Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Snagger on December 21, 2010, 03:15:01 pm
-
THere is a reason why controls haven ot changed in modern planes.. because its what use humans are used to and what works best its standard so that it feels like a plane 1 plane to the other id imagen vipers must have theyr standards aswell.
Absolutely - the controls in all modern aeroplanes have the same configurations, ust like all modern cars (excepting manual and automatic transmissions), helicopters and so on. Interestingly, even though the Airbus fly-by-wire system uses a similar configuration of stick, thrust levers and rudder pedals, all given the same axis as other aircraft, the mere manner in which the FBW operates, keeping attitude constant unless a pilot input is made (automatically compensating for gusts, trim changes, thrust asymmetry and even applying up elevator in the turn) initially causes considerable handling problems for pilots converting on to type, so strong are the motor function imprints on pilots. Vipers, Raptors and other small craft would need to have a similar control system configuration in all variants for that very reason, even though their individual characteristics would vary like different aeroplanes do.
ALl New fighter planes have that now the f16 fighting falcon was the first to use that tech i dont think the f15 has it nore the f18 but the f35 does the f22 the Raffale the Eurofighter...im probably missing a few but my al ltime favourite is the F16C Block 50/52 AKA as the viper its original name is the fighting falcon but pilots call it a viper i think thats where the original BSG took theyr name for the vipers because at the time the f16 had just come out.I remmber reading this somewhere years ago.
F15 is not FBW, and I'm pretty sure the F18 isn't either. Tornado is FBW, but doesn't have a constant "attitude hold" style of control. My point was that regardless of whether the aircraft have FBW or not (and the Viper VII is meant to have the equivalent), or whether they are a big transport aircraft or a small fighter, they all have the same configurations and conventions. Even helicopters share most conventions with aeroplanes, the only significant difference being the collective in place of throttles/thrust levers.
-
*snip
Again, drawing off-topic until we get some more images to argue over, but you need to take a look at your information more closely. The F/A-18 was FBW from the beginning, and I guarantee you that modern versions of the F-15 have some form of a digitized flight control system in addition to the older stuff. Also keep in mind that aircraft which don't have FBW (like the A-10) usually have some form of SAS, or Stability Augmentation System. Finding any modern warplane that is completely dependent on pilot input for controls is... maybe possible in North Korea? Anywhere else, yeah, the pilot will have some sort of automatic assistance in controlling the aeroplane.
-
We have a bit of a novel idea on how to handle different resolutions in the interface, which should allow for pretty much any permutation of resolutions above a minimum of 1024*768. I'll leave it to LtCannonfodder to give the details if he wants, though, since he came up with it.
And I'll leave it to LuaP to actually answer since I know absolutely nothing of scripting :P
-
*snip
Again, drawing off-topic until we get some more images to argue over, but you need to take a look at your information more closely. The F/A-18 was FBW from the beginning, and I guarantee you that modern versions of the F-15 have some form of a digitized flight control system in addition to the older stuff. Also keep in mind that aircraft which don't have FBW (like the A-10) usually have some form of SAS, or Stability Augmentation System. Finding any modern warplane that is completely dependent on pilot input for controls is... maybe possible in North Korea? Anywhere else, yeah, the pilot will have some sort of automatic assistance in controlling the aeroplane.
The F15E may have some electronic inputs, and I did say i wasn't sure about the F18, just had a strong feeling, but your assertion that all in-service combat airffames have some sort of FBW or electronic controls is wrong. Harrier has electronics operatingt he combat settings of the flaps, but that's it - the primary controls for forward and vertical flight are pilot operated, not automated, and the same applies to many modern light combat aircraft, like the Hawk derivatives, AMX, Alpha Jet and so on.
Regardless, my whole point still holds - the control input devices and configurations are of a single global convention, even on the Harrier, which has just one extra lever despite its unique abilities and design. I'm not arguing about the hardware between the cockpit and the control surfaces/devices, just about what the control interfaces are, how they're positioned and which axis they control. My point was that whatever control system convention the Viper II has, it would be similar to that in the Viper VII and Raptor. If they used pedals for thrust in one, they would use pedals the same way in the others. I'm not trying to get into a pedantic argument about which real aircraft uses what electronic systems - they all use a stick/column for pitch and roll, all use pedals for yaw and wheel brakes and all use levers for engine power.
-
THere is a reason why controls haven ot changed in modern planes.. because its what use humans are used to and what works best its standard so that it feels like a plane 1 plane to the other id imagen vipers must have theyr standards aswell.
Absolutely - the controls in all modern aeroplanes have the same configurations, ust like all modern cars (excepting manual and automatic transmissions), helicopters and so on. Interestingly, even though the Airbus fly-by-wire system uses a similar configuration of stick, thrust levers and rudder pedals, all given the same axis as other aircraft, the mere manner in which the FBW operates, keeping attitude constant unless a pilot input is made (automatically compensating for gusts, trim changes, thrust asymmetry and even applying up elevator in the turn) initially causes considerable handling problems for pilots converting on to type, so strong are the motor function imprints on pilots. Vipers, Raptors and other small craft would need to have a similar control system configuration in all variants for that very reason, even though their individual characteristics would vary like different aeroplanes do.
ALl New fighter planes have that now the f16 fighting falcon was the first to use that tech i dont think the f15 has it nore the f18 but the f35 does the f22 the Raffale the Eurofighter...im probably missing a few but my al ltime favourite is the F16C Block 50/52 AKA as the viper its original name is the fighting falcon but pilots call it a viper i think thats where the original BSG took theyr name for the vipers because at the time the f16 had just come out.I remmber reading this somewhere years ago.
F15 is not FBW, and I'm pretty sure the F18 isn't either. Tornado is FBW, but doesn't have a constant "attitude hold" style of control. My point was that regardless of whether the aircraft have FBW or not (and the Viper VII is meant to have the equivalent), or whether they are a big transport aircraft or a small fighter, they all have the same configurations and conventions. Even helicopters share most conventions with aeroplanes, the only significant difference being the collective in place of throttles/thrust levers.
And to actually throttle up i na choppper you pull the collectvie back wards .. in a plane you pus the throttle foward >_>
But i agree with the point of how all modern airframes are pretty muhc configed the same push noze goes down pull it comes up left you roll left right you roll right right rudder you yaw right .... in all modern aircraft this will be set in stone.
if you pilot a tornado and you hop in a f16 youl be able to know what the stick does and throttle and rudders and theyl be places similarly by the exeption that the stick in a tornado might be between the legs and in a falcon its on the right side but you get the point.
-
I'm really not sure about this, but to my knowledge, the F16 is the only fighter that did go for a side-stick; the F18, Rafale, EFA, MiGs and Sukhois all use conventional positions between the legs. I can't remember seeing photos of the F22 or F35 cockpits (the latter seems a moot point since I have doubts it'll ever enter service), but I think they have centre-sticks too. I suppose it's because of the F16's then ground breaking G-pulling ability and the fact that the pilot had to be so reclined and supported, while later aircraft with comparable agility use full-body g-suits. - the F16 was designed as a relatively simple fighter and would not have needed many cockpit controls, though it later developed into a more universally capable aircraft. The fact that they manages to squeeze in so many extra interfaces on later models is impressive. So, I think the F16 remains almost unique in that respect - I think someone else mimicked it, perhaps an Indian or Chinese fighter - I really can't remember where, but I seem to very vaguely recollect it being once. It is also unique in having a fixed stick that senses pressure rather than a moving stick which senses displacement. Regardless - it obeys convention of a right-hand operated stick controlling pitch and roll.
As for power control convention between aeroplanes and helicopters, technically they both obey the same convention - they are instinctive in that the aircraft will move in the direction the lever is moved - forwards on thrust levers/throttles increases forwards acceleration, upwards on a helicopter's collective will accelerate the helicopter upwards. I'm curious about the V22, though, as to whether they made it primarily a helicopter with aeroplane mode, or made it an aeroplane with helicopter mode (like the Harrier).
Anyway, as you said, you can jump from one pit to another and know what's what. I can jump from my B737 into an A380, and while the aircraft is totally different in operating systems, I could fly one if I had to - the most confusing part would not be the flight controls but the automatics, but in direct law, it'd be simple (if a little strange with that attitude-hold behaviour).
-
f35 is a side stick they essentially made an f16V2 the f35 will eventully replace the vipers in the USAF.
I think the raptor has a side stick too i can easly find out. but here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHJMIOlHt1U << f35 pit
-
They want the F35 to replace a lot of things. They're even bullying the Navy to get them, even though the Navy doesn't really like single engine aircraft for carrier use. Thing is, the F-35 is already late, and is much more expensive per unit than planned. I wouldn't hold my breath for the F-35, so far the story of that plane wasn't all that impressive. Give me a Harrier over that overpriced gimmick any day of the week :P
-
Italy is obtaining 131 F-35s, and investing less on the Typhoon.
*facepalm*
-
Canada is buying like some 65 f35.... the thing is it will eventually make it because politicians in the usa have alot of money put in the lockeed martin company and they wont allow it to shut down too muhc money being made for the company therefore the politicians are making money its late its expensive .. its still alive and its only getting worse till they release it.. its enevitable were getting a ****ty plane ladys and gents :P! al lof us USA canada Itali who els? Dutch? who els? autralia? theres alot of countrys who are getting it... lol
-
UK are getting them for the royal navy to replace the harriers on the new carriers that are being built. Problem is, first carrier will be built and have no plane to fly off them because the harriers have already been retired! Don't know if the RAF are taking any.
-
same deal in canada we got f18s that the wings crack our air frames are fallin into peices we had to borrow US F16s to replace our old hornets untill we get 35s ......its 1 big Frackup of a mess
but any how point with the 35 is its brand spanking new and the controlls are still like a f16 so weather ud fly a mk2 or the new Vii i bet u the controlls are the same just maybe instead of a centre stick they moved it on the side for leg room reasons or confort or a less mobile but more precise stick ect.
-
UK are getting them for the royal navy to replace the harriers on the new carriers that are being built. Problem is, first carrier will be built and have no plane to fly off them because the harriers have already been retired! Don't know if the RAF are taking any.
They were supposed to be, but the RN is now getting F18s instead. It's probably intended as a stop-gap measure, but will likely become permanent. The RN is not at all keen on the F35B anyway - it's the RAF who wants them, but given that they'd be operated from the carriers, I can't see why the RAF had any input. Anyway, with the A model prototypes expiring, the B model being a bag of nails and the C model not even having a prototype, I don't see the project as anything more than a money pit. There are plenty of other better existing airframes already.
I wasn't going to continue this OT discussion, but it might be worth moving it to a new thread if anyone can do that.
-
F35's..... Osprey's.......
The vertical take-off and landing high performance ac requirements try to push the previous envelope.
Many aspects of air battles are being replaced by UCAV's.
They are far more economical as a solution and do away with many of the resource demands that required the F35 in the first place.
All are task specific answers to ever changing geographical demands.
I still do not see the F35 having anything near what it takes to perform its role reliably.
-
With all this discussion it brings me back to the f-16 ATFI. The falcon already had an advanced avionics package, but they added a dorsal spine to her, packed with even more avionics to control ventral canards both fore and aft. The craft will rotate on the Z axis. IE, it can fly sideways. Now this was a wonderful testbed, everybit as much as the x-29 was a wonderful testbed. I've always had an affinity for FSW craft. Maybe because they are inherently unstable, and it is that instabiliy that makes them so fantastic at manoevering. My thought, and to be honest I'm totally surprised that some modeller hasn't put one in game, is an atmospheric fighter that couples Forward Swept Mission Adaptive Wings, with mobile canards and Vector nozzled engines. Reaction control valves coupled with the canards to control yaw and pitch, added benefit of doing away with the tail and thus lowering the radar cross section. Air intake up top to lower it further, and maybe even get mental about it all and do away with the cockpit canopy. If man is finally ready to fly in a totally synthetic environment.
While we are at it, why wouldn't my computer on board that knows what kind of fighter it is place a wire frame representation superimposed onto the fighter I am seeing? This would certainly defeat low observability.
I can go on and on about things such as this but will spare you that.
-
We were having a fighter discussion? Why did nobody tell me?! ;)
F35's..... Osprey's.......
The vertical take-off and landing high performance ac requirements try to push the previous envelope.
Many aspects of air battles are being replaced by UCAV's.
They are far more economical as a solution and do away with many of the resource demands that required the F35 in the first place.
All are task specific answers to ever changing geographical demands.
I still do not see the F35 having anything near what it takes to perform its role reliably.
Yeah, it's interesting, 100+ years ago, people were fighting to keep people in the air, and now they're fighting to get them back on the ground.
And argh, don't get me started on the F-35. Outfitting the ASRAAM in replacement of AMRAAMs seems like a bloody step backwards - and to think, it comes from a country that have been ditching the dogfight at every available opportunity for the last half century.
With all this discussion it brings me back to the f-16 ATFI. The falcon already had an advanced avionics package, but they added a dorsal spine to her, packed with even more avionics to control ventral canards both fore and aft. The craft will rotate on the Z axis. IE, it can fly sideways. Now this was a wonderful testbed, everybit as much as the x-29 was a wonderful testbed. I've always had an affinity for FSW craft. Maybe because they are inherently unstable, and it is that instabiliy that makes them so fantastic at manoevering. My thought, and to be honest I'm totally surprised that some modeller hasn't put one in game, is an atmospheric fighter that couples Forward Swept Mission Adaptive Wings, with mobile canards and Vector nozzled engines. Reaction control valves coupled with the canards to control yaw and pitch, added benefit of doing away with the tail and thus lowering the radar cross section. Air intake up top to lower it further, and maybe even get mental about it all and do away with the cockpit canopy. If man is finally ready to fly in a totally synthetic environment.
I agree, FS needs more FSW aircraft. :P But seriously, flying in a totally synthetic environment isn't something I'd be comfortable with, ever. I spend about 80% of my time looking outside the cockpit (which is the way I was taught), unless I'm padlocked...which is a rather long time when you take think about how FS combat functions. :P
One obvious risk I could see is if whatever device, cameras or whatever were disabled by enemy fire or even systems failure in-flight. If someone shows me a system that works, I'll accept it, but I'd rather not encounter a systems failure and spend the rest of the sortie asking my wingmate what's next to me. :P
While we are at it, why wouldn't my computer on board that knows what kind of fighter it is place a wire frame representation superimposed onto the fighter I am seeing? This would certainly defeat low observability.
I can go on and on about things such as this but will spare you that.
Hmm, while that'd be cool, it'd probably get distracting if the aircraft's avionics couldn't pinpoint exactly where the aircraft was (from what I've seen, the 'box' seems to jerk around a bit). But in bad weather, any indication is better than no indication.
-
same deal in canada we got f18s that the wings crack our air frames are fallin into peices we had to borrow US F16s to replace our old hornets untill we get 35s ......its 1 big Frackup of a mess
but any how point with the 35 is its brand spanking new and the controlls are still like a f16 so weather ud fly a mk2 or the new Vii i bet u the controlls are the same just maybe instead of a centre stick they moved it on the side for leg room reasons or confort or a less mobile but more precise stick ect.
RCAF is still flying CF-18s. We don't have any F-16s to the best of my knowledge and I probably would have read about it if we did. The political play right now is the F-35 and buying it or not buying it. At some point we'll have to replace our Hornets as they are getting old as you've quite rightly pointed out. Some have suggested that we don't need fighters any more ... I think that is a hilarious notion but I guess it can't be helped.
-
Canada needs a military? Who in their right mind would invade Canada?
-
Canada needs a military? Who in their right mind would invade Canada?
Annexation of Canada (http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/US_Annexation_of_Canada)
-
Wasn't the U.S. secretly led by the Enclave? I wouldn't call those guys in their right minds.
-
No, the enclave DESCENDED from former US government people after the world was nuked.
-
Some have suggested that we don't need fighters any more ... I think that is a hilarious notion but I guess it can't be helped.
Well if it happens in Canada's great time of need the lone CF-105 spirited away by W.A. Curtis will appear and defend the realm...
or so the legends say.
-
I am not certain if anyone has made a distinction between different degrees of fly-by-wire technology.
Technically, any flight controls that don't include a mechanical linkage to hydraulics or control surfaces directly are fly-by-wire - they have electrical connections to the hydraulic servo valves.
Whether or not there are flight computers in the chain is a different matter altogether. Fly-by-wire can be done so that the position of the flight controllers affects the position of flight surfaces directly (blowdown limits notwithstanding), or so that flight controls send signals to flight computer, which determines what the pilot wants the airplane to do, and parses the pilot inputs into the most efficient way to achieve the desired results.
Flight computers can be used to augment stability, prevent the airplane from exceeding its designed flight envelope, prevent certain pilot errors from ending in a loss of control and crash, and in case of military aircraft, maximize the performance (such as flying right at the critical angle of attack to maximize the lift available from the wing), and manipulate control surfaces in a more complex way than is possible with just four traditional control axes (pitch, roll, yaw and throttle). Thrust vectoring is one example that is usually controlled by flight computers. Another example would be the system used in modern Airbus planes that enables full control over pitch, roll and yaw even in cases where flight control surfaces are partially disabled, such as manipulating the wing slats, flaps, spoilers and rudder to replicate the effect of a disabled aileron. And yet another example from Airbus A320 - if you are near the stall speed and push the nose up, the airplane automatically increases throttle, as demonstrated by Bruce Dickinson. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKBABNL-DDM#t=4m15s) Similarly, the plane can not be banked over certain limit...
As a rule of thumb - any aircraft that only has a joystick is also fly-by-wire by definition. However, for a pilot, there's really little difference how the control inputs are relayed to control surface positions - if it's a direct position translation, it's largely the same whether it's done electrically, mechanically or hydraulically.
Planes that have computerized fly-by-wire systems don't necessarily offer a direct way for pilot to put, say, elevators to maximum pitch-up deflection - they'll likely read that pilot wants to pitch up as fast as possible, then depending on the plane type and speed, move the elevator until the airframe's g-loading reaches maximum allowed, or critical angle of attack is achieved, which will achieve what the pilot wants.
Another rule of thumb - dynamically stable airplanes can be controlled by direct pilot inputs due to their tendency to fly by themselves (which is essentially what stability is). Flight surfaces are used to deflect the airplane from the balanced flight position.
Dynamically unstable aircraft require either reflexes of a jedi, or for more practical solution, active stability control by flight computer, since there the control surfaces need to be used to keep the airplane in a normal flight attitude as it tends to not stay in it by itself.
So, you can basically just look at planes designed before and after F-16 to define if the fighter is stable or unstable.
Stable planes can use direct flight controls, although there are other benefits from fly-by-wire that might mean the airplane still has electrical control linkages and even a flight computer.
Unstable planes require filtered control inputs handled by a flight computer.
Thus, the distinction between different types of fly-by-wire is fairly important.
As far as I know, the F/A-18 is dynamically stable airplane and can be flown with direct control inputs, but in normal flight, there are electronic flight aids that help the pilots in flying, letting them pay more attention to the radar, weapon, and nav systems management. There are also limitations to what you can do with just the pure hydraulic control system. A testament to that is the so-called "Frankenplane" crash. The Frankenplane was a Finnish Air Force Hornet which was contructed by taking the aft part of a damaged mid-air crash survivor F-18C (single seater), and joining it with a CF-18B front fuselage (two-seater), making it an essentially unique plane individual with unique wirings and such.
As the plane was on a test flight for determining if all the flight controls and such worked correctly, the flight control system apparently suffered a malfunction and was required to switch back to direct hydraulic control. Unfortunately, the plane was at the moment performing a vertical turn at low speed, nose pointing upwards and losing airspeed rapidly. With the flight aids disabled, it entered an unrecoverable dive and crashed. Both pilots ejected and survived.
At least that's what I've managed to parse together about the reasons for said crash.
-
Canada needs a military? Who in their right mind would invade Canada?
Nobody would necessarily want to invade us... But there are two counter arguments to that:
1) If we want to remain a sovereign nation with a country like the US to the south then we need to maintain our independence even while working together defending the continent.
2) If the security situation changes in 20 years time which is well within the lifespan of the fighter. If we have no fighters then we will likely not be able to buy and train in time to defend ourselves. If we do have fighters then we're ready to defend ourselves from whatever is required.
-
Everyone needs a military, I know. It's just that Canada seems such a low-value target with the U.S. south of the border. :P
-
entry point. we had to attack france to get to germany didn't we? :P
-
Canada needs a military? Who in their right mind would invade Canada?
I think they're a bit nervous about the fact that they can't count on the Brits anymore, and don't quite get along with the US as smoothly as they'd like.
-
UK are getting them for the royal navy to replace the harriers on the new carriers that are being built. Problem is, first carrier will be built and have no plane to fly off them because the harriers have already been retired! Don't know if the RAF are taking any.
They were supposed to be, but the RN is now getting F18s instead.
First I'd heard of that. After the recent spending review of the British armed forces, ie the "don't give them another ****ing penny ever!" review, I'm not sure if that is still the route the MoD/government would be taking
-
The thing that we always cope with in the US is that our defense spending is so high, yet it's also incredibly inefficient.
If we spend 10X what Great Britain does on defense, we should have a military 10X what Britain does.
-
If we spend 10X what Great Britain does on defense, we should have a military 10X what Britain does.
If you've looked at the USN lately you'll realize we're doing better than that. By far.
-
Well, the RN have ditched the F35B and ordered the C model instead. The F18s are to be an interim measure, probably leased rather than bought. A much wiser decision - the B model had pitiful range and endurance, a pathetic payload and was going to be very susceptible to damage from battle, bird strikes and general wear and tear. It was going to be a swine to maintain and have poor manoeuvrability compared to the other models, too. That's all assuming they ever got it to be able to work in the first place, but with the lightened alloy bulkhead (replacing the titanium version to reduce weight so it could hover with a thimble of fuel and no stores) cracking in less than 1/10th of the designed fatigue life and so many software problems for the integrated avionic systems (didn't they learn from the MkVII Vipers? ;) ), I reckon it's only a matter of time and wasted public money before the B model is chopped - I think it's only the USMC that's still keen on it, and I gather they're becoming impatient too.
Getting rid of fighters can never happen - the UAVs can't execute their own combat tactics against a good human; it requires very intelligent AI that just doesn't exist, but more importantly, a human needs to be kept in the loop for the very same reason ASRAAMs are deemed more useful than AMRAAMs (and equivalent) and why the Pheonix was never replaced - BVR combat is purely theoretical, but real battle ROEs require visual identification of the target because IFF is so easily cocked up in multi service, multinational operations: the only ever real Pheonix kill was of an A6 returning to the same carrier as the F14 which shot it. There is no point in carrying heavy, less agile medium or long range missiles if you need to visually confirm your target - ASRAAMs are much more useful and effective.
As for forward swept wings, they're not necessary. Aerodynamic stability is achieved by having the aerodynamic centre of pressure for each axis behind the centre of gravity. By putting the CoG far aft, you can have any wing shape you like, it'll still be unstable. FSW has another big advantage of not having tip vortices, which are a major source of induced drag, but 4th gen fighters normally reduce tip vortex by fitting missile pylons or ECM pods on the tips, so it's not such a big problem. FSW has other problems, mainly structural, so it's better to use more conventional delta or swept wings.
Air intakes need to be kept under the nose or wing because top-side intakes like the YF23's cause intake turbulence or stagnation and compressor stalls at high AOA. Experiments to increase pilots' G-tolerance by having them laying down on their backs or prone have been tried by the British in the 60s and were unsuccessful. Synthetic vision in a fully reclined position may be more feasible with modern technology, but it's still a poor substitute for being able to see directly and being able to swivel your head quickly in a wheeling gun fight. With full-body g-suits, there's now little need for such reclined positions.
-
The thing that we always cope with in the US is that our defense spending is so high, yet it's also incredibly inefficient.
If we spend 10X what Great Britain does on defense, we should have a military 10X what Britain does.
If I recall correctly, you have 14 proper carriers, each with a huge airwing and a surface fleet of escort ships. The RN has just had it's "through-deck cruisers" retired, so has no carriers, and has no fixed wing combat aircraft having lost the Sea Harriers in 2006 and the RAF's Harrier GR9s last month. The new Type 45 Daring Class destroyers have been cut from 14 to 6, two of which are likely to be leased to the Saudis. Their sensor suites have been pared back and their main weapon system, TACTOM, has been omitted. The First Sea Lord has called them "the most expensive dug-out canoe ever built". Even theeir new gun was scrapped and they have guns transplanted from their predecessor Type 42s. The Type 25 Frigates have been cut too, and we're unlikely to get more than two Astute Class submarines. Meanwhile, the RAF has lost all of it's combat aircraft except for a handful of Tornados (35, IIRC) and a few Typhoons. The Tristar and VC10 transport and tanker fleets are to be replaced by a privately owned and joint-privately operated fleet of A330s with refuelling capability, but it has been revealed they they can't operate into Afghanistan as it's deemed to high a threat, so the RAF is going to lose its in-theatre troop transport and tanking capability. The British Army has been equally stuffed over the last decade with rabid cut backs.
Of course, the politicians tried to spin it as a restructuring of agile, rapidly deployable and flexible forces, but that's a lie - how can you deploy forces if they have no reserves, transport ability or opportunity to train or recuperate between combat tours?
-
Getting rid of fighters can never happen - the UAVs can't execute their own combat tactics against a good human; it requires very intelligent AI that just doesn't exist, but more importantly, a human needs to be kept in the loop for the very same reason ASRAAMs are deemed more useful than AMRAAMs (and equivalent) and why the Pheonix was never replaced - BVR combat is purely theoretical, but real battle ROEs require visual identification of the target because IFF is so easily cocked up in multi service, multinational operations: the only ever real Pheonix kill was of an A6 returning to the same carrier as the F14 which shot it. There is no point in carrying heavy, less agile medium or long range missiles if you need to visually confirm your target - ASRAAMs are much more useful and effective.
Ah, that's something I hadn't thought of. Fair enough, then.
Ironic that the F-35 is supposedly a poor dogfighter (http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/jfadt/adfair/subs/sub35.pdf) then.
-
Yeah this is why I've always thought the era of the dogfight may end soon - visual range engagements will always remain the norm, at least until magic happens, and HOB heatseekers are so agile that kill probabilities may just ceiling.
-
To be honest, the non-BVR engagement survives solely because of restrictive Rules of Engagement. Those won't last forever as forces get more networked. AWACs and the like mean it's no longer actually necessary, and BVR engagement has been conducted with SAMs enough by now that it's very clearly possible. They bagged a MiG-21 with a Telos at fifty miles back in Vietnam, and plenty of people got whacked by the Flying Telephone Pole.
Iraq One could have been fought entirely BVR and there would have been only one resulting friendly-fire incident. The capability to fight that way already exists and as long as it does, someone can take it and you will need to be able to respond in kind.
-
I reckon even if the use of BVR ordnance BVR is authorised, the dogfight is still going to be where it's at. Ranges of 20, 30, 40 miles are closed quickly enough by converging aircraft that if a pilot evades whatever's thrown at him BVR, it's going to fall back into a dogfight again.
They've been saying the end of the dogfight was around the corner for the last 50 years, and with that, they also said pilots were going to be obsolete in ten years, every ten years or so when something new came out.
To be honest, the non-BVR engagement survives solely because of restrictive Rules of Engagement. Those won't last forever as forces get more networked. AWACs and the like mean it's no longer actually necessary
I disagree. Remember the Gulf of Sidra? Tomcats and Fitters tangled until the Fitters had the nerve to deploy ordnance. The RoE in those circumstances isn't something I feel is going to change. As long as it's reactive, in the sense that the BLUFOR can only fire in response the the OPFOR, you're always going to have scenarios like well, that entire week.
EDIT: used receptive instead of reactive. Oops!
-
Because there wasn't a declared war. You're discussing a scenario completely different from mine. :P
The trend has been away from the no-fly zone and games of chicken in the west because aircraft are too expensive to be risked like that, and the same expense means that things are very different from on the ground where there are many spurious targets that shouldn't be killed. It's much easier to keep tabs on and sort aircraft. Dogfighting will still be necessary, certainly, but as aircraft grow fewer in number and more expensive, closing to the merge is less and less attractive.
-
Getting rid of fighters can never happen - the UAVs can't execute their own combat tactics against a good human; it requires very intelligent AI that just doesn't exist, but more importantly, a human needs to be kept in the loop for the very same reason ASRAAMs are deemed more useful than AMRAAMs (and equivalent) and why the Pheonix was never replaced - BVR combat is purely theoretical, but real battle ROEs require visual identification of the target because IFF is so easily cocked up in multi service, multinational operations: the only ever real Pheonix kill was of an A6 returning to the same carrier as the F14 which shot it. There is no point in carrying heavy, less agile medium or long range missiles if you need to visually confirm your target - ASRAAMs are much more useful and effective.
Ah, that's something I hadn't thought of. Fair enough, then.
Ironic that the F-35 is supposedly a poor dogfighter (http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/jfadt/adfair/subs/sub35.pdf) then.
There seems to be conflicting reports... the F-35 is supposedly a poor dogfighter and then other comparisons suggest that although the wingloading is higher than a F-16 the power is also higher and the aerodynamics are very good leading to an aircraft with F-16 level agility which is nothing to sneeze at. If that's the case then it's considerably better than virtually everything except the very latest Sukhoi and the Typhoon. Of course it depends on what the armament is at the time but that matters to most jets... a fully loaded Typhoon or Su-35 aren't going to be doing much top level dog fighting either.
The wildcard in all of this is that there has not been a 5th gen fighter engagement ever. The introduction of helmet mounted sights, thrust vectored missiles alone could help rewrite some of the books on dogfighting. It used to be about putting the enemy in front of you but if an off aspect angle kill is possible and reliably possible then the launching aircraft needs only be agile enough to make that angle possible. Doesn't mean you can fly freight train around with AIM-9Xs hanging off of it but it does mean that you don't necessarily have to maneuver quite so much.
-
Oh and also I wanted to share...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5t6R9faLf8
Found this the other day while Googling the PAK-FA. What an aircraft! The Russians seem very pleased.. I think Putin may have had a slight tremble resembling a smile :)
-
Well its certainly is prettier then the F-22.
-
Because there wasn't a declared war. You're discussing a scenario completely different from mine. :P
The trend has been away from the no-fly zone and games of chicken in the west because aircraft are too expensive to be risked like that, and the same expense means that things are very different from on the ground where there are many spurious targets that shouldn't be killed. It's much easier to keep tabs on and sort aircraft. Dogfighting will still be necessary, certainly, but as aircraft grow fewer in number and more expensive, closing to the merge is less and less attractive.
Sorry, I was out in an internet cafe in the middle of the most bogan suburb in Perth when my 15 minutes ran out...twice. :P
Okay, fair enough. And I agree, with most forces downsizing these days (check Britain, as has been mentioned), it's really the case.
The wildcard in all of this is that there has not been a 5th gen fighter engagement ever. The introduction of helmet mounted sights, thrust vectored missiles alone could help rewrite some of the books on dogfighting. It used to be about putting the enemy in front of you but if an off aspect angle kill is possible and reliably possible then the launching aircraft needs only be agile enough to make that angle possible. Doesn't mean you can fly freight train around with AIM-9Xs hanging off of it but it does mean that you don't necessarily have to maneuver quite so much.
I dunno, I won't buy it until I see it. If flares can't defeat Sidewinders or ASRAAMs, that will mean ECM manufacturers will have to step up to the plate. And the only sure fire way to get the kill, is from 6 o'clock. I don't see that changing, even with thrust vectoring missiles and such; if you fire a missile at a ninety degree angle, the missile still has to turn to get a lead on the aircraft, expending time and fuel in doing so, which may mean the difference between a pilot being able to pull the aircraft into a position where he can deploy countermeasures or bring himself into a position to engage the firing platform.
And the most common 'dogfight missile' among western countries is, and I believe will continue to be for a while, the Sidewinder, which doesn't possess thrust vectoring.
I'm probably a bit of a cynic on this matter, but until planes shoot each other out of the sky with ****ing laser beams fired from fifty million miles away that can burn a hole through the canopy and into the back of the pilot's skull effortlessly, I seriously doubt the dogfight is going to completely fade.
Especially when we live in a world where events like the Gulf of Sidra are likely to happen over areas such as the South China Sea, rather than official declarations of war.
-
I do wonder if cheaper and in mass quantities would be better when it comes to full scale combat.
-
That may be what it comes down to if we do ever have a full scale aerial conflict.
-
If flares can't defeat Sidewinders or ASRAAMs, that will mean ECM manufacturers will have to step up to the plate
lol
lasers though
-
Hmm, ECM suites are capable of jamming the guidance systems on IR guided missiles aren't they? Or am I getting something mixed up with a Dale Brown book here?
-
i don't know, intuitively i doubt it as the IR seeker is passive...
-
Yeah, spoofing IR trackers passively is only possible using baffles like the ones mounted on the F117 and B2. But even those are only really effective against ground-based trackers (IIRC), in order to spoof fighter-launched missiles, you need to be spewing flares.
-
or LAZORZ
-
Yeah, spoofing IR trackers passively is only possible using baffles like the ones mounted on the F117 and B2. But even those are only really effective against ground-based trackers (IIRC), in order to spoof fighter-launched missiles, you need to be spewing flares.
Ah yeah, I'm probably recalling something from 'Day of the Cheetah' as fact or something. :P
But these newer gen dogfighting missiles are supposedly harder to evade via flares, because of the way they interpret the target; as an image, rather than...well, whatever they viewed it as before. :P
I dunno, pop more flares, perhaps?
-
There's fairly reliable leakage that the B-2 has a laser for burning out missile seekers. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the F-22 has one as well.