Fighter Combat - Tactics and Maneuvering

296 UNLIMITED-AIRCRAFT TACTICS
because of its "shrinking" effects on threat missile envelopes. Against
bogeys carrying only guns or very short range AAMs, higher altitudes may
offer a greater speed margin. This is particularly likely when a single
supersonic fighter opposes subsonic bogeys. High altitude allows the supersonic
fighter to attain higher Mach than, and therefore greater speed
advantage over, a bogey restricted to subsonic speeds. This greater speed
advantage may offset increased threat missile range at high altitude. Combat
endurance is another consideration when choosing an operating altitude.
Low-altitude high-speed flight is very inefficient, particularly for jet
fighters, and high fuel consumption may reduce the chances of completing
the mission. Operation at higher altitudes normally results in increased
range and endurance at near maximum speed. Other considerations include
the threat of hostile ground fire; effectiveness of the single's weapons
system at low altitude and in look-down situations; effectiveness of the
enemy's weapons and sensors in look-up, and in look-down, situations;
and whether the single is likely to be harder to see looking up or looking
down. This last factor varies with cloud conditions, sun position, and
aircraft coloring. The possible effects of altitude on friendly and enemy
GCI is a further point to consider. Very low altitude operation can enable
the single to avoid enemy detection, but it may also deny the pilot the
valuable offensive and defensive support of friendly controllers.
The effect of superior numbers in a decision to attack is small. The tactical
advantage of position—altitude—sun—and direction of attack are the influencing
factors. With these factors in my favor the number of enemy
aircraft is irrelevant.
Lt. Colonel John C. Meyer, USAAF
Quite often when he is selecting an operating altitude the pilot is faced
with conflicting choices. These most often involve the interaction of radar
and other factors, as in the GCI conflict above. Another example is the
choice between staying high to take advantage of the sun or a speed/
altitude sanctuary or a low undercast, and degrading the fighter's radar
capability by placing it in a look-down condition. Going in at lower
altitude in this case probably would enhance the fighter's offensive potential
by optimizing its radar operation, but it would leave the singleton
more vulnerable to detection and attack. Such choices can be tough to call,
and they require careful analysis. Just how much is the radar likely to be
degraded looking down? Can GCI supplement the fighter's own radar?
How likely is it that the single will be detected at low altitude? If it is
attacked at low altitude, what are the chances of escape, considering bogey
numbers and relative aircraft and weapons-system performance? Questions
like these must be answered as accurately as possible in order to
weigh the probability of mission success against chances of survival.
Except for very critical missions, where success is absolutely essential, it is
usually wiser in one-versus-many scenarios to opt for the safest approach.
The pilot who saves his hide today can return tomorrow under more
favorable circumstances, unless of course his heart is set on the Medal of
Honor.