F-16 vs Mig-15

[TobiasA]

vor 4 Stunden schrieb Theodore42:

 

You've read Shaw? You didn't even read the quote that I put right in front of you:

"Sustained turn radius, however, is such a strong function of airspeed that the lowwing-loaded fighter nearly always has the advantage here, regardless of T/W." (Shaw 140)

 

In other words, it doesn't matter how much advantage in thrust to weight ratio the F-16 has, you're not going to get a win against an angles fighter. That's why it's called an "angles fighter", as in angles off your tail. You're not going to win a vertical nose to tail with an angles fighter because he will use his instantaneous turn to skip the disadvantageous parts of the vertical loop and get to the parts he's good at (unless you're running him out of altitude). Also, for an F-16 to follow a MiG-15 into a vertical loop you would have to be so far to his cold side it wouldn't even make sense as a maneuver.

 

As for the F-16's superior T/W, the engine has to have a high dynamic air pressure on the inlet to generate thrust, and when you're going under 250 indicated, it ain't there. The MiG-15 isn't a supersonic fighter and was designed to fly at lower speeds so it doesn't have that handicap. Also the F-16 has way more induced drag at lower speeds.

At 15,000ft and 200kts, how long does it take for an F-16 to accelerate to 250, even at 0Gs (0 induced drag)? Do the same thing at 400kts and see how fast you get to 450. Don't blink. And how many Gs do you have to pull at 500kts to accelerate to 550 as slowly as you accelerated from 200 to 250? 4Gs at least? You think I'm saying the MiG-15 is more maneuverable? Go 500 and you can do what ever you want to a MiG.

So when you go slow the MiG-15 DOES have a T/W advantage. And an induced drag advantage. He also has an instantaneous turn advantage, especially at low speeds. And a very small turn radius due to weight.

 

In Chess, the pawn can only attack diagonally 1 square in front of him. The knight is a piece that can jump over other pieces and is very mobile. You're jumping your knight into the ONE SQUARE that a pawn can take you, and you're saying this is wrong because the knight is better than the pawn. Well, it is. And the F-16 is better than the MiG-15. Stop trying to fly his game.

 

This last week I've spent maybe 3 or 4 hours flying the F-16 against the MiG-15 and reading Shaw (fly a round against a MiG, read Shaw, fly, read, fly, read, ...). That is a very small investment to practice a performing art. Yet I posted another video of me vs MiG-15s. I think anyone that watches both this video and the video I made from a week ago will realize that there has been a great improvement. This time I avoid giving the MiGs advantages and they just look like slow, maneuverable bugs ("gnats" or whatever they're called):

 

 

BOOM! Roasted.

 

 

Ok, then I'm deluding myself into improving against a broken UFO AI. Fine with me!

But you're wrong.

 

BOOM! Roasted.

 

The AI flight model is some BS. Serious BS. They can follow you in steep climbs, outclimb you, outturn you.
But... They have no comparable missiles. So why should anyone fight a MiG-15 with guns only?

[Dragon1-1]

For a challenge, mostly. Also, skill with the gun comes in handy, keep in mind that the F-16 only carries six missiles. If you've got to deal with 8 bandits, tough luck. Skill with the gun also means you know how to build a good angle for a missile shot, which is important when you've only got six of them. A Sidewinder can hit the target from head-on aspect, but unless the enemy flies straight into it, it's far easier to trash than a rear aspect shot.

[TobiasA]

vor 57 Minuten schrieb Dragon1-1:

For a challenge, mostly. Also, skill with the gun comes in handy, keep in mind that the F-16 only carries six missiles. If you've got to deal with 8 bandits, tough luck. Skill with the gun also means you know how to build a good angle for a missile shot, which is important when you've only got six of them. A Sidewinder can hit the target from head-on aspect, but unless the enemy flies straight into it, it's far easier to trash than a rear aspect shot.

 

As for the fun, then it's alright. I can understand that approach. Or for training- that's fine.

I'd never step into a fight where I'm outnumbered, because I know for sure that I'm out of fuel before I can get a gunshot on each one. It is more likely that they just smash me, because they easily can, assuming they have a brain and use it.

The 9X is almost a certain kill inside the right parameters. You only trash the shot if you guess the closure rate wrong or fire too close right from the start.

There are three kinds of players in military sims:

- The dogfight crowd that fights dogfights for fun

- the tactical flyer group

- and the "Imma just blow things up and go back if I don't die"- group.

The third one doesn't care about E/M charts, tactical formations, maneuvers, energy management, fuel management, planning or stuff. They go full burner, pop slammers and go back.

They have fun.

The first group cares all about the stuff that the third group certainly ignores all the way along, has in-depth knowledge of how to fly BFM's, has all the experience in dogfights and kicks other groups asses in dogfights, but probably can not do precision strikes, SEAD or sink ships.

They have fun.

The second group cares about tactical formations, flight planning, fuel management and stuff, has a broad knowledge of weapons, likes checklists and ramp starts. Most of them don't know that much about E/M charts and their dogfights are short and dirty, rarely end with gun kills and they are mostly mediocre in dogfights.
They have fun.

All three groups have fun in DCS, but they occasionally get into discussions of what is right and what is wrong. The truth is: Most of the time, it is just a different point of view. And some people (not refering to anyone specific here) tend to look down to members of the other two groups and think their way is best.

 

My personal approach to messing with 4 MiG-19P AI's:

 

As you see, I belong to the second group (the tactical flyers). The moment I decide to go into that fight means exactly I'm returning home afterwards because even if I have missiles left, my fuel will be gone. So, end of the shift for today.  Usually, I'd throw four slammers into that group, finish the rest off with winders and go home. If those were MiG-29's or something, I'd not even engage. I could have gone for a gun shot in one or two cases but that would mean I'd fuzz around with time (==fuel) or risk a certain kill that I have with the 9X (or even 9M). So, the missile goes off the rail and if it fails, I can still go for a gunshot. I only go for guns if I'm too close for or out of missiles.

For the sake of the demonstration, I did not fire winders until I was merged.

 

The one thing that is to complain is the ridiculous AI flight model for those types.

I can understand that the first group is annoyed by the AI flight model, because let's be honest it is out of this world. Also, it is very annoying if you would fight these in anything pre- 70's when decent AAM's appeared.

So, we have a different look on that situation:

- First group: That sucks

- Second group: Wtf... Anyway, eat my heater

- Third group: Sees the bogey and fires a slammer into that furball over there

 

None of them is wrong in their point of view.

Edited April 2, 2021 by TobiasA

[Xavven]

Snappy is right, Theodore42. You talk but you do not listen, and miss the entire point of each post responding to you. I admit it's rather frustrating attempting to help you understand any other point of view. I'm satisfied with the overwhelming consensus from other posters who agree that the MiG-15 Ace AI is pretty broken. You disagree, but that's not harming anybody, so carry on I guess!

[Dragon1-1]

4 hours ago, TobiasA said:

As you see, I belong to the second group (the tactical flyers). The moment I decide to go into that fight means exactly I'm returning home afterwards because even if I have missiles left, my fuel will be gone. So, end of the shift for today.

Well, you're flying the Viper. A bird known for many things, but not for its abundance of gas. It's highly useful to have a tanker at hand, that way you don't have to RTB just because you turned the burners on for a few minutes. If you're going to CAP with the Viper, a tanker is a must, without it you don't have the legs to do it for long with your fuel margins intact.

 

One important thing to note is that Viper doesn't extend at will from some older generation interceptors. You do not always have a choice whether to fight or not. The 9X doesn't miss much, but it does miss. Slammers miss even more, unless you basically shoot from WVR. The missiles run out fast, and if you're trying to escort someone, not commiting in first place might not be an option.

[Xavven]

1 hour ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Well, you're flying the Viper. A bird known for many things, but not for its abundance of gas. It's highly useful to have a tanker at hand, that way you don't have to RTB just because you turned the burners on for a few minutes. If you're going to CAP with the Viper, a tanker is a must, without it you don't have the legs to do it for long with your fuel margins intact.

 

One important thing to note is that Viper doesn't extend at will from some older generation interceptors. You do not always have a choice whether to fight or not. The 9X doesn't miss much, but it does miss. Slammers miss even more, unless you basically shoot from WVR. The missiles run out fast, and if you're trying to escort someone, not commiting in first place might not be an option.

 

+1  I'll agree with all that.

 

Regarding slammers missing and against the MiG-15 AI in particular, they seem especially vulnerable to AIM-120 BVR. I tested out a few rounds of one F-16 armed with AMRAAMs vs four MiG-15s Ace AI. It looks like in a head-on intercept, you can shoot pretty close to max aerodynamic range and I haven't had a single miss yet, as the MiG-15 AI does not appear to react when launched upon.  Parameters were 6 AMRAAMs, 2 bags, angels 10, mil power, straight and level (no cranking or any other maneuver), ~500 KCAS, TWS, against 4 MiG-15 Ace AI at 10,000 ft, head on, with AWACS backing them up.

 

So yeah, it was a "clubbing baby seals" moment, even more so than what TobiasA demonstrated with AIM-9's. But TobiasA's video is in many ways more applicable depending on RoE. If you have to confirm visually before engaging, attempt to communicate or escort the pilots out of your airspace first, such that BVR shots are off the table, you might find yourself making a few max performance turns to get some valid AIM-9 shots.

[Dragon1-1]

17 hours ago, Xavven said:

Regarding slammers missing and against the MiG-15 AI in particular, they seem especially vulnerable to AIM-120 BVR. I tested out a few rounds of one F-16 armed with AMRAAMs vs four MiG-15s Ace AI. It looks like in a head-on intercept, you can shoot pretty close to max aerodynamic range and I haven't had a single miss yet, as the MiG-15 AI does not appear to react when launched upon. 

MiG-15 has no RWR, and since AMRAAM is pretty much smokeless, it's very much realistic. Up high, they might see the missile leave a contrail, but otherwise the first indication of being attacked in BVR is being hit by the missile. The MiG-19 will react normally, despite its RWR being an extremely simple, rear aspect only device.

[TobiasA]

Am 2.4.2021 um 17:21 schrieb Dragon1-1:

Well, you're flying the Viper. A bird known for many things, but not for its abundance of gas. It's highly useful to have a tanker at hand, that way you don't have to RTB just because you turned the burners on for a few minutes. If you're going to CAP with the Viper, a tanker is a must, without it you don't have the legs to do it for long with your fuel margins intact.

 

One important thing to note is that Viper doesn't extend at will from some older generation interceptors. You do not always have a choice whether to fight or not. The 9X doesn't miss much, but it does miss. Slammers miss even more, unless you basically shoot from WVR. The missiles run out fast, and if you're trying to escort someone, not commiting in first place might not be an option.

I fly the Viper with two bags like the real thing. There is a reason for it. 

 

Right, you can not choose every fight. But if you do not stand a chance, it is better to turn cold and fight another day. If you get jumped by MiG 15 or 19, then something went terribly wrong. 

Again, you see that we have a member of group one and a member of group two discussing. There are two reasons for me being in a dogfight: I lost SA or I have the upper hand. 

[Dragon1-1]

Here's the thing: the Viper is perfectly capable of splashing an enemy without any missiles. It very much would stand a chance against several MiGs in a guns dogfight if flown correctly. In fact, in a realistic escort situation, it might be advantageous to get into such a dogfight even if you know you can't win, as long as you know you can avoid losing. As long as you can keep them turning with you and not chasing your charges, it will enable them to either run away or do their thing and maybe help you out (assuming they're other fighters with bombs and not, say, an AWACS). Leaving your strikers hanging, or worse, an HVA, is about the worst thing you can do. This is a good example of a situation in which gun skills really come in handy.

 

Bags help, but the moment you have to light your burner also tends to be the moment you have to drop your bags. They're great for getting there, less so for getting back. 

[TobiasA]

vor 3 Stunden schrieb Dragon1-1:

Here's the thing: the Viper is perfectly capable of splashing an enemy without any missiles. It very much would stand a chance against several MiGs in a guns dogfight if flown correctly. In fact, in a realistic escort situation, it might be advantageous to get into such a dogfight even if you know you can't win, as long as you know you can avoid losing. As long as you can keep them turning with you and not chasing your charges, it will enable them to either run away or do their thing and maybe help you out (assuming they're other fighters with bombs and not, say, an AWACS). Leaving your strikers hanging, or worse, an HVA, is about the worst thing you can do. This is a good example of a situation in which gun skills really come in handy.

 

Bags help, but the moment you have to light your burner also tends to be the moment you have to drop your bags. They're great for getting there, less so for getting back. 

I 100% agree with you, except that I bring my bags back very often. They are rated up to Mach 1.4 on altitude iirc, so as long as I do not encounter some active AAM capable fighters I keep them. 

It is right to train gun solutions and BFM to be prepared. However, in all my years of flight sims, the number of gun kills I have is about a dozen, almost all of them below Rmin of a 9. If i can, I press pickle. So like one in 50 kills is a gun kill. A safe kill brings you home, a missed opportunity might end in pain. 

And while I absolutely admire you dogfight pros, the number of dogfights that I have had in a regular mission that consist of more than two full circles is at a similar amount. See first, kill first. See nothing and die.

You get attacked, you are defensive because the other guy picked the fight and dictates his conditions to it, giving you the worst cards. If you decide to enter the fight, you dictate how and when it takes place, striving to kill fast and without any room to counter. That is especially true in PvP environments. 

Turn to kill, not to engage. 

That leads to dogfights to be heavily in favor of one of the parties- usually in advantage to the one who picked the fight. 

Our view on dogfights differs a lot. For me, they are an evil thing, to be avoided if possible because they drain fuel, SA, control and time. 

For you, they are a way of enjoying your game experience.

I could probably learn a lot from you about how to win more of my dogfights, but I have collected a lot of experience in avoiding them...

[Dragon1-1]

Well, I'm actually more of a tactical flyer, just one who flies in SP, and that means AI wingmen. They have an annoying tendency to get themselves plastered either in BVR, with heaters, or flying into a mountain. They also like to waste missiles. A wingman like that will make you really glad you have that gun.  SP missions also tend to have varied objectives that have to be met to progress, so no scrubbing the mission if you don't feel like you can handle it. 

 

Dogfighting is, as far as I'm concerned, in the same basket as AAR and carrier ops. You can do without either, and fly in a way that avoids being concerned with them. However, by doing that, you skip the most challenging (and therefore satisfying) parts of the sim. Also, it's a vital skill if you move out of modern AMRAAM trucks - if your only missiles are rear-aspect, you usually have to pull some moves in order to get into position to use them. 

[TobiasA]

vor 14 Stunden schrieb Dragon1-1:

Well, I'm actually more of a tactical flyer, just one who flies in SP, and that means AI wingmen. They have an annoying tendency to get themselves plastered either in BVR, with heaters, or flying into a mountain. They also like to waste missiles. A wingman like that will make you really glad you have that gun.  SP missions also tend to have varied objectives that have to be met to progress, so no scrubbing the mission if you don't feel like you can handle it. 

 

Dogfighting is, as far as I'm concerned, in the same basket as AAR and carrier ops. You can do without either, and fly in a way that avoids being concerned with them. However, by doing that, you skip the most challenging (and therefore satisfying) parts of the sim. Also, it's a vital skill if you move out of modern AMRAAM trucks - if your only missiles are rear-aspect, you usually have to pull some moves in order to get into position to use them. 

Yes, absolutely. In SP, it is far more common.

The one thing I can't do is refueling in a pitch black night because I can't even see any indicator lights or stuff. I've done it in "that other sim", but the indicator lights in DCS are just too friggin dark or it's my setup. In multiplayer (especially PvP), you get a different view on dogfights because you have more options, and they are more riskful.
I actually do miss the gun a lot in the viggen. It comes in really handy in dogfights because if the fight gets tight, you easily get below rmin even with the 9X- let alone the viggen where you have to point your plane directly towards the enemy without a HMCS and only have older heaters. I do not see the gun as a primary weapon, but one that allows you to get out of trouble. Or blow up that specific truck down there.

However, I do not own any naval planes, so skipping the carrier ops is pretty easy

[Youda]

Every new generation of combat planes tend to me less maneuverable than the previous (well at least until missiles were invented).

Mig-15 outturns F-16, Meteor outturns Mig-15, Spitfire outturns Meteor and Nimrod outturns Spitfire.

 

The reason is wing-loading and wing shape, due to requirements on equipment and speed. The old planes didn't have to carry radar, various sensors, electronic countermeasures, external weapons and so much fuel, and they weren't required to reach Mach 2.0 to stop nuclear bombers.

 

Wing loading values for the planes mentioned above

• Nimrod Mk.II - 65 kg/m²

• Spitfire LF Mk. IX - 151 kg/m²

• Meteor F Mk. 4 - 199 kg/m²

• Mig-15bis - 240 kg/m²

• F-16C - 431 kg/m²

This together with wing aspect ratio has much bigger effect to sustained turn rate than TWR. Just because you have crapload of thrust does not mean your plane will turn well, F-4 Phantom is an example.

It's because induced drag increases quadratically with lift. That means if you double the wing-loading, you need to quadruple the thrust to maintain the same sustained turn rate.

 

Mig-15, despite being older, is simply superior in this regard and it's no wonder if it wins a turnfight. And available charts confirm it.

As you can see, the F-16 can match the Migs turn rate, but it has to go around 520 knots, while the Mig is completely happy sitting at 260 knots with half the radius. You go any slower and the Mig starts winning.

 

So the conclusion is, if you encounter a Mig-15 in the F-16, either boom&zoom or extend, turn back and shoot an Aim-9 in its face.

[Xavven]

3 hours ago, Youda said:

As you can see, the F-16 can match the Migs turn rate, but it has to go around 520 knots, while the Mig is completely happy sitting at 260 knots with half the radius. You go any slower and the Mig starts winning.

 

I found that chart on the left also with a Google search, but unfortunately it doesn't seem to have a reliable source. I believe someone made this chart from a video game, not from actual MiG-15 and F-86 data.

[Youda]

It's the only thing we have. But i can do some tests with the playable Mig-15, i guess its performance will be much closer to the reality than the AI one.

[Youda]

Alright, this is little off He shouldn't be able to do that.

 

But regardless, you can defeat it this way, it always works.

 

[Xavven]

4 hours ago, Youda said:

Alright, this is little off He shouldn't be able to do that.

 

Yep, even if we were to take the EM diagram as true (which I can't yet without seeing the source material), we see him operating in this area of the chart for quite long periods of time without losing airspeed or altitude even though above Ps=0.

 

 

This is to say nothing of the pilot's G-tolerance -- the point of you titling the video as you did.

 

My favorite is the 5 seconds leading up to the kill shot (4:25) where he pulls 9-10G while keeping all his speed and gains a little altitude too. Fun, fun!

 

 

 

4 hours ago, Youda said:

But regardless, you can defeat it this way, it always works.

 

 

Classic rope-a-dope

[Jester2138]

19 hours ago, Youda said:

Alright, this is little off He shouldn't be able to do that.

 

But regardless, you can defeat it this way, it always works.

 

The Mig-15 is totally ridiculous. But, in both of those videos, you are always .2 - .3 mach above the Viper's best performing speed. Anybody could park themselves behind you and gun you.

[Xavven]

11 hours ago, Jester2138 said:

The Mig-15 is totally ridiculous. But, in both of those videos, you are always .2 - .3 mach above the Viper's best performing speed. Anybody could park themselves behind you and gun you.

 

What's the best performing KIAS for a clean F-16 at 5,000 ft? I'm assuming you mean sustained turn rate?

[TobiasA]

vor 18 Stunden schrieb Xavven:

 

What's the best performing KIAS for a clean F-16 at 5,000 ft? I'm assuming you mean sustained turn rate?

Corner speed: 330 to 420kts.

I fight the MiG-15 at higher speed because it is not made for those speeds, giving me room to fight them with heaters and drain their energy. 

Corner speed means the area which gives the best sustained turn rate. Higher, and G limit you, lower and the drag eats your energy. 

[Xavven]

1 hour ago, TobiasA said:

Corner speed: 330 to 420kts.

I fight the MiG-15 at higher speed because it is not made for those speeds, giving me room to fight them with heaters and drain their energy. 

Corner speed means the area which gives the best sustained turn rate. Higher, and G limit you, lower and the drag eats your energy. 

 

Well, I could be wrong, but I think corner speed is max instantaneous turn rate (energy depleting), not sustained.  https://www.cnatra.navy.mil/local/docs/pat-pubs/P-1289.pdf Page 35 (4-4)

 

Quote

Corner Airspeed: 410 KIAS

 

This airspeed yields the aircraft’s best instantaneous turn performance, but also sustains the highest bleed rates.

 

Corner Bleed Rate: 8knots/second

 

This is the rate at which the aircraft will decelerate in a max performance pull at corner airspeed.

 

Best Sustained Turn Rate: 240-330 KIAS

 

This band is found where the Specific Power (Ps) curve = 0;i.e.,the aircraft is sustaining energy.

...

 

 

You find corner speed on an EM chart by looking for the highest point. The Ps will be negative and measured in feet per second, indicating that altitude loss would be required to keep turning at that rate, G, and airspeed (energy depleting). You find best sustained turn rate by looking for the highest point on the Ps=0 curve. It is usually at higher airspeed and lower G than corner speed.

 

As for when you should be flying which speeds, how much G to pull, and how much altitude to exchange, that depends on the geometry of the fight, your opponent's energy state, and a bunch of other factors. @Jester2138I think the point of Youda holding a sustained high speed level turn was to demonstrate what the MiG-15 would do so we could analyze its energy, not actually try to beat it.

 

@TobiasAIncidentally, I found another F-16 EM Diagram. Take a look at how vastly different it is (and with an older engine no less) than the one you had posted.

 

 

22.5 deg./sec. sustained at Ps=0 and a 26.2 deg/sec ITR! What's going on there? So I looked into it a little more. The weights and drag indexes are different on this chart, and it's probably an earlier F-16C block that was lighter than the block 50 or 52. That led me to this (located at https://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=14939 )

 

Honestly, this is the first time I've seen this, so please correct me if I'm wrong. The above table seems to imply that the F-16C itself has a drag index of 0, and that adding external stores increases the index, maybe just for purposes of calculating the EM diagrams. Comparing the chart you had initially posted, which is 6000 lbs heavier and with a drag index of 50, it implies that that F-16 still had 2 drop tanks on plus something else, like a couple of GBU-12's. Dunno, maybe I'm doing this completely wrong. 

 

The chart I found on the other hand at 20,000 lbs would imply that F-16 is nearly out of fuel (like 1000 lbs remaining or thereabouts?) and has no external stores. So if I haven't completely misinterpreted everything, my conclusion is that performance at sea level would be somewhere in the middle at the start of the fight if you actually remember to drop your tanks. Sustained turn rate would be better than 18.5 deg/sec but worse than 22.5 deg./sec. Here's the heavier chart again for convenience:

 

 

[Youda]

Well, this is becoming interesting.

https://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=14939

I've never payed attention to the drag index before, but some of those tables in that thread indicate we should probably remake all our F-16 tests with corresponding stores that make the correct drag.

 

EDIT: Or not. I launched DCS and loaded the F-16 with 2 fuel tanks, its weight increased to 36k pounds and even with empty internal fuel it still had 29k pounds. From this, i don't any way how to load up F-16 to have a drag index of 50 and weight 26k pounds at the same time. Either it must be some error, or they count with something else that i'm overlooking.

Edited April 8, 2021 by Youda

[Dragon1-1]

Which block? Chances are, that configuration wasn't a Block 50. Block 30 was a lot lighter, for instance.

[Youda]

If you look at the chart, in the upper left corner it says F-16C and in the upper right corner it says engine F110-GE-129. From that i asume Block 50.

[TobiasA]

Drag index is extremely important yet not displayed in DCS. It describes the drag of external stores.