Jump to content
Clark Griswold

Trends in Air to Air Combat

Recommended Posts

Yup - Coram's book I think does a good job showing his thought process evolving from the practical to the theoretical to the philosophical.

Haven't seen anything on Boyd's opinion or thoughts on stealth / low observability - did he ever write / present on stealth / lo ?

Minor edit.

Edited by Clark Griswold

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup - Coram's book I think does a good job showing his thought process evolving from the practical to the theoretical to the philosophical.

Haven't seen anything on Boyd's opinion or thoughts on stealth / low observability - did he ever write / present on stealth / lo ?

Minor edit.

If it didn't involve "hosing" someone, he probably thought it was stupid.

I would theorize that he wouldn't be crazy about it due to his and his acolytes thoughts about simple, pure dogfighting, BFM machines.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it didn't involve "hosing" someone, he probably thought it was stupid.

I would theorize that he wouldn't be crazy about it due to his and his acolytes thoughts about simple, pure dogfighting, BFM machines.

Possibly so. Interesting that he pushed the "Red Bird" which was not going to have a radar as an alternative to the F-15, OODA is about first gathering information on what is happening and I never understood why he would not have been at least somewhat interested in the BVR fight prior to a WVR fight. I don't think he ever flew a fighter with a radar so without that first hand experience, it just didn't interest him I suppose.

Another article on Stillion's presentation.

http://breakingdefense.com/2015/04/should-future-fighter-be-like-a-bomber-groundbreaking-csba-study/

Idea is very "all eggs in one basket" unless you would cut the UCAVs loose to go beast mode on whatever doesn't squawk the right IFF if the mothership had to run for cover, got shot down or the links were jammed. Probability of that happening: 0.00001%

Good point brought up though not related to his new air superiority concept was on page 50 with the probable requirement for HVAAs, namely tankers to operate 500-750 NM from contested airspace (China-Taiwan scenario). He's not the only one to bring this up but instead of a UCAV controlling mothership, an LO tanker with a sensor suite to datalink the picture without the CAP having to transmit might be an evolution of how we fight to operate in A2/AD. A tanker version of the proposed FB-22 or LSRB could work.

Edited by Clark Griswold

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pilots of the future will need to understand an aircraft's net energy state.
Take all the points in a plane of motion and compute the induced and parasitic drag expended by laying a WEZ on them. This is energy that would otherwise have been converted into altitude or airspeed. A heat map of a T-38's level turns at 20k' MSL shows what this looks like. Blue is cheap and red is expensive:
post-27860-0-43905700-1429067122_thumb.p
open in new tab to make it bigger (STS)
Now you can track an aircraft's net energy state just like a person's net worth. You take assets (airspeed & altitude) and subtract liabilities (energy needed to lay a WEZ on the bandit's current position). The result is net energy state. So, which is better for a hypothetical level 2-circle T-38 setup at 20k' MSL: 3.5 G's or 3.0 G's?
post-27860-0-34601200-1429067198_thumb.p
3.0 G's maintains altitude & airspeed while moving the WEZ 5,000 units closer to an unrealized kill. Net gain = 5,000 units. Pilot dies.
3.5 G's depletes 2,000 units of altitude & airspeed while moving the WEZ 10,000 units closer to a realized kill. Net gain = 8,000 units. Pilot lives.
Altitude & airspeed can't tell the whole story - they incorrectly predict the winner above. Plus, altitude & airspeed are so 1964:
post-27860-0-41816900-1429067925_thumb.p
It's 2015 and it's about time we learn how to quantify energy versus position.
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's 2015 and it's about time we learn how to quantify energy versus position.

Defensive Egg

?p=174022

Edited by stract
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good point brought up though not related to his new air superiority concept was on page 50 with the probable requirement for HVAAs, namely tankers to operate 500-750 NM from contested airspace (China-Taiwan scenario).

I suggest you find a tanker patch (I swear they exist) and have an actual discussion about that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pilots of the future will need to understand an aircraft's net energy state.
Take all the points in a plane of motion and compute the induced and parasitic drag expended by laying a WEZ on them. This is energy that would otherwise have been converted into altitude or airspeed. A heat map of a T-38's level turns at 20k' MSL shows what this looks like. Blue is cheap and red is expensive:
open in new tab to make it bigger (STS)
Now you can track an aircraft's net energy state just like a person's net worth. You take assets (airspeed & altitude) and subtract liabilities (energy needed to lay a WEZ on the bandit's current position). The result is net energy state. So, which is better for a hypothetical level 2-circle T-38 setup at 20k' MSL: 3.5 G's or 3.0 G's?
3.0 G's maintains altitude & airspeed while moving the WEZ 5,000 units closer to an unrealized kill. Net gain = 5,000 units. Pilot dies.
3.5 G's depletes 2,000 units of altitude & airspeed while moving the WEZ 10,000 units closer to a realized kill. Net gain = 8,000 units. Pilot lives.
Altitude & airspeed can't tell the whole story - they incorrectly predict the winner above. Plus, altitude & airspeed are so 1964:
It's 2015 and it's about time we learn how to quantify energy versus position.

ik49VlPshlPIz.gif

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suggest you find a tanker patch (I swear they exist) and have an actual discussion about that.

Don't doubt they exist but just curious and keeping OPSEC front and center, are you saying that the tankers, AWACs, Rivets, etc.. could get closer?

I think that (the 500-750 NM standoff) is the worst case on Day 1 but they have a some serious reach from the mainland, HVAAs are going to have to keep their distances as China has learned from watching us fight for the last 25 years. If we went to fisticuffs, there is no way they would let us either operate our force enabling assets in orbits close to them (inside of 500 NM) nor from MOBs just outside that range (Clark AB).

Reference these missile rings:

weaponsplatforms.png

They would crater the shit out of any runway on a daily basis (unless we intercepted the daily SSM barrage) to keep our HVAAs from operating anywhere close.

My idea for the trend in air to air combat is that LO needs to be incorporated into some larger, non-fighter aircraft if we want to continue to fight with AR, AWACS, EA, etc... this is just an example of where it would help to mitigate the A2/AD threat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is your argument that Surface to Surface missiles are keeping aircraft from flying into a ring 500nm from China?

No, but they could initially deny operations from MOBs like Kadena and Misawa while delaying or denying deployment to Clark AB. Guam is still just outside of the range rings but not so far that an improved DF could not reach it without too much effort or money spent improving it.

My argument is that the way we plan to fight and the losses we are willing to accept make preparing to fight with conventional HVAAs at very long range orbits just necessary. A compliment of LO HVAAs will enable us to fight the way we do now in A2/AD environments with an appropriate amount of risk. Going back to the start of the thread, Stillion argues for a radical departure in tactics / systems to achieve and sustain air superiority and I think an evolution (LO HVAAs) is more feasible and far less risky.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure how realistic making a HVAA LO is. Pretty hard to make a 707 or 767 stealthy. I guess you can slap a special coat of paint on it and move a couple miles closer to the FEBA. But is that really worth it? It would probably be easier to make fighters more fuel efficient/carry more gas than it would to camouflage a city bus.

Has anyone seriously tried reducing the radar/IR signature on a large aircraft?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anyone seriously tried reducing the radar/IR signature on a large aircraft?

The Buff but that requires a new crew position, not just slapping an ECM pod on a hard point. I would also imagine the previous 707 version of AF One has some system. Neither of these aircraft have a boom or larger engines which complicates the matter. I would usually say not worth it, but the soft kill of all the tankers would get attention (read money).

Posted from the NEW Baseops.net App!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure how realistic making a HVAA LO is. Pretty hard to make a 707 or 767 stealthy. I guess you can slap a special coat of paint on it and move a couple miles closer to the FEBA. But is that really worth it? It would probably be easier to make fighters more fuel efficient/carry more gas than it would to camouflage a city bus.

Has anyone seriously tried reducing the radar/IR signature on a large aircraft?

It can be done, for a metric ton of money but it can be done. The 130 and the B-2 are roughly the same size and weight. That by itself doesn't mean a new LO HVAA platform should be that level of signature reduction or could be done affordable for an operationally relevant fleet size but it is an example of large aircraft built with stealth in mind from the beginning.

Stealth tanker / airlift has been proposed and nothing done about it but a common platform with a modular mission bay could be a significant change to put stealth into the least stealthy part of how we do major air ops, namely the tanker, airlift, ELINT and EA missions to support the Night 1 strikes.

Cutaway of a Speed Agile proposal:

e19dfc7c-f2b5-491b-87a4-85fb572abe66.Ful

Take a platform like this and make it modular to be an LO tanker, airlift, ELINT, or inside a WEZ stand-off weapons delivery platform. Not that you have to build the capability to roll on roll off in 4 hours from one mission type to the next but a basic modular airframe to support these missions. I don't think you could convince the remaining bomber generals to support this but I think something like this rather than an LRSB that comes in under 550 mil a copy is more feasible.

Edited by Clark Griswold

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about we go back to the concept of EA? Wave forms are far easier and typically cheaper to change than paint schemes and wing lines. Plus if you are talking pods, I can slap them on just about anything. I'm not saying LO doesn't have its place, it just seems that every LO plane prices it out of of the numbers required when we see attrition. We have to find a balance before the 69th generation fighter/bomber/recce platform etc will eat up the entire budget.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about we go back to the concept of EA? Wave forms are far easier and typically cheaper to change than paint schemes and wing lines. Plus if you are talking pods, I can slap them on just about anything. I'm not saying LO doesn't have its place, it just seems that every LO plane prices it out of of the numbers required when we see attrition. We have to find a balance before the 69th generation fighter/bomber/recce platform etc will eat up the entire budget.

lol 130 million dollar per plane busted by 50 million dollar radar/missile upgrade. we need a combination of LO strike/superiority aircraft (low numbers) and high punch low cost tradition platforms (high numbers).

that way we can go in, knock out the radar and missiles and make them come and duke it out with us if they really want to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol 130 million dollar per plane busted by 50 million dollar radar/missile upgrade. we need a combination of LO strike/superiority aircraft (low numbers) and high punch low cost tradition platforms (high numbers).

that way we can go in, knock out the radar and missiles and make them come and duke it out with us if they really want to.

Make this man a general.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol 130 million dollar per plane busted by 50 million dollar radar/missile upgrade. we need a combination of LO strike/superiority aircraft (low numbers) and high punch low cost tradition platforms (high numbers).

that way we can go in, knock out the radar and missiles and make them come and duke it out with us if they really want to.

Based on what the Navy is saying these days, I think that's about their plan; keeping a lot of Super Hornets and Growlers to do the bulk of the work with F-35s and stealthy UCAVs to knock out the dangerous threats early on. I would love to see the F-16 fully modernized and maintained in large numbers. I'm not saying the Eagle is total crap, but I believe replacing those aircraft with F-35s first, would keep our cost-effective Vipers flying longer and free up some funds to modernize them. Now that the Raptor is finally starting to flex it's muscles, I think the Eagle, particularly the C model, can now move on to the big Hangar in the sky.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Based on what the Navy is saying these days, I think that's about their plan; keeping a lot of Super Hornets and Growlers to do the bulk of the work with F-35s and stealthy UCAVs to knock out the dangerous threats early on. I would love to see the F-16 fully modernized and maintained in large numbers. I'm not saying the Eagle is total crap, but I believe replacing those aircraft with F-35s first, would keep our cost-effective Vipers flying longer and free up some funds to modernize them. Now that the Raptor is finally starting to flex it's muscles, I think the Eagle, particularly the C model, can now move on to the big Hangar in the sky.

You may be right about the Navy being less than interested in buying the full compliment of F-35Cs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Based on what the Navy is saying these days, I think that's about their plan; keeping a lot of Super Hornets and Growlers to do the bulk of the work with F-35s and stealthy UCAVs to knock out the dangerous threats early on. I would love to see the F-16 fully modernized and maintained in large numbers. I'm not saying the Eagle is total crap, but I believe replacing those aircraft with F-35s first, would keep our cost-effective Vipers flying longer and free up some funds to modernize them. Now that the Raptor is finally starting to flex it's muscles, I think the Eagle, particularly the C model, can now move on to the big Hangar in the sky.

I swear its like NO ONE read the 08' RAND report... like this shit is fundamentally ed from a numbers perspective... lets not even get into Air-Air against other fighters, who the is going to protect the tankers when the -22s and -35s run out of missiles?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I swear its like NO ONE read the 08' RAND report... like this shit is fundamentally fucked from a numbers perspective... lets not even get into Air-Air against other fighters, who the fuck is going to protect the tankers when the -22s and -35s run out of missiles?

Started looking over the report, while the air superiority situation is not good for us; the naval and amphibious landing situation for the PLA is very tough. They basically have to clear mines, quickly erected barricades, defensive positions, air defenses, enemy fighters and strike aircraft and mobile artillery all while under fire and having limited resources to absorb and replace losses in their naval task force.

Just scanning the report, RAND seems to think they can maintain local air superiority over the strait, maybe over the island but with PGMs, the invasion force crossing the strait will be atrited to a point they will not be operationally effective when on the island. Pretty much if the PLA invades, they probably could get on the island, establish air superiority over the Taiwan strait maybe over the island but then they are in a bloody slow grinding fight to take the island. A military operation with a significant chance of failure.

From page 118 of the report:

We nonetheless conclude that, even under these circumstances, an invasion of Taiwan would, in the face of properly prepared defenses, remain a bold and possibly foolish gamble on Beijing’s part. There are three main reasons for this.

1. China has never actually done an amphibious landing offensive military operation. Taiwan has prepared to defend their territory & defense is inherently easier.

2. China does not have enough (as of now) amphibious landing ships for the size of the force needed to be landed and in an operationally feasible time frame.

3. China would be concentrating forces for landings and initial force movements that would be ideal for PGM engagement and likely to be bogged down in Taiwan's multiple layered defenses when on the island.

While China could initially keep us from using MOBs like Clark and damage Kadena, Misawa, etc...eventually we would be in numbers in theater. They would get mauled pretty badly in the invasion and even if it is successful, it would likely be a Pyrrhic victory at best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×