124 replies to this topic

[Saint Scarlett Johan]

visionGT4, on 15 February 2017 - 11:15 AM, said:

/tank nerd ON
Some very interesting pictures have come out of Syria recently, interesting in the sense that what many assumed (myself included) to be the composition of modern composite front turret armor arrays is not the case at all(steel + alloy + some form of quartz/ceramic in a matrix). Where as in fact its 'simply' a combination of NERA & NxRA.

For what its worth, one does not 'trap' a modern Long Rod Penetrator, one attempts to destabilise the penetrator and where possible erode the tip (with DU being self sharpening... its not easy) to reduce penetration. Nor does one resist an explosive round (assuming HEAT here?), eroding the jet by early fusing and placing more material in front of the jet is the current defeat mechanism of choice.

Some one earlier mentioned that the Armor vs Firepower balance has swung back in favour of the firepower which is spot on. The proliferation of heavy RPG's (RPG29) and ATGM's (AT6/Kornet) really has turned the tide. THE TANK IS DEAD! APS is probably the next technical evolution in AFV protection, which will then (thankfully!) herald a return of high velocity guns!

Right tread heads, whats the next topic:
4 man crews vs 3 men + an autoloader
What conclusions should be drawn from ODS in relation to what may have played out on the central front
that anything sam makes is automatically far superior to RoW
or my very very very favourite topic T64 vs M60 (e.g. clan tech vs IS tech)

The next step in armor development will be in anti-missile counters which can theoretically be mounted to any vehicle as light as a HMMWV.

So if you have good anti-missile countermeasures, then the next best way to knock out an armored vehicle is to hit it with a really big gun.

The advantage of missiles is that they can be utilized by anything ranging from grunts to helos to tanks. The disadvantages to missiles is they're fairly easy to counter with the right tech, with current modern systems like Shtora or Trophy render the vast majority of ATGMs useless.

The advantage of guns is they require heavy, complex armor to stop. The disadvantage is they require large, heavy vehicles to handle the weight and recoil.

So, no... tanks aren't dead. In fact, if anything modern AMS makes tanks that were once obsolete, like the T55, now no longer so obsolete.

[Alek Ituin]

razenWing, on 15 February 2017 - 03:20 AM, said:

You are making the difference like between 0 and 100. First of all, when we say YF-23's stealth signature is better, we are talking about the score of 100 to 98. BOTH platforms are invisible to modern radar spectrum outside of long wave radar. But at that point, it's not a matter of YF-22 or YF-23, you can have YF-400 and it wouldn't matter. Luckily, long wave radar is not precise enough to provide precise locations for things like a lock-on signature.

Second of all, no need to inflate Russian equipment because none of them have ever been successfully tested in combat. Remember how Mig-25 was like the supposed wonder plane? So no, to say that Russians will easily shake those locks and somehow launch missiles to counter all the missile launchers (which btw, as I stated, is a 3d environment) is just ridiculous. Everything they boast they can do have not been delivered. You know how I can independently verify this? Cause China and India have been buying Russians equipment for years including advance missile systems. But nope. No reports ever come out of these places that Russian equipment is giving them a miraculous edge over everyone else.

PS what's wrong with quoting Discovery Channel or History Channel? I trust them certainly a lot more than I trust you. They have actual interviews with people involved in the design process. Which part of the plane did you design? What advance weapon system did you design, ever? What is your qualification that I should trust you, over people actually working on these machines?

PS2 Where are these "consistent" failures that you are reading? There's maybe 1 article mentioning some dubious exercise in 2009 where 1 F-22 is shot down in mock battle. Which, as big of a deal as it is, remember that they still won with only 1 loss. Again, those exercises are done with strict parameters on the part of the F-22s to force them into dogfighting range. The F-16 Falcon is one of, if not the most nimble jet in dogfighting. Is the Falcon the best fighter plane today then? Cause there's an actual physical limitation to dogfighting. You are not going to push a plane to be more nimble than a design from the 70s. (outside of using a completely computerized jet where you can surpass the human limitation of 10-11g) But the measure of combat effectiveness is never just how cool you can be by dogfighting people.

Say whatever you want about the F-35. No weapon platform in existence can handle as much information while simultaneously fight in the infosphere. And it's not even close, everyone else is pretty much doing catchup. If the measurement is purely whether it can dogfight a F-16, then I'm sorry, your understanding of war is way in the last century.

PS 3 You keep bringing up ECM as if it's some miracle equipment. Understand that ECM is only a defensive/passive measure. It doesn't mean you are seeing the enemy better, or can attain locks better. Maybe we can't see precisely where you are (assuming, cause there are counter-ECM, but that's going too far), but what does that accomplish on your end? You are still fighting an enemy you can't see. Except, like the long wave radar argument, we know where you are, we just can't have a precise lock-on signature until verified.

Is it better to be not seen from the start to be a successful thief, or to boisterously come in a group of 50 guys in attempt to divert your attention from the real thief?

Ugh. Disgusting lack of reading comprehension by you.

1 - You seem to not understand a damn thing about missile guidance or radar tracking methods. You just demonstrated exactly why being stealthier, even by a small margin, is better than being a better dogfighter for an interceptor/intruder. No matter how much fancy paint you have on your plane, it's not going to hide it from a missile with IR terminal guidance. So to defeat your fancy stealth plane, you just need to use a long-wave as a director for a phased array radar, which can guide the missile close enough for terminal IR tracking to take over, which can be a few dozen kilometers depending on conditions. You literally cannot hide planes from modern IR trackers coming from ANY AoA. One of the very few downsides of turbojets, but oh well, physics is a cruel mistress.

2 - And US equipment is "combat" tested almost exclusively against third-world "militaries" using last-gen export equipment with little or no training on how to use it in the first place. Yeah, super conclusive. It's like Abrams fanbois screaming about how the Leopard 2 can't be better because it hasn't been "combat tested" like the Abrams... When the only f**king tanks the Abrams has been in combat against are T-72A's firing practice shells, crewed by morons, and not equipped with 2A46M's nor the 9M112 or 9M119 ATGM's they can fire. When we start combat testing our equipment against trained opponents using current-gen equipment, then you can spew about results.

3 - Because the History and Discovery channel are basically pro-US propaganda outlets. Any and all historical "documentaries" are full of rampant inaccuracies. Bum around some WWII history forums and you'll see what I'm talking about. I have enough spare material from my time on the WT forums to disprove damn near any History Channel claim you want to bring about WWII aircraft. Even mentioning History Channel as a source on most WWII forums is enough to get your laughed out of the thread, if not the forum itself. So if they can't get history correct, why should I trust them with current events? I'm not telling you to take me seriously just for reasons, I'm telling you that using those channels as sources is just plain bad.

4 - My god it's like you're not reading anything I'm saying. Let me go slow and internet yell it at you:
INTERCEPTORS. AND. INTRUDERS. NEED. TO. BE. FAST. AND. STEALTHY; NOT. MANEUVERABLE. IN. LOW. SPEED. DOGFIGHTS.

Oh, and on that topic, the F-16 would lose to any actual dogfighter, because actual dogfighters are super-maneuverable with thrust vectoring engines. The F-16 has neither of those attributes as far as I've seen, because the only mention of thrust vectoring with the F-16 is the F-16 Active TEST PLATFORM. In fact, between the F-14, F-15, and F-16, the only mention of them ever shooting down an actual Russian fighter is the F-15C taking down several Iraqi MiG-29's via missile fire. Either way, if you want to talk about dogfighting, the F-16 would get its arse handed to it by a real 4-4.5 gen fighter, like the Su-27. You just can't compete with a supermaneuverable aircraft in a battle where maneuverability is key.

But I digress. I specifically stated that for an aircraft in the current role of the F-22 (lets not beat around the bush here, the damn things are used as interceptors and intruders, not air superiority fighters ATM), the YF-23 would have been better SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE IT WASN'T MEANT TO DOGFIGHT. I literally said that dogfighting is obsolete. It's in my post, I pointed out that the Bf-109 proved that conventional notions of dogfighting were dead, replaced instead by "energy" fighting, relying on speed and energy to dominate and dictate the terms of the engagement. That's why I said the YF-23 was superior, because it was faster and stealthier, meaning that in a fight against the F-22, it could simply run and hide, then re-engage on its own terms. The YF-23 would never have to dogfight the F-22, simply make constant BnZ passes using its superior speed and stealth; that would minimize its vulnerability by minimizing the time it's within engagement range of the F-22. Eventually the F-22 would be too damaged to evade, and the YF-23 could finish it off at its leisure. Also, the pilot limit is 9 gees and AFAIK there's no aircraft rated for higher than 9 gees. Maybe some of the newer ones using better superalloys, but not any operational airframes I can see.

And finally for this point, the entire purpose of a fighter is not to be an ECM and infowar platform. It's to find, engage, and destroy enemy aircraft. Physically destroy them. Not just baffle their sensors and give them a hard time seeing things, I mean actually engaging them in combat. And as an aircraft, the F-35 just doesn't appear to be capable of matching anything in a WVR fight. And it's not nearly fast enough to run from enemy fighters, meaning that unless it's REALLY being undersold (I doubt it, it only has 1x 180kN engine, meaning only 56% of the thrust of the F-22, and you can only push 180kN so far), it'll be out-run and out-accelerated by a pure fighter. That means the F-35 will have to be incredibly maneuverable to compete in the inevitable WVR engagement, or covered by a vastly superior combat aircraft like the F-22. Lockheed is trying to do too many things with the F-35, and it's showing. Each additional role you try to add to a vehicle only waters it down and makes it worse at all of them.

5 - ECM replicates the effects of stealth aircraft coatings. It means that as much as they can't see you, you effectively can't see them. And unless you have anti-rad missiles packed (which you won't, because they're niche missiles and primarily AGM's at that), you can't fire radar guided munitions and get a hit. You have to close in to ~40km or so to be able to fire IR guided AAM's which can't be baffled by fancy paint or fancy pods, and at that point your stealth is moot. You can't hide engine exhaust from modern IR seekers, they WILL find you, and you better hope your flares/IRCM are good enough to spoof them. Problem is, IR missiles are getting smart enough that they're able to "ignore" countermeasures... Soon they'll be literally impossible to evade, unless you can somehow mask the massive thermal signature that is turbojet exhaust.

Also, I'm pretty sure 40-ish km counts as WVR, and at that point everything is f**ked.


I hope I covered everything...

[Alek Ituin]

Saint Scarlett Johan, on 15 February 2017 - 12:03 PM, said:

The next step in armor development will be in anti-missile counters which can theoretically be mounted to any vehicle as light as a HMMWV.

So if you have good anti-missile countermeasures, then the next best way to knock out an armored vehicle is to hit it with a really big gun.

The advantage of missiles is that they can be utilized by anything ranging from grunts to helos to tanks. The disadvantages to missiles is they're fairly easy to counter with the right tech, with current modern systems like Shtora or Trophy render the vast majority of ATGMs useless.

The advantage of guns is they require heavy, complex armor to stop. The disadvantage is they require large, heavy vehicles to handle the weight and recoil.

So, no... tanks aren't dead. In fact, if anything modern AMS makes tanks that were once obsolete, like the T55, now no longer so obsolete.

Except APS can intercept kinetic projectiles with ease, so no, using a gun is not the solution. Saturation tactics have to be used... Expect to see guided submunition cluster weaponry make an entrance soon. Fire enough projectiles and the APS can't shoot them all down in time. Hell, the Russians have made it literal protocol to fire multiple ATGM's at once at a target (and not just because the ATGM's in question are basically a dime a dozen) to overload any potential APS.

Although what remains to be seen is the efficacy of nanoalloy and nanoceramic armors against conventional munitions. IF they're as amazing as some think, then they could effectively level the playing field between arms and armor, for a time.

Zergling, on 15 February 2017 - 03:53 AM, said:

Lmao, someone has been reading RT and Sputnik.

Yeah... funny thing about the R-77? The Russian Air Force probably never accepted it into service; their primary BVR missile is still the semi-active homing R-27.

Only in late 2015 did the Russians announce plans to purchase a useful number of R-77s, but it is still unknown if they'll actually go through with it or if they actually will end up putting a useful number of the missiles into service.

In case you didn't notice, the Eurofighter Typhoon is a $200 million USD aircraft, up there with the F-22 in cost.

K then.

R-27's are still highly capable missiles with performance specs equal to current US munitions. And since the R-27 comes in both IR and SARH guidance variants, as well as extended range variants for both guidance types, it's still a viable missile. Though good point on the basic R-77's not being in service, that was a poor oversight on my part. Apparently there have been sightings of R-77-1's on Russian fighters though, so perhaps some variants are in service.

You're right, it's not less than half the cost, it's 64% of the cost of a F-22. Still a significant chunk of change when you factor in that their price tags: EFT is 96 million USD, F-22 is 150 million USD. So if I buy an EFT, I can put an ECM pod on it and still have at 50+ million USD to play with.

[Wildstreak]

Locust does have arm weapons.
They build it because it is cheap.
If you think a Locust is sad, you should have seen the article on 5, 10 and 15 ton Mechs.

Mentioning the Catapult's off-road ability provides 1 answer for you.

Arm weapons are also preferred in TT because of weapon arcs when firing, this is sometimes but less often seen in MWO.

[Saint Scarlett Johan]

Alek Ituin, on 15 February 2017 - 08:11 PM, said:

Except APS can intercept kinetic projectiles with ease, so no, using a gun is not the solution.

The APS designed to stop KE doesn't play well with thin skinned. So the APS that can take down missiles can often and is often mounted on trucks as light as an Uparmored HMMWV, the ERA that can prevent or lessen the effects of KE can really only be mounted safely on vics such as IFV/AFVs and heavier.

So yes, the best way to knock out non-MBT armored vics is to slam an APFSDS round into it's side. A Bradley, Stryker, BMD, or BMP with ERA is not going to live with a sabot fired from a 120 or 125mm gun slamming into it.

[Alek Ituin]

Saint Scarlett Johan, on 15 February 2017 - 08:22 PM, said:

The APS designed to stop KE doesn't play well with thin skinned. So the APS that can take down missiles can often and is often mounted on trucks as light as an Uparmored HMMWV, the ERA that can prevent or lessen the effects of KE can really only be mounted safely on vics such as IFV/AFVs and heavier.

So yes, the best way to knock out non-MBT armored vics is to slam an APFSDS round into it's side. A Bradley, Stryker, BMD, or BMP with ERA is not going to live with a sabot fired from a 120 or 125mm gun slamming into it.

If it's pyrophoric, sure, you'll probably kill all/most of the crew. Otherwise, it's going in one side and out the other, leaving a nice quarter sized hole in both panels. APFSDS does NOT do well against light targets, because it's specifically designed to limit the amount of kinetic energy imparted on the target when impacting. If it was a conventional full-caliber 120-125mm shell, then sure. That's why you use HEAT in one of its various forms on light vehicles, because it WILL kill the little ******* dead. Shotgun blasts of molten copper microshrapnel are pretty dang effective at murderizing the inside of... everything, actually.

Seriously though, A3's are too valuable to waste on an APC/AFV, and it's simultaneously severe overkill and entirely ineffective at the same time. Chuck an MPAT at it and it'll be a nice, tangled wreck of slagged metal, and you saved yourself like 60k USD by not firing an A3.

As for APS, you can indeed mount kinetic deflecting APS on light vehicles. It's basically a grenade launcher on a rapid tracking mount, and the shell fired at the penetrator explodes to knock it off course. Nothing about the system requires a heavy vehicle to mount it. If HMMWV's can mount a Mk19 and/or TOW launcher, they should be able to handle an APS with ease.

Also, you do know that since Kontakt-5, ERA has been capable of defeating A3 penetrators, right? Relikt and Malachit render a vehicle effectively immune to APFSDS impacts, and the Ukranians have a very cool new ERA based on shaped charge "rods" that break up the penetrator as it impacts. That's why the A4 is designed to be FAR shorter, though how they're going to maintain its penetration is beyond me. Probably get a license for the 120L/55 and some way more potent propellant.

Edited by Alek Ituin, 15 February 2017 - 08:38 PM.

[Saint Scarlett Johan]

Alek Ituin, on 15 February 2017 - 08:38 PM, said:

Seriously though, A3's are too valuable to waste on an APC/AFV, and it's simultaneously severe overkill and entirely ineffective at the same time. Chuck an MPAT at it and it'll be a nice, tangled wreck of slagged metal, and you saved yourself like 60k USD by not firing an A3.

We drop Excaliburs on mortar crews... I doubt the crew is thinking about the value of their munitions when shooting at an AFV.

Quote

As for APS, you can indeed mount kinetic deflecting APS on light vehicles. It's basically a grenade launcher on a rapid tracking mount, and the shell fired at the penetrator explodes to knock it off course. Nothing about the system requires a heavy vehicle to mount it. If HMMWV's can mount a Mk19 and/or TOW launcher, they should be able to handle an APS with ease.

The difference between the APS mounted a truck and a MK19/TOW is the distance at which the ordinance is intended to detonate from the truck. There's a massive difference in having your APS go off 40ft from your truck and launching a TOW at a target 800m away.

[MW Waldorf Statler]

Each vehicle is a target and A dispensable Target.
a Soldier is a one Hit=kill target, Drones unamored and easy targets ...the only Question is, can a Vehicle fullfill his role better of the Battlefield befor is kill ?

[Snowbluff]

Alek Ituin, on 15 February 2017 - 07:48 PM, said:

Ugh. Disgusting lack of reading comprehension by you.

1 - You seem to not understand a damn thing about missile guidance or radar tracking methods. You just demonstrated exactly why being stealthier, even by a small margin, is better than being a better dogfighter for an interceptor/intruder. No matter how much fancy paint you have on your plane, it's not going to hide it from a missile with IR terminal guidance. So to defeat your fancy stealth plane, you just need to use a long-wave as a director for a phased array radar, which can guide the missile close enough for terminal IR tracking to take over, which can be a few dozen kilometers depending on conditions. You literally cannot hide planes from modern IR trackers coming from ANY AoA. One of the very few downsides of turbojets, but oh well, physics is a cruel mistress.

Oh, and on that topic, the F-16 would lose to any actual dogfighter, because actual dogfighters are super-maneuverable with thrust vectoring engines. The F-16 has neither of those attributes as far as I've seen, because the only mention of thrust vectoring with the F-16 is the F-16 Active TEST PLATFORM. In fact, between the F-14, F-15, and F-16, the only mention of them ever shooting down an actual Russian fighter is the F-15C taking down several Iraqi MiG-29's via missile fire. Either way, if you want to talk about dogfighting, the F-16 would get its arse handed to it by a real 4-4.5 gen fighter, like the Su-27. You just can't compete with a supermaneuverable aircraft in a battle where maneuverability is key.

5 - ECM replicates the effects of stealth aircraft coatings. It means that as much as they can't see you, you effectively can't see them. And unless you have anti-rad missiles packed (which you won't, because they're niche missiles and primarily AGM's at that), you can't fire radar guided munitions and get a hit. You have to close in to ~40km or so to be able to fire IR guided AAM's which can't be baffled by fancy paint or fancy pods, and at that point your stealth is moot. You can't hide engine exhaust from modern IR seekers, they WILL find you, and you better hope your flares/IRCM are good enough to spoof them. Problem is, IR missiles are getting smart enough that they're able to "ignore" countermeasures... Soon they'll be literally impossible to evade, unless you can somehow mask the massive thermal signature that is turbojet exhaust.

Also, I'm pretty sure 40-ish km counts as WVR, and at that point everything is f**ked.


I hope I covered everything...

Russia Stronk aside:

Supermaneuverability is the fastest way to get yourself killed. Maneuvers in that class bleed so much energy that you're incredibly vulnerable. F22s have lost to Typhoons in Red Flag gunfights because of this. A newer pilot accidentally takes a turn too heavily and loses energy, and the attacker can position for an easy kill. If you're evading missiles this way, a second one is guaranteed to strike you at such low energy.

WVR is the fastest way to get yourself killed. HMD and HOBS IR missiles means maneuverability will never matter. In that range it's almost always going to be a mutual kill.

ECM is a multiplicative benefit with stealth. If stealth reduces the probability of detection by 50%, and the ECM does likewise, then that's a 25% chance to be spotted. Stealth isn't a magic bullet, but it's synergistic with other technologies fielded by air forces.

[LordNothing]

your real problem is visibility. a mech is a very easy target, especially for a guy with an rpg (that he bought with a chicken). armor technology will have its physical limits, especially with next gen weapons, railguns missile and laser systems, ciws type systems (phalanx aka ams), and modern recon capabilities.

thats what you face if you can solve the other problems. like actuator reliability, power supply, issues with ground pressure and getting stuck, and control systems to keep multiple tons upright and be able to run at sports car speeds. i dont think they will ever be beyond the size of the lights you see in this game. battle armor (exoskeleton) at least have prototypes currently being tested. i think its a matter of scaleabilty. you can only take walkers so far before you reach their limits or you are better off with a different kind of system, like a tank or an aircraft like an ac130. it will fall somewhere between the capabilities of foot soldier and a wheeled ground vehicle.

Edited by LordNothing, 15 February 2017 - 09:59 PM.

[Alek Ituin]

Saint Scarlett Johan, on 15 February 2017 - 08:56 PM, said:

We drop Excaliburs on mortar crews... I doubt the crew is thinking about the value of their munitions when shooting at an AFV.

The difference between the APS mounted a truck and a MK19/TOW is the distance at which the ordinance is intended to detonate from the truck. There's a massive difference in having your APS go off 40ft from your truck and launching a TOW at a target 800m away.

You care when you can only manage half a combat load of A3's, and you technically can't afford to buy more. It's amazing how a country with such a grossly oversized military budget has a military that is so consistently broke it can't afford to buy combat shells for its tanks. Also, like I said, it's easier to just chuck MPAT at light stuff. Even if it doesn't go through, it'll still put a dent in it. Advantages of technically being a demolition round and all that.

And if an HMMWV can't survive a fairly small explosion 40ft away, you have serious problems with your vehicle. APS charges are minuscule, designed to be rapidly discharged, rapidly travel to an intercept point, rapidly explode, thus causing the target projectile to rapidly fly off target. Again, if your light vehicle can't handle that, you need a new light vehicle. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the replacement for the HMMWV was required to be capable of mounting a full scale APS unit.

Snowbluff, on 15 February 2017 - 09:48 PM, said:

Russia Stronk aside:

Supermaneuverability is the fastest way to get yourself killed. Maneuvers in that class bleed so much energy that you're incredibly vulnerable. F22s have lost to Typhoons in Red Flag gunfights because of this. A newer pilot accidentally takes a turn too heavily and loses energy, and the attacker can position for an easy kill. If you're evading missiles this way, a second one is guaranteed to strike you at such low energy.

WVR is the fastest way to get yourself killed. HMD and HOBS IR missiles means maneuverability will never matter. In that range it's almost always going to be a mutual kill.

ECM is a multiplicative benefit with stealth. If stealth reduces the probability of detection by 50%, and the ECM does likewise, then that's a 25% chance to be spotted. Stealth isn't a magic bullet, but it's synergistic with other technologies fielded by air forces.

Russia 3 stronk 5 u

Then I can make the same argument for the inefficiency and danger of the Hammerhead, Cobra, J-hook, Yo-Yo, Immelman, Scissor, or any number of ACM's specifically meant to bleed speed. Stupid inexperienced pilots do stupid inexperienced things, that's not a refutation of supermaneuverability being a key attribute for WVR combatants. An experienced pilot can utilize the advantages of thrust vectoring to give themselves a massive edge over a similarly experienced pilot in a non-vectoring aircraft. Also, you're at a couple kilometers in a jet aircraft with a total thrust probably exceeding 200kN... This ain't grandpa's Warhawk, energy can be regained quickly and easily. Just dive with AB, use your 300+ m/s RoC to get back to combat altitude, and re-engage. If they follow you, call a buddy and pull either a Thach Weave or a Sandwich. Lots of options there.

Of course WVR is insanely dangerous. Which is why being able to get off the shot first MIGHT be able to save your life, and is thus an important attribute for a fighter that MIGHT see WVR combat. After all, no plan survives contact with the enemy, so being able to perhaps do some damage in an unplanned WVR engagement is a bonus.


It is indeed synergistic, and both are interesting choices with interesting downsides. However, when used independently, the effects appear to be similar.

[Saint Scarlett Johan]

Alek Ituin, on 15 February 2017 - 11:25 PM, said:

You care when you can only manage half a combat load of A3's, and you technically can't afford to buy more. It's amazing how a country with such a grossly oversized military budget has a military that is so consistently broke it can't afford to buy combat shells for its tanks. Also, like I said, it's easier to just chuck MPAT at light stuff. Even if it doesn't go through, it'll still put a dent in it. Advantages of technically being a demolition round and all that.

And if an HMMWV can't survive a fairly small explosion 40ft away, you have serious problems with your vehicle. APS charges are minuscule, designed to be rapidly discharged, rapidly travel to an intercept point, rapidly explode, thus causing the target projectile to rapidly fly off target. Again, if your light vehicle can't handle that, you need a new light vehicle. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the replacement for the HMMWV was required to be capable of mounting a full scale APS unit.

That's because the US military has it's priorities on wrong when it comes to where it spends it's money. Like my unit just blew tens of thousands on a whole lot of chemical equipment it didn't need when we have HMMWVs we're still driving that were made in 1984 or how we consistently don't have the money to buy ammo to train with... I could write a dissertation on why the US Army is the most overrated army on the planet...

I don't trust a HMMVW survive it. I really don't. But that's because I'm around them a lot and I see the poor shape the US Humvee fleet is in. The Humvee was shoved into a role it was never meant for, and I think it's replacement is designed to mount an APS. I know the current trucks, the HMMVWs and LMTVs, cannot mount them safely.

[Zergling]

Alek Ituin, on 15 February 2017 - 07:48 PM, said:

So to defeat your fancy stealth plane, you just need to use a long-wave as a director for a phased array radar, which can guide the missile close enough for terminal IR tracking to take over, which can be a few dozen kilometers depending on conditions.

Long-wavelength radar isn't exactly a good solution to stealth, because radars that use those wave-lengths are large and have high power requirements, which means they can only be used by large aircraft like AWACS or ground based systems.

Russia doesn't have any long-wavelength AWACS radars yet, only ground based systems which makes them particularly vulnerable to stand-off weapons.


And there isn't any long range IR guided missile in existence that can be guided to general target area like that.
Such a missile could be built, but nobody has tried yet. With the proliferation of stealth aircraft in the coming decades as the F-35 production gets underway and in service with many countries around the world, it is certainly possible someone (like Russia) will try though.

Alek Ituin, on 15 February 2017 - 07:48 PM, said:

3 - Because the History and Discovery channel are basically pro-US propaganda outlets.

Not exactly pro-US, but highly inaccurate and worthless as sources.

Alek Ituin, on 15 February 2017 - 07:48 PM, said:

Oh, and on that topic, the F-16 would lose to any actual dogfighter, because actual dogfighters are super-maneuverable with thrust vectoring engines. The F-16 has neither of those attributes as far as I've seen, because the only mention of thrust vectoring with the F-16 is the F-16 Active TEST PLATFORM. In fact, between the F-14, F-15, and F-16, the only mention of them ever shooting down an actual Russian fighter is the F-15C taking down several Iraqi MiG-29's via missile fire. Either way, if you want to talk about dogfighting, the F-16 would get its arse handed to it by a real 4-4.5 gen fighter, like the Su-27. You just can't compete with a supermaneuverable aircraft in a battle where maneuverability is key.

The F-16 is regarded as one of the best modern dogfighters, with only planes like the Su-27 series and newer Eurocanards aircraft being as good or better.

Why is the F-16 so good? Because it has excellent sustained turn rate combined with a thrust/weight ratio.
Hell, even the Su-35 can't beat the F-16C's thrust/weight ratio at similar weight loadings.


I would suggest reading this article, which is the experiences of a pilot that flew F-16s, F-15s, F-5s and MiG-29s: http://foxtrotalpha....flew-1682723379

And as that pilot states, thrust-vectoring is useful, but it is definitely not an automatic 'I win' card in a dogfight, as using it comes with some severe disadvantages.


As for combat history, a USAF F-16D shot down a MiG-25 in 1992, and a USAF F-16C shot down a MiG-23 in 1993, both with AIM-120s.
USN F-18s also shot down a pair of MiG-21s in 1991.

Non-USA operators have considerably more claims with their F-16s:
Israel has claimed dozens of MiG kills.
The Netherlands claimed a Yugoslavian MiG-29 in 1999.
Pakistan shot down at least 10 aircraft between 1986 and 1989; mostly Afghan operated Su-22s, but at least one Soviet Su-25.
...and of course, Turkey shooting down a Russian Su-24 in 2015.

Alek Ituin, on 15 February 2017 - 07:48 PM, said:

I literally said that dogfighting is obsolete.

The USA thought the same during the 1950s and 1960s, but they learned they were wrong over Vietnam.

Alek Ituin, on 15 February 2017 - 07:48 PM, said:

It's in my post, I pointed out that the Bf-109 proved that conventional notions of dogfighting were dead, replaced instead by "energy" fighting, relying on speed and energy to dominate and dictate the terms of the engagement.

Actually, the Bf 109 usually used turn fighting tactics against most opponents in WW2. It certainly could energy fight, but it was outclassed in that domain by heavier fighters like the American P-38, P-47 and P-51.

The Fw 190 was a superior energy fighter to the Bf 109, and it was regarded as a deadlier opponent on the western front than the Bf 109, due to air combat there being at higher altitudes and higher speeds where energy fighting was the norm.

On the eastern front where combat occured at lower altitudes and speeds, the Bf 109 was regarded as the deadlier opponent.

Alek Ituin, on 15 February 2017 - 07:48 PM, said:

Also, the pilot limit is 9 gees and AFAIK there's no aircraft rated for higher than 9 gees. Maybe some of the newer ones using better superalloys, but not any operational airframes I can see.

IIRC, most US built aircraft are rated at 50% higher than their 'maximum' G limit, so aircraft like the F-16 that are capable of 9Gs have airframes rated to withstand 13.5Gs.

The flight control system prevents them from ever reaching such high Gs under normal controlled flight, but apparently pilots can get them to reach 10Gs under certain conditions.

Alek Ituin, on 15 February 2017 - 07:48 PM, said:

And as an aircraft, the F-35 just doesn't appear to be capable of matching anything in a WVR fight. And it's not nearly fast enough to run from enemy fighters, meaning that unless it's REALLY being undersold (I doubt it, it only has 1x 180kN engine, meaning only 56% of the thrust of the F-22, and you can only push 180kN so far), it'll be out-run and out-accelerated by a pure fighter. That means the F-35 will have to be incredibly maneuverable to compete in the inevitable WVR engagement, or covered by a vastly superior combat aircraft like the F-22. Lockheed is trying to do too many things with the F-35, and it's showing. Each additional role you try to add to a vehicle only waters it down and makes it worse at all of them.

I used to be a F-35 hater, but I've kept an open mind as more reports about the F-35's air combat capabilities have come out from more sources, and it appears the F-35 won't actually be terrible.

From what I can tell, the F-35 won't dogfight like the F-16 does; it doesn't have the sustained turn rate or thrust/weight ratio, but more like the F-18.
That said, the F-35A's thrust/weight ratio isn't exactly bad; its thrust/weight is comparable to the Su-27 (which is certainly not bad) but inferior to the Su-35, Eurocandards and F-16.

But the reports I've read stressed the F-35's high angle of attack capabilities; it can apparently reach 110 degrees AoA, and maintain high control throughout such high AoA.
The rudder authority at low speed and high AoA has been described as 'fantastic' too, so in those conditions the plane will be able to get its nose around like nothing else.

This is similar to the F-18, which is regarded as inferior to the F-16 in any sort of sustained turn rate or energy fight, but quite capable of beating the F-16 if it uses its superior AoA ability or low speed turn radius (although I'd still give the F-16 favourable odds if the pilots were equal in skill).

Alek Ituin, on 15 February 2017 - 07:48 PM, said:

5 - ECM replicates the effects of stealth aircraft coatings. It means that as much as they can't see you, you effectively can't see them. And unless you have anti-rad missiles packed (which you won't, because they're niche missiles and primarily AGM's at that), you can't fire radar guided munitions and get a hit.

ECM benefits stealth too; it increases the amount of 'noise' which makes it harder to pick out the small signature of a stealth aircraft.
So while a non-stealthy aircraft can be difficult to shoot down due to ECM, the same amount of ECM would have an even greater benefit to a stealth aircraft.

Further, the AIM-120 has a secondary 'home on jam' mode that allows it to be used when a target lock cannot be acquired or is lost mid-flight due to jamming.
The hit probability is lower, but it allows the missile to still be used in an environment with a lot of jamming.

Alek Ituin, on 15 February 2017 - 07:48 PM, said:

You have to close in to ~40km or so to be able to fire IR guided AAM's

Range to lock-on with IR guided missiles more like 8km, although some modern IR missiles have lock-on-after-launch capability that allows them to be fired without a lock.

Alek Ituin, on 15 February 2017 - 08:11 PM, said:

Except APS can intercept kinetic projectiles with ease

They can hit them, but there is no proven capability of any APS system at actually stopping or seriously impairing kinetic energy projectiles.

Alek Ituin, on 15 February 2017 - 08:11 PM, said:

K then.

You are making a lot of unsubstantiated and grandiose claims that are typical of those 'sources'.

Alek Ituin, on 15 February 2017 - 08:11 PM, said:

R-27's are still highly capable missiles with performance specs equal to current US munitions. And since the R-27 comes in both IR and SARH guidance variants, as well as extended range variants for both guidance types, it's still a viable missile. Though good point on the basic R-77's not being in service, that was a poor oversight on my part. Apparently there have been sightings of R-77-1's on Russian fighters though, so perhaps some variants are in service.

R-27 is AIM-7 Sparrow level in capability and sophistication, although the E variants are longer range.
The regular versions are inferior in range and kinematics to the AIM-120, in addition to the disadvantage of SARH.

See their performance in the Eritean-Ethiopian civil war; 24 R-27s were fired, only one near hit scored, which is a 4.17% hit rate, considerably worse than the 33% hit rate claimed by the AIM-7M in the 1991 Gulf War.


The IR variants of the R-27 are of limited use, due to them having no datalinks and limited lock-on-after-launch capability.
They have long range for an IR guided missile, but they are limited to shots against target aircraft flying directly at or away from the shooting aircraft.
When the missile approaches within IR lock range, the missile will lock onto the first target it sees, but if the target makes any course changes the missile will never approach within lock range.


As for the R-77-1s seen, there definitely does appear to be some in service now, although it is unknown if it is a useful number.
Given Russian aircraft are still flying mainly with R-27s, it seems they haven't yet produced enough missiles to replace the R-27, only supplement it in high priority areas like Syria.

Alek Ituin, on 15 February 2017 - 08:11 PM, said:

You're right, it's not less than half the cost, it's 64% of the cost of a F-22. Still a significant chunk of change when you factor in that their price tags: EFT is 96 million USD, F-22 is 150 million USD. So if I buy an EFT, I can put an ECM pod on it and still have at 50+ million USD to play with.

Don't forget that the F-22's costs have been heavily inflated due to its production run being cut short.
If the F-22 had been produced in numbers of 500 or 700 like originally planned, it is very likely to have been comparable or cheaper in cost to the Eurofighter Typhoon.


Further, a Eurofighter + ECM pod still isn't equal in capabilities to the F-22.

For a start, ECM lets everyone knows the position of the jamming aircraft due to electronic emissions, which means the enemy knows exactly where to go until they are close enough to 'burn through' the ECM or to lock on with IR guided weapons.

Next, a single ECM pod on a EFT isn't nearly enough jamming capability to seriously degrade the effectiveness of enemy radars.

Even a flight of 4 or more planes with ECM pods isn't going to be sufficient; that is the kind of role filled by flights of dedicated jammer aircraft like the EA-6B or F-18G, which carry multiple jammer pods that are much larger and more capable than those carried by non-dedicated jammer aircraft.

Eg, compare the AN/ALQ-99 carried by EA-6B and F-18G to the AN/ALQ-131 or AN/ALQ-184 carried by the F-16; the AN/ALQ-99 is much larger and more powerful, and is typically carried 2, 3, 4 or even 5 at a time when the F-16 only gets a single jammer pod.


Put simply, the jammer pods on most aircraft are not adequate for severely degrading enemy radar systems; they are a useful defensive measure, but are incapable of offensively jamming enemy radar like dedicated electronics warfare platforms.

To nullify hostile radar, non-stealth radar need this sort of dedicated jamming support, while stealth aircraft do not.
If stealth aircraft receive the same level of jamming support, then they are even harder to detect.

Alek Ituin, on 15 February 2017 - 08:38 PM, said:

Also, you do know that since Kontakt-5, ERA has been capable of defeating A3 penetrators, right? Relikt and Malachit render a vehicle effectively immune to APFSDS impacts, and the Ukranians have a very cool new ERA based on shaped charge "rods" that break up the penetrator as it impacts. That's why the A4 is designed to be FAR shorter, though how they're going to maintain its penetration is beyond me. Probably get a license for the 120L/55 and some way more potent propellant.

K-5 and Relikt don't make a tank immune to APFSDS; they only reduce the penetration of the KE penetrator by about 30%.
At longer ranges, that can degrade the APFSDS penetration sufficiently for the armor underneath the ERA to resist the KE penetrator.


M829A2 was the interim solution to such 'heavy' ERA; it basically defeated the ERA by brute force, just increasing the penetration over that of M829A1 so kills could still be achieved at combat ranges.

M829A3 was the more permanent solution; it has a 100mm steel tip in front of the DU penetrator that substantially reduces how much penetration is lost from the ERA.
Apparently it reduces the effectiveness of the ERA from 30% penetration loss to just 10%, so even tanks like the T-90MS can be defeated at 2000-3000 meters.
It is supposed to be effective against both Kontakt-5 and Relikt protected targets.

M829A4 is designed to counter future threats, like the T-14 Armata and the next generation of heavy ERA developments.


The USA isn't interested in the L/55 gun; they are developing ETC technology for a new generation of 120mm guns like the XM291 and XM360, which are capable of 17 megajoules of muzzle energy (by comparison, the L/44 firing M829A3 has 12 megajoules of muzzle energy, and L/55 with DM53/63 has 13 megajoules).

Edited by Zergling, 16 February 2017 - 04:09 AM.

[Snowbluff]

Alek Ituin, on 15 February 2017 - 11:25 PM, said:

Russia 3 stronk 5 u

Then I can make the same argument for the inefficiency and danger of the Hammerhead, Cobra, J-hook, Yo-Yo, Immelman, Scissor, or any number of ACM's specifically meant to bleed speed. Stupid inexperienced pilots do stupid inexperienced things, that's not a refutation of supermaneuverability being a key attribute for WVR combatants. An experienced pilot can utilize the advantages of thrust vectoring to give themselves a massive edge over a similarly experienced pilot in a non-vectoring aircraft. Also, you're at a couple kilometers in a jet aircraft with a total thrust probably exceeding 200kN... This ain't grandpa's Warhawk, energy can be regained quickly and easily. Just dive with AB, use your 300+ m/s RoC to get back to combat altitude, and re-engage. If they follow you, call a buddy and pull either a Thach Weave or a Sandwich. Lots of options there.

Of course WVR is insanely dangerous. Which is why being able to get off the shot first MIGHT be able to save your life, and is thus an important attribute for a fighter that MIGHT see WVR combat. After all, no plan survives contact with the enemy, so being able to perhaps do some damage in an unplanned WVR engagement is a bonus.


It is indeed synergistic, and both are interesting choices with interesting downsides. However, when used independently, the effects appear to be similar.

I generally question the value of thrust vectoring. It's heavy, and using it does lose energy.

Regaining energy is tricky. In a dogfight, if you're up against another two engine plane, I reckon he'll be on your *** the whole time. Of course, with team tactics it's different, but you are likely to just get shot at long range by someone who didn't merge or taken out with a HOBS.

And pilots might not expect to survive, but their bosses hope they do. Jets are expensive, training pilots is expensive, and telling their mother that they didn't make it back is awful.

Zergling, on 16 February 2017 - 12:49 AM, said:

The USA thought the same during the 1950s and 1960s, but they learned they were wrong over Vietnam.

They were actually right, the problem was that the pilots weren't trained to use their weapons properly. Firing missiles from outside their range is a good way to miss.

They added gun pods, but those were useless and wobbly. It wasn't until they established proper training for fighting fighters (rather than intercepting bombers) from Top Gun that they started getting more kills. Training is an incredibly important aspect for air forces. If you look at old records from the 90s, a lot of 'kills' were the other pilots just crashing.

Quote

IIRC, most US built aircraft are rated at 50% higher than their 'maximum' G limit, so aircraft like the F-16 that are capable of 9Gs have airframes rated to withstand 13.5Gs.

The flight control system prevents them from ever reaching such high Gs under normal controlled flight, but apparently pilots can get them to reach 10Gs under certain conditions.

Indeed, 9g is the human limit. You start hemorrhaging there. XD

Quote

I used to be a F-35 hater, but I've kept an open mind as more reports about the F-35's air combat capabilities have come out from more sources, and it appears the F-35 won't actually be terrible.

From what I can tell, the F-35 won't dogfight like the F-16 does; it doesn't have the sustained turn rate or thrust/weight ratio, but more like the F-18.
That said, the F-35A's thrust/weight ratio isn't exactly bad; its thrust/weight is comparable to the Su-27 (which is certainly not bad) but inferior to the Su-35, Eurocandards and F-16.

But the reports I've read stressed the F-35's high angle of attack capabilities; it can apparently reach 110 degrees AoA, and maintain high control throughout such high AoA.
The rudder authority at low speed and high AoA has been described as 'fantastic' too, so in those conditions the plane will be able to get its nose around like nothing else.

This is similar to the F-18, which is regarded as inferior to the F-16 in any sort of sustained turn rate or energy fight, but quite capable of beating the F-16 if it uses its superior AoA ability or low speed turn radius (although I'd still give the F-16 favourable odds if the pilots were equal in skill).

The F35 seems to have some really good things going for it:
1) Huge fuel capacity: It has good range without EFTs/CFTs. Adding bags drags.
2) Internal weapons storage: As above, weapons add drag.
3) Body lift: The F35 has a deceptively high amount of lift for the nubby wings.
4) More advanced FBW/Controls: It's been described as incredibly responsive. "You tell it where to point and it points."

Currently it's been limited to 7g while they finish the control laws and stress test the airframe. It was designed to ape the F16 and F18 in terms of maneuverability.

Quote

ECM benefits stealth too; it increases the amount of 'noise' which makes it harder to pick out the small signature of a stealth aircraft.
So while a non-stealthy aircraft can be difficult to shoot down due to ECM, the same amount of ECM would have an even greater benefit to a stealth aircraft.

Yep.

Quote

Don't forget that the F-22's costs have been heavily inflated due to its production run being cut short.
If the F-22 had been produced in numbers of 500 or 700 like originally planned, it is very likely to have been comparable or cheaper in cost to the Eurofighter Typhoon.

The engines and the avionics are the most expensive parts of a fighter jet. Not having stealth doesn't save a whole lot of money, especially as the technology has evolved.

Quote

To nullify hostile radar, non-stealth radar need this sort of dedicated jamming support, while stealth aircraft do not.
If stealth aircraft receive the same level of jamming support, then they are even harder to detect.

Yep. Fielding jammers in addition to fighters and strike fighters costs more. The F35 is equipped with it's own jammer in addition to being stealth as well. Combined with spike management, they are the planes best suited for handling air defenses.

Edited by Snowbluff, 16 February 2017 - 06:19 AM.

[Zergling]

Snowbluff, on 16 February 2017 - 06:12 AM, said:

The F35 seems to have some really good things going for it:

1) Huge fuel capacity: It has good range without EFTs/CFTs. Adding bags drags.
2) Internal weapons storage: As above, weapons add drag.
3) Body lift: The F35 has a deceptively high amount of lift for the nubby wings.
4) More advanced FBW/Controls: It's been described as incredibly responsive. "You tell it where to point and it points."

Currently it's been limited to 7g while they finish the control laws and stress test the airframe. It was designed to ape the F16 and F18 in terms of maneuverability.

Another thing is the sensors; pilots are describing the situational awareness they have in the plane as being better than anything else, and a huge advantage.

Edited by Zergling, 16 February 2017 - 06:32 AM.

[Karl Streiger]

LordNothing, on 15 February 2017 - 09:57 PM, said:

your real problem is visibility. a mech is a very easy target, especially for a guy with an rpg (that he bought with a chicken). armor technology will have its physical limits, especially with next gen weapons, railguns missile and laser systems, ciws type systems (phalanx aka ams), and modern recon capabilities.

thats what you face if you can solve the other problems. like actuator reliability, power supply, issues with ground pressure and getting stuck, and control systems to keep multiple tons upright and be able to run at sports car speeds. i dont think they will ever be beyond the size of the lights you see in this game. battle armor (exoskeleton) at least have prototypes currently being tested. i think its a matter of scaleabilty. you can only take walkers so far before you reach their limits or you are better off with a different kind of system, like a tank or an aircraft like an ac130. it will fall somewhere between the capabilities of foot soldier and a wheeled ground vehicle.

Aircrafts? Aircrafts would be flying coffins with adequate laser weapons. they pop over the horizon - and get zapped.

another issue when a shot penetrates a tank you have 4-5 coffins to fill - if the same shot hit a mech the pilot might live.
don't forget the psychologic effect of a BattleMech - every crew or soldier need to look up - ok not so much at 4 to 5km range. But usually its what you can see is able to see you too.
Maybe the height over terrain might help to use sophisticated sensors - that would be worthless on a ground vehicle

Edited by Karl Streiger, 16 February 2017 - 06:43 AM.

[Alek Ituin]

Saint Scarlett Johan, on 16 February 2017 - 12:45 AM, said:

That's because the US military has it's priorities on wrong when it comes to where it spends it's money. Like my unit just blew tens of thousands on a whole lot of chemical equipment it didn't need when we have HMMWVs we're still driving that were made in 1984 or how we consistently don't have the money to buy ammo to train with... I could write a dissertation on why the US Army is the most overrated army on the planet...

I don't trust a HMMVW survive it. I really don't. But that's because I'm around them a lot and I see the poor shape the US Humvee fleet is in. The Humvee was shoved into a role it was never meant for, and I think it's replacement is designed to mount an APS. I know the current trucks, the HMMVWs and LMTVs, cannot mount them safely.

Indeed. Hopefully the military can gets its s**t straight and put money where it's needed, and stop dumping it all on wunderwaffe projects allowed to bloat uncontrollably over their time and budget allotments... Wunderwaffe are fun and all, but you gotta keep those projects reigned in.

Also, fair enough. If they're really as ramshackle as they sound, I wouldn't trust them to stop paintballs, let alone fragments from my own APS unit. Would be painfully ironic to be injured or killed by your own APS in the process of it trying to stop you from being injured or killed.

Zergling, on 16 February 2017 - 12:49 AM, said:

Long-wavelength radar isn't exactly a good solution to stealth, because radars that use those wave-lengths are large and have high power requirements, which means they can only be used by large aircraft like AWACS or ground based systems.

Russia doesn't have any long-wavelength AWACS radars yet, only ground based systems which makes them particularly vulnerable to stand-off weapons.

And there isn't any long range IR guided missile in existence that can be guided to general target area like that.
Such a missile could be built, but nobody has tried yet. With the proliferation of stealth aircraft in the coming decades as the F-35 production gets underway and in service with many countries around the world, it is certainly possible someone (like Russia) will try though.

Honestly, such a missile would be easy to build off of existing platforms, specifically the MIM-104. It's already halfway there, what with the missile already being capable of utilizing TVM guidance, and the AN/MPQ-53 and -65 radar units being pretty much exactly the phased array guidance units I had in mind. Since it has active radar, you can use that to feed information back to the launch platform, which acts as a second point of reference on the target as the missile closes in, increasing the precision of the tracking. Plus, stealth isn't perfect, and if either the launcher or missile is coming in from a high-exposure angle, the launch platform effectively gets a larger target to track with said missile feedback system. Once you close within a certain range, you can have an IR seeker activate terminal guidance phase and track the aircraft via heat signature. If it's using the original 90kg HEF warhead, it'll make a mess of things, but most of that mess will probably be shredded parts from whatever plane you just fired at.

If you wanted to be an über-d*ck about it though, you could just replace the warhead package, not bother with adding IR tracking to the primary missile, and instead use it as a carrier for a cluster of whatever short-range all aspect IR AAM tickles your fancy. Personally, I'd use a smaller, cut-down version of a RIM-116, because you could pack more of them tighter in the bay what with their lack of stabilizers.

Although if we go to the realm of absolute cutting-edge, optical tracking is an option. You can slap on all the fancy radar absorbing paint you want, but a pair of Mk-1 Eyeballs will still see that thing clear as day... As will digital eyes, as it were. IIRC, there's a few DARPA projects working on munitions utilizing optical tracking, wherein the munition can "see" the target, compare it to an uploaded image or model, and then decide if that's the target or not. It'd be impossible to defend against unless using an APS to destroy it, since standard countermeasures would now be useless.

Quote

Not exactly pro-US, but highly inaccurate and worthless as sources.

Precisely.

Quote

The F-16 is regarded as one of the best modern dogfighters, with only planes like the Su-27 series and newer Eurocanards aircraft being as good or better.

Why is the F-16 so good? Because it has excellent sustained turn rate combined with a thrust/weight ratio.
Hell, even the Su-35 can't beat the F-16C's thrust/weight ratio at similar weight loadings.

I would suggest reading this article, which is the experiences of a pilot that flew F-16s, F-15s, F-5s and MiG-29s: http://foxtrotalpha....flew-1682723379

And as that pilot states, thrust-vectoring is useful, but it is definitely not an automatic 'I win' card in a dogfight, as using it comes with some severe disadvantages.

As for combat history, a USAF F-16D shot down a MiG-25 in 1992, and a USAF F-16C shot down a MiG-23 in 1993, both with AIM-120s.
USN F-18s also shot down a pair of MiG-21s in 1991.

Non-USA operators have considerably more claims with their F-16s:
Israel has claimed dozens of MiG kills.
The Netherlands claimed a Yugoslavian MiG-29 in 1999.
Pakistan shot down at least 10 aircraft between 1986 and 1989; mostly Afghan operated Su-22s, but at least one Soviet Su-25.
...and of course, Turkey shooting down a Russian Su-24 in 2015.

First off, let me thank you for linking that article. It was a fascinating and illuminating read, and I enjoyed it greatly. Lost it at the end when he recounted the story about meeting the F-14... Good stuff.

His remarks on supermaneuverability and 3D thrust-vectoring were spot on and pretty much what I expected. When commenting on the Raptor pilots getting whooped by using it at the wrong time, it's to be expected as well... Thankfully that lesson was learned in training and not actual combat. Still though, it provides superior "low" speed maneuverability and allows you to perform a coup-de-grace IF you know what to do. Useful tool for the experienced, though admittedly a dangerous trap for the uninitiated.

As for the combat history, Su-22's and MiG-39's are fighter bombers. Not really... competitive, if you get my drift.

Quote

The USA thought the same during the 1950s and 1960s, but they learned they were wrong over Vietnam.

This... is actually a fair point. Even if I hadn't read the article, I'd still have to admit it's a fair point, but having read the article... Perhaps the classic notion of a maneuvering dogfight isn't as dead as many think. Still, if modern fighters still play by the old rules, then a BnZ fighter will wreck a TnB any day. Energy is love, energy is life.

Quote

Actually, the Bf 109 usually used turn fighting tactics against most opponents in WW2. It certainly could energy fight, but it was outclassed in that domain by heavier fighters like the American P-38, P-47 and P-51.

The Fw 190 was a superior energy fighter to the Bf 109, and it was regarded as a deadlier opponent on the western front than the Bf 109, due to air combat there being at higher altitudes and higher speeds where energy fighting was the norm.

On the eastern front where combat occured at lower altitudes and speeds, the Bf 109 was regarded as the deadlier opponent.

The 109 had several key advantage against each of the aircraft you mentioned. Until the J/K/L variants, a 109 could simply kek its way up to altitude and watch as the P-38 sputtered out and practically died by 6km. Allisons sucked like that in Europe, but they were great for the Pacific.

As for the P-47, the 109 could readily leverage vertical maneuvers against it; in fact, pulling straight up was a common method used by 109 pilots to evade 47's. The Jugs were just too fat to keep up, and the 109 could loop over, hook around, and engage it at will. Later 47's like the N/M were better with the paddle blades, but still couldn't keep up with the likes of the 109G's or K's in the vertical...

And as for P-51's? Yep, the 109's could outmaneuver them, though the 51's held a control advantage at high speeds. At the same time, the 109 could also leverage its marginally superior vertical performance against 51's, especially if they could get the pilot to bleed speed, a resource the Mustang wasn't all that great at reacquiring. Not to say they were sluggish, but they were far heavier than the 109 and a clean airframe only counts for so much.


Now for the 190's... That's a different story. If you're talking Doras, then yes, the 190D was vastly superior to any 109's beside the K's and late-G's at altitude. The A's and F's were brutal low to medium alt fighters due to their powerful radials and hefty weight, they could throw their bulk around well and it showed. But at altitude? No radial 190 could match a 109, they just weren't built for it.

It's funny though, the Germans felt the 190 was better on the Eastern Front, while the Soviets felt the 109 was better. Mainly came down to pilot preference though, Soviet pilots weren't particularly fond of heavy aircraft like the 190, while the Germans enjoyed the energy fighting advantages the 190 afforded them.

Quote

IIRC, most US built aircraft are rated at 50% higher than their 'maximum' G limit, so aircraft like the F-16 that are capable of 9Gs have airframes rated to withstand 13.5Gs.

The flight control system prevents them from ever reaching such high Gs under normal controlled flight, but apparently pilots can get them to reach 10Gs under certain conditions.

Interesting. Makes sense if it's true, only a crazy engineer would set the max G rating at the actual max G rating of the frame.

Quote

I used to be a F-35 hater, but I've kept an open mind as more reports about the F-35's air combat capabilities have come out from more sources, and it appears the F-35 won't actually be terrible.

From what I can tell, the F-35 won't dogfight like the F-16 does; it doesn't have the sustained turn rate or thrust/weight ratio, but more like the F-18.
That said, the F-35A's thrust/weight ratio isn't exactly bad; its thrust/weight is comparable to the Su-27 (which is certainly not bad) but inferior to the Su-35, Eurocandards and F-16.

But the reports I've read stressed the F-35's high angle of attack capabilities; it can apparently reach 110 degrees AoA, and maintain high control throughout such high AoA.
The rudder authority at low speed and high AoA has been described as 'fantastic' too, so in those conditions the plane will be able to get its nose around like nothing else.

This is similar to the F-18, which is regarded as inferior to the F-16 in any sort of sustained turn rate or energy fight, but quite capable of beating the F-16 if it uses its superior AoA ability or low speed turn radius (although I'd still give the F-16 favourable odds if the pilots were equal in skill).

Hmmm. I still don't like it, but it's impressive if what you say about its AoA capabilities are true. Hitting 110* is incredible, let alone being able to maintain control at such a high angle... Certainly be interesting to see what it can do against an F-16 and F-22. It has been a while since I've seen news on the F-35 though, has it seen trials against anything yet? Or are they still trying to work out all the horrible bugs in the design and software?

Quote

ECM benefits stealth too; it increases the amount of 'noise' which makes it harder to pick out the small signature of a stealth aircraft.

So while a non-stealthy aircraft can be difficult to shoot down due to ECM, the same amount of ECM would have an even greater benefit to a stealth aircraft.

Further, the AIM-120 has a secondary 'home on jam' mode that allows it to be used when a target lock cannot be acquired or is lost mid-flight due to jamming.
The hit probability is lower, but it allows the missile to still be used in an environment with a lot of jamming.

This is true.

As for the AIM-120, an interesting and important piece of information not readily available. It's a pretty smart design choice honestly, especially for a BVR missile. Thank you for pointing that out.

Quote

Range to lock-on with IR guided missiles more like 8km, although some modern IR missiles have lock-on-after-launch capability that allows them to be fired without a lock.

Indeed, though the little ******** are going ~1km/s, so it's not going to take long for them to get near targets. The problem rises from them actually seeing the target, HOBS missiles don't really have to worry about that though.

Quote

They can hit them, but there is no proven capability of any APS system at actually stopping or seriously impairing kinetic energy projectiles.

AMAP testing has shown it able to detect and, hilariously enough, reject 7.62mm projectiles as threats. Now you do have a point about them not being able to fully deflect an APFSDS penetrator though, something that can only be done by far more powerful versions meant for actual heavy armor. The light versions certainly can't, as they're meant more for anti-missile duty than anti-KEP.

I'll need to find more info, but IIRC Iron Fist is effective against both missile and KEP threats. Given their success with the Iron Curtain system, I'm inclined to believe them.

Quote

You are making a lot of unsubstantiated and grandiose claims that are typical of those 'sources'.

If I could collate, cite, and source information from memory, I would. Seriously, that would be awesome.

Quote

R-27 is AIM-7 Sparrow level in capability and sophistication, although the E variants are longer range.
The regular versions are inferior in range and kinematics to the AIM-120, in addition to the disadvantage of SARH.

See their performance in the Eritean-Ethiopian civil war; 24 R-27s were fired, only one near hit scored, which is a 4.17% hit rate, considerably worse than the 33% hit rate claimed by the AIM-7M in the 1991 Gulf War.

The IR variants of the R-27 are of limited use, due to them having no datalinks and limited lock-on-after-launch capability.
They have long range for an IR guided missile, but they are limited to shots against target aircraft flying directly at or away from the shooting aircraft.
When the missile approaches within IR lock range, the missile will lock onto the first target it sees, but if the target makes any course changes the missile will never approach within lock range.

As for the R-77-1s seen, there definitely does appear to be some in service now, although it is unknown if it is a useful number.

Given Russian aircraft are still flying mainly with R-27s, it seems they haven't yet produced enough missiles to replace the R-27, only supplement it in high priority areas like Syria.

Yeah, giving it a further look the R-27 is atrocious. If it had a wider tracking window it might not suck, but the thing performs like an AIM-7 all right... An old, crappy, Pre-M variant AIM-7.

Must have mixed it up with the R-73... Really should brush up on these things beforehand.

Quote

Don't forget that the F-22's costs have been heavily inflated due to its production run being cut short.
If the F-22 had been produced in numbers of 500 or 700 like originally planned, it is very likely to have been comparable or cheaper in cost to the Eurofighter Typhoon.

Further, a Eurofighter + ECM pod still isn't equal in capabilities to the F-22.

For a start, ECM lets everyone knows the position of the jamming aircraft due to electronic emissions, which means the enemy knows exactly where to go until they are close enough to 'burn through' the ECM or to lock on with IR guided weapons.

Next, a single ECM pod on a EFT isn't nearly enough jamming capability to seriously degrade the effectiveness of enemy radars.

Even a flight of 4 or more planes with ECM pods isn't going to be sufficient; that is the kind of role filled by flights of dedicated jammer aircraft like the EA-6B or F-18G, which carry multiple jammer pods that are much larger and more capable than those carried by non-dedicated jammer aircraft.

Eg, compare the AN/ALQ-99 carried by EA-6B and F-18G to the AN/ALQ-131 or AN/ALQ-184 carried by the F-16; the AN/ALQ-99 is much larger and more powerful, and is typically carried 2, 3, 4 or even 5 at a time when the F-16 only gets a single jammer pod.

Put simply, the jammer pods on most aircraft are not adequate for severely degrading enemy radar systems; they are a useful defensive measure, but are incapable of offensively jamming enemy radar like dedicated electronics warfare platforms.

To nullify hostile radar, non-stealth radar need this sort of dedicated jamming support, while stealth aircraft do not.
If stealth aircraft receive the same level of jamming support, then they are even harder to detect.

Perhaps, but the military being what it is, obviously the smart choice was the last choice. So we now have F-22's sitting at 150 million USD per unit, and it doesn't look to be changing any time soon (unfortunately).

However, I'd argue that the point of the ECM isn't to hide you, but to force a WVR engagement. At that point both your stealth systems are moot and the clusterf**k has begun. Though reading on the F-22's radar I'm actually very impressed by exactly how advanced the electronics are on that thing. I'm beginning to doubt that ECM pods would even faze an F-22 just for the fact that it cycles its radar frequencies so damn fast...

Educating myself on the F-22 has been enlightening. Normally when people toot the horn of US equipment it's just hot-air and misplaced patriotism, but the F-22 looks like the real deal.

I need to acquire further information.

Quote

K-5 and Relikt don't make a tank immune to APFSDS; they only reduce the penetration of the KE penetrator by about 30%.
At longer ranges, that can degrade the APFSDS penetration sufficiently for the armor underneath the ERA to resist the KE penetrator.

M829A2 was the interim solution to such 'heavy' ERA; it basically defeated the ERA by brute force, just increasing the penetration over that of M829A1 so kills could still be achieved at combat ranges.

M829A3 was the more permanent solution; it has a 100mm steel tip in front of the DU penetrator that substantially reduces how much penetration is lost from the ERA.
Apparently it reduces the effectiveness of the ERA from 30% penetration loss to just 10%, so even tanks like the T-90MS can be defeated at 2000-3000 meters.
It is supposed to be effective against both Kontakt-5 and Relikt protected targets.

M829A4 is designed to counter future threats, like the T-14 Armata and the next generation of heavy ERA developments.

The USA isn't interested in the L/55 gun; they are developing ETC technology for a new generation of 120mm guns like the XM291 and XM360, which are capable of 17 megajoules of muzzle energy (by comparison, the L/44 firing M829A3 has 12 megajoules of muzzle energy, and L/55 with DM53/63 has 13 megajoules).

Probably the only time in this argument I'm going to ask for sources. ERA technology fascinates me, and from what I've researched on Kontakt-5 and Relikt, its operation is binary; it either destroys the KEP or it doesn't. And from what I've read, the A2 was defeated by Kontakt-5 when met in combat, prompting the development of the A3 "Silver Bullet", while Russia developed Relikt in response, which prompted development of the A4, and then Malachit was introduced for the Armata and similar future combat vehicles. And since we don't know if Malachit can stop A4, the cycle has paused for now.

As for the A4 itself, I was lead to believe it was developed in response to "HEAT-ERA", much like the Ukranian ERA either in service or testing. Hammer or something like that, and it gets more effective the longer the penetrator is, giving it more time and area to break up the penetrator.


As for ETC development, that is absolutely fantastic. Last time I heard of the XM291 is sounded like it was headed for the garbage can, because some key issues couldn't be figured out. ETC is definitely the next big step in ballistic weaponry, and certainly a far better option than any magnetic weapon, at least for small scale applications (infantry rifles, autocannons, artillery, etc).


This discussion has been interesting. I must rethink certain positions on critical issues.

[Snowbluff]

Zergling, on 16 February 2017 - 06:31 AM, said:

Another thing is the sensors; pilots are describing the situational awareness they have in the plane as being better than anything else, and a huge advantage.

I was speaking specifically for the maneuverability. The SA is amazing. I sometimes feel like F22 to F35 is as big a jump as 4th gen to F22 in that regard.

Alek Ituin, on 16 February 2017 - 06:56 AM, said:

This discussion has been interesting. I must rethink certain positions on critical issues.

+1 for a good attitude. I am learning, too. :3

Edited by Snowbluff, 16 February 2017 - 07:12 AM.

[Anjian]

Quote

Long-wavelength radar isn't exactly a good solution to stealth, because radars that use those wave-lengths are large and have high power requirements, which means they can only be used by large aircraft like AWACS or ground based systems.

Russia doesn't have any long-wavelength AWACS radars yet, only ground based systems which makes them particularly vulnerable to stand-off weapons.[color=#959595] [/color]

The antennas are huge because long wavelength requires larger antennas to for sufficient angular resolution. In terms of power, its the opposite, they only require the least power because longer wavelengths have the least atmospheric attenuation.

Taking out these low power, long wavelength emitters are a problem with missiles because the missile seeker is too small an antenna for the same reason --- you won't get sufficient angular resolution.

To get sufficient angular resolution, you can have one emitter, or multiple emitters spread out in a net, with passive HF antennas also spread out in a net, with the target passing through the net.

In any case, old WW2 type radar sets with dipole antennas, which uses long wave, have been known to detect such objects.

On the other hand, it possible to overpower stealth measures via active phase arrays that use digital beam forming which is why fifth generation aircraft, the latest AA systems and many modern warships use such arrays. These systems are also difficult to jam against and they can use their own beams as a jammer and spoofer. No stealth measure is perfect, there is always some leakage, no matter how small, and Moore's means electronics are constantly doubling their processing and amplifying power to receive and process these signals.

The irony of stealth measures is that they tend to be band specific. If you stealth against X-band, it leaves you vulnerable to other bands in the S, C and K range. The more you optimize for one specific band, the less you are able to hide on the other bands. If you compromise to your profile to be able to hide across a wider range of bands, then you won't be that good in one particular band. You are either a master of one, or jack of all trades.

[Anjian]

With regard to BF-109 and the FW-190,

The FW-190 is better regarded in the Eastern front. The BMW radial has better performance at low altitudes than the Daimler Benz inline, and is much more maintainable. Other than oils, it doesn't have other fluids you need to be concerned about freezing.

The FW-190 is regarded as more rugged and survivable. It does not have a radiator below the plane that can be shot at, especially from ground fire.

Wide landing track makes it easier to take off and land, especially in icy fields. BF-109 narrow track is a good source of accidents with the type.

FW-190 has better rate of roll than the BF-109. In fact, it has the fastest roll rate of any WW2 fighter. Being able to roll faster means you are able to initiate into a turn faster.

FW-190 has better rear view visibility.

Four 20mm cannons makes a better gun platform against both ground and aerial targets.

BF-109 turns tighter, but also has a habit of shredding its wings off. Hence German pilots try to avoid turn fights.

Peak of BF-109's agility is in the Emil and Friedrich range when it has the DB 601 engine. Once you get the Gustav, it starts deteriorating, and gets worst with heavier and more powerful engines. The DB 605 is heavier, make the plane more nose heavy (greater forward stability means greater resistance to initiate turns). The increase of weight without any increase in wing span means increasing wing loading, which means larger turning circles, higher landing and take off speeds (more dangerous, more stress on airframe). The F-16 also suffers from higher wing loading on later variants. Higher wing loading does have a few advantages of its own though, better ride and stability at high speed and at low altitudes, where there is much more turbulence.