Air Combat Maneuvering Thread

[Brumby]

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??

There are three key underlying premises in my view and so they must be understood as a contextual reference.
Firstly, the notion of choices in a design that are tradeoffs. Secondly the notion of competitive edge that will likely drive an outcome in any future air to air engagement. Finally, the likely trend of future engagements.

The question is what would be a clear choice when faced with a decision between stealth or maneuverability (not having both). It is not whether maneuverability is important or necessary. In my view, I would take stealth any day because I would get the first shot as stealth gives me a competitive edge every time there is an air to air engagement. It is a statistical fact that PK's on BVR are improving. Ongoing trends suggest BVR will dominate because of development in sensor range and AAM. Technological developments are geared towards even more potent AAM. The unknown is how lasers would change this equation. Philosophically, BVR will be the dominant engagement and you want to tactically position an aerial asset that would give you the edge in such an engagement rather than in exceptions.

Theoretically, an LRSB armed with a truckload of long range AAM's and defensive lasers operating at sub sonic speed can take on a whole air wing of super maneuverable non stealthy adversaries.

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.

BVR received bad press during the Vietnam era because long range AAM's were unreliable and so the PK's were poor. However the trend and PK's are clear where the future is.

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.

Take the example of the B-52's. They are excellent work horse and are still useful for certain missions but they are not survivable in a non permissive environment unless operating from standoff range. The difference between it and a B-2 is stealth.

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 have never disputed all the excellent features that goes into a fighter design are not necessary. My only point is when faced with design choices, I would say stealth takes precedent over maneuverability.

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

I apologise if the conversation on stealth has taken the main topic off course. I agree with Scratch's post #12 that there are so many variables that it is impossible to conclude to what extend maneuvering as a counter measure is sufficient to escape a lock. It requires a combination of counter measures in an attempt to escape and even with that, we know the chances are less than 50 % as evident by the PK's. Hence the ultimate edge is first shoot and that comes with stealth. However with lasers, intuitively the game changes somewhat but makes maneuvering even more redundant as you can't out maneuver light.

 

[b787]

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.​

you are wrong, thrust vectoring reduces the area surface of the aerodynamic controls, if you look at PAKFA you notice it has very small twin vertical fins, that is thanks to 3D thrust vectoring, why? it is because it reduces the deflection needed and area needed of the aerodynamic controls.

the 2D thrust vectoring nozzels in F-22 are used to pitch up or down the nose reducing the deflection of its horizontal tail, this reduction in deflection and area reduces drag and increases LO in both PAKFA and F-22

 

[b787]

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.

Brat, your attitude is not open,

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Just look at how fat is the F-35, it is as big in frontal area as an F-15 and as heavy as a fully loaded F-15

compare it to the F-16, it has smaller wings and it is much much fatter compared to the F-16`s proportions

Stealth always increases the volume and weight due the need to carry weapons inside the fuselage, this increases drag.

Compare the 9 tonnes F-16 versus the 13 tonnes of the F-35, you do not want to acknowledge F-35 is much much heavier and any advantage it has in drag by not carrying weapons on external hard points, it is lost by frontal area.

The F-16 is much much maneuverable, it has been proven, F-35 is a fighter dependent upon electronics, yes it depends upon the idea the enemy radars won`t work and its electronics will.

But as aerodynamics is concerned Pierre Sprey is right, it is a turkey, it is a modern F-105

 

[b787]

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.






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




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.




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




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.

To understand the success of the American aircraft in air to air combat we have to see the political situation.

Since 1990, the Russians stop supporting Communism worldwide, in the 1950s to the 1980s, the Soviet Union sponsored anti western regimes and wars.

In the 1950s who do you think paid for the MiG-15s used by China and North Korea?

Who do you think paid for the MiG-21s used by North Vietnam?
During the gulf war in 1991, Russia did not support Iraq, and the same was Serbia, Russia did not help Serbia.
From 1990 onward, the very few air to air combats that happened most of them were without Russian help.

In 1991, the Iraqi aircraft lost were around 50 aircraft and the US coalition around 44 aircraft, the difference is Western sources claim all the Iraqi losses were air to air loses and the US loses were due to SAMs.

Remains of F-16C #87-0257 from the 614th Tactical Fighter Squadron 'Lucky Devils', shot down over Iraq during Operation Desert Storm.

In Serbia in 1999, Serbia had no AWACS and it was overwhelmed by numbers.

But still managed to down a F-117

So your statistics do not take into account first what the other side claims neither the difference in support the air forces enjoyed.

The close combat air support does not require stealth in conflicts like Afghanistan or even Syria, however a truly advance threat wil require S-400s, Su-35s or MiG-35s, this does not exist except by Russia or China.

So it is unlikely the F-35 will enjoy the advantages the F-15 enjoyed over Iraq since even Russia has not problem attacking ISIS.

 

[Brumby]

The F-16 is much much maneuverable, it has been proven, F-35 is a fighter dependent upon electronics, yes it depends upon the idea the enemy radars won`t work and its electronics will.

You should take up your own advice by being more open to the issues that are relevant and not those that might favor your argument. Radar science is not some abstract idea nor ambiguous in application. A fact that is hardly disputable is that the lower the RCS profile, the greater is the detection range. It is not about an idea that the enemy radar doesn't work because that would be a function of chance and not science. The aim of conflict resolution is to ensure that the other side is functionally incapacitated. Being maneuverable doesn't give you the desire outcome when the other side has stealth because the competitive advantage resides in the latter and not the former. You build the next generation airframe to win the next fight - period.

But as aerodynamics is concerned Pierre Sprey is right, it is a turkey, it is a modern F-105

Pierre Sprey to me is like the one who designed the battleship and argues that the aircraft carrier can't fight because it doesn't have powerful guns and it lacks proper armour plating in a slug fist against a battleship. If you take the metrics on the basis of guns and armour plating the conclusion would be that the aircraft carrier is a turkey and Pierre Sprey is right except he would loose the war. There is a reason why the battleship is now found only in museums because the nature of conflict has changed.

 

[b787]

Pierre Sprey to me is like the one who designed the battleship and argues that the aircraft carrier can't fight because it doesn't have powerful guns and it lacks proper armour plating in a slug fist against a battleship. If you take the metrics on the basis of guns and armour plating the conclusion would be that the aircraft carrier is a turkey and Pierre Sprey is right except he would loose the war. There is a reason why the battleship is now found only in museums because the nature of conflict has changed.

he says

and what did happen?

U.S. Air Force's most sophisticated stealth jet is beaten in dogfight by plane from 1970s... despite being the most expensive weapon in history

• The F-35 stealth jet has already cost the military more than $350billion
• But in a mock battle it was outperformed by an F-16 designed in the 1970s
• F-35 test pilot said new plane was too cumbersome to dodge enemy fire
• He deemed it totally inappropriate for fighting aircraft within visual range

Read more:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Follow us:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

|

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

So basically what he said a few years ago was true, it was proven last year

 

[Brumby]

he says

and what did happen?

So basically what he said a few years ago was true, it was proven last year

My simple answer would be, so what even if it is true? I believe that narrative is not true but I will not muddle the water because it is irrelevant.

You are repeating what you have said earlier. I have already given my rebuttal. Your job is to offer defeaters to my rebuttal and not repeat the same line.

 

[b787]

My simple answer would be, so what even if it is true? I believe that narrative is not true but I will not muddle the water because it is irrelevant.

You are repeating what you have said earlier. I have already given my rebuttal. Your job is to offer defeaters to my rebuttal and not repeat the same line.

you did not show the F-35 is an agile aircraft it is not.

F-35 bases its philosophy in DAS and stealth

You are just repeating the Lockheed narrative that dogfights are over, however the USAF is not worry because both China and Russia are behind in numbers, China is way behind in numbers, the F-16 out number the J-10 and the same is the F-18Es and F-15s they out number J-11s, the Russian are not different they only operate a few MiG-29s, less than 250 and around 400 Su-27s, most of them are old aircraft with only less than 250 new aircraft, among them 48+ Su-35s, a few MiG-29Ks and MiG-29SMT and few Su-34s and Su-30SMs.

Both China and Russia have less than 20 T-50s, J-31s and J-20s,; while the US has more than 200 F-35s and F-22s.

So what you say is based upon the idea. once the T-50 and J-20 are deployed in numbers the 6th generation fighter will be deployed.

Is the F-35 a fighter? no it is not, it is one of the worse aircraft the US has built in terms of aerodynamics, but as long as the F-22 outnumber the T-50, and China can not power their J-20 with a decent engine, well F-35 will be worth as a export monkey model for US allies who might only face inferior fighters like old Su-27s or Mirage 2000s

 

[Air Force Brat]

There are three key underlying premises in my view and so they must be understood as a contextual reference.
Firstly, the notion of choices in a design that are tradeoffs. Secondly the notion of competitive edge that will likely drive an outcome in any future air to air engagement. Finally, the likely trend of future engagements.

The question is what would be a clear choice when faced with a decision between stealth or maneuverability (not having both). It is not whether maneuverability is important or necessary. In my view, I would take stealth any day because I would get the first shot as stealth gives me a competitive edge every time there is an air to air engagement. It is a statistical fact that PK's on BVR are improving. Ongoing trends suggest BVR will dominate because of development in sensor range and AAM. Technological developments are geared towards even more potent AAM. The unknown is how lasers would change this equation. Philosophically, BVR will be the dominant engagement and you want to tactically position an aerial asset that would give you the edge in such an engagement rather than in exceptions.

Theoretically, an LRSB armed with a truckload of long range AAM's and defensive lasers operating at sub sonic speed can take on a whole air wing of super maneuverable non stealthy adversaries.


BVR received bad press during the Vietnam era because long range AAM's were unreliable and so the PK's were poor. However the trend and PK's are clear where the future is.
View attachment 23558

View attachment 23559


Take the example of the B-52's. They are excellent work horse and are still useful for certain missions but they are not survivable in a non permissive environment unless operating from standoff range. The difference between it and a B-2 is stealth.


I have never disputed all the excellent features that goes into a fighter design are not necessary. My only point is when faced with design choices, I would say stealth takes precedent over maneuverability.



I apologise if the conversation on stealth has taken the main topic off course. I agree with Scratch's post #12 that there are so many variables that it is impossible to conclude to what extend maneuvering as a counter measure is sufficient to escape a lock. It requires a combination of counter measures in an attempt to escape and even with that, we know the chances are less than 50 % as evident by the PK's. Hence the ultimate edge is first shoot and that comes with stealth. However with lasers, intuitively the game changes somewhat but makes maneuvering even more redundant as you can't out maneuver light.

Well, to begin with your "notion" flies in the face of current practice, and that practice is that maneuverability and L/O are minimum standards for manned combat aircraft, that is why we are building the F-35 as very L/O, and very maneuverable!

Choices are for tea or coffee?? not combat aircraft where you are sending someone into a very hostile environment, such as Syria, witness the consequences for the young Jordanian Pilot? NOT ACCEPTABLE.

Looking at your hypothetical LRSB against overwhelming odds- once you begin to dispence those AAMs, you have blown your cover, and an SU-35 with a gun will spoil all your fun??

Finally your last supposition of over 50% PK is against 4 gen aircraft, will that same PK translate accurately against the B-2, F-22, or F-35? What about the J-20?? I rather doubt that it will, although as I have stated, a positive LOCK-ON is gonna be nearly impossible to achieve, but if for whatever reason that Lock On is achieved, then things are gonna go down hill for you?

Finally as I stated earlier, progress in aircraft, and AAMs has continued in a very linear fashion, our current course of action is to design and produce aircraft incorporating both L/O and super-maneuverability. I will point out once again, that the F-35 is a much safer airplane when pushed to and past its limits than the F-16.

In any regard we can see that the F-35 has a much greater chance of survivability with both L/O, and the ability to maneuver, and current fighter dogma says that is what is required to survive today, and into the future on the modern battlefield. I would honestly be much happier with the F-22, and by the time the 6th gen is fleshed out, that should be an even happier airplane??? LOL

 

[Air Force Brat]

You should take up your own advice by being more open to the issues that are relevant and not those that might favor your argument. Radar science is not some abstract idea nor ambiguous in application. A fact that is hardly disputable is that the lower the RCS profile, the greater is the detection range. It is not about an idea that the enemy radar doesn't work because that would be a function of chance and not science. The aim of conflict resolution is to ensure that the other side is functionally incapacitated. Being maneuverable doesn't give you the desire outcome when the other side has stealth because the competitive advantage resides in the latter and not the former. You build the next generation airframe to win the next fight - period.


Pierre Sprey to me is like the one who designed the battleship and argues that the aircraft carrier can't fight because it doesn't have powerful guns and it lacks proper armour plating in a slug fist against a battleship. If you take the metrics on the basis of guns and armour plating the conclusion would be that the aircraft carrier is a turkey and Pierre Sprey is right except he would loose the war. There is a reason why the battleship is now found only in museums because the nature of conflict has changed.

Righto!