tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21894908.post1331635132893848428..comments2023-11-01T02:19:14.796-05:00Comments on Elements Of Power: “Fighter Aircraft” Design: Driven by Operational RequirementsSMSgt Machttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08126690689798203866noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21894908.post-47235059912156974542015-08-26T21:14:31.659-05:002015-08-26T21:14:31.659-05:00Sorry I didn't see your comment in the queue e...Sorry I didn't see your comment in the queue earlier SO.\<br />I agree and you point out what is the most important factor in determining who wins and who loses is who controls the time and conditions under which combat is entered. Surprise attack is the number one way this control has been applied, but if the enemy knows your there but can't 'touch' you. In WW2 P-38s at altitude could engage the Zekes at will and dive away with near impunity, that too was a form of control. I keep a copy of Martin Caiden's book 'Zero', coauthored by the Zero's designer and several Japanese fighter pilots, that made it very clear that until the Hellcats and the Corsairs started showing up in numbers, their biggest frustration was their helplessness against Lightings under normal conditions, and biggest prize was getting a Lightning pilot to screw up and engage in dogfighting at lower speeds and altitudes. SMSgt Machttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08126690689798203866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21894908.post-7856248294039440982015-08-21T11:01:03.327-05:002015-08-21T11:01:03.327-05:00The A6M wasn't really more agile than Hellcats...The A6M wasn't really more agile than Hellcats - it was more manoeuvrable only at low speeds. The Hellcat pilots chose to fight at higher speeds.<br /><br />Other times such a choice of conditions led to stalemates, sucha s when Sea Harriers and Mirage III met in 1982 and often did nto engage decisively becuase neither was ready to fight teh way the other pilot preferred (Mirage pilots wanted to fight high, Harrier pilots preferred low - several encounters were ended only when fuel ran low).<br /><br /><br />About surprise; passive or LPI sensors and stealth are oriented at surprising the red pilot. The F-35's DAS is meant to prevent the blue pilot from getting surprised. I suppose this will become a must-have upgrade for all combat aircraft in the 2020's, and thus many efforts to achieve surprise will mostly be wasted.S Ohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03359796414832859686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21894908.post-14090700008051045632015-08-14T00:24:31.838-05:002015-08-14T00:24:31.838-05:00@Angus McThag
Even though Sprey has put out a lot ...@Angus McThag<br />Even though Sprey has put out a lot of junk, I do have to agree that his basic premise in here (http://pogoarchives.org/labyrinth/09/08.pdf) that surprise, and the opportunity to exploit it, is the most important factor in killing the other guy in the sky. Hence the focus on LPI radar, IRST systems, stealth and other technologies that try to give the first strike to our guys.<br /><br />Even without surprise, maneuverability wasn't always needed. To take an example from WWII, Hellcats and Corsairs completely dominated the A6M Zero, despite the fact that they were much less agile. Hit-and-run tactics won the day over the skies of the Pacific. In late 1941, the Spit Mk V was being marauded by the FW-190A even though the Mk V had a much better turning circle. The 190 was simply faster and could utilize hit-and-run tactics so the Brits could never get close. (If it hadn't been for cooling problems on the BMW 801, the 190 would have been unmatched until mid 1942 when the Spitfire Mk IX was introduced.)Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01694142610091567428noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21894908.post-30328144423446728192015-08-11T22:03:49.848-05:002015-08-11T22:03:49.848-05:00I'm a super layman with a lot of this, but I c...I'm a super layman with a lot of this, but I can't help but recall that F-105D's did manage to shoot down (a few) MiG-17Fs over Vietnam.<br /><br />I'd think that alone would put paid to the idea that maneuverability is everything.Angus McThaghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09295013525738248801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21894908.post-29500353099668883712015-08-11T20:29:49.364-05:002015-08-11T20:29:49.364-05:00Sorry to now have you talking to ghosts Bring_it_o...Sorry to now have you talking to ghosts Bring_it_on, but evidently Tim A not only forgot he was person non grata here, (see comments here: http://elementsofpower.blogspot.com/2015/06/david-axe-is-more-boring-than-ever.html) he seemed to believe he had sufficient standing to make requests/demands? WTFO?<br />I guess he also missed the part about 'high-level' or interpreted it to mean 'end-game'? <br />To cut any similar silliness off at the knees. I've DONE (7-8 years ago, when it was still tedious building up a lot of 'first' objects) the operational modeling including 'flyout' and 'end-game' with source data you will never see on the internet, and building vetted DoD 'mission' scenarios that can simulate single combat up through theater-wide operations: not some tarted-up commercial 'shoot-em-up' game with unknown guesses for GR&As and linkages. I'm not going to go into any detail about any results I've seen except to say I'm not in the least bit concerned about anything Tim A. seems to have a bug up his a** about. I COMPLETELY understand why those in the position to make the decisions about these kinds of things aren't unduly 'concerned' either. SMSgt Machttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08126690689798203866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21894908.post-60119326464703667242015-08-11T17:32:44.485-05:002015-08-11T17:32:44.485-05:00Let me also flip this argument on its head..How ha...Let me also flip this argument on its head..How have the advanced DRFM jammers and techniques performed against modern missile seekers ?? AirPowerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04155308911600092342noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21894908.post-62470149507995756612015-08-11T17:31:23.324-05:002015-08-11T17:31:23.324-05:00So nothing as far as solid data. We know there is ...So nothing as far as solid data. We know there is something that is out there known as DRFM jamming. We don't know any data other than reports that the last two major versions of AMRAAM have been tested against both maneuvering and jamming targets. But we must conclude that the absence of data must point to similar 'overestimation' of performance that was perhaps once done in history. If one assumes that we'll never learn from history, create and establish best practices based on historic wrongs than one can definitely carry on with that argument, otherwise current jet fighters should have the same reliability issues that the first generation jet fighters faced, or we should have never been able to create airframes that can survive 12,000 hours of high performance...because once upon a time we failed to properly design something because our data was not the most comprehensive. AirPowerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04155308911600092342noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21894908.post-36757157931180032352015-08-11T12:41:57.881-05:002015-08-11T12:41:57.881-05:00@ Tim, in the absence of data you conclude that th...@ Tim, in the absence of data you conclude that the Aim-120D is an 'unknown' vs the threat of DRFM jamming, a threat that has existed for many years What about the Aim-120C7 being tested against high end 'threat represented' Jamming equipped QF4. That news is a few years old. The D only builds on the capability over the C7 btw. If you look hard enough, you'll find information on the fact that the AMRAAM has been fired against a maneuvering target that utilizes representative jamming. They aren't going to throw out statistics and numbers just to please certain folks in the media that may have such an opinion (those that constantly bring arguments like " Stealth is dead" based on Russian and Chinese Radar OEM claims, AMRAAM won't work in a jam environment etc etc). What if there is a passive capability to home on to a jam? What then?? Again, material is available online..you just need to look a little harder.<br /><br />"""The new variant's anti-jamming performance was demonstrated last year when it shot down two targets protected by jamming. The first shot, conducted over the Eglin Test Range at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, on 19 August 2003, resulted in a 'kill' against a full-sized target defended by what Raytheon described as "realistic electronic attack techniques", while the second was against a subscale target at White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico, on 6 September in the presence of "complex electronic attack techniques". Both resulted in direct hits."""<br /><br />https://www.scribd.com/doc/274204466/US-Plans-Improved-Missiles-to-Maintain-Air-To-Air-Supremacy<br /><br />The DRFM threat has existed and the entire Russian capability is built around DRFM protection front and back. Given we want to fight and win in complex BVR scenarios, unless one believes that the USAF is oblivious to facts that a simple google search could bring to light one has to take the little info that is made available and look at the classified budget to see where the investments are likely focused on when it comes to maintaining air-superiority something that the USAF has done for a long long time. AirPowerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04155308911600092342noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21894908.post-77690314314641601342015-08-10T22:02:40.126-05:002015-08-10T22:02:40.126-05:00can't wait to read itcan't wait to read itAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18219258656235692063noreply@blogger.com