Fighter Fur Balls a thing of the past?

A bloody interesting article at Janes.

http://www.janes.com/aerospace/military/news/idr/idr010529_1_n.shtml

On Thu, 31 May 2001 02:41:18 -0400 Ryan Gill <rmgill@mindspring.com>
wrote:

> A bloody interesting article at Janes. <

True, but haven't we heard this before? "The bomber will always get
through" from pre-WW2; "the dogfight is obsolete because jets fly too
fast" between WW2 and Korea; "the dogfight is obsolete now that we've got
missiles" in Vietnam and after...

The analysts may be right; missile technology, with or without help from
supercruise, etc., may have finally advanced to the point where the furball is
never to be seen again, but I doubt it. For dogfights to truly vanish, it
implies that one side or the other in a combat would have to be wiped out or
scared away, and I can't see that happening. And then there's those pesky
Rules of Engagement, as cursed by many a US airman over 'Nam...

I know that I wouldn't bet my life on it; were I a fighter jock, I'd
want a gun in my metal-and-composite steed, and I'd want to train and
train in ACM in an aircraft that had the capability for high
manoeuvring, because when the kimchee hits the fan, I would _not_ want
to rely solely on a superwondermissile to keep me and my mount in one piece.

What could happen if this is the case is the decline and passing of the
fighter _pilot_. If the weapons become the all-important arbiter of
success or failure, then aircraft become pure weapons platforms, so why weigh
them down with jocks and their egos? Far better to make
higher-performance missile-toters with lots of sensors, controlled by
someone sitting in comfort at a workstation.

Phil

--- Phillip Atcliffe <Phillip.Atcliffe@uwe.ac.uk>
wrote:
> On Thu, 31 May 2001 02:41:18 -0400 Ryan Gill
...

I agree. And let's not forget the identification issue. If you have to get
close enough to distinguish between a backfire with a missile and a 777,
you're probably close enough for guns to be a factor.

> On Thu, 31 May 2001 02:41:18 -0400 Ryan Gill <rmgill@mindspring.com>

The key thing here is the Off axis targeting for the SRAAMs. The
fights between USM F-18 pilots and Israeli (F-15s I guess) really
shows that.

> The analysts may be right; missile technology, with or without help

I think what they are calling dog fights is the need to get the other guy in
your front and zap him. Its getting to the point that you don't need to be
behind him to zap him. You can be beside him (or in a hard turn) and get a
lockup with your Short range Air to Air Missile. The Python 4s and 5s do that
nicely now.

> I know that I wouldn't bet my life on it; were I a fighter jock, I'd

They somewhat address that. Not the USAF and the USMC's attitude about guns in
the UCAV argument.

> What could happen if this is the case is the decline and passing of the

There is an article on Jane's site about this very thing. UCAVs. Take a look
at that one too....

> Phil

On Thu, 31 May 2001 10:42:16 -0400, Ryan Gill <rmgill@mindspring.com>
wrote:

> There is an article on Jane's site about this very thing. UCAVs. Take

Funny, about 4 years ago I had a discussion about FT fighters likely to be
unmanned. I got a bunch of people saying the old, "computers are predictable,
humans aren't, they will always have an edge, so will always be in the
cockpit" arguments. I countered with the old, "computers can handle sustained
25 gs, I can't" argument...

Personally, I see it happening. I see fighters going "unmanned" or partially
controlled by humans. By the time FT comes around, I see fighters totally
unmanned. Which makes me feel better about losing hordes of fighters in an FT
game. *G*

> Allan Goodall wrote:

> On Thu, 31 May 2001 10:42:16 -0400, Ryan Gill <rmgill@mindspring.com>
wrote:
> >There is an article on Jane's site about this very thing. UCAVs. Take

If you can sidestep Einstein, odds are the inertial compensators can get
around
the problem of g-loading pilots to death.  The simple expedient is fill
the cockpit, and internal voids of the pilot, with a fluid that both CO2 and
O2 are highly soluble in. Osmotic pressure removes CO2 and from, and brings O2
into the lungs. As long as the fluid is both incompressible and of the same
specific
gravity of the pilot, the pilot is unaffected by most g-loads that do
not destroy the craft. Forty g's is not unduly harmful, so if we can avoid
blood pooling

On Fri, 01 Jun 2001 19:34:32 -0400, Richard and Emily Bell
> <rlbell@sympatico.ca> wrote:

> If you can sidestep Einstein, odds are the inertial compensators can

You know, I KNEW someone was going to mention that! The inertial compensators
may save someone inside the fighter, but won't affect the actual inertia of
the fighter itself. IF you can kill the inertia of the fighter, then you've
not only countered Einsteinian physics, but you've essentially laid the ground
work for battledreadnoughts manoeuvring like fighters (so, why have
fighters?).

If you don't kill inertia of the fighter outside of the ship, a smaller,
lighter fighter will still have an edge. Without a human, an escape mechanism,
and a life support system, the computer run fighter still has a major edge.

> Forty g's is not unduly harmful, so if we can avoid blood pooling

CBC Television's "The Nature of Things" program had a fascinating documentary
on the history of crash test dummies. The USAF Colonel, Dr.Sapp, conducted
ejector seat research projects on himself (in the belief that he should do
anything he was going to ask his volunteers to do). In one gruesome test
(which he survived, but is still icky to hear), he sustained 43 gs. His eyes
ended up bleeding (they whites ended up going completely red). He said it felt
like his eyes literally popped out of their sockets. He had bruises over his
body where dust inside his suit caused bruising and blistering. He decelerated
from a high speed (his peak speed was around 630 mph) to 0 in 1.3 seconds.

So, blood pooling may not be your only problem...

[quoted original message omitted]

[quoted original message omitted]