PDA

View Full Version : OT Is aircraft speed not very important today?



Chris0382
05-19-2007, 04:34 PM
I briefed over the specs of the new 40-60 million dollar F-35 and notice its rated top speed as 1,200 mph (slow compared to the F-4 Phantom of the 60's.) Although 1 model I think is VSTOL and all are stealth and can make up for the slow speed, isn't a slow fighter aircraft at a disadvantage knowing new technology is being produced I think by Czech Republic that can spot stealth material and modern AA missels are quite reliable.? I will also assume its rate of climb is classified and may be a strong point.

MaxMhz
05-19-2007, 04:41 PM
I'm not an expert, but it seems to me with missiles fired from far away speed is not that important anymore. Concentrating on maneuvrebility and stealth(y) properties would take precedence I assume. Fighters of the past are in general much faster than modern ones. F104, MiG31 - just a few http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

VW-IceFire
05-19-2007, 04:42 PM
Even the F-22 isn't as "fast" at top speed as the F-15...the key with the F-22 and other aircraft like it (its not known if the F-35 fits this category) is that they can "supercruise" which means they can achieve mach speed without afterburner. Such is the power of the engines and clean aerodynamics. So a F-22 can run down a F-15 over the long distance and is technically faster as it has the ability to cruise at a much higher speed.

The other thing is that I don't think the actual top speed of the F-35 has been declassified yet. We know the X-35 had a top speed somewhere around mach 1.8...which is actually quite similar to the YF-22's top speed. So it might be faster overall...not sure yet. F-35 is certainly a controversy for a whole bunch of different reasons.

Airmail109
05-19-2007, 04:57 PM
The whole maneuverability thing is bull****, you cannot out turn a missile....what you can do is run like hell in the opposite direction when a missiles launched at you by an enemy aircraft....with the aim of escaping its 100 percent kill zone.

I have found in all the sims when you get into big BVR ****ging matches its the aircraft with the most height and speed that win. Missiles have energy, the more height you have over your oponent the more energy the missile has to hit its target.....increasing its range....the faster you are going....the further you can get away from a missile launched at you...decreasing its energy if it manages to get to you.....if a missile has to travel up to hit you as well, it will further lose more energy and range

Its all about speed and height

What we need are stealthy Electric Lightnings if we want a great air to air platform

Im going to make a guess that the next generation of manned fighters (they will not be unmanned because of an increase in cyber war, hence needing some independence from ground control) will not be fighters but more like gunships, they'll be hypersonic aircarft, that will fly close to space. they will be stealthy, they will be imbetween an F111 and an Sr71 in size, ecquiped with the new laser technology coming through for air to air, air-to-air missiles for engaging targets in poor weather conditions, and precision guided munitions for air to ground. They will also have lots of sensors for recon and target aquisition.

All of this will be so the aircraft can avoid IR thermal detection. Ground based lasers and better IR detection systems + Radar will make it almost impossible in the future for aircraft to penetrate enemy airspace and lower altitudes.

All other aircraft will be tiny drones, carrying missiles and guns. Their objective will be to swamp enemy air defenses with sheer numbers. They will have electric motors because of the lack of oil.

Chris0382
05-19-2007, 06:20 PM
Is the fact taht afterburners are not needed like the previous generation enabling the F-35 to be less thermal intensive ?

Badsight-
05-19-2007, 06:24 PM
Originally posted by Chris0382:
(slow compared to the F-4 Phantom of the 60's.) the F4 phantom is also faster than the latest F22 Raptor

Badsight-
05-19-2007, 06:27 PM
Originally posted by Aimail101:
The whole maneuverability thing is bull****. john Boyd totally disagrees with you


Originally posted by Aimail101:
I have found in all the sims bwhahahah http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Chris0382
05-19-2007, 07:30 PM
According to the Australian defense minister, there is a secret that the F-35 has that is undisclosed to the public that makes the plane right for Australia and more ideal to them than the F-22.

Gawd what is that secret? Can is go under water ?

Viper2005_
05-19-2007, 07:48 PM
1) How fast will an F-4 really go? It's harder to find out than you might think... (apart from anything else it depends upon your F-4, its mod state, and loadout)

2) How do you know that an F-22 is really slower than an F-4? I would have thought that the real performance of F-22 was classified... Ditto F-35. But actually given the early stage of envelope expansion in the F-35 programme, the chances are that nobody really knows!

3) Speed isn't obsolete. If you want to go a2a it makes the ROE complex. However, if you just want to kill stuff on the ground ICBMs have been exceeding Mach 20 since the late 1950s.

4) F-35B is STOVL; VSTOL is a rather silly acronym since it tends to kill your payload mass fraction.

5) The importance of manoeuvrability is a function of ROE. Given suitable ROE a B-52 modded with a big radar and rotary launchers full of AIM-54s would be quite a scary adversary...

OTOH in the real world when the good guys outnumber the bad guys by several to one you'll end up needing to vis-ident before you shoot. Then you'll need all that pilot s**t and short range missiles...

At that point I'd be rather worried about MiG-29OVT and similar Russian fighters. And of course lest we forget MiG-31 has a rather impressive BVR capability...

Agamemnon22
05-19-2007, 08:46 PM
Originally posted by Aimail101:
The whole maneuverability thing is bull****, you cannot out turn a missile....what you can do is run like hell in the opposite direction when a missiles launched at you by an enemy aircraft....with the aim of escaping its 100 percent kill zone.



Sure you can, actually the last thing you want to do with a missile is turn away and run. Instead, you should drop counter measures and turn into the missile, minimizing your radar and IR cross-section and increasing the closing rate so as to not give it time to adjust.

The main benefit of speed is the mobility it provides, allowing a single fighter or squadron to have an enormous area of influence on the battlefield. Problem is, if you go fast, but burn up all your fuel in the process, you won't cover as wide an area as a plane that might not go as fast, but can go fast enough for a long time. That plane can be a continuous presence in the airspace, continuously responding to threats. Hence supercruise.

The actual combat advantages of Mach 2 flight are really secondary... what are you going to do with all that speed? Your turning radius at that speed is half the battlefield, so hope that you hit all your targets on the first pass, or the survivors are going to have a wonderful view of your 6 for a while after.

Airmail109
05-19-2007, 08:50 PM
Originally posted by Agamemnon22:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aimail101:
The whole maneuverability thing is bull****, you cannot out turn a missile....what you can do is run like hell in the opposite direction when a missiles launched at you by an enemy aircraft....with the aim of escaping its 100 percent kill zone.




Sure you can, actually the last thing you want to do with a missile is turn away and run. Instead, you should drop counter measures and turn into the missile, minimizing your radar and IR cross-section and increasing the closing rate so as to not give it time to adjust.

The main benefit of speed is the mobility it provides, allowing a single fighter or squadron to have an enormous area of influence on the battlefield. Problem is, if you go fast, but burn up all your fuel in the process, you won't cover as wide an area as a plane that might not go as fast, but can go fast enough for a long time. That plane can be a continuous presence in the airspace, continuously responding to threats. Hence supercruise.

The actual combat advantages of Mach 2 flight are really secondary... what are you going to do with all that speed? Your turning radius at that speed is half the battlefield, so hope that you hit all your targets on the first pass, or the survivors are going to have a wonderful view of your 6 for a while after. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Im talking about high to medium altitude work, not stuff low down. The type of flying where targets on the battlefield are engaged from a high stand off position. Where you can be engaged by long to medium range SAM and Air to Air Missiles, yeah turn into the short range ones when you havnt got time to react down low. But up high, and a missiles fired at you from 20-40km youve got plenty more time to used top end speed to get the hell away from it.

Modern missiles are fast enough to adjust to anything

Seriously there no outwitting the new medium range SAMS if they're fired at you

Chaff might help but I wouldn't be willing to place my life on the stuff, and jammers? Again I wouldlnt trust my life on electronic jamming

Viper2005_
05-19-2007, 09:00 PM
The actual advantage of Mach 2+ is the energy you impart to any missile you fire at the bad guy.

Assuming that your missile isn't structurally limited, that translates directly into increased PK.

All that subsonic manoeuvre B/S is just an artefact of lilly-livered ROE. Come WWIII Meteor armed Typhoons will rule the roost at the top right-hand corner of their flight envelopes.

OTOH subsonic manoeuvre makes for good airshows...

LEXX_Luthor
05-19-2007, 09:50 PM
...Boyd...
TnB = Turn and Boyd. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Boyd Mania: Interesting article, and very humorous in the Myth-2 section ~> http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj04/fal04/mets.html

Especially thought provoking is Footnote 14, especially near the footnote bottom regarding the much larger potential hidden behind the new Luthier "korea sim(tm)."

Lesson taught by SE-5, SPAD, P-51Dora, P-47Dora, P-38Fredreich, etc... Speed is King! But, those were in large scale warfare with only one (1) Rule of Engagement.

Chris::
I briefed over the specs of the new 40-60 million dollar F-35 and notice its rated top speed as 1,200 mph (slow compared to the F-4 Phantom of the 60's.) Although 1 model I think is VSTOL and all are stealth and can make up for the slow speed, isn't a slow fighter aircraft at a disadvantage knowing new technology is being produced I think by Czech Republic that can spot stealth material and modern AA missels are quite reliable.? I will also assume its rate of climb is classified and may be a strong point.
Interesting stuff there. I see the advantage of "stealth(tm)" lies in the fact that the lesser nations cannot afford the vast applied scientific research required to go around radar stealth and IR stealth. Perhaps this requires optical detection and lasers, but then we (Ussia) are are working optical stealth as we poast.



Assuming proper training, tactics, deployment, and experienced pilots, the best potential tactical fighter of today(*) may be MiG-31 and (possibly) Iranian F-14 TOMCAT, and the best potential tactical fighter of 1970s could have been the MiG-25. The Lockheed YF-12 would have been the best tac fighter of all, and that was in the 60s, although Lockheed's Mach 3 products were maintenence nightmares. Perhaps NAA's F-108 would have been even better tactical fighter?

To put it in a way regarding pilot experience -- put MiG-25s or MiG-31s in USAF Red Flagg and USN Top Gun and I'd think that the "aggressor" pilots might achieve their mission more often than the opponents as was demonstrated by a few (very few) Iraqi MiG-25 pilots in the first Ussian/Iran War.

(*) Not counting F-22 RAPPER and the whole Stealth(tm) thing as I have no knowledge of this applying today, and even less interest in post-modern Turn and Burn dogfighting.

LEXX_Luthor
05-19-2007, 09:52 PM
AirMail::
have found in all the sims when you get into big BVR ****ging matches its the aircraft with the most height and speed that win.
Correct! It doesn't require much sim "detail" to model basic BVR missile engagement envelopes. Ye old DOS Flaker sim did it in 1995. What may be missing in The Sims are the artificial Rules of Engagments in the "limited warfare" deals that require pilots to see a target with their eyes in some cases (not all).

What TnB dogfight manuever does allow is investigate and escort potentially hostile aircraft. Like the two F-14s shooting down the two Libyan Su-22 back in the 1980s. But then, the opposing Su-22s didn't have a speed requiring Mach 3 interception and/or Phoenix missiles, so...

Bascially, Mach 3 and beyond was proving too expensive so all militaries gave it up in the 1960s, although as AirMail says, the Ussians may be working on hypersonic vehicles for the future -- for one thing, time to reach targets would be much shorter.

...edit...actually, the militaries did want Mach 3 and beyond as they remembered the lessons of the SPAD, but the suits -- McNamara, Khruschev, Sandys, etc -- all said no together!

Xiolablu3
05-20-2007, 02:42 AM
GUys, its all about endurance.

Yes planes like the F4 Phantom COULD go real real fast, but only for a very short time and burning off a massive amount of fuel with afterburner..

Todays planes, like the F22, EF Typhoon and F35 can go above mach 1 WITHOUT using an afterburner, meaning it has its full range even when travelling at this speed.

The F4 may be able to travel at whatever speed you stated , but check how long it can do it for. I am betting its about 10 minutes or so, whereas the F22, typhoon and F35 will be able to do near their top speed for their whole fuel load.


An afterburner bascially squirts raw fuel into the back of the jet nozzel using up massive amounts of fuel.

I am also sure that all 3 designs are factoring in engine power growth. PLanes gain in speed over their life, adn this will happen again.

Sharky 'Sea HArrier' Ward believes that low turn radius is the single most important thing in a dogfight and that manouvrability is very important. They didnt lose one Harrier to enemy planes in the Falklands. f course manouvrability doesnt matter if you can avoid the dogfight, but in almost every war there has ever been where both sides have an air force (Iraq or Afganistan dont count), planes end up having to do some form of dogfighting.

Xiolablu3
05-20-2007, 04:12 AM
I actually just read that the Typhoon, F22 and F35 all have afterburners. I apologise, I thought they didnt have them.

I know that it gets extremely expensive to mantain a plane once you get over Mach 2.0 or more (The top speed of those 3 planes).

Perhaps the Airforces of today just realised its used so rarely and so inpractical, why bother. Other things are more important on a fighter? Just a guess.


The F35 is totally different from teh F22 and Typhoon as it is not being designed as an air superiority fighter. Its supposed to be a cost effective workhorse that can do many different roles. (Although I have now heard that its cost has spiralled higher than the Typhoon)

Badsight-
05-20-2007, 04:50 AM
all without canards

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GW2Hvu_mUdU

Bearcat99
05-20-2007, 05:13 AM
Originally posted by Aimail101:
The whole maneuverability thing is bull****, you cannot out turn a missile....what you can do is run like hell in the opposite direction when a missiles launched at you by an enemy aircraft....with the aim of escaping its 100 percent kill zone.



You cant shoot what you cant see............

MEGILE
05-20-2007, 05:23 AM
You guys ragging on subsonic meneuvrability need to get a clue...

Pilots were dodging sams in gulf war 2, through pulling hard Gs..

Besides, the day you scrap menuvrability, is the day you go up against an enemy with the best turn rates.... sods law http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

leitmotiv
05-20-2007, 05:35 AM
Speed is not very important only if you are flying from Marin to Salinas to buy asparagus in your Cessna.

The secret of the F-35 is that it has been designed to drink Fosters with the Aussies and that's why they like it.

Badsight-
05-20-2007, 05:39 AM
Important! (for aussies)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPIF2JvVpek&mode=related&search=

badatflyski
05-20-2007, 05:50 AM
Originally posted by Badsight-:
all without canards

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GW2Hvu_mUdU

Maneuvering like a fat-duck...maybe the canards would help it to make the moves faster..like this http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GdfnTLKcvM&mode=related&search=

Badsight-
05-20-2007, 06:06 AM
yea White 711 did put on a great show (& in the 90's too when it was uber-impressive)

but for me the OVT does it even better

Philipscdrw
05-20-2007, 06:36 AM
"Super-cruise" is an advertising buzzword invented by the F-22 people. Fact is that aircraft have been able to fly supersonic without afterburners for years - the Lightning could do it, I think the F-15 can do it also. Concorde certainly could!

Dtools4fools
05-20-2007, 06:44 AM
Dunno much about modern jetfighters but isn't all the manouverability (canards, yes, but thrust vectoring becoming more important) needed to get a shot at an enemy plane? To lock on the target? (for missles).

And that Eurofighter goes a different path, not pointing the plane onto the target but it's actually integerated into the visor of the pilots helmet?

As for stealth and detection: didn't I read somewhere that passive IR detection is the way they were going?

******

Xiolablu3
05-20-2007, 07:17 AM
Originally posted by Philipscdrw:
"Super-cruise" is an advertising buzzword invented by the F-22 people. Fact is that aircraft have been able to fly supersonic without afterburners for years - the Lightning could do it, I think the F-15 can do it also. Concorde certainly could!

There are very few planes that can super cruise (About 10 IRRC) and of those even less when flying at combat weight.

The English Lightning was the first to do it, but it could not do it at combat weight.

Only the F22 and Typhoon can do it while in a full combat state I think. Could be wrong tho.

Airmail109
05-20-2007, 07:57 AM
Really good Maneuverability is only needed for close support aircraft.

Our new generation aircraft are compromises, they are designed neither for a war facing modern air defenses (height and speed are needed here) nor are they designed for shooting up peasants in counter-insurgent wars such as Iraq (cheapness, ruggedness, maneuverability are key factors here) Theres no point sending 100 million dollar fighters to a war where there might be some insurgent waiting outside its airbase with a shoulder launched SAM


Hyper Maneuverability is simply not needed when in an all out aerial war you are stupid enough to get into a dogfight, with off bore helmet sighted short range missiles. Again, one Eurofighter pilot recently said he didn't see the point of thrust vectoring as the guy with the least energy loses the fight.

Hypersonic is the way to go for an all out airspace denial fighter. Add thrust vectoring, for emergencies. Hell i reckon that ailerons and rudders should be done away with completely to streamline the fighter better to increase top end speed. Thrust vectoring could take their place.

Speed means you can control the aerial battlefield, you can pick and choose what engagements you enter.

Hypersonic bombers that can just enter space using a hybrid propulsion system are in the works, add stealth to this and no f-22 or ground based defense system will be able to detect them. What you need are interceptors that can do the same.

VW-IceFire
05-20-2007, 08:25 AM
Originally posted by Philipscdrw:
"Super-cruise" is an advertising buzzword invented by the F-22 people. Fact is that aircraft have been able to fly supersonic without afterburners for years - the Lightning could do it, I think the F-15 can do it also. Concorde certainly could!
Supercruise was invented by the military requirements drawn up for a F-15 replacement. Both YF-22 and YF-23 designs were required to have supercruise capability right from the start. What the F-22 and maybe the F-35 has over some of the others is that the weapons are stored internally so they can supercruise while combat capable at the same time. If either of these use their external stores then they will certainly not be supercruise capable...and probably not very stealth either.

Airmail109
05-20-2007, 08:49 AM
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com

read the stuff on laser weapons and space based warfare

theres some serious sci-fi stuff being developed

Railguns, Plasma weapons

You name it

ake109
05-20-2007, 09:11 AM
You guys are missing one very important point.

Sure, the F-15C can go Mach 2.5 (_supposedly_ faster then the F-22 and F-35 can go) BUT thats in a clean condition. No drop tanks, no missiles. Ditto for the F-4, F14 and English Electric Lightning. All you have is an unarmed, very short range hot rod if you want those above named planes to go Mach2.

The F-22/35 can supercruise with a full weapons load. That is an incredible tactical advantage over the above mentioned aircraft.

Viper2005_
05-20-2007, 09:20 AM
Actually the Lightning could manage Mach 2 with missiles, and it could also supercruise with said warload. Kinematically it would still be very hard to beat in the top right-hand corner of the envelope; but it was let down by rudimentary avionics and the built-in fuel shortage so typical of British fighters.

The Frightning was also about the only western fighter capable of catching Concorde on the level:

http://www.lightning.org.uk/archive/0410.php

A much under-estimated aircraft.

WWSensei
05-20-2007, 09:26 AM
Originally posted by Aimail101:
The whole maneuverability thing is bull****, you cannot out turn a missile....what you can do is run like hell in the opposite direction when a missiles launched at you by an enemy aircraft....with the aim of escaping its 100 percent kill zone.

Ummm, you really don't know what you are talking about right? "Outturning" a missile is exactly what you are supposed to do and it's actually quite easy. Turning the opposite way and running is exactly the WRONG thing to do since you can't outrun most missiles (the slow ones move at MACH 3 or better). Presenting your hot 6 to a missile is the thing rookies to die quickly. Outmaneuvering a missile is actually the first defense beyond outright jamming is was a constant training item back when I flew Vipers. It's actually fairly easy to turn inside of a missile. What is hard to do is outrun it.

Speed vs Maneuverability? You need a certain amount of speed, but most modern combat takes place sub-800 knots (~650 for most). Speed gets you to the area of engagement quicker and leaves you more options, but once you are in the knife fight maneuverability matters.

Ground Attack is an odd animal of both. You need to maneuver enough to throw off AAA and SAMs tracking you but you want to maintain speed to minimize ToT.

Airmail109
05-20-2007, 09:37 AM
Originally posted by WWSensei:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aimail101:
The whole maneuverability thing is bull****, you cannot out turn a missile....what you can do is run like hell in the opposite direction when a missiles launched at you by an enemy aircraft....with the aim of escaping its 100 percent kill zone.

Ummm, you really don't know what you are talking about right? "Outturning" a missile is exactly what you are supposed to do and it's actually quite easy. Turning the opposite way and running is exactly the WRONG thing to do since you can't outrun most missiles (the slow ones move at MACH 3 or better). Presenting your hot 6 to a missile is the thing rookies to die quickly. Outmaneuvering a missile is actually the first defense beyond outright jamming is was a constant training item back when I flew Vipers. It's actually fairly easy to turn inside of a missile. What is hard to do is outrun it.

Speed vs Maneuverability? You need a certain amount of speed, but most modern combat takes place sub-800 knots (~650 for most). Speed gets you to the area of engagement quicker and leaves you more options, but once you are in the knife fight maneuverability matters.

Ground Attack is an odd animal of both. You need to maneuver enough to throw off AAA and SAMs tracking you but you want to maintain speed to minimize ToT. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Best thing to do is to turn 90 degrees to the incoming missile, run....then when it gets within a certain range start hard maneuvering whilst dispensing chaff or flares. The aim is to try and escape its 100 percent kill zone before you start maneuvering. Im talking about BVR nor short range stuff. The whole idea of hypersonic speeds and long range missiles like the meteor is to stay out of knife fights

More height + speed over your opponent = longer effective engagement range for your missiles

With todays technology, missile designers can say what they were saying back in vietnam, the days of dogfighting are well and truly over. Period. Once you have a lock, and your within the 100 percent kill zone its all over. It is now the person who is seen last, has the most spped and the most height that wins.

You CANNOT out turn or outwit the new generation of thrust vectored medium and short range AAMs unless you are outside of a certain zone. WIth the meteor the 100 percent kill zone is 40km, any aircrafts job facing that threat is to stay well out of that zone using speed and altitude.

Your the rookie if you think out turning MODERN next generation AAMS is easy

WhtBoy
05-20-2007, 09:52 AM
Originally posted by Dtools4fools:
And that Eurofighter goes a different path, not pointing the plane onto the target but it's actually integerated into the visor of the pilots helmet?

You mean the West will finally catch up with the Russian off-bore technology that is umpteen years old? Of course, considering the combat of late it's not like we really need it. At least it didn't take us that long to catch up with them on the FLIR technology.

--Outlaw.

Agamemnon22
05-20-2007, 10:56 AM
Originally posted by Aimail101:

Best thing to do is to turn 90 degrees to the incoming missile, run....then when it gets within a certain range start hard maneuvering whilst dispensing chaff or flares. The aim is to try and escape its 100 percent kill zone before you start maneuvering. Im talking about BVR nor short range stuff. The whole idea of hypersonic speeds and long range missiles like the meteor is to stay out of knife fights

More height + speed over your opponent = longer effective engagement range for your missiles

With todays technology, missile designers can say what they were saying back in vietnam, the days of dogfighting are well and truly over. Period. Once you have a lock, and your within the 100 percent kill zone its all over. It is now the person who is seen last, has the most spped and the most height that wins.

You CANNOT out turn or outwit the new generation of thrust vectored medium and short range AAMs unless you are outside of a certain zone. WIth the meteor the 100 percent kill zone is 40km, any aircrafts job facing that threat is to stay well out of that zone using speed and altitude.

Your the rookie if you think out turning MODERN next generation AAMS is easy

I don't think anyone is arguing that new generation missiles are not better than older ones, but let's not go nuts with the 100% kill probabilities. Even the manufacturers define the No-Escape Zone as an area of high probability of kill.. not absolute certainty. The NEZ, incidentally, means a high probability of kill on a maneuvering target, making no mention whatsoever of countermeasures, passive or active.

You're also assuming that the launching aircraft maintains radar track on the target throughout the missiles flight, and does not itself have to respond to threats, primarily missiles launched from the target http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Maintaining radar track allows even next-gen missiles, like the Meteor, to correct trajectory early in flight and keep its own, puny by comparison, radar off until the last phase of flight. If parent radar track is broken through, oh, I don't know, maneuvering out of the way of a counter-attack, the missile will be forced to rely on its own sensors earlier on, increasing the odds that countermeasures will be successful.

Airmail109
05-20-2007, 11:02 AM
Originally posted by Agamemnon22:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aimail101:

Best thing to do is to turn 90 degrees to the incoming missile, run....then when it gets within a certain range start hard maneuvering whilst dispensing chaff or flares. The aim is to try and escape its 100 percent kill zone before you start maneuvering. Im talking about BVR nor short range stuff. The whole idea of hypersonic speeds and long range missiles like the meteor is to stay out of knife fights

More height + speed over your opponent = longer effective engagement range for your missiles

With todays technology, missile designers can say what they were saying back in vietnam, the days of dogfighting are well and truly over. Period. Once you have a lock, and your within the 100 percent kill zone its all over. It is now the person who is seen last, has the most spped and the most height that wins.

You CANNOT out turn or outwit the new generation of thrust vectored medium and short range AAMs unless you are outside of a certain zone. WIth the meteor the 100 percent kill zone is 40km, any aircrafts job facing that threat is to stay well out of that zone using speed and altitude.

Your the rookie if you think out turning MODERN next generation AAMS is easy

I don't think anyone is arguing that new generation missiles are not better than older ones, but let's not go nuts with the 100% kill probabilities. Even the manufacturers define the No-Escape Zone as an area of high probability of kill.. not absolute certainty. The NEZ, incidentally, means a high probability of kill on a maneuvering target, making no mention whatsoever of countermeasures, passive or active.

You're also assuming that the launching aircraft maintains radar track on the target throughout the missiles flight, and does not itself have to respond to threats, primarily missiles launched from the target http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Maintaining radar track allows even next-gen missiles, like the Meteor, to correct trajectory early in flight and keep its own, puny by comparison, radar off until the last phase of flight. If parent radar track is broken through, oh, I don't know, maneuvering out of the way of a counter-attack, the missile will be forced to rely on its own sensors earlier on, increasing the odds that countermeasures will be successful. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thats still short range fighting where you can break the enemys radar acquisition, its dead hard at 30,000 feet to escape a radar tracking you from 20km away

Badsight-
05-20-2007, 03:15 PM
Aimail101 - you need to qualify your posts & opinion here

you are talking about your experience in jet computer games . . . . . & expect to be taken seriously

which is a lollercaust

& as for arguing with WWSensei , well between the 2 of you one is an actual F-16 pilot & the other is a computer gamer

take a guess which is which :-)

Xiolablu3
05-20-2007, 03:24 PM
I understand your point Badsight, but we are all striving for the most realistic Sim we can get on a computer, and sims are geting more realistic all the time.

We can't just say 'ahh its just a game, sod it we will make up the flight models forget realism!'

I know that I will gladly help with the melting pot of info on this forum if I can and I know lots of others will too.

Even if its just 'chewing the cud' and trying to sort out the truth from the propaganda, its all worth doing if it gets us a clearer pictire.

I have learned a massive amount about WW2 aircraft from this forum, there is lots of excellent info posted. I am sure Oleg and 1c have gained a lot of knowledge from the more knowledgable too. BUT they also have to be able to tell biased fanboys from real historians, amateur or pro.

Badsight-
05-20-2007, 03:32 PM
thats not the point at all

Aimail101 is laying down the total , unarguable truth & getting pulled apart on each absolute statement

& the whole time its from a "this is what i do in jet computer games so this is how real life actually is" position

which is hilarious

ive learnt a huge amount about ACM from IL2 as well - but to they try & say how it is IRL based on the game ? dont make me laugh

Xiolablu3
05-20-2007, 03:58 PM
OK, I got the wrong end of the stick, apologies.

Airmail109
05-20-2007, 04:08 PM
Okay, sure what I say isn't the truth a lot of its probably wrong.

Dont see how I was pulled apart though, maybe I got the wrong end of the stick talking to some ex phantom, lightning and tornado pilots about the Eurofighter and what they thought of it.

I suppose those pilots and I have a totally different school of thought on what fighters should be like.

Bremspropeller
05-20-2007, 04:10 PM
Dont see how I was pulled apart though, maybe I got the wrong end of the stick talking to some ex phantom and tornado pilots about the Eurofighter and what they thought of it.

Those who I met said it was a fine machine.

Maybe it's just the RAF http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Airmail109
05-20-2007, 04:13 PM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Dont see how I was pulled apart though, maybe I got the wrong end of the stick talking to some ex phantom and tornado pilots about the Eurofighter and what they thought of it.

Those who I met said it was a fine machine.

Maybe it's just the RAF http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nahhh they said it was great, but would rather have a really fast fighter that could climb like the lightning, with todays technology maybe you could get some range as well

Theyre idea of a next gen plane would be to get rid of all the control surfaces and control the aircraft by thrust vectoring and a CCV system = a lot less drag, a lighter aircarft, more speed and range

I just figure maneuverability should be second to speed, feel free to debunk what I say. Dont mind, im no pilot so....meh lol

Some pilots are arguing that in any major air war next time round, the radars will be turned off to avoid detection. So it may well turn into close in dogfighting. Who knows. There are to many schools of thought.

http://www.canit.se/%7Egriffon/aviation/text/missiles/aam.html

please read link

LEXX_Luthor
05-20-2007, 05:28 PM
Chennault:: Rule of Engagement #1 -- don't dogfight with Japanese planes, shoot them down.

Xiolablu3::
Sharky 'Sea HArrier' Ward believes that low turn radius is the single most important thing in a dogfight and that manouvrability is very important. They didnt lose one Harrier to enemy planes in the Falklands. Of course manouvrability doesnt matter if you can avoid the dogfight, but in <span class="ev_code_yellow">almost every war</span> there has ever been where both sides have an air force (Iraq or Afganistan dont count), planes end up having to do some form of dogfighting.
Yes -- Pacific War -- Airmail is right -- speed is King.

Anyways, I have heard that Argentina's MirageIII could not use afterburner at the long ranges flown, so this helped the Harrier dogfight experience, or so I have heard. Basically, the MirageIIIs were forced to fight with thrust cut in half during combat.

AirMail::
Hypersonic is the way to go for an all out airspace denial fighter. Add thrust vectoring, for emergencies. Hell i reckon that ailerons and rudders should be done away with completely to streamline the fighter better to increase top end speed. Thrust vectoring could take their place.
Imagine the airspace denial the YF-12 development could have done over Vietnam in the early 1970s with its pre-Phoenix missiles, and what it would do today after decades of improvement, or replacement with faster fighters with longer range weapons.

However, Airmail, you are assuming effective SAMs so if you want speed you need very high altitude which means everybody sees you and this requires serious supression or destruction of surface launched air defenses. Notice a curious fact -- Ussian pilots often "dodge" SAMs with their F-15, F-16 (NATO codename Falcon), and F-18. But as far as I know ( http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif ) these are all primitive SAMs designed in the late 1950s for strategic air defense against heavy bombers -- Cube for Army air defense excepted. I don't know if a Ussian pilot has ever sucessfully dodged an S-300. If one did, it may be worth keeping secret. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

You better be prepared to spend alot of money for this kind of speed. SR-71 kind of money. But in an, as you say, all out shooting war, money is no object as the printing presses can roll 24 hours a day if needed. If nobody else has the capability requiring this kind of speed and weaponry, fine, all you need is inexpensive Turn~and~Boyd dogfight jets.

Airmail109
05-20-2007, 05:35 PM
Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Chennault:: Rule of Engagement #1 -- don't dogfight with Japanese planes, shoot them down.

Xiolablu3:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Sharky 'Sea HArrier' Ward believes that low turn radius is the single most important thing in a dogfight and that manouvrability is very important. They didnt lose one Harrier to enemy planes in the Falklands. Of course manouvrability doesnt matter if you can avoid the dogfight, but in <span class="ev_code_yellow">almost every war</span> there has ever been where both sides have an air force (Iraq or Afganistan dont count), planes end up having to do some form of dogfighting.
Yes -- Pacific War -- Airmail is right -- speed is King.

Anyways, I have heard that Argentina's MirageIII could not use afterburner at the long ranges flown, so this helped the Harrier dogfight experience, or so I have heard. Basically, the MirageIIIs were forced to fight with thrust cut in half during combat.

AirMail::
Hypersonic is the way to go for an all out airspace denial fighter. Add thrust vectoring, for emergencies. Hell i reckon that ailerons and rudders should be done away with completely to streamline the fighter better to increase top end speed. Thrust vectoring could take their place.
Imagine the airspace denial the YF-12 development could have done over Vietnam in the early 1970s with its pre-Phoenix missiles, and what it would do today after decades of improvement, or replacement with faster fighters with longer range weapons.

However, Airmail, you are assuming effective SAMs so if you want speed you need very high altitude which means everybody sees you and this requires supression or destruction of the surface launched air defense missiles. Notice a curious fact -- Ussian pilots often "dodge" SAMs with their F-15 and F-16 (NATO codename Falcon) all-digital wonderjets. But as far as I know ( http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif ) these are all primitive SAMs designed in the late 1950s for strategic air defense against heavy bombers -- Cube for Army air defense excepted. I don't know if a Ussian pilot has ever sucessfully dodged an S-300. If one did, it may be worth keeping secret. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

You better be prepared to spend alot of money for this kind of speed. SR-71 kind of money. But in an, as you say, all out shooting war, money is no object as the printing presses can roll 24 hours a day if needed. If nobody else has the capability requiring this kind of speed and weaponry, fine, all you need is inexpensive Turn~and~Boyd dogfight jets. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not necessarily how about a stealthy high flying hypersonic craft. With no control surfaces except for thrust vectoring and CCV. Radar signature would be unbelievably small. They may be able to see you but id be damned if they could get a lock. Even then im betting you could outmaneuver one of the huge SAMs using the CCV and thrust vectoring. But yeah destruction of the sams is now possible if you have plenty of warning with the new airborne lasers coming through. If a smaller more maneuverable jet manages to outfly one of your missiles in BVR, so what.The answer is carry more missiles and swamp him with them. An F-111 sized aircraft stuffed full of AAMs.


At least someone kind of supports my point of view anyway heheh. Ive always liked to think outside the box/norm a little, but i'm willing to change my opinions at the same time.

Cant be arsed to engage Su-30s in a TnB? Simply take off, fly half way round the world, precision bomb them on their airbases and shoot down any aircraft patrolling at medium and low altitudes using a radar that scans everything beneath you.

I think all of this is perfectly possible with a good degree of agility. That can be used down low if need be.

LEXX_Luthor
05-20-2007, 05:57 PM
mmm, you destroy the SAM radar sites with conventional anti-radiation missiles, or targeting known SAM site positions. This can probably be done best by supporting aircraft. Not talking about destroying the incoming missiles themselves with lasers. Although, there was a proposed anti-missile defense for B-70, here...

Convair Pye Wacket ~> http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app4/pyewacket.html

I don't think there can be such a thing as a stealthy hypersonic aircraft. The entire skin would probably glow in the dark for one thing -- especially in infrared (also, at very high speeds, perhaps ionization of air causing radio emission). Back in the day, they were predicting A-12/SR-71 would be stealthy enough to avoid detection by Russian radar, but apparently they were quite surprised.

I think you are making an error assuming the role of thrust vectoring here. TV helps slow aircraft spin round perhaps, but at high speeds, you can spin round and round all you want (X-15 for example) but your path in flight will change little and depend on gee forces, and hypersonics at speed have very little turning -- manuever -- ability if there is a humanoid crew on board.

If you use TV to pitch or yaw just a bit too much in hypersonic flight, you may just disintegrate into a million pieces instantly. This is a totally *new* type of flight regime from what we know at Mach3 and below (see Pye Wacket's shape for example).

Airmail109
05-20-2007, 06:01 PM
Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
mmm, you destroy the SAM radar sites with conventional anti-radiation missiles, or targeting known SAM site positions. This can probably be done best by supporting aircraft. Not talking about destroying the incoming missiles themselves with lasers. Although, there was a proposed anti-missile defense for B-70, here...

Convair Pye Wacket ~> http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app4/pyewacket.html

I don't think there can be such a thing as a stealthy hypersonic aircraft. The airframe would probably glow in the dark for one thing. Back in the day, they were predicting A-12/SR-71 would be stealthy enough to avoid detection by Russian radar, but apparently they were quite surprised.

I think you are making an error assuming the role of thrust vectoring here. TV helps slow aircraft spin round perhaps, but at high speeds, you can spin round and round all you want but your path in flight will still depend on gee forces and hypersonics at speed have very little turning ability if there is a humanoid crew on board.

...anyways, if you use TV to pitch or yaw just a bit too much in hypersonic flight, you may just disintegrate into a million pieces instantly. This is a totally *new* type of flight regime from what we know at Mach3 and below (see Pye Wacket's shape for example).

Yahhhhhh, couldn't they build a thrust vector that could utilize subtle inputs?

Google X-44 Manta! The CCV stuff is also interesting, I'm betting you could control an aircraft subtly with CCV given enough research.

Actually heres a link for the X-44 Manta

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/x-44.htm

Im proposing a bigger version of this

http://www.fantastic-plastic.com/X-44MantaMain1.jpg

Viper2005_
05-20-2007, 06:03 PM
Hypersonic aircraft cannot easily be stealthy since they generally emit an awful lot of IR...

Airmail109
05-20-2007, 06:04 PM
Originally posted by Viper2005_:
Hypersonic aircraft cannot easily be stealthy since they generally emit an awful lot of IR...

Could be passed off as an asteroid at high alt? In the context of a first strike against a modern air defense system......maybe? If not, when you get to serious altitude, after going hypersonic to get to that altitude fast...chop the throttle SLOWLY and glide

I think having a hypersonic capable stealth weapons platform would give it massive amounts options in combat situations.

LEXX_Luthor
05-20-2007, 06:10 PM
X-44 Manta
Interesting. But I'd think that at high speeds we are talking about, flight path control (not attitude or facing) is limited by the gee forces on the humanoid in the cockpit. Just changing the nose direction (attitude) doesn't dodge SAMs, and that's what you are hoping for. Forget it. Not going to happen. You have to change the flight path, and in hypersonics, you can fly over a few Ussian states just trying to turn around 180 degrees (one state if its Texas).

Airmail109
05-20-2007, 06:11 PM
Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">X-44 Manta
Interesting. But I'd think that at high speeds we are talking about, flight path control (not attitude or facing) is limited by the gee forces on the humanoid in the cockpit. Just changing the nose direction (attitude) doesn't dodge SAMs, and that's what you are hoping for. Forget it. Not going to happen. You have to change the flight path, and in hypersonics, you can fly over a few Ussian states just trying to turn around 180 degrees (one state if its Texas). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Okay, cool I see your point. You can always slow down before you maneuver, no!? Reverse thrusters? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Maybe im just dreaming up a machine that would cost 10 times the amount of a raptor, an aircraft with decent subsonic/supersonic agility with hypersonic capability. Who says you have to turn anyway, as your said long range ALARMs would get the job done.

Meh heheh

Theres a new G-suit being tester btw that can let pilots withstand 12 Gs and possibly more. It uses some water based system that replicates being inside a womb. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Price wouldn't matter though, you could replace all other aircraft with thousands of missile armed UAVS for low altitude tactical work, launched in swarms over the battlefield. Have loads of guys who used to play on play stations to much controlling them from behind the battlefield. Then again im not sure about cyber war and its implications on UAVs

BSS_Sniper
05-20-2007, 06:31 PM
Originally posted by Aimail101:
The whole maneuverability thing is bull****, you cannot out turn a missile....what you can do is run like hell in the opposite direction when a missiles launched at you by an enemy aircraft....with the aim of escaping its 100 percent kill zone.

I have found in all the sims when you get into big BVR ****ging matches its the aircraft with the most height and speed that win. Missiles have energy, the more height you have over your oponent the more energy the missile has to hit its target.....increasing its range....the faster you are going....the further you can get away from a missile launched at you...decreasing its energy if it manages to get to you.....if a missile has to travel up to hit you as well, it will further lose more energy and range

Its all about speed and height

What we need are stealthy Electric Lightnings if we want a great air to air platform

Im going to make a guess that the next generation of manned fighters (they will not be unmanned because of an increase in cyber war, hence needing some independence from ground control) will not be fighters but more like gunships, they'll be hypersonic aircarft, that will fly close to space. they will be stealthy, they will be imbetween an F111 and an Sr71 in size, ecquiped with the new laser technology coming through for air to air, air-to-air missiles for engaging targets in poor weather conditions, and precision guided munitions for air to ground. They will also have lots of sensors for recon and target aquisition.

All of this will be so the aircraft can avoid IR thermal detection. Ground based lasers and better IR detection systems + Radar will make it almost impossible in the future for aircraft to penetrate enemy airspace and lower altitudes.

All other aircraft will be tiny drones, carrying missiles and guns. Their objective will be to swamp enemy air defenses with sheer numbers. They will have electric motors because of the lack of oil.

Ummm, where did you get this from? A/G and A/A missles are twice the max speed of fighters. Trying to run away is the worst thing you could try to do. Getting abeam the missile is what defeats it because it CAN'T turn like a plane. (as well as using countermeasures)

Airmail109
05-20-2007, 06:36 PM
Originally posted by BSS_Sniper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aimail101:
The whole maneuverability thing is bull****, you cannot out turn a missile....what you can do is run like hell in the opposite direction when a missiles launched at you by an enemy aircraft....with the aim of escaping its 100 percent kill zone.

I have found in all the sims when you get into big BVR ****ging matches its the aircraft with the most height and speed that win. Missiles have energy, the more height you have over your oponent the more energy the missile has to hit its target.....increasing its range....the faster you are going....the further you can get away from a missile launched at you...decreasing its energy if it manages to get to you.....if a missile has to travel up to hit you as well, it will further lose more energy and range

Its all about speed and height

What we need are stealthy Electric Lightnings if we want a great air to air platform

Im going to make a guess that the next generation of manned fighters (they will not be unmanned because of an increase in cyber war, hence needing some independence from ground control) will not be fighters but more like gunships, they'll be hypersonic aircarft, that will fly close to space. they will be stealthy, they will be imbetween an F111 and an Sr71 in size, ecquiped with the new laser technology coming through for air to air, air-to-air missiles for engaging targets in poor weather conditions, and precision guided munitions for air to ground. They will also have lots of sensors for recon and target aquisition.

All of this will be so the aircraft can avoid IR thermal detection. Ground based lasers and better IR detection systems + Radar will make it almost impossible in the future for aircraft to penetrate enemy airspace and lower altitudes.

All other aircraft will be tiny drones, carrying missiles and guns. Their objective will be to swamp enemy air defenses with sheer numbers. They will have electric motors because of the lack of oil.

Ummm, where did you get this from? A/G and A/A missles are twice the max speed of fighters. Trying to run away is the worst thing you could try to do. Getting abeam the missile is what defeats it because it CAN'T turn like a plane. (as well as using countermeasures) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Short-range air-air missiles have received particular attention due to their vastly improved wide-angle seekers, computer processor improvements driven by Moore's Law, and g-tolerant maneuverability several times that of manned fighter aircraft. Some analysts now believe that close-in aerial combat may at last be threatening to fulfill missile engineers' old claims of "see, fire, and kill" - a development that would make cheap aircraft with new missiles a very significant threat, if true. Medium range AAM designs have also made significant strides in performance.

Oh yes and please read the article i posted on missile ranges as well and how the speed, direction and height effect their ranges. The key is'nt outmaneuvering them - its keeping the enemies missile range as low as possible using height and speed, whilst maximising your missile range

BSS_Sniper
05-20-2007, 06:38 PM
Originally posted by Aimail101:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWSensei:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aimail101:
The whole maneuverability thing is bull****, you cannot out turn a missile....what you can do is run like hell in the opposite direction when a missiles launched at you by an enemy aircraft....with the aim of escaping its 100 percent kill zone.

Ummm, you really don't know what you are talking about right? "Outturning" a missile is exactly what you are supposed to do and it's actually quite easy. Turning the opposite way and running is exactly the WRONG thing to do since you can't outrun most missiles (the slow ones move at MACH 3 or better). Presenting your hot 6 to a missile is the thing rookies to die quickly. Outmaneuvering a missile is actually the first defense beyond outright jamming is was a constant training item back when I flew Vipers. It's actually fairly easy to turn inside of a missile. What is hard to do is outrun it.

Speed vs Maneuverability? You need a certain amount of speed, but most modern combat takes place sub-800 knots (~650 for most). Speed gets you to the area of engagement quicker and leaves you more options, but once you are in the knife fight maneuverability matters.

Ground Attack is an odd animal of both. You need to maneuver enough to throw off AAA and SAMs tracking you but you want to maintain speed to minimize ToT. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Best thing to do is to turn 90 degrees to the incoming missile, run....then when it gets within a certain range start hard maneuvering whilst dispensing chaff or flares. The aim is to try and escape its 100 percent kill zone before you start maneuvering. Im talking about BVR nor short range stuff. The whole idea of hypersonic speeds and long range missiles like the meteor is to stay out of knife fights

More height + speed over your opponent = longer effective engagement range for your missiles

With todays technology, missile designers can say what they were saying back in vietnam, the days of dogfighting are well and truly over. Period. Once you have a lock, and your within the 100 percent kill zone its all over. It is now the person who is seen last, has the most spped and the most height that wins.

You CANNOT out turn or outwit the new generation of thrust vectored medium and short range AAMs unless you are outside of a certain zone. WIth the meteor the 100 percent kill zone is 40km, any aircrafts job facing that threat is to stay well out of that zone using speed and altitude.

Your the rookie if you think out turning MODERN next generation AAMS is easy </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd say you need to talk to BSS_Vidar who actually did this in the Navy for a living. I think he'd disagree with you totally.

Airmail109
05-20-2007, 06:43 PM
Originally posted by BSS_Sniper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aimail101:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWSensei:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aimail101:
The whole maneuverability thing is bull****, you cannot out turn a missile....what you can do is run like hell in the opposite direction when a missiles launched at you by an enemy aircraft....with the aim of escaping its 100 percent kill zone.

Ummm, you really don't know what you are talking about right? "Outturning" a missile is exactly what you are supposed to do and it's actually quite easy. Turning the opposite way and running is exactly the WRONG thing to do since you can't outrun most missiles (the slow ones move at MACH 3 or better). Presenting your hot 6 to a missile is the thing rookies to die quickly. Outmaneuvering a missile is actually the first defense beyond outright jamming is was a constant training item back when I flew Vipers. It's actually fairly easy to turn inside of a missile. What is hard to do is outrun it.

Speed vs Maneuverability? You need a certain amount of speed, but most modern combat takes place sub-800 knots (~650 for most). Speed gets you to the area of engagement quicker and leaves you more options, but once you are in the knife fight maneuverability matters.

Ground Attack is an odd animal of both. You need to maneuver enough to throw off AAA and SAMs tracking you but you want to maintain speed to minimize ToT. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Best thing to do is to turn 90 degrees to the incoming missile, run....then when it gets within a certain range start hard maneuvering whilst dispensing chaff or flares. The aim is to try and escape its 100 percent kill zone before you start maneuvering. Im talking about BVR nor short range stuff. The whole idea of hypersonic speeds and long range missiles like the meteor is to stay out of knife fights

More height + speed over your opponent = longer effective engagement range for your missiles

With todays technology, missile designers can say what they were saying back in vietnam, the days of dogfighting are well and truly over. Period. Once you have a lock, and your within the 100 percent kill zone its all over. It is now the person who is seen last, has the most spped and the most height that wins.

You CANNOT out turn or outwit the new generation of thrust vectored medium and short range AAMs unless you are outside of a certain zone. WIth the meteor the 100 percent kill zone is 40km, any aircrafts job facing that threat is to stay well out of that zone using speed and altitude.

Your the rookie if you think out turning MODERN next generation AAMS is easy </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd say you need to talk to BSS_Vidar who actually did this in the Navy for a living. I think he'd disagree with you totally. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Read all my posts, im trying to describe a totally different way of staging a strategic air war against say China. Actually, if you read all the latest defense stuff you'll see parallels between what im saying and what theyre saying.

Anmanned UAVs for tactical work, thousands of them

Hypersonic capable aircraft for Airspace denial and destruction of key tagets and installations anywhere in the world. With good enough low speed maneuverability, not amazing but good enough. WOuld mean that the US wouldnt have to rely on any bases around the world to project air power.

Chris0382
05-20-2007, 06:51 PM
Im thinking we are approaching the limits of combustion engines (burning liquid fuels)and need a new method of propulsion.

I also dont see USA keeping the F-35 secrets that make it good once they sell it to other countries and some that are only borderline freindly.

I also see Russia building great aircraft and only being able to afford to sell them and not use many of them themselves. I feel the USA wants a sales model and a few fir its self as the F-15's are quite adequat for its needs and a great work of aviation engineering.

Airmail109
05-20-2007, 06:52 PM
Originally posted by Chris0382:
Im thinking we are approaching the limits of combustion engines (burning liquid fuels)and need a new method of propulsion.

I also dont see USA keeping the F-35 secrets that make it good once they sell it to other countries and some that are only borderline freindly.

I also see Russia building great aircraft and only being able to afford to sell them and not use many of them themselves. I feel the USA wants a sales model and a few fir its self as the F-15's are quite adequat for its needs and a great work of aviation engineering.

A standard turbine that could double as a ramjet would be fine

Its just the fuel for long range flights in a fairly agile airframe thats hard.

Anyway ive had enough of proposing silly ideas

LEXX_Luthor
05-20-2007, 07:02 PM
AirMail::
...im trying to describe a totally different way of staging a strategic air war against say China. Actually, if you read all the latest defense stuff you'll see parallels between what im saying and what theyre saying.
That's the *first* thing I picked up on, Hence my interest in helping you think this out. I'm desperatly trying to mold my StrikeFighters sim into a rather rough 1947-1967 SAC vs PVO strategic strike/intercept sim, with a role for escorts from F-82 Twin Zwilling to F-108, but its a difficult task, as the sim was created for tactical operations, but aren't they all?

...not the [cancelled] Target For Tonight, RAF bomber/Mossie vs Luftwaffe night air defence.

Tagert For Tonight interview ~> http://www.womengamers.com/interviews/t4t.php

Bremspropeller
05-21-2007, 07:40 AM
Nahhh they said it was great, but would rather have a really fast fighter that could climb like the lightning, with todays technology maybe you could get some range as well


The Tiffie actually climbs faster than the Lightning.

The past decades showed that speed is second to many other factors, such as maneuvreability, range, payload and stuff.


Not necessarily how about a stealthy high flying hypersonic craft. With no control surfaces except for thrust vectoring and CCV. Radar signature would be unbelievably small. They may be able to see you but id be damned if they could get a lock. Even then im betting you could outmaneuver one of the huge SAMs using the CCV and thrust vectoring.

Stealth and hypersonic flight won't go together.
Shockwaves will enlargen your RCS, whereas your a/c becomes a brightly emitting IR-target.
The high frequency-shift of your doppler-return is also a thing to consider.

As Luthor pointed out, changing your attitude won't help anything (besides that only a slight change of your attitude at such high speeds WILL cause tremendous g-forces).
You need to cause an angle-problem for the missile, causing it to overshoot (however, modern heaters have enough energy to start a second attempt within their "no escape zone").
The 9-3 line is a good spot to "place" an incoming missile on your canopy.

Airmail109
05-21-2007, 08:57 AM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Nahhh they said it was great, but would rather have a really fast fighter that could climb like the lightning, with todays technology maybe you could get some range as well


The Tiffie actually climbs faster than the Lightning.

The past decades showed that speed is second to many other factors, such as maneuvreability, range, payload and stuff.


Not necessarily how about a stealthy high flying hypersonic craft. With no control surfaces except for thrust vectoring and CCV. Radar signature would be unbelievably small. They may be able to see you but id be damned if they could get a lock. Even then im betting you could outmaneuver one of the huge SAMs using the CCV and thrust vectoring.

Stealth and hypersonic flight won't go together.
Shockwaves will enlargen your RCS, whereas your a/c becomes a brightly emitting IR-target.
The high frequency-shift of your doppler-return is also a thing to consider.

As Luthor pointed out, changing your attitude won't help anything (besides that only a slight change of your attitude at such high speeds WILL cause tremendous g-forces).
You need to cause an angle-problem for the missile, causing it to overshoot (however, modern heaters have enough energy to start a second attempt within their "no escape zone").
The 9-3 line is a good spot to "place" an incoming missile on your canopy. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Coool. Fair points.

Check out plasma stealth, dont know what to make of it. Might be the answer to the hypersonic problems, in terms of areodynamics as well.

MEGILE
05-21-2007, 09:01 AM
Originally posted by Aimail101:


Check out plasma stealth, dont know what to make of it.

Debunked many times.

It is the fantasy of websites like Aeronautic.ru

Airmail109
05-21-2007, 09:23 AM
Originally posted by Megile:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aimail101:


Check out plasma stealth, dont know what to make of it.

Debunked many times.

It is the fantasy of websites like Aeronautic.ru </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oki

whiteladder
05-21-2007, 09:44 AM
Xiolablu3::
quote:

Sharky 'Sea HArrier' Ward believes that low turn radius is the single most important thing in a dogfight and that manouvrability is very important. They didnt lose one Harrier to enemy planes in the Falklands. Of course manouvrability doesnt matter if you can avoid the dogfight, but in almost every war there has ever been where both sides have an air force (Iraq or Afganistan dont count), planes end up having to do some form of dogfighting.

Yes -- Pacific War -- Airmail is right -- speed is King.

Anyways, I have heard that Argentina's MirageIII could not use afterburner at the long ranges flown, so this helped the Harrier dogfight experience, or so I have heard. Basically, the MirageIIIs were forced to fight with thrust cut in half during combat.


It interesting that Wards quote is used in this context because although all of the engagements involving the Harriers took place at visual range during the Falkland conflict there was no "dogfighting" in the conventional sense of the word.

LEXX_Luthor
05-21-2007, 06:09 PM
Interesting. What kind of visual range engagements were these?

Badsight-
05-21-2007, 06:39 PM
speed was king in the PTO during WW2 ?

well yea , if all your enemy can out-turn you , but are slower - then speed would = life

what happened between syria & Isreal in the 70's ?

76 - 0 for the superior turning F-15's of the IAF

LEXX_Luthor
05-22-2007, 06:44 AM
Airmail, if you are still here, a wonderful example just dropped in front of us -- 1982 Lebanon.


what happened between syria & Isreal in the 70's ?


76 - 0 for the superior turning F-15's of the IAF
Do we mean 1982, one of the largest jet battles in humanoid history?

(0) Early RPV deception of Syrian SAM sites setting them up for destruction.

(1) Syrian fatal mistake of witholding air operations during the initial phase of the Isreali anti-SAM operation.

(2) Full E2C AWACS support for Isreali aircraft.

(3) Electronic warfare jamming Syrian air-ground communications which the Soviet export fighters expected to depend on.

(4) High speed air-air Sparrow and all aspect Sidewinder missile engagements.

(5) Tactical planning and setting air-air traps to take advantage of the above 3.

(6) Which depended on far superior Isreali aircrew experience and training especially for this one offensive surprise battle plan.

(7) Modern equipped Ussian aircraft vs mostly obsolete equipped Soviet export aircraft.

(8) etc...
:
:
:
(85) Jet sim "manueverability."

The classic "red baron" or "combat flight sim" style manueverability possibly played a great role in a few events. I like to think that if Israel had a squadron or two of modernized Mach 3+ Lockheed F-12s with Phoenix missiles, they would have easily achieved the boasted 85:0 kill ratio, or exceeded that by taking out Syrian aircraft far beyond the Bekaa Valley, or whatever the numbers are supposed to be now. Such is the importance of maintaining speed for both offense and for survival, as well as long range weapon systems. How would Israel deploy such beasts? It takes alot of airspace to get up to Mach 3. Perhaps, fly out over the safety of The Meds, as was the traditional tactic of many Israel and Arab offensive missions.

Lessons learned:
(1) Tactics relying on speed is King, from WW1 to the present.
(2) Tactics relying on as long range weapon system as possible is King from WW1 to today.
(3) Tactics relying on electronic warfare has now become King, starting as long ago as WW2.
(4) Air space defence relying purely on 100% SAMs without intercept air support will fail miserably when these SAMs are specifically targeted. SAMs and interceptors working together we may call "combined arms."

AirMail, for an honest webboard discussion without hostile "turn and burn" dogfight game webboard insults and slogans, visit http://www.acig.org/ Journal and Forums. They cover the past, including China (see especially China vs Formosa 1958) and the possible future, including China. Fascinating stuff never covered anywhere else. You have much to learn youthful grasshopper/hopperette, and its fascinating.

(currently, the ACIG Forum seems quirky -- try a few times if you fail first)

Xiolablu3
05-22-2007, 10:02 AM
Originally posted by whiteladder:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Xiolablu3::
quote:

Sharky 'Sea HArrier' Ward believes that low turn radius is the single most important thing in a dogfight and that manouvrability is very important. They didnt lose one Harrier to enemy planes in the Falklands. Of course manouvrability doesnt matter if you can avoid the dogfight, but in almost every war there has ever been where both sides have an air force (Iraq or Afganistan dont count), planes end up having to do some form of dogfighting.

Yes -- Pacific War -- Airmail is right -- speed is King.

Anyways, I have heard that Argentina's MirageIII could not use afterburner at the long ranges flown, so this helped the Harrier dogfight experience, or so I have heard. Basically, the MirageIIIs were forced to fight with thrust cut in half during combat.


It interesting that Wards quote is used in this context because although all of the engagements involving the Harriers took place at visual range during the Falkland conflict there was no "dogfighting" in the conventional sense of the word. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I have his book and it has diagrams of some of hte fights, I am quite sure that there was some dogfighting, or maybe they were just set pieces by him and his wingman.


I have the book somewhere will search it out and post later.

Even if oyu have a speed advantage, there are situations in whihc you must dogfight, such as escorting bombers. You MUST get onto the tail of hte enemy aeroplane right away before he kills your bombers, there is no time to line up the perfect attack. You must try and stay on him or put him off his attack as soon as possible.

So even if you try and say 'dont dogfight with the enemy' you cannot always avoid it.

Remember Goerings orders to the Bf109's in the BOB. 'Stay close to the bombers' This meant they were forced into dogfighting when their best tactic would have been to go in from high and fast. The losses of the bombers did actually go down too apparantly after the 109's stayed closer. No doubt the Bf109 losses went up tho.

LEXX_Luthor
05-22-2007, 02:31 PM
x3::
Even if oyu have a speed advantage, there are situations in whihc you must dogfight, such as escorting bombers. <span class="ev_code_yellow">You MUST get onto the tail of hte enemy aeroplane right away before he kills your bombers</span>, there is no time to line up the perfect attack. You must try and stay on him or put him off his attack as soon as possible.
mmm, Yak pilots did just that while escorting IL-2s and Pe-2s. They would use their quick ability to turn into the diving Luftwaffe fighter, fire weapons to put the enemy off his attack run against the bombers. Beware the Luft pilot who slowed down to try and pound a specific bomber, as the Yaks would get him/her. Thus, the popular zoom away for another try later.

However, that's not "dogfight." And, it requires speed to get onto the tail of the enemy "right away" before he/she kills your bombers (Yak pilots did not get onto the tail of the slashing German fighters, unless they slowed down to target a specific bomber http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif ). The Yak pilots often fired from impossible angles, but with the intent of distracting the German pilots.

Viper2005_
05-22-2007, 03:14 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Remember Goerings orders to the Bf109's in the BOB. 'Stay close to the bombers' This meant they were forced into dogfighting when their best tactic would have been to go in from high and fast. The losses of the bombers did actually go down too apparantly after the 109's stayed closer. No doubt the Bf109 losses went up tho.

Close escort is easy to rubbish, but with RADAR, given the known performance of the German bombers it would be easy to identify aircraft flying too fast and/or too high as escort fighters. Interceptors could therefore be vectored directly to the bombers avoiding any high energy escort.

Incidentally, this is perhaps one of the less frequently considered factors which made the Ju-86P so terrifying to the RAF.

LEXX_Luthor
05-22-2007, 04:33 PM
Viper::
Close escort is easy to rubbish
Correct, assuming high speed interceptors. End of Discussion. mmm, what is the role here of Ju-86P high altitude lone flying recon aircraft?


Interesting observations...

(1) Goering's close escort, which is similar to Japanese close escorts in the face of lethal Flying Tiger's slashing diving attacks, becomes fashionable with hardcore old timer combat flight simmers.

(2) Classic Turn and Burn dogfighting becomes fashionable among old timer hardcore Boom and Zoom simmers.

This bizzare, and ultimately tragic webboard behavior may be exhibited to rationalize gamer attraction to "fun dogfight game" manuevering in the superHUDdigitalJet sims like Su-27 Flaker and F-16 Flacon.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Airmail109
05-25-2007, 08:08 AM
There are only two kinds of maneuvers possible in general when if comes to dealing with AAMs. In general the rough rule of thumb is that if the missile has at least 3 times as energetic as the aircraft (MV^2/M; or simply V^2) by the time it enters the end game, it cannot be evaded. 3x the KE quotient is roughly 1.73x the speed. There are maneuvers which are done at relatively long distances -- such as a course or altitude change -- to cause the missile to waste kinetic energy. This kind of maneuvers are almost never taken at high Gs because it doesn't help at all and in fact hurts the aircraft by slowing it down. The second kind of maneuver is taken at the last seconds hoping that the missile will miss because it cannot match the turn rate of the aircraft. This is futile the overwhelming majority of the time because the aircraft CANNOT out turn the missile and unless the missile is right on the hairline between meeting or failing to meet the kinetic energy of the aircraft just prior to impact it wouldn't have made a difference. If the missile is already below the kinetic threshold, it will miss even if the aircraft doesn't turn as hard. If it is even 5% above what it needs it will hit regardless of whether you pull a 6G turn or a 12G one. For instance, if the no escape envelope of an AIM-9X in a particular situation vs a particular aircraft is 15km. Having 12G agility vs 6G will matter only if the shot was taken at maybe 14.5~15.5km. It won't matter if it was taken at a closer distance because 12Gs or not it'll hit, and it won't matter at longer distances because 6Gs or not it'll miss. If you are asking why? Well, let's put it this way... at 1km even the most aggressive maneuver to put the aircraft at 90 degrees to the vector of the missile will only require an ~25 degree per second course change. At 5km no matter how you maneuver (even if you do it at 20Gs) and put yourself on a perpendicular course, the missile only needs to barely twitch and post a turn rate of 4.7 degrees per second to keep up. In otherwords, hard maneuvering on the part of the target is practically irrelevant for 90~95% of the missile's flight and in the last 5~10% it is also irrelevant unless it is a borderline, edge of the envelope situation.



(1) A 9G platform cannot EVER match the turn rate of a 30~65G missile. Period.

(2) Extreme maneuvering on the part of the aircraft will result in very gentle maneuvering on the part of the missile for over 90% of the flight time of the missile.

This ladies, is why speed is more important in terms of survivability in A2A, to escape the 100 percent kill zone of a missile

LStarosta
05-25-2007, 08:48 AM
Originally posted by Aimail101:
There are only two kinds of maneuvers possible in general when if comes to dealing with AAMs. In general the rough rule of thumb is that if the missile has at least 3 times as energetic as the aircraft (MV^2/M; or simply V^2) by the time it enters the end game, it cannot be evaded. 3x the KE quotient is roughly 1.73x the speed. There are maneuvers which are done at relatively long distances -- such as a course or altitude change -- to cause the missile to waste kinetic energy. This kind of maneuvers are almost never taken at high Gs because it doesn't help at all and in fact hurts the aircraft by slowing it down. The second kind of maneuver is taken at the last seconds hoping that the missile will miss because it cannot match the turn rate of the aircraft. This is futile the overwhelming majority of the time because the aircraft CANNOT out turn the missile and unless the missile is right on the hairline between meeting or failing to meet the kinetic energy of the aircraft just prior to impact it wouldn't have made a difference. If the missile is already below the kinetic threshold, it will miss even if the aircraft doesn't turn as hard. If it is even 5% above what it needs it will hit regardless of whether you pull a 6G turn or a 12G one. For instance, if the no escape envelope of an AIM-9X in a particular situation vs a particular aircraft is 15km. Having 12G agility vs 6G will matter only if the shot was taken at maybe 14.5~15.5km. It won't matter if it was taken at a closer distance because 12Gs or not it'll hit, and it won't matter at longer distances because 6Gs or not it'll miss. If you are asking why? Well, let's put it this way... at 1km even the most aggressive maneuver to put the aircraft at 90 degrees to the vector of the missile will only require an ~25 degree per second course change. At 5km no matter how you maneuver (even if you do it at 20Gs) and put yourself on a perpendicular course, the missile only needs to barely twitch and post a turn rate of 4.7 degrees per second to keep up. In otherwords, hard maneuvering on the part of the target is practically irrelevant for 90~95% of the missile's flight and in the last 5~10% it is also irrelevant unless it is a borderline, edge of the envelope situation.



(1) A 9G platform cannot EVER match the turn rate of a 30~65G missile. Period.

(2) Extreme maneuvering on the part of the aircraft will result in very gentle maneuvering on the part of the missile for over 90% of the flight time of the missile.

This ladies, is why speed is more important in terms of survivability in A2A, to escape the 100 percent kill zone of a missile

Disagree. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif

whiteladder
05-25-2007, 09:37 AM
I have his book and it has diagrams of some of hte fights, I am quite sure that there was some dogfighting, or maybe they were just set pieces by him and his wingman.


I have the book somewhere will search it out and post later

Sorry I missed a important word out my post "Almost no dog fighting as such."

The diagrams are in the back of "Sea Harrier over the falklands" and refer to the 2 combats that took place on the 1st of May between the Sea harriers and the Mirages. Pretty much after this date all of the aircombats were between the Harriers and the Argentine ground attack aircraft and transports(Daggers, Skyhawks, Pucaras etc.

The Mirages only made 50 or so sorties over the Island during the whole conflict, and the combat radius was crippled by the fact they had dropped there external tanks in the first encounters and had no replacements. This problem also effected the Daggers but to a lesser extent. In addition the Mirages/dagger had no in flight refueling capability, only the skyhawks did. The availablity of only 2 c130 tankers limited the number of skyhawks that could sortie over the island at any one time.

The Argentines made no real attempts to gain a positional advantage in any of the aerial encounters after the 1st of may, in fact very few were aware they were under attack until they were hit. I think I right in saying that the only aerial weapons fired at the Sea Harriers were 2 R530 missile on the 1st of May and 30mm cannon when Ward was almost bounced by a Dagger.Certainly the Sea Harriers were never in a postion where they needed to use superior turning ability to avoid attack or gain a firing position, and even the 2 dogfights against the Mirages were one sided affairs with the Harriers alway being in the dominate postion.

In theory the Skyhawks could have been a fairly good match in a close in dogfight, but the Argentine leadership thought that evasion was the best tactic.

WWSensei
05-25-2007, 09:40 AM
Originally posted by Aimail101:
There are only two kinds of maneuvers possible in general when if comes to dealing with AAMs. In general the rough rule of thumb is that if the missile has at least 3 times as energetic as the aircraft (MV^2/M; or simply V^2) by the time it enters the end game, it cannot be evaded. 3x the KE quotient is roughly 1.73x the speed. There are maneuvers which are done at relatively long distances -- such as a course or altitude change -- to cause the missile to waste kinetic energy. This kind of maneuvers are almost never taken at high Gs because it doesn't help at all and in fact hurts the aircraft by slowing it down. The second kind of maneuver is taken at the last seconds hoping that the missile will miss because it cannot match the turn rate of the aircraft. This is futile the overwhelming majority of the time because the aircraft CANNOT out turn the missile and unless the missile is right on the hairline between meeting or failing to meet the kinetic energy of the aircraft just prior to impact it wouldn't have made a difference. If the missile is already below the kinetic threshold, it will miss even if the aircraft doesn't turn as hard. If it is even 5% above what it needs it will hit regardless of whether you pull a 6G turn or a 12G one. For instance, if the no escape envelope of an AIM-9X in a particular situation vs a particular aircraft is 15km. Having 12G agility vs 6G will matter only if the shot was taken at maybe 14.5~15.5km. It won't matter if it was taken at a closer distance because 12Gs or not it'll hit, and it won't matter at longer distances because 6Gs or not it'll miss. If you are asking why? Well, let's put it this way... at 1km even the most aggressive maneuver to put the aircraft at 90 degrees to the vector of the missile will only require an ~25 degree per second course change. At 5km no matter how you maneuver (even if you do it at 20Gs) and put yourself on a perpendicular course, the missile only needs to barely twitch and post a turn rate of 4.7 degrees per second to keep up. In otherwords, hard maneuvering on the part of the target is practically irrelevant for 90~95% of the missile's flight and in the last 5~10% it is also irrelevant unless it is a borderline, edge of the envelope situation.



(1) A 9G platform cannot EVER match the turn rate of a 30~65G missile. Period.

(2) Extreme maneuvering on the part of the aircraft will result in very gentle maneuvering on the part of the missile for over 90% of the flight time of the missile.

This ladies, is why speed is more important in terms of survivability in A2A, to escape the 100 percent kill zone of a missile

Your faith in the "100% kill" missile is overmodelled.

Your point #1 is wrong. Period.

Your point 2 shows a very large lack of knowledge of A2A doctrine, missile technology and proper techniques. Not surprising if you've never done it professionally. In fact, you are 180 degrees wrong about your assumptions. You are so far off I am beginning to think you really don't have an idea of what is involved in out-maneuvering a missile. If you think it involves one simple banked turn and THAT is what you are measuring then I can see why your falsely believe what you are saying. You are leaving out 99.9% of the options.

The reality is in terms of evading a missile speed is irrelevant. Why? because no aircraft flies as fast as a missile. Period. An aircraft's speed is so outclassed by a missile's that it becomes a useless attribute. Some of today's missiles are capable of MACH 15 down to MACH 3. You will never outrun one. Trying to do so will get you killed.

The most effective defense is decoys/chaff/jamming. Second is out maneuvering.

Look up the mission for "Package Q" from the first Gulf War. 4 Vipers engaged via SAMs. SAMs with higher G tolerances than the 9G Viper. "Stroke 4" went down as he was hit before he had a chance to take defensive actions. In short, he never saw what hit him--like 90% of most air combat.

"Stroke 2" then proceeded to evade not one but 6 missiles. Not one. 6. By out-maneuvering all 6 supposedly "superior" missiles. We know that it was maneuvering because of two things--his defensive measures were malfunctioning. He couldn't drop chaff or flares, he survived, and we have the guncam footage. It's still shown as a training guide.

That "lady", is why speed is an insignificant factor in surviving in A2A against missiles. There is no such thing as a 100% kill zone for a missile except in manufacturer's propaganda brochures. A2A combat is simply too much of a rapidly changing dynamic environment to run a few math formulas and make absolute statements.

Speed is an important factor in determining the setup for air combat and in choosing what tactics you may employ. I would even agree that it is an overall more important factor--to a point. But once you are in a knife fight an aircraft's ability to rapidly change it's kinetic and potential energy state in initiating a maneuver far outweighs an aircraft (or missile's) top speed.

That's why a Viper's ability to decelerate and accelerate made it a far superior fighter to other aircraft that had higher top speeds. Research how the vastly faster F-105 Thuds--and lower maneuverability made them missile bait compared to the slower, but more maneuverable aircraft.

Airmail109
05-25-2007, 10:58 AM
Speed is perfectly relevant in surviving an A2A BVR fight.

You dont get what Im trying to say sure maneuverability is important, you can use your speed to control a BVR fight and to get some distance between you and any missiles launched against you in a BVR fight, then all the better. More speed the further distance you can put in = less energy for the missile to play with.

Other than that, mneh

Im talking about long range engagements not short range SAMS

And Mach 15? &*!%"^*!!!??????????????????????? Maybe for big huge VERY long range SAMs, the types used for knocking ICBMs out of the upper atmosphere. The new meteor does Mach 4

Whole point of Speed is to stay out of knife fights, really with the new F-22 and the ASRAAMS I really REALLY dont see knife fights happening. Itll just be Look, Shoot Kill. Yes Im saying what they wrongly said in Vietnam, just I think Now theres a lot of truth behind it.

Id like to see what happens if Vipers come up against, the brand spanking new Russian and Chinese tech. Im betting it wasn't the maneuverability of the missiles that was at fault, leading to six misses. But old technology. Crappy outdated missile guidance hardware. I could be wrong.

I still feel a fighter could be built that could do Mach 3, and pull 9Gs at lower speeds if it needed to.

If a Eurofighter ever got into a one on one engagement at say 100km with a viper, the viper would get royally owned? Why? The Tiffies got a 25 percent better climbrate, allowing it to get more height and exteding the range of its missiles. Not because it was more manuverable.

(tht is if they both had the same avionics suit, and same weapons suit)

Airmail109
05-25-2007, 11:52 AM
Eurofighter Pilot "Back to long range air combat. This is where the ability to operate at supersonic speeds becomes important. "The Eurofighter has a lot of thrust and little drag. Acceleration from 800km/h to Mach 1.2 is therefore markedly faster than with all known models," Wolfgang Schirdewahn assures us. "We build up a lot of speed, which we then pass on to medium range guided weapons."

Thats why I think speeds more important, it means you dont even have to have an AAM launched at you if you can fire first. Missile evasion by not allowing your oponent a chance to lauch.

Xiolablu3
05-25-2007, 12:50 PM
What people forget is that a missile travelling at mach 4-10 is going to have a very poor turning circle. Look at the tiny fins.

An aircraft has a very real chance of avoiding if he

1: Has a good turning aircraft
2: can time the break perfectly (I believe there is a beeping sound which gets faster as the missile gets closer to aid this.)


Obvioulsy chaff and ECM are the best countermeasures tho.

Xiolablu3
05-25-2007, 12:58 PM
Originally posted by Aimail101:

I still feel a fighter could be built that could do Mach 3, and pull 9Gs at lower speeds if it needed to.



Hi Airmail.

According to Kelly Jonson talking on a program about the SR71 Blackbird, people have given up on Mach 3 travel for the time being because of the sheer cost of that kind of speed.

The SR71 was at the limit of what the USA could afford, and only they could have afforded it.

Yes it probably COULD be made, but it would bankrupt the country that made it.

whiteladder
05-25-2007, 02:07 PM
Meteor was tested a couple of days ago.

Gripen has successfully conducted the first live firing of the six-nation Meteor air dominance missile at the UK's Hebrides missile range.

Gripen has conducted a successful live firing with the Meteor air-to-air missile, proving once again its reliability as a platform for the integration and testing of complex future missile systems for the world's new generation combat aircraft. Gripen is the first and so far only fighter aircraft to launch the Meteor, and this firing was the first in the UK.

Meteor was rail-launched from Gripen flying at supersonic speed at an altitude of 42.650ft. After a couple of seconds in the boost phase, Meteor transitioned to its ramjet operation. It then accelerated to speeds in excess of Mach 3, successfully executing various challenging manouevres. The missile followed a pre-programmed flight profile for several minutes and was then broken up in flight within the confines of the UK's Hebrides missile firing range all in accordance with the mission profile.

The shot at the Hebrides missile range was a High Altitude Control and Dispersion (C&D) firing, with the purpose of testing the performance of the missile's integrated boost, ramjet sustain motor and control systems during high altitude supersonic launch, extended free flight and extensive manouevres. This successful firing is not only a significant milestone in the European multinational missile project, but also for Saab, who will continue the firing and radar tests with Meteor up until 2010.

Meteor is the leading missile programme in Europe, in which Saab plays a key and prominent role. In 2001, Swedish authorities signed an international agreement to provide Gripen as a platform for testing the high-tech Beyond Visual Range (BVR) Meteor missile. Saab was involved in the programme as early as 2003, when Saab Bofors Dynamics was awarded a contract to be part of the development and production of the missile. Later that year, Saab Aerosystems received an order from the Swedish Defence Material Administration, FMV, concerning the integration of Meteor on Gripen. In April 2007, Saab was entrusted with the responsibility for carrying out new missile tests with Meteor, which now are being conducted.

The development of Meteor is being carried out as an international industrial project involving the UK, Germany, Sweden, France, Italy and Spain. The missile is planned to be the primary air-to-air missile for all the modern European fighter aircraft.

whiteladder
05-25-2007, 02:13 PM
Obvioulsy chaff and ECM are the best countermeasures tho.


Another advantage Eurofighter has (the RAF version at least) is the towed decoy which will provide the missile with a larger target than then aircraft.

EiZ0N
05-25-2007, 02:32 PM
I propose an automated missile evasion system.

Humans are very talented. But I feel that computers could step in for this kind of thing.

An on-board computer could calculate the speed and trajectory of an incoming missile, align the plane appropriately, and excuse the evasive maneuver at the perfect time based on available data, including the assumed abilities of the missile.

A computer would be much better at getting the timings perfect, as it could model the situation, and change the evasion routine dynamically if things changed.

I'm sure someone in military aviation must have considered this, but this is pretty much my 'field', and I think it could work http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif .

WWSensei
05-25-2007, 02:51 PM
Originally posted by Aimail101:
Speed is perfectly relevant in surviving an A2A BVR fight.

You dont get what Im trying to say sure maneuverability is important, you can use your speed to control a BVR fight and to get some distance between you and any missiles launched against you in a BVR fight, then all the better.

All I am going to say is that you have such a limited understanding of BVR engagement tactics that it simply isn't worth trying to discuss it with you. No, MACH 15 missiles aren't limited to ICBM killers. While most A2A missiles are in the 3-5 MACH range you do understand that most fighters cruise around 600 knots (AB only lasts a few seconds you know) which means missiles are 4-5 times faster than jets.

As to your opinion as to what Package Q went through and assuming "old technology" you don't have a single iota of a clue what you are talking about. For BVR fights the speed differential is too great to be a significant factor. Read again. Missiles are simply too much faster than fighters for the fighter's speed to be a deciding factor once trying to evade. It like saying a 10-speed bike shifting into second gear is going to make a difference in racing against a Formula-1 car.

As to your opinion of the Eurofighter vs Viper if you are going to decide air combat because of some numbers on a chart you are so clueless about air combat I might as well be trying to explain a wris****ch to a pig.

Aimail, you are out of your league here and your continued argument with someone who has done this professionally for many years is just embarrassing yourself.

So far you have shown a complete lack of understanding of air combat.

You lack understanding of missile technology. Here is a hint--no a2a missile to date, in combat conditions has a better than 50% hit ratio--that includes the Slammer.

You lack understanding of BVR engagement doctrine.

You lack a working knowledge of recent history.

You are apparently basing some assumptions on either chest thumping manufacturer's propaganda, wishful thinking or behavior of things in a video game. I'm basing mine on:

1) Actually having flown modern combat aircraft
2) Years of training in arguably the world's greatest air force in Air to Air and Air to ground combat including missile evasion techniques
3) Having actually evaded SAMs launched at me during Operation Southern Watch
4) A few years spent teaching pilots said techniques.

But go ahead, keep trying to tell me how I'm wrong.

LEXX_Luthor
05-25-2007, 08:36 PM
Sensai::
Speed is an important factor in determining the setup for air combat and in choosing what tactics you may employ. <span class="ev_code_yellow">I would even agree that it is an overall more important factor</span>--to a point. But once you are in a knife fight an aircraft's ability to rapidly change it's kinetic and potential energy state in initiating a maneuver far outweighs an aircraft (or missile's) top speed.

That's why a Viper's ability to decelerate and accelerate made it a far superior fighter to other aircraft that had higher top speeds. Research how the vastly faster F-105 Thuds--and lower maneuverability made them missile bait compared to the slower, but more maneuverable aircraft.
Aussom Sensai. Manuever is important. Manuver is Queen. Speed is King. I did hear the more manueverable F-5s were less vulnerable to being hit from gound weapons (AA, assume SAMs too?) than the far heavier F-105s and F-4s, but the F-5s could not serve the long range heavy jabo role, nor apparently serve the Wild Weasel role.

LEXX_Luthor
05-25-2007, 08:38 PM
AirMail::
Speed is perfectly relevant in surviving an A2A BVR fight.
To manuever, you need some speed (see below, a funny quote, showing the almost always present desire for speed). Granted, for our BVR discussion, speed is Queen -- weapon system is King. As for the Harrier vs non-afterburning Mirage thing, a full size carrier protecting the RN fleet and armed with F-14s -- a rather slow aircraft -- and Phoenix would probably not have let a single Argentinian aircraft get close to any ship.

About Package Q...interesting reads here...

Keith "Rosey" Rosenkranz::

~ http://www.lucky-devils.net/baghdad.html

:
:
I had just come off target and because of all of the flack around me, I pulled my nose up too quickly and got slow. As I was turning south, I plugged in the afterburner to help regain speed. Within seconds, my RAW indicator signaled to me that an SA-6 had locked on my jet and was heading in my direction.

As I continued to climb, I looked off my right shoulder toward the ground and saw the missile streaking towards me. Knowing I was slow, I hit the emergency jettison switch so I could get rid of my wing tanks. As strange as this may sound, I wanted to see what the tanks looked like when they came off the jet. I banked the jet back to the left and looked over my left shoulder. The tanks were tumbling in slow motion toward the ground. The vapor from the moisture in the air seemed to wrap around them. To this day, I can still see those tanks tumbling!!!

When I got that thrill out of my system, I decided I had better look back to see if the SA-6 was still guiding on me. Nice priotities, huh? As it turned out, the missile went behind my jet and began to fall back toward the ground.

I finally got my airspeed and altitude back and began to work out the rejoin with my flight lead.
:
:
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif The Simmers and the Real Thing do share a desire to watch the drop tanks fall away!!


The failure to replace the F-14 shows the reason for the apparent rise of popularity of "manuever" over speed is lack of any national opponents capable of requiring such speed. The last time speed or long range weapon system was needed, the Shah was desperate to stop MiG-25 recon flights over Iran, and they were stopped just by the purchase of F-14 and Phoenix. And of course, the reason for this lack of high speed threat is exactly what X3 poasted...


According to Kelly Jonson talking on a program about the SR71 Blackbird, people have given up on Mach 3 travel for the time being because of the sheer cost of that kind of speed.

The SR71 was at the limit of what the USA could afford, and only they could have afforded it.

Yes it probably COULD be made, but it would bankrupt the country that made it.
Ussia could probably make it today, but since nobody else can, there is no need....yet.

HellToupee
05-25-2007, 09:48 PM
Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
AirMail:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Speed is perfectly relevant in surviving an A2A BVR fight.
To manuever, you need some speed (see below, a funny quote, showing the almost always present desire for speed). Granted, for our BVR discussion, speed is Queen -- weapon system is King. As for the Harrier vs non-afterburning Mirage thing, a full size carrier protecting the RN fleet and armed with F-14s -- a rather slow aircraft -- and Phoenix would probably not have let a single Argentinian aircraft get close to any ship.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

the argentinian aircraft flew below radar coverage, the british ships would not see them coming untill they were ontop of them, phoenixs wouldnt be much use in that case.

StellarRat
05-25-2007, 10:42 PM
My prediction: The next generation of AC will be remote controlled by computers and humans on the ground. Speed will again become very important because the AC will be able to pull much higher G turns than a human can stand. Assuming the sensors improve to the point that the incoming will be easy to track a computer can plan and execute a break turn to dodge the missile. Everything will be groovy until AC are armed with laser weapons then some new strategy will be needed for defense...and so it goes....

LEXX_Luthor
05-26-2007, 06:52 PM
HellT::
the argentinian aircraft flew below radar coverage, the british ships would not see them coming untill they were ontop of them, phoenixs wouldnt be much use in that case.
AWACS would have seen them. However, we'll have to look at Tom's data on Iraq/Iran to see how F-14 performed against very low level targets. This could be a problem, as I recall reading about Iraqi traps using low flying Mirage F-1s popping up to down F-14s.