Trends in Air-to-Air Combat: Implications for Future Air Superiority (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series



Message

Dimitris -> Trends in Air-to-Air Combat: Implications for Future Air Superiority (7/4/2015 5:57:15 AM)

http://csbaonline.org/publications/2015/04/trends-in-air-to-air-combat-implications-for-future-air-superiority/



bradinggs -> RE: Trends in Air-to-Air Combat: Implications for Future Air Superiority (7/4/2015 11:19:31 AM)

Thanks, interesting read Sunburn.



NickD -> RE: Trends in Air-to-Air Combat: Implications for Future Air Superiority (7/4/2015 11:13:15 PM)

This certainly matches up with the way modern/future air combat works in CMANO, where sensors, jammers and payloads are the key elements. It's very rare for a fight to close to dog fighting range, and if it does so it generally means you've done something wrong.



Primarchx -> RE: Trends in Air-to-Air Combat: Implications for Future Air Superiority (7/4/2015 11:22:02 PM)

Dogfighting with modern a/c usually means I'm either desperate or greedy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NickD

This certainly matches up with the way modern/future air combat works in CMANO, where sensors, jammers and payloads are the key elements. It's very rare for a fight to close to dog fighting range, and if it does so it generally means you've done something wrong.




mikkey -> RE: Trends in Air-to-Air Combat: Implications for Future Air Superiority (7/5/2015 9:42:49 PM)

Interesting, thank you for sharing.



Gneckes -> RE: Trends in Air-to-Air Combat: Implications for Future Air Superiority (7/6/2015 12:03:36 AM)

That was very interesting, thanks for sharing!
I might be wrong about this, but I envisage a kind of sensor/missile truck platform, providing long-range detection and fire against air targets.
Also, radar and ECM being able to/having to adapt to enemy radar and ECM even mid-mission sounds very intriguing. I assume the computational power required for that would be quite high, but who knows what kind of computers we have in 20 years. So, might this lead to a situation where neither side is able to use their radars for very long before the enemy finds a way to counter-act whatever you're doing?



NickD -> RE: Trends in Air-to-Air Combat: Implications for Future Air Superiority (7/7/2015 8:31:24 AM)

This is also an interesting read on the topic: http://www.aspistrategist.org.au/f-35-versus-f-16-who-wins-who-cares/



Zaslon -> RE: Trends in Air-to-Air Combat: Implications for Future Air Superiority (7/7/2015 10:48:13 AM)

Interesting file but this phrase kills my enthusiasm:

CSBA compiled a database of all confirmed aerial victories from 1965 through 2013. Thee primary source for the database is regional and national databases maintained by the Air Combat Information Group (ACIG).


It's well known that the ACIG database posted in the web have tons of inaccuracies, Tom Cooper didn't update the data. Tom recognise that. The data was compiled before 2010 when Iraq's data become more available. Now we know, for example, that iranian F-14s never shot down any Iraqi MiG-25. In ACIG database, Iranians claims at least 12 Foxbat shot down in aerial combats.



poaw -> RE: Trends in Air-to-Air Combat: Implications for Future Air Superiority (7/8/2015 12:22:12 AM)

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

The only identify the ACIG as a primary source, not the only one used.



Zaslon -> RE: Trends in Air-to-Air Combat: Implications for Future Air Superiority (7/8/2015 3:47:46 PM)

I hope that, cuz



StellarRat -> RE: Trends in Air-to-Air Combat: Implications for Future Air Superiority (7/8/2015 5:55:20 PM)

The sixth generation fighter should be a drone with air-to-air capability. IMO, it's bad enough the US is paying over a trillion for the F-35 when air-to-air drones have already proven to be workable at a fraction of the cost. Had the same amount of time and money been applied to developing said drones our current conversation would completely different now. I have no nostalgia about putting people in harms way if a machine can do it even if it's not as efficient, yet.



Primarchx -> RE: Trends in Air-to-Air Combat: Implications for Future Air Superiority (7/8/2015 7:40:23 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: StellarRat

The sixth generation fighter should be a drone with air-to-air capability. IMO, it's bad enough the US is paying over a trillion for the F-35 when air-to-air drones have already proven to be workable at a fraction of the cost. Had the same amount of time and money been applied to developing said drones our current conversation would completely different now. I have no nostalgia about putting people in harms way if a machine can do it even if it's not as efficient, yet.


And the proof is??

That said, as has been noted in several places, some nations are electing to stretch their 4th gen a/c out and skip 5th gen entirely to move into the drone air superiority realm when it matures. But to say its' mature now, well, I'd like to see that proof.



Gneckes -> RE: Trends in Air-to-Air Combat: Implications for Future Air Superiority (7/8/2015 7:51:50 PM)

Yeah, the last I heard, the latency issues proved to be a pretty big hindrance for air-to-air use of drones.
That might matter less for BVR combat, but you can't beat the laws of physics.



Primarchx -> RE: Trends in Air-to-Air Combat: Implications for Future Air Superiority (7/8/2015 10:00:33 PM)

The big hurdle will be systems that can autonomously attack. We don't quite have that yet and there are lots of reasons why that will take a while to perfect to the point that militaries will trust it.



Gneckes -> RE: Trends in Air-to-Air Combat: Implications for Future Air Superiority (7/8/2015 10:12:48 PM)

Yeah, there's plenty of media out there about rogue military AIs...



cf_dallas -> RE: Trends in Air-to-Air Combat: Implications for Future Air Superiority (7/8/2015 10:56:42 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sunburn

http://csbaonline.org/publications/2015/04/trends-in-air-to-air-combat-implications-for-future-air-superiority/


That is a really interesting read, and makes some good arguments that may be valid in the opening stage of a high-intensity conflict. What happens on day three, when you're out of your pre-war stock of VLRAAMs, down to minimal AMRAAMS, and the logistics chain is under severe A2/AD threat?

Or when a peer competitor can get inside your communications architecture and make a complete mess of targeting, long range ID, etc?

Anyone think that an F-86 starts looking pretty attractive at that point? You can't jam a .50 call bullet.



Gneckes -> RE: Trends in Air-to-Air Combat: Implications for Future Air Superiority (7/9/2015 2:28:48 PM)

I reckon that, even under such difficult circumstances, you'd rather have something like an F-15 or F-16- you can't really jam a 20mm Vulcan burst or Sidewinder either, adn on-board NCTI and target-detection capability might be invaluable, not to mention the generally improved flight performance.



cf_dallas -> RE: Trends in Air-to-Air Combat: Implications for Future Air Superiority (7/9/2015 2:35:16 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gneckes

I reckon that, even under such difficult circumstances, you'd rather have something like an F-15 or F-16- you can't really jam a 20mm Vulcan burst or Sidewinder either, adn on-board NCTI and target-detection capability might be invaluable, not to mention the generally improved flight performance.


F-86 was a bit of hyperbole, but you get the idea. If you're fighting someone with very advanced information warfare capability, even an F-15 may be vulnerable. You can't hack something that doesn't rely on software.



StellarRat -> RE: Trends in Air-to-Air Combat: Implications for Future Air Superiority (7/9/2015 6:02:17 PM)

I'm not talking about autonomous (fully automated attack drones.) I'm talking about drones that are under human control and are simply missiles trucks for air to air missiles. The current thinking is that one manned "mothership" would direct several drones into the combat zone (avoiding the latency problem) and control their missile launches. The next step would be ground controlled drones (assuming the latency problem is fixed.) Fully autonomous drones probably are a ways off, but would solve the "hacking/jamming" problem. Obviously, they'd have to be smart enough not to kill the wrong targets unless we're in conventional war situation with well defined "lines" on the map.

http://news.usni.org/2014/02/13/navys-uclass-air-air-fighter



Primarchx -> RE: Trends in Air-to-Air Combat: Implications for Future Air Superiority (7/9/2015 9:56:59 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: StellarRat

I'm not talking about autonomous (fully automated attack drones.) I'm talking about drones that are under human control and are simply missiles trucks for air to air missiles. The current thinking is that one manned "mothership" would direct several drones into the combat zone (avoiding the latency problem) and control their missile launches. The next step would be ground controlled drones (assuming the latency problem is fixed.) Fully autonomous drones probably are a ways off, but would solve the "hacking/jamming" problem. Obviously, they'd have to be smart enough not to kill the wrong targets unless we're in conventional war situation with well defined "lines" on the map.

http://news.usni.org/2014/02/13/navys-uclass-air-air-fighter


Yes, I've seen that model. It's still not a proven system ready for implementation. The goal is autonomy, though. So maybe that's Gen 6+?



StellarRat -> RE: Trends in Air-to-Air Combat: Implications for Future Air Superiority (7/10/2015 6:06:48 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Primarchx
Yes, I've seen that model. It's still not a proven system ready for implementation. The goal is autonomy, though. So maybe that's Gen 6+?
Yes, I probably should have said "doable". I couldn't find anything on the web about a drone launching an air-to-air missile and destroying a target in a test, but I'd be willing to bet some money that it's already happened somewhere. If a drone can use a Hellfire in combat it seems that using a Sidewinder or AMRAAM wouldn't be much of a leap. No one is advertising though. My spider-sense tells me it's right around the corner though.



MR_BURNS2 -> RE: Trends in Air-to-Air Combat: Implications for Future Air Superiority (7/11/2015 2:55:37 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: StellarRat

quote:

ORIGINAL: Primarchx
Yes, I've seen that model. It's still not a proven system ready for implementation. The goal is autonomy, though. So maybe that's Gen 6+?
Yes, I probably should have said "doable". I couldn't find anything on the web about a drone launching an air-to-air missile and destroying a target in a test, but I'd be willing to bet some money that it's already happened somewhere. If a drone can use a Hellfire in combat it seems that using a Sidewinder or AMRAAM wouldn't be much of a leap. No one is advertising though. My spider-sense tells me it's right around the corner though.




According to wikipedia an attempt to attack a Mig-25 with a predator occured in late 2002. Not very successful, as was to be expected from such a slow drone armed with Stingers only, but it is a first step.



NickD -> RE: Trends in Air-to-Air Combat: Implications for Future Air Superiority (7/17/2015 8:16:18 AM)

This article discusses how the F-35 performs using CMANO to model air-to-air combat: https://medium.com/war-is-boring/don-t-think-the-f-35-can-fight-it-does-in-this-realistic-war-game-fc10706ba9f4



wild_Willie2 -> RE: Trends in Air-to-Air Combat: Implications for Future Air Superiority (7/17/2015 8:40:10 AM)

Nice article! :)

W.



Yokes -> RE: Trends in Air-to-Air Combat: Implications for Future Air Superiority (7/17/2015 5:10:58 PM)

Wait, I don't get it.

There is a report that the F-35 doesn't perform as well in WVR combat relative to the aircraft it is supposed to perform. So then all these articles show up showing that the F-35 can perform BVR combat?

Anyone else see the disconnect?

Yokes



Primarchx -> RE: Trends in Air-to-Air Combat: Implications for Future Air Superiority (7/17/2015 5:48:27 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yokes

Wait, I don't get it.

There is a report that the F-35 doesn't perform as well in WVR combat relative to the aircraft it is supposed to perform. So then all these articles show up showing that the F-35 can perform BVR combat?

Anyone else see the disconnect?

Yokes


I think it's to show that WVR is a fading capability compared to BVR. So sucking at WVR is less important today (theoretically) than it was in say, the '60s.



Yokes -> RE: Trends in Air-to-Air Combat: Implications for Future Air Superiority (7/17/2015 10:59:17 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Primarchx


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yokes

Wait, I don't get it.

There is a report that the F-35 doesn't perform as well in WVR combat relative to the aircraft it is supposed to perform. So then all these articles show up showing that the F-35 can perform BVR combat?

Anyone else see the disconnect?

Yokes


I think it's to show that WVR is a fading capability compared to BVR. So sucking at WVR is less important today (theoretically) than it was in say, the '60s.


At the risk of being nitpicky, did that article really show that WVR is fading compared to BVR? All I saw was the F-35 set up in a BVR fight and it did well.

That's not to say that the idea that "WVR is dead" isn't a bad argument; I just didn't think that was the point of the article. Instead, I got from it "so what if the F-35 sucks at WVR, it is so awesome at BVR it will never get to WVR". Which is interesting to me because it:
a) concedes (or at least implies) that the F-35 is bad at WVR combat
b) uses a pretty cherry-picked example to support its claim.

The report that this thread started with does a really nice job laying out the decisive factors for BVR success: sensors and weapons. The F-35 in the scenario has awesome sensors, and was armed with the best BVR missile in the world (the Meteor).

Yokes



ExNusquam -> RE: Trends in Air-to-Air Combat: Implications for Future Air Superiority (7/19/2015 1:40:16 AM)

I think the more realistic trend isn't that "WVR is dead" so much as "BFM is dead". With the rapid proliferation of HOBS missiles, sustained performance in a turning fight is becoming less important.



LoBlo -> RE: Trends in Air-to-Air Combat: Implications for Future Air Superiority (7/20/2015 9:57:25 PM)

Nice find



Gneckes -> RE: Trends in Air-to-Air Combat: Implications for Future Air Superiority (7/21/2015 9:03:24 AM)

I think the point the article about the F-35 was trying to make is the same point the talk at the top of the thread made:
characteristics such as extreme manoeuvrability are becoming less important than stealth, missile load etc.
Being able to do 9g is nice, but when you're facing missiles that can do 50, 60 or even 100g and can be fired "over the shoulder", that's not going to be as helpful as it used to be.

As for cherry-picking the scenario: sure, clever pilots would probably be able to ambush even stealth planes and force them into WVR fights- even the F-22 has been "shot down" in mock fights by a Rafale, a Typhoon, a Growler and even a T-38 trainer.
However, the evidence still indicates that in the future, the vast majority of air-to-air kills will occur in BVR, where the F-35 has a clear edge.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
3.515625