Fighters, fighters, and some bombers? Air combat: past, present, future.

[miletus12]

Mar 25, 2022 16:23:29 GMT oscssw said:

I'm certainly a bit dated (transferred to CivLant in '95) and outside the US I am an expat .  IFF was the goto in most instances for we Navy types.  The IFF system is composed of an interrogator (challenge) subsystem and a transponder (reply) subsystem. The interrogator subsystem permits a radar operator to interrogate other platforms and to interpret this data as specific identification of friendly radar targets. The interrogator subsystem may be either a "black" IFF or a "slaved" IFF. Black IFF is a "stand alone" interrogator subsystem not associated with any radar system; only IFF returns can be displayed. With slaved IFF, the interrogator is synchronized with a radar set. The operator can display IFF only, radar only, or both.

In really dicey situations under various modes of EMCON we would go to "Black".  Black IFF is a "stand alone" interrogator subsystem not associated with any radar system; only IFF returns can be displayed.  For black IFF systems, the timing is usually adjusted so that target replies fall at the true target range and azimuth on the PPI.   Radar targets are not displayed with black IFF video.    IFF interrogations are transmitted on a rotating  directional antenna (usually mounted atop or as an integral element of a search radar antenna), and transponder replies are received on this same antenna.   Transponders receive interrogations and transmit replies on an omnidirectional antenna.

For those of you who have not worked with IFF, I can assure you there is a lot to getting the system to do exactly what you want.  Lots of variables and many "Features" you have know when to employ.  As I said,EMCON really complicates your life .  Hope this is of some help in understanding "how the air combat identification problem works".

Without giving away trade secrets and a simple yes / no will suffice to answer the question, were you ever surprised by your IFF's behavior or generated answer to an interrogatory?

[oscssw]

Mar 25, 2022 16:50:06 GMT miletus12 said:

Mar 25, 2022 16:23:29 GMT oscssw said:

I'm certainly a bit dated (transferred to CivLant in '95) and outside the US I am an expat .  IFF was the goto in most instances for we Navy types.  The IFF system is composed of an interrogator (challenge) subsystem and a transponder (reply) subsystem. The interrogator subsystem permits a radar operator to interrogate other platforms and to interpret this data as specific identification of friendly radar targets. The interrogator subsystem may be either a "black" IFF or a "slaved" IFF. Black IFF is a "stand alone" interrogator subsystem not associated with any radar system; only IFF returns can be displayed. With slaved IFF, the interrogator is synchronized with a radar set. The operator can display IFF only, radar only, or both.

In really dicey situations under various modes of EMCON we would go to "Black".  Black IFF is a "stand alone" interrogator subsystem not associated with any radar system; only IFF returns can be displayed.  For black IFF systems, the timing is usually adjusted so that target replies fall at the true target range and azimuth on the PPI.   Radar targets are not displayed with black IFF video.    IFF interrogations are transmitted on a rotating  directional antenna (usually mounted atop or as an integral element of a search radar antenna), and transponder replies are received on this same antenna.   Transponders receive interrogations and transmit replies on an omnidirectional antenna.

For those of you who have not worked with IFF, I can assure you there is a lot to getting the system to do exactly what you want.  Lots of variables and many "Features" you have know when to employ.  As I said,EMCON really complicates your life .  Hope this is of some help in understanding "how the air combat identification problem works".

Without giving away trade secrets and a simple yes / no will suffice to answer the question, were you ever surprised by your IFF's behavior or generated answer to an interrogatory?

That is a YES.  I had an Old crusty RDC (must have been all of 35) say "Kid, those electronic wonders certainly are impressive until the day they try to kill you."  Enough said?

[miletus12]

Mar 25, 2022 19:27:45 GMT oscssw said:

Mar 25, 2022 16:50:06 GMT miletus12 said:

Without giving away trade secrets and a simple yes / no will suffice to answer the question, were you ever surprised by your IFF's behavior or generated answer to an interrogatory?

That is a YES.  I had an Old crusty RDC (must have been all of 35) say "Kid, those electronic wonders certainly are impressive until the day they try to kill you."  Enough said?

Yessir. 

[miletus12]

Why did the Rafale suddenly prosper these past five years.;

a. The French added ancillary systems that make it competitive with the F-15 and F-16 launch platforms for strike. These capabilities can substitute for cheaper and BETTER systems that US strike planes carry. The customers who can and will buy the Rafale are those who are either US enemies or who are not allowed to buy the US tech.

One thing to understand about the Rafale and the Super Hornet; the claim that the Rafale is superior is "contextual". The overall match is that the two planes are about equal as launch platforms. The systems that the two planes use are of different purpose and equity (Rafale's radar / air to air missiles combo is distinctly inferior and will always be so due to power throughput and elements size differences, the targeting aids and effectors are nearly equal as pods are pods and types of guided bombs are guided bombs whether Chinese or American.).

The other thing is that the French government has made adaptations in its government supported tech base to get around the US sourced tech the French use for their radar and missile guidance system employed in the Rafale. This is understandable. In arms sales, the US had and has imposed limits as to who can buy the Rafale for much the same reasons it has limited the types of F-35 and F-15 and F-16 offered. That comes down to proprietary soft and hardware cybernetics (Avionics.). Dassault has struggled to catch up with the hardware side. They always had good software interface.

So good on them for their progress and sales. They have taken a long hard road to finally outperform the Sukhois and Jengdus.

[miletus12]

The Americans would dispute a lot of these conclusions.

[miletus12]

The short answer is the B-24 Liberator at high altitude. The Lancaster was designed to efficiently fight at about 5,000 (16,000 ft) to 6,000 meters (19,700 ft.). That was a doctrine and technology choice. So... we compare apples and oranges. The Lancaster worked best as a night area bombardment platform from medium altitude.

More on the Lancaster...



This is a terror weapon. It was designed to conduct a terror bombing campaign and to ignore that factor is to ignore the truth about why this bomber was built the way it was. It was an efficient bomb delivery vehicle for area bombing.

The vertical stabilizer / rudder explanation is a very good one. Stability (lateral) in flight is paramount for a bomber. The dihedral is a corrective measure that is important for predictable bomb runs.

The turret layout is somewhat curious, and I tend to be on the strip out everything except the tail-stinger position with that being a 20 mm cannon.. The Germans could stand off from the British crap armament and shoot the British bomber in the bomb-bay. The results of German Night Music could be expressed as "loss of aircraft, crew and mission".  It should be noted that the British killed vs wounded vs prisoners ratios were not as good as the American bombers. 70% KIA of crew losses was not too good. 

Augsburg... If the USAAF had Schweinfurt, then the Lancaster slaughter at Ausburg is often ignored. It was a very small raid. Note the light bomb loads compared to the B-17s that flew similar type missions. The Germans gingerly probed until they figured out the Lancasters' defects. Four of six splashed. Seven of twelve Lancaster were finally slaughtered. 57% losses. The factory target was unaffected. 20% of the few bombs dropped were duds. All in all this was a LOUSY daylight bomber.        

[miletus12]

Every now and then I like to post something funny and humorous as in peculiar and weird.

InsideHook Could the Cargo Planes of the Future be Battery-Powered? Tobias Carroll - Yesterday 8:35 PM

When thinking about the future of commercial flight, enthusiasm for the possibility of electric planes runs into an unfortunate quality of the batteries required to power them: they tend to be very heavy. This isn’t as much of a problem for cars and trucks, but when you need to get something off the ground and keep it there for a prolonged period of time, those questions of endurance become much more of an issue.

All of which might make the work being done by a Vermont-based company, Beta Technologies, that much more vital. A new article in The New York Times details the process by which they’ve developed an electric plane that doesn’t require a runway for takeoff or landing.

Beta’s initial aircraft, the Alia, is intended for cargo delivery. The article mentions that Amazon has invested in the company and that UPS has placed an initial order; several branches of the armed forces are also interested. There’s still a steep hurdle, however — before these plans can come to fruition, the F.A.A. needs to approve the technology behind it.

If the agency in question does go forward with their approval, however, the possibilities for use are almost limitless — from dropping off packages to transporting medical supplies to remote parts of the world. To do that, and without emissions, seems like a goal worth working towards.

The short answer is "No."

[miletus12]

The "book" on these aircraft is that they are "Russian"; decent until they see combat, and then they are "clay pigeons".

[stevep]

Apr 13, 2022 0:05:17 GMT miletus12 said:

The short answer is the B-24 Liberator at high altitude. The Lancaster was designed to efficiently fight at about 5,000 (16,000 ft) to 6,000 meters (19,700 ft.). That was a doctrine and technology choice. So... we compare apples and oranges. The Lancaster worked best as a night area bombardment platform from medium altitude.

More on the Lancaster...



This is a terror weapon. It was designed to conduct a terror bombing campaign and to ignore that factor is to ignore the truth about why this bomber was built the way it was. It was an efficient bomb delivery vehicle for area bombing.

The vertical stabilizer / rudder explanation is a very good one. Stability (lateral) in flight is paramount for a bomber. The dihedral is a corrective measure that is important for predictable bomb runs.

The turret layout is somewhat curious, and I tend to be on the strip out everything except the tail-stinger position with that being a 20 mm cannon.. The Germans could stand off from the British crap armament and shoot the British bomber in the bomb-bay. The results of German Night Music could be expressed as "loss of aircraft, crew and mission".  It should be noted that the British killed vs wounded vs prisoners ratios were not as good as the American bombers. 70% KIA of crew losses was not too good. 

Augsburg... If the USAAF had Schweinfurt, then the Lancaster slaughter at Ausburg is often ignored. It was a very small raid. Note the light bomb loads compared to the B-17s that flew similar type missions. The Germans gingerly probed until they figured out the Lancasters' defects. Four of six splashed. Seven of twelve Lancaster were finally slaughtered. 57% losses. The factory target was unaffected. 20% of the few bombs dropped were duds. All in all this was a LOUSY daylight bomber.        

  It was a weapon designed to deliver a heavy bomb load into enemy territory.  Because of obsession with such operations and limited technical capacity for accuracy in most cases it was used in the area bombing mode.  This was true of all the heavy bombers used in WWII.  The USAAF initially tried to make accurate raids by day but even when  long ranged heavy fighters meant they weren't getting savaged by the Luftwaffe environmental conditions often made this impossible - both bad weather and frequent air pollution over urban areas as long as in accurate navigation and German ground defences.  All WWII heavy bombers used without escort against any established defences were lousy daylight bombers - and fairly weak against prepared night defences. 

  The Lancaster had some defects, I was shocked at how thin the fuselage actually was when I heard the details a few months back but I suspect that was seen as necessary to get the desired bomb-load over the target.  I've often said here and elsewhere that the bombing campaign as carried out was a massive waste of resources that could have been much better used elsewhere.

  The B-29 was a far more successful terror weapon in terms of the number of civilians targeted and killed but that was in large part because the nature of Japanese cities made this a lot easier and because by 1945 the Japanese defences were so weak that the B-29 could made a drastic change in its use by stripping out most defensive guns and going in relatively low to carry more bombs, especially the incendiaries that did the damage.

[miletus12]

The maturation of USAAF and RAF bombing effectiveness was in 1945. The RAF continued to be ineffective night area bombardment types in their main campaign. The Transportation and Oil knockout was mainly USAAF.

Not that the British could not have tried daylight precision strike. They chose not too, and THAT is why they cut no ice in the knockout.

[stevep]

May 10, 2022 15:34:50 GMT miletus12 said:

The maturation of USAAF and RAF bombing effectiveness was in 1945. The RAF continued to be ineffective night area bombardment types in their main campaign. The Transportation and Oil knockout was mainly USAAF.

Not that the British could not have tried daylight precision strike. They chose not too, and THAT is why they cut no ice in the knockout.

  As you say strategic bombing with rare exceptions was only really effective when it could make no real impact on the war.  Britain if it wanted to engage in a strategic campaign had to do so at night until late in the war by which time training and equipment - along with probably institutional inertia - meant most attacks still went in at night.

[miletus12]

May 11, 2022 19:28:46 GMT stevep said:

As you say strategic bombing with rare exceptions was only really effective when it could make no real impact on the war.  Britain if it wanted to engage in a strategic campaign had to do so at night until late in the war by which time training and equipment - along with probably institutional inertia - meant most attacks still went in at night.

Oil was a strategic choke point. Who hit the German synthetic fuel plants successfully, again?

[miletus12]

How good are the Chinese and their J20s?

Millenium 7 gets some of it wrong. The J20 still is a good attempt for a signal managed aircraft. Radio energy can be reflected back to an emitter from any "spike source". The J20 has a few of those not discussed.

[miletus12]

Chinese naval aviation. The bird farms.



The Type 003 is a weird version of a CATOBAR. Tt is equipped with electromagnetic throw rails to catapult aircraft.

The speculation is that the PLAN is trying to fight the USN for global naval supremacy. Force on force to fight... where? That depends on how the Chinese intend to deliver weapon effects. My guess is that the speculations about the support forces; AWACS, air-tanking, and robot drones; is mirror mimic of standard USNAS doctrined air groups.

The speculation of an EMAL on an LHA is kind of ridiculous. This is impractical as to scale-size of takeoff run and trap and ignores why CATOBARs use angled decks.

This is one of the reasons I still take Millenium 7 with a great deal of salt ... and orange juice.

I still think the Chinese should not be considered as mirroring the American navy. It is more like they are fumbling their way toward a naval "tactical" doctrine as the US did in the 1890s.

It would be interesting to see how the South China Sea "island forts" and current aircraft carrier program evolves. If the Hainan base fortress and the island forts start to sprout shore mounted hypersonic glide vehicles (HGV) launchers, then we could see an emergent and successful surface transit South China Sea denial setup. The aircraft carriers would not be so much an attempt to replay the Imperial Japanese Navy in that respect, as it would be a legacy "show the flag" and "here we are", now what are you going to do about it" imposed "gunboat diplomacy" and out of home waters intimidation force. It is conceivable the Chinese could show up in traditional USN operating areas and either challenge or supplant "presence". THIS would have economic effects as in peacetime, second world and third world politicians would look off their coasts to see whose aircraft carrier would be encouraging "opium trade".

Remember who the evil minds are who are planning the PLAN and possibly WHY they go down a path that makes no future warfare sense. It is not for a replay of Midway. It is for "psychological peacetime warfare" and "century of shame" revenge symbolic reasons.

And if it comes down to it, the USN should asymmetrically respond accordingly. We remember our history, too. How did most aircraft carriers and ships in general DIE?

[miletus12]

Lockmart propaganda.

The AIM 260 missile is not credible as described. *(There are rocket motor reasons for this declaration. A dual pulse motor is an accelerator with a sustainer for cruise flyout. The architecture only works if the air combat is at extreme altitude in which case a basket drop missile is preferable,)

Pergrine and Cusa are missiles based on pure speculation. These are supposed to be air to air and air to ground common airframe, but I do not see that logic.

Directed energy weapons are classified. These are outside the scope of my ken.

Sensors are pure speculation and imaginations.

Variable ratio bypass flow engines. Flown on a recent 737? Then you understand choking the combuster for added range and added speed. Moving on...

The new military engines should be backfittable to USAF legacy fighters.