British and French fighters ‘dogfight’ over Mediterranean

Morning. Are you talking purely BVR, Davey i.e. that is the most likely combat scenario ‘real life’? Accept that, though BVR is occasionally covered, the game usually agrees dogfight merge for just your reason (sometimes ‘restricted’ to guns only, of course *). Also aware missile parameters are in reality jealously guarded.
Main usefulness, to me at least, is the technical expressions and, yes, ‘idea’ of who has advantage high / low; 1 / 2 circle; etc. Better than the no info we generally get from these exercises (naturally enough). All taken with a dose of salt.
Most extreme example * was the Spitfire taking out the F22 – twice out of three I think 😅 – meant for a laugh and succeeded.

Reminds me of the Binbrook trials when the RAF were worried about whether it’s Lightnings could take out Mustangs in the Malaysia conflict and they had to develop tactics to do so.

I will keep performance data out of the conversation.

With respect to WVR, in the game they’ve made ASRAAM’s range similar to AIM-9X. In real life it’s not! ASRAAM has a bigger and longer burn duration rocket motor. So not only is it a lot faster to the target, but it also has significantly longer range. It’s why CAMM is based on it after all.

ASRAAM has both lock on before launch (LOBL) and lock on after launch (LOAL) modes. It’s all aspect seeker has full hemispheric coverage. This when married to the pilot’s helmet sight, has changed how dogfighting and in particular one circle engagements are made.

ASRAAM Block 6 moves the game further along. It gives the pilot the option of extending the one circle play. In this I mean after the two aircraft pass, the Typhoon pilot doesn’t need to turn into the fight. He can use his helmet to designate the target, fire the missile over the shoulder, then engage full burner to escape their opponent’s missile envelop.

Meanwhile, the ASRAAM hunts for the opponent, it’s updated seeker is very, very good. Once the Typhoon is outside the opponent’s missile envelope, they have the option of re-engaging by turning parallel to the target. Whilst being within the ASRAAM envelop and staying outside their opponent’s. If the other aircraft has a missile approach warning system, they will immediately be on the defensive. If they don’t, then they’ll have an ASRAAM up the chuff in no time and game over.

The problem comes when both aircraft have a short range missile that has lock on after launch. In this respect ASRAAM still has a major advantage as it’s larger rocket motor will get it to a target before the other can. If your opponent is using something like IRIS-T. This has a very tight turning radius, so it will out turn ASRAAM. But it will bleed off a lot of energy in doing so. Typhoon immediately engaging its burners gives it a chance of out running it.

Firing off decoy flares has a 50:50 chance against modern IR seekers. It gets worse, if the missile uses a moving target algorithm to differentiate between flares and the true target. Directed infrared countermeasures (DIRM) and towed IR decoys are the best solution to protect the aircraft these days.

BVR is a whole different science, especially when you are teamed with AWACS. As it means the Typhoon can getaway without using its radar through a whole engagement. The AWACS spots the target. Typhoon fires a Meteor in the general direction. AWACS keeps tracking the target. Giving updates to the Typhoon, that then gives course updates to the missile. The missile then activates its radar when it gets close enough.

In these kinds of BVR engagement, height is key. Having the Typhoon flying at 45,000ft, then accelerating past Mach 1. Gives the missile a significant boost kinetically. It doesn’t have to waste energy going through the sound barrier. So more fuel can be used to accelerate it. Starting from up high also helps, as there’s less air causing drag, so it can fly faster and further on a given amount of fuel. For the missile’s active radar, looking down on to the targeted aircraft also helps, as there’s more surface area to generate a return.

Much appreciated. I will take time to digest.
Many thanks

I’m not sure they have the budgets any more, Rafale decimated the French defence budget for years. Running up against US product and a Anglo Japanese export option will be very difficult as well.

The Rafales have recently risen sales and and proven to be a formidable 4.5 gen fighter jet.

Indeed reading up on the US 6th Gen program, even they are struggling to grasp the prospective costs of their project. This will be the best chance for Tempest to not only happen but happen to a very high and competitive level within an acceptable timeline. Hopefully it will encourage Italy and Sweden and indeed others to commit to the project as it starts to look rather more airworthy than the alternative. We may get a hint at Farnborough but Christmas is what I read as a more likely timescale to announce something.

I wonder also if the other development I mentioned in the last few days has any relevance here and that’s the new testing about to start on the Reaction Engines pre cooler tech which aims to take it up to full flight envelope runtime spec. Most importantly it is aimed at developing it for use with existing jet engine technology which could be a wide ranging game. changer whatever happens later with Sabre.

We know that RR is already interested in such developments and is a backer of RE and of course already producing a new engine with the Japanese for their project and Tempest. I wonder if this might also be a factor in adding logic to this further strengthening of the projects and potentially combining them as, if successful, this pre cooler tech would potentially allow jet engines to operate up to Mach 4 apparently without all the complexities of previous set ups to achieve high Mach speeds like with the Blackbird. If a substantial increase in performance is enabled in this time frame or even just potential this no doubt not only heightens the importance of the engine cooperation but would dictate airframe design beyond what would otherwise be anticipated. Indeed engine related airframe elements were already the subject of joint development. But equally this could have implications for all manner of high speed propulsion projects that without close cooperation only the US will be able to fully exploit. It certainly brings something to the table from Britain to hypersonic or near hypersonic propulsion for missile development that may have influenced recents agreements.

At the moment the only two engine improvements appear to be adaptive fan engines and electrical generation via fan blade magnets. However both of these are also being considered for 4th and 5th gen aircraft as retro fits. There are likely two factors that will define a 6th gen aircraft. One is all aspect stealth derived from a tailless design and the other is the ability to operate at speed in excess of Mach 3 and possibly hypersonic. If Tempest does not have one of these then we are at severe risk of repeating the mistakes of Eurofighter and producing a 5.5 Gen aircraft that will always be seen as second best to NGAD. Reaction engines pre cooler and a higher than Mach 3 speed while maintaining vertical stabilisers for better kinetic performance and manoeuvre ability would allow it to compete again a tailless US design on an even footing with both systems having different advantages rather than F22 vs Typhoon where F22 was clearly better in all major aspects except price.

It will be a given, that the Tempest engine will be a combined cycle engine. Where it can operate as a low(ish) by-pass turbofan, then at height operate as a turbojet.

But to get it past Mach 2.5, it really needs to be a hybrid engine. Where it combines a turbojet with a ramjet. You can make a turbojet operate up to Mach 3. But in doing so it becomes horrendously inefficient. This is due to the engine’s compressor acting as an air dam. As the air can’t pass through it quickly enough, so it stacks up in front of the compressor and blocks air passing through.

By diverting the air from the turbojet into a ramjet, solves this problem. The ramjet can be made to work from Mach 1.2, but they are happier operating from Mach 2 and above.

The Reaction Engines pre-cooler will work quite happily with turbofans and turbojets. I think I remember that the RR Avon was used as a proof of concept engine, when the project was in its infancy. The results were outstanding, but then they had access to cryogenic cooling, which helps massively.

If it’s possible to keep the intake air temperature near the local ambient air temperature compared to the intake’s pressurized air temperature. You will gain a massive thermal efficiency improvement. As it means there’s more oxygen in a given volume. Which means you can add more fuel to increase thrust.

For a fighter type aircraft like Tempest, will there be enough space available for a refrigeration system? Possibly. But, if the pre-cooler used fuel as the cooling medium. At transonic and supersonic speeds the fuel’s temperature will be significantly lower than the intake air temperature. So this will be enough to cause a large temperature differential for cooling. It also means that as the fuel is “hotter” there is less work needed to atomize it, which helps efficiency to a degree.

Even just using the aircraft’s fuel as the cooling medium. I would expect anything up to 30% increase in intake air. Which would correspond to a substantial net gain in dry thrust and wet thrust. This could be further improved by incorporating a recuperator. To channel hot air from the power turbine area and mix it with the compressed intermediate stage air prior to the burner. This would raise the air temperature. Which means less fuel is needed to then raise the air temperature for burning. This makes the engine more fuel efficient.

Exciting times lie ahead, if the Reaction Engines pre-cooler is used with a combined cycle hybrid engine.