Future of dogfighting

[RecceJet]

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.

[valkyrian]

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...

[RecceJet]

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.

[valkyrian]

. 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.

[Viggen]

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.

[valkyrian]

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.............

[RecceJet]

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.

[Viggen]

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

[valkyrian]

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...

[tigershark]

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.   

[Viggen]

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.

[valkyrian]

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?