10 ms·

This 100%. While really cool demonstrations, the utility of these in a fight is virtually nonexistent. Any air-to-air engagements these days are inevitably BVR

This 100%. While really cool demonstrations, the utility of these in a fight is virtually nonexistent. Any air-to-air engagements these days are inevitably BVR (beyond visual range) encounters, where aircraft fire missiles at one-another from extreme ranges. This type of maneuverability has no use whatsoever in such a scenario. If all of the long-range missiles fail to neutralize one side of the other and both forces opt to continue the engagement, you get to WVR (within visual range) where infrared missiles and—once those are spent—guns are employed. There could be opportunities here where such a trick might be useful, but only in a 1v1 scenario. For any case where you might have two or more enemies to deal with, such an abrupt loss of energy is suicide. And if you’re on the side with superior numbers, the odds are overwhelmingly in your favor with little chance of you being defensive in the first place. And in the 1v1 scenario, modern infrared missiles like the AIM-9x (which are effective even when launched at frankly ridiculous off-boresight angles) make such a maneuver suicide as well. So it might, might be useful if: both sides empty their long/medium-range radar-guided missiles at one-another, only two combatants remain, neither decides to bug out, the aggressor empties their IR missiles unsuccessfully, and the defensive craft is imminently going to be within the weapon employment zone for the bandit’s cannon… then this might be a Hail Mary to force the aggressor to overshoot so you can turn the tables. But having bled all your energy, you’re going to get at most one shot before you’re back to simply trying to survive.

Firehawke 6y ago
Most fights will inevitably go from BVR to WVR-- ECM is continually in a war of escalation with munitions and ECM is almost always ahead.
- scarier 6y ago
  This is a really interesting topic for debate. Possibly the most recent employment of modern air-to-air tactics we've seen in actual combat was in the early '80s (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mole_Cricket_19 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mole_Cricket_19). I hope we never have to see an actual large-scale air war between high-end, near-peer competitors, and can continue to armchair debate these kinds of scenarios.
  - trhway 6y ago
    Speaking about ECM and the Bekaa battle, a kind of similar situation has just happened in the recent months - Turkey found a way for their drones to effectively attack Russian "Pantsir-S1" anti-aircraft system (details aren't clear, seems that in addition to ECM the drone specific aspects like long loitering waiting for opportunity and simultaneous multiple drone attack from different directions played key role), and around 30 Pantsirs have just been lost in Syria and Libya. (Sidenote: Ukraine has recently got those drones from Turkey and successfully tested against Pantsir - Pantsirs are standard air defense of Russian tank battalions and was the main reason Ukraine, who has nor stealth nor high precision standoff, didn't use the air-to-ground attacks against the Russian tank forces when they ventured into Donbass back then in August 2014 and February 2015)
    - scarier 6y ago
      This is interesting! Do you have any more in-depth articles on it? The Pantsir can be a pretty beastly threat...
      - noir-york 6y ago
        This article has some more information: https://t-intell.com/2020/05/22/lethal-stalkers-how-turkish-drones-are-neutralizing-haftars-pantsirs-in-libya-bda/ https://t-intell.com/2020/05/22/lethal-stalkers-how-turkish-...
    - imtringued 6y ago
      Turkey also lost a lot of their drones. https://lostarmour.info/libya/item.php?id=23673 https://lostarmour.info/libya/item.php?id=23673
      - jacobush 6y ago
        Probably still cheap to replace, and an interesting proof of concept.
  - dmix 6y ago
- Diesel555 6y ago
  Yes, and in the WVR fight, doing a trick like that isn't helpful. You kill all your energy. While the nose is moving, your aircraft is still going in a similar plane of motion and has little capability to use the vertical.
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    Killing all your energy is worth it if you get even one missile off and on target.
    - Diesel555 6y ago
      I mean if you have no other choice but to die. Flying a good gameplan to put yourself in a position of advantage is the normal gameplan. But sure, having this trick after you've messed it up is nice to have.
      - sudosysgen 6y ago
        Not necessarily. There are conceivable situations where supermaneuvrability can turn a situation where an enemy is on your tail and has a lock onto a situation where you fired a missile at them and you're safe. But yes, it's not the normal game plan. The normal gameplan is very likely to degenerate into such situations, though.
        heavenlyblue 6y ago
        You only need that if your missiles are dumb enough to not be programmable for more complex than simple following paths. It’s much safer to teach your missiles to do the manoeuvre instead of making the plane do it first.
        formerly_proven 6y ago
        > It’s much safer to teach your missiles to do the manoeuvre instead of making the plane do it first. Indeed modern air-to-air missiles can do this and much more. They can be launched and lock on after the launch and have full-sphere attack capability (unlike earlier missiles, which even in a high off-boresight scenario would still require the launching aircraft to be behind the target).
sandworm101 6y ago
Yes but to win the fight first you have to get to the fight. These low-speed abilities mean russian aircraft can operate from much shorter/poorer strips than western jets. They are the product of a different mindset, a more defensive strategy. I doubt the f22 has ever touched grass.
- scarier 6y ago
  To be fair, even non-supermaneuverable Russian jets have good unimproved-field performance--old-school tech like intake screens plays a much bigger role here than fancy thrust vectoring and fly-by-wire controls. But they absolutely are a product of a different mindset, and have been wildly successful in certain aspects.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
Bobbcatt 6y ago
All of this is extremely wrong. First of all, there's no guarantee that you will be able to use BVR. A stealth fighter using its radar is the same as a man in a camouflage at night turning on his search light. Everybody will know where you are. There might also be rule of engagement restriction, as has been many times that forced within-visual-range. For WVR, the ability to supermaneuver is useful. It can give you that extra edge to get the angle on a target. You have to give up a lot of energy, sure. But you do have >1 TWR, and your buddies to cover you. It's not a magical tool but another one in a toolbox. Also, in WVR, the advantage goes to the side with fewer planes. There was a study from the korean war to show this. The reason is because if you and your buddy is fighting 20 bandits, you can shoot at anybody that flies in front of you, while the enemies have to visually identify. And the speed of jet combat makes it impossible to verify before you lose your opportunity. >So it might, might be useful if: both sides empty their long/medium-range radar-guided missiles at one-another, only two combatants remain, neither decides to bug out, the aggressor empties their IR missiles unsuccessfully, and the defensive craft is imminently going to be within the weapon employment zone for the bandit’s cannon Yup. Just like in vietnam. We are gonna fly up there with our f4s afterburning to mach 2, then we will launch all our sparrows at the bandits, who would fly straight into our missiles because they are dumb, and then we will land just in time for lunch.
- scarier 6y ago
  Oversimplified for sure, but I think "extremely wrong" is unfair. I think the jury is still out on whether or not a stealth-on-stealth fight (or a more conventional fight in an ECM-heavy environment) inevitably devolves into a WVR knife fight. There are a number of reasons why this doesn't have to be the case. You're absolutely correct that ROE can force a VID, but it'd be pretty dumb to box yourself into a corner that would force you into a neutral-ish WVR fight, yeah? I agree that supermaneuverability has the potential to be useful, but I think it's fair to say that it's very much an edge case, and even then more of an augment to missiles that already have HOBS capability than a replacement for them. It certainly isn't a game-changing capability the way HOBS was. Also, TWR only goes so far to help recover from an energy deficit, especially if you have to go into reheat to make it happen. Gas kills are a thing... Yes and no. Against a well-coordinated, larger force it's really difficult to win, and I very much wouldn't recommend adopting it as a primary tactic. If you had a fight that magically began at the furball phase (admittedly, this is one potential outcome of stealth-on-stealth engagements, although I imagine we'd need to develop better and different technology to make it a reality), that would be more likely to favor the individual, at least until they run out of missiles (it's difficult to over-emphasize how difficult guns kills are against maneuvering targets, even for a hypothetical magic robot with near-perfect aim). Old-school fights like Korea were much closer to the "immediate, chaotic furball" side of the spectrum than current fights, and there was a much less well-developed set of intra-and inter-flight tactics. A modern 2v1 (even heaters-only) is far more lopsided against the 1 than it was during Korea. With good coordination, this scales. (Aside: a really good book about the air war in Korea is The Hunters by James Salter. Highly recommended--it's fiction, but based on the author's own experiences as a pilot there.) For what it's worth, technology and tactics have improved in the last half decade (perhaps more than we can say about our judgement?)... The proliferation of certain technologies will force continual re-evaluation of tactics, but I think it's safe to say that BVR is reasonably mature and not going anywhere in the foreseeable future. (That said, reports of the death of the air-to-air gun will always be greatly exaggerated.)
amelius 6y ago
So you want maneuverability in your missiles, not your aircraft?
- huffmsa 6y ago
  Yes, because the missile doesn't need to worry about what happens after it gets a positional advantage and goes boom. It wins, game over.
- stouset 6y ago
  Precisely. Your missiles are far lighter, can turn on a dime before firing their rockets, and—most importantly—don’t need to worry about survival after a missed shot.
- formerly_proven 6y ago
  Obviously. A fighter jet has a trust-to-weight ratio of about 1. Even ultra-old air-to-air-missiles whose specs are declassified like the the AIM-9B from the 1950s have a T/W ratio of over 20, and they are much easier to make maneuverable compared to a 30 ton jet that shouldn't break apart or kill its pilot.

Firehawke 6y ago

Most fights will inevitably go from BVR to WVR-- ECM is continually in a war of escalation with munitions and ECM is almost always ahead.

scarier 6y ago
This is a really interesting topic for debate. Possibly the most recent employment of modern air-to-air tactics we've seen in actual combat was in the early '80s (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mole_Cricket_19 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mole_Cricket_19). I hope we never have to see an actual large-scale air war between high-end, near-peer competitors, and can continue to armchair debate these kinds of scenarios.
- trhway 6y ago
  Speaking about ECM and the Bekaa battle, a kind of similar situation has just happened in the recent months - Turkey found a way for their drones to effectively attack Russian "Pantsir-S1" anti-aircraft system (details aren't clear, seems that in addition to ECM the drone specific aspects like long loitering waiting for opportunity and simultaneous multiple drone attack from different directions played key role), and around 30 Pantsirs have just been lost in Syria and Libya. (Sidenote: Ukraine has recently got those drones from Turkey and successfully tested against Pantsir - Pantsirs are standard air defense of Russian tank battalions and was the main reason Ukraine, who has nor stealth nor high precision standoff, didn't use the air-to-ground attacks against the Russian tank forces when they ventured into Donbass back then in August 2014 and February 2015)
  - scarier 6y ago
    This is interesting! Do you have any more in-depth articles on it? The Pantsir can be a pretty beastly threat...
    - noir-york 6y ago
      This article has some more information: https://t-intell.com/2020/05/22/lethal-stalkers-how-turkish-drones-are-neutralizing-haftars-pantsirs-in-libya-bda/ https://t-intell.com/2020/05/22/lethal-stalkers-how-turkish-...
  - imtringued 6y ago
    Turkey also lost a lot of their drones. https://lostarmour.info/libya/item.php?id=23673 https://lostarmour.info/libya/item.php?id=23673
    - jacobush 6y ago
      Probably still cheap to replace, and an interesting proof of concept.
- dmix 6y ago
Diesel555 6y ago
Yes, and in the WVR fight, doing a trick like that isn't helpful. You kill all your energy. While the nose is moving, your aircraft is still going in a similar plane of motion and has little capability to use the vertical.
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  Killing all your energy is worth it if you get even one missile off and on target.
  - Diesel555 6y ago
    I mean if you have no other choice but to die. Flying a good gameplan to put yourself in a position of advantage is the normal gameplan. But sure, having this trick after you've messed it up is nice to have.
    - sudosysgen 6y ago
      Not necessarily. There are conceivable situations where supermaneuvrability can turn a situation where an enemy is on your tail and has a lock onto a situation where you fired a missile at them and you're safe. But yes, it's not the normal game plan. The normal gameplan is very likely to degenerate into such situations, though.
      - heavenlyblue 6y ago
        You only need that if your missiles are dumb enough to not be programmable for more complex than simple following paths. It’s much safer to teach your missiles to do the manoeuvre instead of making the plane do it first.
        formerly_proven 6y ago
        > It’s much safer to teach your missiles to do the manoeuvre instead of making the plane do it first. Indeed modern air-to-air missiles can do this and much more. They can be launched and lock on after the launch and have full-sphere attack capability (unlike earlier missiles, which even in a high off-boresight scenario would still require the launching aircraft to be behind the target).

sandworm101 6y ago

Yes but to win the fight first you have to get to the fight. These low-speed abilities mean russian aircraft can operate from much shorter/poorer strips than western jets. They are the product of a different mindset, a more defensive strategy. I doubt the f22 has ever touched grass.

scarier 6y ago
To be fair, even non-supermaneuverable Russian jets have good unimproved-field performance--old-school tech like intake screens plays a much bigger role here than fancy thrust vectoring and fly-by-wire controls. But they absolutely are a product of a different mindset, and have been wildly successful in certain aspects.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

Bobbcatt 6y ago

All of this is extremely wrong. First of all, there's no guarantee that you will be able to use BVR. A stealth fighter using its radar is the same as a man in a camouflage at night turning on his search light. Everybody will know where you are. There might also be rule of engagement restriction, as has been many times that forced within-visual-range. For WVR, the ability to supermaneuver is useful. It can give you that extra edge to get the angle on a target. You have to give up a lot of energy, sure. But you do have >1 TWR, and your buddies to cover you. It's not a magical tool but another one in a toolbox. Also, in WVR, the advantage goes to the side with fewer planes. There was a study from the korean war to show this. The reason is because if you and your buddy is fighting 20 bandits, you can shoot at anybody that flies in front of you, while the enemies have to visually identify. And the speed of jet combat makes it impossible to verify before you lose your opportunity. >So it might, might be useful if: both sides empty their long/medium-range radar-guided missiles at one-another, only two combatants remain, neither decides to bug out, the aggressor empties their IR missiles unsuccessfully, and the defensive craft is imminently going to be within the weapon employment zone for the bandit’s cannon Yup. Just like in vietnam. We are gonna fly up there with our f4s afterburning to mach 2, then we will launch all our sparrows at the bandits, who would fly straight into our missiles because they are dumb, and then we will land just in time for lunch.

scarier 6y ago
Oversimplified for sure, but I think "extremely wrong" is unfair. I think the jury is still out on whether or not a stealth-on-stealth fight (or a more conventional fight in an ECM-heavy environment) inevitably devolves into a WVR knife fight. There are a number of reasons why this doesn't have to be the case. You're absolutely correct that ROE can force a VID, but it'd be pretty dumb to box yourself into a corner that would force you into a neutral-ish WVR fight, yeah? I agree that supermaneuverability has the potential to be useful, but I think it's fair to say that it's very much an edge case, and even then more of an augment to missiles that already have HOBS capability than a replacement for them. It certainly isn't a game-changing capability the way HOBS was. Also, TWR only goes so far to help recover from an energy deficit, especially if you have to go into reheat to make it happen. Gas kills are a thing... Yes and no. Against a well-coordinated, larger force it's really difficult to win, and I very much wouldn't recommend adopting it as a primary tactic. If you had a fight that magically began at the furball phase (admittedly, this is one potential outcome of stealth-on-stealth engagements, although I imagine we'd need to develop better and different technology to make it a reality), that would be more likely to favor the individual, at least until they run out of missiles (it's difficult to over-emphasize how difficult guns kills are against maneuvering targets, even for a hypothetical magic robot with near-perfect aim). Old-school fights like Korea were much closer to the "immediate, chaotic furball" side of the spectrum than current fights, and there was a much less well-developed set of intra-and inter-flight tactics. A modern 2v1 (even heaters-only) is far more lopsided against the 1 than it was during Korea. With good coordination, this scales. (Aside: a really good book about the air war in Korea is The Hunters by James Salter. Highly recommended--it's fiction, but based on the author's own experiences as a pilot there.) For what it's worth, technology and tactics have improved in the last half decade (perhaps more than we can say about our judgement?)... The proliferation of certain technologies will force continual re-evaluation of tactics, but I think it's safe to say that BVR is reasonably mature and not going anywhere in the foreseeable future. (That said, reports of the death of the air-to-air gun will always be greatly exaggerated.)

amelius 6y ago

So you want maneuverability in your missiles, not your aircraft?

huffmsa 6y ago
Yes, because the missile doesn't need to worry about what happens after it gets a positional advantage and goes boom. It wins, game over.
stouset 6y ago
Precisely. Your missiles are far lighter, can turn on a dime before firing their rockets, and—most importantly—don’t need to worry about survival after a missed shot.
formerly_proven 6y ago
Obviously. A fighter jet has a trust-to-weight ratio of about 1. Even ultra-old air-to-air-missiles whose specs are declassified like the the AIM-9B from the 1950s have a T/W ratio of over 20, and they are much easier to make maneuverable compared to a 30 ton jet that shouldn't break apart or kill its pilot.