Have Jet Figher Supermaneuvarability Capabilities Been Used Often in Air-to-Air Combat?

a reply to: Zaphod58

Does Track Whilst Scan mode, even in the F/A-18C and F-16 also keep the missile silent until the missile turns on its own radar?

I was learning some skills in the simulator and one of the bits of advice was that if you are locked and receive a missile launch, you can work out what kind of energy that missile is going to use up just to get to you and so plan your move and counter move, he said if its fired in TWS mode you only know when the missile became active and not when it was fired so you have to go harder on the evasion.

Probably should be asking @spy66 as he is obviously the expert here.

Well they still put Guns are 98% of modern Jet Fighters .

So I think and Hope there is still a place dor Dog fighting skills .

The Korean War was the Glory days of the Jet Gun fighters , My opinion probably the best Dogfighters the U.S. military ever saw were during the Korean War .

I think the Vietnam War had some Gun fighting in it , but we were straight up fighting the Russians in Air to Air jet Dog fights in Korea .

a reply to: Forensick

The AIM-120D, and other similar missiles, use a two way link back to the launching aircraft. TWS would allow the missile to get close to the target, but wouldn't be super accurate, but it would give the least warning time.

a reply to: Zaphod58

A semi active AA need the radar of the set aircraft to give the missile the information it needs to reach its target. Or it needs to give it the information it needs until it can use its own radar to track the target.

The thing is when a jet needs to give the missile tracking information to lead it to its target, the target also can recive this information. Moste modern jets of 4th gen jets know when a missile is tracking it even if the missile is tracking....

And moste jets train on how to bleed the energy of these long range AA missiles. It does not matter if they are fired from a stealth jet....

The missile and the jet fireing the missile are two different bodies. The jet might be stealthy but the missile is not nor is the information guiding the missile to the target.

a reply to: spy66

I understand what your saying. Your telling us that stealth or non-stealth, as soon as that missle is launched, the aircraft gives it location away because the missiles themselves broadcast guidance information that the target aircraft is able to detect.

Which is true, no denying that. However. What Zaphod is saying is the stealth variants of the f-22, specifically the f35 have been built to minimize the detected of the launch platform.

I feel that, this is a great time to plug my favorite maneuverable aircraft, the A10 Warthog.


It's a flying tank, with a big gun, how can you not love it?

originally posted by: asabuvsobelow
Well they still put Guns are 98% of modern Jet Fighters .

So I think and Hope there is still a place dor Dog fighting skills .

The Korean War was the Glory days of the Jet Gun fighters , My opinion probably the best Dogfighters the U.S. military ever saw were during the Korean War .

I think the Vietnam War had some Gun fighting in it , but we were straight up fighting the Russians in Air to Air jet Dog fights in Korea .

Aren't those mostly for ground attack?

At least to provide supressing fire for close air support.

originally posted by: cenpuppie
a reply to: spy66

I understand what your saying. Your telling us that stealth or non-stealth, as soon as that missle is launched, the aircraft gives it location away because the missiles themselves broadcast guidance information that the target aircraft is able to detect.

Which is true, no denying that. However. What Zaphod is saying is the stealth variants of the f-22, specifically the f35 have been built to minimize the detected of the launch platform.

I feel that, this is a great time to plug my favorite maneuverable aircraft, the A10 Warthog.

It's a flying tank, with a big gun, how can you not love it?

I believe there was an A10 test fire range somewhere near Fort Leonard Wood (or at least used to be in the 90's). My basic training company was out in the field for a training exercise, and every now and again we heard this loud, low-pitch noise from a distance; it's difficult to describe other than a long, bass-sounding burp. One of the other trainees said a DI mention it was from the A10 vulcan cannon. Assuming this was indeed what the sound was, it sure would be unsettling hearing that noise as a potential target!

This A-10 stuff is great and all but its hardly anything to do with "super" maneuverability or members comments that are so circular they will end up in their own back side!

If you want to talk about super maneuverability, without visibly moving, watch the Blue Origin landing and other Space-X rockets too.

a reply to: SleeperHasAwakened

a reply to: SleeperHasAwakened

Nations like Russia and China have technology that can interupt the data link which Long range BVRs need to have.

A BVR missile is dependent on three things at some stage of flight. And that is target information... The missile needs to know what it is going to track and hit.

When the missile leaves the aircraft it is often given information about the targets location and flight path. But a target like a jetfighter changes speed and position constantly. So the BVR missile needs to be updated about the targets position regularly until it can activate its own sensors. The missile is updated by a one or two way data link. Some missiles only use one datalink. That means the missile cant be uptadated on its way to the target. You will only be able to know where the missile is compared to the target it is going to hit. The missile would also need to be in range for it to be able to locate and track the target as it turns on its sensors. If the target is not there anymore the missile have nothing to lock on to. The missile cant see the target if the target is not withing the scope of the sensors it carries behind the nose cone.

The data link is not a laser beam locked onto the missile. So you are not just sending a signal to the missile you are sending the singal to every one else as well.

a reply to: spy66

You are obviously unaware of a certain American built missile, LO and Hypersonic but carry on with your bravado.

Do you think that the F-22 and F-35 have not worked out how to use a Radar with little chance of detection? I mean, they wouldn't be much use with a Radar pinging away when they are expensively stealthy.

What if the Stealth jet, unseen by your Comrades, maneuvers to your six and at 10 miles fires an AIM-120X and then bugs out...

Your missile approach warner, RWR and other Defensive Aids just became a beacon for a hypersonic missile that is passive and just vacuuming up your sensors to put it on point.

And we didnt emit a single signal you can use.

originally posted by: Forensick
This A-10 stuff is great and all but its hardly anything to do with "super" maneuverability or members comments that are so circular they will end up in their own back side!

If you want to talk about super maneuverability, without visibly moving, watch the Blue Origin landing and other Space-X rockets too.

Agreed, we did wander O/T a bit with the conversation on stealth and missile guidance systems.

But I think as Zaphod said earlier, modern air combat seems very dependent on Beyond Visual Range engagement, and if other modernization occurs, for example drones taking on more mission load, or if/when sub-orbital or low-orbital weapons platforms are developed further (i.e. directed energy weapons), seems like super maneuverability will become less and less useful. Heck, it's not hard to imagine that human pilots "dog fighting" will become very rare.

Even if it has limited use in air combat, I still enjoy watching these planes executing incredible feats of maneuverability, if even just at an air show!

a reply to: SleeperHasAwakened

It was said several years ago that the so called 6th Gen (I hate generations) is not going to be a maneuverable fighter like the F-22. It's going to be big, probably something along the lines of the B-58, with a lot of range and probably have stealth better than anything else flying.

a reply to: Forensick


As i said in intially. Stealth is much more deadly at close range. When missiles are within line of sight.

But at close range not even the F-35 will be stealthy against Russias 4+++ gen fighters.

I dont think Russia or China are really afraid of a fox 3. with their present techonlogy sensors. I dont think the comming US AIM 260 will make much differance either. It will just give the US the ability to engage targets at greater distances. To compete with the PL-15. At present time US jets have to go cold before they can fire of their missiles compared to the chinese PL-15.

How the US are going to fit the AIM 260 inside the F-22 and F-35 is going to be interesting. More range also means larger missile.

a reply to: Forensick

Sam and I caught a U-2 at Nellis a few years ago flying with the Einstein Box installed. It allows LPI datalink communications between legacy aircraft, stealth aircraft, and other systems. Eventually even SBIRS will connect with aircraft in the battlespace.

Moste americans are dumb right to the core... It's like you think your air to air missiles are no match against any other fighter. Then why does the US have to make better missiles if they already have the missiles that kills them all.... ? Do they do it to create jobs and waste money...?

You think sealth solves all your problemes... You people have no idea what Russia is capable of when it comes to electronic warefare. That is a silent topic....

Since no-one wants to talk. Lets talk about how the new AA missiles work from the basic fitures.

When a semi active controlled long range missiles is fired from a jet. The missiles is given a predicted location of where the target is.

This means that the missile is working on a predicted location of where the target will be before it turns on its sensors. But what happeneds to the missile if the target is no longer where it was predicted to be..?

The long range missiles travel time to its predicted loctaion plays a big role when it comes to its accuracy... Because when the AA missile reaches the predetermined location it needs to see the target when it turns on its own sensors.

Why do russia make such value on thrust vectoring..?

When it comes to the Su 57 there is no way any US missile will be able to accurate predict the space the Su 57 will be in after a set amount of time... because unles the missile is being guided by a data link to the SU 57 the missile will probably not find the SU 57. Because the missile will only travel to the targets predicted spot/space...and then turn on its sensors and scan for the target. But what if the target is no longer there..?
Will the AA missile find the target..?

a reply to: spy66

Nothing I've read indicates thrust vectoring is meant to help fighters maneuver to avoid missiles in-flight, but rather avoid a target lock before launch, but I'll rise to the bait.

Let's say pilot A is trying to avoid an inbound missile impact fired by pilot B (let's just assume that pilot A saw the exhaust plume from pilot B's missile, and decided to take action using some fancy thrust vectoring maneuvers), and pilot A bleeds off all of his velocity for evasive action, and this results in the missile somehow losing the target.

During the time that pilot A slowed down, his adversary has been flying full-speed and pilot B is now practically right on top of pilot A, who is madly trying to reacquire speed. Now what?

Sounds like pilot A jumped out of the frying pan and into the fire.

a reply to: SleeperHasAwakened

I gues this is how a lot of people think it works.

BVR means beyond visual range and with these moderns AAs also much further. We are now talking about missiles that go further then 160km.

We have acitve and semicative missiles but we also have semiactive and active working missiles also. The radars on these missiles have a field of view much like a fighter jet radar have, but not a field of view of 140 degrees.... But the field of view on a AA is much les when it comes to its range and field of view, we are talking about 80 to 20 degrees field of view and 10 to 20 miles forward view. That means the AA missile need guidence on its way to the target to be able to see it.

The other issue is the AA missiles speed towards the target. The longer the missile have to travel the more time the target have to counter the missile. And fire its own solution and go cold. Going cold means turning away from the incomming missile and bleed its energy down so that it can not engage anymore.... This is the basic tackitc of BVR engagment...
A jet with thrust vectoring can turn away much fatser, it can go cold much fatser en it can engange a target much faster en fire of a new solution.... because its turn rate is much faster. A Su 57 can fly much closer to a fox three than a conventional fighter can, because it can turn and go cold much faster.... BVR is all about traping your aponent to postion the aircraft so that you can counter him with a sure win missile.... If you can use your BVR misisles in such a way that you can enter the MAR to get a shortrange missile of you will probably win the fight.

BVR is all about tacktics.... And as long as you stay out of the MAR you will be pracitcally safe from these BVR missiles... if you can turn fast.

BVR is all about shoot and run until you have youre target where you want him so that you can finish him of with a fox two.


You will not finish of a target (jet fighter) with a fox three unless the target is a pilot with no experiance.

We want to build a BVR missile with a no escape box.... But thrust vecotring is makeing that goal very complicated.

a reply to: spy66

That's an extremely gross over simplification where it's not just outright wrong.

There's a lot more to all of this than you are trying to imply.

The way you describe radar alone is extremely problematic.

You've apparently never heard of midcourse guidance updates lol.

While jets CAN in theory use super maneuverability to escape an incoming missile, their ability to do so depends heavily on knowing that the missile is coming before you're in it's no escape zone.

Spy66 is putting up a bunch of bluster but very little in the way of facts, which some people will buy because this topic is extraordinarily complicated and even the most basic of basics about it are classified.

This gives him the advantage of making it so that even the people who KNOW BETTER aren't legally allowed to even hint at why he's wrong.

I'm not one of the people with clearances by any means, but I have read a good bit of the open literature. Including specific passages recommended to me by people who do have the clearances...

What this all comes down to is spy 66 attempting to take advantage of his ability to make wildass unsupported assertions that people either can't or won't refute because they're not legally allowed to or it's not worth bothering.

I trust the members here will keep this in mind though