Tired of being HO'd

[Dawger]

Mtnmn  and humble are confusing separation (the physical separation between two objects) and flight path separation, which is the difference in future position as determined by velocity vectors. In other words, if you are going to collide there is zero flight path separation. Zero flight path separation results in zero physical separation. Flight path separation greater than zero results in greater than zero physical separation.

The confusion seems to be considering everything from visual sighting to closest point of approach as "The Merge". I'm fine with that. We all use that particular terminology to describe the first part of an engagement. I break down that part of the engagement into three parts. Visual sighting and decision, Pre-merge positioning, and maneuver at the merge.

The "merge" is actually a three phase process starting at visual sighting and ending at the closest point of approach between the two aircraft.

Phase one is from visual sighting up until the initiation of pre-merge maneuvering. The first phase is the visual sighting and a decision to engage or not. This phase usually results in a period of pure pursuit in an arena with long icon range because visual acquisition and positive identification occur at long range. If both pilots start pure pursuit at 6000 yards there is 6000 yards of separation and effectively zero flight path separation.

Phase two begins with the initiation of pre-merge positioning maneuvers. As the bogeys speed towards each other the pilots decide the next phase. A pilot desiring a "hot' merge is going to keep the flight path separation close to zero in order to reduce the physical separation to close to zero with a gun solution.

An angles fighter will want to create physical separation pre-merge to set up a lead turn. This pre-merge separation is created by flight path separation. Before closest point of approach the angles fighter needs turning room so that his lead turn will apply offensive pressure on his opponent. Once the flight path separation creates the physical separation the angles fighter is going to want to reduce the physical separation in order to gain offensive position. That is the entire point of lead turning. The defense against this is to take away the physical separation by maintaining near zero flight path separation until the merge, resulting in a merge (closest point of approach) with very little separation.

Phase three is the final maneuver leading to the closest point of approach or MERGE.

A simple illustration is joining into formation on a friend that is straight and level in the opposite direction and will not maneuver. Once you spot the friend you need to reduce the physical separation. Phase one. Fly towards the friend or make your flight path separation zero. Next you want to achieve a rear quarter position going the same direction with enough energy to remain in formation.  The only way to do that is to create physical separation by separating your flight path from that of the friend, PRE-MERGE and then use a lead turn to arrive with as little physical separation as possible at the MERGE or closest point of approach. The standard formation join is going to be a process of starting with zero flight path separation moving to wide flight path separation then rapidly moving back to zero flight path separation as the formation is joined.

The classic illustration of this process is the often taught and duplicated vertical merge. Both fighters are planning an angles fight and wish to create vertical turning room pre-merge. Both fighters want that vertical separation to be below the opponent as this is highly desirable because gravity reduces the turn radius. Both fighters dive as they approach. They are both trying to create physical separation by using flight path separation PRE-MERGE.

Every merge is a simple attempt to join into formation on the bandit in close trail. If the target doesn't maneuver it should be a simple matter of creating turning room pre-merge using flight path separation and then reducing the resulting physical separation using a lead turn to bring the flight path separation back to zero.

Flight path separation creates physical separation pre-merge and then you take it away at the merge using a lead turn if you are initiating an angles fight. This tactic can be countered by taking away the flight path separation.

[Buck]

I'm sort of lost here, flight path eh ? separation, not really getting the whole picture here. could you just post a film ? easier to follow.

Don't mean to butt in.  

[humble]

I'm not confusing anything and I could give a rats backside what your "fine with" and your nomenclature is dead nuts wrong. Velocity vector is a component of lift vector which is what controls the possible range of movement for an airframe at any given moment. "Separation" is consistently viewed as vertical and lateral displacement of flight path. This is true if we're looking at relative spacing between wingman or in relation to a bogey. So offsetting flight path is = to separation. The merge begins the moment you sight a dot and decide if your heading toward it or away from it. Once you fly toward it your "merging". Pure pursuit means that you are chasing a bogey flying away from you with no "angle off".

Once you have the desired offset then the additional information you've collected during the 1st part of the merge comes into play and you adjust based on your intended course of action. A "merge" starts (In AH terms) the moment your in icon range. by the time you actually cross paths the fight is 90% over and one of the reals signs a pilot has evolved is his willingness to recognize a bad setup and "refuse the merge". Your "defense" to a lead turn is basically a non starter with an entirely 2 dimensional viewpoint and will get you killed in 15 seconds or less vs any competent pilot in an even merge. In fact the only time that this statement is true...
The defense against this is to take away the physical separation by maintaining near zero flight path separation until the merge, resulting in a merge (closest point of approach) with very little separation.  
is if you realize that you need to refuse the merge. In this case thats exactly the correct maneuver, otherwise you are in fact simply doing what the nikki did in the clip above. In fact what your describing is exactly what not to do and the film above is a perfect example. He reorients to my altered "pursuit angle" and is suckered into a poor shot window.

The reality here is simple, if you see an enemy gain offset and then turn back into plane and you feel you are in a +E state then you rotate your lift vector away from his path of movement by 90 degree's and extend thru the "merge" and into a sustained climb. You are in effect turning behind his path (and yes this minimizes separation before expanding it) and extending and converting the merge to a rope. The goal is to make him fly the long way or burn more E reversing. If on the other hand you are -E then a move back out of plane both defends against his guns solution and creates an exploitable overshoot as per the nikki/p-40 clip above.


There is no ACM term "hot merge" I am aware of in any doctrine. Are you confusing a merge with a FQ guns solution (not mutually exclusive)?

*** at edit ***

I'll use the clip above to illustrate what I'm trying to say...

This a typical forced fight, I'm lower slower and in a plane that is close to double inferior, especially in 3 dimensional maneuvering. At the films opening (4.0) I'm sitting with him above and off my FQ...

at 6 seconds I've dropped down and put him squarely "in plane" to my lift vector" at roughly 12 seconds I turn back out of plane. At 15 seconds I'm back in plane and have created a trap. The proper course of action here is for the nikki to refuse the merge by rotating 90 degree's away and extending up...

at 17 seconds we're back in plane with minimal flight path separation. At this point the fight is effectively over unless the nikki elects to dive thru and extend and reset.

at 18 seconds I go back out of plane and off the gas and trap him into a very low % nose down shot that actually creates an overshoot within the merge itself. At 28 seconds the nikki has the option to convert to a sustained climb with minimal risk instead he continues the fight. Whats important here is that I'm influencing the fight from an inferior position.

This goes back to the heart of Mtnmans comments. I've spent literally thousands of hours trying to teach people to unlearn "stupid" ACM. There is no single "right" move, all ACM has to be viewed in the context it's applied. When we look at any type of a FQ shot it generally works against the initiator unless its viewed as a fly by shot of opportunity that does not alter the lift vector from optimum. A shot presented in proper maneuvering should be taken regardless of aspect. A shot that sacrifices superior position for an apparent gain is normally a trap vs a seasoned opponent.

I'm far from uber as a dueler but I can fly planes like the A-20 in the LWA's effectively just by applying sound fundamental ACM.

[mtnman]

Mtnmn  and humble are confusing separation (the physical separation between two objects) and flight path separation, which is the difference in future position as determined by velocity vectors. In other words, if you are going to collide there is zero flight path separation. Zero flight path separation results in zero physical separation. Flight path separation greater than zero results in greater than zero physical separation.

The confusion seems to be...

Yours...

You stated-

You don't always want separation at the merge. It depends on the fight you are planning. You wouldn't give turning room to a bandit you know wants an angles fight.

and-

Nope...That is incorrect.

He (mtnmn) stated that you need enough separation not to collide, which is a bit of humor I would think.

He implies that you have to have separation at the merge to prevent getting shot. That is demonstrably false. All you have to do to prevent getting shot at the merge is not provide the bandit a shot opportunity. That is geometry not distance. In fact, once you are inside the bandit's turn circle he CAN'T shoot you. Closer is better in this case.  Maybe he doesn't know how to pass close aboard a bandit at the merge without getting shot. Maybe he does. I don't know.

I know how to do it and it is a useful tool when I want to deny the bandit turning room for a lead turn. And you want to be as close as you can when you use it because the closer you are to him when you pass the more out of position he will be if he goes angles at the merge.

It is a very big part of 2 v 1 tactics to be able to execute a merge close aboard without getting shot in the face. It is the basis for setting up most of the follow on maneuvers following an offensive split.

...and now you seem to have realized how that looks, so have launched into "flight path" separation. 

Which is fine I suppose, but you never mentioned "flight path" separation, so we didn't infer that you meant "flight path" separation.  And then you re-state what we've stated, in an attempt to show that we're confused?

If both pilots start pure pursuit at 6000 yards there is 6000 yards of separation and effectively zero flight path separation.

And build on our "confusion", by supporting my statement...

You bring up a very important point though.  While separation is good, and necessary, you can have too much of a good thing!  Merging too close gets you face-shot.  Merging close, but with too much space can allow your opponent to turn into you using lead pursuit to gain a shot or a good position (although at a cost in E, which he may or may not be able to afford).

with...

An angles fighter will want to create physical separation pre-merge to set up a lead turn. This pre-merge separation is created by flight path separation. Before closest point of approach the angles fighter needs turning room so that his lead turn will apply offensive pressure on his opponent. Once the flight path separation creates the physical separation the angles fighter is going to want to reduce the physical separation in order to gain offensive position. That is the entire point of lead turning. The defense against this is to take away the physical separation by maintaining near zero flight path separation until the merge, resulting in a merge (closest point of approach) with very little separation.

Beyond that, we're talking about defending against the HO.  Reducing your "flight path" separation would seem to "fly in the face" of that idea...

You make some good points, which could be discussed.  I believe Shaw even goes into those ideas in his book if I recall correctly (it's been a LONG time since I read it).  However, that's not the topic of this thread, so I've been avoiding get too detailed there.

Not a big deal...  Your earlier posts just left out some information vital to their proper interpretation..

[humble]

Shaw covers the issue on multiple occasions and in various manners. As always nothing is absolute since all ACM has to consider both circumstance and adversary. As a single example you can refer to pages 74-77 where lead turns are initially introduced and the concept of flight path separation is first (to the best of my recollection) broached. As always with Shaw (appropriately) nothing is absolute. flight path separation is great...unless it's to much....but its not really required at all since you can be to early, to late or just right. It all depends on what your flying, what he's flying and the day of the week.

The biggest problem with ACM is that whats "correct" in one instance is incorrect in another and sometimes more then one solution exists to the same "problem". In addition each segment of the book will layer options. If we look at page 76 right above figure 2-9 he discusses minimizing separation by attempting to pass as close as possible....which is especially important when one plane is diving toward a front quarter pass vs a climbing adversary. Now if we just stop there we have a conundrum. Any reasonably competent stick is well aware of the benefit of winning the under in a merge and the perils of a "top down" shot...yet here is shaw discussing a diving FQ shot vs a climbing adversary.

He then advocates pulling thru the shot window with minimal separation above the bogey "as closely as possible". This line of reasoning is not pursued in detail here but obviously approached in detail from a variety of tactical positions later. Anyone who's attempted a mid merge rope and had the con fly up his tailpipe realizes what a judgement call this tactic is. Obviously Shaws book is a masterful work far beyond my ability to comprehend in total since various elements are layered (for lack of a better term). Every chapter builds on and subtly alters what you already have digested.

Go further to chapter 3 page 101 figure 3-1 and digest his guns only angles fight and contrast that to a typical duel here. In fact take it to the DA and try it out and vary it. Can you make it work....sure. In fact go dig up some old film of Cretons merges and you'll find a variation on that tailored to the more correct merge you'll normally see. But imagine trying to make that work vs Drex, bighorn, blukitty or any other big league dueler...your not gonna see 1,2,3 flat turn with me are you?

So my issue when I see this out of context "absolute" approach is that its taking very good complex layered advice and bastardizing it to the lowest common (and incorrect IMO) denominator. As a side note and to clarify an earlier comment the only place I think I "disagree" with Shaw is his use of velocity and lift vector. To me the 1st is a component of the 2nd and a planes potential movement is limited by its abilty to orient its lift vector. The 1st is essentially two dimensional and the 2nd 3 dimensional. Almost all "dogfighting" terminology that I'm aware focuses on relative lift vector....including Shaw. Most other places Shaw will talk about rotating the lift vector and I think in the example specific to flight path seperation that would have been best. Anyone who's had an initial "lesson" from me over the years knows the 1st thing I cover is down to but never below. Always maintian the advantage and drive the bogey down. Never turn a mugging into an even fight. So you have a "dive down" a 90 degree rotation away and zoom to the perch in a series of decreasing high yoyo's (I may have a film or two I could post).

I'd have to dig thru but Shaw explains it much better later in the book IMO....

 

[boomerlu]

As a side note and to clarify an earlier comment the only place I think I "disagree" with Shaw is his use of velocity and lift vector. To me the 1st is a component of the 2nd and a planes potential movement is limited by its abilty to orient its lift vector. The 1st is essentially two dimensional and the 2nd 3 dimensional.

Sorry Snaphook, but you're contradicting physics here. Shaw's use is standard physics use. They are separate vectors. The velocity vector is the direction the aircraft is moving. The lift vector is perpendicular to the wings and velocity vector. Period.

If you think of a vector as an entity with direction and magnitude (i.e., a line or arrow), all vectors are clearly one dimensional objects in multidimensional space (could be 3 which is the case for dogfighting, or an infinite # in the case of quantum mechanics).

What you are thinking about is the PLANE OF MOTION IN A TURN (don't know the technical ACM term if there is any) which is the plane (a two dimensional surface) defined by the velocity and lift vectors.

Edit: but of course this is wildly off topic.

[danny76]

This is a grief. No doubt about it. About 90% of my engagements with an enemy who is co-alt and heading directly for me end with me tore up in pieces. I'll come into a fight looking for someone to pick or merge with and there is always some who wants to fly directly at me with every intention of putting lead into my face. At about 1k from closing in with the enemy, I'll veer off to the right and deliberately try to put myself off from HO'ing him in order to just merge with him and begin the dogfight. But no, the jerk stays on the war path and just turns into me, guns a blazing, and forces me to fly through a hail of bullets. I mean I'm doing everything i can to avoid the HO (barrel rolling, changing alt) and I still get pegged. How does anyone ever fight and win against this without getting into a jousting match with the bigger guns winning? Or do I need to get with everyone else and start HO'ing as well because its usually the higher ranking fighters who do this mess.

Tired of being picked

[dirt911]

Personally i love these monkeys ho'ing my P-47 when they have 2-4 50's,#1 try to get off the side of his ho,it will force him to bank hard to merge with you.As you have already turned to reach his 6 in a vertical,however i see people trying to win ho's when they have a fighter with superb manuverability.Although they dont have the guns or armour to win a ho 'against a heavy fighter like a P-47.