supermaneuverability meme

>>33135344
irs useful when you have shitton aa on the ground like pRussians

Assuming you mean for dogfighting, it doesn't make much difference when your opponent can HOBS a heater at you that you have next to zero chance of escaping. You forget that missiles get better too.

It is more cost efficient to invest in better radar/sensors so you can spot your opponent first, VLO for the same reason, and the electronic side of countermeasures rather than trying to out-turn a sidewinder or an AMRAAM in the NEZ.

>>33135344
>stealth aircraft
Talk about a meme.

>>33135344
At first glance I thought that was a camoed up YF-23

>>33135344
From the perspective of an all aspect missile a "super manoeuvring" aircraft is basically sitting still.

We're in a see 1st shoot 1st era of airial combat now that's unlikely to change any time soon.

Pretty much all modern IR AAMs have an all-aspect & HOBS capability.In which case manoeuvring doesn't help that much.

What you want is an information advantage (better stealth, better sensors, better sensor integration, better information sharing with other platforms, better intelligence) which puts you in a position to fire the first shot.

>>33135344
>supermaneuverability meme
Became merely a meme the moment high off boresight AAMs became a thing

>>33135344

When you are cruising at Mach 1.5, you are effectively eating 500 m every second.
These 30 kilometers of difference you are speaking of are a minute of difference for the aircraft to cross in straight line.

If it goes quietly and on low altitude, it helps getting closer for the kill, which helps the kill itself a little bit.

But it could just as well burst at full speed in straight line, sensors buzzing because all that stealth is more to avoid you getting shot by something hidden than to avoid your target getting away.

A AMRAAM is going at up to Mach 4.0
It's eating 1400m every second.
Even if the missile was loosing a lot of speed when correcting course, no current fighter can compensate for a raw difference in speed of 900m per second.

Fired from 50 km to an opponent that is trying to get away in the opposite direction right from the minute the missile is fired, the AMRAAM is going to need less than a minute to reach target.

If said target wastes fuel, speed and distance to dodge cleverly a missile full of sensors, it might hope to outlast the missile in fuel.

The latest version of AMRAAM have enough fuel for something like 2 minutes in straight line.
Even if half of that is already expanded to get close to its target, it means said target will have to dodge not one but several passes of the missile.

The aircraft might be reliable and the pilot might be skilled but it can quickly become ugly... especially if each hostile fires several missiles at once.

>>33135926
but what if an aircraft has better maneuverability and can dodge a missile?

>>33136113
Both people and airframes simply cannot survive pulling 40 g's

>>33136113
for maned or even unmanned aircraft is impossible to be more maneuverable than missile

>>33136113
dodging a missile does not work if the guidance system is good enough. the only reason why evasive maneuvers sometimes work is because the guidance system cant keep up, not because the missile isnt able to turn fast enough. against any decent radar system you are toast though, especially if the enemy is using ground based radar which usually involve larger warheads (think buk/patriot). even if it misses, only one piece of shrapnell needs to hit your engine or any other critical part of your plane and youre done.

This is only the case when dealing with radar based AA, which can be detected by the target. when being shot at by IR AA you dont even know the missile is coming, resulting in a near 100% hit chance. therefore flares are fairly pointless aswell, you deploy them when you suspect the enemy might have AA and try to prevent them from getting a lock. modern IR AA is really hard to fool by this though and will 90% of the time completely ingnore the flares.

>>33136292
>modern IR AA is really hard to fool by this though and will 90% of the time completely ingnore the flares.
u talkin out your ass m8?

>>33136315
no. common sense should already tell you this, but here is actual proof:

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/4783/4ec45f24453d1263b94f633aa6e6bc7e2387.pdf

>>33136344
the results suggest that if the target
aircraft can maneuver into a tail-chase engagement geometry, there exists a flare effectiveness region (cone
shape) of approximately 30° wide in azimuth, 40° in elevation and 600 m long where the successive deployment of distributed flares could cause a break-lock from the tracking system.

so not a meme then, good job.

>>33135344
>missiles can't be dodged!! xD
Wanna know how I know you're an obese American?

>>33135926
>Even if half of that is already expanded to get close to its target, it means said target will have to dodge not one but several passes of the missile.
lmao

>>33136711
>implying you're evading a missile at low alpha

>being this retarded

>>33136292
It's true that modern IR seeker has many fancy technologies like UV seeker, double band seeker, Focal Plane Array(t.IIR) etc,
but its countermeasure like DIRCM, CIRCM surely do its job.

So, IR(or any kind of passive sensor) missile is harder than radar based one for pilots to dodge,
IR system itself isn't invincible.
(Missile Warning Receiver also detects IR guided missile or infrared itself)

>>33136113
All manned aircraft can't outmaneuver even outdated SAMs.

File: 1464926681381s.jpg (7KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 250x250px

>>33136863
Not even close. Where do you come up with this shit?

>>33135344
>Isn't manoeuvrability more important now than it has been since the 1960s/1970s?
Very marginally so, but that doesn't justify supermaneuverability.

Agility for fighters in today's world means a focus on thrust to weight ratio and sustaining energy. The flashy high-angle of attack maneuvers we see the Russians always showing off with their Flankers is nice for airshows, but all it really ends up doing is burning away your energy and making you easier to hit.

Once AAMs really started getting effective, the focus of defensive maneuvering has been mostly to burn off the missile's delta-V and make it run out of energy before it can hit you. Dodging the missile in the traditional sense - turning out of the way in the last second - has never been a thing. Tactics have always revolved around working with countermeasures and maneuvering to force the missile to expend energy and shorten its no-escape-zone until your plane is in the clear.

Agility used to be somewhat more important in the early days of AAMs, where you not only had to have your plane pointed at the other guy, but you had to be looking down his tailpipe for the IR sensors to get a lock. However, the advent of all-aspect AAMs meant that you no longer had to be behind the target, and now high-off-boresight missiles like the AIM-9X mean that you don't even have to be pointed at your target to fire at it - you can fire at a plane almost directly behind you.

>>33136823
The problem with DIRCM though is that its only applicable in a very select number of cases. I can see it being usefull on larger and higher flying aircraft, but for aircraft performing CAS its quite unpractical. and since this is the situation where IR AA is most commonly used (mainly due to the low-altitude and often good visual contact) it just cant provide reliable protection.

Though I agree that IR tracking or any kind of tracking are never invincible. any way to make it harder for it to track you helps, but there just isnt a universal solution.

>>33136292
>>33136394
For how long does a flare burn?

>>33137130
longer than 600m worth at speed.

It's useful for airshows to impress the plebs.

if anything you would want as much speed as you could get and countermeasures against missiles.

>>33136315
This has been the case since the 70's.

Flares don't work, period.

>>33135344
If supermanoeuvrability was a meme air superiority fighters would've been more like stealthy MiG-31 with a metric shitton of speed, endurance and fuckhuge radars. While in real life they are more like F-22 and PAK FA.

>>33137512

To play devils advocate, it also be because doctrine has not caught up with technology.

Air warfare is in this weird stage where no peers have gone to war in so many decades. This means that nobody can say for sure what will happen when stealth aircraft fight each other, how effective the latest >100km range BVR missiles will be, how EW will play out etc.

Giving the F-22 and the PAK-FA excellent manoeuvrability may be in part due to the same reasoning they have a gun. If there is a chance that your nations premier air superiority weapon might be missing something it needs, but it was not designed for, when it is used in a couple of decades time, it is too late. Those designing an air superiority fighter won't take too many risks.

>>33135344
How large is that plane? It looks as large as a ww2 bomber

>>33136139
>>33136124
>>33136863
A missile moving at mach 3-4 can easily be out maneuvered by a plane

>>33137761
Not much point to have a gun anymore if they can be filled up with small hit to kill missiles, and cheap small diameter bombs

>>33137761
Yeah, I agree. With modern local conflicts being fought with old ass Fulcrums and Falcons, 3rd world nations operating Su-30 and so on at best and considering major countries are as unlikely to go at war with each other as it humanly possible, I believe it will take another 30 to 40 years until modern air superiority fighters will see the actual symmetric warfare combat for designers to use such an experience to improve them. So far we are bound with steady "laboratory" development.

>>33137867
>A missile moving at mach 3-4 can easily be out maneuvered by a plane
No

>>33137877
I know this was said a million times before, but there were times when people thought there's no point to have a gun and were proven to be wrong.

File: 1486793019906.jpg (342KB, 1280x975px) Image search: [Google]

342KB, 1280x975px

>>33137781
Pretty sure its realatively close in size to other Sukhois

File: t-10ubm & t-50.jpg (229KB, 1600x1067px) Image search: [Google]

229KB, 1600x1067px

>>33137937
Actually it's quite a bit smaller.

>>33137130
Couple seconds of real burning usually, considering the speed of a jet/missile theres no point in having it burn for much longer than that.

>>33135344

Off Bore-Sight targetting has turned out to be able to counter super-maneuverability.

Until someone figures out a way to use super-maneuverability to automate either an "on-initial-launch" extreme-avoidance maneuver system to take advantage of it and/or a similar one for last-minute pre-impact maneuvers system that can handle flying for as long as it takes for the pilot to regain conciousness.

>>33137924
>I know this was said a million times before, but there were times when people thought there's no point to have a gun and were proven to be wrong.
Do tell when that was. Because Vietnam, which I am assuming is the primary "time" you're talking about, showed that missiles plus training will trump guns plus training, and the missiles have only gotten better in the past 40 years.

>>33137899
?
A plane turning at 9 g's going 0.9 mach is still turning faster than a missile pulling 40 g's

>>33137937
>>33137981

Is this some clever russian psyops thing? make smol planes so that enemies thinks is bigger plane but further away?

>>33138108
Except for the part where the missile can cut the curve on a direct intercept. The window to "out turn" a missile where it won't have time to perform an intercept is something like .1 seconds.

>>33138108
A missile closing on a plane isn't following the same path as the aircraft. The missile doesn't have to be able to handle the loading you'd get from following the aircraft's path directly - it just has to be able to withstand the loads necessary to correct the course as it closes on the target.

>>33137937
So stealthy I can't even find it in this picture

>>33138150
No reason why the computer in the plane can't tell the pilot exactly when to turn

Or hell, just do it automatically

>>33138168
>No reason why the computer in the plane can't tell the pilot exactly when to turn
Except for the part where if you have a radar that can give you precise location data on a tiny ass missile before it gets to its terminal attack, you'd have a radar that would have spotted the plane that shot the missile at you and shot it down long before it would have even known you were there.
AA missiles are tiny fucking targets that are moving extremely fast. Getting a precise radar fix on one at less than a couple kilometers would be like spotting the F-22 at over 100km.

ALSO, the largest and most powerful radar mounted on any fighting plane is mounted in the nose, which means it isn't going to spot shit behind it even if it could. And if you're flying head on towards the missile, you may as well punch out because nothing else you do will save your ass. There hasn't yet been a plane invented that could avoid that shit.

>Well just use IR then.
IR detection can't be used for that because current IR technology cannot give distance data on identified targets by itself.
I don't know enough about EODAS systems to know if they could provide the data, but either way you're still fucked. As long as that missile can get within any part of its kill zone and point its warhead at the target, it's going to detonate on the chance it can catch your craft with at least part of the frag.

>>33138299
Detecting a non-stealthed missile at 10 km is not at all the same thing as detecting a "golfball" at 100 km

Especially when you have IR sensors that can tell your radar precisely where the missile is

>And if you're flying head on towards the missile, you may as well punch out because nothing else you do will save your ass.

If anything head on is better than otherwise, means the missile will have to turn harder

>>33137512
>>33137761
F-22 and russky ballerinas have a pretty poor manoeuvrability actually. They wouldn't be able to follow the curves of a Gripen for instance.

>>33138363
>Detecting a non-stealthed missile at 10 km is not at all the same thing as detecting a "golfball" at 100 km
So detecting what is essentially a dome with 4 slopes with an actual cross sectional area of ~125cm^2 and an effective cross sectional area far smaller due to geometry with no flat surfaces to reflect the radar is easier to spot than a "golf ball" that can't be locked by the same radars under that 10km even when they have IR and EODAS signatures to point the radar towards?

>If anything head on is better than otherwise, means the missile will have to turn harder
It means the missile will have even more energy to intercept the target and a head on approach decreases the possible reaction time of the target due to increased closing distance which also increases the missile's kill envelope.

>>33138495
>increased closing distance
Should be velocity.

>>33138083

Not him, but to be fair it's more missiles and training beats guns+missiles-training.

>>33137079
I'm guessing /k/ is going to hate on Ace Combat 7

>>33139790
Nah, we love it, but unlike /v/ are very aware that it's a goofy arcade flight combat game, not a sim.

>>33135344
>stealth aircraft
I've yet to see an aircraft that cannot be seen.

>>33137079
>>33139790
i got the sense of that from the reveal trailer where the Su-30SM pulls a cobra on the F-22, only to have it blown up by a HOBS missile that just whips backward at it.

File: aliens%20invisible%20jet[1].jpg (18KB, 400x267px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 400x267px

>>33139970
>Ahurrhurrhurr

>>33139970
Well that's because you can't see it

>>33140080
Nope, I don't see an airplane in that picture.

>>33140148
Wait, you lost me.

>>33138447
Gripenfag, please. F-22 and PAK FA can pull manoeuvres unimaginable for a singe engine fighter. I would understand if a vatnik was pulling this argument in regard of F-22, but a swede? Come on.

Do anyone have any RCS comparison of stealth/non-stealth aircraft and AA missile?

It seems that
most AA missiles might have lower RCS than non-stealth aircraft but I don't know it's even lower than f-22/35.

And fact that even modern AA missile is upgraded to have lower RCS make things more complicated.

>>33136292
Pretty sure F-35 all aspect IRST can detect an IR seeker incoming from any angle or distance.