Fat man. The Russian high altitude fighter tactic?!

[Arugela]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_w_0zUs9ac

If I'm not mistake they are using fat guys partially because of the mentioned blood pressure thing. Are they more resistant to the pressures at altitude stopping the blood from boiling. If so, doesn't that mean russia is at a distinct disadvantage over the US and will ultimately loose the Supersonic high altitude space arms race. The US has a distinct massive potential advantage in that area. Both higher potential quantity and more people too choose from if this every becomes a normal factor in choosing pilots. So that means we can ultimately build planes with greater ability and better margins. It's just a matter of time until it's used commonly. IE. Russia needs to get it's hand on more cheeseburgers and fast. The US also have more combination of biology to expand the limits of this potential biological advantage.

Edited November 12, 2018 by Arugela

[YNM]

Today's jet fighter are aiming towards more agility, as ever. It's still not too much of a difference with when the Japanese came up with the A6M Zero - if you can outturn the opponent, then you're more likely to be able to get on the back and attack.

There are of course ways to equalize the disrepancy (like the Thach Weave) but then the same principle still almost hold, though it still works to defend the attacked airplane. There isn't a limit on the iteration of outturning.

This maneuver would be more interesting :

 

 

Edited November 12, 2018 by YNM

[XB-70A]

2 hours ago, YNM said:

if you can outturn the opponent, then you're more likely to be able to get on the back and attack.

Reminds me the story of the Lt. Amjad Hussain... on 6 September 1965, he shot down an Indian Mystère IVA with an AIM-9B from his F-104. The next day, he and an ally were guided to catch up formation of Hunter and Mystère IVA coming back from a strike. He shot his second Mystère down, once again with an AIM-9B, but the second and last Sidewinder he fired was a "bidon", it never ignited. He decide to finish the last Mystère with his Vulcan and struck it but the aircraft was still airborne, and it's when he made his biggest mistake: entering in a turning fight against an aircraft far way more maneuverable. Progressively, the Mystère passed back to him and struck his Starfighter with some 30 mm rounds. He ejected a couple of seconds only before his aircraft blew off. Alas, his opponent, the Squadron Leader Devayya never came back home.

 

1 hour ago, YNM said:

This maneuver would be more interesting :

Alas, the Pugachev's Maneuver is not really established as a useful one in operation (there is no record of it in action for now), it is more for demonstrations during air-shows. So much energy is loss during it that it could be a great maneuver... to be shot like a stationary pigeon. Without counting that it has to be executed in dry-mod (to make sure not to climb during the maneuver). A more standard and less aggressive "cobra" will be less energy hungry, but is still depending of a good equilibrium between the speed, the energy, and others conditions available at the time of the maneuver. In most of the cases, it's ending with an overload of the load factor, or in a stall.

By the way, I'm not absolutely sure of it, but if I'm remembering well, when the InAF received its Su-30MKK in the 90's, they were equipped with a newer FBW control system preventing this maneuver to be realized (but which could be overridden).

[mikegarrison]

The MiG-25 and its MiG-31 derivative were designed to counter the B-70 and A-12. Turned out they never really needed them, however, because the B-70 never got out of prototype phase and the A-12 was retired only a year after it was introduced into service.

Interceptors mainly lost their role to ground-based SAMs.

[kerbiloid]

Spoiler

1. The music gives it +10 to air superiority. The external loudspeakers are included. What do say now, _F f-22?

2. You can recognize clever guys by the eared caps which they are wearing out in the cold.
(This rule also works for Game of Thrones, btw. Ask Rigmor Halfhand.for details.)

3. (Here would be a notice about the opponent's winged missiles in space (7:20), but anyway you won't understand it, English speakers).

4. 

4 hours ago, Arugela said:

Russia needs to get it's hand on more cheeseburgers and fast.

If disassemble a burger and put the components on a plate, you will see exactly a normal breakfast/dinner/"the second meal" of a lunch in the Russian understanding.
The supersweet coca-cola is an equivalent of a less sweet tea/fruit drink with a sweet cake after the food.
So, the shape varies, the nutrients are the same.
Just 'Muricans are too lazy to wash the plates, so they pile the food and eat by hands.

Fasfood-scmastfood is just a meme to let the customers think that the food is guilty that they eat too much.

 

[Arugela]

I was just saying we have fatter. If it's important one day we may outpace them in the ability to go higher with less equipment. Assuming it's a direct correlation of course. If not maybe they need to do less work and sit around more. Whatever gets the end result.

I'm assuming even with SAM use one day we might need to fly high in increasing volumes. Even with drones and other things.

Edited November 12, 2018 by Arugela

[YNM]

2 hours ago, XB-70A said:

So much energy is loss during it that it could be a great maneuver... to be shot like a stationary pigeon.

Yeah, don't do it with two-on-two.

Point being is, there are still more merit in making your plane more maneuverable rather than able to fly higher. The only reason back then to fly higher is to counter the high-flying spy planes and bombers. And these days you just need a satellite and missiles.

Edited November 12, 2018 by YNM

[Kerbal7]

4 hours ago, mikegarrison said:

Interceptors mainly lost their role to ground-based SAMs.

Agreed.

Recent, historical air campaigns have been wildly successful and provided the mirage of the invincibility of airpower. This is solely because these air campaigns have been against completely defenceless opposition. Against any modern, integrated air defense system, airforces would have to stay well clear, or they wouldn't be around very long.    

[kerbiloid]

Disagreed.

Only crewed interceptors, maybe.

You anyway need reusable long-range flying launchpads.

1. Because you can keep a flying launchpad in a thousand kilometers from the rocket base, but close to the opponent's site, for decades. To quickly hit a target far from your protected area.

2. Because you can quickly relocate your flying launchpads from one direction to another.

***

As for anti-sat planes: both all three main opponents partners are several thousand kilometers wide.

A satellite is 200..1000 km high.

Should they build a launchpad under every satellite orbit with a 5000 km range ground-based missile instead of a plane with a 1000 km one?
Will a 5000 km missile hit the sat before it completes its task and becomes useless?
If an opponent partner suddenly launches addtional sats into new orbits, should they relocate the ground rocket base or just tell to the plane to fly aside?

Edited November 12, 2018 by kerbiloid

[magnemoe]

1 hour ago, Kerbal7 said:

Agreed.

Recent, historical air campaigns have been wildly successful and provided the mirage of the invincibility of airpower. This is solely because these air campaigns have been against completely defenceless opposition. Against any modern, integrated air defense system, airforces would have to stay well clear, or they wouldn't be around very long.    

Yes its an very strong force multipler then the enemy don't have good air defense. This includes most countries. 

On the other hand you have stand off weapons, from glide bombs to there the plane is just an first stage. 
 

[YNM]

4 hours ago, Kerbal7 said:

Against any modern, integrated air defense system, airforces would have to stay well clear, or they wouldn't be around very long.

Hence BVR.

But the whole of BVR has been done to the final ever since we get those positioning satellites up in the air.

Fighter aircraft works to decimate the air support, nothing else.

[magnemoe]

Is it only me or do other see a lot of intake spamming on the mig-31? most of the front is air intakes. 
So it still works to make fast planes. 

[p1t1o]

FunFact^TM: MiG-31 speed is limited by airframe heating to just below Mach 3 at altitude. There is a documented instance of a pilot escaping a SAM just by pushing the throttles forward past the redline, exceeding M3, but only briefly.

I think the MiG31 is what is know in the biz as a "hot ship"

 

(Mind you this was back in the day, in modern times, heavy SAMs can have "no-escape" volumes that extend almost to space and into the hypersonic realm. For many of the most advanced, the only difference between the SAM, ASAT and ABM variants is the warhead/guidance package)

 

Edited November 12, 2018 by p1t1o

[DDE]

6 hours ago, magnemoe said:

On the other hand you have stand off weapons, from glide bombs to there the plane is just an first stage. 

Heavy ECM, counter-projectile point defence, and even longer-ranged defences to push standoff range further. Eventually the useful payload shrinks and shrinks.

And here I thought this thread was about THIS fat man:

[kerbiloid]

Spoiler

My first association was this one, so I entered the thread to understand what's common between it and high altitude fighters, how to intercept B-29 or what?

 

Edited November 12, 2018 by kerbiloid

[magnemoe]

1 minute ago, kerbiloid said:

  Hide contents

My first association was this one, so I entered the thread to understand what's common between it and high altitude fighters, how to intercept B-29 or what?

 

That bomb looks fat so the name fits very well. Remember an teacher we had who had it as an nickname, short and wide: easier to jump over than walk around. 
He probably thought it was because of his temperament  

[DerekL1963]

2 hours ago, DDE said:

Heavy ECM, counter-projectile point defence, and even longer-ranged defences to push standoff range further. Eventually the useful payload shrinks and shrinks.

That's what cruise missiles were invented for.  With inertial guidance, they can't be jammed.  Point defenses aren't much use because they're below the radar horizon until they're very close to the target.  (And point defense is expensive - you can't defend everywhere.)  For the same reason traditional anti-air defenses aren't much use.  (And stealth is a powerful multiplier too.)

Also, in such an environment ARM capable cruise missiles with home-on-jam capability become very attractive.

Side note - it's pretty easy for a big bomber or an attack aircraft carrying only one or two missiles to have a stand-off range of hundreds of miles.  It's really, really, REALLY hard (and exponentially expensive) to defend a circumference/perimeter that large.

There's also theatre ballistic missiles to consider too.  (ABM defenses are expensive and their active radars are vulnerable to ARM cruise missiles.)

Basically, there's almost always going to be a way in - don't makes the classical armchair admiral mistake of assuming that only one side evolves and accrues all the advantages.  And don't forget the costs of ever stronger, ever larger defensive perimeters.

Edited November 12, 2018 by DerekL1963

[magnemoe]

8 minutes ago, DerekL1963 said:

That's what cruise missiles were invented for.  With inertial guidance, they can't be jammed.  Point defenses aren't much use because they're below the radar horizon until they're very close to the target.  (And point defense is expensive - you can't defend everywhere.)  For the same reason traditional anti-air defenses aren't much use.  (And stealth is a powerful multiplier too.)

Also, in such an environment ARM capable cruise missiles with home-on-jam capability become very attractive.

Side note - it's pretty easy for a big bomber or an attack aircraft carrying only one or two missiles to have a stand-off range of hundreds of miles.  It's really, really, REALLY hard (and exponentially expensive) to defend a circumference/perimeter that large.

There's also theatre ballistic missiles to consider too.  (ABM defenses are expensive and their active radars are vulnerable to ARM cruise missiles.)

Basically, there's almost always going to be a way in - don't makes the classical armchair admiral mistake of assuming that only one side evolves and accrues all the advantages.  And don't forget the costs of ever stronger, ever larger defensive perimeters.

Its an game who grow exceptional more expensive for each layer, for some reason defense contractors love it. 
Trying to figure out why  

[DerekL1963]

42 minutes ago, DDE said:

don't forget that the aggressor usually seems reticent to risk even one casualty.

I completely fail to see how that in any way is relevant to the points I raised.

Not to mention I haven't seen any reticence to risking "even one" casualty.  No mass casualties like WWI or WWII, certainly, but the last couple of decades shows them more than happy to risk smaller numbers on an ongoing basis.

[kerbiloid]

The more they are avoiding even single casualties, the more massive will be the airstrike.

Edited November 13, 2018 by kerbiloid

[kerbiloid]

Just in case

https://sites.google.com/site/samsimulator1972/home

[Vanamonde]

Hey guys. We've removed some posts from the thread because the discussion was staying into current politics. As interesting as that subject may be, talking about it here on the forum never ends well. Please restrict the discussion to the technology of the planes and stay away from the uses to which their owning governments are putting them. 

[wumpus]

It's been three days and nobody has mentioned Dr. Kenneth H. Cooper?  Seriously, google him for more than you ever want to know about "fat guys as [military] pilots".

Sometime in the 1960s, the US Air Force was having issues with pilots dying thanks to heart attacks in flight.  Colonel (he retired at that rank, but may have been promoted by then) was trying to find the answer and eventually determined the link between exersize (and lack thereof) and cardiovascular fitness.  The pilot's presumably qualified in physical strength qualifications (especially needed at high-G maneuvers, and presumably fitting the "strong and manly mentality" of the 1960s Air Force), but were lacking in endurance conditioning.  Cooper eventually could measure a pilot's danger of an inflight heart attack by having him run for 12 solid minutes (I thought the old test was longer, but currently it appears to be 12).

In 1968 Cooper published a book named "Aerobics" which explained the need for continuous exercise that raised the heart rate for 20+ minutes straight.  In 1970 he retired from the Air Force to push his new theory on exersize.  Last I heard he was also (as a doctor) trying to keep Jim Fixx's offspring alive (not so sure, usually the story goes "his son", but wiki shows four children.  This might be one for Snopes).