Is agile, manuverable aircraft relevent in the era of advanced avainoics and BVR Miss

Re: Is agile, manuverable aircraft relevent in the era of advanced avainoics and BVR

Jon K said:

Well, agile fighter aircraft looks better in the airshows, for starters. But really, I don't think manouverability does matter much in modern air combat. For starters, gunfighting is dead, and with helmet sights and off-boresight engagement capabilities even dogfights have more to do with sensor capabilities and weapon performance than ability to make cool looking tight turns.

What difference does an aircraft make in a BVR missile engagement? If the missile is already getting closer to you it is emitted signature and/or jamming capability which has significance. No manned aircraft can really evade modern missiles. With coming of UCAV's the evading manouevers have a new life.

With this in mind, if we could equip a MiG-21 with all the modern gizmos it would be about as effective as modern fighter. The real question is, whether this would be profitable or not? Aircraft modernization is not often worth it due to fact, that old airframes often do not have much flight time left in them. That makes investment them not profitable. Other facts are, that due to newer designs new aircraft often have lower operating costs, more possibilites to install new electronics modules etc.

The real revolution is, IMHO, networking capability. Sensors and launch platforms do not have to be in same physical location, which means new chances for ground launched SAM's, as well as it opens possibility of operating , for example, airborne missile trucks with no sensor capability of its own etc.
Possibilities are almost endless and I think we have seen almost nothing yet.

The wild cards are new generation SAM's and various directed energy weapons. In the age when airframes cost enormous sums and price margin between AAM's and SAM's are reducing, SAM's may well become primary air combat weapons.

Click to expand...

My question again was ...if we add all these sensors to new light aircraft rather than the super duper $100 doller a piece aircraft, would it not achive the same level of kill? The big aircraft with two engine having big RCS is severly disadvantage here than a light wight aircraft....

If we can discuss without F-22, which everyone here is at awe!!!

Let say we comparing rafale, eurofighter, SU30 and f-7 or whatever new light frame with all the gizmo that the new fifth generation of fighter has.........still no stealth.

To MAKE IT EASIER (shielding the usaf and west), LET SAY THE FIGHT IS B/N THIRD WORLD CONUTNRIES.

Re: Is agile, manuverable aircraft relevent in the era of advanced avainoics and BVR

I think this is the right time to resurrect this thread......Now that we have venuzula and columbia....waiting to go at each other, we can have some meaningful discussion.

As we know Venuzual has SU-30 MK, the supermanuvareble aircraft on one side.......and columbian KFIR C-10, basically a old airframe stuffed with latest electronics, ....... what do you think about the fight here.

Re: Is agile, manuverable aircraft relevent in the era of advanced avainoics and BVR

Radar guided BVR missiles are the ones that are most vulnerable to being spoofed at, when an aircraft combines both RCS reduction and ECM measures against it. ECM as a technology has also improved considerably these days.

HOBS missiles matched with helmet sights are the ones much harder to counter, at least for the time being. But the use of IIR also means introducing new ways to spoof at it, like changing the way an aircraft would appear to an IIR receiver so that it is unrecognizable. Then give each of the same aircraft a uniquely different pattern, making stored results unusable with each and every aircraft.

As for missiles being "invincible", no such thing. You have to understand the flight basics of a missile. It only boosts for a few seconds, the rest is free flight out of inertia and momentum. The longer it flies, the lesser the chances it will achieve its kill. The aircraft has the advantage of being able to restore and renew its energy, and it has much greater potential store, all due to its engines.

So in order to increase the flight time and flight distance of a missile, the target has to continually maneuver. By extension, an aircraft with greater maneuverbility will have greater chances of surviving a missile attack than an aircraft with less. Note I said "chances" not a guarantee. Even if you have a small chance, you need to take it.

Every potential missile evasive move, such as turning tail, or do the beam maneuver, always entails maneuverbility. Again no guarantee, but its always better to have that option than without.

As for Columbia and Venenzuela, the Su-30MKVs would eat the Kfirs alive.

Re: Is agile, manuverable aircraft relevent in the era of advanced avainoics and BVR

Corbato,

If we look at the time period of development of Supermanuverable aircraft, they had developed for the single pupose of Dog-fight, which is becoming a thing of the past due to development of spohisticated sensors, avaionics and not least HOBS and HMDS.

No doubt manuverability brings smal chance in evasive action and pointing the nose, but is it the game changing in the current scenario of rapid strides in Sensors??


Again the other Fighter is not sloth, it is after all a fighter. Which brings us to the point that the SUper manuverable fighter has to make full use of its manuverability in each engagement. This reminds me of those $1000 AV reciver cable whose output is so fine that we cannot distinguish, unless sophisticated instrument is used to measure, from ordinary cable.

"We don't see a history of high-g maneuvering in recent engagements," says one industry analyst. "It's fun to practice but unwise to pursue."

A third lesson is that WVR is an equalizer. "An F-5 or a MiG-21 with a high-off-boresight missile and HMD is as capable in a 1-v-1 as an F-22," comments a former navy fighter pilot, now a civilian program manager. "In visual combat, everybody dies at the same rate," says RAND's Lambeth.

Click to expand...

Atleast I did not expect

the Su-30MKVs would eat the Kfirs alive

Click to expand...

, but a reasonable analysis of why?

Re: Is agile, manuverable aircraft relevent in the era of advanced avainoics and BVR

Titanium said:

Corbato,

If we look at the time period of development of Supermanuverable aircraft, they had developed for the single pupose of Dog-fight, which is becoming a thing of the past due to development of spohisticated sensors, avaionics and not least HOBS and HMDS.

No doubt manuverability brings smal chance in evasive action and pointing the nose, but is it the game changing in the current scenario of rapid strides in Sensors??

Click to expand...

I don't think sensors have changed the scenario because for the most part, you are still being governed by physics. Sensors don't change physics, and missiles are not immutable to them either. NEZ or PK zones of missiles change wildly with aspect to the target, as well as with altitudes, speeds, etc,.

Again the other Fighter is not sloth, it is after all a fighter. Which brings us to the point that the SUper manuverable fighter has to make full use of its manuverability in each engagement. This reminds me of those $1000 AV reciver cable whose output is so fine that we cannot distinguish, unless sophisticated instrument is used to measure, from ordinary cable.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Atleast I did not expect , but a reasonable analysis of why?

Click to expand...

To understand what I mean by aspect, if you fire against a target head on; fire sideways against a target on your three or nine; or fire against a target at its six. The percentages are going to seriously differ, with the head on shot the highest percentage, followed by the rear shot, and the side shot the weakest.

I think many people treat missiles like magic bullets when they're not. They are not immune to the laws of physics no matter what the ads want to convince you to believe. Another factor is ECM and countermeasures, they can do havoc on sensors and datalinks, and cut off your situational awareness.

I think one has to view maneuverbility and speed in the total context of energy. To make it simple, the plane with superior energy position tends to win. They have more options to bring them into a firing position, more options to a better energy position against their target, and more options in order to escape or evade an attack. Even when to run away.

The Kfir to begin with is in a serious energy disadvantage over a Flanker, which is not only more maneuverable, but is also flies faster, climbs faster, turns faster and dives faster. The Flanker can also carry and power larger and more sensors, as well as more countermeasures. It will carry more arms, more missiles, more of everything, and not the least fuel. All these share one single factor---energy or simply having more of it to be used in forms both kinetic and electronic.

Super maneuverbility may in fact be overrated as you said, but one thing that is not is speed. Even if you are not the most maneuverable object in the world, you must at least be fast, because speed is the one great counter to agility, and it is also both friend and foe to missiles. Speed gives an energy advantage to your missile and a disadvantage against the other guy's missile.

The Kfir not just turns slower, its slower in a straight line as well, and as I said in other areas that include climb and dive. If it is at least, as fast or faster, it can have a chance.

Re: Is agile, manuverable aircraft relevent in the era of advanced avainoics and BVR

crobato said:

Super maneuverbility may in fact be overrated as you said, but one thing that is not is speed. Even if you are not the most maneuverable object in the world, you must at least be fast, because speed is the one great counter to agility, and it is also both friend and foe to missiles. Speed gives an energy advantage to your missile and a disadvantage against the other guy's missile.
.

Click to expand...

Corbato, After been lurking for about six months on the forum, thats what I expected of you. Thanks for elaborate ans.

Without being locked into Kfir or SU-30, What exactly do the super manuverable aircraft bring to the table, that makes game changing in fight?, not the small chance.

TVC(Manuverability) and HMS (avionics/Missile) tech, both of which introduced by Soviet is any indication, west adopted HMS/HOBS, rather than TVC.

Is that not indictment that Manuverability is though useful not the gamechanger, but HMD/HOBS is?

The Kfir not just turns slower, its slower in a straight line as well, and as I said in other areas that include climb and dive. If it is at least, as fast or faster, it can have a chance

Click to expand...

Note Kafis is Mach 2.2
or just take a case of F-16A with new engine +APG60+AIM9X VS SU-30MKI. (hate to compare the platform, but that is easier)

Here you have supermanuverable aircraft with all power, and other not the one known for supermanuverable, but nonethe less a capable platform.

Now bring all the flanker good things....

The Flanker can also carry and power larger and more sensors, as well as more countermeasures. It will carry more arms, more missiles, more of everything, and not the least fuel. All these share one single factor---energy or simply having more of it.

Click to expand...

Does any of these make it eat viper, WVR or BVR?? Even sum of all the good of flanker will produce a stalment with the Viper!!!

Which again bring me to my original question.....posed starting this thread:

considering new Electronic radars and possibilities of miniaturisation don't you think light fighters with their low RCS are better than more heavy fighters in point defence? what are the chances that a modern aircraft can evade a AAM than a Mig 21?

Click to expand...

Re: Is agile, manuverable aircraft relevent in the era of advanced avainoics and BVR

Lets put it this way.

As an aerial device, the Flanker is a total package. In every department involving kinetics, the Kfir is not just behind, it is seriously behind.

In thrust to weight ratio, the Flanker is at 1.08 at 60% fuel---then that TWR seriously climbs over 1.20 in the course of using it up. What does the Kfir have? Aircraft of that generation is usually around .55 to .75. That is seriously deficient.

That TWR is going to show in all areas related to performance---straight speed, climb, dive, and turn rates.

The Flanker is a generation ahead in aerodynamics. It will use vortice generation to achieve high angles of attacks, which means pointability. The Kfir has nothing of that.

Look at the turn rates. The Flanker is 28 deg instant, at least 22 probably sustained. The MiG-21 which has a faster turn rate than the Mirage III or Kfir, is only around 12 to 14 deg.

The Flanker is going to carry more hardpoints. Which means more missiles can be launched to effect a greater % of kill in case some missiles will miss.

It uses turbofans which accelerate better and is more economically efficient. The Flanker has afterburners that have movable petals that can adjust the stream; the J-79 on the Kfir can't do that. With its fuel reserve, the Flanker has more chances to use its afterburner and keep fighting for a longer time. The Kfir pilot has to keep a careful eye on his fuel gauge. A turbojet + small airframe means small tank which means the fuel will go bingo. You mentioned about its Mach 2.2 capability? The Kfir can only attain that on a clean configuration.

Despite the avionics improvements, the ELTA 2032 on the Kfir C-10 is pretty small. Look at the photographs if you can find one. The radar on the Su-30MKV is honking big, even though its not as efficient, brute power is behind it. Bigger antenna for receptivity, bigger emitter for radar beam that can burn through both distance and ECM.

The Su-30MKV does not need super maneuverbility because it already has other factors---like dash-speed---in favor of it.

I would also side the Venenzuelan pilots too. They are all US trained on the F-16A, and have even participated with Nellis Red Flag exercises. You can expect these pilots to be flying the MKV.

F-16A with AIM-9X and JHCMS is a different matter, if you want to bring up the Pakistan issue. Compared to the Kfir, the F-16A is much faster.

considering new Electronic radars and possibilities of miniaturisation don't you think light fighters with their low RCS are better than more heavy fighters in point defence? what are the chances that a modern aircraft can evade a AAM than a Mig 21?

Click to expand...

It would be more efficient if you use a long range air defense SAM. Costs much less, and much more survivable too.

And in small scale wars, countries don't usually have (or afford) the resources for SAM suppression.

Re: Is agile, manuverable aircraft relevent in the era of advanced avainoics and BVR

Titanium said:

What are the chances that a modern aircraft can evade a AAM than a Mig 21?

As the saying goes what difference does Aircraft make when you are facing each other BVR Missile?

Click to expand...

Here is why you still need agile fighters that are good in a knife fight. In any general engagement, sooner or later, the missiles run out. When that happens you are left with dogfights, up close and personal with 20 mic mic, or whatever else they are armed with.

The US learned this in Vietnam with the F-4 which was filled with missiles, but had no gun. When the missiles ran out, they had to leave. If they did not get all of the MIGs they had to leave the MIGs in control of the airspace.

Same holds today.

Yes low RCS is important, yes, a full load of missiles (mixing BVR with closer in missiles) is important...but agility and a gun are also still important because once the missiles are gone, that is what you are left with.

...and in any major engagement of the future, there are apt to be engagements where one side soaks up the missiles and still has enough aircraf left over to make a fight of it.

Just my opinnion.

Re: Is agile, manuverable aircraft relevent in the era of advanced avainoics and BVR

Supermanueverability is a bonus, IMO, in modern air combat. It is a nice thing to have but victory in an air contest depends on who has the electronic superiority. The ability to "see" the battlefield, which allows you to prepare the battlefield, which allows you to fight your fight not the enemies, is much more important the the ability to do aerobatic stunts.

The majority of air to air kills (WWI to present) occurred through ambushes, where one side did not know the enemy has targeted them until one of them blows up. If you look at this prism, a dog fight occurs when the attacker has screwed up his attack, allowing the defender to defend himself through hard manuever.



The Israelis also demonstrated considerable technical prowess in command, control, and communications (C3). The Bekaa Valley battle was the first combat involving the use of modern airborne warning and control system (AWACS) aircraft, specifically, the US-made Grumman E-2C Hawkeye. The AWACS is an airborne radar platform responsible for vectoring fighters to their targets and managing the overall air battle situation.32 The E-2C has an APS-125 radar mounted in a "dish" above the fuselage, with which it can scan 3 million cubic miles of airspace. It can monitor over 200 aircraft simultaneously and control up to 130 separate air-to-air engagements at ranges up to 250 miles.33 In addition, the E-2C includes an ALR-59 passive detection system that can pick up radar signals 500 miles away, effectively doubling the Hawkeye's early detection range.34 This capability enabled the IAF to detect Syrian aircraft as they took off, allowing it to determine how many hostile aircraft were inbound and from what direction.35 The Israelis also used F-15s in the rear as "mini-AWACS" to help manage air-to-air engagements.36 This overall Israeli AWACS capability allowed the IAF to vector its fighters into "blindside" attacks on the Syrian MiGs, which had only nose- and tail-threat warning receivers to warn the pilot of a missile attack. SAF pilots were thus denied any advance warning of an attack by the IAF's all-aspect AIM-9Ls or AIM-7Fs; the latter could be fired well beyond visual range.37 Israeli aircraft could thus fire shots at their Syrian opponents--often undetected from launch until impact--and deny the Syrians any opportunity to evade or return fire.

The IAF worked to obstruct Syrian C3 while enhancing its own, making especially effective use of modified Boeing 707s. These aircraft were equipped with standoff jammers capable of disrupting several enemy frequencies at once with very little out-of-phase disturbance, thereby minimizing self-jamming of frequencies used by the IDF.38 Effective jamming of Syrian communications and radar systems cut off SAF MiGs from ground control, leaving them isolated and vulnerable to AWACS-directed attacks from F-15s and F-16s.39The result was chaos within the Syrian formations. According to one Western military observer, "I watched a group of Syrian fighter planes fly figure-eights. They just flew around and around and obviously had no idea what to do next."


Three lessons of special relevance to the United States may be drawn from the Bekaa Valley battle. First is the overwhelming importance of winning the war in the fourth dimension (i.e., electronic warfare and C3). It is generally accepted today that to win the land and sea battle, a fighting force must first control the air. This concept--revolutionary in its genesis--was demonstrated numerous times in World War II and subsequent conflicts. Now, in order to win the air battle, one must first conquer the electromagnetic spectrum. What used to be "a minor side show to the real battles that raged on the land, on the sea, or in the air" is now a prerequisite for modern warfighting.60 The Bekaa Valley has shown that an effective electronic warfighting capability is no longer a luxury, but a necessity.

Re: Is agile, manuverable aircraft relevent in the era of advanced avainoics and BVR

IDonT said:

...but victory in an air contest depends on who has the electronic superiority.

Click to expand...

I agree that electronics is critical to allowing a modern fighter to win in the air, particualry in any missile engagement.

But, in any major conflict where large numbers of aircraft were invovled seeking air superiority over any particular area...once the missiles are used up, it comes down to being able to continue to press the attack (or defense) and mix it up close in with manueverability and guns...in a knife fight.

I believe that a modern aircraft has to have both to cover this eventuality...and it will allow a force that does have it to have an advantage in the end over a force that does not. They must also have the electronics and good missiles to get to that stage.