Yeah, this is really it. When you’ve basically got to gain speed before you can climb and intercept, even if you take off vertically. As mentioned before there’s no reason to not do that while you’re on a runway. It’ll allow you to carry more stuff (be it fuel or arms) into the battle, and you’ll be going faster when you start to climb.
S/VTOL is really so you can launch jets from poor or nonexistent runways and land them in the same. That way you can have air cover and support where you wouldn’t normally be able to have it. The F-35B is probably the most formidable of that class by far - but if you wanted an interceptor, you wouldn’t start with it*. I’d imagine the practical challenges of S/VTOL will keep it from being useful in interceptor design. After all, as long as the non-S/VTOL plane can fiy higher/faster, you can’t intercept it with one. You’re going to have a hard time making a S/VTOL airframe that will win the higher/faster race against a conventional fixed wing aircraft.
*Personally, I’d probably start by throwing a second engine into an F-35C. Thirsty, but it’d move.
Aren’t airbases bigger, juicier targets vs a peer opponent than tankers? I thought there was some consideration to dispersing V/STOL A/C to things like highways and nearby clearings to reduce vulnerability to airport denial?
As to the F-35, do they perform short rolling takeoffs on things like LHDs?
Edit: And as for zero-length takeoff interceptors; nowadays, aren’t those SAMs? True, it’s hard to escort a bogie with SAMs, at least for more than a second or two…
Also should point out a bonus that pilots found with Harrier jets in the Falklands disagreement. When being chased by an enemy fighter in a dogfight, they found that activating the lift thrust allowed them to leapfrog over the chase plane, especially in a very tight turn - they would thrust inward toward the center of the turning radius and end up above and behind the enemy.
(And this is where I miss LSLGuy). I thought ‘viffing’ was disfavored, as it largely only served to rob the viffing aircraft of energy vs its opponent, and was easily countered by an opponent who knew what to look for? This may mainly be only true in an era with predominant off-axis IR snapshot capable missiles and helmet-mounted sights able to designate targets.
Something worked to help give RN SeaHarriers that kill ratio, though it may just have been the Argentine a/c were at the end of their range, and had no GC, let alone AEW or control.
I don’t know how many lessons we can draw from a 35+ year old fight, and apply them to a hypothetical 5th-Generation ATA conflict.
There are a number of reasons you would want STVOL and VTOL interceptors that you guys aren’t even thinking about. Some situations require you to think outside the box. A good example is Sweden’s Gripen.
Who is Sweden worried about being bombed by? The Russians. How will a small nation like Sweden deal with powerful Russian air power?
“…Elsewhere, off-airfield requirements have made Sweden’s JAS-39 Gripen an exceptional case among conventional fighters, as it can fly and land using just 900m of conventional highway. Sweden’s policy was driven by Russia’s vast superiority in combat aircraft, but the core concern of preserving the air force’s ability to operate is the same: make targeting too uncertain, and preserve the air force’s ability to contest the skies if its main bases are gone…”
Sweden’s reality is that they can expect to have their air runways cratered. Using mobile resupply units they’ll be able to stay in the game because they have a specially designed STVOL air interceptor designed to deal with the one realistic threat to their nation which is Russia.
Switzerland has their airbases built inside the base of mountains. Their fuel and resources are safe from bombs and missiles. But they still use outdoors runways that can be cratered. For them STVOL and VTOL interceptors make sense.
I’m not sure where the idea that refueling isn’t done in combat zone comes from. Perhaps that’s a Navy thing? The Air Force flies KC-135 Stratotankers in near permanent holding patterns, high above combat areas. It’s not uncommon for a fighter jet in support of a mission to break away temporarily to go get fuel and come back. Often, it happens at the worst possible time.
Take off vertically? No. They wouldn’t have enough fuel to get that high or go fast enough to catch a refueler in flight. The fueler has to maintain a minimum speed. So, even if the tanker was flying super low, and close to stall speed, and the F35 lifted off at the perfect time, I think it wouldn’t be possible because of the forward speed needed. If theoretically possible, it most certainly isn’t practical.
The Russians and Chinese have recentky deployed very long range AAM (200 KM plus), like the KS-172, and PL-15. With the express purpose of attacking AEW and Tanker aircraft.
The US has a similar programme, the AIM-260.
Vertical take off interceptor would seem to be worse. Sure you raise the aircraft up a few hundred feet or so. But so what, it still has to move forward to get lift. You basically wasted time using a ‘thrust elevator’ to lift the plane to a virtual sky runway which it still has to take off from. I suppose you can start forward and use that height on a downward slope to help accelerate but not only did it take longer to get up higher to allow a downsloping acceleration, it also is flying a very slow, very low aircraft towards the ground, and one could design a hard runway with a slight downslope (and a kicker at the end) so that’s not not really a advantage inherent in VTOL. Additionally ground launched planes have the additional lift of ground effects, so can get in the air sooner then the air launched VTOL can get the equal lift. That difference in lift times means more thrust must support the weight of the aircraft, thus less thrust to move forward. As said VTOL is good for no runways, but it does cost in terms of launch speed and fuel during that.
If you need fast interceptors rocket assisted takeoff or catapult aircraft carrier launches are the way to go.
Right, ‘viffing’ was tactic developed by the USMC in their early days with the AV-8A, but never adopted by the British forces at all AFAIK. And it’s also seemed seldom if ever mentioned as a tactic of second generation USMC AV-8B’s either, an a/c still in service.
Only two engagements in the Falklands really qualify as ‘dog fights’. On May 1 a pair of Sea Harriers downed one Mirage III and seriously damaged a second (later mistakenly shot down by Argentine AAA trying to make an emergency landing at Stanley) with side-rear hemisphere AIM-9L shots after employing conventional pincer type tactic to get to side/behind the two Mirages in turn. Same day a pair of Daggers (Israeli built Mirage V) engaged another pair of Sea Harriers, one Dagger managed to fire a Shafrir which came close to a Sea Harrier diving from the combat but fell away decoyed or out of energy, an AIM-9L caught a Dagger trying to climb away from the combat in full afterburner.
All the Argentine a/c shot down by the Sea Harriers after that were strike a/c or other types trying to evade the Harriers. In one May 21 engagement a Dagger made an ‘air combat move’ after jettisoning fuel tanks and bombs, an unsuccessful head on 30mm gun run at a Harrier, but that was about it for active air combat resistance after May 1.
But in general the goal of air combat is to prevail by winning unfair fights if at all possible. The RN Sea Harriers achieved this and were a key to preventing unsustainable losses by RN ships.
The various versions of Harrier have/had a necessarily near 1 thrust to weight ratio since they could take off vertically at limited weights using direct engine thrust. So at least a lower speed (non afterburning high transonic drag a/c) a pretty good ‘vertical plane’ dog fight a/c in that era, without special tricks. But high wing loading. Anyway as typical of most fighter air combat in the last 100 yrs combat outcomes tracked pretty loosely with theoretical a/c aerodynamic capabilities.
We’re kind of confusing a lot of different scenarios in this thread, from intercepting a hostile aircraft to our current war to what happens if we get into World War III. Dispersing aircraft is absolutely something planners think about if we get into a big war. But the idea that strike or fighter aircraft are going to be using highways and taxiing into tree-lined hiding places near the front lines is becoming less of a thing. For one reason, surveillance technologies and long-range missiles have advanced so much that it’s becoming a less and less sneaky tactic. For a really big war, we are probably looking at being forced to move aircraft around bases that are farther and farther away from the combat zone. Part of the idea is that many airbases are probably toast in the beginning stages of a war, but they can perhaps be defended for a little while. Can’t really defend rural route 5000 at all, and a near-peer enemy stands a pretty reasonable chance of detecting where that jet is landing and attacking it with a long-range ballistic missile in a rather short period of time.
But of course, this is scenario dependent. If Israel and Syria start mixing it up, Syria knows where Israeli air bases are, but would have a hard time tracking movements of aircraft to other places.
Yes.
Again, clarity on what scenario we’re talking about here. A tanker will have no issue above Afghanistan today. A tanker getting near Russia or China will be in a much more perilous state. Not exactly the same thing, but the Air Force has cancelled plans to buy a new JSTARs aircraft because even though advances in radar technology would allow it to see for a long, long way, it would still be a sitting duck.
Over time, as adversaries get better missiles, tankers and similar aircraft will be pushed further and further away from bad guy territory. It is inevitable.
I wonder if conformal tanks could be developed that wouldn’t also hash the F-35s low-observability?
As to very-long range AAMs, how are those to be guided? AEW a/c are radiating, so that’s one way, I guess, but it would seem a target a/c could escape the likely target volume before the AAM could enter terminal guidance and acquire the target. I guess there could be midcourse updating. Can AAMs like the latest AIM-120, acquire and kill large incoming AAMs or SAMs? Especially if networked with larger radars like an AWACS?
Thanks for the info on the Falklands and aircraft dispersal.
(was away for many moons - sorry for delayed followup)
I’m moderately surprised that nobody has brought up the (VTOL tiltjet)EWR VJ 101, first flight 1963, which was indeed originally conceived as a pure interceptor.