How does modern aerial combat work? Is it just about looking at radar screens in cockpits and the guy with the biggest missile wins or what? I have a lot of questions about this.
>Why are planes designed with high maneuverability in mind if dogfights are just shooting missiles 10km away? >Why do modern fighters still come with cannons? >Can a non-stealth plane ever win a stealth plane in a 1v1 dogfight? >Are flares and jammers just video game memes or do they really throw a modern missile off? >Why even have planes an AA solution if missile systems like S-400 cannot be avoided
Because everything the worlds govt tells you about its war machines is a lie. Nobody has any idea what they can do because they have never been used properly
Eli Wright
Maneuverability and cannons are like handguns. You dont always need them, but they are great to have when you do.
Non stealths can totally win in 1v1 dogfights, stealth coatings and fancy angles arent magic.
Yes, flares and jammers do work, very well in fact.
Long range SAMs being unavoidable is a meme and you should feel bad for believing it.
So what about late cold war era stuff? We have had dogfights with semi modern jets during the Falklands war for an example
Cooper Martin
>Why are planes designed with high maneuverability in mind if dogfights are just shooting missiles 10km away? whoevers missile is more aligned with the enemy will fire and hit first planes are still loaded with tons of countermeasures such that manueverability to be able to fire first is a big advantage >Why do modern fighters still come with cannons? emergency weapon even if they dont expect to fire it, factors outside their control may force them to fire strafing is also done, during the iraq-iran war F-16 pilots would endanger themeselves to strafe enemies with their cannon >Can a non-stealth plane ever win a stealth plane in a 1v1 dogfight? stealth planes can see first and therefore shoot first but non-stealth fighters can still win as long as they realize they arent playing ace combat and may approach targets in a non 1v1 dogfighting setting >Are flares and jammers just video game memes or do they really throw a modern missile off? flares and jammers do work, although rarely a magic button to evade harm but if your flares can stop even a single missile, then it will have done its job >Why even have planes an AA solution if missile systems like S-400 cannot be avoided missile systems are defensive and therefore will not be able to replace every duty of a plane and are restricted in movement a missile system may be able to locally defend an area of fighters, but a missile system is incapable of providing air strikes, aggressive air patrol, or interception
Aaron Baker
Can an S-400 or other SAMs react to quick turns?
Eli Murphy
But for a small country like Finland fighters just seem retarted and too expensive. In an all out war how the fuck can Hornets operate if Russian SAMs can cover the whole area of Finland?
Anthony Foster
terrain masking, jamming
Josiah Bell
They don't really need to because they essentailly work like giant grenades, and airplanes are fragile as shit.
Owen Green
>Why do modern fighters still come with cannons?
Back in the 1960s they developed the F-4 Phantom with out a gun because they assumed combat would only involve missiles They were wrong. They had to retrofit gun pods to the plane. As seen in pic related behind front landing gear
Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it.
nobody knowwssss. Seriously we have no idea how a modern air conflict will look like.
none at all.
Kayden Kelly
I GET TO BE AI GIRL.
Hang out with the aliens and play video games all day in area 51. It'll be great.
Christopher Baker
IR engagements go 2-3x that range.
Certain Sam's have kill cutoffs based on range and speeds involved.
Some missiles home on jam. Flares stopped being useful decades ago with IR tech improvements.
Everything this guy said is wrong:
Adam Ward
>Why are planes designed with high maneuverability in mind if dogfights are just shooting missiles 10km away? not an intention, rather a good byproduct of modern avionics and a strong structure of the airframe obviously, every plane tries to stay in their comfort zone, throwing missiles at each other in hope they can hit while evade the missiles of the enemy >Can a non-stealth plane ever win a stealth plane in a 1v1 dogfight? 1v1 will never happen - and it could happen if the pilot in the stealth airplane is a retard its like soldier A with camo vs. soldier B without camo. A will win the most engagement, but he can lose if the acts stupid. >Are flares and jammers just video game memes or do they really throw a modern missile off? yes, see every engagement of the Israel air force vs. Syrian air defense >Why even have planes an AA solution if missile systems like S-400 cannot be avoided can be avoided, jammed, and it will run out of missiles if you slug enough on it - its not really useful as a stand alone system
Levi Brown
> be in f-22 > lead plan has radar on and searching > trail planes get radar info beamed back in real time > each plane gets a target sent to it > all targets get a missile up the ass from beyond visual range.
> AIR SUPERIORITY
Owen Morales
except in a real dogfight scenario they'd have a sentry watching them overall. so "beyond visual range" would be beyond the whole north american continent
Caleb Baker
It depends on the scenario.
The question is, does you're scenario stands?
Owen Morgan
nowdays everyone is racing towards producing decent aesa radars and jamming capabilties
in such a theater that everything will be jammed from everyone visual confirmation will be a must dont think dogfights are over..
Jose Bennett
they can but since the majority works with proximity fuse once you are locked you are doomed
Cooper Wood
>They were wrong. >They had to retrofit gun pods to the plane. You've learned the wrong lesson from this.
>Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it. Yes, so learn in detail instead of accepting ancient memes
There are a thousand ways to intercept a missile, but few to intercept a slug of lead.
Christian Gomez
A S-400 cannot intercept being shelled from several miles away whilst air superiority ensures that the artillery pieces themselves are safe from aerial retaliation.
Cameron Phillips
You're fucking retarded aren't you?
Julian Hill
>Eats a missile directly with the rotten cockpit of his falling apart amerishit >As far below him amerishit pathetic excuse for artillery gets decimated by suppression volleys of 300 mm rocket artillery missiles >While artificial sunrises are being lit above every major military installation of his stinky amerishithole all around the globe Come on, you fucking cuck, do it and see what happens to every warmongering ameristench mutt on the planet.
Henry Collins
I laughed as much as the next guy when the Russian MoD ordered only a dozen Su 57s, but I must admit that the thing thing represents peak aesthetics for me. It's so flat and wide, it looks like a stingray.
>slavshit >killing anything >ever Alright man. I hope for your sake that JDAM tastes as good as Putin’s cock
Elijah Hernandez
Beautiful. Wish we had that instead of Krypton-bait Patriot system.
James Gray
>screams in drunken krokodilnigger while the 3 planes russia has to field at any given time that aren't rotting with their navy in a swamp get shot down within seconds >wipes tears away with polonium-covered wash rag given to him by the russian government because he said putin had manboobs on twitterski
just another sad day for a slav, can we please get a gofundme page started for these poor bastards?
Dominic Garcia
>Come to board about weapons >Start talking about drugs instead Now I understand why we mutts are so hated.
Kevin Hall
>Modern Aerial Combat Ultimately, dogfighting has been shelved in favor of BnZ tactics. >German and American mostly started trend >Boom-n-Zoom BnZ Tactics: >Spot Enemy inb4 he see you >Increase altitude if at same altitude or lower >Climb = Trade Energy now for more later >Attack Vector >Run on Target >Use increased energy to outrun and escape >Maintain greater energy than the enemy
Dogfighting is more dangerous for pilots, increased likelihood of death. Pilots aren't cheap and require a lot of money and time to train, not too mention their equipment is worth millions.
>autistic squealing from a drunken subhuman about "m-m-m-m-muh artillery", aka the only thing russia has that isn't a pathetic joke and utter disgrace, being capable of doing anything other than maybe blowing up a town in eastern europe >meanwhile you're left trying to intimidate vastly superior european countries with rustbucket subs that are prone to sinking and killing the crew and cold war relic tanks crewed by 160cm imbeciles
Your country is a joke and you have government funded nazi gangs in your streets, your government kills and locks people up for mocking your mantit manlet dictator and the entire rest of the world, save for obese Jow Forums losers, hates you. You are probably the only country more hated than america at this point, let that sink in to your empty, vacuous gangrenous skull. Why don't you use your ok-ish artillery on your own country, maybe then you can get a handle on your third world crime and suicide statistics
Gavin Watson
>we
kys
Ethan Adams
This. If you look up the actual hit rates for Soviet SAMs in combat you discover its less than 5%
Jose Diaz
Are those things mini rockets on the sides of the rocket?
Bentley Wilson
It's not always Russia.
Jaxon Carter
Enlighten us
Anthony Young
Its called literal thrusters
Josiah Gomez
>"Lost Syria" "Lost Afghanistan" butthurt tl;dr
Josiah Rogers
some hornets shot down some fighters in syria recently
Asher Garcia
>shitter shattered
Owen Morris
>Why are planes designed with high maneuverability in mind if dogfights are just shooting missiles 10km away?
The missiles are also highly maneuverable, so you need to be able to turn hard enough to burn out its gliding energy and make it unable to pull toward you. Famously, there's a video of an F-16 during the Gulf War dodging 6 SAMs all in a row, thanks to how hard he was able to turn.
>Why do modern fighters still come with cannons?
Plan for the worst case scenario.
>Can a non-stealth plane ever win a stealth plane in a 1v1 dogfight?
Stealth means that the plane is smaller on the radar at much closer ranges. If they get too close, the non-stealthy plane will be able to get a fix on their location and from there it's down to pilot vs pilot.
>Are flares and jammers just video game memes or do they really throw a modern missile off?
More modern missiles are a lot less susceptible to the countermeasures, so they've been updating those as well. The US has a few decoy missiles that they can also use for radar guided threats.
Stealth is a meme anyway. If you think there's a plane just look for flying golf ball sized objects.
Ayden Diaz
>W I D E B O I >I >D >E >B >O >I I love it for the same reason, user.
Dylan Hill
You must be a pancake enthusiast such as myself.
Joshua Bailey
>Famously, there's a video of an F-16 during the Gulf War dodging 6 SAMs all in a row, thanks to how hard he was able to turn. Those were SA-2s though. You defeat them kinetically by getting a visual on the smoke trail, turning maybe 30-45 degrees off from it, and then pulling hard into the missile when it's committed. Modern long range SAMs won't fall for that trick.
Jacob King
>from the country that also lost afghanistan and is struggling to beat ukraine, a country that was literally its territory for decades >is so butthurt his only defence is "b-b-but ameri-c-ca"
Robert Roberts
>t. man who doesn't understand radio physics
Knowing it's there doesn't mean knowing what size it is or how fast it's going.
Adam Evans
Depends on the distance.
Samuel Scott
T. Not American
You just don't understand stealth
Cooper Phillips
Underrated post.
Few people seem to understand the importance of energy advantage over your enemy. Along with stealth, radar, EW and what fancy missiles you bring along this is one of the most important factors.
Lincoln Taylor
Fucking pixy
Christian Reed
High maneuverability is still important for evasive maneuvers; gives your pilot a bigger window to avoid getting hit by a missile.
A combination of factors led to under performance during the first half of the Vietnam war:
1. The nature of the conflict meant that the North Vietnamese Air Force were effectively fighting a Guerrilla war. The US were not allowed to strike at VPAF airbases most of the time, which allowed the VPAF to sit and wait for the best opportunities to strike US bombers and fighter bombers. In a more conventional conflict this would not have been possible.
2. Immature IFF technology further compounded this issue; IFF basically works by beaming a coded message at an unidentified plane, if the plane decodes it using it's IFF equipment and sends a return it's confirmed as friendly, if not and it's in a warzone, it's assumed enemy. The problem was that the IFF equipment had a high failure rate of around 1/100; in a conventional conflict (ie: fulda gap) this isn't a big problem, because there are allot of enemy planes in the air. however over Vietnam, there were usually no VPAF aircraft flying or very few proportional to the gigantic US presence; this meant that the probability of an enemy contact being a US aircraft with faulty IFF was practically as high as it being an enemy allot of the time. This made IFF functionally useless and necessitated an ROE that required visual identification to fire, taking away the BVR ability the US had and allowing the Vietnamese aircraft to close into the merge uncontested.
Adrian Howard
3. The US pilots, especially fighter bomber pilots, were not trained in ACM properly. This was especially true in the USAF, the problem here was that Dogfighting was not expected to be as common as it was in Vietnam (see 1,2 and 4) and US training didn't like ACM training because it was seen as unnecessarily dangerous, that's not to say it didn't happen, especially for dedicated fighters like the F-8, F-104, F-102 and F-106, but ultimately because of the ranges in the conflict, the longer legged F-4s took up the brunt of the escort missions and the pilots were trained as fighter bombers.
4. Poor training with missiles, both for maintainers and pilots, meant they under performed even more, in the earlier stages of the conflict. The Navy in particular had large problems with missile maintenance, with very high failure rates.
All together the idea that it was just guns is a myth, the Navy never added guns to their F-4s and ended up performing much better than the USAF who did, simply because they started extensively training their pilots in ACM and they improved their maintenance standards.
likewise the highest jump in performance during the war for F-4s was when they received the combat tree system (improved IFF) in the early 1970s and worked in conjunction with improved AEWAC.
Also comparing the different fighter aircraft shows us that missile armed aircraft did the best regarding exchange rate; The F-8 Crusader, which had the best exchange ratio of the war (nicknamed the last gunfighter) got 3/4 of it's kills with AIM-9 sidewinders, likewise The best ace of the war got all of his kills with missiles from his MiG-21.
William Jenkins
their previous attempts at a mirage effect on the camo wasnt really successfull but something tells me that this is the most sexy thing
>The missiles are also highly maneuverable, so you need to be able to turn hard enough to burn out its gliding energy and make it unable to pull toward you. Famously, there's a video of an F-16 during the Gulf War dodging 6 SAMs all in a row, thanks to how hard he was able to turn.
Those were 1960's era Guidelines, that won't work on more modern missiles
>Plan for the worst case scenario.
Because the DoD is set up in a retarded way where we have to listen to the pants-on-head idiocy of an American public fed bullshit by moron journalists who don't know what they're talking about.
Joshua Bennett
>sees golf all >moving at Mach 1 plus >hmmm >Must be nothing You're literally the guards in Skyrim getting hit by arrows and saying "it must just be the wind"
Austin Ramirez
>1960's era Guidelines heh
Landon Wright
Modern missiles can pull over 60G maneuvers. Most planes are limited to 9G and even that is pushing pilots to the limits. And missiles will keep getting better.
You're probably just trolling because it would be hard to be this aggressively retarded. But in case you aren't, radar detection range goes as the fourth root of radar cross section. That means that an airplane with an RCS of around 0.0001 m^2 will be detected at 1/20th the range of one with a 15m^2 RCS. That means something like an Su-27's N001 Mech radar which can detect a traditional fighter at 100km can't detect something like an F-35 until it's within 2km, which is a ridiculously short range.
William Hernandez
You dumb shit, dogfighting since after WW1 has always been BnZ. The majority of pilots shot down never even saw the shooter.
Blake Harris
This would have been accurate if you wrote it in 1946. Did you learn everything you know from Warthunder?
Cry me a river pseud. Tell me again which of the wavelength you found most convenient for that numbering? I guess you forgot IR detection going out to ten times that range anyways. Lots of things you seem to be forgetting.
Justin Wright
I guess you mean lateral More commonly known as RCS, reaction control system You have it on the Pac-3mse, sm3 etc. Basically, any weapon that is hit to kill. You can also find some on missile that are not htk but don't have high aerodynamic manoeuvrability. On the Aster missile, it works even better as it placed around the center of gravity, so the missile can move sideways.
Grayson Young
>0.0001 m^2 will be detected at 1/20th the range of one with a 15m^2 RCS
Long-band radars lack the resolution for targeting, that's why people use X-Band in the first place despite it having inherently shorter range. Any fighter flying a non-comat mission will be carry an Luneberg lens for traffic safety purposes, in the exactly same way the F-35 has been doing for years. "Muh quantum radar lol". IRST has inherently shorter identification range than radar, and is only good for angular tracking. you can try to make shots in boresight mode, gl with that.
Matthew Jackson
(15/0.0001)^0.25 = 19.679, which is about 20.
Kevin Harris
Are You the real deal or merely pretending to be armatard?
aerial combat is outdated just like bolt actions are. It's all for flex
Christian Brown
>Russians said they saw an F35 >Let's just conveniently ignore that Hmm. >Long-band radars lack the resolution for targeting That was true a century ago. They have limits but pumping up the power supply can increase things like pulse width, which can increase resolution that way. >that's why people use X-Band And do you think MM radars can spot the F35? I'm fairly certain that would be the case. They generally have a range well over 2km. >only good for angular tracking ...Good? >you can try to make shots in boresight mode Why do you think this is the case and why have you not been keeping up with SWIR? This isn't even a problem when missiles have logic controllers for redirecting. Off boresights for IR have been around for a while now too, so it's an outright lie to begin with. I'm saying the premise is wrong from the start.
Cameron Miller
I told you before and I'll say it again: I'm Armatard. You've never beaten me in a single debate.
Thomas Robinson
I wonder if an F-4 ever shot its own landing gear off
Nathaniel Fisher
The future is a single aircraft directing drone missile boats.
Brayden James
>Russians said they saw an F35 >Let's just conveniently ignore that Hmm Literally the second thing I addressed. A+ reading comprehension there, Ivan.
>That was true a century ago. They have limits but pumping up the power supply can increase things like pulse width, which can increase resolution that way. Resolution is fundamentally limited to a half-wavelength, good luck with 5 meter resolution.
>And do you think MM radars can spot the F35? I'm fairly certain that would be the case. They generally have a range well over 2km.
Range is dependent on radar cross section. detection range increases as the square root of wavelength. Millimeter band radars offer inferior range to X-Band radars, not the other way around. I'm fairly certain you know literally nothing about RSE.
>...Good? Not good; firing with only angular data makes it so that you need to fire in boresight mode and just kind of guess, There's a reason RGS is the main way people try to deception jam.
>Why do you think this is the case and why have you not been keeping up with SWIR? This isn't even a problem when missiles have logic controllers for redirecting. Off boresights for IR have been around for a while now too, so it's an outright lie to begin with.
Boresight mode means you fire the missile in a direction with its tracker on and no further guidance from the aircraft, which is what you're going to be doing if you're just taking a shot based on angle data with nothing on range, velocity or acceleration.
Luis Thompson
Do you have an alternative version of the radar equation that only works in Russia? Is that why you still can't develop low RCS aircraft despite more than a decade of trying?
Elijah Ross
Why do all Sukhois have that long pointy tail between the engines?
For either parachutes or rear viewing radar. I'm don't trust any information about which it is to be real.
>you Simmer down now. You're getting butthurt over nationalism and I'm a burger.
Asher Green
I think you replied to the wrong post, user
Camden Rodriguez
Ah, hell
But anyway, most agree on Parachute, chaff, and electronic warfare equipment variously being located in the tails. Rear facing radar is quoted for the Su-34 and 35 by many sources but many claim this is inaccurate and not in production models.
Christian Howard
Other than absurd missile county and not counting superweapons/planes/setting, what else does Ace Combat get horribly wrong?
Robert Mitchell
This is on par with asking what Call of Duty gets wrong; the answer is everything. It doesn't even vaguely resemble air combat, which is fine because that would be a boring game.
Thomas Brown
>Russia bypassed the laws of physics Why does every vatnik argument about radar turn into this?
The gain of the array, as well as its accuracy, depend on its size and the wavelength. This relation is linear. So if you double the wavelength of your radar, you have to double the radius of the antenna (considering you have a round antenna). If you don't, the radar will have a quarter of the accuracy, but also a quarter of the gain (which is a parameter that affects the signal intensity, both at sending and receiving).
So with an example, if you want to make a long wave radar (1m) as good as a short wave one (1cm), and you assume the short wave one is 1 meter wide, the long wave radar will have to be 100 meters wide. If you're more conservative and assume a radar around L-band (which F-35 and F-22 stealth is good against mind you), meaning 10 cm wavelength, you need your array to be 10 meters wide still.
There's no bypassing these two parameters. The problem is that when Russia or China make these claims of detection, they ignore the relevant information. Sure, you can build fuckhuge radar, but good luck mounting them on aircraft. And even then, that's assuming long wave radar are the magical things Vatniks and Gooks claim they are.
Cooper Foster
there have been plenty of aerial engagements over the years which demonstrate how these systems work. it's not like this stuff just magically sprang out of the ground yesterday. the way we fight air wars today is still very similar to how we fought them 50 years ago.
Leo Smith
>bypassed the laws of physics Maybe you should learn physics. Or engineering. Or that a smaller mm wave can still detect the trillion dollar planelet.
Jose Williams
Millimeter wave radars have a shorter range than x-bands, brainlet
Robert Thomas
And higher frequency, which means significantly higher resolution even without width buffing. You can't into radar, sorry fren.
Brody Foster
>Long-wave radars can detect stealth at longer range! Yeah, but they can't be used for fire control >But short wave radars can! Yeah, but they have shorter range.
Caleb Collins
>Sure, you can build fuckhuge rada This is what China and Russia have done. We're going to be the aggressors in the scenario,it follows that they will have to hi res long range radars,and they do. It's not like they're trying to fly su57s over cape Canaveral. We'll be flying f turdy fife's over them. Or trying to, rather.
