FSW, what if's

[nevidimka]

I saw this link on RC plane accidently and it showed a guy's RC of the cancelled US concept Switchblade.
It shows a brief but wonderfull flight performance of the Switchblade in its forward and delta config wings. It would have made 1 hell of a dogfighter, a great looking 1 at that too.

The demo instantly displayed the different characteristics both config . The FSW performed a backflip as if it was on TVC!, and it was a very stable platform.
On a swept back config it was instantly faster, and the rollrate was much faster than in the FSW mode.

[ame="http://in.youtube.com/watch?v=H_VaDYWsInI&feature=related"]YouTube - SU-47 F/A-37 Switchblade Test Flight with CRASH[/ame]

 

[gf0012-aust]

Both the US (Grumman) and Russia abandoned FSW at the prototype stage because the cost of and material science involved was not cost effective.

Nearly 30 years later the material science has improved and cost has come down (relative to the prototypes and contemp performance) - but the advantages have been eroded by things such as off boresight shots, TVC missiles and HMC.

The technology and doctrine has changed. I was lucky enough to be able to see the Grumman X-29 in the US a few years back - a very imposing plane...

 

[nevidimka]

Yes thats true, that the off boresight shot, HMS, TVC missiles took abit out of dogfighting, but that didnt stop US rom making the F 22 a very good dogfighter capable of beating the F15/16 in its own game didnt they?

When both sides uses stealth, and powerful and ever advancing ECM, the fight will certainly move from BVR to the WVR. I think attention to dogfighting ability should still be there.

oh btw, there can be 100 stealth fighter designs, but nothing comes close to the look of a FSW plane. Simply amazing!.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Yes thats true, that the off boresight shot, HMS, TVC missiles took abit out of dogfighting, but that didnt stop US rom making the F 22 a very good dogfighter capable of beating the F15/16 in its own game didnt they?

Because they postdate the original ATF design.... some of those are incorporated into JSF though as it was a later design

When both sides uses stealth, and powerful and ever advancing ECM, the fight will certainly move from BVR to the WVR. I think attention to dogfighting ability should still be there.

where's the evidence of that? if anything the tech that we see at work shows even longer range sensing, holistic sensing via disparate systems and hand off engagement at long range. BVR is getting more "B"

oh btw, there can be 100 stealth fighter designs, but nothing comes close to the look of a FSW plane. Simply amazing!.

Looks have got nothing to do with capability. There have been some absolutely stunning looking designs that were turkeys.

 

[nevidimka]

Sure thats true. Btw you mentioned that BVR is getting more "B", but isn't that because it is being measured with normal technologies? As an adversary catches up in Stealth and other signature reduction technologies as well, wouldn't that reduce the "B" as we speak?

 

[gf0012-aust]

Sure thats true. Btw you mentioned that BVR is getting more "B", but isn't that because it is being measured with normal technologies? As an adversary catches up in Stealth and other signature reduction technologies as well, wouldn't that reduce the "B" as we speak?

One of the reasons why I get frustrated at the use of the word "stealth" is because it is so abused as a concept. It makes "stealth" sound like a tangible capability which can then be countered via a new solution set. It's NOT at determinable fixed concept. (eg as though it's something akin to TVC, or canards, or leading edge arrays etc....)

LO/VLO platforms first started in 1912 - the concept as such has evolved since then into various technology capability sets - "manned LO/VLO solutions since 1957-59 alone have gone through 5-6 different solution sets - similarly so have unmanned developments.

The principle behind LO/VLO is gaining systems/weapons closure as near as possible before enemy detection and reaction (as is often the case, there have been incidents where detection is possible but reaction is limited or unable to be actioned effectively)

The "B" is in actual fact getting further away due to sensor and network fusion issues, and it means that there are clear opportunities for the weapons carriers to enter hostile space completely passive as they are being fed by other assets. ie, you can detect sensor systems all day, but if the sensor systems are separate to the weapons delivery solution, then you have a centrifugal problem - not just an incoming carrier problem.

 

[nevidimka]

Again I believe your talking about a truly network centric warfare in a cold war era backdrop, which would explain it.
But What I'm trying to say is that the adversary does not stand still, they too continue to advance. Eventually the adversary tries to develop and equip themselves with more capable detection system to detect and take out those passive attacker's themselves.
They may not be able to take out the sensors which may be way out of range, outside their own borders even, but if they ( having LO/VLO tech) can detect the passive attacker and destroy it, it would still mean a mission failure to the attacker wouldn't it?