DACT Video Danish Viper gets guns kill against Italian Typhoon

[Jonathan_Lotton]

Very interesting video! Just goes to show..its the pilot, not the machine

[Murph]

Very interesting video! Just goes to show..its the pilot, not the machine

Actually it proves nothing, since when the tape starts the F-16 is at 9k, high angle off, and 160 KCAS and never gets a stabilized tracking solution. How did they get there to begin with?

Regards,

Murph

Edited April 10, 2011 by Murph

[Mark M.]

Just ask the Japanese in WW2. Turn fighting is nice... but that won't win the war.

Eurofighter is faster, has longer legs, and generally speaking more capable and with more future upgrade potential.

Overall it's a better plane, even if once in a while a F-16 outturns it (and the F-16 out turns most things, if I recall?)

[Wayne S]

Actually it proves nothing, since when the tape starts the F-16 is at 9k, high angle off, and 160 KCAS and never gets a stabilized tracking solution. How did they get there to begin with?

Regards,

Murph

Looks like the phoon starts on his six and he does a stall turn. If that is the case, no clue why the phoon should dive tho unless that is what he was told to do LOL.

Anyone on here translate the video? Did they merge h2h or did the phoon fly right up his six?

[Wayne S]

Overall it's a better plane, even if once in a while a F-16 outturns it (and the F-16 out turns most things, if I recall?)

What is impressive "to me" about the F-16 is not just its ability to turn tight at low alt, It is its ability regain energy fast while in a tight turn fight.

[Murph]

What's impressive to me is that they were both "floor morts."

Regards,

Murph

[Julien (UK)]

What's impressive to me is that they were both "floor morts."

Regards,

Murph

Can I ask what a floor mort is?

Julien

Edited April 13, 2011 by Julien (UK)

[Two Mikes]

What's impressive to me is that they were both "floor morts."

Regards,

Murph

LMAO!!

Good one Murph.

[ALF18]

Can I ask what a floor mort is?

Julien

The 'floor' is the lowest permissible altitude when practice air fighting - there is always a safety margin built in so that aircraft don't regularly smack into the ground while training. 'Mort' is from the French word for dead...

What Murph was referring to is that both aircraft were below the agreed minimum altitude for this kind of training, and therefore both should be declared 'ground kills' or 'floor mort'.

ALF

[ALF18]

Very interesting video! Just goes to show..its the pilot, not the machine

I'm afraid I respectfully disagree. Given similar machines (e.g. Hornet vs Viper), I definitely agree that the pilot's skill and ability become the deciding factor. I can attest personally to that: I whupped a regular USAF F-16 in Florida (flown by a relatively junior Captain) during a deployment while flying my Hornet, then the following week I was taught a lesson in humility by an old dog ANG Viper pilot from Burlington. I was flying the same aircraft, but the experience and talent of the Guard pilot really showed.

Change the aircraft, though, and it is rare that a superior-performing aircraft will get truly beaten by an inferior airframe. The cases where this can happen are (for example):

1. Where the superior aircraft was being flown by an unaware or clueless pilot (rare), or

2. In academic set-ups where the inferior jet was given a deliberate advantage to start the engagement, or

3. Where some artificial constraint placed on the higher-performance aircraft (i.e. use of sensors, weapons, etc) skew the odds in favour of the inferior jet.

I remember trying to appear very attentive and indulgent when a Bahraini Air Force F-5 pilot regaled me with tales of how he had 'beaten' two US Marine Corps F/A-18s in mock combat (by himself). After listening to his story, and asking a bunch of questions, I surmised that the two Marine Hornets were out of fuel and in the traffic pattern coming back to Shaikh Isa in Bahrain, and that they chose not to honour his attack. No matter how I tried to get the F-5 guy to realize that his 'victory' was no such thing, he insisted - so I let him believe it.

There will always be cases where a high-tech aircraft is surprised by an unseen entry from an enemy, but in a case where two opposing pilots meet and are both aware of the others' presence, it is highly unlikely that skill level will be a major determinant in the outcome.

ALF

[TaiidanTomcat]

I remember trying to appear very attentive and indulgent when a Bahraini Air Force F-5 pilot regaled me with tales of how he had 'beaten' two US Marine Corps F/A-18s in mock combat (by himself). After listening to his story, and asking a bunch of questions, I surmised that the two Marine Hornets were out of fuel and in the traffic pattern coming back to Shaikh Isa in Bahrain, and that they chose not to honour his attack. No matter how I tried to get the F-5 guy to realize that his 'victory' was no such thing, he insisted - so I let him believe it.

Imagine his success at a larger airport!!!

[crazydon]

Imagine his success at a larger airport!!!

Pretty soon he'll be flying for Air France :wub:

[Flying Penguin]

Actually it proves nothing, since when the tape starts the F-16 is at 9k, high angle off, and 160 KCAS and never gets a stabilized tracking solution. How did they get there to begin with?

Regards,

Murph

And remember this one:

As you said, context is everything* and no matter how good capabilities may be (esp. in the F.22), they aren't 100% bulletproof....

Jamie

*For those that didn't see the original uproar and teeth knashing, see this link for a good example of the wailing that went on. Turned out that the shooter their probably broke the ROE.

Edited April 14, 2011 by Flying Penguin

[Murph]

*For those that didn't see the original uproar and teeth knashing, see this link for a good example of the wailing that went on. Turned out that the shooter their probably broke the ROE.

That was one of the biggest buffoon acts seen to date. The Naval aviator broke several training rules to get to that point, including ignoring a "knock it off," and almost drove a mid-air collision.

Regards,

Murph

[Flying Penguin]

That was one of the biggest buffoon acts seen to date. The Naval aviator broke several training rules to get to that point, including ignoring a "knock it off," and almost drove a mid-air collision.

Regards,

Murph

Very true. Didn't stop it been trumpeted in some quarters as a valid criticism of the F-22 though. Very good example of how DACT videos from often scripted scenarios are used out of context to prove or disprove type superiority. Often training rules or the script itself will drive an outcome as much as the fight itself. Indian Air Force vs. USAF in 2004 anyone?

Jamie

Edited April 14, 2011 by Flying Penguin

[Fishwelding]

That was one of the biggest buffoon acts seen to date. The Naval aviator broke several training rules to get to that point, including ignoring a "knock it off," and almost drove a mid-air collision.

Regards,

Murph

He planned to board with cutlass in hand, and take the -22 as a prize! Yaaarrrr!

[Wayne S]

That was one of the biggest buffoon acts seen to date. The Naval aviator broke several training rules to get to that point, including ignoring a "knock it off," and almost drove a mid-air collision.

Regards,

Murph

For an American pilot It is. Another buffoon I recall, is that dude in the SU27 that decided he was dog fighting the F-15s that were escorting him from their six.

[Mark M.]

I'm afraid I respectfully disagree.

I have to agree with you as well. I've been a major fan of online flight sims of many types, starting out as space sims and moving to much more realistic reality-based air combat sims. I know this doesn't relate in any way to your training and wisdom, but what it has taught me is something about comparing similar and dissimilar craft.

One particular community has many loud promoters of the "it's not the plane, it's the pilot" comment. There are also a notable amount of "it's the plane, not the pilot" although not often phrased that way.

Let me know if you think this fits or not. My take on it is neither is correct. I see the craft as a force multiplier on the pilot skill. Use WW2 for example (One of my more common gaming genres) you put a good pilot in a Spitfire (plane with docile handling, few flaws, good performance) and you make him better. You put the same good pilot in a Fw190 (capable but lacking manuverability and has many bad flight handling flaws) and he's still good, but limited by what he can pull off in his ride.

So, say the spitfire has a 2.0 multiplier... Maybe the Fw190 has a 0.8 multiplier.

Put the good pilot in the Fw190 and a green newbie in the spitfire, and the relative total capaabilities may or may not favor either pilot.

Bit of a long example, but the gist of it is the pilot cannot be removed from the plane he's fighting in. The skill and performance capabilities both have to be considered together.

Would you say my pet theory here is appropriate?

Edited April 18, 2011 by Mark M.

[MattC]

Use WW2 for example (One of my more common gaming genres) you put a good pilot in a Spitfire (plane with docile handling, few flaws, good performance) and you make him better. You put the same good pilot in a Fw190 (capable but lacking manuverability and has many bad flight handling flaws) and he's still good, but limited by what he can pull off in his ride.

I think thats partially true, but it again depends on how you define capable, if the Fw190 pilot is familiar with his machine and can keep the fight on his terms, he can use the advantages of his machine. An Fw190A isn't inferior to a Spit V or IX, but its different, so an experienced pilot will play to those strengths and try to keep on the weak side of his opponent. In your example, a vertical fight with lots of negative G will leave the spit standing, as it can't match the roll rate, dive speed and negative G of the Fw190. However, if the Spit pilot can manage to push the fight into a turning fight, he's right back in there again (assuming equality of pilot skill)

So it seems to me that the "best" combination is an experienced pilot who knows how to extract the last few % from his weapon. But that weapon has to be up to snuff to make a go of it. That said, I have read stories of RAF Lightning pilots giving a good account of themselves against Dutch F-16's back in the day, so there are no givens.

But I suppose the point is moot here, as these scenarios and stories are out of context.

If I could set up a scenario, I could have an epic shot of a raptor in the gunsight even if I were flying an armed chipmunk, if the scenario was that the raptor driver would fly straight and level, at 6,000 ft at 100 knots.

I guess the question is here, in a real situation, would the 'phoon driver or in the other pic, the raptor driver, realistically allow themselves to get into that situation in the first instance?

But, I'm an armchair ignoramus and I don't know the ins and outs, but it strikes me that you would use whatever capabilities you have NOT to get into a situation which might turn against you in the first place. Hence we developed BVR, if you can identify, target and deploy a weapon against an opponent before he can do the same to you, you don't need to mix it.

Hence some of the scepticism about the Su27 etc family, impressive airshow routines don't necessarily make for an impressive combat performance.

[11bee]

Let me know if you think this fits or not. My take on it is neither is correct. I see the craft as a force multiplier on the pilot skill. Use WW2 for example (One of my more common gaming genres) you put a good pilot in a Spitfire (plane with docile handling, few flaws, good performance) and you make him better. You put the same good pilot in a Fw190 (capable but lacking manuverability and has many bad flight handling flaws) and he's still good, but limited by what he can pull off in his ride.

So, say the spitfire has a 2.0 multiplier... Maybe the Fw190 has a 0.8 multiplier.

I think your ratings are flawed. Keep in mind that for a couple of years, the FW-190's did very well against RAF Spitfires. Granted an FW-190 is not as maneuverable as a Spit but it had the advantage of higher speed, greater climb and dive rates and a much heavier armament. So instead of trying to dogfight with a Spit, the German pilots were trained to fight using the strong-points of their aircraft, which pretty much was a "boom and zoom" type of combat. If the German pilot was smart, he could choose to attack on his terms and if he didn't like the way that the fight was unfolding, could also disengage at will.

So if anything, for a Spit V vrs FW-190A, I would suggest that your ratings be reversed or at least brought much closer to 1:1.

That lesson hasn't changed since then. In Vietnam, a Phantom pilot that tried to dogfight with a MiG was going to have a very short career. However, if he fought by maximizing the strengths of his aircraft while at the same time limiting the chances of the bad guy to use the strong-points of his mount, there was a good chance the Phantom driver would prevail, or at least make it home to fight another day.

My take is that if you have two pilots with the same general level of training and both fight to maximize the strength's of their plane, the deciding factor will be either who saw his opponent first or just good old luck. The quality of the aircraft is very much secondary (unless you have very, very big gap between opposing aircraft).

Edited April 18, 2011 by 11bee

[Mark M.]

Okay, perhaps bad example... But the FW190 has many vices. Low speed handling was bad. Turn radius was terrible. High alt performance abyssmal. I was more thinking late war Spit9LFE vs 190A8, rather than 190A-3 vs Spit5b, where the 190s actually held the advantages.

Fill in whatever plane has few vices vs whatever plane has many vices. Then fill in appropriate multipliers for each. The plane being the force multiplier, but you're still only multiplying the pilot's skill to begin with. Even a good plane will only multiply a low skill so far.

[Wayne S]

That lesson hasn't changed since then. In Vietnam, a Phantom pilot that tried to dogfight with a MiG was going to have a very short career. However, if he fought by maximizing the strengths of his aircraft while at the same time limiting the chances of the bad guy to use the strong-points of his mount, there was a good chance the Phantom driver would prevail, or at least make it home to fight another day.

Dog fight does not necessarily mean turning in the horizontal. Dogfight is close air combat maneuvering. I would say a dogfight fight is when both opponents are a threat to each other and maneuvering offensive and defensively.

My take is that if you have two pilots with the same general level of training and both fight to maximize the strength's of their plane, the deciding factor will be either who saw his opponent first or just good old luck. The quality of the aircraft is very much secondary (unless you have very, very big gap between opposing aircraft).

Somewhere in the fight, one person is always going to fight out side their own envelope and when they make that mistake one has to be ready to act on it and not make a mistake of their own.

If two pilots flew the planes to the best of their abilities, there would not be a fight in the first place.

Since you guys are talking WWII and sim stuff, here is a scenario. LA7 at 10K, P-51D at 20k if both were flying to the best of their planes abilities, would they ever engage one another?

Edited April 18, 2011 by Wayne S

[11bee]

Since you guys are talking WWII and sim stuff, here is a scenario. LA7 at 10K, P-51D at 20k if both were flying to the best of their planes abilities, would they ever engage one another?

Based on my vast experience flying WW2 aircraft ( ), I'd say that this would really be a nice match.

I forget which sim it was but one that I flew a few years ago was supposed to have a very accurate flight model for a P-51D. The plane sucked. It had a vicious stall and if you pulled too much G in a turn, the wings would try to swap places. I remember reading a book about a WW2 Mustang ace who said pretty much the same thing. He claimed the P-51 was a good ride for expert pilots who could fly it right on the edge of it's performance but for lesser pilots, it was a handful at best and deadly at worst. He actually much preferred the Spitfire.

Edited April 19, 2011 by 11bee

[MattC]

He claimed the P-51 was a good ride for expert pilots who could fly it right on the edge of it's performance but for lesser pilots, it was a handful at best and deadly at worst. He actually much preferred the Spitfire.

There wasn't much around in WW2 which got close to the way you could haul a Spit round a tight turn near to the stall. It doesn't always look like it, but a Spit has a big wing area, plus with better lift distribution and a non-laminar section, its pretty forgiving.

The P-51 had a higher wing loading, and an ostensibly laminar wing section, which gets pretty unhappy at high aoa (ie in a tight turn)

From a WW2 point of view, I'd go with something like a Spit IX vs G.55 Centauro as being quite interesting

[Murph]

The problem is people tend to talk in absolutes like "It's not the crate it's the man" (that's making the big assumption there's at least a rough parity between the aircraft and their weapons) or another favorite: "Speed is life." Not really, arrive at a high aspect merge with 600 knots, while your opponent only has 400, and you're dead; he's going to use his smaller turn radius and higher turn rate to quickly put you out of your misery. The closest things to absolutes are the three rules of BFM: "Lose sight, lose fight", "Maneuver in relation to the bandit", and "Nose position versus energy"; just about everything else is a tired old saw, with numerous loopholes.

Regards,

Murph

Edited April 19, 2011 by Murph