I want to add that IAS for a fighter is heavily dependent on the aerodynamic features such as wing area, wing cord… and of course thrust vectoring would help.

This is where the older generation of aircraft will be out-competed IMHO, with the small wing area of F-16s or JF-17s, and the weaker engines of Mirage-2000s and Gripens, being non-optimal for high-high air combat. This is why IMHO PAKFA may even have the upper hand against F-22s, if stealth can be reasonably degraded. This is also why the J-20 will also be an equally dangerous threat.

From a high-high position and with modern BVR missiles and powerful radars, backed up with AWACs and net-centric warfare, the game for small timers is increasingly coming to an end.

The only loophole is EW and stealth, which have their own synergy – higher the stealth, more effective is EW and vice versa. This is where the technology battle lines are drawn, at least until UCAVs, yet another wild card entrant win all the sweep stakes.

or maybe this?
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/see-south-africas-new-multi-mission-combat-plane-in-action/
add a big gun, only for CAS 😉

Its just too light and the armor can only be proportionately lighter. What happened to armor like in the Stuka or the IL-2? Or remotely comparable…

That everybody does not include me I’m afraid.

The Modern Compromise

Today’s multi-role aircraft attempt to compromise between a fighter, a deep strike and a CAS aircraft. The disconnect between them is particularly stark vis-a-vis CAS, where a cheap, slow flying but agile aircraft is needed, a plane that does not need to fly anywhere near the sound barrier, or have a sophisticated radar. What is needed is an aircraft that can fly low, maneuver at below tree top height, retain an ability to ‘hang in the air’ when needed, and land on the shortest strips or gravel or paddy field.
Instead of this, what we see is that combat aircraft are increasingly becoming more complex, larger, poor performers at low altitudes and low speeds and able to land only on specialized runways. Focus then has turned to dropping JDAMs from altitude, negating proactive engagements, and being employed such only because no one wants to risk the multimillion dollar combat aircraft, nor the pilot, leaving the foot soldiers on the ground with the proverbial buck.

Furthermore, while in an overly mismatched battlefield one side can dedicate a portion of its air force assets to CAS, in a more even battle,air forces focus almost all of their assets in winning the air-war first. Given the cost and value of fighter aircraft this makes sense. However, given the need for a truly combined arms operation and a cheap CAS aircraft, it makes less sense to have the ground forces commander left without CAS when CAS can be the difference between victory and defeat.
The present response to fill this widening gap is to increase the component of attack helicopters and look to UAVs/UCAVs to fulfill the role. However, helicopters fundamentally are more complex, have far less range and are more expensive to build and maintain on a payload delivery basis. Moreover, today’s helicopters cannot fulfill a complete vision of a seamless combined arms operation;they have separate logistics chains, tactical deployment requirements and are very low on endurance.

UAVs/UCAVs appear to be a panacea here, particularly because they can avoid casualties. Yet, they have increasingly faced bottlenecks of communications bandwidth, even while only fighting insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan, a problem likely to multiply against any competent conventional enemy. They also have complex chain of communication lines and connection to the operator. The time lag in controls, although a fraction of a moment, is enough to not enable true nap-of-the-earth flight, critical in keeping the CAS battle ground bound rather than becoming targets for a viable enemy air force. The present lack of a competent technologically sophisticated enemy means that they face no significant jamming threat, an issue likely to be critical as jamming could render these planes utterly ineffective. The fact that Iraqi insurgents could hack into Predator drones is an eye-opener and so is Hezbollah’s tapping into Israeli drones. Imagine what a more sophisticated enemy could do. Situational awareness from a camera-view is far inferior to that from a cockpit. Further, assuming the pilot of the UAVs are not putting their lives at risk, they are not likely to be as inspired as those that are, and are less likely to relate and bond with the ground forces that they are operating with. Lastly, dependence on satellite communication can be fatal given ASAT (anti-satellite) capabilities …

Sanem, thank you very much, its rare to find thinkers like yourself and to agree with them on so many points!

Problem with a flying sam is that it would be easy target in the forward battle space for IAF, which is larger and better equiped than the PAF. Also, I’m presently trying to sell another competing idea to the army :p (its much harder to appeal to the PA than to the PAF, because of the organization culture and mindset).

Swedes are great and the Pakistanis have this down to a dot – they’ve been practicing using the national motorway for over 15 years now, almost from the moment the motorway was built. It’s really one massive runway running the length of the country. Some other countries perfecting this are Singapore (leads the pack if you ask me, even more than the Swedes, planes come out Turbo Cat style from under the roads), Taiwan, and another country whose name escapes my mind right this minute.

Ah well, my operation is a very small operation running on my and those that collaborate with me’s pockets, if the PAF wants to shoo us away we have nothing to go by. But I get your point about the army-air force rivalry and my paper appeals to not allow this to happen in Pakistan because it can’t be afforded given the tiny budget and the threat, now on both sides of the border.

However, UCAVs are genies in a bottle and once they come out they’ll never go back in again. I’d hazard a calculated guess that the US and even possibly Israel already has “something”.

I totally agree with wing tip AAMs, my original paper exactly hoped for these. I have dreamed of your idea of soft inflatable type landing pads. Hay fields may be a low tech solution and would be easy given that Pakistan has a huge land under agriculture, would blend right in. I like the A-4 example you gave, awesome info. Will include that in a future paper!

Optical sensors are really coming along and ideal in the Pakistan context because the weather is near perfect for such sensor use, as compared to Europe.

Yes, I’ve thought of sending my paper to Chengdu but, my concern is mainly with protecting the Muslim world. Our world is, of the three big civilizations present today, the weakest, under occupation and with no real or effective political leadership, as a result defending the realm falls under non-state actors like myself, or like some less intellectual and more violent outlaw types like we all know.

I think that if we can get bi-static type radars airborne or at least (less ambitiously and already implemented somewhat) fully integrated radars providing a group-picture to each other, network centric warfare and swarm warfare itself is a big revolution.

This is my fear, that air warfare is critical to war itself, and the technology landscape is revolutionary – anyone who calls the right tactics will be able to do what Hitler and his generals did with the technology wave of that era. We are living at the edge of an Alvin Tofflerian third wave that may change the political landscape of the world.

I think there is just a lot to be said about protecting AWACS with UAVs of the type you outlined and that gf0012-aust notes is already ready to be integrated.

PAK-FA will be excellent, modern technology and stealth combined with Russian practicallity. Western aircraft need perfect conditions to work, which you rarely get.
Also don’t forget the Typhoon (I doubt it’ll be the Rafale, India likes to spread its investments, as they should), Western quality.

Yes, the Typhoon or the Rafale would both be very dangerous too. Its hard to choose which of the two I’d rather have as an enemy, probably the Rafale because the french really milk you on the spares.

On the other hand, if the Typhoon wins I wouldn’t be surprised if the French give us something just out of spite.

More later, gotta go watch the Kremlin blow up.

Funny you’d say that, Putin is being quoted to have told his generals to prepare for Armageddon.

Thanks again Sanem, and thanks for the reading material too.

gf0012-aust, good points. I just want to say (and I qualify my statement as someone with an MBA and who has taught college level Organization Behavior):

1. That decision making and organizational culture is very different between the East and the West very well documented.

2. My own analysis is that this extends to military development. In a book I published recently I claim the following (I apologize if this is not to your liking as it is written for a different audience):

A truly remarkable feature of the FC-1 / JF-17, the joint fighter project between Pakistan and China, has been the willingness of its development team to improvise. Significant changes have been made mid-program and even at the very end of the program timetable.

This is in contrast to Western design houses where original frameworks are strictly maintained – notice the F-22 and the Eurofighter, where certain design parameters were doggedly followed when they could have clearly done better by changing course midway.

The Western style of planning is culturally different from the eastern style – objectives are fixed at the beginning while in the East, we are willing to move the objective around a bit. Obviously, neither is “better” than the other but each has its benefits and costs. However, I think the JF-17 benefited from this immeasurably. Otherwise Pakistan would be taking delivery of the original Super 7 airframe at perhaps $20 million per plane.

The Eurofighter took 20 years from contract signing to production. The Swedish Gripen 14 and the Rafale 15 years. In comparison, the JF-17 took 10 years. We must be willing to continue doing things our way in all future weapons developments. We only have to see the handling of the F/A-18E/F, V-22, F-22 and F-35 programs to see how the West is losing competence.

Sanem thanks for your very thoughtful and detailed reply, greatly appreciated.
The article is actually drawn from another paper I wrote earlier, this one is meant to convince the higher ups at PAF with as simple, practical and effective a solution as possible and to skirt any possible controversies (such as the AI debate and WVR combat). I actually agree with you on a whole bunch of issues including that UCAVs should be capable of WVR even without “AI” and AI itself has matured since the debate started.

Yes, you can make this into a really mobile “air base” specially with Pakistan’s motorways which go right along the length of the country. I strongly believe in a comprehensive IADS rather than super weapons – everything has a role to play from the long range SAM to UCAVs and manned fighters.

I’ve always dreamed of semi-recessed missiles as a practical solution but I chose otherwise with this design because in a high altitude profile, the underbelly exposes itself far more than other profiles. It is of course possible to try the weapons employment from the top, but that appears either problematic or complicated.

Thanks for the tip on laser communication. I think this is one thing people will inquire about given the RQ-170 incident. Range is not much of an issue as this platform is being marketed conceptually as a complement to manned PAF fighters and will be employed largely defensively over/bordering Pakistani airspace.

The Pakistanis have a very sophisticated C4I that I think can really make a UCAV a force multiplier. Although they don’t have satellites (well yes they do but…). I’d really be interested in a space based SAR. Would really be a pain for LO and VLO planes. The top view from Pak-Fa doesn’t look very stealthy.

I’m totally with you on WVR, in fact my earlier paper did include WVR but just to avoid an argument that could shoot down the entire concept when (God Willing and if) it gets to the desk of those that matter.

Drones are a great idea, I know China has the scenario in mind that you painted. I would not be surprised if the PAF did too. There is in fact a paper written by a PAF officer about another UCAV concept – one designed for strike and not a-2-a as my concept is. that’s even more practical although does nothing for air combat. But the best place to destroy an enemy plane is always on the ground…

Good Muslims in general and PAF pilots in particular do not fear death either, but UCAVs have another advantage – firstly, life is dear and not to be treated lightly or cheaply. Secondly, the training and mastery of a fighter pilot is an expensive and time consuming affair that cannot be replaced easily. This makes UCAVs very relevant specially for NEZ combat and dangerous strike missions.

I think that having a small radar may just be a consideration with such UCAVs, as I think that many networked radars at different altitudes and contributing the picture from different angles and locations can add a lot. However, I would imagine that a good number of UCAVs would benefit from being cheap and having no radars at all. I really like your idea of ejecting valuable electronics. I’ve thought of it (not ejecting but separating a portion of the plane) before but tried to keep this solution simple for clarity and simplicity.

My original solution was airfield based but some informal input called for a missile launched idea – the PAF doesn’t have a lot of airfields or sheltered parking spots to spare. (The PAF is slated to have around 450 combat aircraft in the future, not including mothfalled and inactive planes). In any case, adding landing gear to the concept and having a larger plane may just be the next step once (if) God Willing this one goes through – something like how Predators turned to Reapers to the new C being even larger… The idea is to get the foot in first.

The idea of parachuting is ideal for PAF as it is fighting essentially a defensive battle over or near Pakistani air space. moreover, PAF bases would already have their hands full in fact in wartime deployment, even PAF fighters are suspected to (they’ve trained for it) going to use the national motorway that runs the length of the entire country. I understand there can be damage, but how about designing a nice big stretched net made of some advanced polymer or something similar? Since the planes are much heavier than humans, there would be much less drift and the large control surfaces of the plane would be able to effect direction considerably.

India is slated to have 200-300 Pak-Fas. I see that as a very big threat and my own country’s air force (Bangladesh) will essentially become obsolete if and when that happens. And Russians are very pragmatic so this won’t be an F-22 which sits in the maintenance bay. It would be less stealthy but from a practical operational standpoint perhaps even more deadly. And they carry a good ammo load too, and on top of that, their second line (at that point) FLANKERS and other aircraft would put meat behind the iron fist of the Pak-Fas.

I think we will see this form of warfare, as you and I have described revolutionize air warfare, and I think it will be Israel that will accomplish this, perhaps pioneering this over Iran. Israel has UCAVs already if you ask my opinion, and the US has far more than RQ-170s and stealth helos in its black projects. But I think Israel is leading the technology curve here not the US.

I also would not be surprised to see drone editions of the Kfir and other old junk perhaps F-4s taking to the skies against Iran.

I really believe in your idea about UCAVs to protect AWACS, makes total sense, almost naturally built for this. I see a problem though – one of aerodynamics and mechanics – a plane built to fly efficiently is slow flight differs significantly one that seeks to fly fast. And I perhaps put more weight to kinetics than you do – I think that a slow UCAV shooting an AMRAAM may not be as effective in fending off attacks from fast and high movers. Howevr, they would still be reasonably effective – something like the Predator C with missiles.

What is a game changer perhaps in terms of attacks on AWACs is something like the US Aurora (yes it exists and is operational). It flies very high, near space and very fast, could easily knock out enemy AWACs. Wonder if the rest of the world will have a solution against this “thing”. The S-500 appears to be a first step.

—

Thanks again Sanem, I really have the highest regard for your thoughts and views on the subject.

Sanem,

Was wondering if you could take a look at a paper I wrote on a particular UCAV concept. I’ve always found your & Mercurius’ views interesting.

Please feel free to criticize, I’m always looking for input.

http://www.grandestrategy.com/2011/08/9348282-missile-launched-ucavs.html

Thanks Mercurius for the leads.