanded their BVR capabilities. I have a hard time believing that operational flexibility is a detriment to survival and success.

 

I think the lesson of early BVR was not depend on it, but ignoring it all together makes the same mistake as depending on it. I find it ironic that Higby is really missing the point and advocating for the approach that his paper is supposed to criticize: plan for one type of combat and expect that complete superiority in that one modality will allow to prevail in a wide variety of different circumstances. That was tried...and it failed. The mantra of the 4th gen fighters is maximize your operational flexibility and be prepared to do everything, at least with some degree of proficiency. Follow on designs have not changed their course and no one is currently making a fighter that will only work in WVR or only work in BVR. That probably offers better insight.

 

-Nick

I don't think Higby misses the point. BVR is enormously attractive - the notion of getting to shoot at someone who can't shoot back (or, ideally, even see you) is basically the holy grail. One of Higby's points is that if you don't have equipment that can deliver on this promise, you're just wasting time and money and additionally you may be giving your own location away (via RWR's). That part is basically a non-issue for missiles in use today but may become true again with future developments in electronic warfare or such things (okay, I'm reaching here but bear with me for a moment). The other point he's making is about the political and human factors of BVR. If you absolutely cannot accept friendly fire, then you need an absolutely reliable IFF system that has at least the same range as your missiles. The advance of technology has mitigated this problem too to some extent but as long as the fog of war is a thing it will still be a factor that needs to be considered. Hence you need both BVR and WVR.

On a different level though, Higby's paper is more of an indictment of early air-launched radar guided missiles than anything else. His distinction of BVR vs WVR is also a distinction of radar vs IR guidance. From that perspective it is very easy to see why IR is so much cheaper and more reliable: ranges are shorter, energy levels received by the seeker orders of magnitude greater, the seeker mechanism is less complex and does not need support from the launching aircraft's radar, etc etc. Again this is less of a problem today but it is worth keeping in mind that the costs (in many senses of the word, not merely monetary) of technological complexity have not simply gone away. Complex technology is more vulnerable to the unexpected than simple technology is almost by definition, and radar missiles are inherently more complex and have way more variables involved than IR missiles do. The "keep it simple, stupid" principle exists for a reason - it's not that simplicity has a value of its own, but simple solutions tend to have desirable side effects (or perhaps it is more accurate to say that they tend to have less undesirable side effects).

Also those 2 AIIM-54 shots referenced cant be classified as "miisses". They were not loaded correctly and the rocket motors did not fire, so they failed, they became expensive MK-83s. The only other publically acknowledged AIM-54C shot was at a MiG-23 which was supersonic and beamed then ran back home- thee AIM-54 tracked all the way but ran out of energy, with the MiG supposedly crashing after running out of fuel. That's a kill in my book.

I don't think Higby misses the point. BVR is enormously attractive - the notion of getting to shoot at someone who can't shoot back (or, ideally, even see you) is basically the holy grail. One of Higby's points is that if you don't have equipment that can deliver on this promise, you're just wasting time and money and additionally you may be giving your own location away (via RWR's). That part is basically a non-issue for missiles in use today but may become true again with future developments in electronic warfare or such things (okay, I'm reaching here but bear with me for a moment). The other point he's making is about the political and human factors of BVR. If you absolutely cannot accept friendly fire, then you need an absolutely reliable IFF system that has at least the same range as your missiles. The advance of technology has mitigated this problem too to some extent but as long as the fog of war is a thing it will still be a factor that needs to be considered. Hence you need both BVR and WVR.

 

On a different level though, Higby's paper is more of an indictment of early air-launched radar guided missiles than anything else. His distinction of BVR vs WVR is also a distinction of radar vs IR guidance. From that perspective it is very easy to see why IR is so much cheaper and more reliable: ranges are shorter, energy levels received by the seeker orders of magnitude greater, the seeker mechanism is less complex and does not need support from the launching aircraft's radar, etc etc. Again this is less of a problem today but it is worth keeping in mind that the costs (in many senses of the word, not merely monetary) of technological complexity have not simply gone away. Complex technology is more vulnerable to the unexpected than simple technology is almost by definition, and radar missiles are inherently more complex and have way more variables involved than IR missiles do. The "keep it simple, stupid" principle exists for a reason - it's not that simplicity has a value of its own, but simple solutions tend to have desirable side effects (or perhaps it is more accurate to say that they tend to have less undesirable side effects).

Great post Renhanxue. :)

Though I disagree that BVR means you shoot before your opponent can. Certainly, that was the situation for Western/NATO countries initially as Soviet BVR tech was lagging initially, but it's really matter of offering a combat solution for certain ranges and conditions. Not to mention the benefits of carrying a weapon with more than one type of seeker. Many of the AIM-7 shots are not true BVR, but without the concept of BVR there probably would have been less emphasis on that technology.

Higby's paper was helpful for exposing the gap between reliability/accuracy during testing/training and true combat. However, digging into just a few examples reveals that his statistics do not give justice to true accuracy or capability by virtue of how he crunched his statistics. A more thorough investigation or more details would have strengthened his argument considerably (at least for me).

Also, fog of war can certainly happen with WVR too...a pair of US UH-60s were shot down by US F-15Cs over the Iraqi no-fly zone after 2 or 3 visual confirmations (thought to be Hinds). Sometimes it's best not to trust your eyes as the only source of information.

Most equipment cannot deliver on the initial aspiration/dream, but innovation can solve those limitations - which seems to be the case here. Radar guided missiles certainly had early limitations and were definitely not good enough to serve as the only available modality for air combat, but they hardly seem to be a waste. Even with their early reliability and accuracy concerns, they significantly expanded the envelope of available firing solutions - ie, head-on shots and high deflection shots. Perhaps users initially expected too much of it, but that facilitated development. Even with the complaints of less than ideal capability during real combat, it still seems foolhardy to subtract the capability in exchange for some improvement in BFM capability. Even with the F-16, it's capabilities were promptly expanded including the addition of BVR capability. I cannot think of a single instance where an aircraft's weapon suite and sensor capability is reduced to improve A-A performance. In WWII guns were sometimes removed and F3H Demons often flew with fewer cannons, but no one has ever replaced a radar with a smaller/less capable unit, etc. "Natural pressure/evolution" of systems still seems contrary to his perspective.

I agree that short range combat is here to stay and will probably account for the majority of air-to-air kills in the future. Even the F-14 managed 4/5 kills with the AIM-9, but doesn't mean that all of that R&D was in vane. In more recent times, AIM-120s have accounted for the majority of US A-A kills. The AIM-120 directly benefited from the AIM-54's existence and operational experience. Plus, having that long-range capability forces the enemy to change behaviors and invest in countering it. The threat may be worse conceptually than in reality (I still argue that the AIM-54 is quite effective, but not a "super missile"), but intimidation can be more effective than real combat. It's better for pilots on both sides if no shots are fired and the enemy retires for fear of the mere possibility. It may not be the best way to spend money, but it is a fringe benefit of the investment.

Certainly there are ideas that sound appealing, but do not go anywhere because they are technically challenging and offer few practical benefits - flying cars for example - I'd give up hope on that one. But electric cars are overcoming, even though they were a punch line less than 10 years ago (I still vastly prefer internal combustion for the noise, vibration, and personality - but thats another story :) ).

The jet engine was initially pretty inferior operationally to the piston engine - poor acceleration, outrageous fuel consumption, poor endurance, lack of thrust, marginal reliability, etc. On paper, these machines would strike a reader as frankly inferior to their piston alternatives in every parameter, but top speed. But constant development got us there, even though you could have advocated for ending the program since it was "not delivering the promise".

Swedish aviation could have given up after the Saab J-21R...so much future potential would have been lost! :thumbup:

-Nick

It'll outmaneuver the MiG-29, but probably not the Su-27. As for the Mirage, I'm not sure, I'll have to look at thr charts but I think the Tomcat has a higher STR.

This mean, what tomcat can outmaneuver f-16? (f-16 and fulcrum have very close performance in dogfight)

This mean, what tomcat can outmaneuver f-16? (f-16 and fulcrum have very close performance in dogfight)

Take a look:

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2824210&postcount=9

The F-14 has It's advantages over the F-16.

You can find a lot data on this thread below:

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=2824210#post2824210

Take a look:

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2824210&postcount=9

 

The F-14 has It's advantages over the F-16.

 

You can find a lot data on this thread below:

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=2824210#post2824210

And roll rate?? It's as important as turn radius.And can define the course of a battle

And roll rate?? It's as important as turn radius.And can define the course of a battle

Yes, of course. :)

The F-16 certainly has a better roll rate.

Hummingbird probably can give you more details.

I don't get where people come off by saying the AIM-54 is bad against fighters...

It has far more energy than an AIM-120C, houses a larger seeker (that also uses a mono-pulse receiver), and its high ALT terminal dive provides it substantial end game energy at long ranges..

I'll be firing the AIM-54C at Rmax1 before the enemy gets within Rmax2..

I don't get where people come off by saying the AIM-54 is bad against fighters...

AIM-54A was very vulnerable to chaff, which may not have a huge issue vs huge RCS bombers.

To the OP: Another F-14 with Aim54's of course. :) But balance is game players word, this is going to be an asymetric battle at the long range and the scenario builders will have fun considering a relatively un-explored type of combat. If it's going to have a partner we would pick the 23 as the obvious reliveable historic counterpart, the F-5 as a training counterpart, the bombers as a theoretical counterpart... throw away the balance word and think outside history, it's a sandbox. Balance doesn't exist, not even in staged PvP, always someone has some upperhand somewhere.

The F14 would reckt the MiG-25 too.

Also, the Phoenix is better than the R33, so it wouldn't really change stuff.

A good competitor would be the MiG-31, IF it could carry the R37, but since that's impossible for DCS right now............

Someone say 54 was rubbish, someone consider it best missile ever. Well what I think true will be somewhe in middle. Also you must consider circumstances for current scenario. It is very important imho.

I don't think 54 was scrapped due to lack of targets nor financial reason. Firstly threat of long range bombers is greater than ever as they are also equipped with long range air to ground/ships missiles. And cost? Well 54 price was about $500k. Compare it with AMRAM and it's $400k or Sidewinder with $600k per missile (C and X versions). Btw AIM-7 costs about $125k and it is probably reason why it is still in service.

I would see two reasons there why 54 was never used with another aircraft. First, as been said, weight. With full load of 54s F-14 was more bomber than fighter in terms of flight behave. And there is no other aircraft that could carry significant amount of them because of their weight. US have no heavy fighter like Mig-25 or Mig-31. Closest to them is F-15 with max. weight 30t compared to Mig-31's 46t (F-14 34t but is was designed for 54s which helped a lot). Still F-15 could carry few 54s in term of weight but you probably need hull change because of that. When you see F-15 and how it carry it's missiles you see you can't mount 54s there. Even further, F-14 had them hidden in tunel between engines to avoid huge drag that they would otherwise cause. F-14 was probably only aircraft designed to carry them from the beginning. You need to count with 54s when you design your plane, you can't add them later. They are too unique.

Second reason, it is dangerous to fire weapon on such distance. You can't confirm your target even with modern avionics which can visualy see and recognize type of aircraft up to 20 miles if I'm not mistaken. If you can shoot missle max up to 20 miles you don't need 54s for that. Risk of shooting down some civil aircraft is too high in our age. No one from west can afford such accident to happen because west public does not believe their governments so blindly as in eastern regions with politicaly driven/controlled press etc. Such an accident could stop whole war campaing because of public pressure. Not worthed.

So you see there is a lot of issues with 54 missiles. As far as I know several (2 or 3) of them were fired in combat and none hit it's target. When they tested the missile it did pretty well though. Otherwise it would probably not be in active duty. But we know very little about conditions of those test shots.

I does not matter though. No hit does not mean bad weapon. Nuke missiles had no hit either and no one underestimates them. 54s did same role as nukes. They scared enemy off. You really don't want to engage fighter which is teoretically capable destroy you before you can even see him on your radar. Only presence of F-14s with 54s was strong enough to possibly avoid conflict. It was imho greatest strength of 54 missiles whatever real capabilities were.

We will probably never know those capabilities though. Bad for DCS. Although 54s are half of what does F-14s, they should be avoided in DCS imho. Because there are not enough reliable data to make it realistic. I can see it forbidden in MP missions and it is also the easiest way to deal with this balance question.

Btw I found

And sorry for my English. It is terrible, I know it, but what can you do...

Someone say 54 was rubbish, someone consider it best missile ever. Well what I think true will be somewhe in middle. Also you must consider circumstances for current scenario. It is very important imho.

It depends on the version of the missile and other factors.

I don't think 54 was scrapped due to lack of targets nor financial reason. Firstly threat of long range bombers is greater than ever as they are also equipped with long range air to ground/ships missiles. And cost? Well 54 price was about $500k. Compare it with AMRAM and it's $400k or Sidewinder with $600k per missile (C and X versions). Btw AIM-7 costs about $125k and it is probably reason why it is still in service.

AIM-7 is not in service, at least not with USAF.

I would see two reasons there why 54 was never used with another aircraft. First, as been said, weight. With full load of 54s F-14 was more bomber than fighter in terms of flight behave. And there is no other aircraft that could carry significant amount of them because of their weight.

They flat out did not have a requirement to do so. All possible scenarios that would have required the phoenix are typically handled by SAMs.

US have no heavy fighter like Mig-25 or Mig-31. Closest to them is F-15 with max. weight 30t compared to Mig-31's 46t (F-14 34t but is was designed for 54s which helped a lot). Still F-15 could carry few 54s in term of weight but you probably need hull change because of that.

Not really. You could mount a 54 on each pylon with little effort. NASA has mounted 54's on their bird. They're simply no requirement for this.

F-14 was probably only aircraft designed to carry them from the beginning. You need to count with 54s when you design your plane, you can't add them later. They are too unique.

Actually YF-12 and F-111 were the first aircraft meant to carry this missile or its predecessor.

Second reason, it is dangerous to fire weapon on such distance. You can't confirm your target even with modern avionics which can visualy see and recognize type of aircraft up to 20 miles if I'm not mistaken. If you can shoot missle max up to 20 miles you don't need 54s for that. Risk of shooting down some civil aircraft is too high in our age. No one from west can afford such accident to happen because west public does not believe their governments so blindly as in eastern regions with politicaly driven/controlled press etc. Such an accident could stop whole war campaing because of public pressure. Not worthed.

That's a non issue. The west has a boatload of missiles that could cause such problems. You're correct that ID is a problem in combat, but if there was a need for such a long missile, they'd make the missile.

But more importantly, an F-22 (or F-15) can make an AIM-120D go almost as far as a 54.

Otherwise it would probably not be in active duty. But we know very little about conditions of those test shots.

We know that on the last two shots, the techs had not serviced the batteries. The missiles dropped off the pylons and never powered on.

We will probably never know those capabilities though. Bad for DCS. Although 54s are half of what does F-14s, they should be avoided in DCS imho. Because there are not enough reliable data to make it realistic. I can see it forbidden in MP missions and it is also the easiest way to deal with this balance question.

There's no balance issue. You can deal with long range 54 shots easily if you'are aware that there are F-14's in the theatre. This is what tactics are all about :)

F-14 was probably only aircraft designed to carry them from the beginning. You need to count with 54s when you design your plane, you can't add them later. They are too unique.

Work on the AWG-9/AIM-54 combination predated the attempted integration with the F-111B by a number of years.

Grumman Model 303 was a clean sheet internal design for a maritime air superiority aircraft to solve issues being experienced by the F-4 Phantom under the expectation that the Navy would request a replacement in the early 70s. The ability of the airframe to carry palletized Phoenix stems from the usage of the fuselage to generate body lift and substantially increase available fuel carriage to extend loiter time in the CAP, and increase range at speed in a DLI situation.

Which is to say, the convergence of the pancake's availability to accept drag-optimized Phoenix pallets was a fortuitous coincidence, not by design.

AIM-7 is not in service, at least not with USAF.

Sparrow remains in circulation with the USN.

Sure, though I doubt it's holding on to that 125k price tag - AIM-7P has plenty of upgrades, and I suspect the 125k figure may have been 1980's dollars, too.

And roll rate?? It's as important as turn radius.And can define the course of a battle

It's definitely important and the F-16 indeed has the higher roll rate. But in terms of minimum turning radius and STR up until around ~ M 0.7 the F-14 will outstrip most other fighters, incl. the F-16.

That having been said, with the exception of the eurocanards and perhaps the F-22 & Su27 series, I don't see any fighter besting a clean F-16 in an all out dogfight - it's energy retention in maneuvers above M 0.65 or so is just insane. So overall I'd agree that the F-16 is the better dogfighter in its clean state. With a usual combat load however, which for the F-16 often means 2x big wing mounted fuel tanks, I actually think the F-14 retained more maneuverability.

With a usual combat load however, which for the F-16 often means 2x big wing mounted fuel tanks, I actually think the F-14 retained more maneuverability.

But what about that one-bag-swag?

:P

I want both....Man...Multiple F-16Ns vs F-14Bs would be...Interesting.

But what about that one-bag-swag?

 

 

:P

 

I want both....Man...Multiple F-16Ns vs F-14Bs would be...Interesting.

Hehe, the "one bag swag" (nice expression :megalol:) would probably be about the same as the two bag swag F-14B :P

Hehe, the "one bag swag" (nice expression :megalol:) would probably be about the same as the two bag swag F-14B :P

What about the F-14B/D climb rate? I suppose It's better than the F-16?

We don't know 100% for sure the efectiveness of the Phoenix... as how will it be simulated within DCS environment is a matter to be seen when the module is released. Does anyone knows when does the Phoenix operates in semi-active mode and when does it goes fully active? Does it have the same principle as the 120 of operating with data-link/inertial mid-course guidance?

Plus, is still to be seen the capability of the tomcat doppler pulse radar to keep traking a flanking or receding target!

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=165028

this thread is more relevant regarding the phoenix

majority of us here know near nothing about the phoenix. i expect the ln aim-54 to be very educational.

The west has a boatload of missiles that could cause such problems.

And they did. 290 people died on 3 July 1988 at Persian Gulf. Accident proved risks of shooting at visualy not confirmed target. Those missiles are teoretically usable in full scale war like 2WW but not in local conflicts like we are usually facing today. Becase such full scale war is not expected nowdays, such missiles are practically useless. Does not matter if they are mounted on aircraft, on ship or ground SAM battery. Firing any missile without visual confirmation may lead to civilian casualties which may be acceptable in full scale war but not in localy bordered conflicts. We have another example from Ukraine on 17 July 2014. Just for reminder, 300 people died who had no interest about that conflict. Those weapons are becoming more psychological threat than real threat because their deployment in such conflicts is so problematic. No country wants to explain why they kill hundreds of civilians not interested in any way in events of particular conflict. I am aware that ground attacks do kill lot of civilians too. But firstly they are interested in the conflict by mean they live there (as hard as it may sounds). Secondly confirmation of their casualties are very problematic. Lastly they usually do not die in such a high number per one attack (missile/bomb). Unless you drop a bomb on hospital of course...

There's no balance issue.

Oh but there is. I do agree this is sim and devs should not care about balance. But MP mission developpers should. Because they are creating competetive missions for playes to play against each other. And if they want to create good missions they must create balanced ones. Otherwise it will be no fun for each side and no one will play it. But I agree in point we need to wait for actual situation and missile model after official release to see how big problem it will cause. Maybe there won't be problem at all as you think. But I can't help but wonder how will you outmaneuver missile you know so little about. You may have indication on your RWR with information about direction. But you do not know distance, you do not know altitude, you do not know speed. And you do not see the missile because on it's final approach (dive) it does not create smoke trial as it engine is dead for some time. Only thing you can do is turn away on AB, disperse chaffs, and hope it will be enough (which probably will if you are lucky to fly a plane with AB). In such case you are forced to abort your current mission. At least temporairly. Which means you have no opportunity to strike back on aircraft that shot at you (for what Phoenix missile was born).

Leave the "balance" to "The Force" and let's concentrate on simulation of reality.:D

What about the F-14B/D climb rate? I suppose It's better than the F-16?

The F-16 usually climbs faster, albeit again it depends on the load out.

Without any bags the F-16 is one of the hottest fighters the US has ever fielded, and I don't believe the MiG-29 would be a match for it in a dogfight in that state - Eventhough I have read the German MiG29 vs F-16 comparison, but I'm pretty certain that was against an F-16 with either one or two bags, they rarely go up without them.

And they did. 290 people died on 3 July 1988 at Persian Gulf. Accident proved risks of shooting at visualy not confirmed target.

Yes. Visual confirmation solves everything.

The passengers and crew of KAL 007 would have something to say about that, but they're all indisposed at this time.