Next up Spudman WP...
Sensors and VLO are two sides of the same coin, the ability to be the first to see the other guy.
High altitude and supercruise are not features unique to "pure A2A" fighters. For example the F-35 can go above 50k and both Euro-cards claim super-cruise above M1.2 in A2A config.
While the F-22 has a kinematic advantage over current fighter/weapon configs, that will soon be changing as newer weapons are introduced at a faster rate than the F-22 can compensate (without changing it s own weapons).
I do not want you to forget 60 years of fighter combat history; I want you to learn from it. The in the 1st combat jets, maneuverability was absolute as you needed to get your target into a very small cone in order for your cannons to hit. Later, the need for absolute maneuverability was relaxed due to the cone becoming larger due to the introduction of AAMs. That cone expanded up to 180 degrees with the latest HOBS missiles like AIM-9x, ASRAAM, etc. Throughout these changes the need for absolute maneuverability was relaxed as the sensors & weapons became better (ie the latest F-16C Blk50 is not as maneuverable as the first F-16A).
The F-35 is just the next evolution in this process. It gives up nothing to previous generations, but gains much in terms of combat persistence, situational awareness and weapons capability. Maneuverability is still important due to the need (in a WVR fight) to keep from being in front of the enemy (and taking an AAM up the arse), but you only need to keep that up for a few seconds till your AAM hits.
As an example of how sensor & weapons upgrades will counter fighter generations at a faster pace, look at weapon integration. UAI allows new weapons to be used, fleet wide, with a few months of being developed. Far example; when ATK is done working on the AIM-120D+ s new motor and they complete whatever other changes they create as part of it s IOC capabilities, it can be shipped to any F-35, F-15E, and F-16 within 3 months of testing being done. No block upgrade needed. The same will be true of NGM, MALD, NGJ, etc.
Last but not least SMSGT Mac (Elements of Power Blogger)...
A couple of/three points if I may,Suffice it to say that in my mind this debate is dead. The F-35 will be a potent air to air platform and the critics are clutching at straws and depending on Korean War type solutions (invalid tactics) to solve modern combat problems.
1. BB1984 and Privateer:
Please read carefully and try to grasp my point as I typed it without overlaying emotion. I indicated that that increasing maneuverability does not bring much military advantage. I believe my use of a form of the verb 'increase' without any modifiers such as 'in relation to' or 'compared to x', to most people, would have immediately indicated that I was speaking in relation to current state. That should have in no way, shape, or form, indicated to any reasonable person implied anything other than what I typed. If you would like an aeronautical and operational explanation as to why what I typed was true, just ask. But don't twist other's words just to create an opening for making cr*p up.
2. I've noticed the question as to which version of the F-18 the F-35B maneuverability is being compared. Does it matter? The F-35B is replacing the Harrier, not the F-18. What kind of maneuverability does the AV-8 have at Mach 1+? Oh....(yeah).
3. A data point for the ‘hobbyists’:
------
The F-15 was larger and more visible than its predecessor the F-4, wrote Sprey, making it vulnerable in daylight close-in dogfighting. He claimed the Eagle was too dependent on radar guided missiles, which “are not likely to be more effective than those used in Vietnam.”
Since 1960, Sprey wrote in the 1981 piece, too much of the Air Force tactitcal aviation budget had been devoted to complex night/all-weather systems “of highly questionable capability.” Sprey urged the Air Force to emphasize the F-16 over the F-15 because “in visual combat, the F-16 has been demonstrated to be the superior aircraft.”
This was the point where the military reformers misfired.
Future air combat would not, as they assumed, take place largely in daytime, close-in engagements. The F-15 would go on to become the dominant air-to-air force in the skies precisely because of its radar missiles and long reach.
In the first Gulf War, the F-15 accounted for 36 of 40 Air Force aerial victories. Of those, 28 involved radar guided missiles. Worldwide, the Eagle has racked up an unprecedented kill ratio of 104-to-zero.
Writing in 2004, David R. Mets of Air University summed it up this way:
“The Korea-style dogfight seems to have all but disappeared from the air-to-air battle. The agility of both [the F-15 and F-16] remains highly useful in dodging surface-to-air missiles, but that is not what Boyd and the [military reform] acolytes had in mind.”
------
ref: http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2010/August%202010/0810failures.aspx
Just a data point.
The coalition completely outmatched the Iraqis during the Gulf War. To use that war as the basis for a theory on air combat between relatively evenly matched opponents is absurd and will get pilots killed.
ReplyDeleteYou consistently overestimate the effectiveness of AA missiles and underestimate the ability to counter them. At the end of the day, pilot skill, maneuverability, and a gun will be required.
Thomas, when was the last time a gun was used by a US jet in A2A? When virtually every US jet shot down in the past 30 odd years (since Vietnam IIRC) and virtually every jet shot down by a US jet has been done with an AAM, how am overestimating their effectiveness?
ReplyDeleteWhy were missed AAM shots ineffective? I'll give you a clue; it was either the failure to achieve a lock, jamming, or being launched outside their NEZ in order to scare the opponent off (ie mission kill).
The F-35, it's weapons, and it's sensors answer these problems in several ways. While some of these systems are not unique to the F-35, it is the first time they have been used to this level of integration.
Modern AAMs have datalinks. This allows the missile and the fighter to work hand-in-hand to negate the effectiveness of jamming & decoys to ensure that the missile reaches the right target. The latest versions of US AAMs use a GPS enhanced INS which allows the AAM to know “precisely” where the target is in 3D space in order to have the best chance of getting a lock. At BVR ranges the radar & EOTS (both native and 3rd party) will be used to track the target and provide updates till the target achieves a hit. At WVR ranges, that task falls to EODAS.
Modern IIR AAMs are virtually immune to flares. If you look at the available test videos you can see that they are in no way fooled away from the target.
Finally, a VLO airframe more than likely allows the F-35 to launch the AAM while inside it’s NEZ, but more importantly, outside the detection zone of the enemy fighter.
There is an old analogy about two sworn enemies being locked in a completely darkened room armed with auto weapons and a flashlight. As long as neither turns on their flashlight, they are safe, but as soon as one turns on his flashlight, he's dead. Now beyond the obvious correlation to radar, which has been addressed with FA, though some claim this is already defeatable, imagine the scenario where no one ever turns on their flashlight so no one finds the other until they happen to bump into each other. Well, now you have today's stealth vs. stealth scenario. No one sees anyone until you bump into each other or in other words, WVR.
ReplyDeleteOkay, so now you are maneuvering WVR, and despite the high probability of a kill (Pk) of today’s WVR missiles, the Pk is not 100%. Also, the more disadvantaged you can put your opponent angles wise, the higher your Pk is and the lower his Pk is. This is done by the more maneuverable A/C.
Now add in the IR countermeasures that many on here have argued will negate even today's advanced WVR IR missiles. So, again, as nothing is 100%, let’s say it reduces the effectiveness of the missiles a little further, so now a HOBS shot, or a frontal is even less likely to be successful. Well, the highest Pk is still from behind where the IR signature is greatest.
Now looking at it from the wrong end of that shot, let’s say you have an IR missile loosed upon you from behind your 3-9 line. Your best chance if not walking home would be to present your smallest IR signature (and typically your best LO profile) in conjunction with your counter measures and forcing the missile to use as much energy as possible. Which plane has the better chance to pull that off, the one with more agility or less?
So, as we may be splitting a few percentage points, I personally would rather have a plane that gives me even a 2% better chance of surviving than another plane would. You can spin it anyway you choose, but given all else as being equal, the more maneuverable A/C is going to survive more often.
One last point, while using a Blk. 50 F-16 as an example as how maneuverability has become less of a design goal (which to me is a flawed example in the first place as the Blk. 50 is a mod to an existing A/C, to add tech (and weight, and drag), not one designed from the beginning to incorporate it), I would counter with the fact the F-22 is more maneuverable than the F-15, the Typhoon more than a Tornado F3, The Rafale more than a Mirage 2000, the T-50 (or even the Su-35) than a Su-27…
@Privateer454: "You can spin it anyway you choose, but given all else as being equal, the more maneuverable A/C is going to survive more often."
ReplyDeleteBut all else isn't equal. That's the thing. The F-35 has a far lower RCS than any F-teen, eurocanard, or Flanker. And contrary to your other post, adding supermanueverability to the F-35 would indeed have added cost, weight, and most likely increased it's RCS. There's no such thing as something for nothing and something would have to have been given up to get it. And this may come as a surprise but MANY trade studies were done that eventually resulted in the F-35. (They included proponents sharing your views on manueverability.) There's nothing you've said that hasn't been looked at NUMEROUS times and found wanting. If they could get *everything* the F-35 is AND supermanuverability without incuring any cost penalty would they? Possibly. Most likely they'd forgo it to increase or decrease something else. Consider the ATF competition that resulted in the F-22. Grumman offered a supermanueverable design that was lacking in RCS reduction (compared to other entries, which isn't to say it sucked in that area, just that the others were much better). Guess what place it was ranked. 7th out of 7. The YF-23 didn't have supermanueverability and it's widely considered a better design than the F-22. The point is, it's easy to come up with a one-off scenario to support any particular point of view. When reality is added in, the chaff tends to blow away.
@sferrin: Agree completely, and have said repeatedly myself, that everything is a trade-off. In the case of super-maneuverability or even increased maneuverability, cost & complexity would have increased (not RCS if talking TVC only) and possibly weight as well (though if the whole family wasn't weight and performance compromised by being based off the B, then it wouldn't be such an issue, but I digress). IIRC, thrust vectoring was left off as the determination was the capability wasn't worth the cost and at that time in the program cost was king. Obviously we have different opinions on what it is worth.
ReplyDeleteThe F-35 was intended as a "just enough" fighter, so I always cringe when people want to start slapping on capabilities. Even as "just enough" it exceeds the capabilities of past air supperiority fighters. I believe we needed more F22, but not to the exclusion or reduction of the F35. I think it will be a potent fighter, supporting many different roles, while supporting the F22 in its single role.
ReplyDeleteI think its too much of a modern mentality to think everything has to be the best. That mindset creates a singularity that ignores the purpose of organizing men and equipment into squads and squadrons. When people said we only needed the F22, that was no different than saying we should have armies of Rambos toting only M60 machine guns and explosives... its absurd.
Sometimes good is good enough.
Let's try a slightly different spin on the WVR argument.
ReplyDeleteIs the F35 "lethal" and "maneuverable" in a WVR fight. In one sense sure it is. No one is disputing that the F35 can kill other modern airplanes in a WVR fight. The problem is that pretty much all modern fighters since the F15 are lethal and maneuverable to a similar level given equivalent missile armament.
My opinion, and I'm guessing privateers, is that for all the time and money spent on the F35 it ought to either have a decisive advantage in WVR or have a clearly articulated strategy for avoiding WVR like the plague. Maybe increased maneuverability is way to get a WVR advantage and maybe it's not but if you are going to defend the WVR performance of an aircraft of the F35 I think you need to articulate relative lethality in WVR not some abstract absolute lethality.
If you want to contend that WVR will be the exception and BVR will be the rule that's fine but is a completely separate argument from how good the F35 is WVR against, for instance, SU35s. Certainly the combat experience of desert storm and later supports this view and I believe it is generally correct though I will also note that the world has never seen two highly EW capable missile armed air forces fight, never seen two air forces that both have stealth airplanes fight and never seen the US fight an enemy that had a chance of bringing an E3 down but that all of these are within the type of scenarios being used to justify the F35.
Now we are back to "why" has maneuverability been important in WVR combat. The answer is simple, to be the first one to take a shot with a high Pk. The F-35 does not have to maneuver to have a high Pk shot as any WVR shot will be within the NEZ of the Aim-120D. He can instead concentrate on staying out of the enemy's sights for the few seconds until his AAM hits.
ReplyDeleteI know that is simplistic, but since there is no data, on either side of the fence, we have to go what what it was designed to do.
I've stumbled over the whole "maneuverability is still important" in jets for a while now. Someone please correct me on the numbers and theory if/where I'm wrong, but here's why I have trouble with the issue.
ReplyDeleteIf the latest IR/EO or WVR missiles can travel Mach 3+, can pull in excess of 20+ G's, are rather immune to infrared countermeasures and have a true engagement range of 20 miles, then how can any level of maneuverability be able to out turn/outrun such a missile? For a WVR fight, wouldn't it be wiser to fire an IR/EO missile at the edge of your missile's NEZ envelope and turn away (180 degrees) and run to clear the NEZ of any counter IR/EO shots.
Am I wrong in this thinking? I figure two jets flying head on at 30 miles are going to be touching noses in 10-12 secs. Rather, in 2-5 seconds (20 miles) they need come up with a firing solution and then remove them self from the NEZ of an opposing IR/EO missile? Even in this scenario it seems both jets will end up killing each other.
It would think the jets with the best EO/IRIS-T sensors, IR/EO missiles that can position themselves (or sneak up) on an opposing jet would have the advantage, as it would seem once an IR/EO missile is tracking, the best solution is to either run in hopes it bleeds all of its fuel, or eject. Wouldn't the jet that is able to move freely in the BVR range (stealth) be able to setup a better WVR/IR/EO shot, giving him a slight advantage?
So does the latest/next generation of IR/EO missiles negate the whole argument that high maneuverability is important? It almost seems like one needs to fire an IR/EO missile and then clear the opposing NEZ as no amount of kinematic performance/countermeasures is going to out maneuver an IR/EO missile. Have a become too firm a believer in the next generation of IR/EO missiles?
OK, can't help myself any longer.
ReplyDeleteNot trying to toot my own horn here, but is anyone on this board a current fighter pilot? I am not, but flew Vipers for 4 years operationally (98-02).
I think what needs to be included in this discussion (and what I haven't seen in the comments I've read in this and other F-35 posts) is that of the real-world issue of how the US fixed wing fleet goes to war: in high numbers with many different capabilities represented to locate, identify, target, and kill enemy aircraft. I sort of shake my head when a debate comes up that Aircraft A is better than Aircraft B because it has more thrust or is lighter or blah, blah, blah. When's the last time any US (or allied, for that matter) fighter aircraft entered a fight alone? And when you factor in current capabilities like JHMCS, new radars (AESA), Link 16, etc., our advantages go through the roof.
Just sayin'.
@Todd: I think most people realize the US goes to war with all the extra goodies. But that would be the case whether the pilots in question were flying F-16s or F-35s. Where the discussion isn't "what are the merits of the US's current force structure" what would be the point of discussing all the rest of it? Shall we discuss the industrial base as well just to be thorough? Why? When the topic at hand is the F-35 and its advantages or disadvantages it seems a bit off topic to get into all the other details unless it specifically relates to the F-35 wouldn't you think?
ReplyDelete