Dog Fight

**Jimmy** · 09 Mar 10,, 01:23

Originally Posted by avon1944

In the air exercise earlier this year in the UAE, the French Rafales were able to detect and identify an opponent at a ranges up to twenty-three miles. Unfortunately against an opponent like the F-22A, that detection range places the Rafale deep into the AMRAAM or Adder range!

What exercise was that? I've seen references to something happening in UAE, but I haven't seen any details? What was the Rafales' adversary?

**avon1944** · 10 Mar 10,, 06:58

Originally Posted by Ararat

In a dogfight the pilot who knows his enemies aircraft capabilities, performance, and weakness wins, not the machine.... plus shooting missles doesn't garantee a hit especially when the other pilot knows what he is doing. Firing a missle can give you away as well

Well, that is where the F-22A is a real assassin. The ability to fire a AMRAAM outside the IRST detection range, using its altitude advantage, using its ALR-94 passive detection to lock on to the target or use the APG-77's LPI feature and, remain undetected. The target does not know it is under attack until the AMRAAM turns on its active seeker.

Originally Posted by Jimmy

What exercise was that? I've seen references to something happening in UAE, but I haven't seen any details? What was the Rafales' adversary?

The ATLC exercise in the United Arab Emirates. The first news I read of was the Rafales against the Typhoons and the Rafales shot down seven Typhoons to just one loss. There have been accounts on many websites but, to this day no ROEs! No ROEs were explained so, the poor Typhoon looked bad but, as I commented in one posting, remember "Cope India"? How bad did the F-15 look until the ROEs were explained.

Post by “zwz” at F-16.net
The F-22A Versus The Rafale Air & Cosmos
2010/1/29 Pg #9 -(At the ATLC In Dubai)
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewt...order-asc.html

OR

Rafale Free Forum -"ATLC in UAE Rafale vs Typhoon, Rafale vs F-22"
The International Rafale forum • View topic - ATLC in UAE [moderated] Rafale vs Typhoon, Rafale vs F-22

**Tin Man** · 10 Mar 10,, 12:49

Well that`s the thing about ROE`s and exercises, what were they for all aircraft concerned? Did the Typhoons have their PIRATE systems and were they allowed to use them? Were they allowed to use CAPTOR ?
Did the F-22`s have to wear their radar reflectors which make them visible so as not to let "friendlies" take a closer look at it`s RCS? If they did and still kicked Rafale butt, that`s impressive.
Anyway if the Typhoon got battered at the very least it will give the French pilots some bar bragging rights

..Even though a 1-7 loss rate is not exactly borne out in other exercises between the Tiffie and Rafale

All good fun none-the -less.

**Chogy** · 10 Mar 10,, 14:51

It is very difficult to explain how air to air training typically works to the layman. All they see is HUD tape or some rumour that a particular group got "creamed" and it morphs into a "Su30 rules the F-15" or "Rafale flogs the Typhoon."

Remember the T-38 KILLS F-22!!!! HUD tape? That was very likely what is known as a perch setup, with one aircraft 3000' behind the other, when the "fight's on" is called. A gun snap is almost inevitable.

90% of missions are carefully structured to maximize a particular training methodology. It was called "being handcuffed", as in "Oh man we are royally handcuffed on this one. It's going to suck." But you go up and give them their training, and hopefully they reciprocate on another sortie.

Even in a full-up meeting, it is still far too artificial. The numbers are incorrect, external assets like AWACS and intel missing, no real fog of war, and most telling by far, no psychological effect when you see your friends going down in flames and you haven't even located the threat yet.

And yes, the limitations due to classified technology and procedures is another very strong influence. I can give one example which has since been declassified...

The F-15 and F-16 communities were very competitive. The F-16's HATED the F-15's powerful radar and big stick. Very often, the ROE was "positive ID before shooting" meaning true BVR was out. This almost always forced a visual ID at the merge, and a turning fight, which the F-16's desperately wanted.

In the 1980's, we had a nifty new technology called NCTR, Non-Cooperative Target Recognition, which was not something we talked about then, but which is now a Wikipedia entry. It allowed a positive ID of the F-16's at BVR ranges. Since the F-16 community was not briefed on this capability, we withheld fire, kept our mouths shut, and flew to a merge that otherwise would never have happened. This sort of thing absolutely continues to this very day, with more modern technology that few here know about.

It takes an extremely large-scaled exercise like a Red or Maple flag to even get a vague idea of a platform's true ability, but even those have severe limitations.

Edit: I took a deep breath after posting this ^^ and did further searches. There is a vast amount of info on early NCTR efforts all over the internet. Another example: Book: F-15C Eagle Units in combat

The fact that it existed is now common knowledge... why, I don't know, but it is. Usually classified info remains that way for many decades.

**Ararat** · 10 Mar 10,, 16:36

Originally Posted by avon1944

Well, that is where the F-22A is a real assassin. The ability to fire a AMRAAM outside the IRST detection range, using its altitude advantage, using its ALR-94 passive detection to lock on to the target or use the APG-77's LPI feature and, remain undetected. The target does not know it is under attack until the AMRAAM turns on its active seeker.
....

Yea, that Raytheon APG-77 is really something else. Didn't know about that AMRAAM active seeker capability..........sweet, them boys in Tuscon know what they are doing.

**Stitch** · 10 Mar 10,, 17:38

Originally Posted by Chogy

The F-15 and F-16 communities were very competitive. The F-16's HATED the F-15's powerful radar and big stick. Very often, the ROE was "positive ID before shooting" meaning true BVR was out. This almost always forced a visual ID at the merge, and a turning fight, which the F-16's desperately wanted.

I have heard that, also; the F-16's didn't like the fact that the F-15 could wax them with MRM's before they even got the -15's on their scope.

**Tin Man** · 10 Mar 10,, 22:33

Originally Posted by Chogy

In the 1980's, we had a nifty new technology called NCTR, Non-Cooperative Target Recognition, which was not something we talked about then, but which is now a Wikipedia entry. It allowed a positive ID of the F-16's at BVR ranges. Since the F-16 community was not briefed on this capability, we withheld fire, kept our mouths shut, and flew to a merge that otherwise would never have happened. This sort of thing absolutely continues to this very day, with more modern technology that few here know about.

Nice Chogy, that must have sucked big time!

Reading about the ex` mentioned, French ADA press conferences after the event seem to focus primarily on Rafale sales?...even claiming that a Mirage 2000 hammered an F-22 in close combat, and making a unit patch to celebrate the event! As a retort, F-22 drivers saying (And being named) that it was not like that in their recollection!

Let`s face it, the Rafale needs some sales

**highsea** · 10 Mar 10,, 23:35

Originally Posted by Chogy

...The fact that it existed is now common knowledge... why, I don't know, but it is. Usually classified info remains that way for many decades.

That type of NCTR used the radar to count fan blades and type it to the engine. The Russians use it too.

It's come a long way- today's AESA NCTR uses range profiles- each AC has a distinct signature- kind of a radar fingerprint. You can even tell what type of weapons are under the wing.

Combine that with ALR-94 and you can even distinguish between the same type- say an F-4 Phantom, that may be operated by a friendly force or a hostile one. You can tell the difference by the way the radars are tuned.

The joke is: You can tell everything except what color underwear the pilot is wearing.

)

**Chogy** · 11 Mar 10,, 14:35

Originally Posted by highsea

That type of NCTR used the radar to count fan blades and type it to the engine. The Russians use it too.

It's come a long way- today's AESA NCTR uses range profiles- each AC has a distinct signature- kind of a radar fingerprint. You can even tell what type of weapons are under the wing.

Combine that with ALR-94 and you can even distinguish between the same type- say an F-4 Phantom, that may be operated by a friendly force or a hostile one. You can tell the difference by the way the radars are tuned.

The joke is: You can tell everything except what color underwear the pilot is wearing.

)

My main point was that this sort of technology, from its beginnings, to more current variations, should be a deep, dark secret. Why give potential opponents even vague ideas on how something can be done? If they come up with it on their own, fine, but don't help them out!

The positive identification of opponents at long ranges by whatever means is one of the most critical functions that engineers can perfect.

**highsea** · 11 Mar 10,, 17:07

Originally Posted by Chogy

My main point was that this sort of technology, from its beginnings, to more current variations, should be a deep, dark secret. Why give potential opponents even vague ideas on how something can be done? If they come up with it on their own, fine, but don't help them out!

I know what you mean.

I guarantee you'd be completely amazed at what you can learn with a subscription to IEEE and EE Times.

**avon1944** · 12 Mar 10,, 21:05

Originally Posted by Chogy

Remember the T-38 KILLS F-22!!!! HUD tape? That was very likely what is known as a perch setup, with one aircraft 3000' behind the other, when the "fight's on" is called. A gun snap is almost inevitable.

I figured it was something like that for the T-38's HUD showed it was only pulling "5G's" at around 15,000 feet! I forgot the speed but, it was subsonic.

Originally Posted by Chogy

My main point was that this sort of technology, from its beginnings, to more current variations, should be a deep, dark secret. Why give potential opponents even vague ideas on how something can be done? If they come up with it on their own, fine, but don't help them out!

Oh, you mean like articles from Aviation Week & Space Technology? Very interesting articles on AIMVAL/ACEVAL. Discussed all the objects the USAF & USN sought to resolve.
OR, the pilot reports for the F-14A or F-15A. A late friend of mine Art, a former F-14 Tomcat pilot was appalled at the details in some of the reports. One of the pilot reports for the F-15A cited the specific fuel consumption per pound of thrust, really upset him! Paragraphs or statements such as, look at the issue's date;
The F-14A, AW&ST 11/29/76
"Pilots with as little as 300 hour in the F-l4A can fly at 25-degrees
angle of attack at about 60 knot and roll the aircraft 360 degress."
"The wing sweeps continually during aerial combat maneuvers beyond
7.5g. Sweep rates are 7.5 degrees/seconds at (cruise), and more than
3 degrees/seconds at 7.5g."

The F-14A, AW&ST 10/25/76 Pg 17
"The aircraft has pulled over 6.5g's at speeds slower than 272 knots.
In structural tests for the Navy, the F-14 has achieved 9.0g's at
Mach 1.2, and 8.0g at Mach 0.90, with both maneuvers at 20,000 feet
carrying six Phoenix missiles."

The F-15A, AW&ST 04/01/74
"The F-15 is notably one of the few fighters to have a fire extinguishing system, which can release a noncorrosive agent in either engine or the accessory drive compartments. It consists of a re-outlet container charged with 6.6 pounds of compressed Halon 1301, a gas of the freon family. No cleanup is required after use."

**Zinja** · 13 Mar 10,, 00:20

Originally Posted by highsea

That type of NCTR used the radar to count fan blades and type it to the engine. The Russians use it too.

It's come a long way- today's AESA NCTR uses range profiles- each AC has a distinct signature- kind of a radar fingerprint. You can even tell what type of weapons are under the wing.

Combine that with ALR-94 and you can even distinguish between the same type- say an F-4 Phantom, that may be operated by a friendly force or a hostile one. You can tell the difference by the way the radars are tuned.

The joke is: You can tell everything except what color underwear the pilot is wearing.

)

Hmmmm? This just goes to show that what we think we know (the public) isn't even close. One can't help wonder what else goes on in those things floating in the air.

**Chogy** · 13 Mar 10,, 14:29

People are going to speculate. It is human nature. Where it becomes a problem is when genuinely knowledgeable people with access to classified info simply cannot help themselves in these fan-boy styled debates, and the internet, by its very form and nature, both promotes the debates AND makes searching for the information a matter of ease.

Constant Peg is another example. Why was it declassified? What was the point in declassifying it?

Or when people discuss the performance of front-line missiles in great detail, giving Pk's in certain environments, IRCM, ECCM, etc. I have seen far too much stuff on the internet that used to exist only inside thick red plastic binders in a vault.

**Chogy** · 13 Mar 10,, 14:32

You know, sometimes, when I see a new poster, a guy with one or two posts, and his post is

MiG-35 vs. F-15C.... GO!

And people happily oblige him with a wealth of detail - that person may not be a 17 year old who simply likes fighter aircraft.

**GGTharos** · 13 Mar 10,, 16:34

Actually a lot of stuff is available in scientific journals.
I have access to NCTR algorithms, methods for reducing/eliminating the effectiveness of the notch, studies on missile guidance and how to make it work better against certain maneuvers, etc.
I have a very precise ballistic profile for AIM-9J for a number of altitudes, as well as details on the rocket motor capability etc (I could have guessed that accurately from the speed-time profile though).

Today I can simulate the range of an AIM-120 with minimal information and get reasonably good figures (funny thing, got some really good figures on AIM-120A/B range from a russian manual. Having that, 'guessing' AIM-120C performance is much easier, as are basic comparisons to other missiles.)

I can't simulate the nav system - that's something that is well classified, though I can make some reasonable guesses.
Given effort and time I could simulate how the seeker works - I'd get some things wrong, but I could do it.

I can get TO's for various aircraft online.

There's really little to no point in not discussing stuff among enthusiasts when material is available. There's really not much info out there concerning how a particular seeker deals with ECM for example ... and that's probably the real secret. Most people will tell you the AIM-120 does ECCM better than an R-27 - this should be no surprise. Most people will tell you the R-77 is better, longer ranged and more maneuverable than an AIM-120, too, and they don't know that they're wrong (and until recently it was hard to prove them wrong).

But again this is basic info - it doesn't really matter if it gets discussed. As far as air services go this is stuff that 'everyone knows'. The really dark stuff ... you never hear about anyway.

Originally Posted by Chogy

People are going to speculate. It is human nature. Where it becomes a problem is when genuinely knowledgeable people with access to classified info simply cannot help themselves in these fan-boy styled debates, and the internet, by its very form and nature, both promotes the debates AND makes searching for the information a matter of ease.

Constant Peg is another example. Why was it declassified? What was the point in declassifying it?

Or when people discuss the performance of front-line missiles in great detail, giving Pk's in certain environments, IRCM, ECCM, etc. I have seen far too much stuff on the internet that used to exist only inside thick red plastic binders in a vault.