While it is well known that plans last only as long as first contact with the enemy, planning for the future cannot remain still. You have to evolve your doctrine to account for the rapidly changing tech and threat perception.

This is even more true given that today you can effectively simulate combat to a degree you could never do before.

Many ppl do not know this but the PAF found the indian m2k more of a problem than the flankers to deal with. When u combine high ITRs with a HOBS missile, and with the kinetic performance od the mirage, it is a lethal weapon indeed. Yet on Boyd’s calculus, this would not be as readily apparent.

Similarly, recent exercises showed the ef2000 and f22 could take poy shots from a distance as they could give their bvr a significant kinetic boost.

Another example is of the SH Growler which can bring enemy electronics to a standstill.

Yet another is EMP. I remember as far aeay as the late 90sand early 2000s, the PAF was testing an airburst EMP weapon.

Laser and other DEWs, even powerful AESA radars can also play another paradigm shifting game.

And then we come to UCAVs….

Sometimes i think that maybe we need to think of airwar from a clean sheet of paper to get rid of the mental blocks from old set ways…

I was once invited to dinner by one of my professors when I was studying in the US. Her husband, seeing I am Muslim started interogating me. The conversation ended with him saying that they really just want to nuke the Muslim world and me pointing out that we could equally drive in a nuke through the mexican border. Incidentally he drove one of those vehicles that replaced the jeep…

PS: oh yeah, Boyd…

So what has changed since Boyd?

1. Extreme agility and accuracy of missiles, making post merge dogfighting of little relevance.

2. Greatly increased situational awareness from onboard and offboard sensors.

3. Lower sfc and ability of fighters to endure longer hours in the air.

4. Network centric warfare, that allows platforms to share, coordinate and fight together in increasingly large numbers.

5. EW as an ever greater dark horse in the game

6. BVR missiles and weapons allowing standoff combat at longer ranges. (disputed as to how long that range is)

Some specific results of these changes:

1. Greater importance of instantaneous turn rates over sustained turn rates

2. Greater emphasis on standoff weapons delivery capabilities and network centricity

3. Greater emphasis on kinematic performance from high altitude and at high speeds, which would allow the BVR combatant to outrange his opponent (i.e. F-22, PAKFA, J-20)

(Point three is disputed by the F-35, which relies instead on better sensors and stealth at the expense of kinematics.)

The JF-17 is another interesting plane in this regard, even though originally the PAF was looking to imitate the F-16, mid-way, they changed course realizing the evolving nature of air combat. Seeing the Indian FLANKER, they moved to give the JF-17 better instantaneous turn rates while compromising sustained turn rates by adding LERX. At the same time, they hoped to improve the kinematics by as low drag a design as possible and with DSI.

These later design choices allowed the JF-17 to meet the F-16A in kinematic ACM performance even though it is based on a lower powered RD-93 engine. It is interesting to note that the biggest thrust of the program right now is to get a more powerful WS-13 engine.

Meanwhile, seeing the evolution of the FLANKER, we see a number of interesting patterns in the PAKFA. It seems the Russians believe less on stealth and far more on kinematics. They also seem to still believe in post-merge high maneuverability as a requirement.

Here are some possible thoughts why:

1. DEW and EW, including lasers are evolving rapidly and may overwhelm the WVR missile paradigm and to some extent even the BVR paradigm.

2. Platforms designed for 20-40 odd years need to be flexible enough to see the pendulum swing both in favor of missiles and when and if it swings the other way.
So, the Boyd-Post-Boyd movement may not be a linear evolution but a cyclic pattern.

3. When combined with DEW and EW, maneuverability may count even more because they are synergistic with such combat tactics. i.e. you may dazzle a heater long enough to maneuver out of its way.