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

This is exactly what I had in mind when starting the topic and RAAF assesment seems to agree

The defence spokesman says Super Hornets will be equipped with the world's best radar, the advanced AIM-9X and AIM-120 missiles AMRAAM and a helmet cueing system.

That means missiles can be fired in the direction the pilot is looking.

"Modern lethal weapons render any aircraft performance measure irrelevant if it does not enable first shot," he said.

Click to expand...

Do you agree with the above statement???? If not, please provide reason.

Obtaining a Firing Solution

The key to understanding the argument given by the RAAF, lies in reading between the lines. They are not claiming that aircraft performance is inconsequential. Quite the opposite. What they are saying is that the only performance measures that really matter are those that enable a first shot (assuming of course that this first shot is within the assured-kill zone for the weapon being used).

In a BVR contest, the performance measures of greatest merit will all be related to specific excess power (energy). The ability of an airplane to position itself on the battlefield, and provide itself with the greatest likelihood for obtaining a firing solution, can be related back to how quickly it can change speed, direction and altitude. This was the real objective behind the "supercruise" capability of the F-22 Raptor. It's not just about how fast an airplane can go. It's about how quickly it can accelerate, and recover any lost energy, to position itself for maximum likelihood of obtaining a kill.

In a WVR contest, both traditional performance measures - turn rate and specific excess power - still matter. But only to the extent that they allow an airplane to position itself for maximum advantage. We are not talking about classic, turn-onto-his-tail dogfights like you see in the movies. It's about putting your opponent within the kill envelope of your own missiles without placing yourself within his kill zone.

Re: Obtaining a Firing Solution

unknauthr said:

The key to understanding the argument given by the RAAF, lies in reading between the lines. They are not claiming that aircraft performance is inconsequential. Quite the opposite. What they are saying is that the only performance measures that really matter are those that enable a first shot (assuming of course that this first shot is within the assured-kill zone for the weapon being used).

In a BVR contest, the performance measures of greatest merit will all be related to specific excess power (energy). The ability of an airplane to position itself on the battlefield, and provide itself with the greatest likelihood for obtaining a firing solution, can be related back to how quickly it can change speed, direction and altitude. This was the real objective behind the "supercruise" capability of the F-22 Raptor. It's not just about how fast an airplane can go. It's about how quickly it can accelerate, and recover any lost energy, to position itself for maximum likelihood of obtaining a kill.

In a WVR contest, both traditional performance measures - turn rate and specific excess power - still matter. But only to the extent that they allow an airplane to position itself for maximum advantage. We are not talking about classic, turn-onto-his-tail dogfights like you see in the movies. It's about putting your opponent within the kill envelope of your own missiles without placing yourself within his kill zone.

Click to expand...

That's about as good as a summary of this issue as I have read in this thread so far. Off boresight missiles, helmet sights and the like have made it the first shot all the more important, WVR and BVR. The pilot's skill comes in when he is the one who is trying to get himself in position to take that shot. As you said excess energy is important. That's why you don't fire a missile at max range in BVR combat; the enemy will just turn around and put himself out of the missile's range radius before it reaches him if he can turn and speed away quick enough.

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



Above is an interesting website talking about the 1992 rendezvous between the USAF F-16C and Luftwaffe MiG-29. It is old but the website has accounts from people involved with this training. Basically, the MiG-29 has better low speed agility than the F-16C, the two jets have similar medium speed agility, and the F-16C has better high speed agility than the Mig-29. However, the MiG-29 has an IRST and helmet mounted sight, which made the MiG-29 clearly superior than the F-16C in dogfighting.

The website also has an account stating that BVR combat is not as simple as people have fantasized. Basically, AWACS and the AMRAAM is NOT the silver bullet against dogfighting, thus dogfighting is still relevant. However, this test was done in the early 1990s.

This second website has some data (I don't know the accuracy) about the MiG-29 against the F-16C and F/A-18C:



Use your browser's search function to find the article called "The MiG-29/MiG-33/F-16C/F-18C Comparison."

This article gives an interesting chart about the maintenance, dogfighting, and BVR fighting performances about the MiG-29, MiG-33, F-16C, and F/A-18C. The article is dated 1995, but it is still interesting. Basically, this article can be said to be pro-Russian and it says the MiG-29 and MiG-33 is superior to the F-16C and F/A-18C in dogfighting and BVR combat.

One part of the chart even claims how the Russian jets have superior reliability than the American jets:

Maintenance man-hours per flight hour
MiG-33```MiG-29```````F-16C`````F/A-18C
11.3`````11.0`````````1 8```16-18

(My note: In the above data, I think the F-16C has the worst score of "18" and not the best score of "1" or "1.8" because of a typo which separated the "1" and the "8".)

Mean time between failures in the air and on the ground, hour
MiG-33````MiG-29`````F-16C`````F/A-18C
13.6```````7.3`````````2.9``````3.7


In summary, the above two websites show that agility matters, but so does having good sensing systems (radar, infrared tracker, scope w/ TV, etc.) and weapons systems.

Jeff Head said:

I believe it is still relevant. Once the shooting starts on any prolonged and major conflict...then there will be times when you run out of missiles. If that is all you have, you will then have to retire. if not, if you have a gun, then you will have to get in there and tango with the other side if you expect to control the sky.

Now, in a small conflict with only a small number of limited air engagements, or in a wholly lopsided affair like the US against Iraq, this is not the case. But all warfare cannot be guarunteed to be that way in the future.

If there are large conflicts with large air actions that are prolontged, then being able to actually dogfight will give one side or the other an advantage if they desire to press an attack all the way home.

Click to expand...

Jeff, I agree with you. Larger aircraft (SU-30, F-15, Rafale, Typhoon) all have an advantage in the BVR missile first launch and probable first kill, due to the size of their onboard radar. Once the aircraft close the gap and the traditional dogfight begins then the WVR missiles come into play, along with 20mm and 30mm cannons on the individual aircraft. Israeli’s reported that in most recent air combats, almost 98% of all the MRAAMs fired were launched from within the WVR ranges.

Having maneuverable aircraft in the dogfight situation will be an advantage. Staying on your opponent tail and keeping him on the defensive will give you the upper hand. Eventually, with either IR missiles or guns, you will prevail. This is where well-trained pilots are a must. Since a most likely scenario would be two 3rd world countries or developing nations going to war, once the missiles are consumed then the air force with best pilots and most maneuverable aircraft will be victorious. That is unless the other side is a numerically superior opponent.

A highly manoeuverable aircraft can also be used by the defender to evade, or gain a tactical advantage over his opponent. A key factor in all air combat is that of nose-tail separation. While getting close enough to fire a weapon, an attacker must keep his aircraft's nose far enough away from the tail of the defender to be able to get a good aim, and to prevent an overshot, likewise, the opponant will use every manoeuvre available to encourage an overshot, trying to change his own role to that of attacker.