Trends in Air-to-Air Combat: Implications for Future Air Superiority
Moderator: MOD_Command
- BradOrbital
- Posts: 323
- Joined: Wed Jul 17, 2013 1:12 pm
RE: Trends in Air-to-Air Combat: Implications for Future Air Superiority
Thanks, interesting read Sunburn.
RE: Trends in Air-to-Air Combat: Implications for Future Air Superiority
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.
RE: Trends in Air-to-Air Combat: Implications for Future Air Superiority
Dogfighting with modern a/c usually means I'm either desperate or greedy.
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.
RE: Trends in Air-to-Air Combat: Implications for Future Air Superiority
Interesting, thank you for sharing.
RE: Trends in Air-to-Air Combat: Implications for Future Air Superiority
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?
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?
RE: Trends in Air-to-Air Combat: Implications for Future Air Superiority
This is also an interesting read on the topic: http://www.aspistrategist.org.au/f-35-v ... who-cares/
RE: Trends in Air-to-Air Combat: Implications for Future Air Superiority
Interesting file but this phrase kills my enthusiasm:
[font="Times New Roman"]
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).
[/font]
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.
[font="Times New Roman"]
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).
[/font]
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.
Kids think about Iran and Amateurs think about Russia, but professionals think about China
RE: Trends in Air-to-Air Combat: Implications for Future Air Superiority
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.
The only identify the ACIG as a primary source, not the only one used.
RE: Trends in Air-to-Air Combat: Implications for Future Air Superiority
I hope that, cuz
Kids think about Iran and Amateurs think about Russia, but professionals think about China
-
- Posts: 203
- Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2009 3:49 pm
RE: Trends in Air-to-Air Combat: Implications for Future Air Superiority
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.
RE: Trends in Air-to-Air Combat: Implications for Future Air Superiority
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.
RE: Trends in Air-to-Air Combat: Implications for Future Air Superiority
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.
That might matter less for BVR combat, but you can't beat the laws of physics.
RE: Trends in Air-to-Air Combat: Implications for Future Air Superiority
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.
RE: Trends in Air-to-Air Combat: Implications for Future Air Superiority
Yeah, there's plenty of media out there about rogue military AIs...
RE: 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.
Formerly cwemyss
RE: Trends in Air-to-Air Combat: Implications for Future Air Superiority
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.
RE: Trends in Air-to-Air Combat: Implications for Future Air Superiority
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.
Formerly cwemyss
-
- Posts: 203
- Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2009 3:49 pm
RE: Trends in Air-to-Air Combat: Implications for Future Air Superiority
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-u ... ir-fighter
http://news.usni.org/2014/02/13/navys-u ... ir-fighter
RE: Trends in Air-to-Air Combat: Implications for Future Air Superiority
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-u ... ir-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+?