Trends in Air to Air Combat

[Clark Griswold]

8 hours ago, Majestik Møøse said:

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.

Concur

Two engine fighters could provide some capabilities the F-5s, A-4s, etc.. might not be able to provide, the high fast flyer profile but if the customer wanted that they would have asked for it.  

Not sure if MiG-29s could deliver that repeatedly without causing over-taxing engine use (early overhauls, replacement, etc...), there might be some platforms divested from other AFs that would be supportable, F-4s maybe Mirages but cost would be crazy for a particular threat profile vs. a more generic one 

Cobham has some interesting platforms for delivering ADAIR, particularly the Falcon 20 based platforms with EW pods

https://www.aerosociety.com/news/flying-for-the-dark-side/

Surprised the American providers haven't looked into this as it seems the most cost effective BVR threat replicator platform.

 

[Marco]

They do, with the Lear 35.

[Clark Griswold]

They do, with the Lear 35.

Well there you go


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[FlyinGrunt]

Changing the subject to a few pages back: about this loyal wingman/swarming UAV thing.  Seems that Kratos might have a substantial lead on the other primes with the XQ-58 Valkyrie (even Boeing with the ATS in Australia unveiled earlier this year).  From Jane's:

A prototype is being flight tested by the AFRL. The second of five planned demonstration flights was completed on 11 June, achieving 100% of planned test points. Kratos has built a further two Valkyrie air vehicles, which remain under its ownership.

Reporting the company’s second quarter 2019 results in a 31 July earnings call, Kratos president and CEO Eric DeMarco said that the company was confident that Valkyrie was “on track for initial production and a programme of record”.

In response, the company has begun ordering engines “for expected Valkyrie production to meet anticipated future customer delivery requirements,” DeMarco said. The XQ-58A demonstrator is powered by an off-the-shelf Williams International FJ33 twin-spool turbofan; it has not been confirmed if this engine type is being retained for follow-on production.

Kratos believes that it could receive orders for between 20 and 40 Valkyrie vehicles by the end of the year. According to DeMarco, the US Air Force (USAF) has shown interest in acquiring 20–30 air vehicles for operational experimentation, test, and integration. He also alluded to potential new customers, one of which has “recently expressed interest in acquiring up to an initial 10 Valkyries in either the fourth quarter of this year or the first half of 2020”.

DeMarco continued: “Congressional momentum and interest is also increasing with the House of Representatives Committee requesting up to a USD50 million funding increase for the Valkyrie in the 2020 defence budget and a Senate committee requesting USD100 million Valkyrie funding increase in the 2020 defence budget.

“Accordingly, we believe that we are on track to achieve initial orders of at least 20 to 30 Valkyries by the end of this year or early next year with the expectation of significantly increased future orders in 2020–21 and for our future programme of record.”

In anticipation of forthcoming orders, Kratos has concluded a framework agreement for the purchase of up to 24 engines, with between 5 and 10 already on firm order. “[These] are a critical long lead item for the Valkyrie [and] we expect to receive the engines from this initial order beginning in the second half of next year in order to match up with the current Valkyrie manufacturing and production flow expectations,” he added, noting that the company planned to order additional engines by the end of 2019.

 

Can anybody speak to whether this is BS or not?  The company's CEO is notoriously bullish, so I don't know if I trust his expectations of USAF buys.  The aircraft seems to be in the ballpark though on specs (wikipedia): 

• Maximum speed: 567 kn (652 mph, 1,050 km/h)
• Maximum speed: Mach 0.85
• Range: 2,128 nmi (2,449 mi, 3,941 km)
• Service ceiling: 44,997 ft (13,715 m)

My biggest concern would be on the lack of supersonic capability and low payload (550 lb.)  That's only what, 3 AIM-9s?

[brwwg&b]

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/30333/air-forces-xq-58a-valkyrie-drone-suffers-damage-after-third-flight-test

Might get some delay due to damage on their third test flight

"High surface winds and a malfunction of the vehicle’s provisional flight test recovery system resulted in a mishap,"

550lb payload would be enough for 3x of Raytheon's newly touted Peregrine missile (~150lb each), or something comparable. I doubt being subsonic really hurts it from a tactical perspective.

[FlyinGrunt]

Yeah, Jane's is reporting there's gonna be some sort of safety investigation before the next one.  I would presume no SIB/AIB due to the stage in the program and the fact that it's autonomous, but hey, who knows.  Still not sold on the rail launch/parachute recovery but could have advantages in a bomb-damaged runway situation.

Interesting point on the Peregrine.  I wasn't tracking that, but that does make a smaller UCAV look a lot more offensive than just defensive for a manned jet.

Re: subsonic only - if the XQ-58 was escorting an F-35 or F-22, and said jet needs to go supersonic to execute an intercept, seems doing so could significantly reduce your combat power at the merge . . .?

<with apologies to the fighter guys for butchering proper AI terminology/tactics>

[brwwg&b]

3 hours ago, FlyinGrunt said:

Re: subsonic only - if the XQ-58 was escorting an F-35 or F-22, and said jet needs to go supersonic to execute an intercept, seems doing so could significantly reduce your combat power at the merge . . .?

No idea how they're really planning to implement it, but I would think the true advantage of the Valkyrie would be moot if you planned on just dragging it on your wing to a merge.

[Clark Griswold]

1 hour ago, brwwg&b said:

No idea how they're really planning to implement it, but I would think the true advantage of the Valkyrie would be moot if you planned on just dragging it on your wing to a merge.

2

Not privy to any of the concept planning for Gen 1 loyal wingmen or UCAS but methinks the best first mission is an on-call semi stand off weapons cache for cueing a BVR AAM from its inventory via secure datalink vs having to fire your own weapons. 

High altitude, long endurance UAV on station (above 50k, on station 6+ hours) with 4 AIM-260s waiting to be cued from a fighter or AWACS, could also be adapted to provide an unmanned sentry DCA CAP for HVAAs.

Mission expansion to follow as experience and technology is developed.

Just my two uneducated cents but I doubt anyone is going to a merge when fighters are truly cut loose to achieve Air Dominance against a capable opponent and allowed to use all their tricks and toys.  Shots will be taken well before anyone gets WVR.

[raimius]

Uneducated spitballing, but if it only carries shorter range weapons, push it forward of the manned flight lead...?

Lots of options, with some limitations vs a voting enemy, of course.

[Clark Griswold]

Airbus LO UCAS:

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/30845/airbuss-secret-stealth-unmanned-combat-air-vehicle-research-program-breaks-cover

and not exactly air to air but on getting new configurations/missions, proposed Typhoon ECR/SEAD variant:

https://www.janes.com/article/92377/airbus-proposes-ecr-sead-eurofighter-emphasises-german-requirement

 

[di1630]

The EF2K is on life support only because the export market to countries that aren’t allowed to buy the F-35 like Kuwait/Saudi. Why would the Germans buy it and spend much more money on a much less capable airframe? Keeping jobs and €’s in the EU...which should tell you what you need to know about their tactical air priorities.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

[Clark Griswold]

20 minutes ago, di1630 said:

The EF2K is on life support only because the export market to countries that aren’t allowed to buy the F-35 like Kuwait/Saudi. Why would the Germans buy it and spend much more money on a much less capable airframe? Keeping jobs and €’s in the EU...which should tell you what you need to know about their tactical air priorities.

Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

Yeah, this would require quite the investment but if the Germans are serious about upgrading their mil capabilities, maybe...

Saw that and reminded me of this: https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2019/10/04/boeings-f-18-may-have-a-leg-up-in-germany-over-eurofighter/

Offer Growlers in a combined buy for Tornado replacements and to fulfill this requirement, just my two cents.

[di1630]

Why anyone with the option to buy F-35’s for $80mil a piece would instead go 4th gen is beyond me.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

[Danny Noonin]

Why anyone with the option to buy F-35’s for $80mil a piece would instead go 4th gen is beyond me.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

Sticker price is almost irrelevant. Flying hour costs and sustainment costs absolutely dwarf purchase price.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Clark Griswold]

1 hour ago, di1630 said:

Why anyone with the option to buy F-35’s for $80mil a piece would instead go 4th gen is beyond me.

Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

Agree with @Danny Noonin

Just a guess but sustainment and operational cost(s) depending on which numbers you believe. 

They (Europeans) have been putting a lot of effort into getting the cost of flying a Typhoon down and using the savings to pay for improvements with a program they started in 2016, three years in and they ordered more Typhoons so from the perspective of sunk costs (no intended derision to the Typhoon) they would be not exactly giving up on a lot of what they've already spent but acquiring something not compatible (logistics wise) with a system they already own and organically support. 

There could be other caveats for inclusion into the club at whatever level for Germany if it chose to buy into the F-35 program/aircraft could incur that might that give it legitimate pause.  Just a guess but as a late to the party guest, I think Germany would not find a lot of opportunity for industrial offsets like depot level work but with Turkey gone from the program, maybe they could pick up those contracts?

Or they could be putting all their eggs into the Airbus LO fighter effort, FCAS.

Edited November 11, 2019 by Clark Griswold

[Clark Griswold]

From WOR on training/readiness for Hornets:

https://warontherocks.com/2019/11/improve-super-hornet-training-and-readiness-with-more-missiles-and-fewer-missions/

Good arguments for changing training tables, allowing for more/often missile shoots.  

[FLEA]

On 11/11/2019 at 12:58 PM, Clark Griswold said:

From WOR on training/readiness for Hornets:

https://warontherocks.com/2019/11/improve-super-hornet-training-and-readiness-with-more-missiles-and-fewer-missions/

Good arguments for changing training tables, allowing for more/often missile shoots.  

Not an air to air guy but curious if they did shot validation in Vietnam, or if it came later as a way to reduce these training missile expenditures and still provide meaningful debrief material. 

[Lawman]

Not an air to air guy but curious if they did shot validation in Vietnam, or if it came later as a way to reduce these training missile expenditures and still provide meaningful debrief material. 

Probably the biggest revelation from the Ault report that resulted in change was less about shooting live missiles and more about the handling/care of live missiles.

Ordnance guys were literally caveman piecing them together at the time and until change was put about, no method of tracking the life of the missiles was employed. Missiles were literally hung on planes and subjected to weeks/months of carrier landings without inspection.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Clark Griswold]

17 hours ago, FLEA said:

Not an air to air guy but curious if they did shot validation in Vietnam, or if it came later as a way to reduce these training missile expenditures and still provide meaningful debrief material. 

Not sure about that, given the technology of the time I think that most after action reporting was crew reports and maybe radar tracks from ground / airborne stations.  

I'm not an expert but I think the Mass Memory devices (bricks) were introduced with the teen fighters in the late 70's that could provide electronic mission data for debrief/analysis.

More Valkyrie UAV/Loyal Wingman news:

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/30988/air-force-wants-its-xq-58a-valkyrie-drone-to-help-f-22s-and-f-35s-talk-to-each-other

 

[12xu2a3x3]

On 11/12/2019 at 7:36 AM, Lawman said:

Ordnance guys were literally caveman

Yes, of course "were"

[JeremiahWeed]

On 11/11/2019 at 11:58 AM, Clark Griswold said:

From WOR on training/readiness for Hornets:

https://warontherocks.com/2019/11/improve-super-hornet-training-and-readiness-with-more-missiles-and-fewer-missions/

Good arguments for changing training tables, allowing for more/often missile shoots.  

I’d never argue against frequent live A/A missile and gun employment. They’re valuable, no doubt. I don’t see them as being quite so critical in 2019. We have so many tools available now to understand and visualize the actual WEZ of a particular A/A weapon. Employment within acceptable parameters is hammered from day one and we can accurately validate that with the debriefing tools available. To compare the inability of a 1960’s vintage fighter pilot employing early generation AIM-7s and AIM-9s to visualize the missile envelope with our current situation is just not valid.  Using the Ault report as a justification for increased training ordnance employment is kind of a stretch, IMO. We have video of WSEP shots from multiple angles. We can watch how missiles pull lead, correct trajectory, bad shots, the importance of a quarter plane to avoid gun debris, etc. 

I watched as many of those videos as I could get my hands on as a new guy.  I tried to shoot an AIM-9 as a newly MR wingman but it malfunctioned. I got to see an AIM-9 shot from the backseat another day. All valuable. My first live missiles were employed 6 months later on my first combat sortie. I heard about the delay when you hammer down on an AIM -7 and it takes an eternity to actually launch. It still made me start to say “ ah, WTF.....” until I heard the bitch light and become the great white hope. Would experiencing that in training have made me better equipped to employ it that day in combat?  Probably not.  There are just too many variables in A/A employment to say a single training shot is going to prepare a pilot for what he may encounter in combat.  

The Ault report involves ancient lessons that apply to fledgling employment of first generation A/A missiles by pilots without the tools we now possess to wield far more capable weapons. Should we ensure those weapons are maintained properly after captive carry sorties, sure. That’s common sense. Should we have guys shooting multiple missiles every year?  If we had an unlimited budget, sure.  Sooner in their career than later (but not too soon). Definitely.  Necessary for success in combat?  Probably not.  Just my .02. 

Edited November 17, 2019 by JeremiahWeed

[Clark Griswold]

I’d never argue against frequent live A/A missile and gun employment. They’re valuable, no doubt. I don’t see them as being quite so critical in 2019. We have so many tools available now to understand and visualize the actual WEZ of a particular A/A weapon. Employment within acceptable parameters is hammered from day one and we can accurately validate that with the debriefing tools available. To compare the inability of a 1960’s vintage fighter pilot employing early generation AIM-7s and AIM-9s to visualize the missile envelope with our current situation is just not valid.  Using the Ault report as a justification for increased training ordnance employment is kind of a stretch, IMO. We have video of WSEP shots from multiple angles. We can watch how missiles pull lead, correct trajectory, bad shots, the importance of a quarter plane to avoid gun debris, etc. 

I watched as many of those videos as I could get my hands on as a new guy.  I tried to shoot an AIM-9 as a newly MR wingman but it malfunctioned. I got to see an AIM-9 shot from the backseat another day. All valuable. My first live missiles were employed 6 months later on my first combat sortie. I heard about the delay when you hammer down on an AIM -7 and it takes an eternity to actually launch. It still made me start to say “ ah, WTF.....” until I head the bitch light and become the great white hope. Would experiencing that in training have made me better equipped to employ it that day in combat?  Probably not.  There are just too many variables in A/A employment to say a single training shot is going to prepare a pilot for what he may encounter in combat.  

The Ault report involves ancient lessons that apply to fledgling employment of first generation A/A missiles by pilots without the tools we now possess to wield far more capable weapons. Should we ensure those weapons are maintained properly after captive carry sorties, sure. That’s common sense. Should we have guys shooting multiple missiles every year?  If we had an unlimited budget, sure.  Sooner in their career than later (but not too soon). Definitely.  Necessary for success in combat?  Probably not.  Just my .02. 

Copy that - I think you are right about the absolute necessity on more missile shots in training (nice but not necessary)

Curious as to your opinion on the authors other point on the specialization or focus of Hornet squadrons to A/A or A/G was, no passive aggressive in that interrogative.

Skew training to favor one or the other - good idea or not so much?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JeremiahWeed]

2 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

Copy that - I think you are right about the absolute necessity on more missile shots in training (nice but not necessary)

Curious as to your opinion on the authors other point on the specialization or focus of Hornet squadrons to A/A or A/G was, no passive aggressive in that interrogative.

Skew training to favor one or the other - good idea or not so much?

I was a pure-bred F-15C guy.  Every mission I flew that jet I was thankful we had one focus - A/A.  That was essential to do that job as well as possible in that jet.  While a Hornet has evolved like the Eagle has, I'd guess it's pilots would still be well served by the luxury of a single mission focus.  Not sure if we can afford to do that given the limits on airframes and pilots these days.  Someone else would have to speak to multi-role effectiveness using 5th Gen capes now.  I'd always be a proponent of pure A/A pilots if possible.

[Clark Griswold]

3 hours ago, JeremiahWeed said:

I was a pure-bred F-15C guy.  Every mission I flew that jet I was thankful we had one focus - A/A.  That was essential to do that job as well as possible in that jet.  While a Hornet has evolved like the Eagle has, I'd guess it's pilots would still be well served by the luxury of a single mission focus.  Not sure if we can afford to do that given the limits on airframes and pilots these days.  Someone else would have to speak to multi-role effectiveness using 5th Gen capes now.  I'd always be a proponent of pure A/A pilots if possible.

Cool

Agree that single role is not likely to come back.

 

 

[di1630]

Cool
Agree that single role is not likely to come back.
 
 

Technology has advanced so far that if an airframe can be multi role, the pilot can handle it much easier now than 20 yrs ago.

Some airframes like the A-10 really can’t be multi role, but you also don’t want an F-35 wheeling over the battlefield so niche single missions are still viable.




Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app