Great question and makes sense so it will not happen. Make new ones that are generation 4.5 - well the F-15SE is a 4.5, but the USAF does not seem interested. The USAF is putting new radars in the F-15 (I beleive the same one in the F-22). I've heard about another 4.5 gen F-15 called the Golden Eagle, but I might be confussing this with the Silent Eagle.Originally Posted by William F. Owen
IMO the F-35 goes ahead regardless of costs because so much has laready been spent.
If the F-35 were cancelled and production lines were not put back on line for F-16, F-15, AV8-BII, and A-10 what current aircraft might meet the needs?
Is the F-18E a suitable replacement for the F-16?
I read recently that aircraft technology can only go so far before the performance of the aircraft (extreme g forces) kills the pilot. The key is missile technology or the ability to shoot down aircraft behind you, below, above, etc.
Conscience is lost at +12g with liquid-based anti-g suits. That's 3 Gs higher than with pneumatic anti-g suits and well beyond most airframes' safety limits.
The acceleration won't kill the pilot directly at 13-20 G, but he's unable to control the aircraft and might take relatively long to recover and regain control afterwards. Automated evasion manoeuvres should therefore be possible beyond 12 G - it just takes a while until the pilot can regain control.
The problem is another one, and independent of "manned or unmanned". Large airframes simply cannot withstand as high accelerations as cylindric missiles, the missile manoeuvrability wins. This is apparently even true despite the fact that an intercepting airframe needs to pull a many times as Gs to hit an evading airframe (such as 42 Gs to reliably hit a 9G evading object).
Aircraft manoeuvrability is largely irrelevant for today's fighters because the most advanced air-air missiles can already be launched to hit a target behind the launching platform. They simply turn on the first few hundred meters by 180° and lock on after launch - guess why the Russians installed rear radars in their last fighter series. The F-35 has the DAS for the same purpose (and other purposes).
I suspect that active defences (jamming or shooting down incoming missiles, known from ships and now also from tanks and transport aircraft - bound to happen in fighters) will become relevant in the near future.
This will add even more per unit cost and require additional installation volume and surface.
BFM is not dead...
Fuchs, I strongly disagree...
The death of Basic Fighter Maneuvers (BFM) is often greatly exaggerated...
No missile is perfect. OBTW the jammers you refer to exist... see my last post for details on what the threat has. These can affect missiles...
Until missiles become hittiles and have 100% Pk (never going to happen in my opinion) there is always the possibility of having to close with the enemy, maneuver to a position of advantage, and kill him with WVR weapons - BFM.
OBTW, to use your BVR missiles you have to be able to ID the threat- again this is not a perfect science, and if it fails you may have to visually ID (VID) the threat. Getting a VID requires the same maneuverability mentioned above.
At some point we may get to where a computer can match the human system in terms of air-to-air situational awareness... but we're not there yet.
We learned this lesson in Vietnam, hopefully we don't need to re-learn it anytime soon.
V/R,
Cliff
Missiles ARE the primary WVR weapon/munition. Autocannons have a very small role nowadays.
You don't need to manoeuvre into a position of advantage if you can shoot a missile in every direction, even while turning.
Guns are still important
Fuchs-
Agree that missiles have improved in maneuverability.
I disagree about the gun... the gun can't be jammed by enemy EW, decoyed by flares, or spoofed by an IR jammer... It is much more reliable than your average missile. And it's Pk is pretty decent. Not to mention it is very precise...
Finally, the gun is important for air to ground work, as you can be extremely precise on where your bullets are impacting. I'm sure there's a lot of folks here who are glad the F-15E, F-16, and F-18 have guns...
Even with missiles, you still have to put yourself in a position to employ. Missiles are not a magic death ray (though we may see lasers on fighters soon!), and still need to be put within a certain min/max range to have a chance of success.
In my 1700+ hours of flying fighters, I have found the gun to be a pretty useful thing to have- even if you do have an all-aspect missile. The gun is not minimized, at least not in the US military...
"A fighter without a gun is like an airplane without a wing." -Brig Gen Robin Olds
V/R,
Cliff
The Golden Eagles are existing F15Cs being fitted with the APG-63(V)3 AESA radar.
Silent Eagles are new F15s incorporating LO technology.
F18Es are replacements for F14s, not F16s. If the USAF wants, they can buy new F16 block 60s and stuff in an AESA radar as well to replace existing F16s.
As for AV-8, I doubt they can restart the production line or want to buy Russian stuff. There is no other alternative to F35B.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks