3 ms·

I once heard second hand (but never confirmed it) that the F-16s wing area is a bit smaller that originally intended because you couldn't have a cheap multirole

by lujim 11y ago

I once heard second hand (but never confirmed it) that the F-16s wing area is a bit smaller that originally intended because you couldn't have a cheap multirole fighter like the F-16 routinely beating the crap out of massively expensive Air to Air only F-15 in mock dogfights. I kind of believe it because even though the F-16 can sustain 9g's it does that between at it's 340kt-440kt cornering speed. A larger wing would have meant a slower cornering speed and a tighter turn at 9g's (if the F-100 engine could provide the thrust). On the missiles, stealth etc comment, I think you're right. I think beyond visual range (BVR) fighting got a false start in Vietnam. At the time BVR was used in the context of shooting sparrows at Soviet bombers in a nuclear scenario. ie. A bunch of non maneuvering planes on the radar that were clearly Soviet bombers and were not friendly or civilian air traffic. The F-4 was initially very bad at this role because BVR missiles sucked initially and sometimes just dropped off the wing without firing, they had no cannon, and often a visual confirmation was required to take a shot (I believe). That soured the BVR taste for many people. Newer technology allows a more realistic BVR fight even when worrying about friendly and civilian air traffic.

vlehto 11y ago
The thrust/weight ratios of engines are stuck somewhere below 10/1 with afterburners. Military power is significantly less than that. Engine is single most heavy component, and structures have to be calculated to carry that two tonne lump of metals though 9G turn. So engine thrust/weight is pretty much the defining factor. I don't think F110 could have lent it self to significantly more. BVR missiles might become the thing or not. If stealth goes far enough, close encounters with airplanes might become unavoidable. This would be incredibly expensive with modern off bore IR missiles. You would essentially always have 1/1 kill ratios, no matter what side you are on. The golden age of BVR missile might have been the 90's. A decade with very little air combat. On the other hand if BVR is the thing (maybe with sophisticated IR tracking, I don't know.) Then fighter plane is just overly expensive launch platform. Drones and long range SAMs should take over. You might even reach a point where stealth stops mattering, because you just try to saturate airspace with hordes of very cheap drones carrying relatively expensive missiles. Then there is missile killing lasers. But you could end up with similar results with turreted "metal storm" auto cannon. Lots of the lasers apparent superiority comes from sophisticated kill chain. Detect, recognize, track, aim an boom. Only certain type of "boom" is result of using a laser. Kinetic shell adds only one step of calculating ballistics, which these days is easiest one in the bunch. If this happens, air combat would turn into a contest of long range gunnery.

by lujim 11y ago

vlehto 11y ago

The thrust/weight ratios of engines are stuck somewhere below 10/1 with afterburners. Military power is significantly less than that. Engine is single most heavy component, and structures have to be calculated to carry that two tonne lump of metals though 9G turn. So engine thrust/weight is pretty much the defining factor. I don't think F110 could have lent it self to significantly more. BVR missiles might become the thing or not. If stealth goes far enough, close encounters with airplanes might become unavoidable. This would be incredibly expensive with modern off bore IR missiles. You would essentially always have 1/1 kill ratios, no matter what side you are on. The golden age of BVR missile might have been the 90's. A decade with very little air combat. On the other hand if BVR is the thing (maybe with sophisticated IR tracking, I don't know.) Then fighter plane is just overly expensive launch platform. Drones and long range SAMs should take over. You might even reach a point where stealth stops mattering, because you just try to saturate airspace with hordes of very cheap drones carrying relatively expensive missiles. Then there is missile killing lasers. But you could end up with similar results with turreted "metal storm" auto cannon. Lots of the lasers apparent superiority comes from sophisticated kill chain. Detect, recognize, track, aim an boom. Only certain type of "boom" is result of using a laser. Kinetic shell adds only one step of calculating ballistics, which these days is easiest one in the bunch. If this happens, air combat would turn into a contest of long range gunnery.