Modern vs. WWII air-air combat

[SgtPappy]

Thanks for the input, guys.

Anax, what you say is pretty eye-opening. Everything in air combat nowadays is so much more about avionics and electronic warfare than actual air-air combat. It's crazy how technology has advanced in the time since WWII.

What I meant in terms of 'fire and forget' is that a BVR missile won't always hit. I know that say, an AIM-120 is autonomous upon firing and the pilot can change vector and attack something else. Though is it only the US planes currently that have BVR missiles that can avoid setting off the target aircraft's radar lock system?

Also, the Raptors apparently can target more than one aircraft at a time. I suppose it wouldn't be too difficult to equip an older plane with similar avionics systems. Though I do agree the older planes really are falling apart, and that's evident from the F-15C disaster in 2007. Though, I suppose the problem with the 4th gen jets is more electronic/structural than simply performance. Like what trotter said, it's no longer much about performance superiority, as it is about electronics superiority. Performance only has to be good "enough".

[Anaxogoras]

What I meant in terms of 'fire and forget' is that a BVR missile won't always hit.

Naturally, but just try to spot after its fuel has run out and it's still doing mach 2+ at your aircraft.  That's one of the big misunderstandings we come away with in the movies, where the air to air missile always has a nice stream of combusted rocket fuel trailing behind it.  In reality, the fuel combusts quickly and the missile "glides" to its target.  Hopefully the pilot has an idea of the proximity of the missile and can execute appropriate evasives, but spotting one miles out has to be incredibly difficult.

I know that say, an AIM-120 is autonomous upon firing and the pilot can change vector and attack something else. Though is it only the US planes currently that have BVR missiles that can avoid setting off the target aircraft's radar lock system?

I wasn't aware that the newest AMRAAM's have that capability.

P.S. the biggest improvement in the F-16C has been the helmet mounted sighting system that's linked to the radar, or so I hear.

[Jappa52]

Ive heard this before.  Smokey engines were involved throughout and gondolas concluded the discussion.

As have I. Don't take it from us though....

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

** if youre impatient forward vid to 4:12.

[Spikes]

Heh, there was a conversation tossed around here not too long ago between Iranian air defense operators and an F-22 Raptor on patrol...


Iranian Air Defense Operator: "Unidentified aircraft, you have entered Iranian airspace and are required to leave immediately or be engaged by our fighter aircraft!"

F-22 Pilot:  "This is a US aircraft flying over international waters."

Iranian Air Defense Operator:  "You are flying over Iranian airspace.  This is your final warning.  We are vectoring interceptors to your location."

F-22 Pilot:  "Send them up.  I'll wait right here."

There were no further transmissions from the Iranian Air Defense officer....

Just a tale, the same story has also been said with planes such as F14, F/A-18.

[Saurdaukar]

The technology wasn't mature then. Billy Mitchell was wrong when he said bombers could pwn battleships in 1921 (the tests were rigged). By 1941 he was right. Likewise with Douhet and the supremacy of strategic bombing, it just had to wait for B-29s and nukes.

I am referring to the F4 Phantom.

[Wmaker]

My friend explained that what's most important is to be within corner speed velocity at the beginning of any visual range fight.

This is how I've understood it to be aswell.

The extra E won't help you in a visual range because "E-fighting" as it is understood in AH for example is pretty much a suicide because of the range of the IR-missles and the general thrust to weight ratio of the modern fighters. So to be right at the corner velocity sounds like a good idea. Also, as helmet sighting systems and better and better close range missles are being put to service, there truly isn't much room for any "slack" so to speak in terms of lateral dispalcement.

[Simba]

Not exactly 'modern' but the subsonic Sea Harrier met and defeated the supersonic Mirage during the Falklands War in 1982. Made mincemeat of the odd A-4 Skyhawk too. Nearly all kills were made by Sidewinder missile.

 

[BnZs]

My answer:

There is probably a good reason why the most fun games in this genre revolve around WWII...

[Flyboy]

For 1v1 guns/rear-aspect only combat to occur with any regularity, there needs to be a fight between two similiar military powers, or the air campaign needs to be of so prolonged a nature that the lesser air power can choose their battles and allocate their resources effectively (think Israel vs. her neighbours, for decades. In fact, I'd bet the Israeli Air Force has the most guns hot experience with close range 1v1's out of any other modern air power)

IAF have a long history of 1vrs1 kills with canons or rear aspect missiles from the 50s to the early 80s, one of my instructors told me of a sortie he had in 1969, his element got bounced by 4 mig21s, he shot down 1 but got seperated and alone over the mediterranean see, while low he got bounced by 3 Migs, he shot them all down.

after the first lebanon war air warfere became pretty one sided.
today the IAF still practice and train alot on close combat and guns
not to start a peeing competition but a few years ago while a USN carrier anchored in the area there was a air combat practice that lasted a few days between the IAF and the USN, the focus was close combat (i think only guns but dont remember) it ended kinda one sided 189:0 to the IAF

[zarkov]

May be a bit of a tangent but I've been playing a bit of Strike Fighters 2:  Vietnam recently.

It's a lot of fun.

The precursors of a lot of the modern weapons systems available now were still somewhat buggy back then and the game reflects it.  AIM-7 and AIM-9 shots from superior alt tend to get "confused" by ground clutter and go flying off so you have to go below the target to get a "look up" shot.

Anyway, lots of fun and it almost feels like a WWI sim since the weapons are sort of "experimental".  And you still have to dogfight since the only way to get a reliable shot with the missiles is to get on the other guy's tail.

[bozon]

Flyboy, the IAF operates in a very very different way than most other airforces and in particular the USAF/N. BVR that is the bread and butter of the Americans is a rare luxury in our theater of operation, at least over the front. In any real scenario of war, during day-time there will be well over 100 aircrafts within AMRAAM range.  Pilots handle BVR very well when they turn on the radar, see two spots ahead and play the fire and turn back game. Not so much when they have dozens and dozens of contacts that appears and disappear with the incredible amount if interference and active EW in the air.

With the short distances and intensive EW of a small crowded front, the distances are closed to visual range VERY fast. Air defense patrols in particular do not have the luxury of playing fire and turn too long. They must engage before the attackers reach the front or long range A2G missile launch, so instead of firing BVR and turning back, they fire BVR and steam on to engage with IR/guns. The Israeli industries and IAF emphasize development and deployment of the most advanced, all aspect, super maneuverability, turbo-charged, alien technology "short" range IR missiles.

In the 1981 Lebanon war, IAF employed F-15 that were much more advanced than the Syrian Mig-23/21. Still, radar guided missiles had poor results due to new EW used by the Migs and almost all fights ended in guns/IR range. Today, the guidance systems are much more advanced, but so is EW, both self defense and dedicated ground/airborne instruments, that are a closely guarded secret. Future engagements may still end up decided by guns if the counter-measures beat the guided missiles. IAF must take this into account and so is one of the few airforces that practice intense multi-plane dogfights.

[SgtPappy]

And let's hope that those epic dogfighting skills will never have to be put to use.

[Krusty]

They always will...


No matter how far into the future you go, say even to a time where starfighters have automatic pilots that manuver and fight for you, there will be a time when a US astronaut frozen in a time warp will come out and show you the real power of dogfighting manually.....








(*cough*BuckRogers*cough*)

[Brooke]

Beedee beedee beedee . . . you tell 'em, Krusty!

[SgtPappy]

What Bozon says brings up an important question:

If total war were to break out, I'm under the impression that it would be dang near impossible to fend off missiles and other fighters for a couple reasons. Radar-guided missiles likely would not be fired in a furball (or the closest equivalent to) that Bozon mentioned. Too many contacts, and not even a Raptor can catch so many contacts no matter how powerful the USAF says the APG-77 is. Therefore, battles would be close guns or pilots firing IR missiles everywhere.

But IR missile counter measures are big, clunky and are usually mounted on larger vulnerable aircraft. The smaller ones aren't even 100% reliable. Some may make the aircraft more vulnerable. Flares, of course, don't always work. Some CM's rely on being cued by a missile launch (which will happen in a furball) so they may track the wrong missile. The more advanced, directed systems are generally large, if I'm not mistaken. Fighting in a furball with IR missiles flying around would be a nightmare because of all the possible threats and the fact that no IR CM system I know of can jam/distract more than a single missile at a time.

How difficult would it be to enter a jet dogfight only to have the mass confusion of missiles flying everywhere? It would become nearly impossible to have the dogfights in scale of WWII furballs if every fighter was carrying missiles, all potentially bearing down on you!