Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Future Dogfights

    Share
    avatar
    collegeboy16

    Posts : 1175
    Points : 1184
    Join date : 2012-10-05
    Age : 21
    Location : Roanapur

    Re: Future Dogfights

    Post  collegeboy16 on Mon Apr 07, 2014 5:01 pm

    make it rotate is my guess
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16870
    Points : 17478
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Future Dogfights

    Post  GarryB on Tue Apr 08, 2014 10:55 am

    What if improvements in stealth design allow the stealthy creation of curved engine nozzles...

    Why flat nozzles only... what about hexagonal nozzles that are stealthy and still offer 3D thrust vector control?


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    Walther von Oldenburg

    Posts : 920
    Points : 975
    Join date : 2015-01-23
    Age : 26
    Location : Oldenburg

    Re: Future Dogfights

    Post  Walther von Oldenburg on Mon Aug 03, 2015 8:14 pm

    Isn't the concept of dogfighting obsolete anyway? Modern fighters fly so fast that it would be enxt to impossible for a human pilot to survive them.

    Ok, so I'll be mor specific. I mean effectiveness of AF in two distinct situations when
    1) Enemy does not have good hard AD but possesses good passive AD (things like Nakidka, Shtora, jammers and other devices) - basically Serbia of 1999 with better passive AD.
    2) The enemy possesses both modern active and passive AD

    I am not generally interested in shooting down enemy aircraft but how effective can these things be in preventing enemy ordnance from hitting ground targets - basically a situation when the enemy theoretically does possess control of the sky but still can do shit.
    avatar
    jhelb

    Posts : 442
    Points : 511
    Join date : 2015-04-04
    Location : Previously: Belarus Currently: A Small Island No One Cares About

    Re: Future Dogfights

    Post  jhelb on Mon Aug 03, 2015 9:26 pm

    Walther von Oldenburg wrote:Isn't the concept of dogfighting obsolete anyway? Modern fighters fly so fast that it would be enxt to impossible for a human pilot to survive them.

    Ok, so I'll be mor specific. I mean effectiveness of AF in two distinct situations when
    1) Enemy does not have good hard AD but possesses good passive AD (things like Nakidka, Shtora, jammers and other devices) - basically Serbia of 1999 with better passive AD.
    2) The enemy possesses both modern active and passive AD

    I am not generally interested in shooting down enemy aircraft but how effective can these things be in preventing enemy ordnance from hitting ground targets - basically a situation when the enemy theoretically does possess control of the sky but still can do shit.

    Dogfighting is certainly not obsolete. Say a F 15 detects a Su 30 at a distance of 100kms and fires a AIM missile. However it fails to hit the Su 30. By the time the F 15 can fire another missile the Su 30 is already up close with the F 15, because these aircraft are travelling at speeds of Mach 1 and above.

    Tactical responses to air defenses vary, with European air forces favoring low altitude penetration, in contrast to the preference of the American Air Force for medium altitude penetration facilitated by air superiority and jamming.As a general rule, the US Air Force is pursuing programs that will allow greater reliance on stealthy systems rather than reliance on jamming to penetrate air defenses.

    While accuracy, speed and invulnerability to counter-measures is obviously important, the primary measure of merit for air defenses is range.The longer the range of the defensive system, the larger the "foot print" attacking aircraft need to defeat or avoid. Effective air defense combines and synchronizes the actions of all available air defense assets to form an integrated air defense system (IADS). IADS effectiveness results from shifting from one degree of control to another. The selected degree of
    control depends on the ROE, the air picture, and the ability to communicate with the weapons systems. The degree of control can vary from centralized to decentralized. Under certain conditions, air defense units may conduct autonomous operations. Effective coordination of air defense assets must occur.

    http://in.rbth.com/economics/2014/05/12/5_of_russias_most_advanced_aerial_defence_systems_35131.html

    Susceptibility to electronic attack can be minimized by understanding the enemy’s electronic warfare capabilities and training, and by employing proper electronic protection; e.g., using decoys, brevity codes, chattermark procedures or frequency hopping radios.

    Check out this forum thread. Some great guys and some great discussions

    http://www.russiadefence.net/t3374-russian-air-to-air-ground-missiles
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16870
    Points : 17478
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Isn't the concept of dogfighting obsolete anyway? Modern fighters fly so fast that it would be enxt to impossible for a human pilot to survive them.

    Post  GarryB on Tue Aug 04, 2015 5:43 am

    In Vietnam dogfighting was supposed to be obsolete because modern fighters had short and long range missiles that made dogfighting obsolete.

    the problem there was that missile technology was still flaky so dogfights happened.

    Today missile technology has moved on and is rather more capable but then missile defence technology has also moved on so the chances of an aware enemy defending themselves against your missiles is still there... and when missiles fail there is dogfighting.

    Good dogfighting capability with your aircraft means higher kill probabilities with missiles and with guns.

    For instance an R-73 fired from directly behind a target is more likely to get a kill than one fired head on... but thrust vectoring and helmet mounted sights means when a Flanker or Fulcrum pilot sees an enemy aircraft they can turn their nose and therefore also their missiles directly at the target before firing... which means the missiles fuel is used to accelerate the missile towards the target and not wasted turning hard on launch.

    If your missile hits him first then you have a much better chance of surviving than if you have to keep watching your enemies aircraft and firing missiles at him and trying to track any missiles they have fired at you.

    When all the missiles miss then you have to be able to get cannon on target... again manouver capability is critical...

    Assuming modern Russian jammers work against AMRAAM and DIRCM jams IR guided missiles a fight between an F-35 and Su-35 or MiG-35 will start with missiles and then end up with guns. If the F-35 is stealthy then it will have 6 AAMs at most, if it is not then it will have more missiles but will not be stealthy so engagements can be started earlier.

    Assuming both can defeat the others missiles then it will come down to the gun... and manouver capability.. in which case my money is on the Russian fighters.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    nomadski

    Posts : 125
    Points : 125
    Join date : 2017-01-02

    Re: Future Dogfights

    Post  nomadski on Mon Jan 09, 2017 2:49 am

    I feel like a kid in candy shop . So much equipment . All you need is clear vision . In the absence of an asymmetric solution . Then for the time being . Manned fighters are needed . A large scale direct confrontation between nuclear powers can be ruled out . So realistic problem for Russia is facing an attack from a non nuclear NATO proxy . Either neighbours of Russia or elsewhere . Since yank capital investment in satellites and radar is high . Then circumventing these will allow an advantage . For Russia taking out GPS satellites is completely doable . And if directly attacked by a proxy . Then Russia can take out these satellites . With justification . And little risk of confrontation with yanks . Because of nuclear deterrent . This will force an attacker to use laser guided weapons . And come close . If low RCS planes are made . Then yank advantage in radar is circumvented . They are forced to do WVR dog fighting . This evens out the odds for Russians and allied pilots . Finally these planes must have the highest ( 1/cost X kill ratio ) index . A mathematical value . And simplicity of design and minimal number of parts . Since even if Russians have the money to move factories underground . Their allies will have difficulty and limited resources . Exposed factories will be more easily destroyed . Also in wartime , the Russians will have difficulty transferring planes and machines by ship . So allies must be given this production facility in advance .

    If alternative asymmetric solutions to intruding fighters is not available . And Russia can not singly or in joint venture manufacture simple agile short range single seat stealth WVR superiority dog fighter . Then maintaining it's present fleet and setting up production in allied country is only solution left . This will be a more costly solution in wartime . Since these metal planes will be at disadvantage at times from long range radar and missiles . Unless jamming is effective in neutralising their radars . However we should try and not fall into the trap of going it toe to toe with them . Since they can put more planes into the air . The long term solution is finding novel ways of fighting them in the air .

    Sponsored content

    Re: Future Dogfights

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sat Dec 16, 2017 6:23 am