So what is the case for supersonics in a tactical aircraft?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: coventry
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So what is the case for supersonics in a tactical aircraft?
Question triggered by response to debate on F35 by eminent poster. I suppose it's a bit of a cross over subject with aircrew so if better elsewhere please feel free to move / delete. No hidden agendas just interested in the subject at rank amateur level!
TIM
TIM
It's a fair question, and I suspect that other people will give a much better answer than me, but I'll give it a go.
It's not really about the ability to go supersonic, it's about having the thrust to be able to go supersonic - because that thrust is what you need for combat manoeuvering at subsonic speeds.
In a turning fight, or an evasive manoeuvre, a very major factor is the aeroplane's ability to turn - that in itself is pretty obvious, even without specialist knowledge.
Now, if you try and turn an aeroplane at a high rate, the first factor that matters is the amount of instantaneous lift you can generate. Ultimately, this is down to your speed at the start of the manoeuver, and to your aeroplane's maximum lift coefficient.
However, that instantaneous high turn rate uses a lot of energy up - so if you try flying that sort of manoeuvre in your Rans S6, for example - or in something even more gutless like a Jaguar, you'll rapidly bleed off energy, which bleeds speed, which gets you to either the stall, or in avoiding the stall, a much poorer turn rate - which may well get you shot down.
So, to maintain that high turn rate, you need to keep injecting much more energy into the aeroplane. If you are very high, you can use height loss to do that - but that's limiting for obvious reasons. The rest of the time - you need a lot of thrust to keep injecting energy into the aeroplane, and so allowing you to sustain the turn rate and avoid getting shot down.
Now if you've got that thrust, you need to maintain control of the aeroplane if it's used continuously in level flight - which essentially means that the aeroplane has to be designed with supersonic capability. But, to a large extent the supersonic capability is dictated by the thrust, which in turn is dictated by the need for continuous turning capability.
You can also add high climb rates into the equation - but the formula doesn't change much for those.
This is very simplistic, I've not used that theory in the context of a combat aircraft for years, and I'm sure that some of the real combat aircraft experts will come in and give a far more accurate answer shortly. But, I hope it helps a bit.
G
It's not really about the ability to go supersonic, it's about having the thrust to be able to go supersonic - because that thrust is what you need for combat manoeuvering at subsonic speeds.
In a turning fight, or an evasive manoeuvre, a very major factor is the aeroplane's ability to turn - that in itself is pretty obvious, even without specialist knowledge.
Now, if you try and turn an aeroplane at a high rate, the first factor that matters is the amount of instantaneous lift you can generate. Ultimately, this is down to your speed at the start of the manoeuver, and to your aeroplane's maximum lift coefficient.
However, that instantaneous high turn rate uses a lot of energy up - so if you try flying that sort of manoeuvre in your Rans S6, for example - or in something even more gutless like a Jaguar, you'll rapidly bleed off energy, which bleeds speed, which gets you to either the stall, or in avoiding the stall, a much poorer turn rate - which may well get you shot down.
So, to maintain that high turn rate, you need to keep injecting much more energy into the aeroplane. If you are very high, you can use height loss to do that - but that's limiting for obvious reasons. The rest of the time - you need a lot of thrust to keep injecting energy into the aeroplane, and so allowing you to sustain the turn rate and avoid getting shot down.
Now if you've got that thrust, you need to maintain control of the aeroplane if it's used continuously in level flight - which essentially means that the aeroplane has to be designed with supersonic capability. But, to a large extent the supersonic capability is dictated by the thrust, which in turn is dictated by the need for continuous turning capability.
You can also add high climb rates into the equation - but the formula doesn't change much for those.
This is very simplistic, I've not used that theory in the context of a combat aircraft for years, and I'm sure that some of the real combat aircraft experts will come in and give a far more accurate answer shortly. But, I hope it helps a bit.
G
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 57
Posts: 628
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To quote: "Ten minutes! This thing will be over in two minutes! Get on it!"
Supersonic gets you into the fight before it's over, there's no point chugging along, your mates getting overrun (be they ground, naval or air units engaging or about to be engaged by the enemy) and the enemy leaving before you get there.
Equally if you get into a bad situation better to bug out and live to fight another day, supersonic helps in that regard, would you like to be subsonic trying to escape a bunch of supersonic Russkies?
Supersonic gets you into the fight before it's over, there's no point chugging along, your mates getting overrun (be they ground, naval or air units engaging or about to be engaged by the enemy) and the enemy leaving before you get there.
Equally if you get into a bad situation better to bug out and live to fight another day, supersonic helps in that regard, would you like to be subsonic trying to escape a bunch of supersonic Russkies?
Do a Hover - it avoids G
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chichester West Sussex UK
Age: 91
Posts: 2,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Being able to fly quickly can be a big advantage as Romulus has pointed out but what he does not mention is that a supersonic capability brings with it disadvantages which have to be weighed against the advantage of more speed.
You do not necessarily go supersonic if you have a lot of thrust. (The Harrier has a similar static thrust to an F-16 for example and about the same as a Sea King rotor in the hover). You go supersonic by using an engine designed for supersonic speeds - that is one which offers much higher exhaust velocities (blows out the back faster than you want to go forward if you will).
Taking the three types above the F-16 takes in a small mass of air and gives it a very high velocity, the Harrier takes in much more air and gives it only a moderate velocity while a Sea King rotor takes in an enormous mass of air and gives it a small velocity. In all cases the product of the M and the V is the same (round terms 18-20,000 lb).
The problem with high exhaust gas temperatures is that they reduce the propulsive efficiency of the engine (or if you prefer increase the specific fuel consumption) reducing your time at combat thrust by as much as a factor of 2.5 -3. Indeed when Harry Blot USMC took on the supersonic fighters of the day in the early 70s with his new AV-8A on an ACM range people were surprised when the supersonic jets called bingo and Harry said OK I will wait for the next lot to come out and join me.
There are other disadvantages to using a supersonic capable aircraft at subsonic speeds compared to one optimised aerodynamically at say .8-9M. Then there is the issue of whether any external stores are cleared for supersonics at low level (some just don’t like getting hot) to say nothing of the need for a lot more IR defences if you are pushing yourself along with very hot air.
Many people refuse to believe that the Pegasus in the Harrier produces a moderate velocity quite cool exhaust (even when you point out that it does its VTO from a standing start on rubber tyres). The USMC flight deck crews back in the early 70s wanted to take cover in the island when an AV-8A came in to land. I was so frustrated that I got them to chain one down with nozzles aft, run the donk at full chat while I walked through the exhaust just behind the tail. A while later I asked an FDO how close he was happy to stand to a VL he replied “Just far enough away to make sure he does not hit me with the thing”.
I must stop - this is not a subject for a quick post
You do not necessarily go supersonic if you have a lot of thrust. (The Harrier has a similar static thrust to an F-16 for example and about the same as a Sea King rotor in the hover). You go supersonic by using an engine designed for supersonic speeds - that is one which offers much higher exhaust velocities (blows out the back faster than you want to go forward if you will).
Taking the three types above the F-16 takes in a small mass of air and gives it a very high velocity, the Harrier takes in much more air and gives it only a moderate velocity while a Sea King rotor takes in an enormous mass of air and gives it a small velocity. In all cases the product of the M and the V is the same (round terms 18-20,000 lb).
The problem with high exhaust gas temperatures is that they reduce the propulsive efficiency of the engine (or if you prefer increase the specific fuel consumption) reducing your time at combat thrust by as much as a factor of 2.5 -3. Indeed when Harry Blot USMC took on the supersonic fighters of the day in the early 70s with his new AV-8A on an ACM range people were surprised when the supersonic jets called bingo and Harry said OK I will wait for the next lot to come out and join me.
There are other disadvantages to using a supersonic capable aircraft at subsonic speeds compared to one optimised aerodynamically at say .8-9M. Then there is the issue of whether any external stores are cleared for supersonics at low level (some just don’t like getting hot) to say nothing of the need for a lot more IR defences if you are pushing yourself along with very hot air.
Many people refuse to believe that the Pegasus in the Harrier produces a moderate velocity quite cool exhaust (even when you point out that it does its VTO from a standing start on rubber tyres). The USMC flight deck crews back in the early 70s wanted to take cover in the island when an AV-8A came in to land. I was so frustrated that I got them to chain one down with nozzles aft, run the donk at full chat while I walked through the exhaust just behind the tail. A while later I asked an FDO how close he was happy to stand to a VL he replied “Just far enough away to make sure he does not hit me with the thing”.
I must stop - this is not a subject for a quick post
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: coventry
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dam don’t stop !!!!
I read a similar tale recently in one of the monthly enthusiates magazines (“ Combat Fighter” or someyhing.) The article entitled ,“What Makes a Great Fighter Plane “,was written by a very experienced ex (are there any other sort!) RN Sea Harrier pilot recounting ACM sorties between Sea Harriers and Italian F104’s over the Med. Two points: one, despite being skilfully flown all they could do was blow through the engagement at high speed with little chance of acquiring a target (sensibly not attempting to manoeuvre with the Harriers): and second, they could only stand two engagements before retiring to refuel leaving the Harriers to play for another ľ hour ! BY the way this is not meant to be a Harrier love in.
Personally I love the F104 ... it’s completely bonkers and totally confuses me. Designed by a genius following feedback from pilots in the Korean War . It could intercept anything from ground level to verging on outer space in the blink of an eye but seemingly couldn’t do anything once it had intercepted ;given its’ gun and early model Sidewinder required a tracking rear quarter shot. I suspect the Vulcan really could out manoeuvre it at altitude.
I had the privilege of a few exchanged e- mails with a retired Air Canada pilot who in his youth flew Canadian F104’s through the cold War. When they did a pop up bomb attack they had to be very careful they didn’t go s upersonic pulling off the target. In his words the only aircraft with which he would even consider manoeuvring against.. was another F104.
I suppose as supersonic tactical fighters go even to this day the F104 is extreme. However the ability to be able to “Help Your Buddies” is on the one hand helped if you can get there on the other hand hindered if you have run out of fuel in doing so or can’t do anything meaningful with your weapons when you get there. Also the ability to escape a bad situation can be very handy counterbalanced by the difficulty in out dragging a missile and the fact it’s a tactical fighter .I suspect .there is only so much running away you can do before you have to fight.
TIM
(NB—If it isn’t already obvious these are the relatively worthless views of someone whilst interested in aviation has never flown behind anything more powerful than a 180bhp lycoming and whose engineering skills start and stop at changing a light plug. Don’t say you weren’t warned !)
I read a similar tale recently in one of the monthly enthusiates magazines (“ Combat Fighter” or someyhing.) The article entitled ,“What Makes a Great Fighter Plane “,was written by a very experienced ex (are there any other sort!) RN Sea Harrier pilot recounting ACM sorties between Sea Harriers and Italian F104’s over the Med. Two points: one, despite being skilfully flown all they could do was blow through the engagement at high speed with little chance of acquiring a target (sensibly not attempting to manoeuvre with the Harriers): and second, they could only stand two engagements before retiring to refuel leaving the Harriers to play for another ľ hour ! BY the way this is not meant to be a Harrier love in.
Personally I love the F104 ... it’s completely bonkers and totally confuses me. Designed by a genius following feedback from pilots in the Korean War . It could intercept anything from ground level to verging on outer space in the blink of an eye but seemingly couldn’t do anything once it had intercepted ;given its’ gun and early model Sidewinder required a tracking rear quarter shot. I suspect the Vulcan really could out manoeuvre it at altitude.
I had the privilege of a few exchanged e- mails with a retired Air Canada pilot who in his youth flew Canadian F104’s through the cold War. When they did a pop up bomb attack they had to be very careful they didn’t go s upersonic pulling off the target. In his words the only aircraft with which he would even consider manoeuvring against.. was another F104.
I suppose as supersonic tactical fighters go even to this day the F104 is extreme. However the ability to be able to “Help Your Buddies” is on the one hand helped if you can get there on the other hand hindered if you have run out of fuel in doing so or can’t do anything meaningful with your weapons when you get there. Also the ability to escape a bad situation can be very handy counterbalanced by the difficulty in out dragging a missile and the fact it’s a tactical fighter .I suspect .there is only so much running away you can do before you have to fight.
TIM
(NB—If it isn’t already obvious these are the relatively worthless views of someone whilst interested in aviation has never flown behind anything more powerful than a 180bhp lycoming and whose engineering skills start and stop at changing a light plug. Don’t say you weren’t warned !)
Do a Hover - it avoids G
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chichester West Sussex UK
Age: 91
Posts: 2,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To know whether the chaps on the ground calling for help are best served by a subsonic or a supersonic aircraft (assuming that both can offer the same weapons, sensors and comms with the troops – which is in itself a very big assumption!) one needs to know a lot of info. How far are they from the aircraft’s operating site? What is the scramble time of the aircraft (from shout to being on heading with any necessary flight refuelling done)? What are the weather limits over the target and at the operating site for both types? What is their endurance over the target and so on.
Which type will best serve the survivability of the aircrew brings in another whole bunch of factors that depend on the sort of enemy they are up against and the enemy’s air defence capabilities and who has air supremacy in the area.
I guess I feel that people who boil the answer to such a complex problem down to a few throw away lines either don’t understand all the issues or are a tad prejudiced. The biggest thing of course is that real men don’t fly subsonic aircraft do they?
Which type will best serve the survivability of the aircrew brings in another whole bunch of factors that depend on the sort of enemy they are up against and the enemy’s air defence capabilities and who has air supremacy in the area.
I guess I feel that people who boil the answer to such a complex problem down to a few throw away lines either don’t understand all the issues or are a tad prejudiced. The biggest thing of course is that real men don’t fly subsonic aircraft do they?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: USA
Age: 66
Posts: 209
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why Not?
I guess a better answer might be arrived at if we pose the questions this way: "What is the penalty in a supersonic design?"
and the natural follow on,
"What is the penalty if I don't have a supersonic capability?"
I was heavily involved with a super maneuverable F16 test project in the 1990's. Employing thrust vectoring we had great nose authority at zero knots. The Tactical community would ask, would you rather have an off boresight missile capability or super maneuverability? My answer was always BOTH.
Throwing out a tired one liner, "speed is life" does shed light on the problem. Excess power can be used to turn or accelerate.
In a perfect world with appropriate ROE and BVR missiles a missile truck could do air defense. Historically, engagements end up in a knife fight. The ability to go supersonic might just allow you to disengage when the time is right.
Speed complicates the adversaries problems. Blow an intercept on a supersonic target and you may not catch it.
If you can go supersonic and your adversary can't, you can operate in regions he can't.
Gerz
and the natural follow on,
"What is the penalty if I don't have a supersonic capability?"
I was heavily involved with a super maneuverable F16 test project in the 1990's. Employing thrust vectoring we had great nose authority at zero knots. The Tactical community would ask, would you rather have an off boresight missile capability or super maneuverability? My answer was always BOTH.
Throwing out a tired one liner, "speed is life" does shed light on the problem. Excess power can be used to turn or accelerate.
In a perfect world with appropriate ROE and BVR missiles a missile truck could do air defense. Historically, engagements end up in a knife fight. The ability to go supersonic might just allow you to disengage when the time is right.
Speed complicates the adversaries problems. Blow an intercept on a supersonic target and you may not catch it.
If you can go supersonic and your adversary can't, you can operate in regions he can't.
Gerz
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: coventry
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good points.
Interesting times on your F16 project. It surprised me to find out after marvelling at the super manoeuvrable thrust vectoring Mig/Sukhois that the Western Design Teams had already been researching that area. Obviously there were reasons why, unlike the Russians, it wasn’t incorporated into F16 F18 Tornado Rafale etc.. I suppose just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should.
I agree with your remark about having “both” if you can to increase your tactical options but fear (particularly in UK) that this is likely to be limited severely by the Fifth Aerodynamic Force (money.)
I wonder how much of Aircraft design is fashion even in the “hard nose world” of tactical fighters. Perhaps the problem is their designers love them. Most people involved with aviation love aircraft (ok X32 designers aside); whereas the people designing them shouldn’t. They should view them as mere platforms. What weapons do we have? What are we likely to get in the future? How do we get to fire ours before they get to fire theirs? How do we get to do it reliably and CHEAPLY? I think a famous German pilot who liked red planes said a variation of the above.
I can see advantages in going supersonic getting to and from places quickly, energising your missiles but what is the price? Is an engine designed to get you supersonic not one that can quickly re-energise you in a manoeuvre enviroment or one that allows better fuel efficiency ? Is an airframe designed to go supersonic too specialised to function well manoevering? Given advances in thrust vectoring can airframe limitations be overcome or will drag considerations always limit its’ application? If going a little bit supersonic is good surely going alot supersonic must be better? When does the law of diminishing returns kjck in?
I understand Aircraft Design like so much of real life is a compromise. Supersonic capability a worthwhile capability or is the price to great?
TIM
Interesting times on your F16 project. It surprised me to find out after marvelling at the super manoeuvrable thrust vectoring Mig/Sukhois that the Western Design Teams had already been researching that area. Obviously there were reasons why, unlike the Russians, it wasn’t incorporated into F16 F18 Tornado Rafale etc.. I suppose just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should.
I agree with your remark about having “both” if you can to increase your tactical options but fear (particularly in UK) that this is likely to be limited severely by the Fifth Aerodynamic Force (money.)
I wonder how much of Aircraft design is fashion even in the “hard nose world” of tactical fighters. Perhaps the problem is their designers love them. Most people involved with aviation love aircraft (ok X32 designers aside); whereas the people designing them shouldn’t. They should view them as mere platforms. What weapons do we have? What are we likely to get in the future? How do we get to fire ours before they get to fire theirs? How do we get to do it reliably and CHEAPLY? I think a famous German pilot who liked red planes said a variation of the above.
I can see advantages in going supersonic getting to and from places quickly, energising your missiles but what is the price? Is an engine designed to get you supersonic not one that can quickly re-energise you in a manoeuvre enviroment or one that allows better fuel efficiency ? Is an airframe designed to go supersonic too specialised to function well manoevering? Given advances in thrust vectoring can airframe limitations be overcome or will drag considerations always limit its’ application? If going a little bit supersonic is good surely going alot supersonic must be better? When does the law of diminishing returns kjck in?
I understand Aircraft Design like so much of real life is a compromise. Supersonic capability a worthwhile capability or is the price to great?
TIM
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: coventry
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apologises never having been in the military I get easily confused between my tacticals and stratigicals and as I age even my tes**cals !
For discussion sake lets stick with A/G; although do some of the same arguements on both sides hold for air supremacy?
TIM
For discussion sake lets stick with A/G; although do some of the same arguements on both sides hold for air supremacy?
TIM
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: USA
Age: 66
Posts: 209
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A/G?
What kind of A/G: interdiction, CAS or carpet bombing of cities?
In a TIC (troops in contact) CAS scenario as long as the asset is over head they could care less if it was supersonic (SS) or not.
Recent wars have shaped our view of air assets. US troops have not been attacked from the air in decades. In all recent US wars the US has had total air superiority. An A10 is an awesome CAS asset, and the ground folks love it. If you don' have air superiority a SS multi-role asset (F16, F18 etc) may be a better choice.
Speed improves the effectiveness of stealth, as long as IR signature doesn't compromise it.
Aircraft design is one big compromise. In the tactical arena if the aircraft can't survive it doesn't matter how good an AG asset it is.
Guess I am leaning towards a SS capable aircraft.
Cheers,
Gerz
In a TIC (troops in contact) CAS scenario as long as the asset is over head they could care less if it was supersonic (SS) or not.
Recent wars have shaped our view of air assets. US troops have not been attacked from the air in decades. In all recent US wars the US has had total air superiority. An A10 is an awesome CAS asset, and the ground folks love it. If you don' have air superiority a SS multi-role asset (F16, F18 etc) may be a better choice.
Speed improves the effectiveness of stealth, as long as IR signature doesn't compromise it.
Aircraft design is one big compromise. In the tactical arena if the aircraft can't survive it doesn't matter how good an AG asset it is.
Guess I am leaning towards a SS capable aircraft.
Cheers,
Gerz
Do a Hover - it avoids G
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chichester West Sussex UK
Age: 91
Posts: 2,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
However I read the question as about close air support.
I love your post where you say are leaning towards an SS solution. The original poster wondered about supersonic as opposed to subsonic. So I guess both are SS. Nice fence sit.
Bit like my daughter who was navigating me as we drove in a car. We got to a T junction I said L or R and she said which ever you prefer.
I am off for a bit so nobody should take offence if I leave this thread.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: The Great Midwest
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RansS9,
Also see the F-15 STOL demo which first flew in 1988:
McDonnell Douglas F-15 STOL/MTD - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Also see the F-15 STOL demo which first flew in 1988:
McDonnell Douglas F-15 STOL/MTD - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: coventry
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting aircraft !
It makes you wonder why more of the technology hasn't been incoporated in to more modern designs. I suppose it's back to "just because you can doesn't mean you want to".
TIM
It makes you wonder why more of the technology hasn't been incoporated in to more modern designs. I suppose it's back to "just because you can doesn't mean you want to".
TIM
Most [not all] fighters used in a tactical role have other tasks to perform and are therefore multi-role. Dedicated CAS aircraft a la the A-10 are truly sub-sonic with great manoeuvrability. The Harrier of course was a product of the time to be able to operate sans airfield or avec smallish sea platform.
The F-16 is a multi-role machine and a very good one at that.
The F-16 is a multi-role machine and a very good one at that.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: New York & California
Posts: 414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RansS9
That was the best line ever! 
On a more serious note the tactical bombing entails attacking military targets such as runway, ships, tanks, soldiers
Strategic bombing entails attacking industrial targets, which provide supply of equipment to the front lines, and methods of which transport said goods to the front lines such as factories, oil-refineries, ship-yards, railroads, and airfields (yes there's an overlap with tactical bombing there), other strategic targets would include communications sites.
Disturbingly, many strategic bombing proponents were also whole-heartedly in support of directly attacking civilian populations (such as Giulio Douhet, Hugh Trenchard, Arthur "Bomber" Harris, Curtis LeMay, and so forth) as to demoralize the troops or even to terrorize the population to such an extent that they either: demand the government sue for peace, or rise up and rebel against the government
.
This part often doesn't work too well: It's very easy for a government to get it's people to rally around them when being attacked by an enemy (even easier when that enemy is blowing up innocent people who are incapable of defending themselves); plus most dictators tend to be oppressive, ruthless, power hungry monsters who are only concerned with power (who's people are terrified of them and won't rise up); in the event that they are seriously concerned about defeat, they'll whip out their most horrific weapons even if those weapons would also devastate their own country too (They know that if they lose the war, they'll be either: Killed on sight by the enemy; captured by the enemy, put on a show trial, then executed; or handed over to their own people to do with as they please which will often be gruesome -- if they're going down, they might not care if they take everybody with them) -- by in large this strategy just ends up leaving a whole bunch of devastation behind.
TBM-Legend
Yup -- it's kind of sad that the USAF took so long to realize CAS was actually important. At first they figured "forget about close air support, we won't have to occupy the enemy; with nuclear weapons we'll just annihilate them (Ironically, even after we nuked Japan, we still occupied them)", and figured that if CAS ever was needed they'd just use some surplus WW2 fighters for it -- regardless, training in performing the task effectively was virtually nonexistant and during the Korean War they did such a lousy job that General McArthur actually had the Marines provide CAS instead. After Korea, you'd figure that they'd have learned that CAS was important, yet it would seem they didn't learn a thing. In the 1960's it was recommended to develop some dedicated jet-powered CAS planes -- oh how they howled, kicked, and screamed (The USAF hated CAS because it tied them to the Army), regardless by 1972 the A-10 was flying, and by 1977 it was in service. Still, the USAF barely used them until 1991.
Correct. The USAF and USN actually over the years looked into V/STOL designs. Many of the VTOL designs weren't as well thought out as the Harrier
Apologises never having been in the military I get easily confused between my tacticals and stratigicals and as I age even my tes**cals !
On a more serious note the tactical bombing entails attacking military targets such as runway, ships, tanks, soldiers
Strategic bombing entails attacking industrial targets, which provide supply of equipment to the front lines, and methods of which transport said goods to the front lines such as factories, oil-refineries, ship-yards, railroads, and airfields (yes there's an overlap with tactical bombing there), other strategic targets would include communications sites.
Disturbingly, many strategic bombing proponents were also whole-heartedly in support of directly attacking civilian populations (such as Giulio Douhet, Hugh Trenchard, Arthur "Bomber" Harris, Curtis LeMay, and so forth) as to demoralize the troops or even to terrorize the population to such an extent that they either: demand the government sue for peace, or rise up and rebel against the government
. This part often doesn't work too well: It's very easy for a government to get it's people to rally around them when being attacked by an enemy (even easier when that enemy is blowing up innocent people who are incapable of defending themselves); plus most dictators tend to be oppressive, ruthless, power hungry monsters who are only concerned with power (who's people are terrified of them and won't rise up); in the event that they are seriously concerned about defeat, they'll whip out their most horrific weapons even if those weapons would also devastate their own country too (They know that if they lose the war, they'll be either: Killed on sight by the enemy; captured by the enemy, put on a show trial, then executed; or handed over to their own people to do with as they please which will often be gruesome -- if they're going down, they might not care if they take everybody with them) -- by in large this strategy just ends up leaving a whole bunch of devastation behind.
TBM-Legend
Dedicated CAS aircraft a la the A-10 are truly sub-sonic with great manoeuvrability.
The Harrier of course was a product of the time to be able to operate sans airfield or avec smallish sea platform.
Last edited by Jane-DoH; 4th Sep 2011 at 12:46.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Lancashire
Age: 48
Posts: 550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the case of F-35, SS speed would enable the no escape zone of any A/A missiles to increase.
The added velocity increases overall velocity and so the engagement range, even more so if firing an advanced rocket/ram jet future design.
An adversary would know this and if wise, would stay further away than they otherwise might.
The added velocity increases overall velocity and so the engagement range, even more so if firing an advanced rocket/ram jet future design.
An adversary would know this and if wise, would stay further away than they otherwise might.
As an ex-Tornado F3 driver..
No current aircraft on ingress is going very supersonic with bombs on, but on egress the SS capability makes the front aspect geometry harder. It also makes them very much harder to chase down; costs much more fuel & time for the interceptor, and engagement ranges are shorter. Not being able to run from interceptors, bombs or not, would be a worry for AV-8B if our interceptors didn't ensure none of their fighters got close.
The F3 went for the compromise of long loiter + SS dash, at the cost of sustained turn and high level cruise, which was fine against a bomber, or low level fighter/bomber threat.
No-one with half a brain turns more than 90 degrees in combat anyway - the unseen guy gets you right after your kill. Point, shoot, scoot.
No current aircraft on ingress is going very supersonic with bombs on, but on egress the SS capability makes the front aspect geometry harder. It also makes them very much harder to chase down; costs much more fuel & time for the interceptor, and engagement ranges are shorter. Not being able to run from interceptors, bombs or not, would be a worry for AV-8B if our interceptors didn't ensure none of their fighters got close.
The F3 went for the compromise of long loiter + SS dash, at the cost of sustained turn and high level cruise, which was fine against a bomber, or low level fighter/bomber threat.
No-one with half a brain turns more than 90 degrees in combat anyway - the unseen guy gets you right after your kill. Point, shoot, scoot.
