4 ms·

> Modern airframes are still not capable of sustaining as much acceleration as missiles. Are those limits what they are because there wasn't any point in desig

> Modern airframes are still not capable of sustaining as much acceleration as missiles. Are those limits what they are because there wasn't any point in designing stronger airframes if the pilot was just going to black out under higher G forces? If you take the vulnerable human body out of the equation I wonder if airframes strong enough to withstand that acceleration would actually be feasible.

berkut 6y ago
It's sometimes possible to overstress airframes (even ones that use FBW, and should in theory always operate within limits) in high-G maneuvers, as they have stress limits (g limits), which depend on the airframe as well as load-out for fighters.
jacquesm 6y ago
It's mostly a matter of mass. You would need crazy amounts of power to make a large aircraft make the same kind of turns that a small missile can do effortlessly, besides that it is much easier to make a small structure very strong. Try killing a flea if you want more proof of that.
stouset 6y ago
A plane is, conceptually, just a platform from which to launch ordnance closer and at a higher starting potential energy than you would be able to from the ground. Given that a plane, then, needs to be capable of carrying multiple pieces of ordnance (otherwise, it's pretty much just a guided missile), it's pretty much fundamentally going to have a higher mass than whatever missile you're launching at it.
- andrewflnr 6y ago
  That sounds like it means dogfighting doesn't matter at all. You just need an autonomous missile platform with good enough ECM to avoid getting splattered by the enemy missile platform.
  - magicsmoke 6y ago
    That's the basis behind F35's design and why it can't outmaneuver a F16 in a visual range dogfight but is never expected to get into one.
  - xnyan 6y ago
    >That sounds like it means dogfighting doesn't matter at all There has not been an aerial dogfight in this millennia. The last ones that would really count happened over Bosnia in the 90s. I think a Rafale took down a 1960s era MIG-23 in the Libyan Civil war, but modern fighters are either too hard to hit or too expensive to risk.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> If you take the vulnerable human body out of the equation I wonder if airframes strong enough to withstand that acceleration would actually be feasible. Take the human body out, and the airframe is a (possibly, bus) missile.
imtringued 6y ago
I don't know why this keeps getting brought up. Humans may be a factor in the maneuverability of an aircraft but the days of dog fighting are over. There are effective countermeasures against guided missiles that don't involve high G forces. Today it's all about spotting the enemy first and then the usual logistics of deploying as many weapons on the enemy as possible. An aircraft that can carry 4 missiles and runs out should head back so that it can sortie tomorrow again with a fresh load of missiles instead of starting a desperate dogfight. An expensive plane that can only carry 2 missiles but is guaranteed to return home is more valuable in a war than a cheap one that carries more missiles but gets shot down frequently.

berkut 6y ago

It's sometimes possible to overstress airframes (even ones that use FBW, and should in theory always operate within limits) in high-G maneuvers, as they have stress limits (g limits), which depend on the airframe as well as load-out for fighters.

jacquesm 6y ago

It's mostly a matter of mass. You would need crazy amounts of power to make a large aircraft make the same kind of turns that a small missile can do effortlessly, besides that it is much easier to make a small structure very strong. Try killing a flea if you want more proof of that.

stouset 6y ago

A plane is, conceptually, just a platform from which to launch ordnance closer and at a higher starting potential energy than you would be able to from the ground. Given that a plane, then, needs to be capable of carrying multiple pieces of ordnance (otherwise, it's pretty much just a guided missile), it's pretty much fundamentally going to have a higher mass than whatever missile you're launching at it.

andrewflnr 6y ago
That sounds like it means dogfighting doesn't matter at all. You just need an autonomous missile platform with good enough ECM to avoid getting splattered by the enemy missile platform.
- magicsmoke 6y ago
  That's the basis behind F35's design and why it can't outmaneuver a F16 in a visual range dogfight but is never expected to get into one.
- xnyan 6y ago
  >That sounds like it means dogfighting doesn't matter at all There has not been an aerial dogfight in this millennia. The last ones that would really count happened over Bosnia in the 90s. I think a Rafale took down a 1960s era MIG-23 in the Libyan Civil war, but modern fighters are either too hard to hit or too expensive to risk.

dragonwriter 6y ago

> If you take the vulnerable human body out of the equation I wonder if airframes strong enough to withstand that acceleration would actually be feasible. Take the human body out, and the airframe is a (possibly, bus) missile.

imtringued 6y ago

I don't know why this keeps getting brought up. Humans may be a factor in the maneuverability of an aircraft but the days of dog fighting are over. There are effective countermeasures against guided missiles that don't involve high G forces. Today it's all about spotting the enemy first and then the usual logistics of deploying as many weapons on the enemy as possible. An aircraft that can carry 4 missiles and runs out should head back so that it can sortie tomorrow again with a fresh load of missiles instead of starting a desperate dogfight. An expensive plane that can only carry 2 missiles but is guaranteed to return home is more valuable in a war than a cheap one that carries more missiles but gets shot down frequently.