MRCA Competition

**Skywatcher** · 03 Jul 11,, 08:37

Originally Posted by S2

I see you're slightly irritated by some exciting tactical irrelevancies.

They probably haven't been able to completely shake out the the InAF's counterpart to the fighter mafia yet.

Things will turn out very badly for the current brass if the planned Euro-canard AESAs do not perform to expectations.

**ambidex** · 03 Jul 11,, 11:07

Originally Posted by Chogy

Interesting, but predictable. The continued emphasis on hyper-maneuverability, outside-lomcevaks, and airshow handling, makes me want to chew on a pistol barrel like it was an all-day lollipop.

The need existed, from post-vietnam to the mid 1980's. But even then, we realized that improved radars, sensors, and above all, all-aspect weapons with radically improved Pk (probablility of a kill), took the importance of agility down several notches. In all of GW1, there was not a single turning engagement as practiced so heartily throughout the 1980's. Not one.

The simple truth is, entry into the WEZ (weapons engagement zone) of an aware fighter means death. If unaware, he may be dispatched without turning. There is no longer a need to maneuver to an opponent's six o'clock. He who detects first, shoots first, wins.

We have offloaded maneuverability into reliable missiles that can pull 40, 50 G, as opposed to the target's 9 G.

Spend the money, the technology, on sensors, stealth, and weapons. Not on living wings, fancy slats, thrust vectoring.

Get a T/W and an airframe capable of supercruise. That, I agree, is tactically potent. Otherwise, be happy with instantaneous turns capable of swinging a nose into a position where that 50 G dogfight missile can do its magic.

Self deleted...

**kuku** · 03 Jul 11,, 13:13

Originally Posted by Skywatcher

They probably haven't been able to completely shake out the the InAF's counterpart to the fighter mafia yet.

Things will turn out very badly for the current brass if the planned Euro-canard AESAs do not perform to expectations.

Its a Government of India tender, with bid bond guarantee, performance bank guarantee and a thousand pages detailing the exact performance required etc. etc.

It takes an entire proposal division to handle a tender this big.......

**Chogy** · 03 Jul 11,, 14:03

Originally Posted by S2

I see you're slightly irritated by some exciting tactical irrelevancies.

I can handle individuals who worship at the post-stall altar, but it's surprising to me that informed government representatives would reject aircraft because "they aren't agile enough." Since I know they are smart, I think they are saying this for public consumption, and there is a deeper agenda.

Our own fighter mafia - I admire Col Boyd, an under-rated thinker, who conceptualized OODA and modern maneuver as used by the U.S. Marines and Franks in 2003 - not bad for a zoomie. The U.S. fighter mafia in the 1970's did fantastic things for the USAF. Their influence created the F-15, F-16, and A-10.

But they had a fatal luddite flaw, and felt that sensors and weapons would never evolve as they actually did. An Air Force needs to go with the flow, and all the canards and TV in the world cannot save one from an AIM-120, AIM-9X, or R-73.

Prediction - Lockheed knows, the USAF knows, that the F-35 maneuverability will be "good enough." One day, F-35 line units will be pitted against Sukhoi or European aircraft, will lose a canned maneuvering setup, and everyone and their fifth cousin will scream bloody murder at the incompetent F-35 and its designers, conveniently ignoring the F-35 stand-off mastery.