What do you consider to be a more important component in modern combat aircraft; Avionics or Aerodynamics? Without proper avionics an aircrafts targeting and radar capabilities will be diminished, while without aerodynamic performance the ability to perform offensive and evasive manoeuvres will be restricted... so what do you think is preferable... avionic superiority or aerodynamic superiority?
Interesting question... I would say that having a better avionics suite is more important than performance. Case in point (though slightly out of date now) - the EE Lightning. It was an outstanding point defence fighter/interceptor with blistering performance. But, owing to its design, very limited avionics capability. The RAF replaced it in the fighter/interceptor role with the Phantom, and the pilots complained that this new plane was a poor performer in comparison, and that the Lightning could run rings round the Phantom. However, the Phantom's avionics made it a better all-round plane. I have even seen interviews by RAF Lightning pilots who claimed that if the Lightning could get into a dogfight with an F-15*, the F-15 was toast. Trouble was the F-15's radar etc was so damn good they could rarely get close enough. *RAF vs USAF in Germany
Avionics by far. A good BVRAAM and a radar system capable of accurately distinguishing good guys from bad and you don't even need to get close. But that doesn't stop me doing dogfight air wargames :lol: Ricky: Lightning has managed eat every single one of the so-called dogfighters (including F-16) on exercise (when flown by the right pilot!). Just finished a book called "Lightning from the cockpit" - full of personal anecdotes, where one WEWOL (WE Were On Lightnings = ex-Lightning pilot) said that Lightning was the original vectored-thrust fighter. Light the afterburner, and according to him, "the wing was then just somewhere to put the undercariage until it was needed" But sadly short on fuel. Typical. :angry:
Definetely avionics. Airdraft today dont have to get into traditional dog fights anymore. You can just spot another aircraft on the radar 30 miles away, and then you fire a missile to take it out. Who ever has the best avionics, can do it the best. So avionics. That simple.
Both equally. Poor aryo's can cause problems with high signatures. Personally, with the theroies being put into practise with EMP weapons (Electromagnetic Pulse)...any day now any dude with enought money will be able to destroy any plane in the air. That and the one thing that gets me anout modern ariel warfare... Modern warfare: *pushes button* (10 second wait) Target destroyed The good old days: I see 'im (Jepardy song) I shot him down with my superious skills (and possible a better machine) My point? A frigging monkey might as well be piloting those things.
The next machines won't have any pilots at all. Consider this joke: "The airliner of the future will have two cockpit occupants. One will be a pilot to welcome passenegers aboard and make them feel they are in competent hands. The other will be a dog to make sure the pilot doesn't touch anything in the cockpit." Avionics is way more important than aerodynamics in fighting aricraft today (and good aerodynamics does not equal low observables).
Sometimes you have to have both.A while ago I read theat it would be impossibleto fly an F-16 without the avionics.There are way too many minor corrections during flight that a human could never hope to make.
Both avionics and aerodynamics are equaly important. Avionics to find and fire, aerodinamycs to get into position and evade all nasty things enemy fires at you. Modern concept of aerodynamics is in artificial or intentional instability of aircraft. This makes extremly quick manuvres possible (stable aircraft needs time to get into manouver). That is the reason for modern combat aircraft needing on board computer to stay in the air. Good combination is Su-27 (now 30 years old platform) which is in itself very stable plane (result of lack of modern avionics at the conception) and its derivates: Extreme aerodynamcs making it it highly manourable and thus superior dogfighter in close dogfight, HMTS (Helmet Mounted Tageting System - targeting with movement of your head up to 180 deg. i.e. 90 deg. from plane axis) and look down - shoot down capabilities, coupled with still superior R-73 (close range up to 30 km) and R-77 (medium range up to 60 km) make a excellent killing machine.
During operations over ZRJ (Serbia nad Montenegro) during 1999 operations the greatest fear was zooming tactics (flying low and hiding in the valeys without active radar in radio silence being guided with ground radars) and then zooming up close to NATO planes thus nullifying advantages of better western radars emplying superior dogfighting capabilities of MiG-29. Since ZRJ decided to conserve forces of it's AF, these fears were groundless but they still presented a great concern to pilots and planners.
It is true that if you can get into a 'dogfight' situation, the batter performing plane will stand a better chance (depending on pilots etc...) However, in these times of AWACS and good avionics suites in fighters it is rare that you can get the chance to force such a situation. You still can do so (as in TISO's example) but you do need a combination of factoers to work well for you, including terrain, low-flying enemy planes, and your enemy sportingly deciding not to blow your airfields into small pieces.
