Jump to content
Clark Griswold

Trends in Air to Air Combat

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

Restart on thread.

RT so caveat emptor but an interesting idea of a super interceptor and taking aerial warfare to sub-orbital:

http://alert5.com/2017/08/25/mig-41-mach-4-optionally-piloted-operate-in-space/

and another article on a "MiG 41"

http://russiafeed.com/russia-working-ultra-high-speed-mig-fighter-aircraft-capable-spaceflight/

 

Ah the ultra high fast flyer. DCA red air just got a whole lot more fun. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Seriously said:

Ah the ultra high fast flyer. DCA red air just got a whole lot more fun. 

Any value in the US developing a like platform?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like all my time-to-stern WEZ gouge just went out the window.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, VMFA187 said:

Looks like all my time-to-stern WEZ gouge just went out the window.

Maybe but I doubt they (Russians) will actually build this X-wing as it will cost a crap ton of rubles and unless oil goes up another $50 a barrel, I doubt they have the money to build a truly new platform.  Now a big upgrade to the MiG-31, maybe...  

They're still behind the 8 ball on the Su-57 and they are way down the line on developing that platform and need to follow thru.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Purpose built aggressor from a 4th gen fighter: SAAB PRESENTS GRIPEN AGGRESSOR

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/gripen-aggressor-targets-uk-us-requirements-441052/

 

getasset.aspx?itemid=71631

Doubtful it could/will happen but looking at their proposal (just the mock up and the articles linked above), I was wondering why they didn't offer this in a two crew configuration?  It would seem for a training aircraft, having a family model would be beneficial for a new dude to sit back and watch the fight, are ADAIR 38's usually flown single seat or do they usually fly with a second pilot or WSO to observe the scenario?

 

 

Edited by Clark Griswold

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only real value of a 2 seat would be if we bought the same aircraft for UPT and ADAIR. It would probably be more than needed for UPT equipment-wise, but at least there'd be a common aircraft for MX, logisitics, etc. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, brabus said:

The only real value of a 2 seat would be if we bought the same aircraft for UPT and ADAIR. It would probably be more than needed for UPT equipment-wise, but at least there'd be a common aircraft for MX, logisitics, etc. 

Copy that.  

On the idea of a T-X Aggressor, article from 2015 but as we are approaching FY18, I wonder if the $220 million that was referenced to be spent 2018 is still there for T-X aggressor kit development?

Did a quick pass on the SAF/FM page but no joy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

...are ADAIR 38's usually flown single seat or do they usually fly with a second pilot or WSO to observe the scenario?

Usually flown single seat.  The second seat is helpful to allow in-house upgrades and qualification though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, RTB said:

Usually flown single seat.  The second seat is helpful to allow in-house upgrades and qualification though.

Gotcha. 

One other question, are they talking about aggressor simulators for linked sim mission training or is this already happening in Virtual Flag?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Copy all.

Continuing on Aggressor Aircraft and just seeing how the other side did it sts, found a bit on the FSU's aggressor aircraft and program:

https://thelexicans.wordpress.com/2013/08/12/soviet-aggressor-program/

aggressorfulcrum2.png

Unsurprisingly, not much openly available but grist for the mill.

Question for 11Fs, if you could save one of the teen series fighters slated to be retired by the 35 as a "standard" aggressor for military provided training (in some specialized training configuration/mod), which do you think could give better training over the range of Air to Air threat simulation?  

F-15, 16 or 18?  Not phishing from Moscow or Beijing, and if OPSEC allows, informed opinions are appreciated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Clark Griswold said:

Copy all.

Continuing on Aggressor Aircraft and just seeing how the other side did it sts, found a bit on the FSU's aggressor aircraft and program:

https://thelexicans.wordpress.com/2013/08/12/soviet-aggressor-program/

aggressorfulcrum2.png

Unsurprisingly, not much openly available but grist for the mill.

Question for 11Fs, if you could save one of the teen series fighters slated to be retired by the 35 as a "standard" aggressor for military provided training (in some specialized training configuration/mod), which do you think could give better training over the range of Air to Air threat simulation?  

F-15, 16 or 18?  Not phishing from Moscow or Beijing, and if OPSEC allows, informed opinions are appreciated.

If money was no object?  F-15s with various radars. 

Most bank for the buck? F-16s with ea pods

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, HossHarris said:

If money was no object?  F-15s with various radars. 

Most bank for the buck? F-16s with ea pods

Copy that.  I thought the F-15 might be the preference (disregarding cost) for the performance, radar capability and size/capability for pods.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, HossHarris said:

If money was no object?  F-15s with various radars. 

Most bank for the buck? F-16s with ea pods

Concur, Fulcrums are no longer the baseline threat which have more similarities to Hornets and Vipers. Flankers are more accurately simulated by Eagles for a multitude of reasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, HossHarris said:

But eagles are getting pricey to operate and maintain ....

No doubt but this could be a good mission for the Joint Force, NATO, Aussies/Japan/SK burden sharing arrangement, not holding my breath for something like that, but a robust aggressor capability and training is a universal requirement for all the allies.  

On the AF keeping an organic aggressor mission... seems like a good fit for the ARC: depth of experience in units focusing on that mission, scalable at will for training cycles / deployments / new threats, etc... was it ever discussed to send that mission in whole or part to the ARC?  Put the units at or near domiciles and you would build and retain a high experience aggressor pilot cadre.  

Edited by Clark Griswold

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's already part of the ARC. Though there is not an entire ARC squadron with their own jets (at least I think the 38s are AD iron), but plenty of ARC guys work in an AD squadron.  I agree though, it's a mission that could work well in the ARC, especially for guys who are older, still want to fly something fast, but don't have the desire to keep up with all the requirements demanded by an F-X. Great for a part timer especially. 

Edited by brabus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/27/2017 at 6:17 AM, HossHarris said:

But eagles are getting pricey to operate and maintain ....

At least they’re still airworthy. Most legacy Hornets are not.

In hindsight, a mix of Eagles for standard Flankers and H/VF profiles and Super Hornets simulating reduced RCS Flankers would be ideal, even if incredibly unlikely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, brabus said:

It's already part of the ARC. Though there is not an entire ARC squadron with their own jets (at least I think the 38s are AD iron), but plenty of ARC guys work in an AD squadron.  I agree though, it's a mission that could work well in the ARC, especially for guys who are older, still want to fly something fast, but don't have the desire to keep up with all the requirements demanded by an F-X. Great for a part timer especially. 

Two of three Navy Aggressor squadrons are Reserve squadrons IIRC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/28/2017 at 5:18 AM, brabus said:

It's already part of the ARC. Though there is not an entire ARC squadron with their own jets (at least I think the 38s are AD iron), but plenty of ARC guys work in an AD squadron.  I agree though, it's a mission that could work well in the ARC, especially for guys who are older, still want to fly something fast, but don't have the desire to keep up with all the requirements demanded by an F-X. Great for a part timer especially. 

Gotcha - I should have clarified my point or idea would be for an ARC unit solely focused on the aggressor mission, owning the iron also.  I could see the ARC leery of converting a Wing over to this mission only so I would see it more as a squadron/detachment of an established wing, geo separated.

Put this in the not gonna happen column and probably not that much cheaper than flying an aggressor modified F-15s but with the divestment of operational F-4s that would probably not need that much mod, buying F-4s from Greece, Germany, Turkey, Japan, etc... might be useful for an aggressor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/28/2017 at 5:51 PM, pbar said:

Two of three Navy Aggressor squadrons are Reserve squadrons IIRC.

All of them are.  VFA-204 is the only Navy Reserve squadron that pretends to still have a "strategic reserve" posture.  VFC-12, VFC-13, and VFC-111 are all adversary-only and Navy Reserve.  With Legacy Hornets, VFC12 and VFA-204 struggle to provide enough flyable aircraft and usually have to rely on each other to supplement support detachments.

NAWDC is active duty and does Top Gun support, but they are not an adversary squadron per se. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/27/2017 at 11:52 PM, Clark Griswold said:

On the AF keeping an organic aggressor mission... seems like a good fit for the ARC: depth of experience in units focusing on that mission, scalable at will for training cycles / deployments / new threats, etc... was it ever discussed to send that mission in whole or part to the ARC?  Put the units at or near domiciles and you would build and retain a high experience aggressor pilot cadre.  

- Put the aggressor mission in ARC units located at/near major airline domiciles.

- Have the blue air go TDY to the Red Air turf. 

- If the above bullet is not attainable, then staff it well enough so that guys only have to go TDY once or twice a year (1-2 weeks max).

- Non-deployale billets.

- Reduce monthly sortie requirements to be easily attainable in 2-3 days.

Do those things and you would have ZERO problems filling an Guard/Reserve squadron with part timers willing to fly aggressors.  Dreaming, I know.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, SocialD said:

- Put the aggressor mission in ARC units located at/near major airline domiciles.

- Have the blue air go TDY to the Red Air turf. 

- If the above bullet is not attainable, then staff it well enough so that guys only have to go TDY once or twice a year (1-2 weeks max).

- Non-deployale billets.

- Reduce monthly sortie requirements to be easily attainable in 2-3 days.

Do those things and you would have ZERO problems filling an Guard/Reserve squadron with part timers willing to fly aggressors.  Dreaming, I know.  

Yup 

If I were king for a day, put them also near established ranges, ideally with GCI and not too far from tankers, off the top of the cranium, LAX-LAS-SLC-DFW-MIA, fit some of those nice to have features.

Dreaming probably but all they can say is hell no, propose it and give'em a reason(s) for military aggressors vice contracted red air.  

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


×