Andrew.Stevens@prg.oxford.ac.uk (Andrew Stevens) (05/14/91)
From: Andrew Stevens <Andrew.Stevens@prg.oxford.ac.uk>
Many thanks to Carolo Kopp for posting the fascinating article detailing
the design philosophies behind the current and previous generation of US
fighter aircraft. Would anyone care to comment in similar terms --
philosphy and performance -- on the contemporary European designs?
I would be particularly interested in any comments people would
care to offer on:
The Tornado Air Defence variant
This is, *as I understand it*, a very peculiar beast. I.e. the
Tornado was optimised as a strike aircraft the primary concerns being
high subsonic low altitude performance. The fighter variant is thus
handicapped by relatively low acceleration and so-so turning and
supersonic performance. This aircraft in particular looks very
vulnerable given the widespread deployment of the latest soviet models.
The EFA program
As a caricature this seems to boil down to an F16-but-better
project. I.e. a lot of emphasis on agility - but extended supersonic
performance and low observability do not seem to figure much.
Recent Mirages
What kind of design philosphy (apart from low-cost!) do the
pre-rafale Dassault designs embody?
--
Andrew Stevens
Programmming Research Group JANET: Andrew.Stevens@uk.ac.oxford.prg
Oxford University Computing Laboratory INTERNET: Andrew.Stevens@prg.ox.ac.uk
11 Keble Road, Oxford, England UUCP: ...!uunet!mcvax!ukc!ox-prg!as
OX1 3QDhenry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (05/16/91)
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >From: Andrew Stevens <Andrew.Stevens@prg.oxford.ac.uk> >The Tornado Air Defence variant > This is, *as I understand it*, a very peculiar beast. I.e. the >Tornado was optimised as a strike aircraft the primary concerns being >high subsonic low altitude performance... Actually not true. Tornado's previous name was Multi Role Combat Aircraft -- you'll still find old writeups of it as MRCA -- and the interceptor role definitely figured into the specs. The original, IDS Tornado would make a reasonably good interceptor; the RAF simply wanted a better one, whence the ADV. >The fighter variant is thus >handicapped by relatively low acceleration and so-so turning and >supersonic performance. This aircraft in particular looks very >vulnerable given the widespread deployment of the latest soviet models. You are confusing interceptors with air-superiority fighters. The ADV is an *interceptor*, optimized for long range, heavy armament, acute sensors, and effective operation in heavy-ECM environments (where a two-man cockpit shows to advantage). It is not primarily a dogfighter, although it does that better than (say) a Phantom. Its job is strategic air defence, not maintaining air superiority over a combat zone. General comment: the importance of dogfights is vastly overestimated. 80%+ of all victims of air combat never even see the attacker, much less have a chance to maneuver against him. >The EFA program > As a caricature this seems to boil down to an F16-but-better >project. I.e. a lot of emphasis on agility - but extended supersonic >performance and low observability do not seem to figure much. A reasonable assessment. Not everyone is convinced that stealth is the be-all and end-all for combat aircraft, and supersonic cruise wasn't within the then-practical state of the art for an aircraft with EFA's assorted constraints. >Recent Mirages > What kind of design philosphy (apart from low-cost!) do the >pre-rafale Dassault designs embody? Unless you go back a long way, that's basically the Mirage 2000, which was another F-16-alike. -- And the bean-counter replied, | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology "beans are more important". | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
bxr307@coombs.anu.edu.au (Brian) (05/16/91)
From: bxr307@coombs.anu.edu.au (Brian) Andrew.Stevens@prg.oxford.ac.uk (Andrew Stevens) writes: >The Tornado Air Defence variant > This is, *as I understand it*, a very peculiar beast. I.e. the >Tornado was optimised as a strike aircraft the primary concerns being >high subsonic low altitude performance. The fighter variant is thus >handicapped by relatively low acceleration and so-so turning and >supersonic performance. This aircraft in particular looks very >vulnerable given the widespread deployment of the latest soviet models. When designed in the early to mid-1970's the Tornado ADV was designed to fulfill a very specific function. It was intended to have a long loiter time at long range from its base, and to fight Soviet Bombers attacking Britain coming in over the North Sea. It was felt that it was unlikely at the time that the Soviets would be dispatching their relatively short range fighters of the time (MiG21/23) that far from the Central Front where they would be required, while their longer range aircraft like the MiG25 were even less maneavreable than what the ADV promised to be. If you require a similar type of aircraft it would be best to compare the Tornado ADV to the F14 Tomcat. Both were designed to be reasonably maneavreable at long range from their base and to engage a limited threat with Beyond-Visual-Range (BVR) missiles. Whereas the F14 was designed to defend a carrier which could be sunk, the ADV was designed to defend the unsinkable, but still very vulnerable carrier called Britain. Since then the nature of the threat has changed, with now it being recognised that the ADV is inadequate as a dog fighter. Even so its Radar is perhaps one of the best in service today and it remains a very potent aircraft if it is allowed the chance to use both that radar and its BVR Skyflash missiles. >The EFA program > As a caricature this seems to boil down to an F16-but-better >project. I.e. a lot of emphasis on agility - but extended supersonic >performance and low observability do not seem to figure much. For the threat environment it was designed to function in (ie Central Front Europe) that is basically what was required. Supersonic speed is not of much use when distances are short and where agility is of value. The EFA was designed to overcome some of the shortcomings inherent in the F16 and to provide a homegrown European solution instead of buying from the US, which is what had happened with the F16. >Recent Mirages > What kind of design philosphy (apart from low-cost!) do the >pre-rafale Dassault designs embody? "More Bang for your buck" just about sums it up very well as far as the Mirage series goes. Each was intended to be better than the previous design and still be affordable for most nations to buy. Dassault also very purposely designed "stretch" and rebuild capability into their designs which meant that they could offer to their customers the chance to upgrade things without too much cost. Its also meant they get a lot of return business. -- Brian Ross
fsdjt2@thebox.rain.com (Dean Tabor) (05/17/91)
From: fsdjt2@thebox.rain.com (Dean Tabor) > General comment: the importance of dogfights is vastly overestimated. > 80%+ of all victims of air combat never even see the attacker, much less > have a chance to maneuver against him. I don't think it's vastly overestimated to the 20% of pilots who do see their opponent! Going on pure facts and figures, this logic would mean it makes more sense to have heavilly armed long range interceptors with little/no true fighter capability, a concept that has been proven wrong time and time again. It reminds me of a part of an interview I saw with Gen. Robin Olds, USAF. It seems that when then Colonel Olds was doing a stint at the Pentagon, he was raising a stink about the F-4 not having a cannon integral to the airframe. He was told in no uncertain terms by his superiors that "that sort of fighting will never happen again." Later, over Viet Nam, Olds and his GIB were in it hot and heavy. The GIB was a young lieutenant and was understandably nervous. Olds told him "kid, don't worry about it. I've been told by the high brass this isn't happening." -- Dean Tabor No Electronic Affiliations To Speak Of Anymore fsdjt2@acad3.fai.alaska.edu
eeyore@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Mark Anthony Brown) (05/17/91)
From: Mark Anthony Brown <eeyore@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> Andrew.Stevens@prg.oxford.ac.uk (Andrew Stevens) writes: >The Tornado Air Defence variant > This is, *as I understand it*, a very peculiar beast. I.e. the >Tornado was optimised as a strike aircraft the primary concerns being >high subsonic low altitude performance. The fighter variant is thus >handicapped by relatively low acceleration and so-so turning and >supersonic performance. This aircraft in particular looks very >vulnerable given the widespread deployment of the latest soviet models. Depends what you want to use it for. The Tornado ADV is not supposed to be primarily for close-in dogfighting, but for the air defence situation perculiar to the UK. Viz, the russkies come in from long range over the sea. The Tornado ADVs sit on CAP in oval racetrack patterns watching for the incoming baddies on radar. When they spot them, they lock on the radar and do a BVR kill with their Sky Flash (semi-active radar homing -- a BAe variant of the AIM-7). For that sort of mission, what you basically need is a missile platform with a nice radar. You don't need mega-amazing agility or acceleration. Of course, in-flight refuelling capability is a must. There was some talk of a "mixed-fighter force" concept for defence of Tornado ADV and Sidewinder-equipped Hawks. The Tornado sits off on CAP and can use its radar to function like a mini-AWACS and vector the Hawks onto the bogies. If they get in a scrap with the Hawks, they're in trouble because of the Hawk's small size and its manoeuvrability. If you try to run away, the Tornaddo BVRs you. A friend of mine was in the University of Southampton Air Squadron and went to an old Lightning base just before they were phased out. The pilots were less than keen about the ADV because of (a) the backseaters, (b) the performance and (c) smoky exhaust -- going in and out of reheat, you tend to get great gouts of smoke out of the back. However, the Lightnings were interceptors and definitely short-legged as far as fuel went. Again, the aircraft are designed for different roles. -- I felt like a punk who'd gone out for a switchblade and came back with a tactical nuke.
DAVEH@vax.oxford.ac.uk (Dave Hastings) (05/17/91)
From: Dave Hastings <DAVEH@vax.oxford.ac.uk> Andrew.Stevens@prg.oxford.ac.uk (Andrew Stevens) writes: > The Tornado Air Defence variant > > This is, *as I understand it*, a very peculiar beast. I.e. the > Tornado was optimised as a strike aircraft the primary concerns being > high subsonic low altitude performance. The fighter variant is thus > handicapped by relatively low acceleration and so-so turning and > supersonic performance. This aircraft in particular looks very > vulnerable given the widespread deployment of the latest soviet models. You seem to be missing the point about the Tornado ADV. It was put into service as the most suitable aircraft to patrol the UK Air Defence Region, which extends up to Iceland. This mission requires long loiter time, possibly without tanker support. In wartime, the Tornado would try to knock down Soviet bombers, preferably BVR with Skyflash/AMRAAM. I believe that the ADV has pretty good transonic acceleration, and is certainly capable of Mach 2+. With its VG wings it can also put up a good performance in a turning fight. The ADV is not meant to be an air superiority fighter; it is a long-range interceptor, and it is capable of carrying out this mission. -- David Hastings | JANET: daveh@uk.ac.oxford.vax VAX Systems Programmer | INTERNET: Oxford University Computing Service| daveh@vax.oxford.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk
eeyore@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Mark Anthony Brown) (05/17/91)
From: Mark Anthony Brown <eeyore@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> Andrew.Stevens@prg.oxford.ac.uk (Andrew Stevens) writes: >The Tornado Air Defence variant > This is, *as I understand it*, a very peculiar beast. I.e. the >Tornado was optimised as a strike aircraft the primary concerns being >high subsonic low altitude performance. The fighter variant is thus >handicapped by relatively low acceleration and so-so turning and >supersonic performance. This aircraft in particular looks very >vulnerable given the widespread deployment of the latest soviet models. Depends what you want to use it for. The Tornado ADV is not supposed to be primarily for close-in dogfighting, but for the air defence situation perculiar to the UK. Viz, the russkies come in from long range over the sea. The Tornado ADVs sit on CAP in oval racetrack patterns watching for the incoming baddies on radar. When they spot them, they lock on the radar and do a BVR kill with their Sky Flash (semi-active radar homing -- a BAe variant of the AIM-7). For that sort of mission, what you basically need is a missile platform with a nice radar. You don't need mega-amazing agility or acceleration. Of course, in-flight refuelling capability is a must. There was some talk of a "mixed-fighter force" concept for defence of Tornado ADV and Sidewinder-equipped Hawks. The Tornado sits off on CAP and can use its radar to function like a mini-AWACS and vector the Hawks onto the bogies. If they get in a scrap with the Hawks, they're in trouble because of the Hawk's small size and its manoeuvrability. If you try to run away, the Tornaddo BVRs you. A friend of mine was in the University of Southampton Air Squadron and went to an old Lightning base just before they were phased out. The pilots were less than keen about the ADV because of (a) the backseaters, (b) the performance and (c) smoky exhaust -- going in and out of reheat, you tend to get great gouts of smoke out of the back. However, the Lightnings were interceptors and definitely short-legged as far as fuel went. Again, the aircraft are designed for different roles. -- Mark A. Brown Department of Computer Science | JANET: eeyore@uk.ac.qmw.cs Queen Mary & Westfield College | UUCP: eeyore@qmc-cs.UUCP Mile End Road, London E1 4NS | land line: +44 71 975 5220
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (05/19/91)
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >From: fsdjt2@thebox.rain.com (Dean Tabor) >> General comment: the importance of dogfights is vastly overestimated. >> 80%+ of all victims of air combat never even see the attacker, much less >> have a chance to maneuver against him. > >I don't think it's vastly overestimated to the 20% of pilots who do see >their opponent! ... I didn't say they were completely unimportant, just that the emphasis on them was excessive. A fighter optimized to be hard to sneak up on and to be good at sneaking up on other aircraft will be vastly more effective and rather more survivable than a big, conspicuous lump that maneuvers really well. Even when a dogfight does ensue, maneuvering still is somewhat of a secondary issue. The attacker may have lost "strategic" surprise, but "tactical" surprise is still more important than maneuvering: dogfights are lost more often by losing track of the opponent, or by misinterpreting his intentions, or by being blindsided by *another* opponent who stood clear and waited for a chance, than by being outmaneuvered. The extra opponent is a particularly bad case; when multiple aircraft are involved on each side, numbers are far more significant than technical superiority, for precisely this reason. >... Going on pure facts and figures, this logic would mean it >makes more sense to have heavilly armed long range interceptors with >little/no true fighter capability, a concept that has been proven wrong time >and time again. This logic means nothing of the kind. It means that it makes more sense to have small, inconspicuous, fast fighters that don't spray radar beams around the sky unnecessarily. To the extent that this concept has been tried -- nobody's done it thoroughly, but aircraft differ enough in these characteristics that some evaluations can be done based on existing experience -- it has been proven *right* time and time again. Even something as simple as painting a false cockpit canopy on the underside of a fighter is more effective than increasing its roll rate a little bit, because the false canopy confuses opponents and makes "tactical" surprise more likely. To deal with the red herring of interceptors -- a pet peeve of mind -- interceptors and air-superiority fighters are two completely different animals. A good aircraft for one can seldom do the other's job very well. For strategic air defence, interceptors work very well; the confusion on this point is because they have rarely been called on to do their proper job in the last few decades. All too often, people have built interceptors and then tried to use them as air-superiority fighters. -- And the bean-counter replied, | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology "beans are more important". | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry