Trends in Air to Air Combat

[pawnman]

1 hour ago, VMFA187 said:

Filling the skies with additional "targets" may provide some benefit. 

Ever hear "Nine groups" and think "F###"...?

Quantity has a quality of it's own.

At some point, no matter how outgunned or outmoded your aircraft are... If you have more assets in the sky then the enemy has super-advanced fighters and missiles to intercept them, some will get through.

[Majestik Møøse]

2 hours ago, VMFA187 said:

Filling the skies with additional "targets" may provide some benefit.

Hey I’m with you there. “Smart Chaff” is a good idea which you guys demo’d years ago. What I take exception to is “autonomous wingmen” that will need more sensor awareness than their manned F-35 flight leads. Sounds expensive and redundant. More manned jets, bigger/smarter AAMs.

[Sprkt69]

11 hours ago, Majestik Møøse said:

Hey I’m with you there. “Smart Chaff” is a good idea which you guys demo’d years ago. What I take exception to is “autonomous wingmen” that will need more sensor awareness than their manned F-35 flight leads. Sounds expensive and redundant. More manned jets, bigger/smarter AAMs.

With what pilots and what experience level? 

[Majestik Møøse]

5 hours ago, Sprkt69 said:

With what pilots and what experience level? 

You got me there; you’re looking at things from a wholistic perspective. Change the above to “more manned jets, smarter AAMs, and big pilot bonuses.”

[brabus]

I hate to admit it, but there's a lot of potential value in robot wingmen.  Doesn't mean there's one manned fighter and 50 robots, but if I can take my 4 ship down town with 5 robot wingmen each, well now I only need 4 F-35s to do the work that would have taken 12 F-35s (random numbers to make a point).  Still a lot of pitfalls that will have to be overcome by technology, but I think they will...eventually.

[Clark Griswold]

Not only robot wingmen but IMHO this loyal wingman RPA concept should be expanded but based on one common Air Vehicle with multiple ways to employ it, changeable in flight, rolling from human directed to AI directed as required:

- Loyal wingman to a manned platform serving / defending that formation and under a flight member's control

- AI directed platform as a singleton or in an unmanned formation 

- On mission directed by an airborne controller via multiple secure LOS links for minimized latency

Keep the first generation realistic and affordable-ish:

Good endurance but doesn't have to have the legs of a Global Hawk, 3 hours on station from a 500 mile launch or AR point.

Decent missile capacity, 4 AIM-120s internal capacity, external stores capable when LO not needed any longer.

Good radar and IRST, but less capable systems than the manned platforms is acceptable to keep costs under control.

Open Mission Architecture

[VMFA187]

5 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

Not only robot wingmen but IMHO this loyal wingman RPA concept should be expanded but based on one common Air Vehicle with multiple ways to employ it, changeable in flight, rolling from human directed to AI directed as required:

- Loyal wingman to a manned platform serving / defending that formation and under a flight member's control

- AI directed platform as a singleton or in an unmanned formation 

- On mission directed by an airborne controller via multiple secure LOS links for minimized latency

Keep the first generation realistic and affordable-ish:

Good endurance but doesn't have to have the legs of a Global Hawk, 3 hours on station from a 500 mile launch or AR point.

Decent missile capacity, 4 AIM-120s internal capacity, external stores capable when LO not needed any longer.

Good radar and IRST, but less capable systems than the manned platforms is acceptable to keep costs under control.

Open Mission Architecture

I may have a difficult time fighting my jet and managing a 4-ship of these things. Can I get her to be my WSO to drive these around?

 

[brabus]

5 minutes ago, PilotCandidate said:

You just assumed her gender..

You just used an assuming pronoun, back to green dot training for you.

[matmacwc]

19 minutes ago, PilotCandidate said:

You just assumed her gender..

Pretty safe to say in this instance.

[RASH]

Pretty safe to say in this instance.

But I’ve been wrong before...


Sent from my iPad using Baseops Network mobile app

[brabus]

Thailand's a hell of a place...

[war007afa]

The countdown begins...

Remember, nothing sucks worse than being shot with your own gun. 

All in jest. I do hope the organization who allowed the Chinese to take my personal information no less than 5 times figures out how to keep these things from flipping blue to red. 

[M2]

On 4/3/2019 at 7:02 AM, PilotCandidate said:

You just assumed her gender..

[matmacwc]

12 hours ago, RASH said:

But I’ve been wrong before...


Sent from my iPad using Baseops Network mobile app

But you liked it.

[Clark Griswold]

On the subject of ADAIR...

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/27320/marine-corps-f-5-aggressors-are-receiving-red-net-tactical-data-links

and if you're in the market for some second hand MiG-29s with spare engines, Hungary can hook you up...

https://alert5.com/2019/04/13/no-bidder-for-hungarys-mig-29s/

19 jets with 20 spare motors for $10 million, bargain... as money grows on trees, this would be perfect for a specialized aggressor unit (Guard/Reserve ideally IMO).  Update with the above mentioned red-net tac datalink, civilian avionics suite, other updates, etc... profit

 

[FLEA]

Hell even if they aren't safe by our standards to fly there would be some huge benefit to kitting them up as drone targets and taking shots on them. You cant really beat $10M for 20 targets that real. 

Edited April 13, 2019 by FLEA

[Clark Griswold]

That’s one use

Pick this one up too btw - it’s already restored and good to go:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.businessinsider.com/mig-29-for-sale-for-465-million-2019-1

Buy the Hungarian MiGs and the other one now you have 20. Just a WAG but figure 25 million to refurbish and modify for aggressor service with a common standard. Figure in another 10 million to overhaul the spare engines and buy whatever spares you can get. Probably about 10k an hour to fly and get CLS MX - golden apples to reach for...

Poland would help us out (training, MX, logistics) as they are looking at divesting their 29s and want closer military ties with us. They’ve got 30 still in service, start flying them at the new base Ft Trump in Poland 🙂 and then set up shop in the CONUS.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Edited April 13, 2019 by Clark Griswold

[Lawman]

Hell even if they aren't safe by our standards to fly there would be some huge benefit to kitting them up as drone targets and taking shots on them. You cant really beat $10M for 20 targets that real. 

 

Safe could be a relative term. Undoubtedly a lot of the issues would be eliminated by better MX practices. Same as it did with all the MI-8/17s we have operated by us vs the ones maintained an operated by *insert crap country here*.

 

At one point we had US service members flying aggressor MiG-23s out in the desert as aggressors. If you read the accounts in “Red Eagles” that thing is an absolute death trap.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[brabus]

M29s are shit...the block 30 Vipers are better aggressors (capability, safety, reliability, parts availability, etc.)  ADAIR needs a major facelift, and it needs to be well beyond our current aggressor fleet or any old Soviet jets sitting around various places in the world.

[Clark Griswold]

4 hours ago, brabus said:

M29s are shit...the block 30 Vipers are better aggressors (capability, safety, reliability, parts availability, etc.)  ADAIR needs a major facelift, and it needs to be well beyond our current aggressor fleet or any old Soviet jets sitting around various places in the world.

Yeah but using fanboy reasoning and disregarding logic we're going with second hand MiG-29s... #neverhappeningever

NOTE - tedious rant to follow:

To me as an outsider looking in (herbivore), the Aggressor mission could be/should be a good deal assignment to retain AD fighter types and retain in the military fighter types in specialized ARC units that want to move on but keep a military affiliation.

I hear the AF's argument that the cost of organic Aggressors are too high and that contracted Red Air (mostly) is the future but in our sprawling budget, there has to be enough margin for a specialized fleet of aggressors to retain pilots on AD or the ARC, provide credible opponents and develop pilots in their operational skills.

From this article:

As we can all see it costs a shit ton to train a replacement pilot for almost any platform, in terms of money just on this graph and figure 3 years on average to get an AC, 2 ship flight lead, etc... in terms of time.  Retention is key (duh).  

So we're throwing some money at the problem (good), now we need to add to that pull factor(s) and have good deal, only in the military opportunities that will retain talent.  

Just a guess but the possibility of flying exotic/foreign jets and employ them in tactical training would make me or an average fighter dude seriously consider staying in AD or rushing hard an ARC unit that had that mission.  This tactic in the strategy to retain fighter pilots would not be cheap but neither is replacing them and keeping the ones you have and want to keep is lower risk as they are a known quantity and likely to be successful in this next assignment/role. 

Figure a fleet of 85 aggressor aircraft and crew at 3.0.  Program 500 hours an FY per tail at 12k a flight hour with CLS based MX. Add 35% for other stuff my bar napkin math is missing (cadre tng, ranges, expendables, etc...) and the total bill comes to 688.5 million.  But, if you factor in retaining the 225 pilots in the program and and say its 50/50 AD/ARC, you can also save X number of pilots on AD from separating by their interest and desire to fly unique iron.  Depending on tour length, keep it 3.5 years, you rotate out 40 pilots every FY and you could line up up to 80 with 2 year planning.  

All that gonkulation comes up to 200+ fighter dudes retained on AD, which equates to about 1.95 billion (average fighter tng cost figured at 9.75 mil).  That's a savings of about 1.26 billion if you retain your people all while further developing your cadre of experienced fighter pilots, profit.  Just requires us to shed the traditional way of thinking how to do things and asking for relief from the machine not designed to work, the AF requirements, acquisition & contracting process.

Good bonuses, golden apple programs to retain and perform needed tng, mission focused culture will help sustain the 11F force.

On block 30 Vipers being the best aggressors:

https://theaviationist.com/2015/03/26/f-16n-best-adversary/

Edited April 14, 2019 by Clark Griswold

[brabus]

Aggressors isn't a retainment tool - no offense to my bros who do that mission, but most fighter pilots aren't clawing at the doors to do it, especially under the current environment.  That said, your point of an ARC unit is more appealing because there are fighter pilots who want to stay connected to tac aviation, but only do so not on AD/as a part time gig.  The contract side of the house has provided that in a significantly better manner than the ARC could ever do...ever.  It will take monumental organizational change (i.e. never going to happen) for the AD to get back to doing a fighter aggressor program like it had in the 70s-80s.  So, this is one place where I think contractor work is by far the best direction for this program and we should just shove money at them over the next 20+ years instead of trying to "save" money and completely fucking up the whole thing ourselves (I also say this having zero personal connection to any contract ADAIR).

[matmacwc]

There’s an ARC associate unit at Nellis that flys aggressors.  Barabus is correct, not exactly #1 on most AD fighter pilots list.  Very important work and still a fighter cockpit, Alaska for those who love it, so not a bad deal at all.  If it were the Red Eagles from back in the day, completely different story.

Edited April 14, 2019 by matmacwc

[Majestik Møøse]

If the contract Red Air companies aren’t biting on this “good deal,” it probably doesn’t make financial sense. Jet warbirds always seem miraculously cheap for the initial buy, because they cost that much all over again every year to operate.

[Clark Griswold]

Copy all - just a bit surprising to me (view of military aggressors) but understood it is not the program of the 70s / 80s, nor the same operational environment.

13 minutes ago, Majestik Møøse said:

If the contract Red Air companies aren’t biting on this “good deal,” it probably doesn’t make financial sense. Jet warbirds always seem miraculously cheap for the initial buy, because they cost that much all over again every year to operate.

Yeah, I see that point.  The private contractors with the profit motive took a pass for a reason.

War Zone had a good article on that idea, contractors & customers being very realistic about aggressor requirements and costs to get to their desired solution:

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/25075/how-f-5s-beat-out-f-16s-for-the-navys-latest-commercial-aggressor-contract

[Majestik Møøse]

On 4/14/2019 at 7:58 AM, Clark Griswold said:

War Zone had a good article on that idea, contractors & customers being very realistic about aggressor requirements and costs to get to their desired solution:

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/25075/how-f-5s-beat-out-f-16s-for-the-navys-latest-commercial-aggressor-contract

Typically I don’t give much credence to Rogoway, but that article was ok. Seems like a profit-focused aggressor company wants to use the smallest fighter they can get away with. Makes sense; they’re not hauling ordnance around and don’t want to spend extra on gas. They also want jets that are easy to modify with aftermarket parts made in the Western Hemisphere. MiG-29s don’t fit either of those bills.