Fighter Jet Agility
Fighter Jet Agility
Fighter Jet Agility
Abstract
With changing combat environments, traditional measures of merit for fighter aircraft per-
formance have largely proved insufficient to analyze combat capability. Combat experience
has shown that the upper hand lies with an aircraft that has superior maneuverability across
a large part of the flight regime. Agility metrics have come to provide a tool that would be
capable of evaluating aircraft maneuverability over a wide range of conditions representative
of combat, as well as provide aircraft designers the ability to design for superior maneuver-
ability. Agility metrics have been shown to be sensitive to control laws and strategies, and
aeroelastic phenomena, which means that they do not provide a parochial view of aircraft
performance. In this review, agility metrics have been suitably classified, and some illustrative
cases have been studied. The effects of advanced controls, such as thrust vectoring, and optimal
maneuvers on combat performance, as suggested by agility metrics, have been investigated.
The use of agility metrics for design has been discussed with examples of some well-known
fighter aircraft.
air-to-air combat today, and may be a result of either have a greater chance of winning, although it may not turn
deliberate engagement or prolonged, multiple-engage- as quickly as the first aircraft. This suggests that a superior
ment Beyond Visual Range (BVR) combat. This mode of performance rating in terms of traditional metrics does not
combat was previously dominated by quick sustained immediately translate into combat superiority, which has
turns, and aircraft design was governed by traditional to be evaluated using agility metrics.
parameters, such as the Thrust/Weight ratio. However,
with the development of all-aspect weapon systems, Agility metrics can be employed gainfully in the early
which required the point-lock-fire-disengage type of ma- stages of aircraft design provided a reasonably accurate
neuvering, the importance shifted to attained unsteady estimate of stability and control derivatives is available to
performance [2, 3]. The traditional means of evaluating the designer. Agility influences fighter aircraft design as
performance, which were mostly limited to steady-state much as other performance requirements and what is
performance metrics, therefore proved inadequate, usually sought is an appropriate balance of agility and
prompting the development of agility metrics. other conflicting requirements based on the types of mis-
sion the fighter aircraft is sought to fulfill [6].
One of the events that brought agility to the attention
of combat analysts was the superior performance of the This review paper will first look at some of the agility
American F-86 in Vietnam against the Soviet MiG-15. metrics that have been developed to date. An attempt has
The latter had a much better performance as per the been made to highlight the strengths and limitations of
traditional evaluation schemes, but the F-86 proved supe- these metrics. The effect of improved control strategies on
rior in combat. It was observed that this was on account of agility metrics has been discussed, followed by a discus-
better maneuvering capability of the F-86, what we now sion on the utility of agility metrics in aircraft design, and
call agility [4]. the design of the flight control system. The effect of
avionics and weapons systems on agility has been dis-
Table 1: Traditional versus Agility metrics cussed. Conclusions and recommendations for future
work are listed in the final section of this paper.
This is the classification that has been followed in Table 3: Eidetics and AFFTC Agility Metric Defini-
Table 1. Another classification is based on the timescale
of the maneuver. There are three types of agility metrics
then [1, 7]:
time derivative of the steady state variables in the Frenet- Some Illustrative Agility Metrics
Serret system. Avanzini [10] has stated the agility metric
In this section, we look at some agility metrics applied
as the following vector:
for analyzing aircraft performance. Each type of agility
.. 3 2 . 2. 3 metric has been considered with one example. The discus-
A = [V − V k , 3VVk + V k, V kj] (1) sion here follows Refs. [1, 7]. In all the cases in these
references, the aircraft models analyzed, using non-real
Here, k and j are curvature and torsion, respectively. time simulations, were those of F-5, F-16 Falcon, and F-18
Hornet. The inputs provided for obtaining the metrics have
In the context of Avanzini’s metric, Bitten [8], and also been discussed.
Kutschera and Render [12] have defined the following
terms:
Axial Agility Metric - Power Onset Parameter
1. Performance: A measure of the steady state or the
point performance of an aircraft. Power onset parameter is defined as follows:
2. Maneuverability: A measure of the time derivative of
the performance.
POP = (Ps,max − Px,initial) ⁄ ∆t = ∆Ps ⁄ ∆t (2)
3. Agility: A measure of the time derivative of the
maneuverability.
With these definitions in place, the following compari- where Ps is the specific excess power.
sons can be made:
This metric measures the combined effects of the
1. The MBB and Avanzini metric is purely agility met- aircraft thrust and engine spool time, which denotes the
ric. time taken by the aircraft engine to bring about the re-
2. The Eidetics metric, t90, uses roll rate, which is a quired change in thrust. The flight test Mach number is
maneuverability term. The other terms are all agility first held at idle throttle and the speed brakes are deployed
terms. so that the initial condition corresponds to the minimum
3. The General Dynamics DST metric is a purely ma- value of specific power. Thereafter, simultaneously, the
neuverability metric. throttle is raised to its full value and the speed brakes are
4. The AFFTC metric uses steady state at both ends, and retracted. This testing can be carried out for different
the time to transit incorporates the initial conditions, aircraft at different initial Mach numbers for a compara-
accelerations, as well as their derivatives. Thus, the tive study as shown in Fig. 2 which indicates that the POP
AFFTC metric is a measure of the point performance, of the F-18 is largely superior to that of the F-16. A similar
maneuverability, as well as agility. Functional agility analysis carried out at different altitudes showed that it is
is the sum of transient agility and maneuverability. only at high altitudes and higher Mach numbers that the
F-16 compares favorably [7]. A sensitivity analysis per-
Bitten [8] noted that the results obtained using the formed for this metric indicated a significant error in the
metrics proposed by the various organizations mentioned final result when the initial conditions were changed by 10
above were mutually consistent for a particular type of percent [13].
metric (viz., axial, longitudinal, or lateral).
Optimal Trajectories and PSM Ryan and Downing investigated the effect of optimi-
zation for the CCT metric using an optimization routine
Functional Agility
called Optimal Trajectories by Implicit Simulation
Recall that the CCT metric required the aircraft to turn (OTIS). Optimization was employed separately for the
through a heading of 180 deg, and then accelerate back to turn (t2 + t3) phase in Fig. 5 and the entire maneuver. The
the initial Mach number. To achieve this, the maneuver results were compared to those obtained using the more
was own as described in Table 4 in the previous section. routine approach. The F-18 model was used. Figure 7 plots
CCT was seen to be dominated by the acceleration phase. the angle of attack history, and the maneuver profile on
It is likely that an alternative maneuver could achieve the the turn rate versus velocity plot, for all three cases, viz.,
same final state in terms of heading and velocity by better maximum AOA, optimum turn, and optimum total CCT.
managing the velocity bled during turning and minimizing Table 6 gives the time segments for these cases. The
the acceleration needed, thereby reducing the CCT. Ryan common feature for the optimized cases is the relative
and Downing [15, 16] did this by optimizing the maneuver avoidance of the high angle of attack regions, which are
for minimum CCT, and the results were astounding. chiefly responsible for the high CCT. In fact, the total
maneuver optimization case avoids this part completely.
The need for optimization generally arises when the Heading change takes place until the last moment at which
maneuver is spread over a considerable period of time, and the aircraft also returns to the initial velocity. It is interest-
there are several variables simultaneously affecting it. ing to note that the F-16 CCT of 22.73s is still better than
Clearly, it is the functional metrics that render themselves that of the turn-optimized F-18.
to optimization, rather than the transient ones. Optimal
maneuvers for evaluation of agility metrics have an addi- Furthermore, the two models, F-16 and F-18, show
tional benefit that they are not biased towards a particular nearly the same values for all time segments. This sug-
aircraft or control system, but help extract the best possible gests the overriding importance of a good control system,
performance out of every aircraft [16]. and the use of better control strategies using optimization
to partly compensate for the absence of the appropriate
limiters.
Table 6: CCT Comparison for Optimization
Thrust Vectoring
Herbst [3] has pointed out the importance of PSM for
enhanced combat capability. Costes [17], Gal-or [18],
Anderson [19], and Tamrat [4, 20] have shown that TV
and PSM improve the chances of victory in a head-to-head
8 JOURNAL OF AEROSPACE SCIENCES & TECHNOLOGIES VOL. 58, No. 2
combat by improving the agility of the aircraft. It is of than the corner speed, the more pronounced this difference
interest to know how PSM and TV, together or separately, becomes. This indicates that PSM provides significant
help to do so. advantage in combat when it is used for short periods of
time. Longer periods of PSM may lead to greater energy
Kutschera and Render[12] developed a new metric losses, which is detrimental to the performance of the
which is primarily a maneuverability metric, as per the aircraft.
definition given in Section 2. It is a modified version of
the CCT metric and starts from the point at which the Another demonstration of the advanced capability of
aircraft has rolled to Nzmax. Thereafter, the aircraft turns TV and PSM was observed when the X-31 was tested
along the Nzmax and CLmax curves until the pointing against the F-18 in combat scenarios. X-31 is an experi-
margin (defined in Section 3.6) to the adversary aircraft, mental aircraft being developed and tested jointly by the
which is assumed to be stationary, has become less than U.S. and Germany [21]. The X-31 program is intended to
the maximum angle of attack of the aircraft. At this point, highlight the tactical utility of Extended Fighter Maneu-
the aircraft pitches up to maximum post-stall angle, and verability (EFM) at low cost [4]. It was observed that the
points to the adversary for a firing which marks the end of F-18 had a better success rate when the X-31 was own in
the maneuver. This metric evaluates the time to complete conventional configuration. However, when PSM was
the maneuver, the final SEP, the energy change, and the enabled, X-31 emerged as the winner. TV was provided
turn diameter. Using this metric, they have shown how TV for pitch as well as yaw control in X-31. X-31 actually has
and PSM improve agility. an inferior T/W ratio as compared to the F-18. Further, the
maximum turn rate is lesser than that of the F-18. PSM,
Three F-18 configurations were tested by them using however, provided X-31 with a better pointing ability, and
the above metric: standard (no TV, AOA for ITR of 20 also helped it pull tighter turns. Interestingly, the winning
deg, and maximum AOA of 30 deg), advanced (TV, AOA maneuver of the X-31 was mostly what is called the
for maximum ITR of 20 deg, and maximum AOA of 70 ‘Helicopter Attack Maneuver,’ wherein the X-31 yawed
deg), and super-advanced (TV, AOA for maximum ITR rapidly in order to point at the adversary which was turning
of 35 deg, maximum AOA of 70 deg). It may be noted that around it. The yaw control for this maneuver came from
stall AOA for F-18 is around 35 deg. The metric was the yaw thrust vectoring.
evaluated for a variety of initial Mach number and altitude
combinations. As expected, the advanced aircraft showed F-16 Falcon - The Classic Case
better agility as compared to the standard configuration.
Alarmed by the superior combat performance of So-
The time to complete the maneuver was lesser for the
viet-made aircraft, especially the MiG-21, the United
advanced aircraft, especially at higher initial altitudes,
States Air Force (USAF) decided that a fighter was needed
which constitutes a significant advantage. The turn diame-
to supersede its maneuverability. What emerged in the
ter was smaller and the turn rate was higher as well. The
mid-seventies, through a competition between General
final SEP, though, was smaller due to the fact that it ended
Dynamics (GD) and Northrop, was the F-16 developed by
up at a post stall AOA. The energy bled by the two aircraft
GD. The reader is referred to Refernces [5, 22] for an
was almost comparable for various initial conditions. With
extensive account of the development of F-16.
this information in mind, it is left to the strategist to decide
when to employ TV.
The F-16 was designed with the following require-
ments: Cruise Mach number between 0.6 and 1.6, flight at
A similar comparison between advanced and super-ad-
altitudes between 30000 and 40000 ft, 9 g at full fuel load
vanced aircraft presented an unexpected surprise. The
(USAF only required 7.33 g at 80% internal fuel load).
advanced aircraft actually completed the maneuver in a
The emphasis was on rapid acceleration, turn rate, and
shorter duration of time, although the super-advanced
specific excess power (those were the traditional measures
aircraft had a higher maximum ITR because it was allowed
of merit). There were trade-offs involved in the design,
to fly to the AOA for maximum CL. The reason for the
such as the value of W/S that had to be chosen to give
reduced performance is the higher drag experienced below
suitably high values of both, range and turn rate. Finally,
the corner velocity where the aircraft flies close to stall,
the configuration of F-16 gave a leading edge wing sweep
and poststall for final pointing. This results in a rapid
of 40 deg, an aspect ratio of 3, and a wing loading of 25
decrease of velocity, and an accompanying loss of turn
N/m2. The weight of the aircraft, with external fuel tanks,
rate. The more time the aircraft spends at velocities less
MAY 2006 COMBAT AIRCRAFT AGILITY METRICS 9
was a little below 10 tons, and is still one of the lightest in marily tested with larger wings with the same trapezoidal
its category. The aircraft’s small size reduces the moments shape. Agile Falcon integrated wing, strake, and the fuse-
of inertia, and improves angular rates for maneuverability. lage with a view to improving agility. Wing and strake
External fuel tanks are used for take off, and before a dog tailoring was seen as a key ingredient of good performance
fight, they are dumped. This produces a 5% increase in in both, the subsonic as well as transonic, regimes.
turn rate and 30% increase in acceleration. F-16 has a T/W
ratio greater than unity, and the aircraft can accelerate to A three-tier study covering aerodynamics, control-
supersonic speeds while climbing upwards. The low as- lability, and aeroelasticity was performed. The former was
pect ratio of the wings gives the aircraft good maneuvering centered on improving maneuverability by studying ef-
capability, such as higher roll rates. The CG is located aft fects of wing twist and camber. Agility metrics such
of the aerodynamic center to reduce longitudinal stability as high-g turn rate and 1-g acceleration were used.
in favor of maneuverability, and help the horizontal tail Controllability studies looked at handling qualities at
add to the lift while maintaining longitudinal trim. The high angles of attack and low speeds. Aeroelastic
F-16 FCS was designed with rate and maximum AOA studies to design strategies that would best complement
limiters to ensure superior handling qualities. Tamrat [4] the two requirements of maneuverability and structural
and Hodgkinson et al. [23] noted that there is a direct stability were conducted. An interesting outcrop of the
correlation between superior handling qualities and agil- aeroelastic studies was the development of the washout
ity, which makes handling qualities an important design wing. It led to a 23 percent reduction in induced drag and
issue for agility. concentrated aerodynamic load at the fuselage-wing inter-
face, which resulted in a wing heavier at the root and a
The above case study, although specific to the F-16, subsequent reduction in the aircraft roll moment of inertia,
gives a general make up of agile fighters. It has to be noted, enhancing the roll performance. This is an excellent illus-
though, that the concept of agility that has been discussed tration of how agility metrics can be gainfully employed
earlier in this paper did not exist in the days when the F-16 to bring about an all-round improvement in the design of
was designed. Only steady state performance parameters an aircraft.
were used to design the F-16. Nonetheless, the charac-
teristics such as high T/W, low aspect ratio, optimized Agility and FCS
wing loading and longitudinal instability in the open loop,
It was seen earlier that the flight control system affects
are common features of most agile fighters even today.
the aircraft agility. FCS plays a major role in reducing pilot
workload by providing the appropriate handling qualities
Many agility metrics require a detailed knowledge of
in the closed loop [26]. This section investigates the agility
the aerodynamic coefficients of the airplane for testing
improvements that could result from a well-designed FCS,
[12]. These agility metrics will typically be used after a
as well as some of the features that such an FCS should
series of flight tests for improving the existing variant and
possess.
for designing future variants. Reference [24] presents an
agility assessment module meant for the preliminary de-
Actuators limit the deflections of various control sur-
sign stage of an aircraft. It may be noted that such modules
faces as well as their rates. This, in turn, restricts the
would utilize metrics which require a small number of the
maneuverability of the aircraft in some or all of the flight
most rudimentary aerodynamic data, and these metrics are
regimes. In order to improve it, one or more of the above
usually what have been referred to earlier as maneuver-
parameters may need to be changed, and their effects will
ability metrics and potential agility metrics.
have to be studied. One example that can be cited is the
improvement in lateral agility of the F-18, defined by the
Agile Falcon 90 deg roll capture metric, as suggested by Eggold et al.
[27]. It may be noted that this metric is similar to the t90
Agile Falcon was studied as a variant of the F-16 in a
metric described in Section 3, except that in this case, a 90
project undertaken by General Dynamics Fort Worth Di-
deg bank angle has to be captured, not just reached. They
vision to incorporate advanced technology in the existing
determined that the three factors that affected this metric
variants of F-16, in order to help it regain the original
the most were rudder saturation, rudder actuator rates, and
F-16’s agility that was lost in the subsequent variants
the roll control surface deflection limiting at high AOA. It
because of additions to payload and fuel weight, and
was seen that increasing the three quantities helps reduce
improve agility at high angles of attack [25]. It was pri-
10 JOURNAL OF AEROSPACE SCIENCES & TECHNOLOGIES VOL. 58, No. 2
Fig. 8 Lateral Agility improvements by Head-up display (HUD) and several of its advanced
increasing rudder limits derivatives such as the Helmet-mounted Display (HMD)
have revolutionized the way in which information is con-
the time to capture a 90 deg bank angle change. However, veyed to a fighter pilot in order to create a better situational
an optimal combination of the three has to be chosen to awareness. The onus is on conveying information to the
ensure that the increase in sideslip does not get very pilot as quickly and as effectively as possible. The pilot is
adverse. Their results have been shown in Fig. 8. This an important component of the closed-loop aircraft and
figure plots the time required to capture a roll angle of 90 has a strong influence on the agility exhibited by an aircraft
deg, as a fraction of the baseline value, with improved during a maneuver [11]. The pilot’s responses are gov-
limits on rudder power and roll command limiters. The erned by motion and visual cues, where the latter are
improvement in time to capture a 90 deg roll angle is obtained from the real-world, "outside-the-cockpit" visual
evident from the fact that its ratio with respect to the environment and from the cockpit displays. A significant
baseline value is always less than unity. delay in the pilot’s response to external cues can result in
a severe degradation in the aircraft handling qualities [34]
Many modern fighter aircraft are designed to be unsta- and ultimately affects the aircraft’s agility adversely [23].
ble in some part or the whole of the flight regime in the
open loop. Therefore, it becomes important to identify the Another effect on aircraft agility arises directly from
unstable regimes, and the nature of instability in those the time that the pilot takes to respond to an external
flight zones [28]. In some cases, the instabilities might be stimulus such as the approach of an adversary. This infor-
of a relatively simple nature, such as spiral divergence, mation is conveyed to him by the cockpit display systems.
phugoid, etc., or else they could be as complex as wing Although an aircraft may possess agility in its ability to
rock, which is generally observed at high angles of attack maneuver rapidly, a delay from the pilot’s side affects the
[29]. Ananthkrishnan and Sinha [30] observed that the total time to effect a maneuver from the time the requisite
maximum steady roll rate, in open loop models, is con- stimuli are available.
strained by loss of lateral stability, and this constraint
dominates the constraint imposed by performance criteria Another factor affecting agility that needs to be ad-
and actuator limits such as aileron and rudder saturation. dressed is the effect of weapons systems. Several modern
These instabilities have to be compensated for by the FCS all-aspect air-to-air missiles do not require direct pointing
[31]. In the case where it becomes too difficult to satisfac- at the adversary aircraft. The adversary needs to be
torily do so, restrictions have to be imposed on the maneu- brought within a "firing cone," and the time taken for the
vering envelope. missile to deploy from the time the adversary enters this
cone becomes critical. This is true, however, only if the
Sometimes, pilots complain that the FCS often makes aircraft is not in a defensive position. If the aircraft starts
the aircraft response somewhat sluggish. This has to be from a defensive position, its success will depend on its
interpreted as a case of excessive stability, which reduces maneuverability. Maneuverability is also the most critical
maneuverability. Thus, the FCS has to be designed to factor when two aircraft with equally capable weapons
ensure that it stabilizes the aircraft, but only to an extent system engage in combat.
whereby the pilot does not find it very hard to maneuver
MAY 2006 COMBAT AIRCRAFT AGILITY METRICS 11
ance, Control and Dynamics, Vol. 24, No. 2, 2001, Preliminary Fighter Design," AIAA Paper 1996-
pp. 340-351. 0088, 1996.
14. Cannon, J. D., Jr., "Predicting the Victor," AIAA 25. Love, M. H., "Multidisciplinary Design Practices
Paper 1991-0418, 1991. from the F-16 Agile Falcon," AIAA Paper 1998-
4704, 1998.
15. Ryan, G. W., and Downing, D. R., "Functional Agil-
ity Metrics and Optimal Trajectory Analysis," Jour- 26. Nelson, R. C., Flight Stability and Automatic Con-
nal of Guidance, Control and Dynamics, Vol. 20, No. trol, WCB/McGraw Hill, Singapore, 1998.
7, 1997, pp. 1193-1197.
27. Eggold, D. P., Valasek, J., and Downing, D. R.,
16. Ryan, G. W., and Downing, D. R., "Evaluation of "Measurement and Improvement of the Lateral Agil-
Several Agility Metrics for Fighter Aircraft Using ity of the F-18," Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 30, No. 6,
Optimal Trajectory Analysis," Journal of Aircraft, 1993, pp. 803-804.
Vol. 32, No. 4, 1995, pp. 732-738.
28. Sibilski, K., "Problems of Maneuvering at Post-Criti-
17. Costes, P., "Investigation of Thrust Vectoring and cal Angles of Attack - Continuation and Bifurcation
Post-Stall Capability in Air Combat," AIAA Paper Methods Approach," AIAA Paper 2003-0395, 2003.
88-4160, 1988.
29. Janhke, C. C., and Culick, F. E. C., "Application of
18. Gal-or, B. Z., "Maximizing Thrust-Vectoring Con- Bifurcation Theory to the High-Angle-of-Attack Dy-
trol Power and Agility Metrics," Journal of Aircraft, namics of the F-14," Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 31, No.
Vol. 29, No. 4, 1992, pp. 647-651. 1, 1994, pp. 26-34.
19. Anderson, J. A., "Agile Fighter Aircraft Simulation," 30. Sinha, N. K., and Ananthkrishnan, N., "Maximum
AIAA Paper 89-0015, 1989. Steady Roll Rate in Zero-Sideslip Roll Maneuvers of
Aircraft," Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 39, No. 5, 2002,
20. Tamrat, B. F., "Fighter Aircraft Agility Assessment pp. 897-899.
Concepts and their Implications on Future Agile
Fighter Design," AIAA Paper 1988-4400, 1988. 31. Beaufrere, H., "Integrated Flight Control System De-
sign for Fighter Aircraft Agility," AIAA Paper 1988-
21. Alcorn, C. W., Croom, M. A., and Francis, M. S., 4503, 1988.
"The X-31 Experience - Aerodynamic Impediments
to Post-Stall Agility," AIAA Paper 1995-0362, 1995. 32. Murphy, P. C., Bailey, M. L., and Ostroff, A. J.,
"Candidate Control Design Metrics for an Agile
22. Richardson, D., Modern Fighting Aircraft, F-16 Fighter," NASA TM-4238, 1991.
Fighting Falcon, Salamander Books, 1983.
33. Murphy, P. C., and Davidson, J. B., "Control Design
23. Hodgkinson, J., Skow, A., Ettinger, R., Lynch, U., for Future Agile Fighters," AIAA Paper 1991-2882,
and Laboy, O., "Relationships between Flying Quali- 1991.
ties, Transient Agility and Operational Effectiveness
of Fighter Aircraft," AIAA Paper 1988-4329, 1988. 34. Bailey, R. E., "Effect of Head-Up Display Dynamics
on Fighter Flying Qualities," Journal of Guidance,
24. Ngan, A., Bauer, B., Biezad, D., and Hahn, A., "De- Control and Navigation, Vol. 12, No. 4, 1989, pp.
velopment of an Agility Assessment Module for 514-520.