WI: F-16 is Cancelled
- Thread starter Have Blue-117
- Start date
Care to elaborate? That may well become true when we finally see engagements between gen 4+ / gen 5 opponents, but as of now, the number of air to air engagements where the fight has taken place beyond the high transonic are vanishingly small in number.
Certain air defence missions where aircraft on ground alert are "scrambled" against intruders (especially if the intruders are also capable of supersonic speed.)
I believe this was studied in the 1950's and 1960's by the RCAF (and presumably the USAF) in the NORAD context and I seem to recall the conclusion was that in practice subsonic interceptors were at a considerable disadvantage.
'Considerable disadvantage' is something of a stretch, taken in the context of anything like an effectively functioning IADS system - be it ship - borne, or land based. There are very, very few aircraft (then or now) capable of sustaining supersonic speeds for any length of time - such speeds generally being reserved for ingress / egress (typically, 100nm either side of the target). A well executed 'Q' will allow more than adequate time to commence BVR at your weapons maximum engagement envelope.
My recollection was even if the subsonic interceptors had high performance AAM's (for the time frame) and a modest speed advantage (say 50 knots or so ?) over their targets that the likelhood of a successful interception being carried out was believed to be low.
Thinking out loud it also occurs to me that BVR engagements may also be prohibited in many situations.
On another note I recall reading years ago in the context of the Harrier that Mach 1.5 speed was widely considered to be useful for tactical fighters that were expected to be able to carry out a wide range of missions.
Not if you get your assets in the air in anything like the above scenario, no.
BVR may indeed be outside the RoE in certain situations, BUT...
If something unknown has penetrated your airspace at M 1.5 & isn't communicating, the only rule of engagement will be 'shoot first, shoot soonest'. In terms of tactical missions, you're not going to be carrying anything of much use (beyond an A2A loadout) at such speeds without an internal bay. Except, perhaps, for those scenarios when you might be carrying a single, pylon mounted nuke such as WE.177 or B61 - in which eventuality, everything else has already been rendered somewhat moot.
What if an unknown aircraft flying at say Mach .9 shows up on radar. The air weapons controller scrambles the alert fighter(s) that say can fly at Mach .95
The unknown air craft changes course a few times which complicates getting the interceptors into a position to identify the unknown aircraft but is still generally heading towards major population centres. Eventually an interceptor manages to reach a launch point for a BVR AAM, but they haven't actually identified the aircraft.
This is peace time and the interceptor has only a few minutes to fire before it has to land or will run out of fuel ? What happens next ?
A supersonic interceptor would seem useful to me
I suspect most airforces (that can afford to do so) are going to want the ability to promptly over take subsonic targets and identify them.
Last edited:
Well, we've wildly exceeded the scope of my comments regarding the Sea Harrier (and rather derailed the thread as a whole), which, of course never stood 'Q' on anything other than a ships deck (although the GR.3 stood 'Q' for a time at Stanley, before the runway was extended) - but to address your scenario:
A QRA scramble is ALWAYS two aircraft - no exceptions - to cover, amongst other things, eventualities such as this (there was a time when Q WAS held by subsonic assets. remember). When they've launched, a replacement pair are immediately stood up - they too will launch if needed, whatever the reason. Furthermore, a tanker is always launched with every Q - evasion, even against subsonic pursuers, would prove impossible.
A QRA scramble is ALWAYS two aircraft - no exceptions - to cover, amongst other things, eventualities such as this (there was a time when Q WAS held by subsonic assets. remember). When they've launched, a replacement pair are immediately stood up - they too will launch if needed, whatever the reason. Furthermore, a tanker is always launched with every Q - evasion, even against subsonic pursuers, would prove impossible.
Sure if you can assume that a suitable jet powered tanker with enough speed to keep up will always be available to support your qra air defence fighters then subsonic interceptors are probably more viable. Still IMHO trying to run down a target that doesn't want to be intercepted with interceptors with say a 50 knot speed advantage could be a time consuming effort. A couple of hundred knots more speed for the interceptors would seem useful to me.
I'm just curious how many airforces actually maintain tankers on alert in peace time to support air defence fighters ? More to the point how many airforces that don't own supersonic fighters even own jet powered tankers ?
I suspect for many airforces simply keeping a GCI radar system running 7x24 along with some pairs of fighters and aircrew on alert is going to be enough of a challenge in peace time.
Edit to add.
I'm not saying that subsonic interceptors are useless, but I am trying to illustrate how in my view at least they could have some potential limitations in certain situations.
All the best
Blue cat
Last edited:
Disabusing you of a fallacious and clearly unresearched claim in no uncertain terms, without personal attack, is hardly 'rude'.
Responding with a 'Fuck You' video, however, may well be considered so.
I feel that there has been some poor behaviour towards MancFrank.
The goalposts were moved to try and prove a strawman position.
The goalposts were moved to try and prove a strawman position.
I suspect that, for whichever tin - pot air force cannot achieve this, there are far, far bigger concerns than 'Our pointy things only have a VMax of 560 KTAS'.
Standard, innit? 'Tis the interweb, after all...
But thanks, I'm glad someone is mature enough to see this the way I view it.
I rather suspect 'That's absurd - even the most cursory examination of the Lavi programme will reveal this assertion to be utter claptrap' would only be deemed offensive by someone who'd bothered to make the effort of having a clue, and / or being in possession of a valid rebuttal.
The Harrier (of which the Sea Harrier is a variant) was mentioned by others early in the thread - see how (and with whom) the thread then diverges - don't bother to drag anyone else in to your petty little vendetta.
Perhaps the mods need to give this a little oversight.
So, now we've moved from 'developed mostly from the F-16' to 'drew inspiration from the f-16' - which, beyond being designed to be capable of analogous abilities, is also incorrect.
Perhaps you might cite some sources from this 'abundant (il)literature'?
Lovely riposte, by the way - reported.