Cornering speed

[gta4]

F-16 block50 is still a poptent dogfighter I am afraid.
This is the only fighter that could sustain 9G turn when carrying 6 AMRAAMS and 60% internal fuel.
And when lightly loaded, it has a higher sustained rate of turn compared to Su-27, Mig-29, Mirage 2000 and JAS39.

[spazsinbad]

As 'quicksilver' points out the pilot matters most, numbers come second. Meanwhile a 27 Apr 2017 quote about same:

"...“There’s been a lot of interest in the machines. Which airplane is better? What are their capabilities? How are you using them?” Col. Peter Fesler, commander of Langley’s 1st Fighter Wing, told Air Force Magazine on April 27 as the exercise wound down. “The thing I think is particularly interesting, the man in the machine matters tremendously. You can have the most capable aircraft in the world, but with a pilot who can’t perform, he will be beat. That’s why training matters, it’s why we have to do things like [this exercise]. You can’t just buy airpower.”...

...“All these aircraft have tremendous capabilities, but if we don’t plan them and integrate them and understand each other’s capabilities and limitations, and use them to their full potential, then we could lose in any combat scenario,” Bashore said. “It’s more about the human element.”" http://www.airforcemag.com/Features/Pag ... ngley.aspx

[steve2267]

When looking at an E-M diagram, what do the lines of constant Ps denote? I understand that Ps=0 means the aircraft can sustain that turn performance (or that g-loading) without losing airspeed / energy. A Ps < 0 means the aircraft will lose energy (or airspeed), and a Ps > 0 means the aircraft has excess energy that could be used to gain altitude, accelerate airspeed, or increase g (i.e. increase turn rate / decrease turn radius).

But a Ps=200 or Ps=-1200 means little to me. Ps is given in fps -- is that feet per second? So am I looking at an instantaneous acceleration number? That is, a fps per second -- d( dx/dt ) --> d/dt( v ) --> a (cceleration)? If so, is there a way to easily translate a constant Ps line into a net gain or loss of knots / second fairly easily? Or does this interpretation either rely on actual BFM experience (as Quicksilver notes) or actually constructing a Ps curve at constant altitude / airspeed vs g and integrating that function (ugh)?

That is, can one look at an E-M diagram and quickly figure that a Ps=-600 (which may equate to 7g at some airspeed / altitude) translates to a loss of 20kts / sec until you reach the Ps=0 curve where you can maintain that g-loading? Actually... that doesn't make sense. If I'm pulling 7g and losing speed (Ps=-600)... it might be nice to know how much speed I'm going to lose every second... but I am going to continue to bleed energy (and speed) unless I relax the G. So the E-M diagram would tell me how much I need to relax the G to stop losing speed... But I don't see a way to quickly derive or deduce my actual de(ac)celeration in knots.

35oao -- by "band" do you refer to the E-M diagram being relatively "flat" vs airspeed (across the X-axis), or are you referring to how closely spaced the various Ps curves are to each other?

[quicksilver]

Many years ago, most of the TACMANs converted Ps in fps to kts/sec. I no longer know the conversion off the top of my head.

No one flies around in a jet during a BFM engagement thinking about how they get to some line or point on the diagram. The detailed academic knowledge gets converted to some generalized understanding of what another jet does better or worse than one's own steed -- where one will have a notional performance advantage or disadvantage -- and you come to an understanding of what kind of fight is best against a given adversary. In practical application, with lots of structured, building block training, one develops a feel and sight picture for what is happening as this all unfolds in very complex maneuvering in relatively close proximity to another aircraft.

With experience comes an intuitive knowledge of what the other guy is going to do next -- in effect, you become 2 or three potential moves ahead -- because you've seen it play out through repetitive exposure in training. Later, (also through experience) you come to the ability to show the other guy something knowing full-well that the most likely response him puts him in a place where your jet fights better...and the kill comes shortly thereafter.

Apart from a "thank-you bro...you saved our a$$" from soldiers or Marines in contact (a TIC), BFM is the most fun one can have in a flight suit.

[steve2267]

QS, copy the need for mucho beaucoup experience.

Out of curiousity, though, from an academic / mathematical / engineering point-of-view, have you ever considered from a post-BFM debrief if you tend to win if you are able to push your opponent into a certain area or corner of their E-M diagram?

This question, though, may be ill-posed. And it may be self-evident. For example, generally speaking, I believe the expression, "out of energy, out of altitude, out of ideas" connotes the idea that if you can force your opponent to a low-energy state, while you retain a higher energy state, you will generally win. If that is the case, it would suggest you want to try to stay towards the lower-right part of your aircraft's E-M diagram, with judicious excursions towards the upper-left/upper-center area, in an attempt to force your opponent towards the lower-left portion of his E-M diagram. While a human probably does not (want) to think in this way, I wonder if such an engineering or mathematical approach may not have application towards the eventual employment of AI in tactical aircraft?

[spazsinbad]

There is some 'beaucoup' info on the AI that consistently defeated an experienced human pilot. I'll search it out - perhaps it is on this F-35 forum also. Here we go: http://magazine.uc.edu/editors_picks/re ... alpha.html

PDF attached: https://www.omicsgroup.org/journals/gen ... 000144.pdf (2.8Mb)

[steve2267]

Any information as to the expertise level of (ret) Col Gene Lee? Was he a meat eater? A patchwearer? A no-holds-barred, kick-em-in-the-teeth-steal-their-girl fighter pilot? Or was he a so-so grape at BFM?

[spazsinbad]

First Video above says he is an expert in combat tactics. Probably Google Search will reveal more beaucoup info. This gargle with give HEAPS of HITS: Artificial Intelligence Defeats Human Pilot in Every Encounter Simulation Test

IF you're LinkedIn then go here: https://www.linkedin.com/in/gene-lee-72368312

Short overview of ALPHA: https://www.wired.com/2016/06/ai-fighte ... ic-really/

AI Beats a Fighter Pilot in a Virtual Dogfight
28 Jun 2016 Avery Thompson

"The artificial intelligence, called ALPHA, can analyze sensor data, create a tactical plan, and respond to its opponents moves in less than a millisecond....

...One of those opponents, Gene Lee, is a retired Air Force colonel with extensive flight experience both as a pilot and an instructor. Lee is an expert both at flying and at fighting AIs, having fought against and helped to train AI pilots since the 1980s. Before ALPHA, he says, he could handily beat any robo-pilot. Not anymore...."

Source: http://www.popularmechanics.com/militar ... -dogfight/

[smsgtmac]

There is some 'beaucoup' info on the AI that consistently defeated an experienced human pilot. I'll search it out - perhaps it is on this F-35 forum also. Here we go: http://magazine.uc.edu/editors_picks/re ... alpha.html
...

That whole effort is about building better sims to train against. Breathless claims about out fighting a manned plane are based upon known tactics, and the fact a computer can decide upon what action it needs to take because all the info in the sim is instantly available to it, while the man in the cockpit has to process the info first and interpret, then act accordingly. When this story 'broke' last year at BD, I got into it a little bit with an AI fanboy. Excerpt:

Now, If one would bother to actually READ the paper causing the hullabaloo they would see how each of those engagements/scenarios relied on each opponent being able to sense something as to what the opponent was doing in real time (position, vector, and weapon release events) to varying degree. Now ponder the impact that an opponent's stealth and BVR launches using off-board sensors and cueing will have on the (snicker) 'AI' ability to deal with the 'uncertainty'. The 'fuzzy logic tree' does not do well no matter how fast it can process non-varying zeros. I shouldn't have to say I think this is a wonderful advancement for training sims and their effectiveness in developing more advanced human A2A combat skills, because that is actually the purpose the work is being funded, but Skynet fanbois waiting for the Singularity will be so disappointed if they get their hopes up too much..

[35_aoa]

Any information as to the expertise level of (ret) Col Gene Lee? Was he a meat eater? A patchwearer? A no-holds-barred, kick-em-in-the-teeth-steal-their-girl fighter pilot? Or was he a so-so grape at BFM?

He apparently was an ABM. So not only was he not a fighter pilot, but was also not a pilot at all.

QS pretty much nailed it. Nobody walks to the jet with an E-M diagram. You DO hopefully walk (or shall I say "step") with some understanding of your aircraft's strengths and weaknesses. Based on the question about Hornet v Viper, in the Hornet, I had tons of nose authority, very nice control response at very low speed/high AoA, and overall an extremely departure resistant flight control system. In the Viper, I had probably the best energy addition of any fighter this side of the former iron curtain, and could power myself out of a lot of errors, as well as rate around most anyone else at uncommonly low airspeeds. All the stuff you can read about at this point in just about any magazine article written about the comparison. They ought to be fought differently, and while I never felt as proficient fighting BFM in the Viper during my short couple of years flying it, my best memories were getting an F/A-18 bled down on the deck.

[quicksilver]

QS, copy the need for mucho beaucoup experience.

Out of curiousity, though, from an academic / mathematical / engineering point-of-view, have you ever considered from a post-BFM debrief if you tend to win if you are able to push your opponent into a certain area or corner of their E-M diagram?

The EM diagram is just an insturment of academic instruction. Unless I was on an early instructional or an early dissimilar hop or maybe an IP workup -- no. That stuff becomes a generalized understanding you have in your gourd before you ever walk to the jet. The most relevant points to be made in a BFM debrief were in a sequential visual reconstruction of each engagement from the initial set-up through each maneuver or series of maneuvers (and counters) to whatever circumstance concluded (terminated) the engagement. Can one 'push' or bait somebody into someplace in the diagram? Yes, that's kinda the whole point (reference 'self-evident'), but you don't haul out EM diagrams and start talking about where one was on the plot when things happened in the engagement; you already know.

...it would suggest you want to try to stay towards the lower-right part of your aircraft's E-M diagram, with judicious excursions towards the upper-left/upper-center area, in an attempt to force your opponent towards the lower-left portion of his E-M diagram."

Most do not understand just how dynamic 1v1 BFM engagements can be. Although all-aspect missiles (and more recently HOB versions combined with HMCSs) have changed things, "classic" BFM engagements are rapid excursions from one energy state to another and back depending on how the aircraft-to-aircraft positional geometry is working out. But, the manuevering is just a means to the desired end -- a kill (as quickly as possible) or survival (as long as possible). Unless I was on an early instructional flight as an IP, I'm out to kill you as quickly as possible; if I could put some "who" into it and gun you, that was an added bonus (but guns kills take more time and skill/experience, and typically more maneuvering time, which can be tactically unsound when people are actually dying). Lotsa young guys on early BFM training sorties "manage their energy" (i.e. "keep it high") right into a check in the "mort" column. Many engagements result in a stalemate and are terminated so you dont waste the JP.

AI in tactical aircraft? AI has been around for a long time, its just called something else. AI for BFM? Nope, at least not for a very long time. And I dont buy the published marketing of same. Did you see the movie "Sully?" Computers good at doing things; not so good at "judgement" (which is contextual).

[Corsair1963]

Any information as to the expertise level of (ret) Col Gene Lee? Was he a meat eater? A patchwearer? A no-holds-barred, kick-em-in-the-teeth-steal-their-girl fighter pilot? Or was he a so-so grape at BFM?

He apparently was an ABM. So not only was he not a fighter pilot, but was also not a pilot at all.

QS pretty much nailed it. Nobody walks to the jet with an E-M diagram. You DO hopefully walk (or shall I say "step") with some understanding of your aircraft's strengths and weaknesses. Based on the question about Hornet v Viper, in the Hornet, I had tons of nose authority, very nice control response at very low speed/high AoA, and overall an extremely departure resistant flight control system. In the Viper, I had probably the best energy addition of any fighter this side of the former iron curtain, and could power myself out of a lot of errors, as well as rate around most anyone else at uncommonly low airspeeds. All the stuff you can read about at this point in just about any magazine article written about the comparison. They ought to be fought differently, and while I never felt as proficient fighting BFM in the Viper during my short couple of years flying it, my best memories were getting an F/A-18 bled down on the deck.

Yet, many sources claim the F-35 has the best advantages of both....(i.e. Hornet and Viper) So, what are your thoughts on that???

[steve2267]

Yet, many sources claim the F-35 has the best advantages of both....(i.e. Hornet and Viper) So, what are your thoughts on that???

To expand on corsair briefly... it is unclear to me from the infamous F-35 vs F-16 test-hop (aka "F-35 can't dogfight" meme by David "I have no clue" Axe), if the test pilot flying the F-35 would have written the same thing if he had been flying an F/A-18. That is... trying to fight a Viper with high AoA maneuvers right in the sweet spot of the Vipers performance envelope. To me it read as if the F-35's CLAW was so aggressive at preventing departure that it was resulting in sluggish pitch rate -- hence the test pilot's comments about opening up CLAW somewhat and giving the pilot more authority.

Since all pilot comments / quotes I have read since then do not mention sluggish pitch rate, I figure they addressed the issue, or learned to fight the plane a different way ("pedal turns give a constant 28°/sec") -- OR -- it was a non-issue as the test was a CLAW / departure resistant test (and apparently very successful at that).

On the other hand, the former Hornet drivers' comments about the F-35 being like "an F-18 with a turbo" or "an F-18 with four engines" strongly suggests it is at least as good as an F/A-18 in the nose pointing / low speed flying qualities department.

[quicksilver]

'Turbo" is about energy addition, not nose pointing.

[steve2267]

'Turbo" is about energy addition, not nose pointing.

I re-read my previous post, and can see that I could have written it better. The point I attempted to make was that former Hornet drivers were comparing the F-35 to the F/A-18 in the first place. (Unsure if they were comparing it to the Baby Hornet (C/D) or the Super Hornet (E/F). Also unsure about how high alpha / nose pointing differs between the two. Is the SH widely considered to be equivalent, superior, or far superior to the C/D in high alpha / nose pointing?)

If the F-35 was not as good, I think they would have said so -- or not made the comparison in the first place. They went on to include the "turbo" or "four engine" superlatives, which to me reading between the lines, suggested that its energy addition is on-the-order-of, if not better than, the F-16. Combined with other pilots' comments that F-35 subsonic acceleration being as good as or better than an F-16C Block50 and 'Dolbe' Hanche's comments about braking faster than a car, paints a picture of F-18 like high alpha / nose pointing authority, excellent deceleration capabilitie, but with F-16 like energy addition, seemingly the best of both worlds.