Dogfighting

[North Shore]

Question(s) for those in the know...

Just took the Shore jrs to see Rogue 1...lots of 'dogfighting' in the last scene, most of it stern chases - makes for good movie suspense, as the targeted craft jinks around in the crosshairs until the final blaster shot, etc.. got me to thinking about aerial combat, though..
1.) If you've got someone on your tail, isn't it best to turn into your opponent as tightly as possible? It would seem, that being 'unpredictable' might just as easily get you turning into a shot, as away from one..
2.) Does that tactic change depending on the aspect of engagement (head on, etc..)
3.) Does " " " depending on the number of adversaries?
4.) Does " " " depending on the role you're in (ground attack, etc..)

Thanks!

[7ECA]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dicta_Boelcke

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Rules ... r_Fighting

[trampbike]

Question(s) for those in the know...

Just took the Shore jrs to see Rogue 1...lots of 'dogfighting' in the last scene, most of it stern chases - makes for good movie suspense, as the targeted craft jinks around in the crosshairs until the final blaster shot, etc.. got me to thinking about aerial combat, though..
1.) If you've got someone on your tail, isn't it best to turn into your opponent as tightly as possible? It would seem, that being 'unpredictable' might just as easily get you turning into a shot, as away from one..
2.) Does that tactic change depending on the aspect of engagement (head on, etc..)
3.) Does " " " depending on the number of adversaries?
4.) Does " " " depending on the role you're in (ground attack, etc..)

Thanks!

Answer to everything regarding dogfight: it depends.
Most of all, it depends on the weapons. If we assume that a laser gun that is boresighted to the nose of the spacecraft if pretty close to a modern gun mounted on most fighters (which makes no sense, as if you've got the technology to go to the speed of light, you probably also have high off-boresight technology...), then it's pretty simple: to gun someone, you need to be in range (which probably doesn't really affect lasers though), in the same plane as the defensive aircraft, and most of all, in lead.

If you out-turn your adversary (radius and rate), he'll never be able to shoot you. However, if he can out-turn you and is able to pull lead, then your only option is to get out of plane in the most drastic and unpredictable way ("jinking")

[Rockie]

Changing the plane of the turn, unloading, pulling, anything to move your steed out of the way of his shot and ruining his tracking. That way the best he can do is a lucky shot while you try and maneuver out of his weapon parameters. If you have the same capability aircraft I think whoever is better at energy management will win. Talking here about guns of course. Missiles are different and I'm not sure what the best défense would be against Tie fighters and X-wings. Whatever you're flying though the best solution is to shoot him in the back before he knows you're there and keep on going.

[Glasnost]

What I don't get is why there are dogfights in space to begin with. I know it's sci fantasy and lifted right from most of the WWI and WWII movies anyways.. but why wouldn't a starfigher simply pitch or yaw 180 degrees and blast the guy behind him while still drifting the same direction?

I think true space combat would be more like chess. Changing orbital inclinations and altitudes over the course of hours or days to try and pursue (or evade) your enemy without running out of propellant. Doesn't make for good action, though.

[Rockie]

What I don't get is why there are dogfights in space to begin with. I know it's sci fantasy and lifted right from most of the WWI and WWII movies anyways.. but why wouldn't a starfigher simply pitch or yaw 180 degrees and blast the guy behind him while still drifting the same direction?

Actually the remake of Battlestar Galactica portrayed that very nicely. It would present some interesting tracking problems achieving the precise nose rate and direction with thrusters, but it would eliminate crushing "G" forces from the equation. Rather than accelerating the ship in a new trajectory you're just spinning it on its axis.

But then again both you and your target will be changing your trajectory all the time since neither one of you wants to get shot which presents lots more problems. Instead of just acting downward relative to the craft the "G" forces will be acting in all directions. Yup, space combat would be interesting.

[Mostly Harmless]

What I don't get is why there are dogfights in space to begin with. I know it's sci fantasy and lifted right from most of the WWI and WWII movies anyways.. but why wouldn't a starfigher simply pitch or yaw 180 degrees and blast the guy behind him while still drifting the same direction?

I think true space combat would be more like chess. Changing orbital inclinations and altitudes over the course of hours or days to try and pursue (or evade) your enemy without running out of propellant. Doesn't make for good action, though.

Thanks, I was going to mention that also.

Yes, the remake of BSG used accurate physics, but they were not the first. Babylon 5 was the first one to portray accurate dog-fighting physics in space.

[AirFrame]

What I don't get is why there are dogfights in space to begin with. I know it's sci fantasy and lifted right from most of the WWI and WWII movies anyways.. but why wouldn't a starfigher simply pitch or yaw 180 degrees and blast the guy behind him while still drifting the same direction?

I used to play a game on my PC called "Descent". It was a space-based first-person-shooter where you are piloting a spacecraft and aren't subjected to gravity. There is no "up" or "down", it's all relative to what you're seeing out your cockpit window. You can slide sideways, up/down, forward/back, and yaw about all three axes at once if you want to. Honestly, someone good at this game would have *zero* problems with situational awareness in a conventional aircraft dogfight.

Despite all that manoeuverability, it still comes down to who can put crosshairs on the other aircraft the fastest, and maintain that lock while simultaneously moving so the other aircraft can't get a lock.

[Rockie]

I used to play a game on my PC called "Descent". It was a space-based first-person-shooter where you are piloting a spacecraft and aren't subjected to gravity. There is no "up" or "down", it's all relative to what you're seeing out your cockpit window. You can slide sideways, up/down, forward/back, and yaw about all three axes at once if you want to. Honestly, someone good at this game would have *zero* problems with situational awareness in a conventional aircraft dogfight.

A computer game does not duplicate the effects of acceleration G force which would be even more pronounced in space than it is on earth since it would act in all directions rather than just opposite the lift vector of the wing. Here on earth where it mostly only acts in one direction relative to the pilot it is exhausting and potentially debilitating. Also aerial combat is extremely dynamic and necessarily includes what other aircraft and threats all around you are doing whether you can physically see them or not. Situational awareness in that arena means knowing a lot more than just which way is "up".

[Mostly Harmless]

I also played Descent... I thought it was an enjoyable game.

Most Sci-fi's use atmospheric physics for ships. Lucas used WWII combat footage as the basis of the original attack on the Death Star for a look and feel to the original Star Wars.

A more accurate look would be something like this. http://dai.ly/x46id1i?start=1800

[FICU]

It's old but pretty much all you need to know...

https://www.amazon.ca/Fighter-Combat-Ma ... 0870210599

[gwagen]

You guys are forgetting that g forces are taken out of the equation as these fighters have "dampening" technologies. Otherwise when you accelerate to the speed of light in a fraction of a second, you'd be a fine mist on the bulkhead. That is of course considering the ship could stand the acceleration.

But of course that doesn't apply to all sci fi universes as they are all different.

[AuxBatOn]

It's old but pretty much all you need to know...

https://www.amazon.ca/Fighter-Combat-Ma ... 0870210599

Never read this throughout (I thought it was mostly useless) but if you say so...

[AirFrame]

Never read this throughout (I thought it was mostly useless) but if you say so...

Are there better texts that are used in current training syllabii?

[AuxBatOn]

Sure. They are just not available to the public.

[AirFrame]

Situational awareness in that arena means knowing a lot more than just which way is "up".

Agreed... I was more referring to the ability to build a mental map of your arena, where your opponents are, and where they're likely to be, despite your "up" vector constantly changing.

[AirFrame]

Sure. They are just not available to the public.

Really? Interesting. Fully classified, or just "we don't advertise which one we use"?

[AuxBatOn]

Other than a mean to avoid hitting the ground, I only care where my lift vector is placed in relation to the opponent. Below 5k above the hard deck, I avoid setting my lift vector straight down, just so I don't bust the harddeck.

[AuxBatOn]

Sure. They are just not available to the public.

Really? Interesting. Fully classified, or just "we don't advertise which one we use"?

I don't think you need to know the answer to this...

[flashheart]

NFTC didn't use classified information when I was there for fighter lead in training so I don't think the "basics" is too top secret.

[Rockie]

Other than a mean to avoid hitting the ground, I only care where my lift vector is placed in relation to the opponent.

Not 100% accurate as you know. Earth's gravity can either help or hinder you, or help or hinder your opponent, so knowing which way is up and how to use that information matters.

Mind you, you've been doing this for so long incorporating that into the equation is probably almost as instinctive as breathing.

[photofly]

Sure. They are just not available to the public.

I expect there are some good ones in Russian. Try here: http://russia-amazon.ru/

[FICU]

It's old but pretty much all you need to know...

https://www.amazon.ca/Fighter-Combat-Ma ... 0870210599

Never read this throughout (I thought it was mostly useless) but if you say so...

For Joe blow there is enough on BFM including energy management, pursuit geometry, merge tactics, in and out of plane maneuvering and so on. Like I said it's dated but guns only BFM probably hasn't changed much in decades.

The author holds a masters degree in aeronautical engineering and spent 14 years in U.S. Navy fighter aviation. He flew over 4,000 hours, mostly in the F-4 and F-14. I believe his book was used as a reference for US Navy Top Gun school.

[AuxBatOn]

You haven't fought an F-22 lately, have you? Yes, BFM, even guns only, changed.

[Heliian]

Rule 1: Don't get shot.

After that, do what you can with what you have. An F-22 fighting a sopwith camel will create a need for different tactics but rule 1 still applies.

All of your "top secret" dogfighting books have the same basics since aircraft were invented, all of which become useless in space and even more useless with unmanned craft.

Why do they even need to pull a trigger? Can't their computer process the move fast enough and then send out a laser shot at the speed of light to quickly vapourize their opponent?