Trends in Air to Air Combat

[Clark Griswold]

Thread bump.

Article from National Review for a modern LWF ala Boyd and the Fighter Mafia vice the F-35:

https://www.nationalreview.com/article/445708/f-35-replacement-f-45-mustang-ii-fighter-simple-lightweight

Interesting article, very similar to a concept advocated by Robert Dorr a few years ago.

Not sure about all of his ideas / principles for this modern successor to the F-16 / LWF but his requirement of demonstrated high reliability (multiple operational sorties per day) is prescient for what might be an Achilles' heel in peer / near peer fight.

Reading it reminded me of one concept model for the KF-X project:

This would probably fit the bill for this next generation LWF.  Semi stealth F-16 kinda.

[VMFA187]

I like where his mind is at, but an 12,000lb fighter with the ability to supercruise and spend that amount of time airborne seems a bit fanciful to me.

I do like the idea of flying 30+ hours a month though. I'd not be trying to knock out my ATP if that were the case. The 8 or 9 hours a month I've AVERAGED since flying Hornets don't give me much of a choice, however.

[Clark Griswold]

34 minutes ago, VMFA187 said:

I like where his mind is at, but an 12,000lb fighter with the ability to supercruise and spend that amount of time airborne seems a bit fanciful to me.

I do like the idea of flying 30+ hours a month though. I'd not be trying to knock out my ATP if that were the case. The 8 or 9 hours a month I've AVERAGED since flying Hornets don't give me much of a choice, however.

2

I like his general concept but the limitations or firm targets he sets on the dimensions of the aircraft seem a bit optimistic.  

I don't see Big Blue going to Congress for another fighter but in lieu of that I think asking Congress for a companion trainer/aggressor for Fighter Wings is in the realm of possibility, on the edges of it but possible... to prevent the problem you are unfortunately dealing with, too few flight hours.

Rolling the T-38s that have enough life in them to Fighter Wings as the T-X comes online would give them some less expensive iron to fly for their own Red Air / Companion aircraft program.  

His idea is not without merit, it is just not in the cards (probably) given the MASSIVE investment into the F-35, for better or worse, probably more the better I think though.

One thing about his concept for a passive detection focused LWF that I don't see him address is how he will handle opponents practicing their own EMCON discipline and/or being distracted by decoys (ground or air launched).  Cross cueing might solve that but without your own robust radar, seems kinda limited.

[RyanRC187]

1 hour ago, Clark Griswold said:

2

I like his general concept but the limitations or firm targets he sets on the dimensions of the aircraft seem a bit optimistic.  .

One thing about his concept for a passive detection focused LWF that I don't see him address is how he will handle opponents practicing their own EMCON discipline and/or being distracted by decoys (ground or air launched).  Cross cueing might solve that but without your own robust radar, seems kinda limited.

 

Exactly.

With a link that is/was highly resistant to jamming, I think that'd be one hell of a tactic. Have a bunch of shooters in FMS raging out front killing with the direction/guidance of quarterbacks in the rear with higher quality sensors out of reach from threats with bigger sticks. Not entirely different from current thoughts, but I'd feel a hell of a lot better in a "F-45" than a legacy Hornet...

[Clark Griswold]

21 hours ago, RyanRC187 said:

Exactly.

With a link that is/was highly resistant to jamming, I think that'd be one hell of a tactic. Have a bunch of shooters in FMS raging out front killing with the direction/guidance of quarterbacks in the rear with higher quality sensors out of reach from threats with bigger sticks. Not entirely different from current thoughts, but I'd feel a hell of a lot better in a "F-45" than a legacy Hornet...

Copy that

Circling back to the article and proposing another jet that will likely never get funded, unless there is a champion or group of insurgents in the AF to fight for another LWF then I would suggest taking a design the article's author referenced positively and that IMO is unappreciated, the JAS-39 NG, and seeing if an "F-45" could be had from it.

Just vaporware from the Internet but a good approximation of what could be a modern LWF from an existing design that is true to what the author and Boyd would likely advocate for.

The KF-X concept I referenced above is years from flying, the Japanese Stealth Fighter is a twin engine design and likely way higher in intended capabilities than a hypothetical F-45, taking a good multi-role light fighter that focuses on reliability, interoperability, limited support and affordability seems a viable COA.

[Danny Noonin]

So let me get this straight...

The suggestion is that we should invoke the ghost of John Boyd to buy a bunch of Gripens, which most people view as a complete POS, but it will be better because we'll buy it without a (big) radar. And since they have no/small radar, they won't be as hot so enemy IR sensors won't see them as well. And without a (big) radar they can have a smaller nose which of course makes them harder to see on enemy radar. It's RCS will even be smaller than an f-16 even though it already has a tiny nose and tiny radar. To make them useful as combat airplanes, we'll still have to hang a bunch of external pylons and missiles and shit on them which reflect RF energy, but it's okay...because it won't be as hot without a radar. Then it's one tiny motor will let it supercruise for long periods of time, despite the drag of hanging a bunch of shit under its tiny wings. Which is awesome because supercruise lets you surprise the enemy even though they see you on radar. Because you're going wicked fast. But that's okay because magically it will never get very hot because even though it's blasting through the air with a hot motor it doesn't have a (big) radar. So that means they won't find you as easily with an IRST. Even though they see you on radar. And it will have fantastic range because it won't have a (big) radar so the gripen's already tiny, pointy nose can be tinier and pointier because that's where all the drag comes from. And heat. And RCS. And the lack of radar will make it super cheap. To make up for that we'll embed some wicked awesome magic sensors in the wings but they won't cost very much of course because it's not a big radar. And radar is bad. Because it's hot. And because it won't have a radar, the price will somehow go down by $20 million enabling us to buy a few more of them so we have enough to get shot down because an attrition game plan aligns perfectly with our modern political will to accept huge losses. But that's okay because we can turn more sorties with the ones we have left so pilots can fly more so we'll retain more pilots. The ones that are still alive anyway.

Did I get that about right?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[matmacwc]

That about covers the fly by's

[Clark Griswold]

3 hours ago, Danny Noonin said:

... lots of words ...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You got right some of what I was thinking after I read the article, my posts were / are skeptical of the concept, I was just imagining and putting up a visual of what I thought this modern LWF F-45 if brought to life would be or likely to be..

I can describe in words what a hot girl looks like but if I put up a picture, that's about 69% more effective...

[di1630]

We have our 5th gen F-22 in the AO stacked in with RPAs dropping jdam just to keep them busy....I think we have the Air to Air threat covered for now.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

[daynightindicator]

We have our 5th gen F-22 in the AO stacked in with RPAs dropping jdam just to keep them busy....I think we have the Air to Air threat covered for now.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

That won't be the case for any war with a near peer. I know those wars (thankfully) haven't materialized but we have to prepare for them.

I'm not a 5th gen groupie but the day we face off with Russia/China I'll be their biggest fan.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

[Clark Griswold]

6 hours ago, daynightindicator said:

I'm not a 5th gen groupie but the day we face off with Russia/China I'll be their biggest fan.

Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

 

2

With perfect hindsight, the introduction of 5th Gen had and has an apparent flaw that with the technology, materials and designs we have now they don't work with the Hi - Lo concept that was successful with the 15 & 16, that is you really can't make a "cheap" 5th Gen fighter.

The barn is wide open and it doesn't matter but if we had committed to a full run of 22's (in the 500+ range) to replace the 15Cs and Es, developing an FB-22 and kept our requirements in check for the 16 and 18 replacement (forgoing the VSTOL altogether) to not be go full 5th Gen but 4++ with unique capabilities or design to be relevant but not in the first wave on night 1, things might have worked out better.

The lesson learned for the 35 acquisition and development is strive for good improvement not unrealistic improvement over the previous jet.  The price soars, the schedule goes late, you reduce your goals to keep it alive and undermine your service reputation, important because you'll want to get another toy in the future and politicians trust you less or not at all anymore.

Edited March 17, 2017 by Clark Griswold

[ClearedHot]

The lessons should have been learned but they were not, there is blame on both sides.

The pointy nose crowd was running the show and lived by the "nothing but 5th gen mantra" at a time when it was not affordable.  The did everything within their power to crush the rebellion including having the CSAF personally take a WIC patch away from an Albino kid who wrote a blasphemous IDE paper that dared to suggest when didn't so many F-22s.

The rebels...well they are rebels and in their effort to fight for enough table scraps to build 1,000 lite attack airplanes they ended up pissing off everyone and created just enough doubt in Congress and DoD to let people like McCain and Gates dictate our terms of surrender.

If you think we have enough fifth gen or we won't need it, go into the vault and have an honest look.  If you come out still thinking we have enough, choke yourself. 

We are and were our own worst enemy.  The truth is, we need BOTH and a LOT more.  Space and RPA are bills USAF pays but take away from our piece of the pie which hasn't gotten bigger.  It is time for a CSAF to stand up and put it all on the line...communicate the urgency and if they don't listen, RESIGN and make a stink.  The guy behind him should do the exact same thing until someone listens.

 

 

[Clark Griswold]

The lessons should have been learned but they were not, there is blame on both sides.
The pointy nose crowd was running the show and lived by the "nothing but 5th gen mantra" at a time when it was not affordable.  The did everything within their power to crush the rebellion including having the CSAF personally take a WIC patch away from an Albino kid who wrote a blasphemous IDE paper that dared to suggest when didn't so many F-22s.
The rebels...well they are rebels and in their effort to fight for enough table scraps to build 1,000 lite attack airplanes they ended up pissing off everyone and created just enough doubt in Congress and DoD to let people like McCain and Gates dictate our terms of surrender.
If you think we have enough fifth gen or we won't need it, go into the vault and have an honest look.  If you come out still thinking we have enough, choke yourself. 
We are and were our own worst enemy.  The truth is, we need BOTH and a LOT more.  Space and RPA are bills USAF pays but take away from our piece of the pie which hasn't gotten bigger.  It is time for a CSAF to stand up and put it all on the line...communicate the urgency and if they don't listen, RESIGN and make a stink.  The guy behind him should do the exact same thing until someone listens.
 
 

No argument that the blame is on both sides and the 5th Gen only crowd didn't set the stage we have now by themselves but absent an even larger increase to the AF budget than the current admin is proposing what we have in the plans for the AF is just not affordable and maintaining the force structure we have / missions allocated to us

We know we need more to do everything on the books and we would have to if the ballon goes up but that kind of extra funding and the control over the money vice the MIC and parochial Congressional interests is not coming

So what to do? Load shed.

Propose fewer missions and more affordable mission systems vice an all silver bullet fleet but emphasizing we NEED some silver bullets.

There has been an exponential growth in mission sets that are not warheads on foreheads, mobility, nuclear deterrence, etc...

New missions and responsibilities that are being disproportionate being saddled on the AF need to culled, reassigned or cost shared to keep us focused and resourced effectively


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[di1630]

CH are you talking 5th gen in the A/A or A/G set?

My point wasn't to rag on 5th gen, but rather bring light to the immense focus we have on the A/A piece.

I would have liked to see a better A/G solution than the -35.

And if you see a new stealth design with vert iCal stabs, realize we are well ahead of that design era in the L.O. game.

A lot of people forget the F-22 is a 31 year old design and the F-35 is pushing 20.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

[ViperMan]

Lesson (not) learned is that you don't let a kid (the Marines) sit at the grown up's table when making important DOD-wide acquisitions, or if you do, you don't allow them to have disproportionate influence on the outcome.

Edited March 18, 2017 by ViperMan

[VMFA187]

1 hour ago, ViperMan said:

Lesson (not) learned is that you don't let a kid (the Marines) sit at the grown up's table when making important DOD-wide acquisitions, or if you do, you don't allow them to have disproportionate influence on the outcome.

We should have bought only A and C models. The B is terrible.

On behalf of the Marine Corps - I'm sorry.

[Clark Griswold]

16 hours ago, VMFA187 said:

We should have bought only A and C models. The B is terrible.

On behalf of the Marine Corps - I'm sorry.

The B model is only part of the problem(s), the software and updates/fixes needed are also BIG rocks to deal with.

Giving the USMC a smaller carrier capable of STOBAR / ski jump operations and supporting amphibious operations and consolidating all USN acquisition on the C model, in hindsight, might have kept the JSF close to a historically successful multi-service, multi nation fighter program, the F-4.

Deleting the B which is going to be only 14% of the US purchase of F-35s would have reduced risk/cost/complexity - water under the bridge. 

Edited March 19, 2017 by Clark Griswold
minor

[TreeA10]

By designing a fuselage compatible with all models, the B model was the big driver to fit the lift fan, gearbox, etc. into the jet.  That compromise led to the larger compromise in aerodynamics hence the limitations on speed, turning, acceleration.  It's a serious boat anchor that limited the A and C models.

[SurelySerious]

By designing a fuselage compatible with all models, the B model was the big driver to fit the lift fan, gearbox, etc. into the jet.  That compromise led to the larger compromise in aerodynamics hence the limitations on speed, turning, acceleration.  It's a serious boat anchor that limited the A and C models.

Checkmate.

[ViperMan]

1 hour ago, TreeA10 said:

By designing a fuselage compatible with all models, the B model was the big driver to fit the lift fan, gearbox, etc. into the jet.  That compromise led to the larger compromise in aerodynamics hence the limitations on speed, turning, acceleration.  It's a serious boat anchor that limited the A and C models.

This.

Had we not required the airframe to be compatible with the less-than-critical (read useful) capability to V/STOL we would have better-than-F-22 capabilities. As it stands, we don't, and the sole reason (IMO) is because of design sacrifices made to appease the Marine Corps. Don't forget that the F-22 also had major problems and software issues early on, but few would argue its current pre eminence as an air-to-air fighter - those are problems that can be (at least in principle) solved. Lockheed would have been more than capable to build the next gen fighter without the requirement to make an aircraft also a helicopter.

Take one look at the "competition" to the F-35 and you'll have no illusions about how requirements influenced design choices: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-32. Lockheed was able to "package it up" in a prettier container, but she's still a pig.

Edited March 19, 2017 by ViperMan

[panchbarnes]

2 hours ago, TreeA10 said:

By designing a fuselage compatible with all models, the B model was the big driver to fit the lift fan, gearbox, etc. into the jet.  That compromise led to the larger compromise in aerodynamics hence the limitations on speed, turning, acceleration.  It's a serious boat anchor that limited the A and C models.

It's been a while since I've read up on the JSF competition, but I wonder what the original performance requirements were (across all services!)?  This thing didn't get designed/built overnight, along the way it had to through many design reviews (SPOviets)...chaired by fliers.  Not defending the decision makers but the potential costs savings enabled these compromises.  The thinking was the sensor networks, EW suites, C2 of drones, system of systems (remember that?) was going to make up for the shortfall in performance.  The Vietnam lessons were mostly forgotten as one LM engineer was openly touting to me the benefits of removing the internal gun... I vaguely recall the original intent was to buy such a great number of the JSFs to replace the Eagles/Vipers/Hornets/Harriers, that the USG will get a great deal out of this.  Once again, the taxpayers got fooled by slick PowerPoint slides by the MBA types.

Ever since 4th gen, the challenges (and costs) have always been about software/coding.  Aerodynamics, structures, materials, mechanical systems, engines designs process are all very matured (incremental improvements only) thanks to all the test data since the Wright Brothers; in general, aircraft performance is based on a series of cost, weight, performance tradeoff analysis...the real variable is what value the computer can add to the aircraft.

Nerd rambling off...

Edited March 19, 2017 by panchbarnes
Edited to add that I wrote this before I read ViperMan's post

[Clark Griswold]

2 hours ago, TreeA10 said:

By designing a fuselage compatible with all models, the B model was the big driver to fit the lift fan, gearbox, etc. into the jet.  That compromise led to the larger compromise in aerodynamics hence the limitations on speed, turning, acceleration.  It's a serious boat anchor that limited the A and C models.

No argument that its a problem just my option that the software will be the largest gripe and an on-going gripe to fix/update for stability & security.

Baby definitely has back... comparison to a. Harrier:

5 minutes ago, panchbarnes said:

Once again, the taxpayers got fooled by slick PowerPoint slides by the MBA types.

Ever since 4th gen, the challenges (and costs) have always been about software/coding.  Aerodynamics, structures, materials, mechanical systems, engines designs process are all very matured (incremental improvements only) thanks to all the test data since the Wright Brothers; in general, aircraft performance is based on a series of cost, weight, performance tradeoff analysis...the real variable is what value the computer can add to the aircraft.

Nerd rambling off...

2

 

[pbar]

On 3/18/2017 at 6:16 PM, VMFA187 said:

We should have bought only A and C models. The B is terrible.

On behalf of the Marine Corps - I'm sorry.

I thought it was Congress who forced this all-the-services-buy-the-same-jet on us, not the USMC. 

Edited September 18, 2017 by pbar

[TreeA10]

There was a RAND study published that said building three different models specifically for each service would have been cheaper.  Too late for that, I guess.

[SurelySerious]

I thought it was Congress who forced this all-the-services-by-the-same-jet on us, not the USMC. 

Combination. At the time, the USMC was looking for a Harrier replacement, and pretty much based on the political/budget environment when the JSF was in its infancy, they figured the only way to get one was to latch on.