Posted on 04/11/2016 4:16:47 PM PDT by Mariner
WASHINGTON, April 11 (UPI) -- The gap between the U.S. military's air superiority capabilities and that of potential adversaries is narrowing, a U.S. Air Force study says.
The solution to counter emerging threats is to view air superiority as a condition -- not capability -- using multi-domain solutions developed through a more agile acquisition process.
The disclosure was made by Lt. Gen. Mike Holmes, the Air Force deputy chief of staff for strategic plans and requirements, and Col. Alexus Grynkewich, the Air Superiority 2030 ECCT study lead, at a recent Air Force Association breakfast.
"After 25 years of being the only great power out there, we're returning to a world of great power competition," Holmes said. "We need to develop coordinated solutions that bring air, space, cyber, electronic environment and surface capabilities together to solve our problems.
(Excerpt) Read more at upi.com ...
If you dig deep enough into the article you'll discern they are talking about decoupling avionics, fire control and EW from air frame and engine development. Something I thought was always done, at least to a limited extent.
Still, I thinking the best place to spend money is replacing the air frames and engines that have FAR too many hours on them...with even current generation aircraft.
There's nothing wrong with a F-15c-2040 if the F-15c you're flying today has cracks in the wing and a chronically bad engine.
Why not just hire ALL Chinese engineers and MI people, and ASSURE that China has all our stuff..?!
Oh..!
And a bunch of guys from India, too..!
Bring back the f22 and problem solved?
HA! We have the F-35. The world will fall into catatonic shock when we field a jet 300 kts slower and less maneuverable than everything else. They’ll think it’s a trick and flee!
The future of air superiority will be in unmanned planes.
Some of the limitations air to air combat is due to the human element.
An unmanned craft could fly further, or stay in the air longer, can go faster, turn sharper, then a manned aircraft.
Geeks in a warehouse thousands of miles from the front will be the new ACES in future combat.
Now if we could only find a drone to replace the poor infantryman...
This whole game is evil and stupid. We should be using a revamped space program as a principle driver for our economy and technology, not building for WW-3 or WW-4. Build for that **** long enough, and it will happen.
A US or NATO pilot trying to fly a 35 against a frontline Russian fighter would be committing suicide.
Well, the F-35 Moon Pig certainly instills “shock and awe” when the bill comes due, so there’s that.
First, the F-35 was not intended to use against the front line fighters of a modern Air Force. We have other platforms for that.
Secondly, the F-35 is also not designed for a dog fight. In it's air-to-air role it will shoot from 50miles or more.
It's superiority comes from what it's loaded with and the ability to network with AWACS, other fighters, satellites, and a myriad of other sensors and platforms including ships and drones.
Oh, and while it can be seen on low frequency radar, fire control radars don't work at low frequency. You can see them coming but you have a real hard time hitting them from 50-100miles away.
Acrobatically you can beat it with a 1990's edition F-16.
“If only we could find a drone to replace the poor infantryman”.
It’ll happen.
Ditch the F 35 and bring back the F 22.
An Su-35 can turn in about the same radius as a pickup truck, and no missile can turn that hard. The F35 would fire one or two missiles at the Russian plane and if the Russian plane didn't see the F35, it sure as hell would see the two missiles. It would turn to face them, step around them and leave them trying to figure out what happened, and shoot the F35, which would have been picked up visually by that time, down.
Mariner [post 9]: “...Acrobatically you can beat it with a 1990’s edition F-16.”
ganeemead [post 12]: “...An Su-35 can turn in about the same radius as a pickup truck, and no missile can turn that hard. ...”
Both of these esteemed posters are behind the times.
Missiles have been able to out-g manned aircraft since the 1970s. Air-to-air missiles have lagged - they attained this capability only in the early 1990s.
Combat aircraft became able to out-g the human body since the F-16 arrived on the scene - also in the 1970s. Any performance margin above what the pilot can tolerate is useless.
In almost all engagements, surprise negates all other factors. Whoever spots the adversary first, wins.
The manuevering fraction of most engagements, when adversaries are within visual range of each other, amounts to three percent of the duration. “Dogfighting” as understood by the general public is irrelevant.
Aircraft velocities and weapon capabilities went beyond the human ability to see and react in the late 1930s; ever since, the manned “air superiority” fighter has been helpless without ground assistance.
I think this is the most accurate conclusion from those who know the realities of today’s air combat realities.
Stealth really does work, air to air, to the point it is almost unfair.
The Surface to air, SA-400 series especially, may change things again in another dimension.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.