Revision as of 19:52, 19 June 2006 editT800m101 (talk | contribs)26 edits →Performance← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 08:26, 23 November 2024 edit undoJJMC89 bot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Administrators3,670,730 editsm Moving Category:Fourth-generation jet fighter to Category:Fourth-generation jet fighters per Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Speedy | ||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Short description|Classification of fighter aircraft c. 1970–2000}} | |||
] | |||
{{Infobox aircraft | |||
| name = Fourth-generation fighter | |||
| image = File:A Su-27 escorted by an F-16.jpg | |||
| caption = A ] (background) and ] (foreground), fourth-generation fighters used by the ] and ] respectively | |||
| alt = <!-- Alt text for main image --> | |||
| type = ] | |||
| national_origin = Multi-national | |||
| manufacturer = <!-- Generally the prime contractor(s) who are responsible for both designing and building an aircraft --> | |||
| design_group = <!--Only design group(s) different from the manufacturer or builder --> | |||
| designer = <!-- Only appropriate for one-person designers, not project leaders or chief designers --> | |||
| builder = <!--Only builder(s) different from the manufacturer or design group(s) --> | |||
| first_flight = 1970s | |||
| introduction = 1980s | |||
| retired = <!--Date the aircraft left service. If vague or more than a few dates, skip this. --> | |||
| status = In service | |||
| primary_user = <!-- List only one user; for military aircraft, this is a nation or a service arm. Please DON'T add flag templates, as they limit horizontal space. --> | |||
| more_users = <!-- Limited to THREE (3) "more users" here (4 total users). List users with {{plainlist}} or {{unbulleted list}}. --> | |||
| produced = <!--Years in production (e.g. 1970–1999) if still in active use but no longer built --> | |||
| number_built = <!-- Total number of flight-worthy aircraft completed. --> | |||
| developed_from = ] | |||
| variants = <!--Variants OF this aircraft--> | |||
| developed_into = ] | |||
}} | |||
The '''fourth-generation fighter''' is a ] of ]s in service from around 1980 to the present, and represents design concepts of the 1970s. Fourth-generation designs are heavily influenced by lessons learned from the previous generation of combat aircraft. ] were often designed primarily as ], being built around speed and ]. While exceptionally fast in a straight line, many third-generation fighters severely lacked in maneuverability, as doctrine held that traditional ] would be impossible at supersonic speeds. In practice, air-to-air missiles of the time, despite being responsible for the vast majority of air-to-air victories, were relatively unreliable, and combat would quickly become subsonic and close-range. This would leave third-generation fighters vulnerable and ill-equipped, renewing an interest in manoeuvrability for the fourth generation of fighters. Meanwhile, the growing costs of military aircraft in general and the demonstrated success of aircraft such as the ] gave rise to the popularity of ] in parallel with the advances marking the so-called fourth generation. | |||
During this period, maneuverability was enhanced by ], made possible by introduction of the ] (FBW) ], which in turn was possible due to advances in ]s and system-integration techniques. Replacement of analog avionics, required to enable FBW operations, became a fundamental requirement as legacy ] systems began to be replaced by digital flight-control systems in the latter half of the 1980s.<ref name="HM1983">Hoh, Roger H. and David G. Mitchell. "Flying Qualities of Relaxed Static Stability Aircraft - Volume I: Flying Qualities Airworthiness Assessment and Flight Testing of Augmented Aircraft". Federal Aviation Administration (DOT/FAA/CT-82/130-I), September 1983. pp. 11ff.</ref> The further advance of microcomputers in the 1980s and 1990s permitted rapid upgrades to the ] over the lifetimes of these fighters, incorporating system upgrades such as ] (AESA), digital avionics buses, and ]. | |||
The rapid advance of microcomputers in the 1980s and 90s permitted rapid upgrades to the avionics over the lifetimes of these fighters, incorporating system upgrades such as ], digital avionics buses, and ]. Because of the drastic enhancement of capabilities in these upgraded fighters and in new designs of the 1990s that reflected these new capabilities, the designation '''4.5th generation''' is sometimes used to refer to these later designs. It is intended to reflect a class of fighters that are evolutionary upgrades to the 4th generation to incorporate integrated avionics buses and elements of stealth technology. A prime example of this generation is the ], an upgrade of the 1970s Hornet design. While the basic aerodynamic features remain the same, the Super Hornet features improved avionics in the form of an all-], a solid-state AESA fixed-array radar, new engines, the structural use of composite materials to reduce weight, and a slightly modified shape to minimize its radar signature. | |||
Due to the dramatic enhancement of capabilities in these upgraded fighters and in new designs of the 1990s that reflected these new capabilities, they have come to be known as 4.5 generation. This is intended to reflect a class of fighters that are evolutionary upgrades of the fourth generation incorporating integrated avionics suites, advanced weapons efforts to make the (mostly) conventionally designed aircraft nonetheless less easily detectable and trackable as a response to advancing missile and ] technology (see ]).<ref>Fulghum, David A. and Douglas Barrie . ''Aviation Week and Space Technology'', 22 April 2007. Retrieved 3 October 2010. {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110927185244/http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=awst&id=news%2Faw042307p2.xml |date=27 September 2011 }}.</ref><ref name="graythreat"> ({{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070819190411/http://www.afa.org/magazine/Feb1996/0296grayt.asp |date=2007-08-19 }}). ''Air Force Magazine''.</ref> Inherent airframe design features exist and include masking of turbine blades and application of advanced sometimes ]s, but not the distinctive low-observable configurations of the latest aircraft, referred to as ]s or aircraft such as the ]. | |||
<!-- saved for laterSeveral factors make the comparative analysis an exceedingly difficult problem. First of all, actual specifications are a closely guarded secret, and the body of public knowledge is derived from published (and often understated) manufacturer specifications and the debate surrounding the acquisitions process. Furthermore, aircraft do not fight one on one in a vacuum. They are utilized in conjunction with a variety of system, including anti-aircraft defences, electronic surveillance systems (most importantly radar), and command and control systems. The quantity and nature of pilot training further complicates the modeling problem. Any proper analysis of airframes must specify the context. The most often used are for governments comparing airframes to purchase, and analysis of air-to-air outcomes between two nations. Nonetheless, as these two are questions that impact the budget and national security of nations, considerable effort has been spent attempting to model these problems. | |||
The United States defines 4.5-generation fighter aircraft as fourth-generation jet fighters that have been upgraded with AESA radar, high-capacity data-link, enhanced avionics, and "the ability to deploy current and reasonably foreseeable advanced armaments".<ref> ({{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090830143750/http://opencrs.com/document/RL33543/ |date=2009-08-30 }}). ''Issues for Congress'' 9 July 2009. Retrieved 3 October 2010.</ref><ref> ({{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101104133757/http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.2647: |date=2010-11-04 }}). thomas.loc.gov. Retrieved 3 October 2010.</ref> Contemporary examples of 4.5-generation fighters are the ]/]/],<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://thediplomat.com/2018/02/russia-to-upgrade-su-30sm-fighter-jets-in-2018/ |title=Russia to Upgrade Su-30SM Fighter Jets in 2018 |first=Franz-Stefan |last=Gady |publisher=thediplomat.com}}</ref> ]/],<ref>{{cite web|title=Russian and Chinese Combat Air Trends|url=https://rusi.org/sites/default/files/russian_and_chinese_combat_air_trends_whr_final_web_version.pdf|page=P6|access-date=2021-05-07|archive-date=2021-01-23|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210123085747/https://www.rusi.org/sites/default/files/russian_and_chinese_combat_air_trends_whr_final_web_version.pdf|url-status=dead}}</ref> ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ],<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.indiatoday.in/magazine/up-front/story/20190121-a-liability-called-rafale-point-of-view-1428691-2019-01-11 |title=A Liability Called Rafale |department=Point of View |first1=Bharat |last1=Karnad |location=New Delhi|date=January 21, 2019 |website=India Today}}</ref> ], and ].<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://thediplomat.com/2015/06/is-japan-facing-a-shortage-of-fighter-aircraft/ |title=Is Japan Facing a Shortage of Fighter Aircraft? |first=Franz-Stefan |last=Gady |publisher=thediplomat.com}}</ref> | |||
Because of all the factors detailed above, it is incorrect to attempt to extrapolate combat records of airframes to a generic comparison or other force-on-force comparisons. The undefeated records of the ] and ] should not be taken as taken as unambiguous indicators of their superiority as airframes, as their combat action involved action by well-trained American and Israeli pilots with superior ] (command, control, communications, computers, and intelligence) against poorly trained adversaries with much poorer C<sup>4</sup>I assets. | |||
--> | |||
==Characteristics== | |||
== List of 4th generation fighters == | |||
] ] with a USAF F-16 Fighting Falcon]] | |||
===Performance=== | |||
Whereas the premier ]s (e.g., the ] and ]) were designed as interceptors with only a secondary emphasis on maneuverability, 4th generation aircraft try to reach an equilibrium, with most designs, such as the ] and the ], being able to execute BVR interceptions while remaining highly maneuverable in case the platform and the pilot find themselves in a close range ]. While the trade-offs involved in combat aircraft design are again shifting towards ] (BVR) engagement, the management of the advancing environment of numerous information flows in the modern battlespace, and low-observability, arguably at the expense of maneuvering ability in close combat, the application of ] provides a way to maintain it, especially at low speed. | |||
* France: ] | |||
* Israel: ] | |||
* International: | |||
** Pakistan and ] ] (]) | |||
***] | |||
** UK/Germany/Italy: ] | |||
** United Kingdom/United States: ]/] ] | |||
* Japan: ] | |||
* Sweden: ] | |||
Key advances contributing to enhanced maneuverability in the fourth generation include high engine thrust, powerful control surfaces, and ] (RSS), this last enabled via "fly-by-wire" computer-controlled stability augmentation. ] also involves a great deal of energy management to maintain speed and altitude under rapidly changing flight conditions. | |||
* United States: | |||
] on a mission near Iraq in 2003]] | |||
** ] ] | |||
** ] ] | |||
** ] ] | |||
** ] ] | |||
* Soviet Union/Russian Federation | |||
** ] | |||
** ] | |||
** ] | |||
** ] ] | |||
* ], ] (]) | |||
** ] | |||
=== |
===Fly-by-wire=== | ||
] inverted above an ] shown here is an example of fly-by-wire control.]] | |||
* France: | |||
** ] | |||
* India: | |||
** ] | |||
* International: | |||
**] (U.K., Germany, Italy and Spain) | |||
**] (Russia, India and Israel) | |||
* Israel | |||
** ] | |||
* South Korea | |||
** ]K | |||
* People's Republic of China (]): | |||
** ] | |||
* Russia | |||
** ] (MiG-29 with thrust vectoring) | |||
** ]/]/]/](Su-27 Derivatives) | |||
** ] ] | |||
* Sweden: | |||
**] | |||
* Singapore | |||
** ]SG | |||
* United States | |||
** ] | |||
** ]/ ] | |||
* UAE | |||
** ] (Block 60) | |||
Fly-by-wire is a term used to describe the computerized automation of flight control surfaces. Early fourth-generation fighters like the F-15 Eagle and F-14 Tomcat retained electromechanical flight hydraulics. Later fourth-generation fighters would make extensive use of fly-by-wire technology. | |||
===5th generation designs=== | |||
The General Dynamics YF-16, eventually developed into the ], was the world's first aircraft intentionally designed to be slightly aerodynamically unstable. This technique, called relaxed static stability (RSS), was incorporated to further enhance the aircraft's performance. Most aircraft are designed with ''positive'' static stability, which induces an aircraft to return to its original ] following a disturbance. However, positive static stability, the tendency to remain in its current attitude, opposes the pilot's efforts to maneuver. An aircraft with ''negative'' static stability, though, in the absence of control input, will readily deviate from level and controlled flight. An unstable aircraft can therefore be made more maneuverable. Such a 4th generation aircraft requires a computerized FBW ] (FLCS) to maintain its desired flight path.<ref>Greenwood, Cynthia. {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081011192605/http://www.corrdefense.org/CorrDefense%20Magazine/Spring%202007/feature.htm |date=2008-10-11 }} ''CorrDefense'', Spring 2007. Retrieved: 16 June 2008.</ref> | |||
The American ], put into production in 2004, is often regarded as the first of a new generation of fighters, termed the fifth generation. The key design difference between the F-22 and preceding designs is an emphasis on ]. The in-development ] has also been designed for stealth, and the F-22 has influenced the continued development of the 4th generation designs, and the shape of design work for other countries' long-term fighter development projects (for instance, the rumoured ] project, and the Russian ]). This article will discuss the Raptor and, to some extent, the JSF, as contemporaries of the later 4th generation designs. | |||
Some late derivatives of the early types, such as the F-15SA Strike Eagle for Saudi Arabia, have included upgrading to FBW. | |||
== Design considerations == | |||
=== Performance === | |||
===Thrust vectoring=== | |||
Perfomance has traditionally been one of the most important design characteristics, as it enables a fighter to gain a favorable position to use its weapons while rendering the enemy unable to use his. This can occur at long range (beyond visual range or BVR) or short range (within visual range or WVR). At short range, the ideal position is to the rear of the enemy aircraft, where he is unable to aim or fire his weapons and his hot exhaust makes a good target for IR-guided missiles. At long range, while optimal positions are not so clear, it is nonetheless an advantage to intercept enemy aircraft before they reach their targets. | |||
] engine view]] | |||
] was originally introduced in the ] for vertical takeoff and landing, and pilots soon developed the technique of "viffing", or vectoring in forward flight, to enhance manoeuvrability. The first fixed-wing type to display enhanced manoeuvrability in this way was the ], the first aircraft to publicly display thrust vectoring in pitch. Combined with a thrust-to-weight ratio above unity, this enabled it to maintain near-zero airspeed at high angles of attack without stalling, and perform novel aerobatics such as ]. The ] nozzles of the ] are mounted 32° outward to the longitudinal engine axis (i.e. in the horizontal plane) and can be deflected ±15° in the vertical plane. This produces a ] effect, further enhancing the turning capability of the aircraft.<ref> {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100917182438/http://air-attack.com/page/80/Su-30MK.html |date=2010-09-17 }}. ''air-attack.com''. Retrieved: 3 October 2010.</ref> The MiG-35 with its RD-33OVT engines with the vectored thrust nozzles allows it to be the first twin-engined aircraft with vectoring nozzles that can move in two directions (that is, 3D TVC). Other existing thrust-vectoring aircraft, like the ], have nozzles that vector in one direction.<ref>. ''domain-b.com''. Retrieved: 3 October 2010.</ref> The technology has been fitted to the ] ] and later derivatives. The U.S. explored fitting the technology to the ] and the ], but did not introduce it until the fifth generation arrived. | |||
These two scenarios have competing demands - interception requires excellent linear speed, while WVR engagements require excellent turn rate and acceleration. Prior to the 1970's, a popular view in the defense community was that missiles would render WVR combat obsolete and hence maneuverability useless. Combat experience proved this untrue due to the poor quality of missiles and the recurring need to visually identify targets. Though improvments in missile technology may make that vision a reality, experience has indicated that sensors are not foolproof and that fighters will still need to be able to fight and maneuver at close ranges. So whereas the premier third generation jet fighters (e.g. the ] and ]) were designed as interceptors with a secondary emphasis on maneuverability, interceptors have been relegated to a secondary role in the fourth generation, with a renewed emphasis on maneuverability. | |||
===Supercruise=== | |||
There are two primary contributing factors to maneuverability - the amount of power delivered by the engines, and the ability of the aircraft's control surfaces to translate that power into changes in direction. ] (ACM) involves a great deal of energy management, where energy is roughly the sum of altitude and airspeed. The greater energy a fighter has, the more flexibility it has to move where it wants. An aircraft with little energy is immobile, and a defenseless target. Note that power does not necessarily equal speed; while more power gives greater acceleration, the maximum speed of an aircraft is determined by how much drag it produces. Herein lies the tradeoff. Low-drag configurations have small, stubby, highly swept wings that disrupt the airflow as little as possible. However, that also means they have greatly reduced ability to alter the airflow to maneuver the aircraft. | |||
], which features ]<ref name="Fox Three.">. {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130525192408/http://www.dassault-aviation.com/fileadmin/user_upload/redacteur/AUTRES_DOCS/Fox_three/Fox_Three_nr_8.pdf |date=May 25, 2013 }} ''dassault-aviation.com''. Retrieved: 24 April 2010.</ref>]] | |||
] is the ability of a jet aircraft to cruise at supersonic speeds without using an ]. | |||
Maintaining supersonic speed without afterburner use saves large quantities of fuel, greatly increasing range and endurance, but the engine power available is limited and drag rises sharply in the transonic region, so drag-creating equipment such as external stores and their attachment points must be minimised, preferably with the use of internal storage. | |||
There are two rough indicators of these factors. A plane's turning ability can be roughly measured by its wing loading, defined as the mass of the aircraft divided by the area of its lifing surfaces. A highly loaded wing has little capacity to produce additional lift, and so has limited turning ability, whereas a lightly loaded wing has much greater potential lifting power. A rough measure of acceleration is a plane’s thrust to weight ratio | |||
The ] can cruise around Mach 1.2 without afterburner, with the maximum level speed without reheat is Mach 1.5.<ref> ''luftwaffe.de''. Retrieved: 3 October 2010.</ref><ref>. ''eurofighter.at''. Retrieved: 3 October 2010.</ref><ref> {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090327110114/http://www.mil.no/multimedia/archive/00089/2_Eurofighter_capabi_89302a.pdf |date=2009-03-27 }}. ''mil.no/multimedia/archive''. Retrieved: 24 April 2010.</ref> An ] (Development Aircraft trainer version) demonstrated supercruise (1.21 M) with 2 SRAAM, 4 MRAAM and drop tank (plus 1-tonne flight-test equipment, plus 700 kg more weight for the trainer version) during the Singapore evaluation.<ref>''AFM'' September 2004 "Eastern smile" pp. 41–43.</ref> | |||
{| border="1" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" | |||
{{clear}}<!-- This prevents the following heading from being pushed over by the Rafale photo on wide screens --> | |||
|- bgcolor="#efefef" | |||
|+ Table of thrust-to-weight ratio and wing loading | |||
! | |||
! Thrust/<br>Weight<br>Ratio | |||
! wing<br>loading<br>kg/m² | |||
! notes | |||
|- | |||
! Rafale F2 | |||
| 1.13 || 304 ||5300 l fuel internal | |||
|- | |||
! Typhoon | |||
| 1.18 || 300 ||4700 l fuel internal | |||
|- | |||
! F-2 | |||
| 0.89 || 430 || | |||
|- | |||
! MiG-29SM | |||
| 1.13 || 411 || | |||
|- | |||
! Su-27 | |||
| || || | |||
|- | |||
! Su-30 | |||
| 1.10 || 414 ||Indian Su-30MKI has thrust vectoring | |||
|- | |||
! J-10 | |||
| 1.10 || 300 ||Proposed upgrade will have thrust vectoring | |||
|- | |||
! Gripen | |||
| 0.94 || 341 || | |||
|- | |||
! F-22A | |||
| 1.3~1.41 || 342 || 13000 l fuel internal and 2D thrust vectoring | |||
|- | |||
! F-35A | |||
| 0.83 || 446 || | |||
|} | |||
Notes: | |||
* values are at normal takeoff weight unless otherwise specified | |||
* some of the takeoff weights and thrust values are not officially available; there is some considerable guesswork involved. | |||
==== ] ==== | |||
Thrust vectoring is a new technology being introduced to further enhance a fighter's turning ability. By redirecting the jet exhaust, it is possible to directly translate the engine's power into directional changes, more efficiently than via the plane's control surfaces. The technology has been fitted to the ], ], ], and ]. The U.S. explored fitting the technology to the ] and the ], but decided against implementing them. There is some indication that the Typhoon may eventually be refitted with thrust vectoring. | |||
====]==== | |||
Supercruise is the ability of aircraft to cruise efficiently at supersonic speeds without the afterburner. Because of parasitic drag effects, fighters carrying external weapons stores encounter excessive drag near the speed of sound, making it impossible or prohibitively fuel-consuming to break the sound barrier. Though fighters easily break Mach 1 and 2 in clean configurations on afterburner, and the ] was able to break Mach 1 without the use of afterburner, these were academic exercises as they were not carrying combat loads. | |||
With improvements to engine power output and careful aeronautical design of weapons stores, it is now possible for fighters to supercruise with combat loads. The Typhoon, and the (fifth-generation) F-22 are the only modern fighters with this ability. Dassault claims the Rafale to be able to supercruise but this claim has yet to be demonstrated. The Typhoon can supercruise at Mach 1.5 with a combat load of six missiles and no tanks, or Mach 1.3 with a full combat load. Though specifications have not been claimed, the F-22 is believed to have superior supercruise ability, owing to its internal weapons stores. | |||
===Avionics=== | ===Avionics=== | ||
] cockpit]] | |||
Avionics is a catch-all phrase for the electronic systems aboard an aircraft, which have been growing in complexity and importance. The main elements of an aircraft's avionics are its sensors (Radar and IR sensors), computers and data bus, and user interface. Because they can be readily swapped out as new technologies become available, they are often upgraded over the lifetime of an aircraft. Details about these systems are highly protected. Since many export aircraft have downgraded avionics, many buyers substitute domestically developed avionics, sometimes considered superior to the original. For example, the ] sold to India, the ] and ] sold to Israel, and the ] sold to South Korea. | |||
] can often be swapped out as new technologies become available; they are often upgraded over the lifetime of an aircraft. For example, the F-15C Eagle, first produced in 1978, has received upgrades in 2007 such as AESA radar and ], and is scheduled to receive a 2040C upgrade to keep it in service until 2040. | |||
The primary sensor for all modern fighters is ]. The U.S. pioneered the use of solid-state ] radars, which have no moving parts and are capable of projecting a much tighter beam and quicker scans. It is fitted to ], the ], and the block 60 (export) F-16, and will be used for all future American fighters. A European coalition ] is developing an AESA radar for use on the Typhoon and Rafale, and it is unknown if Russia or China are developing airborne AESA radars. For the next generation F-22 and F-35, the U.S. will utilize ] (LPI) capacity. This will spread the energy of a radar pulse over several frequencies, so as not to trip the ] that all aircraft carry. | |||
] ] radar]] | |||
In reaction to the increasing American emphasis on radar-evading stealth designs, the Soviet Union turned to alternate sensors. This drove them to emphasize ] (IRST) sensors, first introduced on the American ] and ] fighters in the 1960s, for detection and tracking of airborne targets. These are essentially a TV camera in the IR wavelength, passively measuring the emitted IR radiation from targets. However, as a passive sensor it has limited range, and contains no inherent data about position and direction of targets - these must be inferred from the images captured. IRST sensors have now become standard on Russian aircraft. With the exception of the ], no Western fighters carry built-in IRST sensors for air-to-air detection, though the similar ] is often used to acquire ground targets. The next-generation F-22 and F-35 will both have built-in IRST sensors, though the latter's is intended for ground targets. | |||
The primary sensor for all modern fighters is radar. The U.S. fielded its first modified F-15Cs equipped with ] AESA radars,<ref> {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120509202550/http://defense-update.com/features/du-1-07/aesaradar_US.htm |date=2012-05-09 }} ''defense-update.com.'' Retrieved: 3 October 2010.</ref> which have no moving parts and are capable of projecting a much tighter beam and quicker scans. Later on, it was introduced to the ] and the block 60 (export) F-16 also, and will be used for future American fighters. France introduced its first indigenous AESA radar, the ]-AESA built by Thales in February 2012<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.latribune.fr/entreprises-finance/industrie/aeronautique-defense/20121002trib000722459/le-radar-rbe2-l-arme-fatale-du-rafale-a-l-export-.html|title=Le radar RBE2, l'arme fatale du Rafale à l'export|website=latribune.fr|date=2 October 2012 }}</ref> for use on the Rafale. The RBE2-AESA can also be retrofitted on the Mirage 2000. A European consortium GTDAR is developing an AESA ] radar for future use on the Typhoon. For the next-generation F-22 and F-35, the U.S. will use ] capacity. This will spread the energy of a radar pulse over several frequencies, so as not to trip the ] that all aircraft carry. | |||
]/] device.]] | |||
In response to the increasing American emphasis on radar-evading stealth designs, Russia turned to alternate sensors, with emphasis on Infrared Search and Track (IRST) sensors, first introduced on the American ] and ] fighters in the 1960s, for detection and tracking of airborne targets. These measure IR radiation from targets. As a passive sensor, it has limited range, and contains no inherent data about position and direction of targets—these must be inferred from the images captured. To offset this, IRST systems can incorporate a ] in order to provide full ] solutions for cannon fire or for launching missiles. Using this method, German ] using helmet-displayed IRST systems were able to acquire a ] with greater efficiency than USAF ] in wargame exercises. IRST sensors have now become standard on Russian aircraft. | |||
The tactical implications of the computing and data bus capabilities of aircraft are hard to determine. A more sophisticated computer bus would allow more flexible uses of the existing avionics. For example, it is speculated that the F-22 is able to jam or damage enemy electronics with a focused application of its radar. A computing feature of significant tactical importance is the datalink. All of the modern European and American aircraft are capable of sharing targeting data with allied fighters and from AWACS planes (see ]). The Russian ] interceptor also has some datalink capability, so it is reasonable to assume that other Russian planes can also do so. The sharing of targeting and sensor data allows pilots to put radiating, highly visible sensors further from enemy forces, while using that data to vector silent fighters toward the enemy. | |||
A computing feature of significant tactical importance is the datalink. All modern European and American aircraft are capable of sharing targeting data with allied fighters and AWACS planes (see ]). The Russian ] interceptor also has some datalink capability. The sharing of targeting and sensor data allows pilots to put radiating, highly visible sensors further from enemy forces, while using those data to vector silent fighters toward the enemy. | |||
<!-- saved Comparatively little is known about the avionics of the new Indian and Chinese planes. It is generally assumed that they are well behind Western standards. However, reports from the recent Indian-American exercise suggest that India, at least, has begun to develop their own expertise in the area. Furthermore, thanks to its homegrown LCA program and a burgeoning computer industry, India has fielded a range of avionics items built around the accepted international standards. Recent Indian aircraft all incorporate homegrown Open Architecture computers using Commercial off the shelf (COTS) processors. --> | |||
=== |
===Stealth=== | ||
] uses jet ]s that conceal the front of the jet engine (a strong radar target) from radar. Many important radar targets, such as the wing, canard, and fin leading edges, are highly swept to reflect radar energy well away from the front sector.]] | |||
The per unit cost is difficult to accurately determine, as the amortization of a large development cost over a varying number of units produced can greatly vary the price. Moreover, the purchase price does not reflect lifetime costs of maintenance, parts, and training. A useful guide to costs come from export prices, which are widely reported, and represent a mix of the marginal cost of production plus some recouperation of development costs. | |||
While the basic principles of shaping aircraft to avoid radar detection were known since the 1960s, the advent of ]s allowed aircraft of drastically reduced ] to become practicable. During the 1970s, early stealth technology led to the faceted airframe of the ] ground-attack aircraft. The faceting reflected radar beams highly directionally, leading to brief "twinkles", which detector systems of the day typically registered as noise, but even with digital FBW stability and control enhancement, the aerodynamic performance penalties were severe and the F-117 found use principally in the night ground-attack role. Stealth technologies also seek to decrease the ], visual signature, and ] of the aircraft. | |||
In the modern-day, the ], though not considered a ], has much more significant ] than other 4th gen fighters. | |||
Figures are in ] unless otherwise specified. | |||
==4.5 generation== | |||
* ''']''' More than €50m, depending on export sales | |||
] prototype]] | |||
* ''']''' Austrian version: '03 €62m | |||
The term 4.5 generation is often used to refer to new or enhanced fighters, which appeared beginning in the 1990s, and incorporated some features regarded as ], but lacked others. The 4.5-generation fighters are therefore generally less expensive, less complex, and have a shorter development time than true fifth-generation aircraft, while maintaining capabilities significantly in advance of those of the original fourth generation. Such capabilities may include advanced sensor integration, AESA radar, supercruise capability, ], broad multi-role capability, and reduced radar cross-section.<ref> ''Fighterworld'' RAAF Williamtown Aviation Heritage Centre.</ref> | |||
* ''']''' US$ 100m | |||
* ''']''' about '98 US$ 27m | |||
* ''']'''US$ 24m | |||
* ''']''' US$ ~38m (Several variants) | |||
** '''Sukhoi Su-30K''' for Indonesia: '98 US$ 33m | |||
** '''Sukhoi Su-30MKK/MK2''' for China: '98 US$ 38m | |||
** '''Sukhoi Su-30MKI''' for India, highly specified version: '98 US$ 45m | |||
** '''Sukhoi Su-30MKM''' for Malaysia, a variant of the Indian version: '03 US$ 50m | |||
* ''']''' about '98 US$ 25m | |||
* '''] IDF (])''' initially large order put cost per unit at US$ 24m | |||
* ''']''' '98 US$ 48m | |||
* ''']''' '98 US$ 43m | |||
* ''']''' late models about '98 US$ 25m | |||
* ''']''' E/F model '98 US$ 60m | |||
* '''] ''' '06 US$ 338m, based on production run of 183 aircraft | |||
*''']''': | |||
** '''F-35A''' US$ 45m | |||
** '''F-35B''' > US$ 100m '06 | |||
** '''F-35C''' US$ 55m | |||
The 4.5-generation fighters have introduced integrated IRST systems, such as the Dassault Rafale featuring the '']'' integrated IRST. The Eurofighter Typhoon introduced the PIRATE-IRST, which was also retrofitted to earlier production models.<ref> {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120722123008/http://www.publicservice.co.uk/pdf/dmj/issue31/dmj31%200012%20a%20brookes%20atl.pdf |date=2012-07-22 }} ''publicservice.co.'' Retrieved: 3 October 2010.</ref><ref> {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070927192531/http://www.eurofighter.com/news/article263.asp |date=2007-09-27 }} ''www.eurofighter.com'', Eurofighter GmbH, 15 February 2007. Retrieved: 20 June 2007.</ref> The Super Hornet was also fitted with IRST <ref>Warwick, Graham. ''flightglobal.com,'' 13 March 2007. Retrieved: 3 October 2010.</ref> although not integrated but rather as a pod that needs to attached on one of the hardpoints. | |||
=== Maintenance Demands === | |||
As militaries make growing use of Operations Research and other management techniques from the corporate world to examine the effectiveness of hardware, a growing emphasis is being placed on maintenance and reliability. A prime example of this is the ]. While unimpressive on paper compared to its contemporaries, it incorporated a low-maintenance design. As a result, its mean time between failure is three times greater than any other Navy strike aircraft, and requires half the maintenance time. These greatly elevated its sortie rate and made it more effective than aircraft that were superior in a 1 on 1 comparison but which were more often than not unavailable to fight. | |||
As advances in stealthy materials and design methods enabled smoother airframes, such technologies began to be retrospectively applied to existing fighter aircraft. Many 4.5 generation fighters incorporate some low-observable features. Low-observable radar technology emerged as an important development. The Pakistani / Chinese ] and China's ] use a ], while India's ] uses ] in manufacturing.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Features of HAL Tejas|url=https://hal-india.co.in/LCA-Tejas%20Division%20Bangalore/M__187}}</ref> The ] used an ] air intake to prevent radar waves from reflecting off the engine compressor blades, an important aspect of fifth-generation fighter aircraft to reduce frontal RCS. These are a few of the preferred methods employed in some fifth-generation fighters to reduce RCS.<ref>{{cite news|title=Going stealthy with composites|url=https://www.materialstoday.com/composite-applications/features/going-stealthy-with-composites/}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=Characterization of Radar Cross Section of Carbon Fiber Composite Materials |url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/291698935}}</ref> | |||
=== ] === | |||
] is a joint South Korean-Indonesian fighter program, the functionality of the Block 1 model (the first flight test prototype) has been described as ‘4.5th generation’. | |||
Stealth technology is an extension of the notion of visual camouflage to modern radar and IR detection sensors. While not rendering an aircraft "invisible" as is popularly conceived, stealth makes an aircraft much more difficult to discern from the sky, clouds, or distant aircraft, conferring a significant tactical advantage. While the basic principles of shaping aircraft to avoid detection were known at least since the 1960's, it was not until the availability of supercomputers that shape computations could be performed from every angle, a complex task. The use of computer-aided shaping, combined with radar-absorbent materials, produced aircraft of drastically reduced radar cross section (RCS) and were much more difficult to detect on radar. | |||
==See also== | |||
During the 1970's, the rudimentary level of stealth shaping (as seen in the faceted design of the ]) resulted in too severe a performance penalty to be used on fighters. Faster computers enabled smoother designs such as the B-2, and thought was given to applying the basic ideas to decrease, if not drastically reduce, the RCS of fighter aircraft. These techniques are also combined with methods of decreasing the IR, visual, and aural signature of the aircraft. | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
==References== | |||
{{Reflist}} | |||
Recent American fighter aircraft development has focused on stealth, and the recently deployed F-22 is the first fighter designed from the ground up with a consideration for stealth. However, the stealthiness of the F-22 from angles other than head-on is not clear. The F-35 incorporates the same degree of stealth shaping, although its exposed rear turbine blades render it significantly less stealthy from the rear (the thrust vectoring nozzles of the F-22 also serve to conceal the turbine blades). Several late 4-th generation fighters have been given stealth shaping and other refinements to reduce their RCS, including the Super Hornet, Typhoon, and Rafale. | |||
===Bibliography=== | |||
It should be noted that stealth is considered mainly in terms of lack of visibility to other airborne radars. Ground-based, lower-frequency radars are less affected by stealth features. The Australian ] project is reported to be able to detect the wake turbulence of an aircraft regardless of its stealth capabilities . It remains to be seen whether a similar system can be devised that is small enough to fit into aircraft, and is suitable for tracking rather than simply a warning. Loss of stealth advantages would make the F-35 particularly vulnerable. | |||
{{Refbegin}} | |||
* Aronstein, David C. and Albert C. Piccirillo. ''The Lightweight Fighter Program: A Successful Approach to Fighter Technology Transition.'' Reston, VA: AIAA, 1996 | |||
* Kelly, Orr. ''Hornet: The Inside story of the F/A-18''. Novato, California: Presidio Press, 1990. {{ISBN|0-89141-344-8}}. | |||
* Kopp, Carlo. ''Air Power Australia'', 2002. Retrieved: 10 April 2006. | |||
* Richardson, Doug. ''Stealth Warplanes: Deception, Evasion and Concealment in the Air''. London: Salamander. 1989, First Edition. {{ISBN|0-7603-1051-3}}. | |||
* Shaw, Robert. ''Fighter Combat: Tactics and Maneuvering''. Annapolis, Maryland: Naval Institute Press, 1985. {{ISBN|0-87021-059-9}}. | |||
* Sweetman, Bill. ''Jane's International Defense Review''. Retrieved: 10 April 2006. | |||
{{Refend}} | |||
{{Jet Fighter Generations}} | |||
There are some reports that the Rafale’s avionics, the ], includes "stealthy" radar jamming technology, a radar cancellation systems analogous to the acoustic noise suppression systems on the ]. Conventional jammers make locating an aircraft more difficult, but their operation is itself detectable; the French system is hypothesised to interfere with detection without revealing that jamming is in operation. In effect, such a system could potentially offer stealth advantages similar in effect to, but likely less effective than, the F-22 and JSF. However, it is unclear how effective the system is, or even whether it is fully operational yet. | |||
As well, research continues into other ways of decreasing observability by radar. There are claims that the Russians are working on "]", . Obviously, such techniques might well remove some of the current advantage of the F-22 and JSF, but American defence research also continues unabated. | |||
There are ways to detect fighters other than radar. For instance, passive infra-red sensors can detect the heat of engines, and even the sound of a ] (which any supersonic aircraft will make) can be tracked with a network of sensors and computers. However, using these to provide precise targeting information for a long-range missile is considerably less straightforward than radar. | |||
== Combat performance == | |||
<!-- Not wholly sure what to do about this section. have spun it off on other articles; and this is largely incomplete. --> | |||
* During span of the ], USAF F-15s shot down 5 ]i MiG-29 | |||
* On ], ], the first night of the ], an ]i ]PD is reported to have shot down a U.S. Navy F/A-18C (piloted by Lt Comm ]), which was lost 29 nautical miles southeast of ]. | |||
* On January 17, ], a USAF F-16 shot down a ] in Iraqi no-fly zone. (Some sources claim it was a ].) | |||
* In February ], during the ], ]n ]s shot down two ]n MiG-29s. Some sources claim that the Ethiopian planes were flown by Russian pilots, the Eritrean planes by Ukrainians (certainly, the pilots were at least trained by instructors from those nations) . | |||
* During the ], a ] F-16 shot down a ]n MiG-29; USAF F-15s shot down four MiG-29s and a USAF F-16 shot down a Mig-29, the last aerial victory scored against the Mig-29. | |||
==Comparative Analysis== | |||
It's misleading to extrapolate comparisons regarding these fighters from the combat history, as fighters function in a combined arms environment in which many other factors, including ] (command, control, communications, computers, and intelligence) assets and pilot training determine success. For example, the undefeated records of the ] and ] should not be taken as unambiguous indicators of their superiority as airframes, as their combat action involved action by well-trained American and Israeli pilots with superior training and ] assets against poorly trained adversaries with much poorer C<sup>4</sup>I assets. | |||
However, for purchasing considerations, nations often consider comparative analyses of fighters to fill their specific mission requirements. Additionally, joint exercises are often revealing about the performance of fighters in a system, even as their validity is compromised by the inherent assumptions about the systems on either side. | |||
=== DERA study === | |||
]’s ] (now split into ] and ]) did an evaluation (simulation based on the available data) comparing the Typhoon with some other modern fighters in how well they performed against an expected adversary aircraft, the ]. Due to the lack of information gathered on the 5th generation combat aircraft and the Su-35 during the time of this study it is not meant to be considered official. | |||
The study used real pilots flying the JOUST system of networked simulators. Various western aircraft supposed data were put in simulated combat against the Su-35. The results were: | |||
{| border="1" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" | |||
|- bgcolor="#efefef" | |||
! Aircraft | |||
! Odds vs.<BR>] | |||
|- | |||
||] | |||
||10.1:1 | |||
|- | |||
||] | |||
||4.5:1 | |||
|- | |||
||] | |||
||1.0:1 | |||
|- | |||
||] | |||
||1.0:1 | |||
|- | |||
||] | |||
||1.0:1 | |||
|- | |||
||] | |||
||0.8:1 | |||
|- | |||
||] | |||
||0.4:1 | |||
|- | |||
||] | |||
||0.3:1 | |||
|- | |||
||] | |||
||0.3:1 | |||
|} | |||
These results mean, for example, that in simulated combat, 4.5 Su-35s were shot down for every Typhoon lost. Missiles such as the KS-172 may be intended for large targets and not fighters, but their impact on a long range BVR engagement needs to be factored in. | |||
The "F/A-18+" in the study was apparently not the current F/A-18E/F, but an improved version. All the western aircraft in the simulation were using the ] missile, except the ] which was using the ] missile. This does not reflect the likely long-term air-to-air armament of Eurofighters (as well as Rafales), which will ultimately be equipped with the longer-range ] (while carrying the AMRAAM as an interim measure). | |||
Details of the simulation have not been released, making it harder to verify whether it gives an accurate evaluation (for instance, whether they had adequate knowledge of the Sukhoi and Raptor to realistically simulate their combat performance). Another problem with the study is the scenarios under which the combat took place are unclear; it is possible that they were deliberately or accidentally skewed to combat scenarios that favoured certain aircraft over others; For instance, long-range engagements favour planes with stealth, good radar and advanced missiles, whereas the Su-35’s alleged above-average manoeuverability may prove advantageous in short-range combat. Nor is it clear whether the Su-35 was modeled with thrust vector control (as the present MKIs, MKMs have). | |||
Eventually, we shall not forget that the DERA simulation was made in the mid 90s with limited knowledge about the Radar Cross Section, the ECM and the radar performances of the actual aircraft : indeed, at that time, the 4th/5th generation fighters were all at the prototype stage. | |||
===Exercise reports=== | |||
] ] Su-30 MK (rear) and two IAF ] fly with two ] F-15 (middle of V-formation) during Cope India '04. The Su-30s scored a kill ratio of 9:1 over the F-15s during the air exercise.]] | |||
Friendly air forces regularly practice against each other in exercises, and when these air forces fly different aircraft some indication of the relative capabilities of the aircraft can be gained. | |||
Chinese J-10s have always overcome their Flankers in their exercises adding more mystery to the already little known about aircraft. | |||
The results of an exercise in ] pitting USAF F-15 Eagles against ] Su-30MKs, Mirage 2000s, MiG-29s and even the elderly MiG-21 have been widely publicised, with the Indians winning "90% of the mock combat missions" . Another report claims that the kind of systemic factors mentioned in the previous section were heavily weighted against the F-15s. According to this report, the F-15s were outnumbered 3-to-1. The rules of the exercise also allowed the Indian side the use of a simulated AWACS providing location information, and allowed them to use the full fire-and-forget active radar of simulated ] and ] missiles. The F-15s, by contrast, were not permitted to simulate the full range of the AMRAAM (restricted to 32 km when the full range is claimed in the report to be over 100km), nor to use the AMRAAM’s own radar systems to guide itself in ] mode (rather relying on the F-15’s internal radar for the purpose). None of the F-15s were equipped with the latest ] radars, which are fitted to some, but not all, of the USAF’s F-15 fleet. | |||
It is worth noting that the USAF is currently lobbying hard for as large a complement as possible of the F-22, and evidence that present USAF equipment is inferior to potential enemy fighters is a useful lobbying tool. | |||
In ], a Eurofighter pilot was able, in a mock confrontation, to avoid two pursuing F-15s and outmanoeuvre them to get into shooting position. | |||
== References == | |||
<references/> | |||
*{{cite book | author=Kelly, Orr | title=Hornet: the inside story of the F/A-18 | location=Novato | publisher=Presido Press | year=1990 | id=ISBN 0-89141-344-8}} | |||
*{{cite book | author=Shaw, Robert | title=Fighter Combat:Tactics and Maneuvering | location=Annapolis | publisher=Naval Institute Press | year=1985 | id=ISBN 0870210599}} | |||
*{{cite web | |||
| last = Sweetman | |||
| first = Bill | |||
| year = 2001 | |||
| url = http://www.janes.com/defence/air_forces/news/idr/idr010529_1_n.shtml | |||
| title = Fighter Tactics | |||
| work = Jane's International Defense Review | |||
| publisher = Jane's | |||
| accessdate = 2006-04-10 | |||
}} | |||
*{{cite web | |||
| last = Kopp | |||
| first = Carlo | |||
| year = 2002 | |||
| url = http://www.ausairpower.net/jsf-analysis-2002.html | |||
| title = Lockheed-Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Analysis 2002 | |||
| work = Air Power Australia | |||
| accessdate = 2006-04-10 | |||
}} | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] |
Latest revision as of 08:26, 23 November 2024
Classification of fighter aircraft c. 1970–2000Fourth-generation fighter | |
---|---|
A Sukhoi Su-27 (background) and General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon (foreground), fourth-generation fighters used by the Soviet Air Force and United States Air Force respectively | |
General information | |
Type | Fighter aircraft |
National origin | Multi-national |
Status | In service |
History | |
Introduction date | 1980s |
First flight | 1970s |
Developed from | Third-generation fighter |
Developed into | Fifth-generation fighter |
The fourth-generation fighter is a class of jet fighters in service from around 1980 to the present, and represents design concepts of the 1970s. Fourth-generation designs are heavily influenced by lessons learned from the previous generation of combat aircraft. Third-generation fighters were often designed primarily as interceptors, being built around speed and air-to-air missiles. While exceptionally fast in a straight line, many third-generation fighters severely lacked in maneuverability, as doctrine held that traditional dogfighting would be impossible at supersonic speeds. In practice, air-to-air missiles of the time, despite being responsible for the vast majority of air-to-air victories, were relatively unreliable, and combat would quickly become subsonic and close-range. This would leave third-generation fighters vulnerable and ill-equipped, renewing an interest in manoeuvrability for the fourth generation of fighters. Meanwhile, the growing costs of military aircraft in general and the demonstrated success of aircraft such as the McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II gave rise to the popularity of multirole combat aircraft in parallel with the advances marking the so-called fourth generation.
During this period, maneuverability was enhanced by relaxed static stability, made possible by introduction of the fly-by-wire (FBW) flight-control system, which in turn was possible due to advances in digital computers and system-integration techniques. Replacement of analog avionics, required to enable FBW operations, became a fundamental requirement as legacy analog computer systems began to be replaced by digital flight-control systems in the latter half of the 1980s. The further advance of microcomputers in the 1980s and 1990s permitted rapid upgrades to the avionics over the lifetimes of these fighters, incorporating system upgrades such as active electronically scanned array (AESA), digital avionics buses, and infra-red search and track.
Due to the dramatic enhancement of capabilities in these upgraded fighters and in new designs of the 1990s that reflected these new capabilities, they have come to be known as 4.5 generation. This is intended to reflect a class of fighters that are evolutionary upgrades of the fourth generation incorporating integrated avionics suites, advanced weapons efforts to make the (mostly) conventionally designed aircraft nonetheless less easily detectable and trackable as a response to advancing missile and radar technology (see stealth technology). Inherent airframe design features exist and include masking of turbine blades and application of advanced sometimes radar-absorbent materials, but not the distinctive low-observable configurations of the latest aircraft, referred to as fifth-generation fighters or aircraft such as the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor.
The United States defines 4.5-generation fighter aircraft as fourth-generation jet fighters that have been upgraded with AESA radar, high-capacity data-link, enhanced avionics, and "the ability to deploy current and reasonably foreseeable advanced armaments". Contemporary examples of 4.5-generation fighters are the Sukhoi Su-30SM/Su-34/Su-35, Shenyang J-15B/J-16, Chengdu J-10C, Mikoyan MiG-35, Eurofighter Typhoon, Dassault Rafale, Saab JAS 39E/F Gripen, Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, Lockheed Martin F-16E/F/V Block 70/72, McDonnell Douglas F-15E/EX Strike Eagle/Eagle II, HAL Tejas MK1A, CAC/PAC JF-17 Block 3, and Mitsubishi F-2.
Characteristics
Performance
Whereas the premier third-generation jet fighters (e.g., the F-4 and MiG-23) were designed as interceptors with only a secondary emphasis on maneuverability, 4th generation aircraft try to reach an equilibrium, with most designs, such as the F-14 and the F-15, being able to execute BVR interceptions while remaining highly maneuverable in case the platform and the pilot find themselves in a close range dogfight. While the trade-offs involved in combat aircraft design are again shifting towards beyond visual range (BVR) engagement, the management of the advancing environment of numerous information flows in the modern battlespace, and low-observability, arguably at the expense of maneuvering ability in close combat, the application of thrust vectoring provides a way to maintain it, especially at low speed.
Key advances contributing to enhanced maneuverability in the fourth generation include high engine thrust, powerful control surfaces, and relaxed static stability (RSS), this last enabled via "fly-by-wire" computer-controlled stability augmentation. Air combat manoeuvring also involves a great deal of energy management to maintain speed and altitude under rapidly changing flight conditions.
Fly-by-wire
Fly-by-wire is a term used to describe the computerized automation of flight control surfaces. Early fourth-generation fighters like the F-15 Eagle and F-14 Tomcat retained electromechanical flight hydraulics. Later fourth-generation fighters would make extensive use of fly-by-wire technology.
The General Dynamics YF-16, eventually developed into the F-16 Fighting Falcon, was the world's first aircraft intentionally designed to be slightly aerodynamically unstable. This technique, called relaxed static stability (RSS), was incorporated to further enhance the aircraft's performance. Most aircraft are designed with positive static stability, which induces an aircraft to return to its original attitude following a disturbance. However, positive static stability, the tendency to remain in its current attitude, opposes the pilot's efforts to maneuver. An aircraft with negative static stability, though, in the absence of control input, will readily deviate from level and controlled flight. An unstable aircraft can therefore be made more maneuverable. Such a 4th generation aircraft requires a computerized FBW flight control system (FLCS) to maintain its desired flight path.
Some late derivatives of the early types, such as the F-15SA Strike Eagle for Saudi Arabia, have included upgrading to FBW.
Thrust vectoring
Thrust vectoring was originally introduced in the Hawker Siddeley Harrier for vertical takeoff and landing, and pilots soon developed the technique of "viffing", or vectoring in forward flight, to enhance manoeuvrability. The first fixed-wing type to display enhanced manoeuvrability in this way was the Sukhoi Su-27, the first aircraft to publicly display thrust vectoring in pitch. Combined with a thrust-to-weight ratio above unity, this enabled it to maintain near-zero airspeed at high angles of attack without stalling, and perform novel aerobatics such as Pugachev's Cobra. The three-dimensional TVC nozzles of the Sukhoi Su-30MKI are mounted 32° outward to the longitudinal engine axis (i.e. in the horizontal plane) and can be deflected ±15° in the vertical plane. This produces a corkscrew effect, further enhancing the turning capability of the aircraft. The MiG-35 with its RD-33OVT engines with the vectored thrust nozzles allows it to be the first twin-engined aircraft with vectoring nozzles that can move in two directions (that is, 3D TVC). Other existing thrust-vectoring aircraft, like the F-22, have nozzles that vector in one direction. The technology has been fitted to the Sukhoi Su-47 Berkut and later derivatives. The U.S. explored fitting the technology to the F-16 and the F-15, but did not introduce it until the fifth generation arrived.
Supercruise
Supercruise is the ability of a jet aircraft to cruise at supersonic speeds without using an afterburner.
Maintaining supersonic speed without afterburner use saves large quantities of fuel, greatly increasing range and endurance, but the engine power available is limited and drag rises sharply in the transonic region, so drag-creating equipment such as external stores and their attachment points must be minimised, preferably with the use of internal storage.
The Eurofighter Typhoon can cruise around Mach 1.2 without afterburner, with the maximum level speed without reheat is Mach 1.5. An EF T1 DA (Development Aircraft trainer version) demonstrated supercruise (1.21 M) with 2 SRAAM, 4 MRAAM and drop tank (plus 1-tonne flight-test equipment, plus 700 kg more weight for the trainer version) during the Singapore evaluation.
Avionics
Avionics can often be swapped out as new technologies become available; they are often upgraded over the lifetime of an aircraft. For example, the F-15C Eagle, first produced in 1978, has received upgrades in 2007 such as AESA radar and joint helmet-mounted cueing system, and is scheduled to receive a 2040C upgrade to keep it in service until 2040.
The primary sensor for all modern fighters is radar. The U.S. fielded its first modified F-15Cs equipped with AN/APG-63(V)2 AESA radars, which have no moving parts and are capable of projecting a much tighter beam and quicker scans. Later on, it was introduced to the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and the block 60 (export) F-16 also, and will be used for future American fighters. France introduced its first indigenous AESA radar, the RBE2-AESA built by Thales in February 2012 for use on the Rafale. The RBE2-AESA can also be retrofitted on the Mirage 2000. A European consortium GTDAR is developing an AESA Euroradar CAPTOR radar for future use on the Typhoon. For the next-generation F-22 and F-35, the U.S. will use low probability of intercept capacity. This will spread the energy of a radar pulse over several frequencies, so as not to trip the radar warning receivers that all aircraft carry.
In response to the increasing American emphasis on radar-evading stealth designs, Russia turned to alternate sensors, with emphasis on Infrared Search and Track (IRST) sensors, first introduced on the American F-101 Voodoo and F-102 Delta Dagger fighters in the 1960s, for detection and tracking of airborne targets. These measure IR radiation from targets. As a passive sensor, it has limited range, and contains no inherent data about position and direction of targets—these must be inferred from the images captured. To offset this, IRST systems can incorporate a laser rangefinder in order to provide full fire-control solutions for cannon fire or for launching missiles. Using this method, German MiG-29 using helmet-displayed IRST systems were able to acquire a missile lock with greater efficiency than USAF F-16 in wargame exercises. IRST sensors have now become standard on Russian aircraft.
A computing feature of significant tactical importance is the datalink. All modern European and American aircraft are capable of sharing targeting data with allied fighters and AWACS planes (see JTIDS). The Russian MiG-31 interceptor also has some datalink capability. The sharing of targeting and sensor data allows pilots to put radiating, highly visible sensors further from enemy forces, while using those data to vector silent fighters toward the enemy.
Stealth
While the basic principles of shaping aircraft to avoid radar detection were known since the 1960s, the advent of radar-absorbent materials allowed aircraft of drastically reduced radar cross-section to become practicable. During the 1970s, early stealth technology led to the faceted airframe of the Lockheed F-117 Nighthawk ground-attack aircraft. The faceting reflected radar beams highly directionally, leading to brief "twinkles", which detector systems of the day typically registered as noise, but even with digital FBW stability and control enhancement, the aerodynamic performance penalties were severe and the F-117 found use principally in the night ground-attack role. Stealth technologies also seek to decrease the infrared signature, visual signature, and acoustic signature of the aircraft.
In the modern-day, the KF-21 Boramae, though not considered a 5th-gen fighter, has much more significant stealth than other 4th gen fighters.
4.5 generation
The term 4.5 generation is often used to refer to new or enhanced fighters, which appeared beginning in the 1990s, and incorporated some features regarded as fifth generation, but lacked others. The 4.5-generation fighters are therefore generally less expensive, less complex, and have a shorter development time than true fifth-generation aircraft, while maintaining capabilities significantly in advance of those of the original fourth generation. Such capabilities may include advanced sensor integration, AESA radar, supercruise capability, supermaneuverability, broad multi-role capability, and reduced radar cross-section.
The 4.5-generation fighters have introduced integrated IRST systems, such as the Dassault Rafale featuring the optronique secteur frontal integrated IRST. The Eurofighter Typhoon introduced the PIRATE-IRST, which was also retrofitted to earlier production models. The Super Hornet was also fitted with IRST although not integrated but rather as a pod that needs to attached on one of the hardpoints.
As advances in stealthy materials and design methods enabled smoother airframes, such technologies began to be retrospectively applied to existing fighter aircraft. Many 4.5 generation fighters incorporate some low-observable features. Low-observable radar technology emerged as an important development. The Pakistani / Chinese JF-17 and China's Chengdu J-10B/C use a diverterless supersonic inlet, while India's HAL Tejas uses carbon-fiber composite in manufacturing. The IAI Lavi used an S-duct air intake to prevent radar waves from reflecting off the engine compressor blades, an important aspect of fifth-generation fighter aircraft to reduce frontal RCS. These are a few of the preferred methods employed in some fifth-generation fighters to reduce RCS.
KAI KF-21 Boramae is a joint South Korean-Indonesian fighter program, the functionality of the Block 1 model (the first flight test prototype) has been described as ‘4.5th generation’.
See also
References
- Hoh, Roger H. and David G. Mitchell. "Flying Qualities of Relaxed Static Stability Aircraft - Volume I: Flying Qualities Airworthiness Assessment and Flight Testing of Augmented Aircraft". Federal Aviation Administration (DOT/FAA/CT-82/130-I), September 1983. pp. 11ff.
- Fulghum, David A. and Douglas Barrie "F-22 Tops Japan's Military Wish List". Aviation Week and Space Technology, 22 April 2007. Retrieved 3 October 2010. Archived 27 September 2011 at the Wayback Machine.
- "The Gray Threat" (Archived 2007-08-19 at the Wayback Machine). Air Force Magazine.
- "CRS RL33543: Tactical Aircraft Modernization" (Archived 2009-08-30 at the Wayback Machine). Issues for Congress 9 July 2009. Retrieved 3 October 2010.
- "National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)" (Archived 2010-11-04 at the Wayback Machine). thomas.loc.gov. Retrieved 3 October 2010.
- Gady, Franz-Stefan. "Russia to Upgrade Su-30SM Fighter Jets in 2018". thediplomat.com.
- "Russian and Chinese Combat Air Trends" (PDF). p. P6. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2021-01-23. Retrieved 2021-05-07.
- Karnad, Bharat (January 21, 2019). "A Liability Called Rafale". Point of View. India Today. New Delhi.
- Gady, Franz-Stefan. "Is Japan Facing a Shortage of Fighter Aircraft?". thediplomat.com.
- Greenwood, Cynthia. "Air Force Looks at the Benefits of Using CPCs on F-16 Black Boxes." Archived 2008-10-11 at the Wayback Machine CorrDefense, Spring 2007. Retrieved: 16 June 2008.
- "Air-Attack.com – Su-30MK AL-31FP engines two-dimensional thrust vectoring" Archived 2010-09-17 at the Wayback Machine. air-attack.com. Retrieved: 3 October 2010.
- "MiG-35". domain-b.com. Retrieved: 3 October 2010.
- "Fox Three". Archived May 25, 2013, at the Wayback Machine dassault-aviation.com. Retrieved: 24 April 2010.
- "Supercuise at about Mach 1.2" luftwaffe.de. Retrieved: 3 October 2010.
- "Supercruise at about Mach 1.2". eurofighter.at. Retrieved: 3 October 2010.
- "Eurofighter capability, p. 53. Supercruise 2 SRAAM 6 MRAAM" Archived 2009-03-27 at the Wayback Machine. mil.no/multimedia/archive. Retrieved: 24 April 2010.
- AFM September 2004 "Eastern smile" pp. 41–43.
- "U.S. Fighters Mature With AESA Radars." Archived 2012-05-09 at the Wayback Machine defense-update.com. Retrieved: 3 October 2010.
- "Le radar RBE2, l'arme fatale du Rafale à l'export". latribune.fr. 2 October 2012.
- Five Generations of Jets Fighterworld RAAF Williamtown Aviation Heritage Centre.
- "Eurofighter Typhoon." Archived 2012-07-22 at the Wayback Machine publicservice.co. Retrieved: 3 October 2010.
- "Type Acceptance for Block 5 Standard Eurofighter Typhoon." Archived 2007-09-27 at the Wayback Machine www.eurofighter.com, Eurofighter GmbH, 15 February 2007. Retrieved: 20 June 2007.
- Warwick, Graham. "Ultra Hornet." flightglobal.com, 13 March 2007. Retrieved: 3 October 2010.
- "Features of HAL Tejas".
- "Going stealthy with composites".
- "Characterization of Radar Cross Section of Carbon Fiber Composite Materials".
Bibliography
- Aronstein, David C. and Albert C. Piccirillo. The Lightweight Fighter Program: A Successful Approach to Fighter Technology Transition. Reston, VA: AIAA, 1996
- Kelly, Orr. Hornet: The Inside story of the F/A-18. Novato, California: Presidio Press, 1990. ISBN 0-89141-344-8.
- Kopp, Carlo. "Lockheed-Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Analysis 2002." Air Power Australia, 2002. Retrieved: 10 April 2006.
- Richardson, Doug. Stealth Warplanes: Deception, Evasion and Concealment in the Air. London: Salamander. 1989, First Edition. ISBN 0-7603-1051-3.
- Shaw, Robert. Fighter Combat: Tactics and Maneuvering. Annapolis, Maryland: Naval Institute Press, 1985. ISBN 0-87021-059-9.
- Sweetman, Bill. "Fighter Tactics." Jane's International Defense Review. Retrieved: 10 April 2006.
Jet fighter generations | |
---|---|