The Future Of Air Combat

[Seret]

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.

This. There will be a transition period though. Air force fighter communities have a lot of influence in purchasing decisions and will resist as hard as they can. While air forces are still led by folks who used to fly themselves drones will only be a supplement to manned aircraft, but once those people are all retired it'll be unmanned all the way. So you're probably looking at 40 years from now before it'll be considered the norm.

[Nuke]

first off i consider the evolution of air combat is as such:

1 recon: lets see what the enemy is doing

2 bomber: while were looking at the enemy lets drop some grenades/mortar shells on them.

3 fighter: shoot down the above so they cant look at us or bomb us

4 cas: while we have these fighters with machine guns why dont we use them to support the ground forces

5 multirole/superiority/fighter-bomber: hay lets build a plane that does everything!

6 strategic bomber: lets make our bombers faster/fly higher so they cant be shot down, oh and lets give them nukes!

7 stealth: haha you cant see us

enter drones. first job we give them is #1. we realize we can put munitions on those drones, or better yet, make the bomb a drone (jdam) and now they are doing job #2. because drones can do manuvers that can kill human pilots, they can evade fighters or even attack them decisively, which sort of makes #3 obsolete. 4 is one of those jobs that i think really benefits from a human pilot, since you are directly supporting troops on the ground, so that one is safe. since 1-3 can be done there is no reason why we cant have multirole drones, i think we already have them. #6 is another place where we want humans in the loop at least as far as nuclear munitions goes, however the ability to send a jdam means that this one is split between drones and manned. 7 is another thing drones can do. so thats my view on the future of air combat.

[RocketTurtle]

first off i consider the evolution of air combat is as such:

1 recon: lets see what the enemy is doing

2 bomber: while were looking at the enemy lets drop some grenades/mortar shells on them.

3 fighter: shoot down the above so they cant look at us or bomb us

4 cas: while we have these fighters with machine guns why dont we use them to support the ground forces

5 multirole/superiority/fighter-bomber: hay lets build a plane that does everything!

6 strategic bomber: lets make our bombers faster/fly higher so they cant be shot down, oh and lets give them nukes!

7 stealth: haha you cant see us

enter drones. first job we give them is #1. we realize we can put munitions on those drones, or better yet, make the bomb a drone (jdam) and now they are doing job #2. because drones can do manuvers that can kill human pilots, they can evade fighters or even attack them decisively, which sort of makes #3 obsolete. 4 is one of those jobs that i think really benefits from a human pilot, since you are directly supporting troops on the ground, so that one is safe. since 1-3 can be done there is no reason why we cant have multirole drones, i think we already have them. #6 is another place where we want humans in the loop at least as far as nuclear munitions goes, however the ability to send a jdam means that this one is split between drones and manned. 7 is another thing drones can do. so thats my view on the future of air combat.

Yes, drones are the future, but I'm mostly wondering which types of designs will be better in the long run. The F-22 is stealthy, but for how much longer? Radar jamming, and radar detection are improving, but so is stealth... if you get what I'm saying.

[Lord Aurelius]

I think ultimately the designs that are the most robust and easily upgradeable (and cost effective) will win out. One year stealth technology will be better, another year the detection/jamming systems will win out. It's a classic arms race scenario. The best aircraft in this situation is one that can be quickly and easily retrofitted with the technology of the day instead of being designed so completely around one particular aspect (see F117) that it basically renders the aircraft useless once that technology is outdated.

From that perspective, it's easier to upgrade electronics than airframes so I would vote for jamming/detection/countermeasures over pure stealth for the long run.

[RocketTurtle]

I think ultimately the designs that are the most robust and easily upgradeable (and cost effective) will win out. One year stealth technology will be better, another year the detection/jamming systems will win out. It's a classic arms race scenario. The best aircraft in this situation is one that can be quickly and easily retrofitted with the technology of the day instead of being designed so completely around one particular aspect (see F117) that it basically renders the aircraft useless once that technology is outdated.

From that perspective, it's easier to upgrade electronics than airframes so I would vote for jamming/detection/countermeasures over pure stealth for the long run.

Makes sense. I however, am not very familiar with radar jamming systems. Do they actually work, without needing an entire aircraft dedicated to jamming radar?

And also, isn't the F-22's stealth compromised if it's not flying straight at the enemy, in supercruise, and isn't pulling any maneuvers?

[LordFerret]

And then there's this. It won't be long at all (if not already and just not made public knowledge) before these are on planes... so much for your missiles then.

[Lord Aurelius]

@RocketTurtle

I'm not an expert on jamming systems, but the currently in service Growler is a modified F-18 and it looks like it can still carry a relatively normal combat load. I've also seen external ECM pods that look like they can add a similar capability to regular combat aircraft. They must work reasonably well since the military has retired pretty much all the dedicated jamming aircraft at this point.

For stealth, that wouldn't surprise me. I think the idea is that you fly in and fire your ordinance such that it's too late for the enemy by the time they see you. Going back to my earlier point about robust, upgradeable airframes, it looks like the latest version of the F-15 has a similar frontal stealth profile to the F-35 and F-22 even though it's a much older aircraft.

@LordFerret

Exactly my point when I was alluding to improved countermeasures. It doesn't really matter if the enemy fires a missile at you if you can easily shoot it down and then proceed to burn a hole through their plane.

Edited July 21, 2015 by Lord Aurelius

[RocketTurtle]

@RocketTurtle

I'm not an expert on jamming systems, but the currently in service Growler is a modified F-18 and it looks like it can still carry a relatively normal combat load. I've also seen external ECM pods that look like they can add a similar capability to regular combat aircraft. They must work reasonably well since the military has retired pretty much all the dedicated jamming aircraft at this point.

For stealth, that wouldn't surprise me. I think the idea is that you fly in and fire your ordinance such that it's too late for the enemy by the time they see you. Going back to my earlier point about robust, upgradeable airframes, it looks like the latest version of the F-15 has a similar frontal stealth profile to the F-35 and F-22 even though it's a much older aircraft.

@LordFerret

Exactly my point when I was alluding to improved countermeasures. It doesn't really matter if the enemy fires a missile at you if you can easily shoot it down and then proceed to burn a hole through their plane.

God damn I love the F-15. The pinnacle of 4th gen aircraft design.

Unrelated, but I was thinking about how awesome it would be if Russia and America were allies, and designed a fifth gen fighter together. It'd be awesome.

[T-Bouw]

Planes + Lasers?

Can I have my ADFX-01 Morgan already?

[LordFerret]

God damn I love the F-15. The pinnacle of 4th gen aircraft design.

Unrelated, but I was thinking about how awesome it would be if Russia and America were allies, and designed a fifth gen fighter together. It'd be awesome.

I have a long-standing love affair with the F-16.

[RocketTurtle]

I have a long-standing love affair with the F-16.

You can keep her. She only has one engine.

[Mad Rocket Scientist]

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.

You're all wrong:

And, just to remind you how awesome it is:

[Flymetothemun]

You're all wrong:

http://images5.alphacoders.com/411/411608.jpg

And, just to remind you how awesome it is:

http://theaviationist.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/J58_Afterburner.jpg

Dammit. I forgot about that majestic SOB. I actually made a KSP replica of her. You've trumped me.

[RocketTurtle]

You're all wrong:

http://images5.alphacoders.com/411/411608.jpg

And, just to remind you how awesome it is:

http://theaviationist.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/J58_Afterburner.jpg

Dammit. I forgot about that majestic SOB. I actually made a KSP replica of her. You've trumped me.

Gotta agree there. You have me beat.

[Shpaget]

And then there's this. It won't be long at all (if not already and just not made public knowledge) before these are on planes... so much for your missiles then.

That's so last decade.

[11of10]

You're all wrong:

http://images5.alphacoders.com/411/411608.jpg

And, just to remind you how awesome it is:

http://theaviationist.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/J58_Afterburner.jpg

*Jayne's voice* I'll be in my bunk..

@topic:

Considering that PAK-FA is being built as a response to F-22, I imagine it'll be better, as it's a reaction to someone else's initiative

But why only USA and Russians? What about Chinese? EU countries? What about south American countries? I'm sure someone there would have something to say...

[Signo]

It seems like the future holds a few surprises for the dogfight as we know it.

At this link you can find a few examples of the UAVs currently in development (well, tbh there are many more like nEUROn) and here an interesting analysis that pits these UAVs against supercruising 5th generation fighters like Raptors and PAK-FAs.

Edited July 22, 2015 by Signo

[gamowin]

Am I the only one here who loves attack helicopters?

[T-Bouw]

Am I the only one here who loves attack helicopters?

Not at all, I love attack helicopters too!

Alas, against a fighter-plane, they're a sitting duck.

Heli's have no air-superiority over a fighterplane. No, the role of heli's is that of support for ground forces.

[ColKlonk]

Wasn't there some talk of the Russians equipping the Pak FA with EMP missiles a few years back.

I wouldn't dismiss this as when the Mig29 first was looked at by the west, they scoffed at the analogue systems, and I think there were still valves used in some electronics.

The Western pilots stopped laughing then the Russian pilots mentioned EMP.. which valves and analog systems were mostly immune to.

Where as western 'hi-tech' reliance in digital systems would simply be cooked.

Although I've yet to see emp missiles equipped on aircraft, I wouldn't advertise such systems if I had them.

[11of10]

I think that particular anegdote was for MiG-21. Also, "lamps" are much better working in cold weather than transistors.

[Camacha]

Heli's have no air-superiority over a fighterplane. No, the role of heli's is that of support for ground forces.

The same goes for fighter planes. The saying remains true: you cannot hold land with an air force.

[Im The One]

Wasn't there some talk of the Russians equipping the Pak FA with EMP missiles a few years back.

I wouldn't dismiss this as when the Mig29 first was looked at by the west, they scoffed at the analogue systems, and I think there were still valves used in some electronics.

The Western pilots stopped laughing then the Russian pilots mentioned EMP.. which valves and analog systems were mostly immune to.

Where as western 'hi-tech' reliance in digital systems would simply be cooked.

Although I've yet to see emp missiles equipped on aircraft, I wouldn't advertise such systems if I had them.

actually most military units now are either or being emp hardened. They have some what fixed the hypoxia on the rapter by fixing the o2 lines. They also can do something that i dont think the pak-fa can do, and that is the ability "share" radar. What it means is that f you jam one f-22s radar it could simply use another f-22s radar to lock on (they have also thought of using a b-1b in conjunction with this radar sharing and loading it up with long range amraams or anti radiation missles)

[Dman979]

Well, EMPs would obviously hurt drones.

I see the future going in a kind of circle: from the start of airpower until now, and then to things like UAF (Unmanned Fighter Planes)(my acronym:)), and then to mechsuit-type planes with really complicated systems, and then back to "primitive" airplanes.

Before you cry "BS!!!," consider this: the Russians used WWI biplanes in WWII to fight the Germans. Why? With their engines off, they were completely silent, and would glide over the German camps, bomb them, and then start their engines back up. These primitive planes were invisible to German radar, and unseeable against the night sky. I don't think that fabric-covered biplanes will be used again, but WWII prop-planes may make a bit of a comeback, albeit with better materials.

So, the precedent is there. In the meantime, I think that the near future will see either specially-designed UFPs, or witness the conversion of current fighters into UFPs with conversion kits. The planes will have to be flown from highly dispersed, hidden, and protected bunkers, to defend against a single strike killing all the fighters.

I know not with what weapons World War Three will be fought, but World War Four will be fought with sticks and stones.