Dogfights of Fifth Gen. Aircraft

[Laith]

It is widely agreed that in a scenario where a Fight Gen. fighter is facing a 4th gen. fighter, the fifth gen. fighter would be able to knock out the 4th gen before it even knew that the opponent was in the air simply becauce the 5th gen. have stealth capability.

However, what happens when two 5th generation fighters will face each other. BVR's are really knocked out of the equation because bothwill be invisible to each other in the long range scenario and it would come down to WWII style good old fashion dog fighting where it would be down to either guns or knocking each other out using IRST and other sensors for short range heat seeking missiles. In a way we are going back to the basics. Until the evolution of heat seeking sensors I think in a 5th gen. fighter environment we are looking at close range dog fights.

 

[AdamHnetka]

I think you are probably right. Time will tell, or it might not, since countries with 5th Gen fighters could tend to avoid shooting at each other. Seems to me something like that has happened before. There almost certainly will be some 5th Gen vs 4th or 4.5 Gen action in the next decade or so.

Anyway, I dont think anyone else wants to talk about this. :unknown

 

[zeven]

It is widely agreed that in a scenario where a Fight Gen. fighter is facing a 4th gen. fighter, the fifth gen. fighter would be able to knock out the 4th gen before it even knew that the opponent was in the air simply becauce the 5th gen. have stealth capability.

Is that so?

you know real life aint like one of NATOs simulations.

its alot of things you have to take under considerations.
- support
- whos attacking and whos defending
- tactics
- weapon systems
- how many units
and so on.
just to take it for granted that 5 gen "always will win" is stupidity
and stupidity and "fair" play that i assume you build you statement on. get ppl killed in war


in your world would Talibans not stand a day and all modern weapon platform in non stealth configuration is kamikaaze

ps.
i'm just tired to read, when ever the termonlogy "5 gen" is used everyone thinks it superior because of a feature, that is 30 years old.

 

[zeven]

Anyway, I dont think anyone else wants to talk about this. :unknown

true, indeed

 

[Laith]

Simulations are not every thing, but stealth is real and this is not 30 years old technology. We are talking about second generation of stealth aircraft. First gen. steal was F-117 and it is being retired out of service by 2010. Second gen. Stealth is F-22, JSF, and Pak-Fa. BVR missiles rely on radar guidance to lock on to a target and well there is not any existing radar system that can really detect them for a sustained period of time. Either way most fighter jets even in the last decade have been shot down in dogfights as opposed to using BVRs. Most analysts and fighter pilots also agree that most BVRs can be dodged off with agressive maneouvering and countermeasures like chaffs.

 

[PeterCrisp]

It really annoys me when people call stealth aircraft "invisible" as they just simply are not. Sure they are harder to spot on radar but we just make better radar otherwise we'd all just wave a white flag and give in to the Oh so mighty F22. If stealth was such a wonder weapon why did the EU spend so much on the not exactly stealthy Eurofighter when they could have bought less airframes but with stealth (unless you think only the US has the technology which would seem slightly odd given the Europe also has some fairly brainy people).

 

[Laith]

That is why half of Europe is buy JSF including the Brits. Many European Airforces are not going for 4.5 gen solution at all but rather joining USA in the development of the JSF. I am not going into the whole area of why they did not develop the "5th gen" solution on their own because that discussion is for an entirely different thread with a different topic.

 

[zeven]

That is why half of Europe is buy JSF including the Brits. Many European Airforces are not going for 4.5 gen solution at all but rather joining USA in the development of the JSF. I am not going into the whole area of why they did not develop the "5th gen" solution on their own because that discussion is for an entirely different thread with a different topic.

i said, 30 year old concept.

LOL! So you want to compare VLO to jet technology? Well, thats what the LM marketing hype wants you to believe, but if you look at reality it's a bit different. Only 21 B-2 has been built, non stealth bombers are still the backbone of the US strategic air force and no other stealth bomber has still even been designed. F-117 has already been taken out of service while many older non stealth planes are still flying on and the F-22 has been slashed from 750 to 183.

Actually if you look at the real world results VLO technology has so far been a failure. The extreme and costly VLO seems more suitable as a silver bullet asset, like the snipers role in the army. But of course USA has just refrained from fielding any significant numbers of stealth combat aircrafts to be nice to the enemy.


JSF doses not have one singel customer yet in europe. so be aware what you are saying here.

and what about this: US is the only country yet, to have stealth as a demand.

 

[moahunter]

and what about this: US is the only country yet, to have stealth as a demand.

That's because the US is the only country with this technology. If the Europeans had it, they would have designed the euro-fighter differently. The US is 30 years ahead of anyone else right now in aircraft technology, and that is almost entirely attributable to stealth.

They have thrown out a limited version "bone" in the F35, and everybody is jumping at it (despite concerns over technology transfer / maintenance, which is why there are hold backs and even cancellations perhaps now) as it is the best available. The F22 will remain well ahead of anything else in the air for the foreseeable future though. No-body else has the multiple billions required to develop anything close to comparable. If they could, they would, but the can't, there just aren't the cold war budgets left around anymore to produce such technology, or even to reverse engineer it.

 

[gf0012-aust]

i said, 30 year old concept.

Actually, LO in aircraft design started from 1911. The design concept history is in these forums if you care to look for it. In real terms, LO in jet powered aircraft started in 1947. (which led to the eventual design of the U2)

LOL! So you want to compare VLO to jet technology? Well, thats what the LM marketing hype wants you to believe, but if you look at reality it's a bit different.

Funny how kids from other countries naysay about the benefits of LO, and yet russia, china and india are making considerable effort to deliver manned LO/VLO solutions. Yes the reality is a bit different. Then they fail to completely understand that the LO and VLO advances have resulted in VLO/LO weapons systems as an adjunct to LO/VLO delivery. No idea, but they keep on bleating.

Only 21 B-2 has been built, non stealth bombers are still the backbone of the US strategic air force and no other stealth bomber has still even been designed.

• the USAF worked out that they didn't need B-52 numbers to meet the mission end statement
• B2's are only one part of the nuclear delivery equation - and the US doesn't need to focus on intercontinental delivery by manned air platforms. It's why the US and a few other nuclear weaponised states have 3 primary delivery options. The end of the Cold War saw a sea change shift in what the US regarded as end state delivery equivalency (and overall endstate overmatch)

F-117 has already been taken out of service

The stinkbug was taken out of service as it's RCS and mission requirements were met by the F-22 and JSF. Precision weapons design since 1983 is completely different. A plane that was made from basically 6 other standard aircraft with a VLO body was no longer regarded as relevant when other systems were in the pipe.

while many older non stealth planes are still flying on and the F-22 has been slashed from 750 to 183.

and you miss the issue that as far as some DefSecStates, Congress and even Snr Mil Officers are concerned, the future battles are not State on State and so the focus should shift to rapid mobility against non sophisticated technology players such as terrorists operating out of inert nation states.

others will rightly argue that an emergent conflict is unpredictable, so all capabilities should be maintained. The F-22 happens to be in the transition of this philosophy stage - but it ignores the bottom line that the JSF is still regarded as their pre-eminent volume aircraft as the F-22 fills a niche manned capability.

Arguing the slash of F-22 numbers based on VLO competency is fanciful. But I guess thats why 3 other countries are hell bent on countering or developing their own.

Actually if you look at the real world results VLO technology has so far been a failure. The extreme and costly VLO seems more suitable as a silver bullet asset, like the snipers role in the army.

Hence why Russia, China, India are keen to develop manned solutions, US, France, UK, Poland, Japan, Germany, Israel are keen to field unmanned solutions. There are 3 different countries trialling reduced signature platforms in the middle of australia - obviously someone thinks its worthwhile at the tactical level.

You do realise that every generation of VLO aircraft released by the US has been a different design concept - and that within each release the cost of the development and maintenance has gone down (eg B-2)

and for goodness sake, making "silver bullet" statements again reinforces this teenage notion that it's the platform and not the system that wins battles. Learn to take a tactical systems view of this rather than a platform view and you might start to get the picture a bit better.

But of course USA has just refrained from fielding any significant numbers of stealth combat aircrafts to be nice to the enemy.

Grow up. You haven't demonstrated any comprehension of why modern systems have been developed and yet continue to trot out idiotic comments.

!st Warning issued. Read the Forum rules before posting anymore.

JSF doses not have one singel customer yet in europe. so be aware what you are saying here.

Worth noting. The world is also bigger than europe

and what about this: US is the only country yet, to have stealth as a demand.

what about what?

No, Russia, China and India have made persistent public comments about making aircraft to either match or exceed F-22 capabilities in the LO medium.

The US has been building jet powered LO aircraft since 1959 - its now on its 4th to 5th generation of manned solutions.

No one else has been able to deliver anything except press statements and mock ups (since 1959)

 

[SlyDog]

However, what happens when two 5th generation fighters will face each other. BVR's are really knocked out of the equation because both will be invisible to each other in the long range scenario and it would come down to WWII style good old fashion dog fighting where it would be down to either guns or knocking each other out using IRST and other sensors for short range heat seeking missiles. In a way we are going back to the basics. Until the evolution of heat seeking sensors I think in a 5th gen. fighter environment we are looking at close range dog fights.

Good question. I and a friend was discussing about this for few weeks ago. Intriguing to think about how different technologies affect or "fight" each other. Radar, radar stealth, missile range, IR-missiles, depression of IR-emission etc.

Wild speculation. Wonder if it's possible build a fighter with fuel cells and engine ( "embedded" with air intake like a jet ) running a fan well hidden in the airframe. Should result in less IR-emission, right?

 

[gf0012-aust]

Good question. I and a friend was discussing about this for few weeks ago. Intriguing to think about how different technologies affect or "fight" each other. Radar, radar stealth, missile range, IR-missiles, depression of IR-emission etc.

Nothing has changed.

It's about systems NOT platforms. It's about training.

LO aircraft have been around since 1911 (when the first aircraft was made less visible by coating it in clear formable plastic used for car windscreens).

Whoever manages the battlespace manages advantage. It doesn't matter whether it's 3rd, 4th 5th or 6th generation aircraft solutions.

 

[SlyDog]

gf0012-aust:

I agree with you. It's not specific for 5 gen.fighter. But no one can deny that different technologys on/in platforms are used to win advantages on the battlefield, right?

Edit:

gf0012-aust: I pondering about your latest post about "systems". I interpreting you as platforms are not fighting alone, but are supported in different ways. And must therefore be seen in a "system context"?

 

[AegisFC]

F-117 has already been taken out of service while many older non stealth planes are still flying on and the F-22 has been slashed from 750 to 183.

The F-117 was a one trick pony that used quite a few parts from planes that are now long out of service (the F-104 for example) to save money during development and production. As time went on those parts became increasingly hard to find and the first generation stealth was manpower intensive compared to F-22 and F-35.

The reasons the plane was withdrawn is discussed a couple times in this forum if you do a search.

 

[Feanor]

I pondering about your latest post about "systems". I interpreting you as platforms are not fighting alone, but are supported in different ways. And must therefore be seen in a "system context"?

Yes. And not just supported but must coordinate their actions with other platforms or rather formations, in the battlespace to achieve specific goals. So for example when you look at the defeat of the Iraqi forces in the Second Gulf War, your first reaction shouldn't be to jump to comparing a T-72M1 and an M1A2, but instead to look at the support assets available to the Iraqi units, the effectiveness of their central planning (or lack thereof), air support available for both sides, artillery support, presence of combined arms tactics, or lack of, etc. etc. etc.

EDIT: To make a more relevant example, when examining an engagement between a 4th gen. and a 5th gen., you have to take into account all the other factors. So for example lets say we have a squadron of 4th gen. Flankers MKIs or the like, defending a target that a unit (lets say less then a full squadron) of F-35's is heading towards. The Flankers have extensive GCI, with redundant radar coverage of the immediate vicinity, a handful of theater/division level SAMs, and plenty of tac-SAMs, coupled with volumes of MANPADS and guided AAA (yes I know how little it can do in most cases), and an AWACS. All of a sudden, if the radar coverage manages to detect the inbound Lightnings, potentially even get targetting data, then all of a sudden we have a situation where the JSF could find itself outmatched on a system level, even though on a platform level they're quite clearly superior to the Flankers.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Yes and no. While the defeat of many Iraqi T-72 battalions by M1A1 units had a lot to do with the Iraqi’s terrible military skills (see Military Power: Explaining Victory and Defeat in Modern Battle by Stephen Biddle) there were plenty of comparatives to be drawn between the two vehicles. Like the M1A1’s ability to withstand direct hits from the T-72 and the latter’s catastrophic explosions when hit by fires.

The F-35 and its system are designed to bring down a systematic defence. Using electronic attack, SEAD/DEAD, stand off weapons and so on it can disrupt and destroy the FCI network and ground based defences. Rather than just fly on in and tangle with the FLANKERs they will peck at the surface degrading the defences until the FLANKERs are left flying figure eights in the sky wondering where the attacks are coming from.

 

[Feanor]

Yes and no. While the defeat of many Iraqi T-72 battalions by M1A1 units had a lot to do with the Iraqi’s terrible military skills (see Military Power: Explaining Victory and Defeat in Modern Battle by Stephen Biddle) there were plenty of comparatives to be drawn between the two vehicles. Like the M1A1’s ability to withstand direct hits from the T-72 and the latter’s catastrophic explosions when hit by fires.

After you work in the horrible maintenance, the outdated gear on them, and the complete lack of support assets, there is not much comparing left to do. Now granted the downgraded cheapie export variant T-72M1 that the Iraqis had, lack of modern ERA, modern FCS, thermals, and many other things, surely contributed, but most certainly was not the main reason (or even a major reason) for the poor performance of Iraqi tank units.

The F-35 and its system are designed to bring down a systematic defence. Using electronic attack, SEAD/DEAD, stand off weapons and so on it can disrupt and destroy the FCI network and ground based defences. Rather than just fly on in and tangle with the FLANKERs they will peck at the surface degrading the defences until the FLANKERs are left flying figure eights in the sky wondering where the attacks are coming from.

Yes and no. Given sufficient time, they could definetly do this, especially through a series of low-intensity strikes against various elements of the system I outlined. But if they were on a timetable to deliver a strike package onto a target protected by what I detailed earlier, then they would be in for some trouble.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

After you work in the horrible maintenance, the outdated gear on them, and the complete lack of support assets, there is not much comparing left to do. Now granted the downgraded cheapie export variant T-72M1 that the Iraqis had, lack of modern ERA, modern FCS, thermals, and many other things, surely contributed, but most certainly was not the main reason (or even a major reason) for the poor performance of Iraqi tank units.

At the end of the day a bunch of T-72s drove forward into battle head to head against M1A1s and got thumped. While the loss-destroy ratios wouldn't be so bad if the T-72s were the latest T-90s crewed by motivated and trained soldiers the reality is the M1A2 still has better sights, better fire control, better gun, better armour, better communications, etc.

Yes and no. Given sufficient time, they could definetly do this, especially through a series of low-intensity strikes against various elements of the system I outlined. But if they were on a timetable to deliver a strike package onto a target protected by what I detailed earlier, then they would be in for some trouble.

The degradation of the air battle force would happen as part of the strike mission. This idea that the F-35s would fly in dumb and just drop bombs is ignorance.

You really don't know what you are talking about. Obviously you have a pre-conceived view point that Russian weapons, all of which were designed in the 1960-70s are as good as the latest USA sourced stuff. You will argue any avenue of ignorance to achieve this. Further discussion is pointless while you continue to define this argument with such a knowledge free boundary.

 

[Feanor]

At the end of the day a bunch of T-72s drove forward into battle head to head against M1A1s and got thumped. While the loss-destroy ratios wouldn't be so bad if the T-72s were the latest T-90s crewed by motivated and trained soldiers the reality is the M1A2 still has better sights, better fire control, better gun, better armour, better communications, etc.

The T-90A is a different tank, so it doesn't really belong in the conversation, in terms of comparison. And notice that my emphasis was that the real reason that the Iraqi's were defeated so badly lay not nearly as much in the tanks themselves as in the support assets, and other factors, that are needed to the make the deployment of tanks as a platform on the battlefield effective.

The degradation of the air battle force would happen as part of the strike mission. This idea that the F-35s would fly in dumb and just drop bombs is ignorance.

Without AWACS, dedicated ECM support, or superior intel, again the F-35's would be hard pressed to overcome the odds which I described. I think you're missing the point of what I wrote though. It was meant as an example of systems analysis vs. platform analysis, and why you need to analyze on the systems level, as opposed to the platform by platform level, to be able to see the real situation.

You really don't know what you are talking about. Obviously you have a pre-conceived view point that Russian weapons, all of which were designed in the 1960-70s are as good as the latest USA sourced stuff. You will argue any avenue of ignorance to achieve this. Further discussion is pointless while you continue to define this argument with such a knowledge free boundary.

What this has to do with Russian weapons is beyond me. I was giving an example of why it's important to analyze beyond comparing platforms. I also don't understand why you assume all Russian weapons were designed in the 60's-70's. That kind of base assumption can only come from a complete lack of concrete knowledge in the area of Russian weapons development.

We could easily reverse the situation and talk about a PAK-FA strike mission flying unsupported against a target protected by Patriots, Hawks, and F-15's, with redundant radar coverage, and AWACS support. It would not change my point.

 

[SlyDog]

To make a more relevant example, when examining an engagement between a 4th gen. and a 5th gen., you have to take into account all the other factors. So for example lets say we have a squadron of 4th gen. Flankers MKIs or the like, defending a target that a unit (lets say less then a full squadron) of F-35's is heading towards. The Flankers have extensive GCI, with redundant radar coverage of the immediate vicinity, a handful of theater/division level SAMs, and plenty of tac-SAMs, coupled with volumes of MANPADS and guided AAA (yes I know how little it can do in most cases), and an AWACS. All of a sudden, if the radar coverage manages to detect the inbound Lightnings, potentially even get targetting data, then all of a sudden we have a situation where the JSF could find itself outmatched on a system level, even though on a platform level they're quite clearly superior to the Flankers.

Thanks Feanor, this seems to explain the main idea behind the system approach in a way I can understand pretty well.