USAF/US NAVY 6G Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA, ASFS news

[Triton]

We also haven't discussed improvements in avionics and helmet-mounted sighting and display systems that would likely be included in a sixth-generation platform. Including expected improvements in pilot eye tracking and virtual retinal display (VRD) technology also known as retinal scan display (RSD) or retinal projector (RP).

Also consider that the Boeing F/A-XX concept went from a two-seat tandem seating configuration in early concepts to a single seat in later concepts. Does this mean that the pilot can also perform the tasks that would have been assigned to the Naval Flight Officer (NFO) on the Boeing F/A-18F Super Hornet and the earlier Grumman A-6 Intruder and Grumman F-14 Tomcat? Continuing the trend in the Lockheed Martin F-35C of a single seat for a strike fighter platform? Will there be a second seat for the electronic warfare variants of the F/A-XX?

Are there also any improvements to be made in networking multiple platforms and BVR engagement?

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

The west will have fewer systems and platforms from a broken procurement system while adversaries have more and more of increasingly capable systems

Consider that by 2020, the United States is projected to have nearly 2,500 manned combat aircraft of all kinds. Of those, nearly 1,100 will be the most advanced fifth generation F-35s and F-22s. China, by contrast, is projected to have no fifth generation aircraft by 2020. And by 2025, the gap only widens. The U.S. will have approximately 1,700 of the most advanced fifth generation fighters versus a handful of comparable aircraft for the Chinese. Nonetheless, some portray this scenario as a dire threat to America's national security.

http://www.defense.gov/speeches/speech.aspx?speechid=1369

Jsport you decided they were inferior and now you are unhappy that BLL doesn't agree with you.

as long as people like you continue to defend inferior platform and system decisions.

Its not "people like him" that decide these things anyway (and on the internet of all places.... wait Mr Lamprey are you a General or Air Marshall?) and its not just "people like him" defending these platforms. The Military actually has the audacity to laud the very systems you find so offensive. The navy loves the Super Hornet, the Marine Corps is head over heels for the F-35B, the Air Force is all aflutter over the F-22. The Army is very satisfied with their Abrams etc, etc,

I hate to break it to you jsport, but the people in uniform tend to have a pretty big say in what gets chosen and what gets produced and the requirements therein. You want to paint it as top down push that punishes the troops and I'm sorry but that is total hogwash. the procurement system for as unpleasant and expensive and cantankerous as it is, still produces weapon systems that win, whether you want to admit that or not, and systems that many troops bet their lives on without hesitation.

It is downright comical that the same troops you are so concerned about, seem completely devoid of any professional competence by your own measure. You don't seem to take their opinions or decisions or considerations into account at all, and you don't trust them to know their own jobs. Or is this "concern for troops" just an emotional appeal to push your agenda?

The JSF is a dogfight dud and poor internal payload.

of course it is, thats why everyone canceled their orders a long time ago and bought other stuff.

Beside babble about systems which only defend the craft (and are assumed just to survive) not win a conflict (SEAD, CMT tgtng EW against grd tgts etc. ) I haven't heard a single "interesting" thing from your posts yet.

I like that you don't see surviving as connecting to completing missions and winning wars.

 

[sferrin]

The JSF is a dogfight dud and poor internal payload.

1. The people actually flying the plane disagree with your expert opinion regarding maneuverability. 2. Which 4th gen aircraft has a larger internal payload?

 

[jsport]

The west will have fewer systems and platforms from a broken procurement system while adversaries have more and more of increasingly capable systems

Consider that by 2020, the United States is projected to have nearly 2,500 manned combat aircraft of all kinds. Of those, nearly 1,100 will be the most advanced fifth generation F-35s and F-22s. China, by contrast, is projected to have no fifth generation aircraft by 2020. And by 2025, the gap only widens. The U.S. will have approximately 1,700 of the most advanced fifth generation fighters versus a handful of comparable aircraft for the Chinese. Nonetheless, some portray this scenario as a dire threat to America's national security.

We all hope this fantasy is true so we don't speak a different language by 2030.. Having taken what they need from us and paying people peanuts the Chinese and their now world's fastest computer are only throwing indicators that the above is dreamy..

There is only resource for multi-role and Air Sup is ,again, only assumed...no matter how difficult, because the main mission is effect the conflict primarily on deep inside continents..
We stay w/ F-35 because we have no other choice given the sunk costs..

 

[BioLuminescentLamprey]

Kinematics are great, but that all falls apart if you're getting AMRAAMs and Meteors out of the blue. The PAKFA, SU-35s type planes will lose this advantage if they take evasive action. How can they use their kinematic advantage (over an F35 type) in a tactically sound way? How do they even know which direction to fly in?

Adding in now the system of systems philosophy, or NCW, of the US/Western forces in general, there is just no comparison. Situational awareness is everything. This has been manifestly evident at least since the first gulf war.

Imagine if I tried to promote a new fighter for the USAF and international customers by saying that, yes, it will get shot at first, but it will always be able to dodge the missile, close to WVR and there defeat the opponent. I don't think that would go very far.

In LO vs LO combat BVR could be neutralized though. I think that's where kinematics takes over. The direction of an approaching weapon usually gives you a decently good idea of the direction you would expect your opponent to be in. That would be where one would focus their sensors.

When you're receiving inbound AAMs, your situational awareness will go in the toilet as you try to maneuver away. That's usually what happens to a pilot in that situation. It's not a good time to go on the offense. You lose your energy pretty comprehensively taking evasive action and then if you make it to the merge you will have to worry about HOBS missiles cued by HMCS. I just can't help but conclude that missile kinematics and sensor quality, ECM, etc are going to trump platform kinematics pretty decisively...especially in close in fighting.

If you have MAWS or EODAS, you have some warning of the AAM on it's way in. If not, you won't necessarily know until the seeker head goes active. I'd assume that the PAKFA, J20 etc have pretty good MAWS systems, but it's not really true that this gives you a good idea where the opponent is.

There's probably still room for software to grow in helping detect threats from afar. After all, improved sensors and software shape both defensive and offensive abilities.

I think your point about energy bleed through evasive maneuvers actually highlights the advantages of better kinematics. If you start off with more speed and altitude and you have more power available to you you have a better chance to survive the better kinematics of missiles and to make it to the merge in an advantageous position.

I'm still doubtful that in an encounter between two LO platforms, combat will be dictated in BVR instead of WVR though. Both detection and lock of radar homing missiles are hampered by stealth, and even with a lock, it's much easier for an LO platform to shake off that missile.

I'm doubtful that there will be encounters between two LO platforms at all. There will be encounters between systems that include VLO fighters and other systems that include VLO fighters.

Maybe it sounds like a minor quibble, but it's really fundamental. Who has the better picture of the battlespace? I don't think a supercruising J20 has any advantage unless it knows where the enemy is. The same is true for the F22. How does it find the enemy? Using ESM, LPI radar. Not by just flying into the unknown. The characteristics of these systems and their employment are closely guarded, but I would venture to say that there must be something to it. The AFs of the world have are all signed on to a "kinematically inferior" platform, flying in the face of the conventional wisdom that is the currency online. I would also venture to say that WVR combat will come down to a suicidal exchange of helmet cued HOBS missiles. Having a good post-stall nose pointing authority, or a slightly better turn rate is not going to matter as much as having good sensors and weapons.

I don't disagree with you that a high performing fighter can get back up to speed faster after dodging a missile. The ECM and MAWS and LO features will make a big difference here too. What about cooperative jamming from multiple APG-81s? I wonder what that will do to a missile. Also, efficacy of the AMRAAM shot, for example, will depend on datalink updates, which can be provided more effectively by a platform with good sensing and networking qualities.

I guess I've made my points. Definitely don't think performance is a bad thing! Don't get me wrong. I love the F22, PAKFA etc., I'm just pleased that there is a platform that can be deployed in large numbers, to lots of allies, that is highly survivable. I just want to avoid losing the forest for the trees. Systems! Not platforms!!

The west will have fewer systems and platforms from a broken procurement system while adversaries have more and more of increasingly capable systems as long as people like you continue to defend inferior platform and system decisions. " Definitely don't think performance is a bad thing!" The JSF is a dogfight dud and poor internal payload.
Beside babble about systems which only defend the craft (and are assumed just to survive) not win a conflict (SEAD, CMT tgtng EW against grd tgts etc. ) I haven't heard a single "interesting" thing from your posts yet.

Drivel.

 

[BioLuminescentLamprey]

The west will have fewer systems and platforms from a broken procurement system while adversaries have more and more of increasingly capable systems

Consider that by 2020, the United States is projected to have nearly 2,500 manned combat aircraft of all kinds. Of those, nearly 1,100 will be the most advanced fifth generation F-35s and F-22s. China, by contrast, is projected to have no fifth generation aircraft by 2020. And by 2025, the gap only widens. The U.S. will have approximately 1,700 of the most advanced fifth generation fighters versus a handful of comparable aircraft for the Chinese. Nonetheless, some portray this scenario as a dire threat to America's national security.

http://www.defense.gov/speeches/speech.aspx?speechid=1369

Jsport you decided they were inferior and now you are unhappy that BLL doesn't agree with you.

as long as people like you continue to defend inferior platform and system decisions.

Its not "people like him" that decide these things anyway (and on the internet of all places.... wait Mr Lamprey are you a General or Air Marshall?) and its not just "people like him" defending these platforms. The Military actually has the audacity to laud the very systems you find so offensive. The navy loves the Super Hornet, the Marine Corps is head over heels for the F-35B, the Air Force is all aflutter over the F-22. The Army is very satisfied with their Abrams etc, etc,

I hate to break it to you jsport, but the people in uniform tend to have a pretty big say in what gets chosen and what gets produced and the requirements therein. You want to paint it as top down push that punishes the troops and I'm sorry but that is total hogwash. the procurement system for as unpleasant and expensive and cantankerous as it is, still produces weapon systems that win, whether you want to admit that or not, and systems that many troops bet their lives on without hesitation.

It is downright comical that the same troops you are so concerned about, seem completely devoid of any professional competence by your own measure. You don't seem to take their opinions or decisions or considerations into account at all, and you don't trust them to know their own jobs. Or is this "concern for troops" just an emotional appeal to push your agenda?

The JSF is a dogfight dud and poor internal payload.

of course it is, thats why everyone canceled their orders a long time ago and bought other stuff.

Beside babble about systems which only defend the craft (and are assumed just to survive) not win a conflict (SEAD, CMT tgtng EW against grd tgts etc. ) I haven't heard a single "interesting" thing from your posts yet.

I like that you don't see surviving as connecting to completing missions and winning wars.

Nope. Not a General or Colonel. Call me Citizen Lamprey. Just calling them as I see them.

 

[jsport]

The JSF is a dogfight dud and poor internal payload.

1. The people actually flying the plane disagree with your expert opinion regarding maneuverability. 2. Which 4th gen aircraft has a larger internal payload?

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/The-F-35s-Air-to-Air-Capability-Controversy-05089/
Quote
Meanwhile, key radar advances are already deployed in the most advanced Russian surface-to-air missile systems, and existing IRST (infra-red scan and track) systems deployed on advanced Russian and European fighters are extending enemy detection ranges against radar-stealthy aircraft. Fighter radar pick-up capability of up to 25 nautical miles by 2020 is proposed against even ultra-stealthy aircraft like the F-22, coupled with IRST ability to identify AMRAAM missile firings and less infrared-stealthy aircraft at 50 nautical miles or more.

The F-35′s lower infrared and radar stealth levels mean that these advances will affect it more than they’ll affect the F-22. Especially if one assumes a fighter aircraft whose prime in-service period stretches to 2050.


Quote
The F-35′s explicit design goal has been stated as being the F-16′s equal in in air to air combat, at a time when the F-16′s future ability to survive in that arena is questioned. The question naturally arises: what special features give the F-35 a unique ability to prevail against the kind of advanced, upgraded 4.5 generation and better fighters that it can be expected to face between its induction, and a likely out of service date around 2050 or later?


Quote
All fighters have limitations, and fighting to your plane’s strengths is a big component of good airmanship. What’s concerning is the apparent number and extent of the F-35′s kinetic weaknesses, and the structural difficulty of fixing them. The net tactical effect is that pilots will be forced to depend even more heavily on electronics like the EO DAS and APG-81 radars, and on a stealth profile that’s less effective and more variable than the F-22A’s.


Quote
“….JSF and USAF analysts stated that against Su-27 and MiG-29 fighters the Raptor had a kill ration of 30 to 1 and the JSF 3 to 1…. Against aircraft 30 years newer, such as Su-35S, PAK-FA and the Chinese J-20, and you can imagine the results are likely to be very different…. AVM [Air Vice-Marshal] Osley advised that the JSF has some 650 ways to detect and avoid such threats…. if a JSF has to leave airspace because it detects the presence of Su-35Ss, PAK-FAs or J-20s that it cannot defeat, then the enemy wins airspace-dominance without firing a shot.”

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

We all hope this fantasy is true so we don't speak a different language by 2030..

Spanish would be my bet actually.

Having taken what they need from us and paying people peanuts the Chinese and their now world's fastest computer are only throwing indicators that the above is dreamy..

So just to review China having the worlds fastest computer means the US is doomed militarily, as chinese super computers translate to killer aircraft? Thats why Flankers are so good. because sputnik

There is only resource for multi-role and Air Sup is ,again, only assumed...no matter how difficult, because the main mission is effect the conflict primarily on deep inside continents..

that sentence made no sense to me. maybe you can elaborate.

We stay w/ F-35 because we have no other choice given the sunk costs..

even if that were true why would other nations stay on? and why would more countries select the F-35? Japan had zero sunk cost in the F-35. so what gives?

 

[BioLuminescentLamprey]

We also haven't discussed improvements in avionics and helmet-mounted sighting and display systems that would likely be included in a sixth-generation platform. Including expected improvements in pilot eye tracking and virtual retinal display (VRD) technology also known as retinal scan display (RSD) or retinal projector (RP).

Also consider that the Boeing F/A-XX concept went from a two-seat tandem seating configuration in early concepts to a single seat in later concepts. Does this mean that the pilot can also perform the tasks that would have been assigned to the Naval Flight Officer (NFO) on the Boeing F/A-18F Super Hornet and the earlier Grumman A-6 Intruder and Grumman F-14 Tomcat? Continuing the trend in the Lockheed Martin F-35C of a single seat for a strike fighter platform? Will there be a second seat for the electronic warfare variants of the F/A-XX?

Are there also any improvements to be made in networking multiple platforms and BVR engagement?

I'm excited to see the same things. Sensors and networking capabilities. A strong EW capability. Further development of the ESM. GaN AESA. Hopefully a tailless, broadband stealth design. The engine technologies are going to be a focus too. They should be combined cycle ADVENT type engines, offering high supercruise and dash speed alongside efficient cruise. New materials, better IR suppression.These are supposedly going to be much more integrated into the airframe itself. I don't know what that would look like, but it's going to be impressive.

A 2-seater is interesting. I don't know enough about the thinking on the inside to say if that will happen or not.

Another thing I'd like to know more about is these rumored self-healing structures and morphing technologies. Are these still being looked at? Pretty sci-fi sounding stuff. Visual stealth?

 

[Steve Pace]

This is becoming quite the thread... -SP

 

[BioLuminescentLamprey]

It's a brawl!

Fun thread!

 

[latenlazy]

I'm doubtful that there will be encounters between two LO platforms at all. There will be encounters between systems that include VLO fighters and other systems that include VLO fighters.

Maybe it sounds like a minor quibble, but it's really fundamental. Who has the better picture of the battlespace? I don't think a supercruising J20 has any advantage unless it knows where the enemy is. The same is true for the F22. How does it find the enemy? Using ESM, LPI radar. Not by just flying into the unknown. The characteristics of these systems and their employment are closely guarded, but I would venture to say that there must be something to it. The AFs of the world have are all signed on to a "kinematically inferior" platform, flying in the face of the conventional wisdom that is the currency online. I would also venture to say that WVR combat will come down to a suicidal exchange of helmet cued HOBS missiles. Having a good post-stall nose pointing authority, or a slightly better turn rate is not going to matter as much as having good sensors and weapons.

What about intercept missions? I suppose both sides might be more focused on targeting center points of each other's systems to maximize operational disruption, but I can't imagine that there wouldn't be intercept engagements on both sides to defend each other's valuable system centers when that happens.

Minor quibble: Kinematics isn't just nose pointing ability and turn rates.

 

[DrRansom]

Because of the F-35's delayed entry into service, I think that it extremely safe to say that its primary Air threat will be stealth.

Evidence? This story: http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/awx_06_19_2013_p0-589808.xml

The Navy is pushing for a long range IR missile to accompany its IRST on the Hornet. That makes one conclude that there is a new stealth air threat and that air threat requires a rapid response. The article says that the Navy wants the longer range by 2018, a year before the F-35C's IOC.

Quick step back into F/A-XX, what do people think about the difference between the Boeing model and Lockheed? I interpret the Boeing model as a 5+ gen fighter, targeted for mid to late 20s development / production. Lockheed, on the other hand, wants a pure 6th gen fighter and probably won't mind it happening in the 30s.

It would be interesting, though fruitless, to speculate about the range and speed trade-offs of the two designs. (Kinematic analysis from CGI images!)

 

[F-14D]

Because of the F-35's delayed entry into service, I think that it extremely safe to say that its primary Air threat will be stealth.

Evidence? This story: http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/awx_06_19_2013_p0-589808.xml

The Navy is pushing for a long range IR missile to accompany its IRST on the Hornet. That makes one conclude that there is a new stealth air threat and that air threat requires a rapid response. The article says that the Navy wants the longer range by 2018, a year before the F-35C's IOC.

Quick step back into F/A-XX, what do people think about the difference between the Boeing model and Lockheed? I interpret the Boeing model as a 5+ gen fighter, targeted for mid to late 20s development / production. Lockheed, on the other hand, wants a pure 6th gen fighter and probably won't mind it happening in the 30s.

It would be interesting, though fruitless, to speculate about the range and speed trade-offs of the two designs. (Kinematic analysis from CGI images!)

One other possibility:

The winning design for the AIM-9X was the least expensive one submitted. In fact, Raytheon also bid another version with greater performance both in flight and in its seeker.

When this version was selected, there were some concerns raised about its performance (speed and range). Since it uses the same motor as previous Sidewinders, the increase in speed and range comes from its lower drag. there were concerns how it would do against future threats. I wonder if they're revisiting this.

 

[lantinian]

There is a BIG difference between aicraft detection and missile tracking. It come down to the precision of the information available and at BVR IRST cannot provide accurate tracking information.

Airshow are not done in BVR. That same heat map will look completely different at long range because of different IR frequency attenuation.

At viewing distance modern fighter radars will be able to detect and track an F-22

 

[lantinian]

Meanwhile, key radar advances are already deployed in the most advanced Russian surface-to-air missile systems, and existing IRST (infra-red scan and track) systems deployed on advanced Russian and European fighters are extending enemy detection ranges against radar-stealthy aircraft

.

I read a lot about how S-300 could detect and track even Stealth aircraft more than 10 years ago. I have yet to see it used anywhere simply because it was not deployed.

Selling an advanced defensive weapons system to any country actively opposing the US or its allies is not a sound economic concept. Not to mention offensive systems...

These "you can now reliably detect stealth aircraft" arguments are based on lab experiments and don't reflect situations encountered by actual warfighters.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Meanwhile, key radar advances are already deployed in the most advanced Russian surface-to-air missile systems, and existing IRST (infra-red scan and track) systems deployed on advanced Russian and European fighters are extending enemy detection ranges against radar-stealthy aircraft

.

I read a lot about how S-300 could detect and track even Stealth aircraft more than 10 years ago. I have yet to see it used anywhere simply because it was not deployed.

Selling an advanced defensive weapons system to any country actively opposing the US or its allies is not a sound economic concept. Not to mention offensive systems...

These "you can now reliably detect stealth aircraft" arguments are based on lab experiments and don't reflect situations encountered by actual warfighters.

LM isn't the only company with marketing either...

 

[EricChase88]

Stealth do not matter when fighters dogfight, so kinematics still do matter. Rafale killed F-22 in 2009 when mock dogfighting.

http://theaviationist.com/2013/06/19/f-22-shot-down-by-rafale/#.UcHt1flwqSo

 

[sferrin]

Stealth do not matter when fighters dogfight, so kinematics still do matter. Rafale killed F-22 in 2009 when mock dogfighting.

http://theaviationist.com/2013/06/19/f-22-shot-down-by-rafale/#.UcHt1flwqSo

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...

 

[donnage99]

Stealth do not matter when fighters dogfight, so kinematics still do matter. Rafale killed F-22 in 2009 when mock dogfighting.

http://theaviationist.com/2013/06/19/f-22-shot-down-by-rafale/#.UcHt1flwqSo

Concerning the article, without information of the rules of engagements, such as if there's any limitation placed on either aircraft, it becomes completely irrelevant. As for dogfight goes, the f-35 is promised to dominate through the use of its DAS system. However, it's only promise with no historical statistics to back up as of yet, I will reserve my judgment.

 

[BioLuminescentLamprey]

Stealth do not matter when fighters dogfight, so kinematics still do matter. Rafale killed F-22 in 2009 when mock dogfighting.

http://theaviationist.com/2013/06/19/f-22-shot-down-by-rafale/#.UcHt1flwqSo

Stealth obviously matters WVR as well. You can see how the Rafale is losing the F22 on the radar.....WVR. It's in this video.

When you make up artificial ROEs, then you can expect artificial results. In these exercises, the Rafale and Raptor were basically forced to merge... BFM. Basic Maneuvers. Also known as 'practice'. There were probably other restrictions applied as well. The USAF is not going to use the full capability of the fighter either. The French have been known to try to collect intelligence on our advanced fighters as well. It would be unwise to look at these exercises as anything more than practice amongst allies. I have no doubt that if you force the Raptor to merge with a Typhoon or Rafale, that it will be defeated sometimes. These are really maneuverable opponents with good pilots. Kudos to the French pilot and a lesson learned for the Raptor pilot. That's what it comes down to.

The presentation here is pure marketing. There's a reason why you don't see the USAF going around thumping their chests every time an F22 beats a Typhoon, F15, or Rafale.

 

[BioLuminescentLamprey]

Stealth do not matter when fighters dogfight, so kinematics still do matter. Rafale killed F-22 in 2009 when mock dogfighting.

http://theaviationist.com/2013/06/19/f-22-shot-down-by-rafale/#.UcHt1flwqSo

Concerning the article, without information of the rules of engagements, such as if there's any limitation placed on either aircraft, it becomes completely irrelevant. As for dogfight goes, the f-35 is promised to dominate through the use of its DAS system. However, it's only promise with no historical statistics to back up as of yet, I will reserve my judgment.

We do hear about the EODAS a lot. I think it's pretty impressive, but I look at it as part of the sensor package. DAS is fused with the APG-81, the EOTS....they can hand a track off to each other and support each other, while the pilot just sees one simple picture in the fancy helmet display. I believe the AIM-9X has a datalink as well? Not sure on that. The DAS is going to make dog fighting at night possible as well. That's pretty interesting imho.

 

[bobbymike]

Stealth do not matter when fighters dogfight, so kinematics still do matter. Rafale killed F-22 in 2009 when mock dogfighting.

http://theaviationist.com/2013/06/19/f-22-shot-down-by-rafale/#.UcHt1flwqSo

Concerning the article, without information of the rules of engagements, such as if there's any limitation placed on either aircraft, it becomes completely irrelevant. As for dogfight goes, the f-35 is promised to dominate through the use of its DAS system. However, it's only promise with no historical statistics to back up as of yet, I will reserve my judgment.

We do hear about the EODAS a lot. I think it's pretty impressive, but I look at it as part of the sensor package. DAS is fused with the APG-81, the EOTS....they can hand a track off to each other and support each other, while the pilot just sees one simple picture in the fancy helmet display. I believe the AIM-9X has a datalink as well? Not sure on that. The DAS is going to make dog fighting at night possible as well. That's pretty interesting imho.

It might be in the F-35 news only thread but there was video of DAS detecting artillery fire from dozens of km away with the intent of a future iteration able to send the GPS location to the closest strike weapon. Also DAS detecting a rocket launch from hundreds of km away.

I imagine a 'four ship' networked covering hundreds of thousand of cubic km of battlespace awesome capability.

 

[DrRansom]

The issue with the DAS, at least in the medium to long term, will be the use of IR jammers.

At long range, the DAS may be good, but at short range, I can see hostile fighters using IR jammers to dazzle any sensor system.

Back to the fighter design and F/A-XX: what do people think that stealth v stealth will look like? It could be blindman's bluff, followed by short range maneuvering.

In that environment, AWACs won't be around for very long, though.

 

[BioLuminescentLamprey]

Stealth do not matter when fighters dogfight, so kinematics still do matter. Rafale killed F-22 in 2009 when mock dogfighting.

http://theaviationist.com/2013/06/19/f-22-shot-down-by-rafale/#.UcHt1flwqSo

Concerning the article, without information of the rules of engagements, such as if there's any limitation placed on either aircraft, it becomes completely irrelevant. As for dogfight goes, the f-35 is promised to dominate through the use of its DAS system. However, it's only promise with no historical statistics to back up as of yet, I will reserve my judgment.

We do hear about the EODAS a lot. I think it's pretty impressive, but I look at it as part of the sensor package. DAS is fused with the APG-81, the EOTS....they can hand a track off to each other and support each other, while the pilot just sees one simple picture in the fancy helmet display. I believe the AIM-9X has a datalink as well? Not sure on that. The DAS is going to make dog fighting at night possible as well. That's pretty interesting imho.

It might be in the F-35 news only thread but there was video of DAS detecting artillery fire from dozens of km away with the intent of a future iteration able to send the GPS location to the closest strike weapon. Also DAS detecting a rocket launch from hundreds of km away.

I imagine a 'four ship' networked covering hundreds of thousand of cubic km of battlespace awesome capability.

Yeah, I read about that too. That's promising. Block IV, maybe. If it picks something up, you could put an SDB on it, or hand the coordinates off to another fighter. Good ISR capability for the ground troops too.

 

[F-14D]

Stealth do not matter when fighters dogfight, so kinematics still do matter. Rafale killed F-22 in 2009 when mock dogfighting.

http://theaviationist.com/2013/06/19/f-22-shot-down-by-rafale/#.UcHt1flwqSo

Stealth obviously matters WVR as well. You can see how the Rafale is losing the F22 on the radar.....WVR. It's in this video.

When you make up artificial ROEs, then you can expect artificial results. In these exercises, the Rafale and Raptor were basically forced to merge... BFM. Basic Maneuvers. Also known as 'practice'. There were probably other restrictions applied as well. The USAF is not going to use the full capability of the fighter either. The French have been known to try to collect intelligence on our advanced fighters as well. It would be unwise to look at these exercises as anything more than practice amongst allies. I have no doubt that if you force the Raptor to merge with a Typhoon or Rafale, that it will be defeated sometimes. These are really maneuverable opponents with good pilots. Kudos to the French pilot and a lesson learned for the Raptor pilot. That's what it comes down to.

The presentation here is pure marketing. There's a reason why you don't see the USAF going around thumping their chests every time an F22 beats a Typhoon, F15, or Rafale.

Keep something in mind. These aircraft are pretty much at the limit of what the human body can take. When the Raptor chooses is forced (ROE) or whatever) to go toe-to-toe close in, it gives up most of what makes it what it is. I wouldn't be surprised if these aircraft, especially the Typhoon, could hold their own with it in this particular arena .

The thing is the Raptor can avoid these kind of encounters, if it chooses, and use all of its extra capabilities to "fight dirty". The others don't have that option.

Regarding USAF thumping its chest, it's been doing that for years regarding the Raptor. This can backfire. When it wins, well, that's only what's expected. But if it loses, that's news! It's interesting that we don't hear much from anyone about close-in results against those two, and we have had deliberate exercises pitting them against each other, both British and German Typhoons.

 

[BioLuminescentLamprey]

Stealth do not matter when fighters dogfight, so kinematics still do matter. Rafale killed F-22 in 2009 when mock dogfighting.

http://theaviationist.com/2013/06/19/f-22-shot-down-by-rafale/#.UcHt1flwqSo

Stealth obviously matters WVR as well. You can see how the Rafale is losing the F22 on the radar.....WVR. It's in this video.

When you make up artificial ROEs, then you can expect artificial results. In these exercises, the Rafale and Raptor were basically forced to merge... BFM. Basic Maneuvers. Also known as 'practice'. There were probably other restrictions applied as well. The USAF is not going to use the full capability of the fighter either. The French have been known to try to collect intelligence on our advanced fighters as well. It would be unwise to look at these exercises as anything more than practice amongst allies. I have no doubt that if you force the Raptor to merge with a Typhoon or Rafale, that it will be defeated sometimes. These are really maneuverable opponents with good pilots. Kudos to the French pilot and a lesson learned for the Raptor pilot. That's what it comes down to.

The presentation here is pure marketing. There's a reason why you don't see the USAF going around thumping their chests every time an F22 beats a Typhoon, F15, or Rafale.

Keep something in mind. These aircraft are pretty much at the limit of what the human body can take. When the Raptor chooses is forced (ROE) or whatever) to go toe-to-toe close in, it gives up most of what makes it what it is. I wouldn't be surprised if these aircraft, especially the Typhoon, could hold their own with it in this particular arena .

The thing is the Raptor can avoid these kind of encounters, if it chooses, and use all of its extra capabilities to "fight dirty". The others don't have that option.

Regarding USAF thumping its chest, it's been doing that for years regarding the Raptor. This can backfire. When it wins, well, that's only what's expected. But if it loses, that's news! It's interesting that we don't hear much from anyone about close-in results against those two, and we have had deliberate exercises pitting them against each other, both British and German Typhoons.

Actually, there was the same hoopla regarding an encounter between F-22 and the German Typhoons. There was a lot of trumpeting there as well. I'd like to see the whole scorecard from that event, remembering of course that normally an opponent doesn't have the option of meeting the F-22 in WVR (dictating favorable ROEs). Still and all, I'd expect the Raptor to also have good numbers WVR. It has great turn performance, amazing nose pointing authority, powerful engines, 2-D TVC etc.

It was a gun kill, IIRC, that the Typhoons had gotten on the 22. Now, how often is the fight going to come down to guns in the real World? I'm not sure what the answer, but I doubt it will be often.

One thing that the F-22 could use close-in is a HMCS and AIM-9X integration. If you could give it DAS and EOTS? ......it's possible, but too expensive for the moment. I understand that it's hard to upgrade the F-22 (the F-35, I believe is much easier to upgrade). I think we'd see it get done relatively quickly IF there was a threat to justify it. For the time being, it will dominate from BVR and probably keep opponents from getting to within range. That quality is probably exactly what the USN wants in their F/A-XX. Just having the enemy know it's up there will push them away from the carrier battle group.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

using IR jammers to dazzle any sensor system.

I will have to remember that idea the next time someone tries to paint some Russian IRST as the great stealth finding eye of sauron.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Stealth do not matter when fighters dogfight, so kinematics still do matter. Rafale killed F-22 in 2009 when mock dogfighting.

http://theaviationist.com/2013/06/19/f-22-shot-down-by-rafale/#.UcHt1flwqSo

Uh, that example could go either way. Seeing as the F-22 is insanely maneuverable, one could point to that as example that superior kinematics won't save you. HOBS and HMQS are making it even tougher to survive close in. Which is one of the reasons why the stealthy AMRAAM plunkers are in vogue.

 

[lantinian]

Back to the fighter design and F/A-XX: what do people think that stealth v stealth will look like? It could be blindman's bluff, followed by short range maneuvering

It sound a bit illogical but at close range even stealth fighters will have more location information on other stealth fighters thanks to advances in sensor fusion and systems like DAS. It will be accurate tracking information that will be harder to obtain.

Advanced missiles will have such engagement envelopes and no escape zones that evading them trough slow fancy maneuvers will be obsolete. Fighters will really on high energy and information to defeat the incoming missiles. For the first directed energy weapons will be used to jam or fry the missiles tracking system.

Although a bit out of date, I still like that history documentary on the Future of Dogfight. Watch from 1:07 for the 5th on 5th gen fighter dogfights
http://youtu.be/vnUwxDhE1kU

 

[sublight_]

I think you have it all wrong. The future is all about swarms. You have a group of x-47 type drones. One flies out on point as the attention getter. When it gets attacked the other drones in the swarm respond. When you have stealth on stealth engagements, you have to resort to using "bait".

 

[F-14D]

I think you have it all wrong. The future is all about swarms. You have a group of x-47 type drones. One flies out on point as the attention getter. When it gets attacked the other drones in the swarm respond. When you have stealth on stealth engagements, you have to resort to using "bait".

There is a real term for your "point" drone. it is called a "flaming datum".

 

[F-14D]

One thing that the F-22 could use close-in is a HMCS and AIM-9X integration. If you could give it DAS and EOTS? ......it's possible, but too expensive for the moment. I understand that it's hard to upgrade the F-22 (the F-35, I believe is much easier to upgrade). I think we'd see it get done relatively quickly IF there was a threat to justify it. For the time being, it will dominate from BVR and probably keep opponents from getting to within range. That quality is probably exactly what the USN wants in their F/A-XX. Just having the enemy know it's up there will push them away from the carrier battle group.

It is difficult to put a HMCS in the F-22. AF passed it off by saying F-22 didn't need one anyway because it's so good. Finally, work began to incorporate the Scorpion HMCS in the F-22, but that was abandoned earlier this year. AF will finally get the ability to use the AIM-9X in HOBS mode in 2017, but will still not be able to use it to its full advantage without a HMCS,

 

[kcran567]

Stealth do not matter when fighters dogfight, so kinematics still do matter. Rafale killed F-22 in 2009 when mock dogfighting.

http://theaviationist.com/2013/06/19/f-22-shot-down-by-rafale/#.UcHt1flwqSo

Stealth obviously matters WVR as well. You can see how the Rafale is losing the F22 on the radar.....WVR. It's in this video.

When you make up artificial ROEs, then you can expect artificial results. In these exercises, the Rafale and Raptor were basically forced to merge... BFM. Basic Maneuvers. Also known as 'practice'. There were probably other restrictions applied as well. The USAF is not going to use the full capability of the fighter either. The French have been known to try to collect intelligence on our advanced fighters as well. It would be unwise to look at these exercises as anything more than practice amongst allies. I have no doubt that if you force the Raptor to merge with a Typhoon or Rafale, that it will be defeated sometimes. These are really maneuverable opponents with good pilots. Kudos to the French pilot and a lesson learned for the Raptor pilot. That's what it comes down to.

The presentation here is pure marketing. There's a reason why you don't see the USAF going around thumping their chests every time an F22 beats a Typhoon, F15, or Rafale.

Keep something in mind. These aircraft are pretty much at the limit of what the human body can take. When the Raptor chooses is forced (ROE) or whatever) to go toe-to-toe close in, it gives up most of what makes it what it is. I wouldn't be surprised if these aircraft, especially the Typhoon, could hold their own with it in this particular arena .

The thing is the Raptor can avoid these kind of encounters, if it chooses, and use all of its extra capabilities to "fight dirty". The others don't have that option.

Regarding USAF thumping its chest, it's been doing that for years regarding the Raptor. This can backfire. When it wins, well, that's only what's expected. But if it loses, that's news! It's interesting that we don't hear much from anyone about close-in results against those two, and we have had deliberate exercises pitting them against each other, both British and German Typhoons.

Actually, there was the same hoopla regarding an encounter between F-22 and the German Typhoons. There was a lot of trumpeting there as well. I'd like to see the whole scorecard from that event, remembering of course that normally an opponent doesn't have the option of meeting the F-22 in WVR (dictating favorable ROEs). Still and all, I'd expect the Raptor to also have good numbers WVR. It has great turn performance, amazing nose pointing authority, powerful engines, 2-D TVC etc.

It was a gun kill, IIRC, that the Typhoons had gotten on the 22. Now, how often is the fight going to come down to guns in the real World? I'm not sure what the answer, but I doubt it will be often.

One thing that the F-22 could use close-in is a HMCS and AIM-9X integration. If you could give it DAS and EOTS? ......it's possible, but too expensive for the moment. I understand that it's hard to upgrade the F-22 (the F-35, I believe is much easier to upgrade). I think we'd see it get done relatively quickly IF there was a threat to justify it. For the time being, it will dominate from BVR and probably keep opponents from getting to within range. That quality is probably exactly what the USN wants in their F/A-XX. Just having the enemy know it's up there will push them away from the carrier battle group.

Bekaa Valley air war in 1982 when Israeli f-16s and 15s went up against Migs in high numbers. The fight devolved into a within visual range fight. Arguably the IAF at the time was one of the premier AF's in the world and despite the modern equipment AWACs, long range radar, AMRAAM, the fight still became one of IR missiles and guns. In the future will all aircraft be shot down at long range without visual identification? Just send in swarms of drones and long range missiles. The PAKFA will be the best example of the "BOYD energy envelope" flying, have better agility than the F-35 and true 3-d thrust vectoring performance. Will this be what it will devolve to, or will all fighting be done strictly in a virtual world at long range safely at high speed and altitude, or sitting in an air conditioned van somewhere eating a sandwich and sending the drones in?

 

[GTX]

Bekaa Valley air war in 1982

30+ yrs ago... :

[/size]The PAKFA will be the best example of the "BOYD energy envelope" flying, have better agility than the F-35 and true 3-d thrust vectoring performance.

Based upon what evidence? And re the thrust vectoring...so what?!

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Bekaa Valley air war in 1982 when Israeli f-16s and 15s went up against Migs in high numbers. The fight devolved into a within visual range fight. Arguably the IAF at the time was one of the premier AF's in the world and despite the modern equipment AWACs, long range radar, AMRAAM,

AMRAAMs in 1982? that is advanced!

and no mention of Iraq in 1991 or Kosovo in 1999? How do you dogfight at night BTW?

the fight still became one of IR missiles and guns.

probably why F-35s and F-22s have guns, IR missiles then.

closing to within visual range does not inherently mean a dogfight. let me repeat that. WVR does not mean a dogfight. WVR means the aircraft can be seen with the naked eye. and plenty of kills have been achieved with missiles WVR and no turning is involved. A mile away a mig-21 is a dot. so a 5 mile sparrow shot is a "BVR kill. "

In the future will all aircraft be shot down at long range without visual identification?

Aircraft are already shot down without visual identification.

The PAKFA will be the best example of the "BOYD energy envelope" flying,

The F-22 would like to have a word with you... possibly the Typhoon as well.

have better agility than the F-35 and true 3-d thrust vectoring performance.

Pak Fa does not yet have the engines developed that they would like to put in there, so vectored thrust or it won't be at its full potential for a while. It not just vectoring the thrust, its other factors like T/W ratio and acceleration as well . We can put vectoring thrust on a 737 if anyone wanted it.

By all accounts Mig-29s are more maneuverable than F-15s. hasn't shown on the score board though. You should see the Statistical differences between Mirages and Sea Harriers, it will knock your socks off. how about Zeros vs hellcats? There is no single "winner take all" factor that suddenly makes aircraft A better than Aircraft B, anyone who makes that argument is cherry picking, and its only getting more and more complex with time. in 20 years the internet arguments will be about who has the lowest RCS, and best sensors

if you want to play that game though everytime you say "agility" I will say "stealth" and we can go on and on and ignore the thousands of other factors that determine success in air combat.

Will this be what it will devolve to, or will all fighting be done strictly in a virtual world at long range safely at high speed and altitude, or sitting in an air conditioned van somewhere eating a sandwich and sending the drones in?

Its not really an "either or" proposition. Manueverability/agility arguments aside (the internets favorite debate), the F-35 is getting the tools it will need to dogfight. from helmet mounted queing, to 360 degree sensors (IE not just to the forward quarter) HOBS missiles, features in the helmet that identify friendly aircraft from enemy in swirling dogfights, and of course the gun (except the B and C which will have theirs mounted separately) The F/A-xx may take even this to the next level with improvements in all of the above, but not have 3d thrust vectoring, or even a gun.

Why the obsession with maneuverability agility? the purpose of maneuverability to is to bring the weapons into an envelope the best increases the odds of killing your enemy. That is the purpose of agility. If the same effect can be achieved with a flying brick and the pilot turning his head instead of the aircraft to achieve the same end, then job done.

If you look at a WWII cruiser compared to an Aegis cruiser you will not a distinct lack of giant turrets and naval rifles. thats because the Navy discovered another way of achieving the same end, with different means.

 

[donnage99]

Superior supermaneuverability in WVR is marginal and irrelevant in the context of advanced high-off bore sight missiles and HMD which almost guarantee mutual destruction in WVR engagement. The necessary visual identification is not necessary with the introduction of advanced IRST and powerful AESA which basically paints the aircraft out visually on your display from miles away, no need for the naked eye identification. However, one has to ask if the future is stealth vs stealth, these identification instruments become less effective, such a need for visual identification become relevant again?

 

[F-14D]

Superior supermaneuverability in WVR is marginal and irrelevant in the context of advanced high-off bore sight missiles and HMD which almost guarantee mutual destruction in WVR engagement. The necessary visual identification is not necessary with the introduction of advanced IRST and powerful AESA which basically paints the aircraft out visually on your display from miles away, no need for the naked eye identification. However, one has to ask if the future is stealth vs stealth, these identification instruments become less effective, such a need for visual identification become relevant again?

Hmmm, wonder if the F-14's TCS' are still around...

 

[kcran567]

Superior supermaneuverability in WVR is marginal and irrelevant in the context of advanced high-off bore sight missiles and HMD which almost guarantee mutual destruction in WVR engagement. The necessary visual identification is not necessary with the introduction of advanced IRST and powerful AESA which basically paints the aircraft out visually on your display from miles away, no need for the naked eye identification. However, one has to ask if the future is stealth vs stealth, these identification instruments become less effective, such a need for visual identification become relevant again?

Hmmm, wonder if the F-14's TCS' are still around...

My point exactly. When these engagements quickly devolve, and in real world combat they will, A stealth vs stealth scenario will require a visual range fight. IR sensors are going to be countered, IRST sensors laser dazzled, radars jammed with countermeasures and competing AESA systems, chaff used, etc. the guy with less energy maneuverability ( the f-35s poor rapid transients performance, A sustained G capability less than a similarly fueled F-4E) is going to be sitting at a disadvantage. Not to mention the counter stealth developments on both sides. The BVR is a tech guys dream, its just one that hasn't been backed up with the real world facts. Even i recent combat, BVR has optimistically resulted in 9% of kills, and thats being optimistic. BVR capability is great to have and should be on the heavy fighters, but physics show that a great BVR fighter requires larger and heavier and more sophisticated equipment which leads to the upward spiral in weight which ultimately degrades aircraft performance which will be needed in a WVR fight between twostealth fighters, Forget HMS, what good is it if you're aircraft cant outrun or outturn a missile to begin with?

 

[bobbymike]

Superior supermaneuverability in WVR is marginal and irrelevant in the context of advanced high-off bore sight missiles and HMD which almost guarantee mutual destruction in WVR engagement. The necessary visual identification is not necessary with the introduction of advanced IRST and powerful AESA which basically paints the aircraft out visually on your display from miles away, no need for the naked eye identification. However, one has to ask if the future is stealth vs stealth, these identification instruments become less effective, such a need for visual identification become relevant again?

This will be taken by some as a very silly analogy but bear with me;

When I was in college with lots of downtime, classes over for the day and baseball practice finished, I used to 'dogfight' with my roommate on these two crappy ten speed bikes we had by driving around like lunatics with water guns.

1) When we first started we would hold the water gun in our hand this allowed almost 360 degree shooting, result, each of us got wet.
2) Then we taped them to the handlebars meaning you had to get behind the other person to win, result, one winner but man were we tired ;D

To make a long story short the 1) is high off bore sight missiles where neither of us turned much (both dead) and 2) is a traditional dog fight turning like crazy (one dead but totally random based on bike 'pilot' skill and choices.