Flying a less capable fighter ?
Missile technology must be improving on an annual if not monthly basis??
I find it difficult to understand why a large ac could not carry larger more powerful AAMs which basic common sense tells me would give them a longer range than the smaller missiles carried by agile fighters??
Please enlighten me!
I find it difficult to understand why a large ac could not carry larger more powerful AAMs which basic common sense tells me would give them a longer range than the smaller missiles carried by agile fighters??
Please enlighten me!
The constants like the atmosphere remain the same. If you want a missile to go further then it needs more thrust and more fuel and it just gets bigger. When you want a missile to be able to track from further away the seeker tends to get bigger too.
Bigger missiles have more drag and unfortunately drag squares with speed so flying faster becomes a problem. Why the need to go faster, well if you double the range the time of flight increases to the point where your adversary has the opportunity to be somewhere else by the time the missile gets there. Pushing a missile such as Meteor to Mach 4 is not an easy task, getting a bigger missile to something close to Mach 6 to 8 through thick atmosphere is a whole different ballgame.
Big fast missiles have a massive problem when it comes to end-game manoeuvring. Very high speeds requires very high g for terminal manoeuvring. High g requires strong missiles with powerful controls, adding more weight and drag.
Achieving viable large long range AAMs is not easy and rapidly becomes self-defeating. The closest we have come to this is with Phoenix, but even this large missile had limitations at range. It didn't require much manoeuvre by the target aircraft to reduce its effective range by a surprising amount.
Launching from a slow (below M1.0) aircraft will handicap an AAM; just to compensate for this would require a bigger missile motor and the death-spiral of missile dynamics begins. For the adversary this large slow aircraft will artificially improve the kinematics of his own missiles - even in a pure tail-chase his missiles will go further.
As it is it is not always possible to keep large aircraft out of harms way, even if they are set back from their fighter screen by 100 to 200nm. An old high and fast M2.5 adversary leaves a very small shot opportunity even for an F-15 / AMRAAM. Pushing large aircraft further forward would not give them a viable escape option.
My final point regarding slow-speed missile trucks is just that - slow speed. It is totally reliant on the threat coming to it with zero ability to go to the threat. Try chasing down a car on a bicycle - we can all think of scenarios where the bicycle might win, but it's not a great way to go to war.
Bigger missiles have more drag and unfortunately drag squares with speed so flying faster becomes a problem. Why the need to go faster, well if you double the range the time of flight increases to the point where your adversary has the opportunity to be somewhere else by the time the missile gets there. Pushing a missile such as Meteor to Mach 4 is not an easy task, getting a bigger missile to something close to Mach 6 to 8 through thick atmosphere is a whole different ballgame.
Big fast missiles have a massive problem when it comes to end-game manoeuvring. Very high speeds requires very high g for terminal manoeuvring. High g requires strong missiles with powerful controls, adding more weight and drag.
Achieving viable large long range AAMs is not easy and rapidly becomes self-defeating. The closest we have come to this is with Phoenix, but even this large missile had limitations at range. It didn't require much manoeuvre by the target aircraft to reduce its effective range by a surprising amount.
Launching from a slow (below M1.0) aircraft will handicap an AAM; just to compensate for this would require a bigger missile motor and the death-spiral of missile dynamics begins. For the adversary this large slow aircraft will artificially improve the kinematics of his own missiles - even in a pure tail-chase his missiles will go further.
As it is it is not always possible to keep large aircraft out of harms way, even if they are set back from their fighter screen by 100 to 200nm. An old high and fast M2.5 adversary leaves a very small shot opportunity even for an F-15 / AMRAAM. Pushing large aircraft further forward would not give them a viable escape option.
My final point regarding slow-speed missile trucks is just that - slow speed. It is totally reliant on the threat coming to it with zero ability to go to the threat. Try chasing down a car on a bicycle - we can all think of scenarios where the bicycle might win, but it's not a great way to go to war.
Call me stupid but when was the last serious dogfight?
One example....Three Migs in one engagement...then being shot down by a SAM and rescued from the South China Sea by Helicopter.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSKWV1LxTks
Dogfights are a feature of symetrical (or near-symetrical) air warfare. The last example of such was probably vietnam or one of the arab-israeli conflicts. You might include the Falklands, but I'm not sure it qualifies because whilst the aircraft were comparable the argenitian aircrft were operating at the limit of their range and couldn't afford to get entangled in dogfights for long. I don't know enough about events between india and pakistan to know whether they may have examples that post-date this.
The recent engagements have ben very much asymmetrical in terms of air-action. Gulf War 1 *could* have been a symmetrical fight, but they declined the invite.
But the fact that our recent air-actions have been asymmetric doesn't mean that all future air actions will be the same, so it would be a mistake to base RAF doctrine on just the recent events - the same mistake that was made by Sandys and the same mistake that necessitated the Mirromar school. There are lots of very capable dogfighting aircraft out there, and Murphy says that we're bound to come into conflict with some of them sooner or later, so we must sustain the required skills and equipment to do so.
0.03 supplied,
PDR
The recent engagements have ben very much asymmetrical in terms of air-action. Gulf War 1 *could* have been a symmetrical fight, but they declined the invite.
But the fact that our recent air-actions have been asymmetric doesn't mean that all future air actions will be the same, so it would be a mistake to base RAF doctrine on just the recent events - the same mistake that was made by Sandys and the same mistake that necessitated the Mirromar school. There are lots of very capable dogfighting aircraft out there, and Murphy says that we're bound to come into conflict with some of them sooner or later, so we must sustain the required skills and equipment to do so.
0.03 supplied,
PDR
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,037
Received 2,914 Likes
on
1,247 Posts
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,037
Received 2,914 Likes
on
1,247 Posts
As for carrying lots of armament
Now if they were sidewinders LOL
original nose mounted rockets
Nothing like overkill
and if that wasn't enough, you could always tack a few under the wing
Now if they were sidewinders LOL
original nose mounted rockets
Nothing like overkill
and if that wasn't enough, you could always tack a few under the wing
PDR
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
MB, sadly after my time and no doubt Dick Larkin got the honour June 21, 2012s.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,037
Received 2,914 Likes
on
1,247 Posts
PDR, I realise that, but half of the battle is having a credible and feasible launch system in place. One should imagine you could adapt it.
Obviously a subject very close to a lot of hearts and discussed ad nausiam in crewrooms all over the globe.
Thanks for all the interesting info.
However this doesn't mean the subject should be abandoned - just been mugging up on the latest-Nov 2016 info - Chinese LRAAM -300nm kill??? ok make that 150nm or less but with all the built in goodies certainly a potent threat.
IF this works and could be fitted to a large ac your agile low endurance fighter might not even get close??
Thanks for all the interesting info.
However this doesn't mean the subject should be abandoned - just been mugging up on the latest-Nov 2016 info - Chinese LRAAM -300nm kill??? ok make that 150nm or less but with all the built in goodies certainly a potent threat.
IF this works and could be fitted to a large ac your agile low endurance fighter might not even get close??
However this doesn't mean the subject should be abandoned - just been mugging up on the latest-Nov 2016 info - Chinese LRAAM -300nm kill??? ok make that 150nm or less but with all the built in goodies certainly a potent threat.
IF this works and could be fitted to a large ac your agile low endurance fighter might not even get close??
IF this works and could be fitted to a large ac your agile low endurance fighter might not even get close??
Call me stupid but when was the last serious dogfight?
Korean war perhaps?
So- why not have a non state of the art médium to large aircraft - equipped with state of the art air to air missiles and control with the ability to loiter for long periods?
Surely this would provide maximum defence for mimimum cost?
Korean war perhaps?
So- why not have a non state of the art médium to large aircraft - equipped with state of the art air to air missiles and control with the ability to loiter for long periods?
Surely this would provide maximum defence for mimimum cost?
cheers
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Interesting point. In other scenarios RoE require either two electronic sources or visual observation by a competent observer. That would imply a single source radar detection would not be adequate, however . . .
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 764
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TWU Hawk Operating Handbook Jan 1981
On the Front Cover
Only the Spirit of attack borne in a brave heart will bring success to any fighter aircraft no matter how highly developed it may be.
Galland
Enough said?
Only the Spirit of attack borne in a brave heart will bring success to any fighter aircraft no matter how highly developed it may be.
Galland
Enough said?
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Wilts
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When was the last dogfight?
Well I can confirm that at least one took place in Op Desert Storm in 1991, as I watched it on the downlink from AWACS.
It was between a US F15 and an Iraqi Mig 29. I was not involved in the upper air war, but I was led to believe that it was a ROE thing. The issue was that the biggest danger from an Air to Air engagement was from a blue on blue accident. So fighters could not use BVR weapons, but had to have a vis ident to positively confirm that their target was hostile.
The engagement lasted many minutes, with both ac manoeuvring harshly. Eventually, the F15 got an ident and a solution, and the Mig 29 symbol extinguished.
There may have been others.
Well I can confirm that at least one took place in Op Desert Storm in 1991, as I watched it on the downlink from AWACS.
It was between a US F15 and an Iraqi Mig 29. I was not involved in the upper air war, but I was led to believe that it was a ROE thing. The issue was that the biggest danger from an Air to Air engagement was from a blue on blue accident. So fighters could not use BVR weapons, but had to have a vis ident to positively confirm that their target was hostile.
The engagement lasted many minutes, with both ac manoeuvring harshly. Eventually, the F15 got an ident and a solution, and the Mig 29 symbol extinguished.
There may have been others.
Advanced Hawk aircraft
Perhaps these might fit the bill...
India rolls out new Advanced Hawk aircraft
India rolls out new Advanced Hawk aircraft
The smart weapons-enabled Advanced Hawk prototype, scheduled to undertake its maiden test flight in the United Kingdom in March, features an upgraded wing for greater agility and 13% enhanced thrust in its Full Authority Digital Engine Control (FADEC) Rolls-Royce Adour Mk951 powerpack.