The Future Of Air Combat

[RocketTurtle]

I've been thinking a lot about what the future has to offer for air combat, more specifically stealth, radar, and whatnot. Also, mainly focusing on the F-22, and the PAK FA, as they encompass fifth generation designs philosophies. They both show the different ways of thinking for each country. They are very similar aircraft, however the F-22 is a much more western designs. Stealth focused, meant to be the first to strike, with maneuverability important, but not the main concern. And the PAK FA, a very Russian design. Extremely maneuverable, meant to avoid missiles, and get into a WVR dogfight.

The time being, the PAK FA looks much more promising. BVR missiles have an atrocious hit rate, single digit percentages. With countermeasures and a decently maneuverable plane, there's no hope in hell it'll get hit. So currently, the PAK FA has the advantage.

However...

The Russian are developing a new missile; the K-77M. Now this missile supposedly has an AESA radar fitted to the nose, and should have a near 360 degree view of the battlefield. Modern missiles are easy to evade if the aircraft being fired upon maneuvers at the last second, out of the missiles field of view. With this new radar, the missile should supposedly never miss.

Now this may sound good for Russia, however Western countries will likely be close behind in developing a similar missile...

And suddenly the PAK FA's only defense is gone. No longer can it outmaneuver an opponents missiles.

But there's another factor. Radar jamming. While the F-22 may hide from radar, the PAK FA may just get rid of their opponents radar altogether.

So yeah, I just wanted to let my thoughts out. What do you guys think? Do you think the multibillion dollar F-22 will hold up in the future, or is the PAK FA's more contemporary approach better for the long run?

Oh, and here. Have a completely unrelated picture of the sexiest plane to see the face of this earth.

[Flymetothemun]

Russia's New Missile!? Son, there's a little event, it's called the Cold War Arms Race, ever heard of it? How about MAD? Ever have to hide under a wood desk in school before? Try it sometime, just be sure to hide your face.

I, personally, think that the future of air combat is drones piloted remotely. And I think that it'll grow from our current drones to having a mirror of our current system of aircraft where you'll have bombing drones, fighting drones, etc. I certainly do think that there will be combat airplanes with a man in the cockpit for as long as there are airplanes, but their use will decrease and eventually they'll only be used in large-scale operations, as a relief if the drones aren't cutting it, or in experimental situation or situations where a drone would be out of range or in too much danger of being shot down and the enemy finding it and reverse-engineering it.

[TheCanadianVendingMachine]

Lies. This is the sexiest plane

[RocketTurtle]

Lies. This is the sexiest plane

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/a-10/images/a10_2.jpg

That, my friend, would be the sexiest SOUNDING plane.

[Flymetothemun]

Lies. This is the sexiest plane

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/a-10/images/a10_2.jpg

This plane wins over the lot:

The Lockheed F-117. It' gets a 117/100 from me.

[RocketTurtle]

Russia's New Missile!? Son, there's a little event, it's called the Cold War Arms Race, ever heard of it? How about MAD? Ever have to hide under a wood desk in school before? Try it sometime, just be sure to hide your face.

I see where you're coming from, but that's not the focus of what I wrote. I'm asking which airframe you think will be valid the longest. I mean, do you think Russian jamming/radar tech will be the deciding factor against the F-22? The problem with the F-22's stealth is that unlike electronics, you can't really change the stealth of a plane.

- - - Updated - - -

This plane wins over the lot:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a1/F-117_Nighthawk_Front.jpg/1280px-F-117_Nighthawk_Front.jpg

The Lockheed F-117. It' gets a 117/100 from me.

Meh. It doesn't have very good curves, and it's a bit wide in the middle.

[windows_x_seven]

Lies. This is the sexiest plane

<generic A-10 image>

lol no

SU-27 is love, SU-27 is life.

Back to topic:

The F-22 has lots of problems. Expensive like hell, operational problems that can harm/kill the pilot, no clear purpose yet, and got its production ended because of the F-35 (another bad aircraft).

Having a stealthy, agile, destructive plane is nice, but if it costs 70 thousand dollars per flight, suffers from software glitches, can't be operated by a pilot without causing him hypoxia or other diseases and has no clear mission, it becomes useless.

Edited July 21, 2015 by windows_x_seven

[RocketTurtle]

lol no

SU-27 is love, SU-27 is life.

The F-22 has lots of problems. Expensive like hell, operational problems that can harm/kill the pilot, no clear purpose yet, and got its production ended because of the F-35 (another bad aircraft).

Having a stealthy, agile, destructive plane is nice, but if it costs 70 thousand dollars per flight, suffers from software glitches, can't be operated by a pilot without causing him hypoxia or other diseases and has no clear mission, it becomes useless.

Well, all the problem, except the cost have been fixed with the F-22, but I get where you're coming from.

I guess I'm looking at it from a pure technical standpoint, rather than the political side of things.

Just wondering whether people think the PAK FA or 22 will age better.

[windows_x_seven]

And then there's the F-35, which replaces the F-22. Only one engine, cockpit with no analog instruments (Software glitch? Good luck!), poor radar performance, ejection seat with poor performance, long engine replacement time, poor internal payload capability makes it a waste of money.

What intrigues me most is the "full-glass" cockpit. I find that stupid. If the software glitches, touchscreen fails, or if there's an electrical failure on the airplane you got no instruments. You're dead in an IFR situation if you got no instruments.

PAK-FA will beat F-22/F-35, that's for sure. Although I don't think that the US will fight Russia, at least in the near future.

EDIT: The Chinese also got info on how US 5th generation fighters' stealth work, so basically their stealth aspect is also dead right now.

Edited July 21, 2015 by windows_x_seven

[Captain Sierra]

Well, all the problem, except the cost have been fixed with the F-22, but I get where you're coming from.

I guess I'm looking at it from a pure technical standpoint, rather than the political side of things.

Just wondering whether people think the PAK FA or 22 will age better.

If the F22 program hadnt gotten its cord yanked, thats where my money would go, but at time of development, it had no even conceptual opponents. THe russians have a very clear opponent to match, the F22. Ultimately I think since one is being developed partly as a hard counter to the other, the PAK FA will remain relevant longer.

[RocketTurtle]

And then there's the F-35, which replaces the F-22. Only one engine, cockpit with no analog instruments (Software glitch? Good luck!), poor radar performance, ejection seat with poor performance, long engine replacement time, poor internal payload capability makes it a waste of money.

What intrigues me most is the "full-glass" cockpit. I find that stupid. If the software glitches, touchscreen fails, or if there's an electrical failure on the airplane you got no instruments. You're dead in an IFR situation if you got no instruments.

PAK-FA will beat F-22/F-35, that's for sure. Although I don't think that the US will fight Russia, at least in the near future.

I see what you mean, but analog instruments can malfunction too... I guess a few wouldn't have hurt though.

[windows_x_seven]

If the F22 program hadnt gotten its cord yanked, thats where my money would go, but at time of development, it had no even conceptual opponents. THe russians have a very clear opponent to match, the F22. Ultimately I think since one is being developed partly as a hard counter to the other, the PAK FA will remain relevant longer.

Choosing the YF-22 over the YF-33 in the beginning of the program was also a bad move, IMO. Apparently looks>functionality now.

- - - Updated - - -

I see what you mean, but analog instruments can malfunction too... I guess a few wouldn't have hurt though.

They can fail, but they can act as backup when digital instruments fail, and that can be life and plane-saving

[RocketTurtle]

If the F22 program hadnt gotten its cord yanked, thats where my money would go, but at time of development, it had no even conceptual opponents. THe russians have a very clear opponent to match, the F22. Ultimately I think since one is being developed partly as a hard counter to the other, the PAK FA will remain relevant longer.

The F-22 did have its production cancelled, but the upgrades are still coming. Plus, in the event of a major conflict, they would probably continue production. But what you're saying does make sense.

Even if the F-22 had continued production, I still don't know how well it would age. The PAK FA was built with stealth as a second thought. Not quite as good as the F-22, but it leaves more room for improvement once the stealth is obsolete in the near future due to radar jamming, better radar, and all sorts of radar related jazz.

- - - Updated - - -

Choosing the YF-22 over the YF-33 in the beginning of the program was also a bad move, IMO. Apparently looks>functionality now.

I don't think it was only that, IIRC the YF-23 was never able to fire its weapons for the evaluation, plus I think the Pentagon was wiling to sacrifice some stealth, which may become obsolete quickly for reasons previously stated, for improved maneuverability.

[Captain Sierra]

The F-22 did have its production cancelled, but the upgrades are still coming. Plus, in the event of a major conflict, they would probably continue production. But what you're saying does make sense.

Even if the F-22 had continued production, I still don't know how well it would age. The PAK FA was built with stealth as a second thought. Not quite as good as the F-22, but it leaves more room for improvement once the stealth is obsolete in the near future due to radar jamming, better radar, and all sorts of radar related jazz.

I think sooner over later we're going to see someone try plasma shielding, but thats gonna light you up like a christmas tree on thermal. (yes, its a real thing and can be used to hide from radar, but covering your aircraft in a thin layer of very hot plasma does wonders for your thermal profile).

[RocketTurtle]

I think sooner over later we're going to see someone try plasma shielding, but thats gonna light you up like a christmas tree on thermal. (yes, its a real thing and can be used to hide from radar, but covering your aircraft in a thin layer of very hot plasma does wonders for your thermal profile).

What's the point? By the time it's development IR detection tech would probably be able to detect a conventional aircraft from 50+ miles. I can't imagine how bad it would be with that thing, lol.

[windows_x_seven]

I think sooner over later we're going to see someone try plasma shielding, but thats gonna light you up like a christmas tree on thermal. (yes, its a real thing and can be used to hide from radar, but covering your aircraft in a thin layer of very hot plasma does wonders for your thermal profile).

Plasma = HOT

IR missiles would love these "plasma-shielded" aircraft.

Plasma would probably melt the projectiles shot at the shielded aircraft, but the shielded aircraft most likely wouldn't be able to shoot as well (molten missiles/bullets are surely going to be good weapons)

[Captain Sierra]

Plasma = HOT

IR missiles would love these "plasma-shielded" aircraft.

Plasma would probably melt the projectiles shot at the shielded aircraft, but the shielded aircraft most likely wouldn't be able to shoot as well (molten missiles/bullets are surely going to be good weapons)

The plasma layer is too thin and the relative velocity of any projectile is too fast for it to have any meaningful thermal exchange with the shield layer. The hypothetical advantage is the excited matter in the plasma completely absorbs a good chunk of the EM spectrum, including the entire microwave band (radar waves). Its the best stealth we know of if you can somehow wrap it around the entire airframe. The idea is the enemy doesnt know your there to lock on with IR. If they see you while shielded, you're boned.

[RocketTurtle]

The plasma layer is too thin and the relative velocity of any projectile is too fast for it to have any meaningful thermal exchange with the shield layer. The hypothetical advantage is the excited matter in the plasma completely absorbs a good chunk of the EM spectrum, including the entire microwave band (radar waves). Its the best stealth we know of if you can somehow wrap it around the entire airframe. The idea is the enemy doesnt know your there to lock on with IR. If they see you while shielded, you're boned.

I feel like launching weapons would be a problem.

[Captain Sierra]

I feel like launching weapons would be a problem.

Well... the shielding works both ways so radar guided missiles won't be able to get a lock and the thermal interference would give IR weapons a hard time. Its meant as something you disable before engaging (opening munitions bay doors does terrible things to the F22's stealth too) or engage via gun (but at that point ur gonna have heat seekers on ur a--)

[RocketTurtle]

Well... the shielding works both ways so radar guided missiles won't be able to get a lock and the thermal interference would give IR weapons a hard time. Its meant as something you disable before engaging (opening munitions bay doors does terrible things to the F22's stealth too) or engage via gun (but at that point ur gonna have heat seekers on ur a--)

It just seems like another over complicated and completely impractical theory some bored engineer came up with.

I love it.

[LordFerret]

This K-77M sounds a lot like the new variant of the AIM-120D (which is battle tested and proven).

[Lord Aurelius]

Like other posters have said, the future of air combat is likely to be semi-autonomous UAVs (i.e. give it specific orders and it can perform them without further human intervention unless an unexpected event occurs, similar to how space probes and current UAVs operate, but with a bit more autonomy). Taking the pilot out of the equation frees up a lot of space/weight (don't need a cockpit and life support), allows for more design flexibility, and enables high-G maneuvers that would incapacitate a pilot.

Missiles will improve as well, but given the rapid progress the military has been making with lasers I wouldn't be surprised if aircraft started using those for all line-of-sight encounters. If you think a missile with 360 degree radar is hard to dodge, try dodging a laser.

Edited July 21, 2015 by Lord Aurelius

[RocketTurtle]

This K-77M sounds a lot like the new variant of the AIM-120D (which is battle tested and proven).

I don't think it's the same. The K-77M uses a bunch of sensors facing all different directions. I honestly don't know that much about it, just that it should be very difficult to counter.

Like other posters have said, the future of air combat is likely to be semi-autonomous UAVs (i.e. give it specific orders and it can perform them without further human intervention unless an unexpected event occurs, similar to how space probes and current UAVs operate, but with a bit more autonomy). Taking the pilot out of the equation frees up a lot of space/weight (don't need a cockpit and life support), allows for more design flexibility, and enables high-G maneuvers that would incapacitate a pilot.

Missiles will improve as well, but given the rapid progress the military has been making with lasers I wouldn't be surprised if aircraft started using those for all line-of-sight encounters. If you think a missile with 360 degree radar is hard to dodge, try dodging a laser.

Yeah, UCAV's are the future, but I'm mostly talking about the relation between stealth and radar related technologies. I just didn't want to overcomplicate the title.

[Captain Sierra]

It just seems like another over complicated and completely impractical theory some bored engineer came up with.

I love it.

The Russians actually experimented with it back during the early days when stealth was new and exciting. They didnt cover a whole airframe with it (for the above laundry list and then some) but used it to shield radar hotspots (namely intakes). It worked rather well actually.

[Flymetothemun]

I don't think it's the same. The K-77M uses a bunch of sensors facing all different directions. I honestly don't know that much about it, just that it should be very difficult to counter.

Yeah, UCAV's are the future, but I'm mostly talking about the relation between stealth and radar related technologies. I just didn't want to overcomplicate the title.

As somebody who's been taken out of context and whose writings have been obfuscated and/or have confused others on the internet countless times: SAY EVERYTHING YOU MEAN EXACTLY AS YOU MEAN IT. IF YOU DON'T THINK IT NEEDS TO BE SAID, SAY IT ANYWAY. I cannot emphasize this statement and how much trouble and pain it will save you. Trust me, the ensuing discussion trying to explain yourself will complicate a discussion more than a complex title or writing.