Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: SgtPappy on December 02, 2009, 11:22:48 PM
-
Now, of course we all know that modern air-air combat is worlds away from what was seen in WWII.
However, a lot of folks here probably think that the what the U.S. says about their fighters' abilities to "fire and forget" really seems more myth than reality. Modern air-air combat is something that still requires skill in the air, from what I gather, and though ECM and BVR combat has become new, many fights (1 vs 1) can still be compared like they did in WWII. Pilots aim to dodge missiles, they don't just give up once they're locked onto.
Though, what I'd like to know from the more knowledgable community is just HOW much performance (climb, speed, acceleration and maneuverability) and Energy management really matters in today's 1 on 1 BVR and WVR combat scenarios.
There are tonnes of threads out there about the veteran F-16C for example facing off against a newer, never-before-seen-combat Su-30MKI for example, and no one can really give a straight answer because everyone focuses on the Su-30's supermaneuverability. But in WWII, being a Zero does not mean winning. If the F-16C outclimbs and out accelerates you (don't know if it does, just an example) then, you do not have a guaranteed win. But does this apply anymore?
-
1st, why would any well trained Air Force ever let one of its planes get into a 1 vs 1?
Cav
-
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....
-
That's just some boastful tall tale.. Never happened.
There's so many variations, changing the affiliation from US Navy to US Marines to US Air Force, (for whoever is doing the boasting)....
As for the original question, I'm not an expert or anything, but just from some of the stuff I've read from real pilots on other webpages, some forums, and so forth, it's all as important now as it was then. Same things are being taught, but lots lots more as well. It's something they train VERY hard for.
-
As for the original question, I'm not an expert or anything, but just from some of the stuff I've read from real pilots on other webpages, some forums, and so forth, it's all as important now as it was then. Same things are being taught, but lots lots more as well. It's something they train VERY hard for.
Ask flyboy next time you see him online.....
-
Heh, there was a conversation tossed around here not too long ago between Iranian air defense operators and an F-22 Raptor on patrol...
I hearing that story for 25+ years now, with varying planes and against varying opponents ;)
-
Krusty and we don't train really hard!
It's a lot of bloody hard work going down to china town and hoing the first aircraft I come across.
-
this one did happen and is sorta off topic but funny :cheers:
SR-71 Blackbird pilot Brian Shul reported one exchange. His SR-71 was screaming across Southern California, 13 miles high and its crew were monitoring cockpit chatter as they entered Los Angeles airspace. Though they didn't really control the SR-71, LA monitored its movement across their scope. The SR-71 crew heard a Cessna ask for a readout of ground speed.
"90 knots" Center replied.
Moments later, a Twin Beech required the same.
"120 knots," Center answered.
An F-18 smugly transmitted, "Ah, Center, Dusty 52 requests ground speed readout."
Center (after a slight pause): "525 knots on the ground, Dusty".
The SR-71 realized how ripe a situation this was for one-upmanship: "Center, Aspen 20, you got a ground speed readout for us?"
Center (after a longer than normal pause): "Aspen, I show 1,742 knots"
No further ground speed inquiries were heard on that frequency.
:airplane:
-
This is a great topic, and one that unfortunately never may be *fully* explored outside of weapons-cold mock dogfights. I say this not because modern air combat precludes 1 on 1 guns/rear-aspect meetings, but because modern air strategy and the evolving realities of late 20th/early 21st century warfare make most air campaigns a lopsided affair.
I'm no expert, but seems to me that every air campaign the United States has been involved in since, oh, just around Rolling Thunder '65, has been categorized by heavy emphasis on neutralization of enemy air assets in the opening days of the campaign, followed by a prolonged SEAD/Interdiction phase. Large scale air battles are no longer occurring; major military powers are no longer fighter each other in traditional wars, and any nation that finds itself against a major military power will attempt to negate the A/C numerical advantage of the latter by simplying staying on the ground and relying on air defense networks.
Sure, there have been A2A kills in many military operations post-Vietnam. However, they have resulted from attempts made by the "lesser military power" to strike back in the skies, and their sorties are often unorganized, sporadic, and poorly advised. Modern, organized air power has no problem eliminating these threats, often at ranges greater than 100nm.
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)
Anyway, to the issue of how a close-in 1v1 might be different in today's planes as opposed to WWII craft. Again, take this with a grain of salt, the following opinion following comes from flight simulations only. But when I play the Falcon series, or any other modern air combat sim, I'm always amused at how the maneuevers are so nearly the exact same, yet require a different skillset to be competitive with. Closure rate and throttle maintenence are very much more important to pay attention to, whereas energy maintenance is no longer the utmost thing. Manuevers are wider, there are less crossing snapshots but more of an importance upon choosing the proper type of pursuit (lag, true, lead). Even weaker climbing modern planes still climb like a banshee, so maintaining a 'perch' is not the methodical dance of move/countermove it is in WWII craft. These are my impressions, someone else may have others, but I think overall it is safe to state that there are similiarities in concept that may be slightly altered in application. Assuming a guns-only fight, I see no reason that the old adage of "it's not the plane, it's the pilot" would not still hold true (assuming, of course, you're not doing something like taking a MiG-21 against an F-16).
-
Now, of course we all know that modern air-air combat is worlds away from what was seen in WWII...
Bear in mind that the oft-lamented Rules Of Engagement may interfere with one's ability to actually use all those keen wish-them-dead weapons. For example, it was not uncommon over Viet Nam to require Phantoms carrying radar-homing Sparrow missiles to visually identify targets before firing on them. Which kinda gave away that particular advantage.
-
Everything is the same it just takes more real estate to di it in. In general.
Just as WWII aircraft performance was five times great than those of WWI the aircraft of today
are about 5 times greater than those used in WWII.
Still got to see (be it vis or radar), then id (vis or iff) and position an attack your enemy.
Ask eagl. He could elaborate a lot more and isn;t some couch potatoe claiming to have
been a "fer reele" P-51 pile-it or F-16 driver over the Arabian desert.
-
Modern air-air combat is something that still requires skill in the air, from what I gather, and though ECM and BVR combat has become new, many fights (1 vs 1) can still be compared like they did in WWII. Pilots aim to dodge missiles, they don't just give up once they're locked onto.
No doubt it still requires great skill but dont forget during Gulf-l, almost 20 years ago, almost all ATA kills by the USA were racked up BVR using missiles. The only enemy knocked down with Air gunnery, as I recall, was helicopters.
Now were 20 years on and several generations later. We retain cannon on fighters cause the pilots like them but the odds are not high they will be used against another aircraft.
Though, what I'd like to know from the more knowledgable community is just HOW much performance (climb, speed, acceleration and maneuverability) and Energy management really matters in today's 1 on 1 BVR and WVR combat scenarios.
Not that Im an "expert" but our current production aircraft are being built with operative performance requirements that are "good enough" instead of having to be "the best". When you have such an over-whelming advantage in stealth, avionics, support, you dont need something faster then the latest Russian jet. You only need something "fast enough".
In other words do you want an airframe that twitters about on its tail at air shows, and sets speed records? Or do you want one the enemy never even knows is there. At least until its missiles hits them. Assuming, that is, anything survives the opening night stealth/precision strike package in the first place.
-
Now were 20 years on and several generations later. We retain cannon on fighters cause the pilots like them but the odds are not high they will be used against another aircraft.
Ive heard this before. Smokey engines were involved throughout and gondolas concluded the discussion.
-
Ive heard this before. Smokey engines were involved throughout and gondolas concluded the discussion.
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.
-
A childhood friend of mine is an F-16C pilot in the air force, currently stationed in Korea. We had a pretty extensive conversation about this topic last Summer, so I'll see if I can relate some of what he told me.
Now, of course we all know that modern air-air combat is worlds away from what was seen in WWII.
However, a lot of folks here probably think that the what the U.S. says about their fighters' abilities to "fire and forget" really seems more myth than reality. Modern air-air combat is something that still requires skill in the air, from what I gather, and though ECM and BVR combat has become new, many fights (1 vs 1) can still be compared like they did in WWII. Pilots aim to dodge missiles, they don't just give up once they're locked onto.
The fire and forget capability of the AMRAAM is very real. Once the missile acquires its own radar lock a few seconds after launch, the pilot can turn around and break radar contact. This is a huge advantage against the armaments of many Soviet era fighters because turning around after launch gives the possibility of moving beyond the range of missiles fired in retaliation, while the bandit will have to keep radar lock to guide his missile. Newer systems coming out of Russia are also fire and forget, but are yet to be widely distributed amongst our typical opponents in future war scenarios.
Though, what I'd like to know from the more knowledgable community is just HOW much performance (climb, speed, acceleration and maneuverability) and Energy management really matters in today's 1 on 1 BVR and WVR combat scenarios.
My friend explained that what's most important is to be within corner speed velocity at the beginning of any visual range fight. That's somewhere between 300-550 knots (I can't remember the exact range he told me). Faster than that, and your turn radius will be too large and you will be an easy target. On the other hand, a little slower than corner speed is not as serious because the thrust:weight ratio of the F-16 is somewhere close to 1. Maneuverability is obviously important in a visual range fight, and my friend complains that the Mig-23 and other Soviet block fighters (not the Mig-29 and Su-27) would not match up to the F-16C like they do in a turning-fight in Falcon 4 AF.
I've watched him play Falcon 4 AF, and honestly, his view is almost always on the cockpit instruments, and rarely moving around to view outside the aircraft. Pilots are trained to kill BVR, and his expertise at this is evident. 90% of his situational awareness is from expert use of radar and the circular threat indicator in the upper left part of the cockpit (that I can't remember the correct name for it is one of the ways I explain why I suck so badly at Falcon 4 AF).
Last Summer before I saw him he completed a red flag type operation in Alaska where his squadron faced off against the F-22. I asked how it went and he said "we got our tulips kicked." I asked why, was it because of the F-22's renowned maneuverability? He answered "not at all, we never saw them."
There are tonnes of threads out there about the veteran F-16C for example facing off against a newer, never-before-seen-combat Su-30MKI for example, and no one can really give a straight answer because everyone focuses on the Su-30's supermaneuverability. But in WWII, being a Zero does not mean winning. If the F-16C outclimbs and out accelerates you (don't know if it does, just an example) then, you do not have a guaranteed win. But does this apply anymore?
I'm pretty sure that an F-16C pilot would be far more concerned about the Su-30's radar and weapon systems than its maneuverability. The F-16C is sadly outclassed by the latest generation of fighters, and moral is affected because the aircraft are also old and falling apart. That's why my friend says he doesn't care whether it's the F-22 or the F-35 (and the whole political debate that comes with it), either replacement aircraft with next generation technology is necessary.
Edit: Here is the thread where I initially posted about the conversation: http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,268590.0.html (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,268590.0.html)
-
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".
-
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. :uhoh 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. ;)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
:cool:
-
My answer:
There is probably a good reason why the most fun games in this genre revolve around WWII... :D
-
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 :D
-
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.
-
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.
-
And let's hope that those epic dogfighting skills will never have to be put to use.
-
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*)
-
Beedee beedee beedee . . . you tell 'em, Krusty! :)
-
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!
-
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!
And with the high off-boresight capability of missiles like the AIM-9x, the whines about HO's would be deafening. ;)
-
I think every "era" of air-to-air combat would be gameable and fun in their own rights but the current era would be very different from what we're used to seeing; I imagine it would be something involving more ECM than anything else.
For dogfighting action, I think the Vietnam-era/tech with buggy AIM-9's and AIM-7's would be the latest we could go.