Value of manoeuvrability in future fighter aircraft?

[hughlb]

Do you think manoeuvrability will be important in future fighter aircraft?

 

To use the F-35 as an example; its difficulties often seem to surround homogenizing the roles of aircraft it’s set to replace; in the case of the Royal Australian Air Force, it’s replacing the F-111 and F/A-18; the F-35 obviously can’t be a perfect solution. Both those aircraft are purpose built, and physically very different.

 

It seems one of the main restrictions in fighter aircraft are around keeping them a ‘fighter’, which is to say, maintaining their performance relative to other fighters and air superiority fighters. Manoeuvrability conforms the size/weight of the aircraft, and the size/weight limits it’s range and load-out capacity/options.

 

Do you think a plausible direction is to develop aircraft that are essentially large platforms for advanced weapons; with an emphasis on speed, range, stealth, and weapons load? The philosophy of the nimble fighter aircraft seems almost redundant in this picture - why does an aircraft need to be designed to aggressively manoeuvre, why not leave that to its weapons?

 

To get slightly Star Wars; Boeing YAL-1 suggests the possibility of putting a laser on the nose of a high speed, long range stealth aircraft, which could react quickly and loiter in the combat environment, eliminating aircraft and defending itself against incoming threats. Or even simply a larger capacity of conventional weapons within the same, high speed, long range platform. Looking at the costs of the B-2, which is this sort of idea in an A/G role; the costs are extremely high, but could this be a direction we are heading in?

Edited December 12, 2015 by hughlb

[PiedDroit]

Good points :thumbup:

The idea seems attractive, and, in a way, is already implemented: B1-B performing CAS, AC-130 gunship - we yet have to see an implementation for air to air.

For fighters and interceptors, speed is important and a large platform which is fast at the same time would be expensive to operate.

 

At the moment those have issues on their own, large platforms are too vulnerable and/or expensive, unmanned vehicles lack the fast reaction time due to remote control.

Once those issue are sorted out I'm pretty sure we'll see a new breed of systems appear.

 

If I had to bet on something I would put my money on unmanned platforms rather than big ones, they should be cheaper to operate and more flexible.

The big platforms would exist to fill the gaps (need for logistic transport, extremely long loiter time and/or range, whatever).

But this is for a far future, maybe the best defence will always to be able to maneuver or to be small and/or expandable, so big platform that do everything may never happen.

[Basher54321]

The YAL was chemical based - any future HE Laser is probably more likely to be solid state and more compact. The USAF did put out an RFI a few years back - timeline 2030+

 

Ideally 360 coverage would be desired - and in theory an aircraft would fly in a straight line while the computers do the work to eliminate any missiles or aircraft etc.

 

Also in theory if you get detected and are in range the laser cant really miss - so staying small and undetected may be better without a practical counter.

 

There are likely a ton of issues that haven't been encountered yet so will have to see.

[Sweep]

I think we'll see air dominance platforms use stealth, sensors, and weapons more than speed and maneuverability...interceptors are bit of a different issue IMO.

 

As for the RAAF: The F-35 replaces the Hornet just fine...I don't think it has the legs of an F-111, but does it need it? If I can drop a bunch of stand-off weapons from a few hundred nmi away: do I need an 800nmi+ strike radius?

Edited December 12, 2015 by Sweep
edited for wordz

[Grundar]

I think we'll see air dominance platforms use stealth, sensors, and weapons more than speed and maneuverability...interceptors are bit of a different issue IMO.

 

As for the RAAF: The F-35 replaces the Hornet just fine...I don't think it has the legs of an F-111, but does it need it? If I can drop a bunch of stand-off weapons from a few hundred nmi away: do I need an 800nmi+ strike radius?

 

The Pigs big advantage for the RAAF was it's range - it could strike outside our borders (which are all ocean) and return again- it offered a very long reach and with the upgrades to avionics/systems it performed with a high level of threat. It was a great deterrent regionally.

 

Australia now operates an air defence force, emphasis on defence, with the Pig gone we lose that regional strike capability we had. The F-35 cannot replace this or perform as the Pig did.

 

 

To the question at large re: maneveurability; ROE often limits engagements to visual which starts to negate the BVR weaponry that the West enjoys. Russian aircraft - such as the Flanker are built more towards hypermaneveurability because even with these wonderful weapons we have now, if you need to be visual to engage then BVR is "useless". Getting a merge is still going to be a big thing in air combat for years to come imho, it kind of reminds me of the whole no guns on the F4 in Vietnam because missiles were the new hot thing, didn't turn out so well, until they fixed it.

[Emu]

To get slightly Star Wars; Boeing YAL-1 suggests the possibility of putting a laser on the nose of a high speed, long range stealth aircraft, which could react quickly and loiter in the combat environment, eliminating aircraft and defending itself against incoming threats. Or even simply a larger capacity of conventional weapons within the same, high speed, long range platform. Looking at the costs of the B-2, which is this sort of idea in an A/G role; the costs are extremely high, but could this be a direction we are heading in?

Technically it's possible to put a 20MW laser on a satellite but costs are restrictive. And EMP weapon on a satellite could also be used too great effect.

[Sweep]

The Pigs big advantage for the RAAF was it's range - it could strike outside our borders (which are all ocean) and return again- it offered a very long reach and with the upgrades to avionics/systems it performed with a high level of threat. It was a great deterrent regionally.

 

Australia now operates an air defence force, emphasis on defence, with the Pig gone we lose that regional strike capability we had. The F-35 cannot replace this or perform as the Pig did.

 

 

To the question at large re: maneveurability; ROE often limits engagements to visual which starts to negate the BVR weaponry that the West enjoys. Russian aircraft - such as the Flanker are built more towards hypermaneveurability because even with these wonderful weapons we have now, if you need to be visual to engage then BVR is "useless". Getting a merge is still going to be a big thing in air combat for years to come imho, it kind of reminds me of the whole no guns on the F4 in Vietnam because missiles were the new hot thing, didn't turn out so well, until they fixed it.

 

I think the RAAF's regional strike capability is more difficult to implement now, but you can still put tanks on the -35 and give it a tanker to suck some fuel off of --> much larger combat radius. Could the Aussie F-111s air refuel? Also, to clear something else up, by "high level of threat" what do you mean? do you mean the F-111 is the threat or it operated in a high threat area? Regardless of range, the F-35 is a much more survivable platform than the -111, AND you can still call it a Pig! :megalol:

 

I disagree with that last part, you don't always have to go WVR to get a good identification...today's sensors are not those of 1965. Although in peacetime intercepts, well...you'll probably have the lens on, and you'll want to be seen, so that could be a bit of a problem if the other side goes nuts. Anyway, if some Flanker 600m away wants to Archer your rear, I don't think it matters if you're flying an F-15, 747, or J-11: you're most likely dead just the same when the other guy gets the first shot like that.

 

The real cool thing with stealth aircraft is that you can have that merge without counterdetection, you can fly up behind the other guy's 3/9 line, heck, from his direct six even, and he won't know until you're too close to do anything about. F-4's were crap in Vietnam because of bad training...or actually, there was no training for BFM or ACM tactics, and that screws EVERYTHING up, not just dogfights.

 

This hyper-maneuverability stuff is the work of youtube/the internet and not Sukhoi, really...it doesn't exist. And even if it did exist, it doesn't really help you WVR or BVR. Why? Because missiles still out-turn you, and more importantly: if you can't SEE the other guy, then you can't really maneuver against him, right?

Edited December 13, 2015 by Sweep

[Bushmanni]

Pitting stealth planes against non-stealth planes isn't future of air combat, it's stealth vs. stealth. PAK-FA is supposedly going to have DIRCM which might render IR missiles useless, or at least you need to fire two or more to get a hit. Also radar missiles are most likely going to be useless against it in most situations as the seeker can detect the target likely only just before flying past it. Which means gun fights might not be history after all. The question is how effective missiles (radar and IR) are going to be against stealth planes with DIRCM.

 

The other thing with maneuverability is that besides BFM it is also useful for missile avoidance and getting in shooting position or out of enemy WEZ. At close range the missile easily outmaneuvers any aircraft but at longer range this changes. More maneuverable plane can avoid missiles shot more closer compared to less maneuverable plane. In BVR the required maneuverability is more about making 180 degree turns more or less repeatedly, climbing and acceleration which all get better with better traditional maneuverability. So a better turning plane might be able to get close enough to its target to fire from Rne while target can't do the same as it's Rne is shorter due to better maneuverability of the other plane.

 

Then again it might be that stealth planes rarely find each other in the air so the best option is to just destroy the enemy stealth planes on the ground with stealthy strike planes.

[Exorcet]

The other thing with maneuverability is that besides BFM it is also useful for missile avoidance and getting in shooting position or out of enemy WEZ. At close range the missile easily outmaneuvers any aircraft but at longer range this changes. More maneuverable plane can avoid missiles shot more closer compared to less maneuverable plane. In BVR the required maneuverability is more about making 180 degree turns more or less repeatedly, climbing and acceleration which all get better with better traditional maneuverability. So a better turning plane might be able to get close enough to its target to fire from Rne while target can't do the same as it's Rne is shorter due to better maneuverability of the other plane.

I agree that this is an important aspect of maneuverability, and probably something fighters of the foreseeable future should aim to have.

 

It makes me think the F-35's career as a primary fighter might be shorter than its ground attack career.

 

Then again it might be that stealth planes rarely find each other in the air so the best option is to just destroy the enemy stealth planes on the ground with stealthy strike planes.

Stealth vs stealth is a big question. While it could usher in a new era of dogfighting, I think it's also possible that it just turns engagements into something more lopsided. Two sets of stealth aircraft aren't guaranteed to see each other simultaneously, especially if one is more stealthy than the other. In that case, one side could quickly gain an advantage of wipe out the other side without ever being seen.

[Sweep]

Pitting stealth planes against non-stealth planes isn't future of air combat, it's stealth vs. stealth. PAK-FA is supposedly going to have DIRCM which might render IR missiles useless, or at least you need to fire two or more to get a hit. Also radar missiles are most likely going to be useless against it in most situations as the seeker can detect the target likely only just before flying past it. Which means gun fights might not be history after all. The question is how effective missiles (radar and IR) are going to be against stealth planes with DIRCM.

 

The other thing with maneuverability is that besides BFM it is also useful for missile avoidance and getting in shooting position or out of enemy WEZ. At close range the missile easily outmaneuvers any aircraft but at longer range this changes. More maneuverable plane can avoid missiles shot more closer compared to less maneuverable plane. In BVR the required maneuverability is more about making 180 degree turns more or less repeatedly, climbing and acceleration which all get better with better traditional maneuverability. So a better turning plane might be able to get close enough to its target to fire from Rne while target can't do the same as it's Rne is shorter due to better maneuverability of the other plane.

 

Then again it might be that stealth planes rarely find each other in the air so the best option is to just destroy the enemy stealth planes on the ground with stealthy strike planes.

 

I had a reply typed out and screwed something up...logged out by accident!

 

Anyway, stealth vs stealth is certainly the future, its just not the near future IMO...I think we'll have to wait 8-12 years minimum for stealth vs stealth to even be an unlikely possibility. I agree that radar guided missiles vs stealth aircraft probably isn't one's best idea, although it does sound like something I would do in a simulator! :D

 

Maneuverability-wise, while stealth and maneuverability (along with speed) is pretty near-future proof (see F-22A Raptor), I think its less of an importance with the rise of bigger/better sensors and weapons (lasers anyone?) in the next 20 years, I believe the current thinking is that whoever sees first is the one that survives. EDIT 2: I should say that stealth, when combined with maneuverability and speed is near-future proof. Hope that clears any possible misunderstandings.

 

I definitely agree that it might just be better to hit the enemy's stealth air force on the ground, hitting first and hard is something that applies across the board, not just to stealth vs stealth air combat! :thumbup:

 

Also, its too bad that I always type this crap out without a quote to start with....i'll edit in a second. EDIT: Aaand done!

Edited December 15, 2015 by Sweep