Excluding pilot skill, what is the single most important factor in determining the winner of a 1 vs 1 dogfight

[Engineman]

This simplistic poll is worthless.

Eng

 

[ThomasP]

I have been asking the question (in one form or another) being discussed in this thread for a long time. It is a question that is still constantly being asked (in one form or another) by modern aircraft designers and operations analysis personnel - although not necessarily in an as absolute (ie "single" factor) manner.

My answer and the answer of operational analysis (I think) is whichever allows you to get the first effective shot at the e/a.

But, since in a WVR maneuver combat somewhere around 70-80% of aircraft that get shot down are not aware of the aircraft that is about to shoot them down, how does that modify the importance of the various factors?

NOTE that in modern jet fighter WVR combat the 70-80% number still applies - when radar (whether on-board or GCI) and IRST are not used. Possibly BiffF15 can add to this. A friend of mine who used to be a fighter pilot and instructor mentioned several examples where seriously disadvantaged aircraft (in terms of speed, climb, g limit, etc) were able to shoot down a much higher performance aircraft due to the victim's loss of/never had awareness of the shooting aircraft. In modern terminology this is defined as a lack and/or loss of situational awareness.

One example of the importance of getting the first effective shot occurred sometime in the mid-1990s, shortly after East and West Germany merged and their newly reorganized air forces were involved in exercises with the USAF. One of the first WVR squadron level exercises involved the Luftwaffe MiG-29s vs the USAF F-16s. In head-on merges after which maneuver combat began, the MiG-29s achieved 19 kill shots (judged by impartial umpires) before the F-16s achieved one. This was judged to be due to the pilots of the MiG-29s having helmet-mounted cueing systems combined with off-boresight launch capable IR-AAMs (I do not remember what the specific missile the Luftwaffe used in the exercises - maybe the Aphid?). Needless to say, this event shook up the status quo views of the time.

Another example of first effective shot capability is the 'Snap-Shot' type of gun systems that have become common on modern aircraft. For those of you not familiar with them, this is a system where the FC radar continuously tracks the e/a and will fire the gun at the proper moment in the attack as long as the trigger is held down - regardless of whether the shot being taken is directly from astern, head-on, or at high deflection. This allows single-burst hit rates of somewhere in the ballpark of 80-90% (I think).

 

[Gilder]

I went for dive rate as you always have an effective escape tactic that can be used by any pilot no matter what their experience

 

[special ed]

I still believe my post #10 is accurate. Good luck is when one adversary sees another first. Bad luck is when that first adversary is picking his nose and misses seeing the other adversary.

 

[SaparotRob]

I chose top speed so I can bravely run away.

 

[Engineman]

I have been asking the question (in one form or another) being discussed in this thread for a long time. It is a question that is still constantly being asked (in one form or another) by modern aircraft designers and operations analysis personnel - although not necessarily in an as absolute (ie "single" factor) manner.

My answer and the answer of operational analysis (I think) is whichever allows you to get the first effective shot at the e/a.

But, since in a WVR maneuver combat somewhere around 70-80% of aircraft that get shot down are not aware of the aircraft that is about to shoot them down, how does that modify the importance of the various factors?

NOTE that in modern jet fighter WVR combat the 70-80% number still applies - when radar (whether on-board or GCI) and IRST are not used. Possibly BiffF15 can add to this. A friend of mine who used to be a fighter pilot and instructor mentioned several examples where seriously disadvantaged aircraft (in terms of speed, climb, g limit, etc) were able to shoot down a much higher performance aircraft due to the victim's loss of/never had awareness of the shooting aircraft. In modern terminology this is defined as a lack and/or loss of situational awareness.

One example of the importance of getting the first effective shot occurred sometime in the mid-1990s, shortly after East and West Germany merged and their newly reorganized air forces were involved in exercises with the USAF. One of the first WVR squadron level exercises involved the Luftwaffe MiG-29s vs the USAF F-16s. In head-on merges after which maneuver combat began, the MiG-29s achieved 19 kill shots (judged by impartial umpires) before the F-16s achieved one. This was judged to be due to the pilots of the MiG-29s having helmet-mounted cueing systems combined with off-boresight launch capable IR-AAMs (I do not remember what the specific missile the Luftwaffe used in the exercises - maybe the Aphid?). Needless to say, this event shook up the status quo views of the time.

Another example of first effective shot capability is the 'Snap-Shot' type of gun systems that have become common on modern aircraft. For those of you not familiar with them, this is a system where the FC radar continuously tracks the e/a and will fire the gun at the proper moment in the attack as long as the trigger is held down - regardless of whether the shot being taken is directly from astern, head-on, or at high deflection. This allows single-burst hit rates of somewhere in the ballpark of 80-90% (I think).

Unfortunately, I feel that the question is posed far, far too generally. I suspect that the initial question applies to WW2 dogfighting gun combat, but that is my guess?
Even if that is so, the variables are still hugely situation-based, and the defining factor in an attempted merge will depend upon the circumstances and the response of each combatant.
There are always strengths and weaknesses of each combatant but, often the individual pilots were not able to fully employ the strengths that they could have, so where do you place a combatant aircraft/pilot which loses a turning fight against a worse turning opponent through lack of skill?
Overall, in simple day forward firing gunfighting the general situation is that a easily faster combatant can control the fight if they stay fast and use fast tactics, whereas a easily better manoeuvreing combatant can win a turning fight if flown to its advantage. Note, neither situations really apply in a merge where the target aircraft is unaware of its attacker and also, if one combatant has real advantage in both turning fighting and easily available speed, then that aircraft /pilot combo has the advantage, except if surprised.

As regards modern off-boresight etc weapons, these are missile fights and there really is a different world of fighting. Intelligent or predictive gun firing is not a panacea, cueing may help but the aiming solution still has to be achieved. I have not used this type of air-to-air gun firing but it might help some pilots. My view is that if you can manoeuvre to achieve a firing solution, you can recognise a modern CCIP pipper on target and press the trigger.

Cheers

Eng

 

[Shortround6]

I did not see
Starting altitude
listed?

A significant altitude advantage is going to favor the higher fighter.

 

[ThomasP]

re

Unfortunately, I feel that the question is posed far, far too generally. I suspect that the initial question applies to WW2 dogfighting gun combat, but that is my guess?
Even if that is so, the variables are still hugely situation-based, and the defining factor in an attempted merge will depend upon the circumstances and the response of each combatant.
There are always strengths and weaknesses of each combatant but, often the individual pilots were not able to fully employ the strengths that they could have, so where do you place a combatant aircraft/pilot which loses a turning fight against a worse turning opponent through lack of skill?
Overall, in simple day forward firing gunfighting the general situation is that a easily faster combatant can control the fight if they stay fast and use fast tactics, whereas a easily better manoeuvreing combatant can win a turning fight if flown to its advantage. Note, neither situations really apply in a merge where the target aircraft is unaware of its attacker and also, if one combatant has real advantage in both turning fighting and easily available speed, then that aircraft /pilot combo has the advantage, except if surprised.

As regards modern off-boresight etc weapons, these are missile fights and there really is a different world of fighting. Intelligent or predictive gun firing is not a panacea, cueing may help but the aiming solution still has to be achieved. I have not used this type of air-to-air gun firing but it might help some pilots. My view is that if you can manoeuvre to achieve a firing solution, you can recognise a modern CCIP pipper on target and press the trigger.

Cheers

Eng

I also assume the original post is in regard to WWII WVR engagements. In my modern example(s) of ACM technology I am simply more easily pointing out another factor for ACM that comes into play - that of achieving the first effective shot, which may be technology based as well as maneuver based.

In WWII, did the reflector gunsight have a significant advantage over the ring & bead gunsight? I think that everyone with the manufacturing capacity switched to the reflector gunsight if possible - even for free-swinging guns, aircraft gun turrets, and sometimes on ground or ship mounted AA weapons. I have never read any quantified values of advantage for the reflector sight over the ring & bead sight, but the early and rapid changeover indicates that they thought the reflector sight had an advantage.

If my information is correct, the GGS (Gyro Gun Sight, aka lead-predicting gunsight) of the later-war period increased the chance of an effective hit by a factor of around 2x. As with the reflector sight, this type of sight was also mounted increasingly in aircraft gun turrets and on ground and naval light & medium AA guns, as the sights became available and manufacturing capacity allowed. The most notable, among the naval and ground uses perhaps being the mounting of the GGS on Oerlikon, Bofors, and 2pdr mountings. Again, this indicates that they thought there was an advantage to the GGS.

So if the above is accurate then I think it is safe to say that any combination of technology (eg the GGS) & methodology (eg some combination of maneuvers or any one ability that might allow an increased chance of getting the first effective shot) in ACM that helps get the sight on the target sooner or more easily is worth considering. To me the question becomes is there any one factor among those listed in the OP that would aid in this more than the others.


Also, as Shortround6 points out above, altitude advantage is perhaps another factor, though maybe it would be better put in terms of having a higher operational ceiling or combat ceiling. Having a higher operational or combat ceiling is usually the result of more power at higher altitudes, so perhaps having a higher engine/aircraft critical altitude should be included in the original OP.

And yes, it is not directly answering the question in the OP, but it is pointing out other aspects that may not have been taken into consideration when forming the original question.

 

[Engineman]

re

I also assume the original post is in regard to WWII WVR engagements. In my modern example(s) of ACM technology I am simply more easily pointing out another factor for ACM that comes into play - that of achieving the first effective shot, which may be technology based as well as maneuver based.

In WWII, did the reflector gunsight have a significant advantage over the ring & bead gunsight? I think that everyone with the manufacturing capacity switched to the reflector gunsight if possible - even for free-swinging guns, aircraft gun turrets, and sometimes on ground or ship mounted AA weapons. I have never read any quantified values of advantage for the reflector sight over the ring & bead sight, but the early and rapid changeover indicates that they thought the reflector sight had an advantage.

If my information is correct, the GGS (Gyro Gun Sight, aka lead-predicting gunsight) of the later-war period increased the chance of an effective hit by a factor of around 2x. As with the reflector sight, this type of sight was also mounted increasingly in aircraft gun turrets and on ground and naval light & medium AA guns, as the sights became available and manufacturing capacity allowed. The most notable, among the naval and ground uses perhaps being the mounting of the GGS on Oerlikon, Bofors, and 2pdr mountings. Again, this indicates that they thought there was an advantage to the GGS.

So if the above is accurate then I think it is safe to say that any combination of technology (eg the GGS) & methodology (eg some combination of maneuvers or any one ability that might allow an increased chance of getting the first effective shot) in ACM that helps get the sight on the target sooner or more easily is worth considering. To me the question becomes is there any one factor among those listed in the OP that would aid in this more than the others.


Also, as Shortround6 points out above, altitude advantage is perhaps another factor, though maybe it would be better put in terms of having a higher operational ceiling or combat ceiling. Having a higher operational or combat ceiling is usually the result of more power at higher altitudes, so perhaps having a higher engine/aircraft critical altitude should be included in the original OP.

And yes, it is not directly answering the question in the OP, but it is pointing out other aspects that may not have been taken into consideration when forming the original question.

As far as gunsights go, I agree the basic reflector sight was a great help with its user friendly see-through infinity pipper. However, the basic types require accurate mental range estimation and deflection allowances, although this can be helped with range rings for wingspan comparison. Lead computing is by mental agility and standardised values. I have used this in air to air firing.
The Gyro stabilisation development also helps with lead predicting and can be linked with pilot adjusted ranging adjustment to give better deflection computing if the pilot has the dexterity to correctly manipulate the ranging adjustment.
Later, radar ranging and better computing allows almost exactly accurate pipper indication in a modern sighting display.

As for the sighting improvements for gun hits, I would guess that the early guns were short range and hits were mostly made quite close. The reflector sight must have made a big difference to the average accuracy.
When guns had lethality at greater ranges (certainly12mm + guns) the later improvements of gyro stab and lead computing must have improved hits for all pilots making aimed shots.

Eng

 

[ThomasP]

Possibly another category or factor for the list in the OP - gun platform?

Steady and controllable flight while aiming & firing, combined with good sights ?? This may be too specific, but having a spastic gun platform would definitely be a problem.


Another thought - what about visibility for the pilot. Having enough field of view - ideally 360° in azimuth and at least the upper 180° in elevation plus as much lower hemisphere view as practical for the airframe. Everything else being equal, having an advantage in field of view should allow a better chance of spotting the e/a sooner and/or allow continued visual tracking. Again, this may be too specific for the OP, but given the numbers for aircraft getting shot down without being aware of the shooter's position this may have been more important that they realized at the time of WWII. Again, I have never seen any quantified evaluations for the advantage(s) of a bubble canopy vs the more conventional type cockpits of the early WWII airframes.

My understanding is that for the majority of pilots around 5 miles is the normal maximum ~reliable spotting distance for e/a in the single engine category, with about 10 miles as the max for 4-engine bombers (not counting large formations or contrailing aircraft).

 

[Gilder]

My understanding is that for the majority of pilots around 5 miles is the normal maximum ~reliable spotting distance for e/a in the single engine category, with about 10 miles as the max for 4-engine bombers (not counting large formations or contrailing aircraft).

When flying gliders our rule of thumb was to have absolutely zero faith in the ability of powered aircraft pilots to see anything. We kept a rouges gallery of aircraft that flew over our gliding club. One of these I was involved in where my only option was to make an emergency landing to avoid a practicing air display team.
There was a second instance which I saw and involved two of the Red Arrows who flew at very low altitude over a cable launch point which had a glider still attached. The Hawks went either side of the cable below the glider. Our chief instructor went absolutely nuts.
If they can screw up, anyone can.

 

[special ed]

Very much like pure sail boats vs power boats. Although sail boats always have right of way, the big boys in their big boats simply blow their horns.

 

[Engineman]

Hmmm,
Air to air visual pick-up ranges is a complex subject, not surprising when you have max visual ranges of 60+Nm (on contrailing Concorde by me over N. Atlantic) down to never seeing each other before impact in many air to air collisions in good weather (been there as well!).
In respect of WW2 air to air gunfighting without GCI, many Aces are credited with exceptional eyesight and "3D vision". Here, I do not doubt that some have this ability. In my flying there were always those who could "spot first". I came out fairly well in this.
Overall, "spotting first" is a critical point in a possible gun engagement, at best allowing the first spotter to gain advantage before the decision to merge (engage) or hold-off/withdraw.
nb. most Aces withdraw if not able to merge with advantage!

Eng