Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Trends in Air-to-Air Combat: Implications for Future Air Superiority

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> RE: Trends in Air-to-Air Combat: Implications for Future Air Superiority Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Trends in Air-to-Air Combat: Implications for Futur... - 7/21/2015 10:34:09 AM   
thewood1

 

Posts: 6529
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline 		I am curious what the evidence is that most kills will be BVR. Just curious because up to about 2000, the evidence has has been the opposite. They is a huge thread here from a year ago that highlighted that with documentation.

(in reply to Gneckes)
Post #: 31
RE: Trends in Air-to-Air Combat: Implications for Futur... - 7/21/2015 12:16:14 PM   
Gneckes

 

Posts: 212
Joined: 6/22/2015
Status: offline 		The presentation by the CSBA that spawned this thread, at some point, outright stated that, while there had been relatively few air-to-air kills since 1991, the majority of those had been achieved with BVR missiles.

It isn't solid proof for the future obviously, but the trend is there and will most probably only intensify as more and more advanced AAMs are being developed/become available.

(in reply to thewood1)
Post #: 32
RE: Trends in Air-to-Air Combat: Implications for Futur... - 7/21/2015 1:18:21 PM   
thewood1

 

Posts: 6529
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline 		I guess my skepticism comes from the same prediction being made in the early 60's and again in the early 80's. It seems like the same predictions that declare tanks and aircraft carriers obsolete every 10-15 years.

(in reply to Gneckes)
Post #: 33
RE: Trends in Air-to-Air Combat: Implications for Futur... - 7/21/2015 2:34:40 PM   
Yokes

 

Posts: 298
Joined: 3/14/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Gneckes

The presentation by the CSBA that spawned this thread, at some point, outright stated that, while there had been relatively few air-to-air kills since 1991, the majority of those had been achieved with BVR missiles.



Well, I would say the CSBA article stated that most of the kills where with BVR missiles, but it did not state the majority were BVR kills. In other words, they may have been BVR shots made in WVR conditions.

I would also echo what others have said in regards to using historical data (see Air Warfare in the Missile Age for more info): the vast majority of those kills were "clubbing baby seals" conditions. I.E.: the target had no AEW, no or very poor onboard radar, no ground control, no RWR , etc.

The simple fact is there hasn't been peer-peer BVR engagements of any real quantity, and trying to draw conclusions by extrapolating the current historical data has pitfalls.

Personally, I think the F-35 will be quite capable of "clubbing baby seals" from BVR, but I would be leery of relying upon it solely as an air superiority fighter. This is fine for the US, since we have Raptors to do the air superiority work. But if I was Canada, or Norway, or Australia, well...

Yokes

(in reply to Gneckes)
Post #: 34
RE: Trends in Air-to-Air Combat: Implications for Futur... - 7/21/2015 5:23:13 PM   
Brent119

 

Posts: 9
Joined: 7/21/2015
Status: offline
quote:


If problems in the database are that well known then it's likely that they corrected them when compiling the data.


Stillion did not correct for these errors in the database. The CSBA report credits the Iranians with "over two hundred aerial victories including sixty two kills by F-14 crews using AIM-54 Phoenix missiles."

(in reply to poaw)
Post #: 35
RE: Trends in Air-to-Air Combat: Implications for Futur... - 7/21/2015 5:43:30 PM   
Brent119

 

Posts: 9
Joined: 7/21/2015
Status: offline
Thanks for sharing Sunburn. An interesting topic.

This is a controversy that is far from settled. To briefly summarize, Stillion makes the following points:
  • Air-to-air combat has transitioned from gun-based to missile-based kills over the past half century.
  • During the 1991 Gulf War, only 38% of the visual range engagements required air combat maneuvering.
  • On the basis of this evidence, Stillion proposes that the U.S. Should invest in a new air superiority model, utilizing low observable bomber-derived platforms (a 6th generation "fighter") to direct a fleet of unmanned air vehicles to engage opponents from beyond visual range.

The counter argument to this viewpoint is provided in other articles (sorry that I can't post a link - but a search under "review of csba study on future air dominance" will find the review I'm referencing):
  • Stillion's report failed to differentiate between radar guided (BVR) missiles fired from beyond visual range, and those fired from within visual range.
  • USAF studies show that prior to the 1991 Gulf War, missiles fired from beyond visual range accounted for no more than four air-to-air kills, worldwide.
  • Even in the 1991 Gulf War, over half of all air-to-air kills occurred within visual range.
  • The presumed cost savings for unmanned aircraft do not exist - as evidenced by the Global Hawk program. Early UAVs have been cheaper only because they are comparing unmanned prop-driven airplanes to jet airplanes.

Any way you slice this, the controversy over what a 6th generation fighter should be is far from over.

(in reply to Brent119)
Post #: 36
RE: Trends in Air-to-Air Combat: Implications for Futur... - 7/21/2015 6:00:28 PM   
Yokes

 

Posts: 298
Joined: 3/14/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Brent119


Thanks for sharing Sunburn. An interesting topic.

This is a controversy that is far from settled. To briefly summarize, Stillion makes the following points:
  • Air-to-air combat has transitioned from gun-based to missile-based kills over the past half century.
  • During the 1991 Gulf War, only 38% of the visual range engagements required air combat maneuvering.
  • On the basis of this evidence, Stillion proposes that the U.S. Should invest in a new air superiority model, utilizing low observable bomber-derived platforms (a 6th generation "fighter") to direct a fleet of unmanned air vehicles to engage opponents from beyond visual range.

The counter argument to this viewpoint is provided in other articles (sorry that I can't post a link - but a search under "review of csba study on future air dominance" will find the review I'm referencing):
  • Stillion's report failed to differentiate between radar guided (BVR) missiles fired from beyond visual range, and those fired from within visual range.
  • USAF studies show that prior to the 1991 Gulf War, missiles fired from beyond visual range accounted for no more than four air-to-air kills, worldwide.
  • Even in the 1991 Gulf War, over half of all air-to-air kills occurred within visual range.
  • The presumed cost savings for unmanned aircraft do not exist - as evidenced by the Global Hawk program. Early UAVs have been cheaper only because they are comparing unmanned prop-driven airplanes to jet airplanes.

Any way you slice this, the controversy over what a 6th generation fighter should be is far from over.


You left off ...mic drop...

(in reply to Brent119)
Post #: 37
RE: Trends in Air-to-Air Combat: Implications for Futur... - 7/21/2015 9:13:30 PM   
ExNusquam

 

Posts: 513
Joined: 3/4/2014
From: Washington, D.C.
Status: offline
quote:

On the basis of this evidence, Stillion proposes that the U.S. Should invest in a new air superiority model, utilizing low observable bomber-derived platforms (a 6th generation "fighter") to direct a fleet of unmanned air vehicles to engage opponents from beyond visual range.


Relevant AF Blues

(in reply to Brent119)
Post #: 38
RE: Trends in Air-to-Air Combat: Implications for Futur... - 7/23/2015 7:53:39 PM   
LoBlo

 

Posts: 82
Joined: 9/12/2014
Status: offline 		It would be interesting to model his proposed operational concept in Command. There would be limitations to Command's ability to model it however. One is that Command has unlimited datalinks already so the LOS connectivity would be cheated. The second is there is always a human intervention in the loop so automated systems have a built in cheat already as well (unless a player has the self discipline not to intervene as its forces are overwhelmed.

lb

< Message edited by LoBlo -- 7/23/2015 8:56:18 PM >

(in reply to Dimitris)
Post #: 39
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> RE: Trends in Air-to-Air Combat: Implications for Future Air Superiority Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

5.906