MILAVIA Forum

Military Aviation => Air Power => Topic started by: Flanker.94 on April 12, 2007, 05:51:18 PM

Title: Future of dogfighting
Post by: Flanker.94 on April 12, 2007, 05:51:18 PM
What is the future of dogfighting? Your vote counts.
Title: Re: Future of dogfighting
Post by: Cobra2 on April 12, 2007, 11:23:47 PM
I voted supermanuevrability  :) And welcome to the forum Flanker! (I know I'm a little late   :P)
As we all see with the Typhoon, F-22, Su-27/35/37 etc. supermanuevrability is becoming very important.  :)
Title: Re: Future of dogfighting
Post by: Viggen on April 13, 2007, 05:47:44 PM
I actually think stealth will be the more important. The development of new missiles, BVR combined with very high speed, then only stealth will save your aircraft and possibly your life.  If you dont see the threat then it dosent matter how manueverbal your aircraft is.  ::)

Pesonally i wish it would be speed insted, but reality wants something diffrent.  ;)
Title: Re: Future of dogfighting
Post by: Flanker.94 on April 13, 2007, 05:48:44 PM
I agree with you.
Title: Re: Future of dogfighting
Post by: Flanker.94 on April 15, 2007, 01:58:07 AM
I think it is a little bit speed and maneuvrability, because you have to be fast to escape from enemies and maneuvrability to avoid missiles.
Title: Re: Future of dogfighting
Post by: Flanker.94 on April 15, 2007, 02:56:30 AM
Who voted for stealth and why??
Title: Re: Future of dogfighting
Post by: Viggen on April 15, 2007, 08:02:53 PM
I voted for stealth and my post says why.  ;)
Title: Re: Future of dogfighting
Post by: alyster on April 18, 2007, 10:43:31 PM
If anything from them, then speed.

Ace of aces, Adolf Galland once said that in the future fighters will only chase bombers at super sonic speed. He added that the planes are controlled from some sort of a bunker far away. So speed.
Title: Re: Future of dogfighting
Post by: Flanker.94 on April 19, 2007, 01:30:12 AM
Inthe Vietnam war, the American fighters were fast and not maneuvrable and were shot down. So, what do you say?
Title: Re: Future of dogfighting
Post by: Cobra2 on April 19, 2007, 02:02:20 AM
Um, Operation Bolo. A squadron of F-4 Phantoms shot down half of the NVA's MiG-21 force in that day. A squadron against a bunch of MiG-21s.
Title: Re: Future of dogfighting
Post by: Gripen on April 19, 2007, 10:43:22 AM
Um, the F-4s had better pilots and had good intel and stuff, so its kind of hard to compare them
Title: Re: Future of dogfighting
Post by: Viggen on April 19, 2007, 09:22:38 PM
However both the Mig 15 and 17 would do circles around the F4 Phantom.  :)
Title: Re: Future of dogfighting
Post by: Gripen on April 20, 2007, 10:14:45 AM
Their fighters, F-4 was more bomber then fighter.
Title: Re: Future of dogfighting
Post by: Cobra2 on April 21, 2007, 02:12:32 AM
But it is still a good aircraft and served very well. And great pilots were much help too.  :)
Title: Re: Future of dogfighting
Post by: Webmaster on April 21, 2007, 03:25:52 AM
If anything from them, then speed.

Ace of aces, Adolf Galland once said that in the future fighters will only chase bombers at super sonic speed. He added that the planes are controlled from some sort of a bunker far away. So speed.

In WWII speed was great because it gave you an edge in dogfighting, and if not, you could always run off. But nowadays with missiles going Mach 3-4 and being highly lethal, I agree with Viggen and the USAF that stealth is most important now, remaining undetected, although that's avoiding a dogfight! Hmm, we are talking about dogfighting here, right? For dogfighting, super agility is now. But with with radar technology and weapon technology advancing, I don't believe that it would be the future... if you would call radar/sensors/weapons fire power...then I'd say firepower is the future.

Or maybe better.... there is no future for dogfighting! Future of dogfighting will be re-enactment at airshows.  :P
Title: Re: Future of dogfighting
Post by: Gripen on April 21, 2007, 08:18:45 AM
Well, you could make a missile that does Mach 10, can outmanouver anything and can find stealth planes, that would be the future, the ultimate missile
Title: Re: Future of dogfighting
Post by: Flanker.94 on April 21, 2007, 02:46:04 PM
Yeah Grip. That will be awesome. I added counter-measures.
Title: Re: Future of dogfighting
Post by: Viggen on April 21, 2007, 03:19:00 PM
The days of dogfighting is over. I still stand  to my vote about stealth being the most important. But as our webmaster said, once your involved in a dogfight then aguility is more important.

But does not all pilots want to avoid dogfighting? Todays missions are mostly about taking out groundtargets, so you need to stay undetected. If you are detected and have succesfully dropped your load on your target, you need to get out of there. You dont stay and take up a fight, you would probably not have the sufficent fuel to make it back to base or the refuling aircraft.

The point im trying to make here is, that today dogfighting is the last resort you take if everything else fails. Just look at the development of the aircraft, most are multirole today. There is no need anylonger for jets like Viggen, F-104, MIG25/31, Tornado and so on.  Yes, there are a couple of pourpuse built aircraft  in service today, like the A-10. But these are not built for dogfighting in the first case. They have a supporting role on the battlefield for the goundunits. They are more stable at low altitude or slow speed. A prime example is of course the F-117, it never had to dogfight, thanks to its stealth capabilities.

Im sorry to say but this is what the future holds in it hands for airwarfare. Next step will be unmanned stealth aircraft (which i really dislike).  :(

If you feel im way wrong, please feel free to educate me.  :)
Title: Re: Future of dogfighting
Post by: Gripen on April 22, 2007, 11:23:56 AM
UCAV's will never be as good as manned fighters, humans have instincts, where as computers only do what you tell them
Title: Re: Future of dogfighting
Post by: alyster on April 22, 2007, 12:02:53 PM
Human brain is also a computer with programming errors. Lets take a simple example: put your 2 finger across each other and try to feel the tip of your nose with these 2 fingers, in most of the cases people feel that they have 2 noses. It's a simple error in human brain while working on the information it gets.

Or if you fly into artic snow storm you could be flying 90 degrees nose down and still think you are doing a good job.
Title: Re: Future of dogfighting
Post by: Globetrotter on April 22, 2007, 01:37:30 PM
Human brain is also a computer with programming errors. Lets take a simple example: put your 2 finger across each other and try to feel the tip of your nose with these 2 fingers, in most of the cases people feel that they have 2 noses. It's a simple error in human brain while working on the information it gets.

Or if you fly into artic snow storm you could be flying 90 degrees nose down and still think you are doing a good job.

I passed the fingers exam at least ;D
Title: Re: Future of dogfighting
Post by: Viggen on April 22, 2007, 02:14:43 PM
UCAV's will never be as good as manned fighters, humans have instincts, where as computers only do what you tell them

Unmanned fighters does not mean totally computer controlled. They are in fact controlled by a human pilot on the ground.
Title: Re: Future of dogfighting
Post by: Flanker.94 on April 22, 2007, 02:50:33 PM
Yeah Viggen, you're right.
Title: Re: Future of dogfighting
Post by: Gripen on April 23, 2007, 06:17:43 AM
mm, so whats the difference? they are still manned in way or another, theres just no direct risk to the peson controlling it.
Title: Re: Future of dogfighting
Post by: Viggen on April 23, 2007, 03:21:27 PM
mm, so whats the difference? they are still manned in way or another, theres just no direct risk to the peson controlling it.

The diffrence is with the pilot. If you controll a aircraft from the ground, almost anyone will be qualified to fly one. You dont need to have stamina, upper body strength. You dont suffer from the G-forces. Besides fom actually flying and being 20000ft up in the air, pilots are cool because they can withstand alot of beating in the aircraft and still do their job. They put their lives on the line.

A person remote controlling an aircraft from the ground is not what i would call a pilot. Also by removing the pilot from the cockpit, the aircraft can pull much sharper turns with higher G´s for a prolonged time. Now how fun would that be at an airshow? It would just look at the same as these small R/C aircraft you fly yourself, but in a bigger scale. Ok, they are fun to watch but its not as fun and impressive as the real deal.

Would you still like to fly a 39 Gripen if it was unmanned, sitting infront a screen or with viritual glasses?  ;)
Title: Re: Future of dogfighting
Post by: Flanker.94 on April 23, 2007, 05:46:37 PM
Imagine flying a R/C Su-37! That would be awesome!
Title: Re: Future of dogfighting
Post by: Cobra2 on April 24, 2007, 01:30:35 AM
Good point Viggen. I think pilots are awesome for what they do and how amazingly they fly  :)

Title: Re: Future of dogfighting
Post by: Gripen on April 24, 2007, 08:12:06 AM
Whats the range on a UCAV and its link to the ground?
Title: Re: Future of dogfighting
Post by: Raptor on April 24, 2007, 01:59:50 PM
Oh... Future of dogfighting? I don't see any. Dogfighting would be totally ruled out.

But just for fun? Supermanueverability. And a great set of sensors. You could just jink out of the missiles' way...
Title: Re: Future of dogfighting
Post by: Viggen on April 24, 2007, 05:42:45 PM
Range could be unlimited, since they probably use satellites in orbit to link up the signals. But we all know how good that is,  suddenly you loose contact and down it goes.  ;)

I dont know the range of the Predator thats in use today. But dont they use a C-130 to follow for longer missions?
Title: Re: Future of dogfighting
Post by: Viggen on April 24, 2007, 05:47:50 PM
Imagine flying a R/C Su-37! That would be awesome!

Here you have a few R/C controlled and jetpropelled aircraft, MIG29,F-22 and F-15.  :)

http://www.rcairgallery.com/pages/viewvideo.php?video=43&size=2&id=8ffe1e1e0dc4c760984d720bbd67cde0

http://www.rcairgallery.com/pages/viewvideo.php?video=112&size=2&id=8ffe1e1e0dc4c760984d720bbd67cde0

http://www.rcairgallery.com/pages/viewvideo.php?video=105&size=2&id=8ffe1e1e0dc4c760984d720bbd67cde0
Title: Re: Future of dogfighting
Post by: Webmaster on April 26, 2007, 03:05:42 AM
Range could be unlimited, since they probably use satellites in orbit to link up the signals. But we all know how good that is,  suddenly you loose contact and down it goes.  ;)

I dont know the range of the Predator thats in use today. But dont they use a C-130 to follow for longer missions?

Predator has already satellite data link for "over-the-horizon" missions.

C-130 following? I don't know, probably an option, but if you look at Iraq or Afghanistan, there are enough other platforms (AWACS, JSTARS) in the air that can data-link it to the control station.

It's really amazing what these datalinks do for warfare, and they're cranking up the bandwidth fast to keep up with the demand.

Different discussion though.... maybe time to start a topic of UAV operation and capabilities?
Title: Re: Future of dogfighting
Post by: Viggen on April 26, 2007, 03:33:30 AM
I think we already have started a topic on unmanned fighters.
http://www.milavia.net/forum/index.php?topic=108.0
Title: Re: Future of dogfighting
Post by: valkyrian on June 10, 2007, 04:25:27 PM
I think that the future of dogfight is supermaneuvrability and the future of air combat is a well balanced mix of all the above.

I'll explain my self : stealth dictates a different design than the supermaneuvrability and supercruise. Supercruise is bad for stealth and also bad for supermaneuvrability. It is all a matter of trade offs..
Title: Re: Future of dogfighting
Post by: RecceJet on June 10, 2007, 05:37:33 PM
I think for dogfighting the most important feature of the ones listed is Stealth.

Here are my reasons:

In both situations the attacker will be screaming in his cockpit because the fighter will not respond to his wishes. He may see his target and have the optimal firing position, but not be able to effect an attack (unless he causes a mid-air collision). In both situations the advantage of stealth is purely defensive, but this is because in a traditional dogfight both aircraft/pilots are assumed to be able to see each other. The opportunity to sneak up on an unsuspecting fighter has already passed. Stealth primarily assists in denying one's position and heading to an opponent in the BVR range, but as I pointed out above, it also has uses in the WVR dogfight scenario.

You could out-maneuver an aircraft perhaps, but what if your oppontent carries Python V? Of what use is supercruise when your speed bleeds off due to sharp turns in a dogfight anyway? If the scenario is set as a dogfight, the key to holding the upper hand is to render your opponent's technology obsolete. Stealth goes a long way to achieving that.
Title: Re: Future of dogfighting
Post by: valkyrian on June 10, 2007, 05:47:49 PM
Hi there Reccejet! I see your points but i want to back up my argument.

I call dogfight the use of guns and short range missiles. The Mig 29 has a laser range finder for the gun, so lowering the planes' rcs, or infra red, or acoustic or visual signature won't do a lot.

What if a fighter can outmaneuver a missile? it needs to turn tighter than the missile. So supermaneuvrability is of paramount importance.

I agree with the rest of your thoughts.
Title: Re: Future of dogfighting
Post by: RecceJet on June 10, 2007, 05:55:30 PM
What if a fighter can outmaneuver a missile? it needs to turn tighter than the missile. So supermaneuvrability is of paramount importance.
In the case of the MiG-29, yes I agree it will defeat stealth. You would have to use an active counter-measure to prevent use of a laser range finder. Stealth doesn't do that.

However in the case of out-maneuvering a missile you need to keep in mind the limiting factor: the pilot. A human cannot withstand the Gs needed to dodge a missile. Also, something the size of a modern fighter - with all its weight and location of thrust at the rear - means it is impossible with a conventional fighter to avoid missiles. It is simply physically impossible when you consider the momentum that needs to be overcome to rapidly change a fighter's direction compared to the relative size of a missile which has fins at both extremes just for this purpose.
Title: Re: Future of dogfighting
Post by: valkyrian on June 10, 2007, 11:07:32 PM
Obviously you are refering to the amount of specific excess power a fighter should posses in order to outaccelerate a missile. I can't imagine any fighter that it can do that, only when missile's fuel is completely burn this can be achieved. But what is very likely to be happened is a fighter to turn tighter than the missile, so as to narrow the field of view of the incoming missile to such a degree that the missile will be fooled. In the vietnam era this has happened, a pilot can do this provided that he knows the exact direction of the missile and exactly when to turn. With TVC birds (Flanker/Raptor/Fulcrum) it is very easy the aircraft to suddenly change direction of flight and do this. And another thing, what about the rear firing missiles that once Sukhoi was advertising for the flanker? Imagine that as a last line of defence a fighter can launch a missile against anothe missile. As our conversation is developing, i begin to think that superagility and firepower is the key...
Title: Re: Future of dogfighting
Post by: RecceJet on June 11, 2007, 10:06:01 AM
I think you and I are referring to different things with the same terminology. From your last post am I to understand you think I refer to fighter jet attaining a speed greater than a missile? That was not what I stated. However you seem to use the words "accelerate" and "turn" as different things. Technically speaking, the act of changing course is a form of acceleration. In that respect, yes, I was referring to the inability of a fighter jet to avoid a missile impact through acceleration. It cannot out-turn a modern missile effectively.

When taking into account the size and mass of a fighter such as a Flanker (in excess of 25 tons!) with no significant thermal reduction to the airframe and exhaust, even with thrust vectoring it is no match for the latest WVR missiles. The Python V has a very wide FOV and can be fired off-boresight; without acquiring a target first. There are missiles in this category that employ thrust-vectoring themselves and have control fins at their extremities that allow them to pull sharp turns. They don't need to bank to turn like an aircraft, they simply turn. For a missile, it doesn't have to roll and pitch up like a manned aircraft does to help the pilot endure the high Gs involved. Furthermore, having no pilot means the turning ability of a missile is greatly increased. Instead of a 9G turn, its internal components can endure dozens of factors of G.

Modern missiles won't take even a second to notice a change of course in the target and it will compensate accordingly. Yes, in the Vietnam War it may have been possible for a jet to dodge a missile by sharp maneuvering, but that technology was half a century old. Whereas modern fighters still suffer the same human limitations of flight, modern missiles have enjoyed a quantum leap in capability.

This is why I believe the most important attribute to a fighter in a dogfight is stealth. It is the only defence against increasingly smart and capable modern WVR missiles.
Title: Re: Future of dogfighting
Post by: valkyrian on June 11, 2007, 08:51:09 PM
. Technically speaking, the act of changing course is a form of acceleration. In that respect, yes, I was referring to the inability of a fighter jet to avoid a missile impact through acceleration. It cannot out-turn a modern missile effectively.

You understand complete my thinking. Yes, any time the vector of velocity changes in value or in direction, it meens that it accelerates (either centrifugal or linear). No matter how agile a missile is, when it run out of fuel, it looses energy, and any turn will bleed more energy. So there is always the chance of avoiding. Maybe this is a small probability, but i don't know any A-A missile with 100% kill ratio. After all, against an infra red seeker, there are some good old counter measures (chaffs flares). Don't you think that the era of the classical scissors, low speed yo yo's, barrel rolls and all of this have gone for good? J turn, cobra, bell, and other magical unthinkable maneuvres are already in the pilots arsenal.
Title: Re: Future of dogfighting
Post by: Viggen on June 13, 2007, 03:15:08 PM
I have to agree with RecceJet on this one as i voted for stealth.  With the new missiles coming like the Meteor that are BVR and capabilities of speeds over Mach 3. I just dont think that a pilot today has the time to do diffrent manuvers to fool the missile, and as you both wrote. Every turn a pilot makes bleeds off speed from his aircraft. Today we are talking about milliseconds for a pilot to make the right decision, flares and turn. You get only one chance today.

Sam´s are a bit easier, since you are trying to avoid their firering envelope. They need to lock on before they can fire, so the pilot gets a few more seconds.  Air to air is a bit diffrent, you dont get a warning until very late and then it can already be to late.

Title: Re: Future of dogfighting
Post by: valkyrian on June 18, 2007, 09:36:57 PM
I have to agree with RecceJet on this one as i voted for stealth.  With the new missiles coming like the Meteor that are BVR and capabilities of speeds over Mach 3. I just dont think that a pilot today has the time to do diffrent manuvers to fool the missile, and as you both wrote. Every turn a pilot makes bleeds off speed from his aircraft. Today we are talking about milliseconds for a pilot to make the right decision, flares and turn. You get only one chance today.

Sam´s are a bit easier, since you are trying to avoid their firering envelope. They need to lock on before they can fire, so the pilot gets a few more seconds.  Air to air is a bit diffrent, you dont get a warning until very late and then it can already be to late.



How much from those "dream missiles" can we put in a B-2 Spirit? I guess, we have the ultimate dogfighter.............
Title: Re: Future of dogfighting
Post by: RecceJet on June 19, 2007, 12:02:45 PM
I can't remember which publication had the article, but it was interesting to read about the USN F/A-18E/F and how their radar could possibly be jammed by emerging Chinese technology. Apparently they're looking into getting an IR capability similar to the MiG-29, but this one will be integrated into their centre-line extarnal fuel tank. The article stated how placing the sensor in the nose section or LEX would be too problematic, so they opted for a fuel tank option. Means in theory the IR sensor can cue the radar and the radar can cue the IR sensor. Particularly useful for sneaking up on an target, nose-cold.

As mentioned by valkyrian, technology like this will make stealth easier to defeat if heat reduction isn't significantly improved in future stealth configurations.
Title: Re: Future of dogfighting
Post by: Viggen on June 19, 2007, 01:18:58 PM
How much from those "dream missiles" can we put in a B-2 Spirit? I guess, we have the ultimate dogfighter.............

You should not really call them dream missiles, they are real and they will change the future of dogfighting.
Btw, here is some nice info about the Meteor.  :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MBDA_Meteor#_ref-JALW_2
Title: Re: Future of dogfighting
Post by: valkyrian on June 19, 2007, 09:56:54 PM
At first i must say that my comment was not ironic, it was rather humorous. I just wanted to go to the one extreme, that is the B2, the lowest RCS/IR aircraft (i have no proof for this but i strongly believe it). What if you load it with 20-30 Meteor or an Americanized Meteor? What airborne fighter type radar can see it? at what a distance? The B-2 will remain unseen and able to fire a salvo of those missiles against a whole sqdrn. Untill someone gets near it. O.K. That is the one extreme. But the belief that u built the maneuverability into the missile and the aircraft is a plain carrier, able to bring the missiles to the right height and initial speed, is completely mistaken. It is right the kind of performance it was envisaged in the Vietnam era and prooved wrong. It was also envisaged in the case of the AIM-54 Phoenix, every pilot an ace it was the moto then. While technology advances, there is always factors where u can't compute accurately. For example, what if an IFF transponder doesn't work? Does anyone remembers the case in the Gulf War where the Americans shot a friendly aircraft? Who guarantees that in an airspace of multiple radar targets, what you see is an enemy and not one of your team with broken IFF, or an enemy who has copied your IFF? So, visual identification is important. And then the advantage of the Meteor goes out of the window. Not that the Meteor is not needed. On the contrary.  Well, as i said first, the future of dogfight is maneuvrability the future of air combat is a well balanced mixed of all the above. Just my thoughts...
Title: Re: Future of dogfighting
Post by: tigershark on June 20, 2007, 03:46:43 PM
valkyrian I like your idea of loading up a B2 with Meteor's or AIM-120-5' but I'm sure how many times it would be useful.  Think of a wave of Chinese fighters 20 to 30 in a semi large group heading toward Taiwan.   Maybe 20 JH-7 attack jets loaded with stand-ofrf missiles and LGB protected by 8 to 10 Su-30S flying CAP.   Imagine a B2 coming in on there flank after satellites picked up the launch getting into position and letting go 20 or 30 missiles at the group.  The B2 turns away the fighters aren't able to pick them up and even if half the missiles hit at least it should break up the attack or maybe slow it down.   So I can see a big flying missile platform just not sure how many times it would be able to be used.   Stealth will win until somebody finds a way of seeing it and IR means might be the right track I just don't think its there yet.   The F-22/F-35 are light years better then the F-117 who only shot down was maybe was flying directly over a missile battery, one will never know.    So imagine if the F-117 is just able to be spotted and that's really a big if just by itself, its 20 years behind the F-22/35.   Stealth is the future, next to me is missile targeting and missile defenses.   Because even if you see the missile if you can't can't get out of the way what's the point right.   Something will come out better then flares and jamming and that will be the next important and must have on any aircraft.   
Title: Re: Future of dogfighting
Post by: Viggen on June 20, 2007, 03:49:21 PM
Im sorry that i missunderstood you Valkyrian.  :-[

I wonder if you can fit that many missiles on a B2? However if you can, you would end up with a new generation gunship. about the IFF, i dont think an enemy can copy it. They are highly crypted compared to civilian IFF. But you are right if it would stop working, you are defenatly in big trouble. Btw, remember the incident when the US Navy shoot down a civilian passangerplane from Iran? All because of mistaken IFF. There have been changes since then, so the risks involved today are less.
Title: Re: Future of dogfighting
Post by: valkyrian on June 20, 2007, 04:05:28 PM
Viggen don't feel sorry about anything. I just wanted to point out that i made a rather humorus comment, than a "smart ironic reply". Anyway, it is a pleasure to discuss with no bad intentions at all. Well, i liked the scenario nonpilot said.....i will go a step further.....
imagine that the B-2 is acting as the heavy artillery, that is it will salvo 20-30 amraams and then will turn to go, while some F-22 fully armed will stay there as a cover. Those unlucky chinese who survived the initial salvo will face the F-22. So i think that the B-2 Gunship worths a lot.

The incident you are reffering to, the aegis destroyer that failed to recognise an airbus is an example of technology failure, or was not?
Title: Re: Future of dogfighting
Post by: Viggen on June 21, 2007, 01:11:27 AM
It had something to do with mistaken IFF, The Aegis had by accident  identified the passangerplane as an Iranian F14.  Anyway, that gunship idea is not bad at all. Think of a squadron of B2´s with that firepower, no sane pilot would volunteer for that mission against the B2´s, and as you said. A couple of F22´s for protection and to clean and sweep up the rest.

But if you have a really good stealth aircraft you could actually take the B2´s out before they can get a lock on you. Since B2 is a stealth. You would probaly need to get close and use the gun. So then we are back to the good old fashioned dogfighting.  ;)
Title: Re: Future of dogfighting
Post by: RecceJet on June 21, 2007, 02:29:51 AM
http://www.milavia.net/forum/index.php?topic=644.msg6227#msg6227 (http://www.milavia.net/forum/index.php?topic=644.msg6227#msg6227)
Check out my ultimate fighter specs, covers this exact kind of airframe!
Airframe: Northrop B-2 Spirit
Radars: default
Engines: default
Avionics: default
Weapons: redesign current bomb-bays to multiple Vertical Launch Systelm (VLS) with modular launch canisters to take Python V and Meteor amongst others. Also retaining a small bomb-bay to carry AGM-142s and JDAMs internally since this feak-show airframe will probably catch its opponents on the ground.

All targeting information and missile guidance will be handled by AWACs or other airframes (refer to Tom Clancy stories) eliminating the need for my F/B-2 Spirit "I'm-Going-To-Crap-All-Over-Your-Air-Order-of-Battle" super-dooper fighter to light up any radars for target acquisition.

Additional pop-up launchers for Python V will be fitted along the wings to pop-up both above and below and have rotating turrets to take care of any stray opponent fighters.

Essentially, you could see this monster of a fighter aircraft as an aerial version of an Ohio class SSBN. It just flies into enemy airspace undetected and gives the opposition a bloody nose.


PS. I may have stretched the realm of reality a little to compensate for engineering shortcomings ;)

The cruiser USS Vincennes CG-49 was the one that shot the airliner down. It is now prohibited from entering the Persian Gulf due to that incident.
Title: Re: Future of dogfighting
Post by: valkyrian on June 21, 2007, 12:58:29 PM
I am beggining to like the idea of the B/F-2 Spirit....those rotating gun turrets, like the good old B-17, should do a great job....

in fact, the B-17's managed to down more enemy fighters than the escorting fighters they have with them..
Title: Re: Future of dogfighting
Post by: Globetrotter on June 21, 2007, 03:26:47 PM
Hey valkyrian, you maybe want to design your own aircraft in that thread!!

It will be great to see yours.... ::)
Title: Re: Future of dogfighting
Post by: valkyrian on June 22, 2007, 09:08:18 AM
Thanx Thomas! Point is who will be brave enough to test fly it.....

Now that the Gunship concept has been thrown to the table, does anyone know what is the status of the airborne laser? Imagine that 747, or a whole armada of them, able to fire laser beams and shoot down everything...Sort of "Battleship Gallactica" or"Star Wars" thing, but the airborne laser is a reality.
Title: Re: Future of dogfighting
Post by: Raptor on June 23, 2007, 10:11:45 AM
How about the 747, then? We could save maybe a billion bucks. I had a really nice reply typed out, then accidentally closed it and i don't want to type it again.
Title: Re: Future of dogfighting
Post by: terminator on June 29, 2007, 04:16:14 AM
hello everyone its been a long time ,well back to the topic i think the *future* is counter-measure systems cause all the other stuff is being achieved ,but new ways to counter enemy weapons will change dogfights as for stealth i think ppl think the plane goes invisible ,well no it doesnt it ALMOST invisible in radar ,but once an enemy fighter sees u  u got trouble ,of course stealth gives u the chance to attack first ,but as i said b4 counter-measures is the future
Title: Re: Future of dogfighting
Post by: Gripen on July 01, 2007, 03:54:32 AM
i thought the future  were unmaned drones..
Title: Re: Future of dogfighting
Post by: Raptor on July 03, 2007, 10:54:03 AM
Hm... Yeah, i thought so too. But that takes away quite a bit of fun from it, huh? I mean, it's not every day you get to pull 9Gs and get paid for it...

Ah... term. I have this great new invention on my fighter now known as the 0.5in cannon. Ahm... Twice your speed, stealth and manueverability. You going to project a wierd magnetic field somewhere else to pull the bullets there?
Title: Re: Future of dogfighting
Post by: Viggen on July 04, 2007, 05:25:01 PM
Unmanned drones are a slap in the face for every aviation lover and pilot on earth. Dont get me started on those manless machines... :-X

I actually got to think of something else that has to do with the future of dogfighting. Propulsion! Does anyone  here know what the latest is in terms of engines and fuel? Oil is about to run out and it poisons out planet. Will aircraft take the same turn as cars, runned on ethanol, electric or gas for the future?  ???
Title: Re: Future of dogfighting
Post by: Globetrotter on July 04, 2007, 05:28:12 PM
I don't know... aircraft need HUGHE amounts of power! Maybe Hydrogen is a way out... but it is extremly dangerous too ::) ::)
Title: Re: Future of dogfighting
Post by: Viggen on July 04, 2007, 05:40:33 PM
Thats what i was searching for, huge amount of power!  Will we see a drop in preformance in the future?  ::)
Title: Re: Future of dogfighting
Post by: Raptor on July 06, 2007, 07:56:03 AM
I think... Hydrogen is good to go.
Title: Re: Future of dogfighting
Post by: valkyrian on July 06, 2007, 09:19:43 AM
I think... Hydrogen is good to go.

Not so good, considering it needs more volume...
Title: Re: Future of dogfighting
Post by: RecceJet on July 06, 2007, 01:06:13 PM
how about an NFB-2 Spirit nuclear powered fighter bomber? ;D

The US has experimented and flown a nuclear powered bomber in the past, and if enough money was thrown into applying modern technology to this problem perhaps an efficient and potentially powerful alternative to fossil fuels is possible for large aircraft.
Title: Re: Future of dogfighting
Post by: Globetrotter on July 06, 2007, 03:21:16 PM
SO which fuel do we have left???
Title: Re: Future of dogfighting
Post by: Viggen on July 06, 2007, 03:29:59 PM
Nuclear!! What happends to the reactor if the aircraft crashes or gets shoot down? It does not sound safe to me.  :o
I agree with Raptor on the hydrogen part, the spaceshuttle is a good example of the amount it takes just to get the thing off the ground, and still it needs help with solid rockerboosters. Ok, i know its much larger then a fighter, but you do want to be able to travel some distance before you run out of fuel.  Maybe its time to build a X-wing or a TIE-fighter and move on into space (Antigravity propulsion).  ;)

Anyway, the military fuel used today is cleaner then the ones used by civilian airliners. Problem is that its really expensive. After these fourt generation fighters its really time to think about  alternative fuel or powerplants for the next generation, or there wont be any future at all for dogfighting.
Title: Re: Future of dogfighting
Post by: Flanker.94 on July 06, 2007, 03:39:09 PM
I added the UAVs and I restarted the poll.
Title: Re: Future of dogfighting
Post by: valkyrian on July 06, 2007, 10:01:47 PM
There was some plans for a Liquid Metal Nuclear Cycle bomber, an imroved B-68 Hustler, but i think the whole engine would be more lethal than the weapons it could carry...then there was the Zip fuel, a highly efficiency fuel that was to be used on the B-70....
Title: Re: Future of dogfighting
Post by: Viggen on July 06, 2007, 10:46:46 PM
How about not use any form of fuel. Have the dogfights online, on a viritual battlefield ? Btw i take that one back, stupid idea.  :P

Without the fossile fuel, it looks like we are screwed.... :-\
Title: Re: Future of dogfighting
Post by: Gripen on July 07, 2007, 06:05:45 AM
Nuke bomber means ALOT of power, so we could see some new weapons.
Title: Re: Future of dogfighting
Post by: Globetrotter on July 07, 2007, 04:32:03 PM
I don;t think nuke airplanes will ever succeed... it is just tooooooo dangerous!!! WHat if it fails to land??

No, too risky
Title: Re: Future of dogfighting
Post by: Gripen on July 08, 2007, 04:58:23 AM
Didnt they say nuke subs would never work?

too risky to the crew?

etc etc...
Title: Re: Future of dogfighting
Post by: Globetrotter on July 08, 2007, 02:58:37 PM
well, if you ask me, an aeroplane has much more probabilities to fall than a submarine to "crash". And I think it wouldn't be nice for the people nearby the accident....
Title: Re: Future of dogfighting
Post by: Globetrotter on July 08, 2007, 03:02:24 PM
how could I be soo stupid!

We (Argentina) have already got the solution 8) 8) 8) bio-jet fuel.

Just take a look:

http://www.milavia.net/forum/index.php?topic=751.0

Title: Re: Future of dogfighting
Post by: RecceJet on July 09, 2007, 02:45:13 AM
I added the UAVs and I restarted the poll.

After reading all the views for and against the listed atttributes, I'm still maintaining my opinion of Stealth being the most important. Happy to keep debating it too, hehe ;D
Title: Re: Future of dogfighting
Post by: Raptor on July 10, 2007, 12:29:20 PM
You guys are being too narrow-minded. Think of the possibilities. Forget the fuel. Work on an engine that consumes so little of it it's almost negligible. We could just use hydrogen for the first little take-off, (Adding some lighter-than-air possibilities) and then use the rotary motion on each engine (In twin engs) to power the other. Sure, difficult, and absorbs a lot of power, but you could say have the fuel at only half the original consumption rate.

And what about lift. The take-off stage uses the most fuel, so you get the picture.

bio-jet fuel sounds like a good idea. But eventually you'll use up all that too. Or at least the basic resources... I'm thinking fill up with your evenings trash then use nitrous oxide to burn so hard you have rocket fuel.  ;D

Ah, the sub bit. If the sub blows up in the ocean there's a lot less of a chance that nearby folks will get affected. If a plane blows up over NYC all the beautiful irradiated bits and pieces come falling down and everybody dies of cancer.
Title: Re: Future of dogfighting
Post by: Gripen on July 11, 2007, 02:44:22 AM
and if a nuke explodes in the ocean the radiation gets washed around the world, fish die, whales die, people die and camels die.

Everyone dies.

Title: Re: Future of dogfighting
Post by: Globetrotter on July 11, 2007, 04:15:16 AM
it's not the same  ::)

we could start adisscussion over it on the DEBATE thread!!! >:D
Title: Re: Future of dogfighting
Post by: Raptor on July 11, 2007, 09:55:42 AM
You forget that by the time the radiation reaches the shore, it'll be so dispersed that it's not enough to kill a gnat. Okay, bad analogy. The Gnat aircraft can't be very much harmed by radiation.

Harm an ant, then.
Title: Re: Future of dogfighting
Post by: Gripen on July 12, 2007, 02:55:51 AM
Uh Huh. and if all the fish in the world die, and a good part of the oceans useless, then what?
Title: Re: Future of dogfighting
Post by: Raptor on July 12, 2007, 09:23:42 AM
but hasn't happened yet, has it? Now how about getting back on topic?