The future of air combat?

Sam Or I · Post by **Sam Or I** » 2006-08-29 09:42pm

OK, lets say Plasma stealth ends up actually working, and the F-22 delivers all as promised. You have 2 Stealth planes (For arguments sake say an SU-47), which cannot get missile lock very easily on each other. Is dog fighting back in the picture? The two sucessful "kills" of a F-22 (By a Marine Superbug, and an AF Viper) were with in visual range, not being able to missile look on the Raptor.

So will dogfighting once again become a priority of a fighter if both sides have "stealth" technology?

ThatGuyFromThatPlace · Post by **ThatGuyFromThatPlace** » 2006-08-29 11:19pm

1. Dogfighting will always be a key part of aerial combat. It has been proven time and time again and I just don't see it going away ever. Air combat is a Red Queen world, every attack has a counter-attack, every missile has a method for avoiding it, every radar has a jammer, at some point, it will always be a battle of pure skill+maneuverability of the aircraft.
2. The 2 'kills' of the F-22 were in situations stacked so heavily against the F-22 a P-51 would haev had a hard time failing. As much as I prefer to put nails in the myth of the F-22's invincibility, I have to give this one to it (mostly because I love to hate the Super-BUg even more).
3. Plasma stealth will never be a viable option for combat aircraft. Not even accoutnign for the technical difficulties, 'Plasma Stealth' has one serious drawback wholly dependent on the actual mechanism of operation, independent of the technology involved. The simple fact is, Plasma is Hot. thats what plasma is, by defintion, sure in exotic atmospheres you can get 'low temperature plasma' but ont he planet Earth, it just don't happen, you can get 'relatively low temperature plasma' but it will still radiate into the IR frequency range like no other. A plasma stealth rig may provide a shield from radar adn similar detection strategies, but at the cost of a high IR signature that will draw AIM-9x's (sidewinder heat seaking missiles) like flies to rotting meat.

In comclusion:
Dogfighting was never not a priority, and the F-22 is the first 'next generation' aircraft the airforce has ever deisgned that actually took that into consideration.
The F-22 is awesome, the Superbug is less than crap.
Plasma stealth is roughly on par witht he Superbug in its 'lower than crap'ness

Stofsk · Post by **Stofsk** » 2006-08-30 01:18am

What's a superbug?

Brother-Captain Gaius · Post by **Brother-Captain Gaius** » 2006-08-30 01:34am

Stofsk wrote:What's a superbug?

F-18 Superhornet.

AniThyng · Post by **AniThyng** » 2006-08-30 01:41am

F-18E/F Super Hornet I believe

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2006-08-30 09:56am

Plasma stealth is really outdated when you consider the smart metamaterials being developed at the university of St. Andrews. You just need to make the skin invisible to, say, X-band radar and then you've got only IR to really worry about or an acoustic signature if going fast enough.

Really, as soon as high powered lasers come about in the battlefield, human piloted aircraft will suddenly become pretty redundant. You'd have a better time with UCAVs then, which pull multiples of ten worth of gees, so they may have a chance of evading lock, but against a human piloted fighter, a laser or future missile system will be cheaper and pull its weight better. You'd be getting into the reasons why fighters in sci-fi space battles are worse than useless, along with most missiles.

Post by **Beowulf** » 2006-08-30 02:36pm

If you're going fast enough, an acoustic signature is useless because you can't home in on one.

Jason von Evil · Post by **Jason von Evil** » 2006-08-30 02:50pm

The Air Force isn't going to get rid of guns on its planes, atleast not for a long, long time. They learned their lesson from the F4 Phantom.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2006-08-30 02:54pm

Beowulf wrote:If you're going fast enough, an acoustic signature is useless because you can't home in on one.

True enough, but it's only ever a consideration with subsonic aircraft and if you're reduced to that, you may as well give up anyway. Radar, lidar or IR are the only real ways to get the job done.

FOG3 · Post by **FOG3** » 2006-08-30 10:36pm

On one of the boards I frequent one of the members managed to get to the bottom of this whole plasma stealth thing. Apparently it's plasma inside the radome, covering the apeture and nothing more. Woopdeedoo, AESA utterly outclasses that and it's only a matter of time before the density of the modules increase enough they'll be in missiles. This would mean, unless RWR sets manage advance to compensate, the target won't even know they're SOL until just about when they get nailed.

Compare the Russian tech to the US's revolutionary AESA RADARS, LO construction and RAM granting true stealth, JHCMS and AIM-9X combo, plus the F-22s considerable performance. Do you really think by the time the rest of the world gets stealth, American sensor systems won't have become even more capable, not to mention in other fields? Assuming other people can even afford to field 5th gen.

ThatGuyFromThatPlace · Post by **ThatGuyFromThatPlace** » 2006-08-31 12:15am

don't be so quick to harp on JHMCS and AIM-9x
U.S. may have the edge in stealth, and the F-22 may (emphasis on may here) outperform any other fighter in- terms of force on force fighting (the Russians have some pretty flippin maneuverable craft, though they've traded out-right stealth for pricer and arse-loads of missile carriage)
but back to JHMCS and AIM-9x, both of these are catch-up to the Russians, who have had helmet based cueing systems since the seventies, and AIM-9x equivalent missiles slightly longer (Okay, the AIM-9x has some big advances in seeker capability, but the AIM-9x is the very first western SRAAM that can fire 90+degrees off access, while the Russians have been firing 90+ degrees off access longer than they've had helmet mounted cueing systems for them)

I'd be careful about counting out the Russians ability to produce gen-5 aircraft. Their stealth technology went off track with the Plasma stealth thing, but thy've always been more talented esigners than we have, their only set-backs are lack of skilled labor and funding to produce gen-5 fighters.

While stealth is quite an advantage to the F-22 in a strategic sense, and even to some extent in the tactical sense, it is still not total. The F-22 is damn stealthy, but as was demonstrated back in Yugoslavia with the F-117, stealth isn't all powerful, it can be defeated.
And, back to the dog-fight scenario, I'd give it to the Su-47 over the F-22 anyday. The F-22 was certainly designed with concessions to dog-fighting, and a good emphasis on maneuverability. But the Russians have always known that Dog-fighting is the only way to go, and the Su-47 is basically a dog-fighter with concessions made to fitting AMRAAMs rather than the other way around like the F-22. The -47 is more maneuverable at every point in the flight envelope than the F-22, and in a dogfight, would feed the F-22 back to America one pice at a time.

FOG3 · Post by **FOG3** » 2006-08-31 02:43pm

Here we are here, from a person in the industry about "plasma stealth."

The Russians may have had a helmet sight, but from all accounts it was downright primitive.

Seems as how I'd basically just be arguing by proxy, I'll just refer you to the thread and point out the F-117 incident is in the same sphere as the two gun kills on a F-22. It's like using Aliens, and saying because they managed to kill the Marines the Aliens would be a serious threat to conventional ground forces. Incompetance by the REMFs, and the contrived nature of the two gun kills != invalidity of the concept anymore then a freak MANPADS getting a A-10 means they aren't as tough as they are and fully capable of doing and excelling at their job.

FOG3 · Post by **FOG3** » 2006-08-31 03:14pm

Just for clarification for those who don't want to search through that:

F-117 kill: The planners had the bright idea of having the aircraft fly the exact same route, night after night, until a Serbian smart ass decided to do the obvious and take advantage of this fixed route.

F-16 gun kill: Apparently was done while the F-22 was returning back to base and preparing to land.

F-18 gun kill: Apparently was actually done as a joke to get a picture and was setup ahead of time, and thus meaningless.

HRogge · Post by **HRogge** » 2006-08-31 05:09pm

The rest of the world will just shoot down the "stealthy" F22 with missiles with better sensors... or hunt them with radar systems capable detecting planes like this.

Dogfighting is a "no brainer" because of the quality of missiles today, and it will stay like this.

Ace Pace · Post by **Ace Pace** » 2006-08-31 05:17pm

HRogge wrote:The rest of the world will just shoot down the "stealthy" F22 with missiles with better sensors... or hunt them with radar systems capable detecting planes like this.

Dogfighting is a "no brainer" because of the quality of missiles today, and it will stay like this.

And they will get these better sensors from where? The leading countries in electronic development can't lock onto to the F-22, atleast not outside very short range.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2006-08-31 06:00pm

ThatGuyFromThatPlace wrote:don't be so quick to harp on JHMCS and AIM-9x. U.S. may have the edge in stealth, and the F-22 may (emphasis on may here) outperform any other fighter in- terms of force on force fighting (the Russians have some pretty flippin maneuverable craft, though they've traded out-right stealth for pricer and arse-loads of missile carriage)

It's not so much as tradeoff as the Russians don't really have the technical ability for a true LO aircraft and instead went to build the biggest, baddest non-LO heavy fighter they could.

but back to JHMCS and AIM-9x, both of these are catch-up to the Russians, who have had helmet based cueing systems since the seventies, and AIM-9x equivalent missiles slightly longer (Okay, the AIM-9x has some big advances in seeker capability, but the AIM-9x is the very first western SRAAM that can fire 90+degrees off access, while the Russians have been firing 90+ degrees off access longer than they've had helmet mounted cueing systems for them)

IIRC, Python has been capable of some funky feats for some time (Israel essentially being a Western nation in all but geography).

I'd be careful about counting out the Russians ability to produce gen-5 aircraft. Their stealth technology went off track with the Plasma stealth thing, but thy've always been more talented esigners than we have, their only set-backs are lack of skilled labor and funding to produce gen-5 fighters.

That's a bold assertation that the Russians are better than the West. I daresay they lack the technical base to produce an F-22-class fighter as well - the US has too much experience in "stealth" design compared to the rest of the world. This is not to say that the Russkies don't make fine fighters - far from it.

While stealth is quite an advantage to the F-22 in a strategic sense, and even to some extent in the tactical sense, it is still not total. The F-22 is damn stealthy, but as was demonstrated back in Yugoslavia with the F-117, stealth isn't all powerful, it can be defeated.

FOG3 went over this - it was USAF planning stupidity and the F-117 is more or less first-generation stealth . I've also heard it was also designed to counter aerial radar threats more; against an entire battery of SA-6s and some more advanced surface radars, well, there is always the golden BB.

And, back to the dog-fight scenario, I'd give it to the Su-47 over the F-22 anyday. The F-22 was certainly designed with concessions to dog-fighting, and a good emphasis on maneuverability. But the Russians have always known that Dog-fighting is the only way to go, and the Su-47 is basically a dog-fighter with concessions made to fitting AMRAAMs rather than the other way around like the F-22. The -47 is more maneuverable at every point in the flight envelope than the F-22, and in a dogfight, would feed the F-22 back to America one pice at a time.

Evidence to suggest the Su-47 (for all points and purposes a technology demonstrator!) is better at the dogfight?

Ace Pace wrote:And they will get these better sensors from where? The leading countries in electronic development can't lock onto to the F-22, atleast not outside very short range.

Nevermind that the E-3 (or more-or-less cancelled E-10) would be coaching in the F-22s to the enemy's blind spots. Most fighters have very limited scan arcs for their radars - especially compared to the F-22 (which also has space and weight reserved for side-looking radars

) and probably wouldn't even know what killed them.

FOG3 · Post by **FOG3** » 2006-09-01 01:06pm

Okay, messed up on the details of the F-18 story so : here you go
Actually more damning then I thought. The fact the Super Hornet pilot would go to those extremes hints of a high level of desperation, to me.

This is also illuminating.

Ma Deuce · Post by **Ma Deuce** » 2006-09-02 08:14pm

phongn wrote:Evidence to suggest the Su-47 (for all points and purposes a technology demonstrator!) is better at the dogfight?

Which reminds me, isn't the F-22's APG-77 radar supposed to have a directed energy attack mode where it can focus the the radar's emissions into a tight beam on a single target? What effect would that have on another aircraft's avionics? Could it fuck up an FBW system enough to effectivly shoot down another aircraft, especially at close range?

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2006-09-03 12:17pm

I'm unsure of the APG-77, but the SPY-1 on any Aegis ship is pretty much a lethal grade beam weapon.

Ma Deuce · Post by **Ma Deuce** » 2006-09-03 05:03pm

Admiral Valdemar wrote:I'm unsure of the APG-77, but the SPY-1 on any Aegis ship is pretty much a lethal grade beam weapon.

Yeah, but the SPY-1 doesn't have to focus it's emissions into a beam (I don't think it's even capable of focusing that tightly) to be lethal human life or electronics, given it's tremendous power output (up the 3.2mW continiously).

Back to fighter radars, we've all heard of how the MiG-25's Smerch-A radar was so powerful (up to 500kW continiously) that it was a court-martial offence to turn it on at low altitude. I'm not completely sure about the APG-77 radar, but I've heard it's normal continious output is only in the single-digit kW range, but is capable of very brief (a few milleseconds) mW-level bursts.

DrMckay · Post by **DrMckay** » 2006-09-03 05:12pm

perhaps some kind of Metal Storm system in the aircraft to replace Vulcan cannons in the future...

andrewgpaul · Post by **andrewgpaul** » 2006-09-03 06:49pm

Ma Deuce, I'm assuming you mean megawatts (MW), not milliwatts (mW) in your post there?

Ma Deuce · Post by **Ma Deuce** » 2006-09-03 08:12pm

andrewgpaul wrote:Ma Deuce, I'm assuming you mean megawatts (MW), not milliwatts (mW) in your post there?

Yes, I meant megawatts. Thanks for pointing out that error.

Einhander Sn0m4n · Post by **Einhander Sn0m4n** » 2006-09-03 08:14pm

DrMckay wrote:perhaps some kind of Metal Storm system in the aircraft to replace Vulcan cannons in the future...

That's only good for extremely short bursts, and not even a computer has the fire discipline for more than one target per barrel. I also read there's a limit to how much muzzle energy each round can be loaded to. Muzzle energy is a really nice thing to have lots of, because it enables bigger shells, higher velocity, or both.

I'm thinking maybe liquid propellant guns for smaller magazines or more rounds in the same magazine (only need to store the bullet or shell, not the case as well, as well as a tank of liquid propellant smaller for the same propulsive energy).

ThatGuyFromThatPlace · Post by **ThatGuyFromThatPlace** » 2006-09-04 12:33am

On Radar beam Weapons:
The F-22's APG-77 is a sperically distributed AESA, it is made up of many small radar band transceiver chips that are each focused on a single arc, this means that it can span the entire sphere of surrounding space instantly, but cannot physicallt focus the output of its radar on any one point.

I'm not sure about the SPY-1, but the earlier SPY-2s could focus most of their output down a single degree of arc, and the later ones probably can too.