Hornet gunning Raptor picture

[Guest 35AoA]

i know, picture doesn't really tell much (other than TR violation - guns inside 1000') ... still amuses me though. anybody know the details behind this pic?

i've seen it floating around the net over the last week, if it's been posted here, i'll move along ...

[Hacker]

500 foot bubble in the CAF...

[Guest 35AoA]

Originally posted by Hacker:

500 foot bubble in the CAF...

really? USMC/USN ACM TR's are "break off gun attacks at 1000' to pass no closer than 500'"

i thought AF TR's were the same, or stricter ... at least my experience with DACT w/ AF

[Hacker]

From AFI 11-214:

"5.2.8. Separation of Aircraft: Minimum range during operations between fighter aircraft during

Air-to-Air training is 500 feet or MAJCOM and service minimum, whichever is greater. If a violation

of minimum range appears imminent or has occurred, each aircraft will perform a “KNOCK-IT-OFF/

TERMINATE”."

[Toro]

While Hacker is correct about the 500 foot bubble, Raptors have a 1000' bubble (at least when we're fighting them). I don't know if it's an ACC Sup to 11-214, but it's on our flight brief TRs.

[Guest Hoser]

Not sure of the specifics of the Hornet HUD, but that big X over the word GUN, looks like a Break X to me!

Hoser

[ 09. April 2006, 19:50: Message edited by: Hoser ]

[Guest 35AoA]

Originally posted by Hoser:

Not sure of the specifics of the Hornet HUD, but that big X over the word GUN, looks like a Break X to me!

Hoser

na, the X'd out GUN indicates his master arm switch is in safe

[Steve Davies]

Originally posted by BeerMan:

So the Hornet is gunning the Raptor with his Master Arm in safe? That dosen't make any sense...

Makes sense to me. It means that there's absolutely no room for error, and it prevents incidents like those in the 80s and 90s when friendly aircraft flying DACT and BFM actually shot eachother down. The Super Bug doesn't have a Sim mode like the Viper, and what's more, you don't need Master Arm on when there's a witness mark at the top of the HUD confirming that the firing circuitry has been energised.

[Steve Davies]

Originally posted by BeerMan:

And if his Master Arm is in safe, why is there a gun cross present?

It's always present, no matter what master mode is selected.

[Steve Davies]

Originally posted by BeerMan:

Plus if that triangle at the bottom of the picture is the RATR its not even close. Don't know all the symbology of a Super Hornet HUD but it looks a little odd. Hacker, Toro, Hoser...thoughts?

That looks more like the angle of bank indicator, not the RATR.

My guess would be that the RATR is the little square box above the centre of the gun pipper.

[Guest 35AoA]

Originally posted by BeerMan:

So the Hornet is gunning the Raptor with his Master Arm in safe? That dosen't make any sense...

probably doesn't make sense because you don't know the avionics & symbology of the hornet. box SIM on the stores display & the MC will give you the symbology to include LARS (USN/MC uses LAR for blue air, WEZ for red air), fly out cues, etc for A-A wpns ... no need to arm up. pretty sure it's the same for the SH

Originally posted by BeerMan:

And if his Master Arm is in safe, why is there a gun cross present?

the gun cross is there as a reference in case your pipper is HUD limited. Master Arm has nothing to do with whether it's present or not

Originally posted by BeerMan:

Plus if that triangle at the bottom of the picture is the RATR its not even close. Don't know all the symbology of a Super Hornet HUD but it looks a little odd. Hacker, Toro, Hoser...thoughts?

it's actually called a BATR (bullets at target range) in the Hornet/SH. what does it look like you ask? check the aft portion of the right wingroot on the Raptor

quick HUD lesson ... some of it is probably obvious

middle left side: 19.5 AOA, 0.37 Mach, 1.9 G's, 7.6 Max G the pilot has hit during his flight, 21:09:08 Zulu time

IN LAR over the pipper is self explanatory ...

top left: event marker meaning trigger down

middle right side: 0.0 is air-air tcn

the line with U at 6 o'clock & dashed line with U at 10 o'clock and about 11 o'clock are RWR indications

183 knots airspeed and 15090 MSL

pitch symbology is self-explanatory with the lines at the ends pointing towards the horizon

Vc & range are obvious

already talked about the X'd out GUN

across the top is the heading information

[Guest Hoser]

35AOA,

Steve is talking from the standpoint of the 15E.

In the E, we have what's called a Training PACS (Programable Armament Control Set) which will give us the same type of things as when you containerize SIM on your stores display. But we still must be in Master Arm HOT for it to work. That's what we are checking with out Trigger Check as we FENCE In.

On that subject, our gun cross is only present if the Master Arm is HOT. If it's safe, then the gun won't shoot, so no need for a gun cross.

BATR/RATR seems to be airframe specific. In the E we call it RATR.

Hoser

[Steve Davies]

Hoser

I was actually trying to recall as much as I could from my own limited knowledge of the Hornet! . EDIT: Maybe I should stick to talking about real aeroplanes from now on .

AoA

So is the carret at the bottom an angle of bank indicator? Oh, and where's the ghost FPM?!

[ 10. April 2006, 10:29: Message edited by: Steve Davies ]

[Toro]

Originally posted by Tumbleweed:

It can create more closure than most pilots are used to seeing and we definitely don't want a fender bender in the new car.

I'd also be interested to hear the actual setup and what occurred. Agreed - good on him for getting at least a snap, but it may not be so impressive if this is 6.9 seconds after the Hornet started from an offensive perch setup (which is very likely since he's 30 degrees nose low at 15,000 feet). 183 KCAS with 210 Vc with about a 9 aspect and nose in lead? The Hornet is going to be defensive in about 5 seconds.

[Guest pcampbell]

Along these same lines, I had an IP in IFF that had a valid track on a Raptor...from an AT-38B. Given, it is more difficult to asses the shot without all the fancy HUD symbology we have now. In accordance with the ROE of the fight, it was valid. Dude goes by Bender, I'm pretty sure it's not the same Bender as on BO.net.

Edit: to clarify why it was considered valid.

[ 12. April 2006, 06:44: Message edited by: Razorback ]

[Guest rapier01]

Is it still valid if there's a TR violation?

[Guest pcampbell]

Originally posted by rapier01:

Is it still valid if there's a TR violation?

No

[Toro]

Originally posted by Mun:

In this shot, looks like he was right at 1000ft.

It doesn't matter - he had a good deal of aspect and closure at 1000 feet, which drove him inside the bubble (on the first picture)

As Beerman mentioned, Training Rules are written so guys don't swap paint. Unfortunately, they're usually written because guys swapped paint. For example, we have a TR that says we can't take pure pursuit missile shots inside 9000 feet and another that says we can't gun somebody if they're greater than 135 aspect. Basically, don't point right at somebody when you're about to merge in an attempt to employ weapons.

From what I understand, both of those TRs resulted from this Viper/Eagle midair. In the first couple seconds, you can hear the Viper driver call "Fox II" (fired an AIM-9), then the video skips to about a second and a half prior to the merge where the dude is now getting greedy and trying to gun the Eagle. They impact and the rest of the video is the Viper going out of control and going into the dirt. Pretty eye-opening stuff.

[aspec]

Ah ok. Wasn't sure if counted or not if he was at 1000ft for just a second.

"we have a TR that says we can't take pure pursuit missile shots inside 9000 feet"

Seems like that would be the perfect shot, but I'm no pilot so who knows. ;)

Out of curiosity, just something I've always wondered, does anyone ever fire on the merge (say during dogfight practice with the AIM-9's). Especially with the AIM-9X (although I'm not sure how many aircraft in the AF inventory is using them yet. Seen a few Vipers with the JHMCS so I'm assuming a few squadrons are using them), seems like that missile is pretty effective in all aspects. Not sure how effective it would be head to head though.

Anyways, thanks for the info and link. That video is insane...

[ 14. April 2006, 11:09: Message edited by: Mun ]

[Toro]

Originally posted by Mun:

Seems like that would be the perfect shot, but I'm no pilot so who knows.

The shot is fine, but as the video shows, it could potentially lead to you hitting a guy. If you're pointed beak to beak and you've both got 400 knots, 9000 feet decreases to 0 feet in approximately 0.11 seconds.

Originally posted by Mun:

does anyone ever fire on the merge (say during dogfight practice with the AIM-9's). Especially with the AIM-9X (although I'm not sure how many aircraft in the AF inventory is using them yet. Seen a few Vipers with the JHMCS so I'm assuming a few squadrons are using them), seems like that missile is pretty effective in all aspects. Not sure how effective it would be head to head though.

Not trying to be a dick, but how can you ask that question when you just responded to a statement about 9000 pure pursuit missile attacks? Yes, we fire at the merge. We do it all the time. We just don't do it inside of 9000 feet if we have our velocity vector on the guy. You don't need JHMCS for this - your jet is pointed right at the guy - the radar can see him just fine. If you're asking about actual ranges the missile can fire at -- now you're getting into the classified regime.

[aspec]

Wow, didn't mean to stir up a storm here. Sorry about that. Thought you meant in that first post about not being able to take shots within 9000ft pure pursuit meant he was flying away from you (you on his six). Maybe it did, I dunno, doesn't really matter. ;) Was just curious if they allowed you to fire on the merge during training after watching that video.

Regarding the geek Falcon 4.0 comment, well, you described me in two words. ;) Been flying/working on this game since it came out in 1999. I think you would be quite surprise at what is floating around on the internet, especially on the F-16 that cover a lot more than just tactics...

Anyways, my apologies. Should have just taken taken that advice a Viper driver told me "never pass the opportunity to shut the f**k up". Just sometimes my curiosity (mostly from Falcon 4.0) gets ahead of me.

[ 16. April 2006, 00:23: Message edited by: Mun ]

[Vetter]

Maybe the Navy dudes don't have training rules to talk about. Maybe that's why they crash so much.

[Guest Jimmy]

Contrary to popular belief, the F-22 is an airplane, not God.

In theory, anyway, I'm sure you can put your gun pipper over it without having the world come to an end.

[Guest momann]

Contrary to popular belief, the F-22 is an airplane, not God.

In theory, anyway, I'm sure you can put your gun pipper over it without having the world come to an end.

I do understand the aircraft isn't God, but its capabilities are superb and second to none. However, that aircraft is only as capable as the pilot. By that I mean that a more experience and knowledgeable pilot is more lethal in the aircraft that one less experience and knowledgeable.

Base on the above and that the F-22 pilots in general are quite experience, as they are taken from other MWS, isn't it improbable that an F-18 could out maneuver the F-22 and paint it, unless the were goofing off, or something similar?

Look I believe in that aircraft and I know it's capable of much more than F-14, F-15, F-16, and F-18. That said, I want to know if this really happened and if anyone knows the circumstances surrounding it. That's all.

I expect some day this could happen, but not this soon.

Thanks, Tertle

Edited August 1, 2007 by momann

[dmeg130]

Well I'm sure the next time an F-22 finds himself single-ship, Winchester, and Bingo, he'll try to avoid getting shot by an F-18. Otherwise...

Remember the big uproar about how India spanked us in an exercise? It's called training rules. Take the cuffs off and it's a different story.