thobbesAttacks by Thursday:
Amazing that democracies engage in war far more often than dictatorships ala China (last war in 1979).
thobbesEven with a near peer situation it is most likely that one side will have gained some kind of advantage in EW/C3/SEAD sphere either through superior capability or more likely through initial strikes using other assets such as standoff weapons, cruise and ballistic missiles.
Networked stealth fighters are even more capable here especially against non-stealth aircraft and even in a peer level environment. Networking increases awareness and coordination massively whilst stealth means you can maintain element of surprise. Networking also increases initiative as you can diffuse data to jets who are staying electronically quiet (i.e. don’t have their radars on).
I’m not sure how the Russians and Chinese are progressing with networking fighters and AWACS.
The Russians displayed awful C3 in both air and ground ops during war in Georgia and failed to effectively suppress Georgian AD system.
Also how truly VLO are Russian and Chinese aircraft? Remember that J-20/-31 and Pak Fa are their first stealth designs and that a lot more goes into creating stealth than an angled fuselage.
thobbesSure, there are downsides to idealism. And there are downsides to a lack of it too — see Australian politics, 2013.
I’d rather apathetic and useless Australian politicians than murderous Nazis, Communists, Islamists.
Rousseau and Marx just resulted in lots and lots of dead people and failed economic systems (including current ones failing in Europe).
thobbesPortugal to buy 3 USAF F-16A for resale to Romania!
Seems Portugal wants to retain 30 F-16s but only has 39 left of which 12 are going to Romania.
thobbesthobbesNazis, Communists, Khmer Rouge, Shining Path, Lords Resistance Army and elements of Baathist parties were also idealists.
The other word is “fanatic.”
As for not letting them in, it’s hard to not allow your own citizens back into the country. Though I think they shouldn’t be let in and the US should probably use them as target practice for their UAVs.
thobbesI agree on concept of “stand-off” dogfights between missile and fighter.
The same applies to SAM avoidance as well. I’m sure everyone’s read about Iranian Air Force F-4s pulling 11g -12g maneouvres to avoid SA-6s and SM-2s. Great way to overstress airframe though! :highly_amused:
Missile avoidance is also about counter measures. Not all flares/chaff/decoys are equal.
But being required to maneouvre against A2A missiles means you’ve lost the dog fight anyway:
a. You’ve lost initiative to the shooter
b. You lost position whereas the shooter has managed to continue in position
c. You’ve been chewing up fuel at phenomenal rates by doing crazy things to avoid the missile.
d. In order to gain extra power and maneouvrability you might’ve jettisoned external stores ala fuel tanks.
e. You’ve also chewed up counter measures, thus leaving you in a weaker position in case of further missile launches.
The winner is he who shoots first..
And that’s where AWACS, C3 courtesy of E-6 and SEAD come into play – they give you unparalleled ability to be the first shooter whilst degrading your opponent’s abilities.
And as such maneouvrability plays less in the contest for something like an F-35 or even an F-22. They’ll be shooting first with near perfect awareness compared to their opponents who will be near blind.
In such situations opponents often don’t deploy their fighters e.g. Iraq in 2003 or Libya in 2011. Or they;ll keep their best gear out of the fight and in reserve for more important missions e.g. Syrian MiG-25s were held back in 1982 (though Syrian MiG-25s were destroyed in other engagements). Losing trained aircrew is far more disastrous than losing airframes on the ground.
EDIT One could say ACM has become a survival countermeasure instead of a tactic of gaining advantage over an opponent.
thobbesFolks who’re volunteering off their own bat (as opposed to being ordered to go) to fight and die for a hell of a lot less material renumeration than is offered by the ADF — gotta respect that.
I’m sure you’ll respect them even more when they come back to Sydney or Melbourne and then try to blow up some “fellow” Australians in exchange for some invisible virgins.
Plus they’re meant to be Australians. Not only is it illegal for Australians to fight overseas (unless part of ADF) it’s also shows how little loyalty these people have to Australia. Would they fight for Australia? Probably not. In fact they’d probably gladly kill Australians to create some sort of Islamic Republic of Australia.
And by the way I’m a migrant too and did volunteer for ADF (bad eye sight mean’t I didn’t get in)!
thobbesIsraeli fighter pilots tend to dog fight rather than do BVR.
The footage you provided is of Mirage III’s in the 1960s and 1970s. I’m sure we could say the USAF does dog fighting exclusively if I put up some footage of F-86s over Korea.
The last Israelis kills were WVR though – apparently 2 MiG-29s in 2001.
However situation was different – firstly it wasn’t in a proper war and 2 Syrian MiGs decided to charge towards a B707 SIGINT aircraft that was being escorted by F-15s.
There was actually no opportunity for BVR fire.
But more importantly – there was no real dog fight involving extensive ACM tactics. Instead one F-15 quickly got into position and shot down the 1st MiG-29 with a Python 4 and the second MiG-29 was shot down as it tried to bank hard to fly away back to Syria.
That’s if the event happened – both sides have denied it!
http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_437.shtml
This kind of skirmish event is generally rare though in the 21st century. However air skirmishing did take place in Middle East and Asia (partilcularly Taiwan-China in the 1950s).
thobbesIt’s not just BVR. WVR shots using AIM-9 type weapons as well as shots with WVR AIM-120 type weapons don’t necessarily involve dog fighting and in fact haven’t involved dog fighting in the last few shootdowns.
If your fighter has had AWACS ID a target and the target has no AWACS and their GCI is suppressed, then your fighter will get to shoot a missile sooner than the target as it has far greater awareness and preparation time.
Indeed one of the Serb MiG-29s was blasted as they were taking off. The others struggled to get targets even when their radars were functional whilst the NATO fighters zeroed in on them and shot them down.
As for evading radar guided missiles, sure it happens just like infrared/heatseeking missiles are avoided as well.
Not all bullets fired in wars hit stuff – in fact the average number of rounds expended to hit someone is about 10,000. Same applies to aerial warfare.
Not all engagements result in shoot downs either.
However, dog fighting is simply not going to happen much and if at all in scenarios where one opponent wins the electronic and C3 war.
thobbesTo be fair I’d agree about the clean comment that but pylons and external stores make any jet ugly. CFTs make them even more hideous.
I’ve always found the truly old jets to be the most attractive of the bunch – Vampire, F-86, Mirage III, F-104, F-106 and bizarely early model F-4s (F-4E’s nose got too hideous even for an F-4).
thobbesIn some ways J-20 or Pak Fa or Su-27/-30 fits Canada very well. These fighters have/are planned to be long range jets ideal for patrols over large territories.
Some people thought Su-30 or Su-34 would’ve been a better fit for RAAF than F/A-18F. And if the Russians had a 100% NATO compatible version with better logistics and Western level engine/airframe life, I would agree 100%.
thobbesI guess in some ways they are war tourists!
I do agree with sentiment though – at least 100+ (supposedly) Australians are fighting in Syria for various Islamist groups and ASIO/ASIS are worried what these people are going to be doing when they come back to Australia. Luckily for Australia, casualty rates on both sides are high and a few of these guys have already been confirmed as killed.
It’s funny though – their families say they’re off on “humanitarian missions” but jihadi websites post up touching memorials to these guys and talk about how they died in combat against the Alawites.
thobbesThe USN has 10-11 Super Carriers and a similar number of Air Wings. Then you have to consider only 60% would be available at any one time. So, you see the USN will never lack for Aircraft to fill it’s decks. As Air Wings not deployed can use there Aircraft to supplement any shortfalls. So, USMC Units converting from Hornets to F-35B’s have little to no impact whatsoever.
The Navy does lack sufficient aircraft squadrons for its decks. It’s why the USMC squadrons are used for carrier duties. And why the USMC is required to get 80 F-35C (5 squadrons) when in fact it wanted an all F-35B fleet.
Also those wings not deployed are in training, having their aircraft overhauled, converting to new types/systems etc etc. Plus squadrons are made up primarily of something called human beings and they require rest and cannot be used in high tempo ops for prolonged periods of time without increasing risks to safety and operational capability.
Plus, in an emergency F-35B’s could operate from CVN’s no problem.
Sure, but that doesn’t count for general deployments.
And a few things that makes F-35B difficult to operate from a carrier:
– F-35B requires additional logistical and spares support.
– F-35B requires additional maintenance crew that are trained for F-35B.
– Carriers are not equipped for STOVL F-35B (e.g. heat coatings etc).
– As far as I am aware, there is no clearance for carrier ops – this includes such basic things as take off/landings, coming back with ordnance, recovery techniques. handling of emergencies etc etc.
And that’s just what I as an amateur can see. In real life it’s a lot more complicated – do you know how much effort it goes into clearing something for operational usage?
As a matter of fact F-35B’s have better range than the Hornets they replace. So, your rationale hardly holds up…….
How’s that relevant?
Your logic seems to be completely bizarre: “We don’t have enough fighter squadrons to meet requirements but that’s ok as our jets have longer range.” :stupid:
thobbesTo retire The SH not only does the F-35C have to be on time and budget (and an IOC of 2019 makes it hard to believe the whole SH fleet will be gone in less than 15 years after that), the 6th generation program (manned or not) also needs to be on time and budget. Not likely if you ask me. 515 SH and 114 Growlers won´t be gone in 20 years. Especially not as they are still getting new builds to the fleet. And then there is this 60 planes gap due to the delays of the F-35C….
Unless the US starts cutting carriers which is possible. There’s already discussion of an 8 carrier navy.
And remember once there was 15 fleet carriers in service and right now there’s only 10!
Sign In
