comparing fighter performance of the same generations; important factor in war

[Officer of Engineers]

Then why need fighters? Could not SAMs do the same thing?

[Chogy]

To a modest extent, yes, which is why modern SAM's like Patriot and similar are so feared. They are very good. But even mobile SAMs could be considered essentially fixed when compared to the flexibility of a fighter. The fighter allows one to project power along any axis, very quickly, to extreme ranges, and also respond to enemy fighters. There are also horizon issues - by flying at higher altitudes, airborne radar gets a huge range boost compared to SAMs.

One cannot send a Patriot 1,000 nm into enemy territory to attrit enemy air.

[GGTharos]

Yep, SAMs are speed bumps for a capable air-force. You need a capable air-force of your own to turn'em into walls, and if the 'other' air force happens to have stealth jets, your airspace surveillance and defense with SAMs just became a sieve, unless you invest in cost-prohibitive numbers and densities of SAMs ... which will just get eaten away by a bunch of SDBs.

[GGTharos]

Not ONE sustained turning fight.

IIRC there was one or two, but that MiG-29 was a maneuver kill. Go figure - the others were a couple of MiG-25's which went to the merge with F-15's. I'm not sure why they thought this a good idea.

The emphasis was slowly shifted to sensors, sorting, and missile performance. He who detects, sorts, and fires first, wins. Give me an F-106 with all-aspect weapons and a modern radar, and I'll destroy an Eagle or Flanker who doesn't understand what the air war has become, or who doesn't have modern missiles. If you overlaid the dozens of performance graphs, the F-106 would appear to be hopelessly outclassed, but that would not be the case.

You would not believe how insanely, amusingly true this is in the flight simming community as well.

This is why I scoff at people who shriek - "The F-35 is going to be a pig compared to Russian jets!" Uh, no. Reduced RCS, extremely advanced digital sensors, adequate maneuverability, and modern missiles, gives the edge to the F-35.

Karlo Cooooooopp! :D

The summary to this disjointed novel - performance charts are a cool thing, have historical interest, but are not all that applicable anymore. More interesting to me would be performance charts of modern missiles, overlaid and compared, as well as AI radars.

I have some of that from dubious sources in some cases, unfortunately. I think I may be able to find a solid chart for a heater comparison, I have certain R-27 and R-73 use diagrams, but nothing useful for the 7 or 120/77 other than a couple of dubious graphs (showing that the AIM-120A actually had somewhat better performance than the R-77, or at least very similar), and some ballistic simulation. While this can get you the max range ballbark, it's really still a lot of guess work since missile propellants tend to be classified.

[Chogy]

In the 1970's and '80's, I believe NATO's AA missiles were at least 10 to 15 years ahead of the USSR. Especially, the AIM-9L/M was a game changer. But then intelligence began to be leaked about the capabilities of the "Aphid." The R-60. More maneuverable than the AIM-9, shorter minimum range, very important in a close fight. The trend has continued, and it would appear that Russian missiles are on par, and in some cases better, than Western variants.

Given this, the launch platform becomes even more critical. I don't think missile max range is the key. Rather, the key is in net-centric detection and sorting, IFF, of pertinent airborne entities. This is where I still believe the West has a strong lead. In a given volume of sky, if a larger proportion of the threats can be detected, identified, and tracked, they can be targeted. And given the reliability and lethality of missiles these days, then they can be destroyed.

The challenge since the late 1970's, as digital systems began to be felt, is to sort through the hash, the noise, and the fog, and allocate airborne assets so that the obvious target doesn't absorb 20 missiles; they are, in fact, distributed properly.

[GGTharos]

Hi Chogy,

Regarding the missiles - the R-73 had a wider (but AFAIK, not longer) WEZ, better Rmin than the AIM-9L (the 9L is what I have diagrams for, I expect the M to be slightly superior kinematically, but only slightly). The R-60 was a joke (surely not if it was launched at you, but it was a tiny knife-fighting missile that never showed itself to be useful - again AFAIK).

Obviously I don't see the same stuff you do, but I don't think the Russian missile designs ever caught up with the western ones ... with the exception of the R-73, which was probably superior in some ways to the 9L/M - the 77 was a match for the 120, but was never produced in useful quantities.

Current western SRMs again left the russian kit in the dust in almost every way; the Pak-FA, the Su-35 with its own modernizations are all playing catch-up even to Golden Eagles (well, the 35's are, the PAK-FA is still a prototype) as far as I can tell, both in terms of weapons and avionics.

That's just my naive analysis of this stuff; in any case, I think that your point is obviously correct. Better information + Capable airframes and weapons = superior air force. It doesn't matter if some plane can pull 30deg/s turns because his force will have been cut down, and even if he's superior at the merge, he's getting dragged and bagged. Something along those lines, is that right?

[adriann]

but qualitatively more than 20% climb advantage at 6000m for the F-15C.A flanker would be very hard pressed to chase an F-15 in an upward spiral.

The VGI's are what give the F-15C its tremendous (subsonic) thrust at high altitude.

Let's say you're right, but how so that in live exercise Su wins dogfight? I think that any well engineered inlet has subsonic P.Recovery ~98 %. High alt thrust largely depends on bypass ratio.

A Spitfire is going to out-turn (rate and radius) a modern jet. And a Sopwith Camel is going to turn inside a Spitfire.
Around 1976, a reliable all-aspect missile with short-ranged capability was fielded, the AIM-9L.

But institutions have a huge inertia, and for decades the USSR/Russia especially, continued to research hyper-maneuverability.

The emphasis was slowly shifted to sensors, sorting, and missile performance.

This is why I scoff at people who shriek - "The F-35 is going to be a pig compared to Russian jets!"

The summary to this disjointed novel - performance charts are a cool thing, have historical interest, but are not all that applicable anymore.

I put Spitfire graph not to challenge jets, but US or German WW2 fighter graphs.

Anyway it is more high speed 'g' that makes problem for AAMs than low speed radius of ancient fighters.

Few today's SAM/AAMs can catch 9g target. I think that although AIM-9L introduced 'Alasca' in dogfight AAMs (some others before also has Alasca, but were ~ 4g weapons), it's min range exceeds seeker's acquisition range in FW hemisphere, but it was more effective in all cases. Even now few AAMs are effective at more than 15 NM range. Ramjet motor can extend ballistic range and g but against stealth, seekers alone acquisition range is less than 5 NM.

Some older Soviet AAMs had monopulse seeker earlier than 7M/Skyflash and inertial mid-course update to bypass 15 NM range acqui.limit.

Also, famous Cobra..as you generally said right on all issues, speaks about hi-alpha dyn.directional stability and therefore controllability - things that matters also in F-18E and 22.
True for all you said, AA combat evoluated, although we saw only 'world against one country' wars, agree also on F-35 issues. So lets put charts of modern missiles, overlaid and compared, as well as AI radars !

Then why need fighters? Could not SAMs do the same thing?

Excellent point, as we saw in lately.

But even mobile SAMs could be considered essentially fixed when compared to the flexibility of a fighter.
One cannot send a Patriot 1,000 nm into enemy territory to attrit enemy air.

As we saw in 'world against one country' wars, defender fighters are useless. After all why should somebody send fighters 1000 NM away from home..

Who knows...airplanes are getting bigger and costlier, they should not eat it's own economy, otherwise war can come to it's own territory. Here are some poor pics on issue.

[Chogy]

Hi Chogy,

Regarding the missiles - the R-73 had a wider (but AFAIK, not longer) WEZ, better Rmin than the AIM-9L (the 9L is what I have diagrams for, I expect the M to be slightly superior kinematically, but only slightly). The R-60 was a joke (surely not if it was launched at you, but it was a tiny knife-fighting missile that never showed itself to be useful - again AFAIK).

I'll just say there was an arrogance to Western forces in my time w/regards to technology. Late 1980's - Not only did we have a strong technological lead (essentially kick-started by Vietnam), we had an even stronger operational lead. Soviet tactics were similar to a Napoleonic line marching forward to meet entrenched WW2 troops. Regarding Soviet hardware... "Not so fast guys, look at some of this data..." The R-60 was, I think, the start of the modernization of the Soviet missile stocks. Before that, it was the "Atoll" which was little better than an AIM-9B, a first generation sidewinder. You could use it on a B-52, but not much more.

It felt a bit that the USA was resting on the laurels of the AIM-9, at least in a kinematic/range and seeker slew sense. The seeker sensitivity was upgraded, but there were still some other issues that remained unimproved, while Russia began to go nuts with a number of missiles that (on paper) appeared very capable. Russia also finally rejected ground-directed tactical operation and began to pursue a more free-wheeling style similar to NATO.

My point was that we know overconfidence can be fatal, and we were loaded with it. One must always remember a stray bullet can kill the general, and a MiG-21 can kill an F-22, in certain circumstances.

It doesn't matter if some plane can pull 30deg/s turns because his force will have been cut down, and even if he's superior at the merge, he's getting dragged and bagged. Something along those lines, is that right?

Exactly. If you can take a toll of an enemy force approaching 75% pre-merge, which is not unrealistic at all, any game plan they had is simply gone. Untenable. As visual range is approached, short-range or visual pick-ups are killed via HOBS IR shots. Before anyone has turned 45 degrees, the battle is 95% won.

Post merge, in your F-22 or F-35, it makes no sense to anchor there and start turning, which negates all of your inherent advantages. On occasion, one may have to, in a critical point defense scenario, but if given the choice, screw that. Let's get out, get some separation back to BVR, and do it over again, if the enemy would dare to try it one more time.

Also, famous Cobra..as you generally said right on all issues, speaks about hi-alpha dyn.directional stability and therefore controllability - things that matters also in F-18E and 22.

My point has always been that hi-alpha anything has little application in air combat in these modern days. Cobras don't kill the enemy. I am at a loss as to how or why one would need to even consider exploring this regime unless one has foolishly chosen to enter a slow-speed fight. A soldier does not throw away his rifle, grab his knife, and charge at an entrenched enemy.

With regards to your data - I have intentionally avoided any specific sort of "vs." comparison, because inevitably, not all of the data is available, and the sterile conditions of such an encounter (isolated 1 v 1 to the death) would be extraordinarily rare. And most importantly, at least in the West, every piece of data you have posted would be considered classified, or at least confidential. There are corporate (export) "data sheets" discussing hardware, and there is the real hardware itself, which often has performance characteristics not available to the general public.

Russia has made great strides in technology in the last 20 years. It would be foolish to underestimate some of the capabilities. But at the same time, I will continue to argue that what we see at an airshow has very little to do with combat, and there is no reason to worry about hi-alpha demonstrations by Sukhoi fighters. Nor does the fact that a Su-27 out-turn by 2 degrees an F-15C at 30,000 feet guarantee victory for the Sukhoi. It is like comparing assault rifle magazine capacity. "Uh oh, Russian mags hold 32 rounds. Ours only go to 30. We are doooomed!" ;)

[GGTharos]

Let's say you're right, but how so that in live exercise Su wins dogfight? I think that any well engineered inlet has subsonic P.Recovery ~98 %. High alt thrust largely depends on bypass ratio.

Let's not say - I actually know I'm right. And what Su won a dogfight in a live dogfight exercise? Never happened (unless you want to desperately believe in rumours on the internet). The only example is a bunch of Su-30MKI's getting pasted by F-15C's due to inexperienced pilots. You also have to understand the nature and complexity of dogfights to be able to make any statements about them.

Few today's SAM/AAMs can catch 9g target. I think that although AIM-9L introduced 'Alasca' in dogfight AAMs (some others before also has Alasca, but were ~ 4g weapons), it's min range exceeds seeker's acquisition range in FW hemisphere, but it was more effective in all cases. Even now few AAMs are effective at more than 15 NM range. Ramjet motor can extend ballistic range and g but against stealth, seekers alone acquisition range is less than 5 NM.

What on earth is this 'Alasca' thing? There's a state with a very similar name ;) As for the 9L, there's pretty good data on it. Are you sure you're not talking about the P? Why are you mixing up five zillion things in the same paragraph?

Some older Soviet AAMs had monopulse seeker earlier than 7M/Skyflash and inertial mid-course update to bypass 15 NM range acqui.limit.

Really? Which ones? ;)

Also, famous Cobra..as you generally said right on all issues, speaks about hi-alpha dyn.directional stability and therefore controllability - things that matters also in F-18E and 22.

.... which doesn't mean a thing in combat. Who cares if you can control a stalled-out aircraft? You're dead if you put yourself into that position anyway.

So lets put charts of modern missiles, overlaid and compared, as well as AI radars !

Right, you might find a few credible ones. Good luck.

As we saw in 'world against one country' wars, defender fighters are useless.

They are quite useful, assuming you're not using hardware that's 20-30 years out of date compared to your attacker's.

Here are some poor pics on issue.

Carlo Kopp again? Try using a better source. The only thing that is credible here is the R-27R1 diagram, and that too is offered without context. The 9M/73/9X diagram is funny.

[Stitch]

My point has always been that hi-alpha anything has little application in air combat in these modern days. Cobras don't kill the enemy. I am at a loss as to how or why one would need to even consider exploring this regime unless one has foolishly chosen to enter a slow-speed fight. A soldier does not throw away his rifle, grab his knife, and charge at an entrenched enemy.

Reminds me of this poster:

[gunnut]

A soldier does not throw away his rifle, grab his knife, and charge at an entrenched enemy.

How else is he going to show the world his superb knife training?

[adriann]

I'll just say there was an arrogance to Western forces in my time w/regards to technology.
[/I] Cobras don't kill the enemy. I am at a loss as to how or why one would need to even consider exploring this regime unless one has foolishly chosen to enter a slow-speed fight.

You said well about arrogance, nobody's who builds arms is fool. We just do not have right info at the time, incidentally or purposely. There are many Atoll versions, similarly to Aim-9. R-60 was Magic class. Some other, an-exported had All-Aspect-Capability. British Red Top also had, maybe some Matra R-530 also. Acrid had Sam-6 tech. monopulse head and some other navigation firsts. AA-11 took advantage of Agile/Claw and I think it was fielded 20 years ahead of 9X. R-27 has navigation that doubles 7F/M range.
As you said, isolated one vs one case is one thing and Awacs, Rc-135, Ef-111, plus F-15 against one Mig-29 another thing.
I also wanted to say again that so cold supermaneuverability translates into useful 15 deg AOA rolling limit at hi-subsonic speeds where traditional fighters has ~10 deg limit. This is only 18E's advantage over 18A/C in turns. F-35 is on par with 29 only in high-AOA capab. and instant.turns, that was requirement.

F-15C's . You also have to understand the nature and complexity of dogfights to be able to make any statements about them.
Right, you might find a few credible ones. Good luck.
They are quite useful, assuming you're not using hardware that's 20-30 years out of date compared to your attacker's.
Carlo Kopp again? Try using a better source. The 9M/73/9X diagram is funny.

What's the max trimmed L/D ratio of F-15 ? Very fine but not exceptional ?
Maybe I was somebody in my country regarding usefulness of subsonic class a/c in AC and engineering or flight mechanics of a/c..
It is not too hard to get some idea about capabilities of APG-77 or Zhuk, average power, gain or sidelobes...anyway result is double range of -63 or 001. Similar case is with AAMs.

Again if Ethiopia has Su-30 and attacker bunch of support a/c and F-106, as Chogy said, result will be certain.
The 9M/73/9X diagram is not to scale, 73 couldn't have high turn rate if detector signal-to-noise ratio was not good. Btw you are excellently informed, I can see, maybe you can help with some graph for us to scratch heads.

[GGTharos]

The MICA is not surprising (It is a 110kg missile, the 77 is about 180kg, you would expect it to have more propellant, and thus longer range).

As for the AMRAAM graph you posted (it is AIM-120A, IIRC) ...

[S2]

"How else is he going to show the world his superb knife training?"

The world isn't interested...

[Chogy]

What's the max trimmed L/D ratio of F-15 ? Very fine but not exceptional ?

What does this number matter? It's like we are comparing the strength of USA-built rivets with Russian rivets. To answer your question, F-15 aerodynamics were engineered to be very good in a number of areas... to avoid any exploitable weak regimes, to be decent in all. I'll give you an obvious example, F-15 vs. the MiG-25.

We all know the story. Until Belenko defected, little was known. It was presumed to be an air-superiority fighter capable of excellent maneuverability. Now we know it is an interceptor only, and couldn't outturn a B-52. But it can haul ass in the extreme. The MiG-25 engineers sacrificed turning for straight line speed. The Eagle could have Mach 3 capability if the high-lift wing and overall design didn't create such a high induced drag. But McDonnel-Douglas, in their wisdom, realized that M2.5 was good enough. Likewise, the Eagle turn rate and radius dictate it'd be best to avoid turning against a MiG-17/19 opponent in the <200 knot regime. That too is OK, because the F-15 can simply accelerate out of any danger those would present. Or can simply decline turning combat, and stand-off for the kill.

ALL aircraft designs are compromises. When you create a jet that has freakish low-speed capability, it gives up performance in another regime; or, it gains weight due to added hydro-mechanical mechanisms, like vectored nozzles, canards, and leading and trailing edge devices.

I'll ask the question I think most have now... what point are you trying to make? Aircraft performance envelopes can be interesting, as can radar and missile performance, although the latter are classified and we don't know the true data.