Air Combat Maneuvering Thread

[Air Force Brat]

AFB, Brumby, Engineer, and Scratch, or any other member please feel free to jump in.
If I may ask, ... ...
If any of you disagree, then please explain -- the scientific reason of your disagreement.

Let's assuming the Cutting Edge Supersonic missile with the latest and greatest electronics is under heavy Jamming and heavy ECM attack, but the Supersonic missile is still functioning, but combined with multiple
OUT TURN maneuvers, the Supersonic missile Radar Lock and IR Lock can be broken or in other words -- the Cutting Edge electronics of the Supersonic missile has been neutralized.

Please look at the 5 diagrams below ... ...


Method #1
DODGING and EVADING Supersonic missiles

View attachment 23496



Method #2
DODGING and EVADING Supersonic missiles

View attachment 23497


Method #3
DODGING and EVADING Supersonic missiles

View attachment 23498



Method #4
DODGING and EVADING Supersonic missiles

View attachment 23499


Method #5
DODGING and EVADING Supersonic missiles

View attachment 23500


What do you say about this OUT TURNing missile tactics ??



Source_1:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

As Sam states, the hope that you can dodge of evade the missile is very slim, how effective are electronic counters, well I do have a lot more hope for that, but that is cutting it close? I actually believe that if the missile misses you on the first pass, it will stay locked and continue to chase you down until its fuel is exhausted, and it will very likely catch you, unless you are very high, and very fast.

 

[Scratch]

There are simply so many variables involved in this. Kinematicly defeating an AAM is such a broad topic. You can of course outrun an AMRAAM with a Cessna if you've already got enough range at launch.
The rocket motor of such a missile burns for a really short amount of time. A few seconds for a WVR missile, a bit longer for BVR missiles. Though perhaps with a bit less peak thrust.
If you got enough range so the motor burns out and you can fly some (not very hard) turns, forcing the missile to maneuver, you can lengthen it's actual flight pass and force it to bleed energy on the way.
So in the endgame you may have a missile not capable anymore of "pulling" it's max load factor, increasing your chance to outturn it.

At shorter ranges with the motor still burning and all the energy available you're within the No Escape Zone basicly. You can't run away. Hard maneuvers in combination with counter-meassures may throw off the seeker, so you breack the "lock".
You could maybe try to get it to a 3 or 9 o'clock position and then break hard into it to create a lot of angles, high closing speed and hope to force an overshoot. In that case, the missile lost.
I'm not aware of, nor could I currently imagine, any missile that would "mentaly" track the targets flight path (because the seeker would need to look more than 90° off axis), come around to look for it again and follow. You'd probably need a TVC equiped missile still burning through the entire reattack for such a tight turn.

Super-maneuverability, or actually post stall maneuverability, came about with the desire to get a first shot chance. From a more or less neutral first pass / merge, with both fighters on opposite sides of the circle, each one tried as hard as possible to get it's nose on the other first, so the AAM could get a lock. TVC allowed for one quick move to point your nose far off your flight path and into the turn circle. At the cost of bleeding a lot of speed. Now, HMS + HOBS missiles have overtaken that development.

TVC / post stall / "super" maneuverability, as I see it, has always been more about attitude change rather than flight path change. A TVC jet will max out at 9-10G. The same way none TVC jets were able to reach that acceleration for quiet a long time now. And at their corner speeds, they probably do so at around 20°-35° AoA maybe, but not 70°.

That does not mean TVC generally has no place. There are of course usefull & worthy applications for it.

Within the WVR arena, when using TVC to always stay well inside of an opponents turn circle, at rather low speed, there may be a point in thusly denying the other guy to get his nose on you. But for any other guy that might be out there, you'd be very much a sitting duck.

In closing, Greenest, if I may, where do you come up with such blanket statements like:
"The laws of physics say super-maneuverable fighters from Russia & the PRC like those from Sukhoi, Shenyang or Changdu can outturn any supersonic missiles of NATO" ?
Which laws of physics, why, how ... ?

 

[b787]

As Sam states, the hope that you can dodge of evade the missile is very slim, how effective are electronic counters, well I do have a lot more hope for that, but that is cutting it close? I actually believe that if the missile misses you on the first pass, it will stay locked and continue to chase you down until its fuel is exhausted, and it will very likely catch you, unless you are very high, and very fast.

In my opinion, Stealth is over hyped, Pierre Sprey says stealth aircraft have very delicate skins, this means to work as the A-10, they are simply useless, i know this is not going to be accepted for those who love stealth aircraft, but it is a reality, in close support the A-10 and Su-25 are better.

If you believe western historians since the 1980s most F-15s (around 3 F-15 have been shot down in combat according to them) these were downed by SAMs, same are F-16, F-14s and Tornadoes.

The only exception has been a F-18 downed in 1991 by a MiG-25.

Sprey also say most stealth fighters can not remain hidden, he says you need to ID the opposition, electronic ID is not always 100% fool proof so you need to get close.

Several radar and SAM makers claim they can detect Stealth aircraft, further more you have the issue stealth reduces the weapons load the aircraft can carry, you have to add, their missiles have clipped wings, their AIM-120 have tiny wings, missiles have not a 100% kill rate.

In the case of stealth aircraft vs stealth aircraft, you have smaller detection ranges, forcing the fighters to fight closer, but stealth reduces maneuverability, this means you need Thrust vectoring to reduce the effect of lesser optimized configurations (this includes F-35 and T-50), of course, people think stealth aircraft do not have given up any aerodynamic advantages, but in the case of these aircraft, they are large, heavier and their lines do not smooth out and blend in the way a pure aerodynamic machine does.

 

[Brumby]

Aircraft design is always about tradeoffs and more importantly an aircraft effective lifespan from end to end (design to service end) may span a s much as 50 to 60 years. The question is what kind of air to air combat can we expect in the next 30 to 40 years because the platform today is to equip for future combat and not air combat that we know of in the past. If WVR combat becomes close to being extinct and primary defence against AAM's are ECM and lasers, what place does maneuverability have in the equation? If the off chance scenario warrants some kind of BVR maneuvers, there is such thing as HMS and high off bored shots.

If you are a proponent of super maneuvering, I would ask that you defend the need of it against modern air to air combat statistics and continuing trends that it is still an important component of aircraft design.


..... and that was 25 years ago.

 

[Air Force Brat]

Thrust vectoring is an advantage in stealth, drag and maneuverability, add supercruise and you understand why PAKFA and F-22 have it.

The problem is people only think it helps only in post stall, it does, but the PAKFA has HMS, highly off bored missiles and Thrust vectoring.

PAKFA has the Himalaya ECM, so a fighter like T-50 has been made thinking in all those features[/QUOTE

Thrust vectoring is NOT and advantage in stealth, particularly NOT with the Russian 3D nozzles, which is is why the Raptor has flat 2D nozzles, it may reduce trim drag at supersonic speeds?? as the FCS vectors thrust for pitch and roll rather than deflecting control surfaces, but whether that is the case for PAK-FA cannot be reliably established.​

It does increase maneuverability on an airframe which has been designed for super-maneuverability.​

To state that PAK-FA has the Himalaya ECM tells us what??? there is very little empirical data to substantiate many of the claims for its effectiveness?​

The T-50 does NOT have Off Bored Missiles, it has a helmet mounted sight, that enable the highly maneuverable missiles to be fired from a very high off bore sight angle to the aircrafts centerline. In other words, you don't have to be on the bad guys six o'clock, you look at the aircraft you want to shoot, and the missiles targeting system tells you when it has a viable solution, that will allow the missile to maneuver itself to a Kill?? Then you fire it and forget it, the missile will do the rest.​

​

 

[Air Force Brat]

In my opinion, Stealth is over hyped, Pierre Sprey says stealth aircraft have very delicate skins, this means to work as the A-10, they are simply useless,
If you believe western historians since the 1980s most F-15s (around 3 F-15 have been shot down in combat according to them) these were downed by SAMs, same are F-16, F-14s and Tornadoes.
The only exception has been a F-18 downed in 1991 by a MiG-25.




In the case of stealth aircraft vs stealth aircraft, you have smaller detection ranges, forcing the fighters to fight closer, but stealth reduces maneuverability, this means you need Thrust vectoring to reduce the effect of lesser optimized configurations (this includes F-35 and T-50), of course, people think stealth aircraft do not have given up any aerodynamic advantages, but in the case of these aircraft, they are large, heavier and their lines do not smooth out and blend in the way a pure aerodynamic machine does.

In your opinion??? oh your's and Pierre Sprey's,??? to be very blunt 787 your opinion flys in the face of the United States Air Force, United States Navy, United States Marine Corp, Australia, United Kingdom, Norway, Italy and blah, blah, blah, blah all of our partners, China, Japan, and the Russians, whose T-50 has failed to replicate the F-22s L/O. oh and you're not biased here at all are you, just simply wrong!

Oh and for your own comfort, you and your buddy Pierre can sing, "you and me against the world"??

In your vague reference to our aircraft losses, please post official links to those accident reports, in order to establish a baseline of truth, or else don't post such nonsense?? I do realize we lost an F-18, but just for fun, post a link to that please, so that we may understand under what circumstances the Mig-25 got the drop on the F-18?

Since the F-22 is the stealthiest fighter aircraft of record, and also the most maneuverable, please give us an official US report substantiating your nonsensical claim that stealth aircraft sacrifice maneuverability? Here again, you are wrong

Now the T-50 may very well end up being the most agile fighter of all time, once they have fully addressed the structural cracking and issues that continue to crop up, and you are likely using the T-50 as part of your rational?? But an airplane that in the process of being beat on??? continues to break and crack cannot be said to be superior to an aircraft that has proven itself "very robust", whether it is the SU-35 or the F-22?? both very strong, agile aircraft with a proven record.

 

[Jeff Head]

Well, this does not specifically touch on the specifics of Air Combat Maneuverability, but it does relate to the ability regarding more advanced aircraft because every nation on earth who can try and develop 5th generation stealth is trying to do so.

Many of those who cannot, are buying it from those who can.

Those who cannot afford to do that, are looking to develop or buy 4+ generation aircraft.

The US (who already have two 5th generation stealth aircraft operational and have built and deployed over 300 5th gen stealth aircraft), China (who now has ten 5th gen stealth aircraft - 9 prototypes and one apparent production model. J-20 (9), J-31 (1)), Russia, (who has five prototype stealth aircraft), Japan, India, and South Korea all have their own 5th generation stealth aircraft programs at one degree of development or another. Japan will probably be the next nation to fly one, albeit a technology demonstrator.

A number of western countries have partnered with the US in the development of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter 5th generation stealth aircraft and have helped (to one degree or another) fund it and develop it. Of the original eight countries that partnered with the US (Australia, Canada, Denmark, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Turkey, the United Kingdom) , five of those nations have already received one or more of their first aircraft and are flying and testing them...that's the UK, Netherlands, Norway, Australia, and Italy.. In addition, two of the three foreign customers, Israel, Japan, and the Republic of Korea, will be receiving their first aircraft in 2016.

So, by the end of 2016, you will have all of the following countries flying the F-35A or F-35B

The US (All three branches have numerous aircraft now and the Marines have IOC)
The UK
The Netherlands
Australia
Norway
Italy
Japan
South Korea
Israel

The argument against the F-35 in particular or waxing very old...and at this point, disproven. The orders and the progress speaks for themselves.

When you add in Russia and China, it means that in 2016 there will be eleven countries fluing 5th generation stealth aircraft of five varieties...nine of which will be flying the F-35.

US - F-22 and F-35
UK - F-35
Australia - F-35
Russia - PAK FA
Netherlands - F-35
Japan - F-35 and its ATD-X
South Korea - F-35
China - J-20 and J-31
Norway - F-35
Italy - F-35
Israel - F-35

The technology and its impact is going to do nothing but continue to expand and seriously impact air combat over the next several decades.

Pretty impressive when taken altogether.

 

[Brumby]

In my opinion, Stealth is over hyped, Pierre Sprey says stealth aircraft have very delicate skins, this means to work as the A-10, they are simply useless,

Your statement is simply an approach of throwing a bunch of mud and hoping some will stick. For example :

(i)Fallacious appeal to authority. Pierre Sprey may be the designer of the F-16 but that doesn't make him an expert on stealth

(ii)Expressing an opinion that stealth is over hyped doesn't necessarily make it so. You actually have to justify your statement with substance. So what is it?

(iii)Stealth may have delicate skin and probably requires it for its features. Hence?

(iv)The biggest problem is the equalization to the A-10. No doubt the A-10 is the supremo in CAS in the 90's and in a low threat environment. It probably cost only 1/4 per hour to operate than the F-35. Against a number of metrics in CAS, the F-35 vs. A-10 will be unfavourable. Firstly, in rebuttal I would say that the A-10 is designed primarily for CAS and so it should excel but it can't perform in a high threat environment as it would not be survivable. I don't agree with the USAF decision to retire the A-10 because it still has its place. Putting the F-35 vs. A-10 into the pot is conflating the issues between funding, utility and future threats.

i know this is not going to be accepted for those who love stealth aircraft, but it is a reality, in close support the A-10 and Su-25 are better.

Provided the area is first sanitized before calling them in. It is horses for courses.

If you believe western historians since the 1980s most F-15s (around 3 F-15 have been shot down in combat according to them) these were downed by SAMs, same are F-16, F-14s and Tornadoes.


The only exception has been a F-18 downed in 1991 by a MiG-25.

Your historical facts (assuming they are right) affirms the advantage of having stealth from the standpoint of a lower RCS profile from detection and lock-on.

Sprey also say most stealth fighters can not remain hidden, he says you need to ID the opposition, electronic ID is not always 100% fool proof so you need to get close.

The ID issue has also troubled me because ROE's to ID and maintaining standoff seems contradictory. I would only say that the requirement for ID is subject to a number of avenues including IFF, electronic (EID), EO, and not necessarily just visually (VID). Without knowing specific ROE's and CONOP's it is hard to conclude how this tension is satisfactorily resolved. Additionally I am aware of a classified technology employed known as Non Cooperative Target Recognition (NCTR) that was first featured in the F-15C. Basically, NCTR compares radar returns from the target's fan and turbine blades with those stored in an on-board library. As radar waves bounce off those blades, they carry with them a signature that can be compared to those stored in the library, allowing the threat type to be accurately identified (source: Page 12, F-15C Eagle Units in Combat, Osprey Combat Aircraft)

Several radar and SAM makers claim they can detect Stealth aircraft,

Firstly as you said it is a claim. Secondly, stealth is not about non detection but capability to operate inside a threat bubble.

further more you have the issue stealth reduces the weapons load the aircraft can carry, you have to add, their missiles have clipped wings, their AIM-120 have tiny wings,

I presume you have heard of decoupling sensor and shooter. Stealth allows deeper sensor penetration into the threat bubble and providing shooter with the targeting information operating from standoff distances in an expanded battlespace concept.

missiles have not a 100% kill rate.

What has 100 % certainty besides death? How does lack of 100% degrade stealth?

In the case of stealth aircraft vs stealth aircraft, you have smaller detection ranges, forcing the fighters to fight closer, but stealth reduces maneuverability, this means you need Thrust vectoring to reduce the effect of lesser optimized configurations (this includes F-35 and T-50), of course, people think stealth aircraft do not have given up any aerodynamic advantages, but in the case of these aircraft, they are large, heavier and their lines do not smooth out and blend in the way a pure aerodynamic machine does.

The future is in spectrum warfare i.e. RW, EO and IR and hence the concept of spectrum domination. The idea is not just about RCS but the whole spectrum that will generate an edge in air combat besides the supporting assets that will be brought into the fight. The standoff ranges for future fights will be a function of ever inter changing advancement in sensor range across the spectrum. Additionally, there are many ways to skin a cat like developing more reliable and effective AAM's.

 

[Air Force Brat]

View attachment 23527

Aircraft design is always about tradeoffs and more importantly an aircraft effective lifespan from end to end (design to service end) may span a s much as 50 to 60 years. The question is what kind of air to air combat can we expect in the next 30 to 40 years because the platform today is to equip for future combat and not air combat that we know of in the past. If WVR combat becomes close to being extinct and primary defence against AAM's are ECM and lasers, what place does maneuverability have in the equation? If the off chance scenario warrants some kind of BVR maneuvers, there is such thing as HMS and high off bored shots.

If you are a proponent of super maneuvering, I would ask that you defend the need of it against modern air to air combat statistics and continuing trends that it is still an important component of aircraft design.
View attachment 23528

..... and that was 25 years ago.

View attachment 23529

I continue to be a big fan of super-maneuverable aircraft as defined by the aerodynamically superior F-22, SU-27-SU-35, J-11B through J-16, J-20, F-18 and yes even the F-35, Typhoon, Rafael, etc, etc, which are all very departure resistant and easily recovered? These aircraft are not dependant on OVT or Thrust Vectoring for their supermaneuverability?

 

[Air Force Brat]

View attachment 23527

Aircraft design is always about tradeoffs and more importantly an aircraft effective lifespan from end to end (design to service end) may span a s much as 50 to 60 years. The question is what kind of air to air combat can we expect in the next 30 to 40 years because the platform today is to equip for future combat and not air combat that we know of in the past. If WVR combat becomes close to being extinct and primary defence against AAM's are ECM and lasers, what place does maneuverability have in the equation? If the off chance scenario warrants some kind of BVR maneuvers, there is such thing as HMS and high off bored shots.

If you are a proponent of super maneuvering, I would ask that you defend the need of it against modern air to air combat statistics and continuing trends that it is still an important component of aircraft design.
View attachment 23528

..... and that was 25 years ago.

View attachment 23529

Heh! Heh! Heh! What?? did you get a new pencil sharpener for Christmas??? well let me be a little obnoxious before addressing your concerns with direct quotes from my old man, Air Force C-130 IP and Supply Officer, and General Tight-Wad, he always claimed to be Scottish in order to justify his frugality?? turns out we are more likely Teutonic/Swiss.

Quote 1 "Liars figure, and figures Lie!"
Quote 2 "Go with what you Got!"

I am a proponent of super-maneuverability, and no it does not require TVC, but, since my position is the "status quo" in the USAF, and all our partner Air Forces, it is YOU sir, not I who need to defend your own 3G aircraft, and make a case that anyone should be worried about air combat 50-60 years in the future???

To start, the 7-9G fighter aircraft is the "industry standard", what is going to happen when you slam that poor little "ultra light" onto an aircraft carrier deck??? I'm having trouble with stresses and cracking with my 7 G airplane now, and will have to re-engineer, replace or repair the main bulkhead in my F-35B, an aircraft which you state in the F-35 thread is "well designed".

Going further, what will happen when the bad guy in a J-20/T-50 or whatever are on your six and get a "missile lock" on your aircraft??? are you going for broke trying to "break that Lock" or are you just gonna "take your medicine". Either way, in your 3G bird, you are "dead meat"?

Finally, your 3G bird is not going to last your requisite 50-60 years?? it just isn't??

We've been through the whole Metric of WVR combat is out of date? and we don't need a gun "ad nauseam", and still we keep having to come back to the robust, maneuverable aircraft, with its gun to do the job.

As a final thought, we are 115 years into the history of flight, the C-130, B-52, and Tu-95, are still in service and still ably performing their missions with up-grades, but they are transports and bombers?? even though some third string air-forces may be operating old fighters, they are old fighters that are no longer competitive in the real world of peers,and near peers.

and for my PS, the study you quoted only affirms my statement that agile fighters will require a vertical stabilizer to remain competitive in the real world of air-combat. Fighter aircraft development has in the past, and likely will in the future continue on a relatively "linear" pathway, with incremental advancements in airframes and weapons.


I opened this thread about ACM in order to learn a little something about how effective modern AAM actually are, and if in fact ACM can/will give us an opportunity to survive in the currently very hostile environment of AAM and SAM? Feel free to exercise your flights of fancy, and design for future fighters, but please indulge me a little when it comes to your thoughts of the threat, and defeating that threat? thanks much Brat