Fighter characteristics

[BATMAN]

 

[Muradk]

Weight Air-to-Air combat of Gripen is 18000kg

 

[Muradk]

Excellent topic we can discuss each characteristics of every plane. I would ask members to contribute as much they can with a proper source, If the material is copy write just email the Editor of the mag they never say no. This way forum can keep its integrity.

 

[niaz]

Whatever the design characteristics on paper, there are so many variables that it is really dificult to say which one of the same generation aircraft is really superior in actual combat evironment. For example, I dont think that Israeli pilots or aircafts were that much superior to the Syrian Airforce that they achieved an 85 :1 kill ratio. This was mainly because Israelis were able to jam or destroy command and control centres.

IMO in modern air combat, avionics is what matters most. I am starting with the basic assumption that main purpose of a fighter is to achieve air superiority at least on a local level.

Any aircraft with very good long range radar and state of the art weapon system should b able to shoot down the enemy well before enemy aircraft comes into the comabt zone. For example an F-14 or F-15 E type of aeroplane, armed with AWG-9 type radar and 100 KM range Phoenix missiles, with capability to track 24 bogies and target six aircraft simultaneously, would be able to kill off any enemy who intrudes in its air space. Such an aircraft can fly at an altitude beyond the range of heat seeking SAMs. ( avoid what
happened in Bosnia)

Only way to avoid being eliminated by an aircraft of the capapbility as above would be either to use thrust vectoring thus ability to dodge BVR missiles
or avoid being detectd altogether using stealth technology.

Thrust vectoring is okay but since human body's capacity to function is limited to max 9 G load, a highly manouverable missile such as AIM-120D should be able to take care of any air to air threat.

Stealth technology is the obvious choice. If you cant see you cant kill. Understand that a passive radar is being developed which can detect stealthy aircraft. A microwave laser type AA weapon which would target aircrafts antena and attack the FBW system; is also being developed as SAM. This would nullify stealth advantage. Therefore an ability for radar jamming is needed.

It is virtually impossible to have all the characteristics in a sinlge airframe; too many compromises in design. Therefore in a 21st century battlefield enevironment; say in 2030 and beyond; one would need three types of aircrafts working as a team to achieve air supriority.

A large multifunctional platform such as F-35 with all the stealth features, state of the art avionics and stand off weapon systems. Primarily for interdiction missions.

Small highly manaouverable and with some stealth features, pilotless fighter. Say size of the old Gnat. To counter the aircrafts such as F-35 which your enemy might have.

An Intruder type medium size fighter aircraft filled with radar jammimg equipment to blind and shoot down enemy's AWACs. This aircarft would be expendable so would need to be pilotless as well.

IMO we are gardually moving towards a time when fighter pilots will become redundant altogether.

 

[MIG_ACE]

Nice thread batman.

A couple of possible inconsistencies perhaps in the chart. The Su-30 MKI has 12 hardpoints not 11 and can carry a missile on each one. SO max air-to-air load would be 12 AAMs which can be increased further using multiple payload racks although that is unlikely.

And why would the J-10 carry only 8 missiles when it has 11 hardpoints. Shouldn't the max missile load be 11 atleast ?(again room for improvement using multiple payload racks) Same goes for the Eurofighter(13 hardpoints and 10 missiles)

The chart also mentions 14 missile max payload for the F-18 and 12 for the F-22, which should be just the opposite I think.

The Gripen seems to be in a different class compared to the others. Its smaller, lighter and carries less armaments. It's size would give it an advantage over the others in the RCS department though(apart from the F-22 and F-35 of course)

 

[MIG_ACE]

Niaz sir,
The AIM-54 Phoenix has been retired acc. to this piece of news.
Navy Retires AIM-54 Phoenix Missile

From what I know the only country which claims to have a kill with the Phoenix in actual combat is Iran!

 

[niaz]

Niaz sir,
The AIM-54 Phoenix has been retired acc. to this piece of news.
Navy Retires AIM-54 Phoenix Missile

From what I know the only country which claims to have a kill with the Phoenix in actual combat is Iran!

I am aware of it. F-14 has been replaced by F-18 as well. I only quoted this an example.

While we are discussing characteristics of a fighter, conceptually, the phoenix
missile as well as F-14 were ahead of their time. How sucessfull the system proved in actual combat is another matter.

What I am trying to arrive in my post is the requirements of the fighter that can prevail in a futuristic battlefield.

 

[Proud to be Pakistani]

Nice thread batman.

A couple of possible inconsistencies perhaps in the chart. The Su-30 MKI has 12 hardpoints not 11 and can carry a missile on each one. SO max air-to-air load would be 12 AAMs which can be increased further using multiple payload racks although that is unlikely.

And why would the J-10 carry only 8 missiles when it has 11 hardpoints. Shouldn't the max missile load be 11 atleast ?(again room for improvement using multiple payload racks) Same goes for the Eurofighter(13 hardpoints and 10 missiles)

The chart also mentions 14 missile max payload for the F-18 and 12 for the F-22, which should be just the opposite I think.

The Gripen seems to be in a different class compared to the others. Its smaller, lighter and carries less armaments. It's size would give it an advantage over the others in the RCS department though(apart from the F-22 and F-35 of course)

Having 12 Hard points is True for MKI but it doesn't mean that it can carry 12 Air to Air missiles!

AIR-TO-AIR MISSILES

The Su-30M, like the Su-30, can engage two airborne targets simultaneously. The aircraft can be armed with up to six medium-range air-to-air missiles such as the R-27RE (NATO codename AA-10C Alamo-C), the R27TE (AA-10D Alamo-D) or the Vympel RVV-AE (AA-12 Adder)."An alternative air-to-air missile fit is two AA-10D Alamo medium-range and six close-range Vympel R-73E (NATO AA-11 Archer) infrared homing missiles.


Air Force Technology - Su-30MK Multi-Role Two-Seater Fighter Aircraft, Russia

 

[x_man]

@ NIAZ

Very nice post indeed…you have said it all…but I will try to pick from where you left or may be just steal few of your points…

If one looks at these fighter characteristics, I don’t seem to find a very big difference amongst them. If top speed is Mach 2.1 or 2.3….it really doesn’t make any difference during the actual combat, similarly 11 or 13 or 10 hard points doesn’t really give an absolute edge to one fighter over another …..all these 4th generation fighters look same to me except few bits here and there…..

Unlike earlier wars, where victory in air combat or bombing accuracy was solely dependent on pilots skills, in contemporary or future wars, the pilots role will be probably reduced to a cockpit manager and who knows that in next to next generation fighters, they take the pilot out altogether…..Previously, aircrafts and its associated weapons were dumb and the pilots smart, but with all the advancements, IMO, the weapons and aircrafts have out smarted the pilots…… Today ,even a very average pilot who is flying a hi-tech fighter can achieve 100% scores in air-air or air-ground missions , just because the systems themselves have become so intelligent…..

As Niaz mentioned in his post, that there are so many other variables that can affect the outcome of the battle despite having the exact same performance weapons as your adversary. With the so many force multipliers in market today and supporting the fighter operations, it’s becoming difficult to gauge that which aircraft is the best ….!!!!! …..

I have my all the doubts that we will ever see F-22 in actual combat against SU-30 or Eurofighter pitched against Mig-35 ……these fighters are more likely to be remained as Toys for boys and I don’t think that we will ever see them in action against each other…….

 

[TOPGUN]

Very interesting! i like the j-10's outcome in the chart!!!!!!

 

[Energon]

Having 12 Hard points is True for MKI but it doesn't mean that it can carry 12 Air to Air missiles!

AIR-TO-AIR MISSILES

The Su-30M, like the Su-30, can engage two airborne targets simultaneously. The aircraft can be armed with up to six medium-range air-to-air missiles such as the R-27RE (NATO codename AA-10C Alamo-C), the R27TE (AA-10D Alamo-D) or the Vympel RVV-AE (AA-12 Adder)."An alternative air-to-air missile fit is two AA-10D Alamo medium-range and six close-range Vympel R-73E (NATO AA-11 Archer) infrared homing missiles.


Air Force Technology - Su-30MK Multi-Role Two-Seater Fighter Aircraft, Russia

This data is the for Su30MK model, which I believe has different specs from the MKI version. Does someone have similar data on the MKI?

 

[MIG_ACE]

This data is the for Su30MK model, which I believe has different specs from the MKI version. Does someone have similar data on the MKI?

I have a pic of an Su-30 MK carrying 12 missiles but no written source which clarifies it. The only source for the MKI version I could find was Bharat-Rakshak which I don't want to quote here for obvious reasons.

What is the use of an air-superiority fighter having more hard points than the no. of missiles it can carry?

 

[MIG_ACE]

I am aware of it. F-14 has been replaced by F-18 as well. I only quoted this an example.

While we are discussing characteristics of a fighter, conceptually, the phoenix
missile as well as F-14 were ahead of their time. How sucessfull the system proved in actual combat is another matter.

What I am trying to arrive in my post is the requirements of the fighter that can prevail in a futuristic battlefield.

You are certainly right about that. The technology used in the phoenix was ahead of its time. But the F-14 was a formidable aircraft even without the phoenix.

In a futuristic battlefield the most important asset for a fighter would be stealth as you have mentioned. Sadly the USA is the only country to have a stealth fighter.Its allies will soon get the F-35, but somehow it doesn't seem to stand up to the sheer awesomeness of the F-22.

Coming back to missiles the lighter, cheaper and more reliable active homing AIM-120 AMRAAM seems a good replacement for the phoenix inspite of its shorter range.

 

[BATMAN]

Excellent topic we can discuss each characteristics of every plane. I would ask members to contribute as much they can with a proper source, If the material is copy write just email the Editor of the mag they never say no. This way forum can keep its integrity.

Sir, are you telling me to write email to the editor ?

 

[BATMAN]

Mr. Niaz, I also use your post to continue the discussion on topics which you have bring forth in single shoot.

Only way to avoid being eliminated by an aircraft of the capapbility as above would be either to use thrust vectoring thus ability to dodge BVR missiles
or avoid being detectd altogether using stealth technology.

How about application of jaming technology, or other camo stuff to dodge trailing missile!

Thrust vectoring is okay but since human body's capacity to function is limited to max 9 G load, a highly manouverable missile such as AIM-120D should be able to take care of any air to air threat.

I would love to see an answer to this very basic logic.
Could it be possible Americans are producing army of coloned humans to take up missions beyond abilities of ordinary humans.

Stealth technology is the obvious choice. If you cant see you cant kill. Understand that a passive radar is being developed which can detect stealthy aircraft. A microwave laser type AA weapon which would target aircrafts antena and attack the FBW system; is also being developed as SAM. This would nullify stealth advantage. Therefore an ability for radar jamming is needed.

I assume stealth does not mean invisible. A stealthy fighter have lesser radar signature, comparitively low visibility and low engine noise (some how). Non stealth fighter would be detected few miles farther than a stealthy F-22.

It is virtually impossible to have all the characteristics in a sinlge airframe; too many compromises in design. Therefore in a 21st century battlefield enevironment; say in 2030 and beyond; one would need three types of aircrafts working as a team to achieve air supriority.

I secons that in full.
Although, probability of dog fights in future battels is near to zero but still if we assume any senario of F-16 blk52+ against F-35 or typhoon. It cannot be said that later will be definate winners.
Infect even today, an airforce having 2 or 3 dedicated role fighters will have an edge over an airforce operating only multirole.
Multirole is practically a compromise and a commercial gimmick. It suits more to countries who have not to face an equally befitted opponent.

A large multifunctional platform such as F-35 with all the stealth features, state of the art avionics and stand off weapon systems. Primarily for interdiction missions.
Small highly manaouverable and with some stealth features, pilotless fighter. Say size of the old Gnat. To counter the aircrafts such as F-35 which your enemy might have.

See! Falcon in the role of interceptor can take on F-35 easily.

An Intruder type medium size fighter aircraft filled with radar jammimg equipment to blind and shoot down enemy's AWACs. This aircarft would be expendable so would need to be pilotless as well.

Poor nations may not mind wasting a pilot for the noble cause.

IMO we are gardually moving towards a time when fighter pilots will become redundant altogether.

Not improbable, infect a prototype can be made even today.
It's more of a design engineering work rather than R&D.
I think the amount of engineering and development required may not be more than making a fighter jet simulator.
Just a 360° camera is required, some servo controls, GPS and it should work.
There will be definate delay of rate of data transfer but still can fit to many roles other than dogfight.