Inspired by the other thread about the Eurofighter and the F-22… I have some questions about modern fighters. Specifically fighters such as the F-18, Mirage, Tornado, Su-27, Mig-29 and similar counterparts.
When was the last time modern fighters truly engaged each other in combat? I can’t think of a conflict since WW2 that one side didn’t have complete air superiority from the outset. During the Gulf War, to the best of my knowledge the majority of Iraqi planes were destroyed on the runways and the Yugoslavian conflict saw near zero fighter defense.
Have counter-measures improved from the standard Chaff and Flare combination to combat Radar-Guided and Heat-Seeking respectively?
The majority of air-to-air missiles operate Beyond Visual Range (BVR) these days. How would a modern fighter engagement occur, assuming a wing of enemy fighters came into contact? With regards to manuevers and tactics etc. Whoever fires first? Whoever’s countermeasures work best etc?
Also related to #3, can pilots truly out-manuever missiles who have aquired a lock (I realize this may depend on the jet in question)?
Can anyone comment on current front-line Chinese fighters in comparison to American or European counterparts?
Thanks.
Gulf war. But the Iraqi means of coordinating the defensive actions of their aircraft were disrupted, and that of the allies were not, so you had situations where the allied aircraft went into action knowing where the enemy was and what they’d be up to, where the Iraqis were often having to find all this out before they could work up their tactical approach.
Yes, a great deal. Check out the Airborne Self Protection Jammer and the ECM and ECCM on things like the B-1, etc.
BVR engagement is possible, but not inevitable. Some place great stock in BVR missiles like the AIM-120 AMRAAM, while others would say colse-in missiles with helmet mounted sights are the way to go. Also, a lot depends on whether or not the opposing fighters are converging or diverging, at what angles, speeds, etc.
Yes, it is possible. Under some (some) situations, it is possible to out-turn a missile. But it isn’t something I would try doing on a regular basis. Best bet is to get the other guy before he gets you. Also, being able to out-turn or out run a missile fired at you assumes you know it’s coming. This isn’t always the case.
As usual, the answer depends on a lot of things. If in a theoretical fight, the Chinese are over China and the attacker is coming from some distance, then the Chinese of course are at a considerable starting advantage. But overall, the Chinese have the advantage of numbers going for them and have put a lot of effort into considerably upgrading their existing airframes (sometimes with outside help). They also have bought some of the latest SU fighters and are evidently going to domestically build them as well.
So you’re saying some missiles don’t set off a threat-indicator in the cockpit? The pilot may not know he’s been locked on or that a missile has been fired?
Sure, any passive system will not setoff threat indicators in the target plane. Missiles that use infrared detection are such systems. They emit nothing at the target plane so the target has no clue it is being tracked. However (and I don’t know how this all works) the initial system used to put the heat seeking missile on the trail of the target may emit signals at the target that can be interpreted as a threat.
#4) Yes, missiles can be outmaneuvered. I’m reasonably certain pilots are taught the best evasion tactics versus a given missile. For instance, I believe the best way to defeat an AIM-120 AMRAAM is to point your plane straight up and fly AT the missile while spinning your plane (the AMRAAM attacks by flying VERY high and then diving down on the target). Of course, not many planes can maintain vertical flight for very long so timing becomes an issue.
In answer to Question #1, I believe the UN fighter force in Korea was at a disadvantage through much of the war, until the advent of the Sabre Jet ( a favorite of mine).
There were countless real dogfights, which is what I think the poster is referring to.
The PRC bought a whole bunch of Su-27 and is licensed to produce 200. They also bought a whole bunch of Su-30MKK. Their own F-10 is supposed to be quite competent but there little actual details is known by the West.
IIRC this was due to the removal of guns from US fighter jets. They thought that missiles were the way of the future and no more dogfights would be fought. They were wrong and guns went back into planes. Even with todays BVR capable missiles every fighter jet still sports guns. Dog fights are still quite possible.
Dang…I just thought of that and came back to correct myself but too late I see. Ahh well…
Still, wasn’t the Phantom the ‘premier’ US fighter jet back then? (What was it I heard in a movie about the Phantom…‘Just goes to show that if you give something a big enough engine even bricks can fly.’)
Theoretically, the US planes in Vietnam were inferion to the MiG 15 (i think) but the training the US pilots had gave them the advantage. There was plenty of dog-fights in Vietnam if I rememeer the History Channel correctly.