Aircraft Super Thread Mk.VII

[electric indigo]

From their homepage:

The brand new JA 37 Viggen in 1/48 is nearing completion and will be launched very soon. We will exhibit at the IPMS Scale Model World in Telford in November and we will definetely bring the kit with us to that event.

[Shadow]

The Avenger isn't going to be used on anything more armored than a Humvee because missiles work better in every way.

Yeah, pretty much this. The Avenger is great against softer targets and older generation tanks, ex. the T-62. The M1A1 on the other hand would require a Maverick or Hellfire to put it out of commission quickly. There have been reports that ISIS has captured SA-24 manpads. Definitely not comforting for pilots.

Very nice Viggen pic.

Edited September 30, 2014 by Shadow

[Knight26]

Yeah, pretty much this. The Avenger is great against softer targets and older generation tanks, ex. the T-62. The M1A1 on the other hand would require a Maverick or Hellfire to put it out of commission quickly. There have been reports that ISIS has captured SA-24 manpads. Definitely not comforting for pilots.

Very nice Viggen pic.

You don't know A-10 drivers, they'll pepper some ISIS Abrams if they get a chance, just to get the real world data for themselves. Mind you, their after action reports will indicate that they were going after softer targets, but hey that M1A1 they missed on their maverick run just got in the way.

As for the A-10s getting shot at with SA-24, I can see their reaction to that.

"Oh you did not just shoot that little piece of crap at me!"

That or...

"Bitch just scratched my paint, bitch must die!!"

Edited September 30, 2014 by Knight26

[SchizophrenicMC]

Coming back to the old guy, here's what I want to know: When was the last time dogfighting was a relevant air-to-air combat tactic?

I don't like the F-35 either, but to raise dogfighting as a point, when air to air combat consists of locking on, firing long-range missiles, then breaking off, seems irrelevant.

[Devil 505]

when air to air combat consists of locking on, firing long-range missiles, then breaking off, seems irrelevant.

That's what they said before Vietnam.

[Nekko Basara]

That's what they said before Vietnam.

Yep, and that's the last time it was wrong. There have been plenty of air engagements since the early 70s, and - when modern generation fighters have been involved - missiles have ruled them. Even three decades ago, British Sea Harriers didn't need their gunpods to make an 18-to-0 air kill ratio (counting only their Mirage/Dagger and Skyhawk opponents).

The days of 6-out-of-7 missile failure rates are long past, and nobody is going to insist on visually confirming air targets in a war scenario anymore.

[dizman]

What happens when you run out of missiles?

[Nekko Basara]

You go home. Seriously, when was the last time a modern jet fighter (which would rarely be engaging anything without at least one similarly-armed wingman) had to tackle more than four air targets in one sortie? Even an F-35 carries that many missiles.

[F-ZeroOne]

There were a couple of air-to-air guns kills, plus a few gun attempts, during the Falklands conflict though its worth bearing in mind that in a number of ways it was a rather atypical conflict to start with (though aren't they all?) - its often overlooked the great ranges the Argentinean pilots were having to fly to reach the combat area and their general lack of air-to-air refuelling (as well as eventually running out of drop tanks) which tended to dictate their tactics to a great extent. If the Argentineans had had even SAR missiles and more time over the target area, they could conceivably have done much better in air-to-air combat.

[SchizophrenicMC]

The simple fact is, American aircraft have exceedingly high-quality radar and support, and fire exceedingly high-quality ordinance. They can lock onto an enemy aircraft long before it's in visual range, fire missiles, and go home with as many splashed targets as missiles fired. I won't speak to European engineering or tactics, but for American fighters, it doesn't make a lot of sense to develop highly capable dogfighting ability. Look at the F-14 for example. It was a highly capable dogfighter, that was never used in a dogfight. Its capabilities and its design purpose were highly at odds. It was a plane that could theoretically out-maneuver and out-fly the F-15, but the whole point of its existence was to carry the AIM-54 Phoenix. The whole reason the F-14 was requested, was to perform long-range anti-fighter and anti-missile intercept, with a missile capable of mach 5 and a 150-mile flight range. Then, they gave it a gun and Sidewinder hardpoints.

It's my opinion, given how useless dogfighting is as a tactic to US aircraft, that such capabilities are designed in as a way to increase unit cost, so some bureaucrats can get a kickback.

[Devil 505]

There were a couple of air-to-air guns kills, plus a few gun attempts, during the Falklands conflict though its worth bearing in mind that in a number of ways it was a rather atypical conflict to start with (though aren't they all?) - its often overlooked the great ranges the Argentinean pilots were having to fly to reach the combat area and their general lack of air-to-air refuelling (as well as eventually running out of drop tanks) which tended to dictate their tactics to a great extent. If the Argentineans had had even SAR missiles and more time over the target area, they could conceivably have done much better in air-to-air combat.

Not to mention various gun kills from the Israeli Air Force since then. Even to this day, they still value the gun in air-to-air combat.

[Nekko Basara]

There were a couple of air-to-air guns kills, plus a few gun attempts, during the Falklands conflict though its worth bearing in mind that in a number of ways it was a rather atypical conflict to start with (though aren't they all?) - its often overlooked the great ranges the Argentinean pilots were having to fly to reach the combat area and their general lack of air-to-air refuelling (as well as eventually running out of drop tanks) which tended to dictate their tactics to a great extent. If the Argentineans had had even SAR missiles and more time over the target area, they could conceivably have done much better in air-to-air combat.

Can you point me to info on the air-air gun kills in the Falklands? I'm not saying it didn't happen, I just didn't come across that in the quick look I made.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the only *US* air-air gun kills (non-strafing) since Vietnam were a pair of Iraqi helicopters downed by A-10s in the Gulf War.

Having said that, I think I'm responsible for turning the conversation from a discussion of dogfighting to a discussion of gunfighting specifically. Plenty of maneuver combat takes place using only missiles, and nobody is proposing fielding a gun-less fighter as far as I know; the F-35 will have stealthy gunpods available for the variants that lack an internal gun.

[SchizophrenicMC]

While Israelis have bagged kills with the guns since then, for a US fighter, it doesn't make much sense. All the guns do are add weight to a craft that is often armed with highly-effective long-range missiles, kept within range of refueling craft, has long range as it is, and is rarely far from a forward operating base. The US has a LOT of money to spend on armaments, and it does spend that money.

Which is why US fighters haven't been in a dogfight in forever. The fact is they just don't get close enough to engage in dogfighting maneuvers, and rarely have any other excuse to use their guns. Even in close escort duty, a dogfight is unlikely to erupt, and in the contingency that it does, American fighters are often faster and more capable of breaking off to missile range, even with the tiny wings of the F-35.

Again, not that I like the F-35. The whole thing reeks of pork barrel spending, and it's still not even really production-ready, 20 years after the fact. The only thing with a track record this bad is Half Life 3. I just think lack of dogfighting ability is a poor argument to make. Blame cost, blame all the stumbling blocks to production, blame the multi-service requirements, blame the JSF concept as a whole, blame the poor stealth attributes being too high on the list, blame the V/STOL requirement, blame the elusive working powerplant. But don't say it's a bad plane because it lacks the wing area for dogfighting.

[David Hingtgen]

Again, not that I like the F-35. The whole thing reeks of pork barrel spending, and it's still not even really production-ready, 20 years after the fact.

I recently saw a great comment along those lines----at this rate, if they'd asked Lockheed to make a new fighter to tackle the Me262 in 1944, it'd have been ready for the Vietnam war...

[renegadeleader1]

So my question is how long before we get a more effective anti missile system developed and operational that renders missiles useless?

[SchizophrenicMC]

Somebody just needs to discover a magic particle that facilitates nuclear fusion. Preferably somebody with a Russian-sounding name.

[danbickell]

Sikorsky is rolling out the S-97 RAIDER tomorrow, and has now launched their new site:

http://raider.sikorsky.com/index.asp

[electric indigo]

Finally, something new under the skies!

[mechaninac]

Newish anyway...

[renegadeleader1]

The Cheyenne and the Havoc right?

[Nekko Basara]

Second one is the Hokum-B (KA-52).

[F-ZeroOne]

Nekko Basara, at least one Pucara ground attack aircraft was shot down by gunfire from a Harrier by the (in)famous Commander "Sharkey" Ward. I used the word "couple" though now I think of it that may have been the only definite kill, but there were also several gun passes made without success.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FMA_IA_58_Pucar%C3%A1

Dogfights occurred during the Falklands because of the way the opposing sides were equipped; I mentioned what would have happened if the Argentinians had had long-range missiles - its also common to speculate on what would have happened if the Royal Navy had still had a fleet carrier in service with F-4 Phantom IIs embarked, as well as Gannet AEW aircraft.

Edited October 2, 2014 by F-ZeroOne

[Shadow]

I remember a story in the 91 Gulf War of an Eagle pilot chasing down an Iraqi Mig-25 and having to contemplate using his gun on it after nearly running out of missiles from the Iraqi pilot constantly decoying his shots. His final Sidewinder finally nailed it in the end. It made it on that Air Combat show as well. The gun and dogfighting skills are still necessary in my view as combat is an unpredictable beast. I doubt our opponents will be 3rd world nations with primitive air forces forever.

[Vifam7]

One of the arguments for having a gun is not for air-to-air dogfights but rather for air-to-ground strafing runs. I remember reading somewhere that British troops in Afghanistan were unhappy with the fact that their Harrier GR9s didn't carry a gun to offer strafing fire support. Sometimes all the troops want is a strafing run a few hundred feet in front of their positions and not a smart bomb.

The problem with the F-35 is its inherent complexity of trying to be 3 different aircraft for 3 different services, plus the stealth aspect and incorporating the latest gadgetry. Is it any wonder that it's super expensive and the development time is extraordinarily long? It's why some critics like Pierre Sprey argue for cheaper single mission aircraft.

[F-ZeroOne]

Sprey does tend to forget occasionally that all the best fighters of their respective eras were, with few exceptions, the very best and most expensive that their nation could provide. The Supermarine Spitfire had such a protracted development process that it was very nearly cancelled. The F-14 was very nearly unaffordable, even for the U.S, and that was, at first, a single-mission fighter.

[Nekko Basara]

Sprey does tend to forget occasionally that all the best fighters of their respective eras were, with few exceptions, the very best and most expensive that their nation could provide. The Supermarine Spitfire had such a protracted development process that it was very nearly cancelled. The F-14 was very nearly unaffordable, even for the U.S, and that was, at first, a single-mission fighter.

And the F-14's development really starts with the F-111, which was an expensive failure from the Navy's point of view.

The F-111 may be the best analog that we have for the F-35, as a high-budget, high-profile program to leverage cutting edge technology to produce an aircraft with variants meeting the varied needs of different services. What's the lesson there? It was a mixed bag, producing a huge amount of wasted spending and tremendous delays with the ultimate failure of half of the program... but also producing a very capable and effective strike aircraft, and laying the groundwork for a great fleet defense fighter.

[anime52k8]

I doubt our opponents will be 3rd world nations with primitive air forces forever.

Yeah, but by then we'll probably have fighter size laser systems that will render the whole gun vs missile debate moot anyways.

[F-ZeroOne]

Just a few more thoughts on the "simple fighter beats EVERYTHING! school of thought" - the F-16 was originally conceived as a simple dogfighter with a simple radar, and a simple armament system. As it happens, there was already a fighter that was very similar, with the exception of top speed. It was called the Sea Harrier FRS.1.

Agile, simple radar, close-range dogfight missiles and gun. It gained a very favourable exchange ratio in close-range combat. Despite this, the opponent air force, operating under difficult circumstances which meant they could not use their own aircraft to the limit of their capabilities managed to inflict great damage on Royal Navy ships during the Falklands using "dumb" bombs and a handful of modern anti-shipping missiles. What they might have achieved with different equipment is a touch sobering.

If the Royal Navy had been operating F-14s - big, heavy, complex - though, would they have even tried...?

[Vifam7]

Just a few more thoughts on the "simple fighter beats EVERYTHING! school of thought" - the F-16 was originally conceived as a simple dogfighter with a simple radar, and a simple armament system. As it happens, there was already a fighter that was very similar, with the exception of top speed. It was called the Sea Harrier FRS.1.

Agile, simple radar, close-range dogfight missiles and gun. It gained a very favourable exchange ratio in close-range combat. Despite this, the opponent air force, operating under difficult circumstances which meant they could not use their own aircraft to the limit of their capabilities managed to inflict great damage on Royal Navy ships during the Falklands using "dumb" bombs and a handful of modern anti-shipping missiles. What they might have achieved with different equipment is a touch sobering.

If the Royal Navy had been operating F-14s - big, heavy, complex - though, would they have even tried...?

To operate F-14s, the RN would've needed a supercarrier. Something they never had. Perhaps if they still had the Ark Royal, the Gannet AEW, and F-4Ks, things might've been different during the Falklands War? Hard to say.

[electric indigo]

Sikorsky video is up on their twitter page. That's one sleek machine.

https://twitter.com/Sikorsky

[Scyla]

I really like the Eurofighter even the TKF-90 concept looks good.

Sadly it seems that BAE messed up production:

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140930/DEFREG01/309300045/Germany-Eurofighter-Has-Manufacturing-Fault

[generalization] I think we all have the desire to deck out a fighter jet with as much weaponry as possible. This is why the A-10 is such a beloved aircraft. What child of the 80s doesn't love a diorama of a F-16 with all his ordnance laid out in front of the jet. Naturally we want to have a gun as a weapon because the idea behind it sounds cool and we all know deep inside of us that a dog-fight with guns would be the honorable thing to to because we all want to be like the Red Baron. [/generalization]

The F-22 is a good looking plane but the F-35 looks terrible. However always remember that the US could have it worse:

[mechaninac]

Raider? What happened with convention of naming Army helicopters after Native American Tribes? And, no, the Osprey does not constitute as example as it is a tilt-rotor.

[renegadeleader1]

Raider? What happened with convention of naming Army helicopters after Native American Tribes? And, no, the Osprey does not constitute as example as it is a tilt-rotor.

Right now it's a prototype privately funded by Sikorsky. It wouldn't get a Native American name untill it got at least a prototype adopted by the Army.

[Devil 505]

Right now it's a prototype privately funded by Sikorsky. It wouldn't get a Native American name untill it got at least a prototype adopted by the Army.

There's also the modern issue of political correctness.

[chyll2]

this something I will expect in a metal slug game

The F-22 is a good looking plane but the F-35 looks terrible. However always remember that the US could have it worse:

Edited October 3, 2014 by chyll2