Air Superiority


Improvements can only be made when change is accepted as being needed and commitment is made for that intent.

The RAF and its Kit planning & ability [against Russian kit planning & ability] for aggressive aerial combat and ground strike cabability. 
Golden Rule: Political spin will not stop an attack. Neither will political spin change the physical results.
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. – Attributed to Uncle Albert.
(1) To keep reacting to a movement in the same way reduces estimation and expectation of flexible thinking. [Britain must look like a cat and a dragged string, to the bears wonderring towards our boudary.]
The Russians now know how fast we can get airborne and what we are now flying and how far we can follow. Why not do nothing next time [and turn from a cat into a wolf] Wait until the bear enters well into British airspace and then...charge them [bring down] one bear. Man or mouse RAF.
This may also reveal if that large white belly pod is a strangely large camera box or a rapid multiple missile launcher to swat to death all followers in return for one bear and end the silly gae of Russia testing RAF perimeter arrival & then just wasting our fuel.
(2) Multi-Role design 'Collaborations' 
If there is one thing to come out of the Euro-Combined fighter development invesstments it should have been that competativness did not go away & selfish strategies both economic & national kit superiority desire can undermine/sabotage the end product. 
Did the British government learn this from Jaguar or the Typhoon? Were the RAF ignored? Did the RAF spot the mut that the Jaguar was becoming. Did the government ignore the British design & engineers reports coming back? Which government? What memory? 
Concorde should have been enough to reveal the perils of working with the French. Design pride, national manufactoring design preferrences, budget controlls, budget cuts to British alocated design zones, crititism, contempt & blame for British [budget cut driven] compromises. Concorde could have been faster in a dash & much more fuel saving if the 'barn door' was designed as a rotating intake. 
France's involement in the Typhoon project allowed them to have the full design and then to use the design objectives to produce their own Raffael project that then undercut Typhoon sales and to fill the advantage/disadvantage choices in the Typhoon design with counter design features.
France not only got away with this but they got Typhoon project paid and benefitted from building 'it's' share of the Typhoon in France. Mad? That was nothing compared to the death of British fighter design & build and the British government switch to the relience on American economic priority fighter designs. The F-15 was never for sale internationally. [Apart from Israel but everyone knows Israel is more than an American Ally]
One thing is for certain the start of WW3 will be unlike WW1 [Aristocratic ego empire geopolitical shenanigans] WW2 [Conceited austerity and greed attrition permanence, leading to vengeance, married to [deux]sets of madness]. WW3 will [Economic damage with border threats mounting as third party interests cause a build-up of hostilities with the ever present propaganda public momentum – coupled to a deep veined thrombosis of hatred with momentum] be Nuclear first and scappy clean up seconds, as the plan..  
Golden Rule: Superior numbers will always Win out over tech-smart expensive design.

The ‘Tempest’

Top- a low turn option. pointless.
Middle- No need to spend on R&D. This is the Saab Grippen.
Bottom- 2 drinks same tank. Will not intercept further or faster than any multi-role

The Tempest: [US design led, economic buld Colaboration, export product]  
Here we go again – Military Fighter plane makers – and their ‘anything’ that will get the need for biggest investment ‘programs’ – following on from the ‘Stealth Need’ fiasco – Have ["they"] learned nothing [yet] from the glaring [Expensive] flaws and lackings in the F-22 & J-35 program development products!
Is a strategically Economic 3rd Rate American US-brit-joke design handed down onto No:10 because the U.S are afraid of what Could happen [to aircraft Sales] if British engineers were to find another Barnes De Havilland Wallace and not let the French spike the innovations...
There are two known flaws in modern jet fighter design and the Tempest is incorporating both of them.
1. Stealth aero-shape limits maneuverability.
2. The absence of forward elevons [or canards] / ‘forvons’ in the presence of adversaries with forvons or and vector thrusting assistance, leaves the old design wanting [ie dead] in combat.
While not everything [engines] is decided or designed, the visible design [intention] of Tempest reveals that the direction the design will follow will be the old/flawed compromise of making the aircraft ‘multi-role’
The 'Multi-role' disease:
The [a] Tempest will Not be an ‘Air Superiority’ designed fighter.
The [b] Tempest will not be a fully capable striker/ground attack aircraft with a radius of weapon threat / defence that will worry an enemy with a large land area to neutralise ability or threaten the enemies more rangy and maneuverable ‘flanker’/Chengdu striker interceptor.
The [c] Tempest Interceptor [concept] design [small] will be limited by its range.

Stealth Golden rule: The least resistance in movement, is the true advantage.


A bespoke air defence 'specialist' killer fighter

The former ‘British’ compromises such as the Jaguar [Lacked range, Power, Maneuverability, speed and a true flighter balance or striker ability] - However the base Jaguar design is still a ‘Superb’ platform [wing configuration] design starting point, for a great genuine potential striker/ground attack evo202. version.

There is no better fuselage, wing combination than a Hawk as a potential fighter template.
With a [3m XWB] Turbo fan at the rear and forvons, it would be the ‘last word’ needed as a British shoreline ‘air-superiority-defence-fighter’. See right image 'BullDog' - 


Urgent – Review British air development commitments 

J-35: "Can't turn, can't fight, can't run away." - Pentagon review J-35. $135 million unit.

"A master of no trades, a jackass of all." U.S.A.F command conclusion J-35.

A brief comparison of air superiority hardware 2020+

Sukoi Su-37 [This Killer Geek Pilots Choice.] [Currently]

An alternative policy for the Royal Air Force in the years 2018-20__

The U.K has previously committed to arming the two new aircraft carriers with The U.S J-35 [Joint Strike Fighter] at a unit cost of over £94 million each.  {$123 million} Price wiki July 2017.

The British deal includes a development investment £?

And an agreement to allow 15% of the British order to be made in Britain, creating 24,000 jobs. [Core & supply chain estimate] This does not necessarily mean our J-35’s will be cheaper as development cost overruns have already caused Panic in both the U.S & The U.K. What tax will be gained from production in the U.K is a matter of complicated long-term accounting and with variable costs & production & component operational bug, issues & problems, it is best to consider the base cost as provisional and likely to rise per unit.

There are a number of negative issues with the J-35. [JSF]  

1. The J-35 [JSF] is a much more complicated flight design that the Harrier. The J-35 relies on multiple moving parts to work. Failure of just one vectoring component or an aero door motor and a plane could become totally uncontrollable in flight or un-landable in VTOL without balanced down thrust.  The risk of losing [£94m] units outright of the JSF is therefore high & common minor failures would put {the limited} units out of operational action.

2. The U.S Air Force has voiced serious failings with all the JSF flight capabilities. Its stealth design inclusion has had a serious reduction in areobatic ability. It lead to a senior [and official] Pentagon voice stating that the JSF "Can't turn, can't fight & can't run away." ‘‘Is a master of none and a jackass of all’’ capabilities.

3. The designers & makers of the JSF seem to have fallen into the same thinking and error as with the design of the F-4 Phantom.  A superior attitude & belief in their design means that crucial weight can be saved by not fitting a close combat cannon/machine gun.


Economic priority design products – 

While stealth became the new super expensive government funded programe [and subsequent achiles heel] some of the materials developed to be compatible with stealth were also incredibly expensive and turned out to also be incredibly weak. 
The F-22 was debilitatingly expensive. It is damaged and has to be grounded for expensive repairs by flying through rain – It had unnecessary design ambitions. It can hide from enemy fighters Until it fires a weapon. It can’t carry many weapons and stay hidden.
Other [Russian] technology can give stealth ability [a diffusive radar emission] without the aerodynamic performance Loss. The American’s have canned the bird [and refocused on the basic variety ‘aerial requirements’ for air defence and strike division while maintaining diversion of enemy/competitor development programs to continue with the ‘all-in-one multi-role fifth/sixth folly, for the [‘Dummies'/Governments] 
J-35 is a heavy truck not a fighter. Cracks under the aero-stress of its stealth body design intention. Limited weapon carry capability. Hidden until it fires or is at an arrival angle where it looks like ‘the bat signal’ on radar. It is so heavily integrated with communications [and because of its woeful performance inability] it is used as the most expensive mobile battle telephone [keeping central command informed of enemy target and response reactions in detailed real time [while military satellites drift around in reserve – Each one, guarded by 2 F-15's just in case a J-35 pilot suffers from un-diagnosed ‘vertigo’ or gets chased down by a cheap mass producible communication drone/missile. The J-35 vertigo issue is most probabbly computer programme gliches and over integration that crash the computer that crashes the plane. [It is like a dozen 737 max errors all fighting with each other or everything suddenly just goes black screan.] This design is very expensive [integration] like the space sshuttle. Not modular design that is coming up, slowly, very slowly.
Air Superiority Objectives:
When it comes to air defence two things are important;
1. Local air superiority design &
2. Being mass producible at the lowest cost.
When it comes to aircraft ground attack capability two things are key;
1. Range &
2. Weapons carry capability.
The two differences require two design platforms and trying to combine them causes a compromise that destroys each other’s abilities.
Local Air Defence: The design objective has been ‘Established and Proven’ from various designs. The product needs to be simple and made quickly to defend our sky from fighters, bombers, drones and even [as a last line of defence] missile approaches. 
Air to Ground Attack: Ground Striker and Fighter bombers can come in two key sizes 1. 1-1,500 miles radius & 2,000+ radius with their obvious carry differences based on their fuel tank size to vary hull size differences. The smaller sized one will have some inbuilt fighter ability. 
Drones and smart missiles render bombers at a reduced need, as the smart missiles and drones only really need the mid range aircraft as an UBER taxi to get them closer. A secondary fighter drone design will be very useful in dealing with counter smart/dumb transiting enemy weapons.

F-4 Phantom [smart missile - machine gun redundant] planning

With the Russian Vector nozzles, the wing alteration, the lighter materials, radar diffusion tech and the engine evolution, even more dangerous than the 29 and all for $35million a unit!

In real terms this means that the aircraft is not intended to encounter an enemy fighter up close.

This thinking, as was with the F-4 turned out to get aircrafts & pilots shot out of the sky.

It is realistic to remember that each JSF unit can carry a maximum number of missiles. When they are spent and if the enemy is building more and cheaper fighters, the JSF will be running for its life when more aircraft than missiles are coming for it.

With the limited numbers of JSF’s, the enemy is known to be planning mass production of the Mig-35 at an estimated cost of {£20-25m unit}

The U.S are aware of the 2 negative elements of physics mentioned above [Complicated & Crap] and are taking counter measures.

A total restructuring of its air defence & strike structure. These include retaining existing stealth planes for ongoing stealth capability. Manufacturing in the U.S of the JSF [Upto U.S use need] [and beyond] while sales are being made.

Upgrading & evolving F-16, F-15 & F-18 to maintain the core ability & introducing a low cost light fighter [The KAI T-50] with other comparables from the private sector including a perhaps a rebirth of the TigerShark to have mass manufacturing optional advantage over the enemy.

The human ground warfare experience of the middle east of late has also kicked up re-usage of turbo prop aircraft from the 70’s for upgrade for support and strike, in areas of established air superiority, at a low cost and maintenance that can also be mass produced at low cost whenever needed.  And of course the advancement of drone developments.

The U.K should consider its Own counter measures given that both the F-22 & J-35 programs have been seen as compromised and inferior in all but one area.  

4. The U.S AF are now using the JSF as a ‘high performance’ technology combat command & advance ‘Coordination’ aerial unit. The strike actions are then carried out by proper attack machines. Every JSF unit is guarded by other stealth level fighters [Testing F-15 stealth adapted units] and escorted in and especially out of a combat zone.

The British JSF’s do not have a gun. They are not able to out-turn even a bae Hawk. They were equal. The new Hawk upgrade solves this problem giving the Hawk200 aerial superiority over the new J-35. [4 Hawk's {at current Low production price} for the price of 1 J-35]

The battle field technology & interlinked coordination prowess of the JSF could be provided with software for satellite use that included with interlinked multiple high speed low level drones at a fraction of the price.

British {close in} air Superiority [equal to in capability, cost & production to the J-35] could be had, off the shelf today with The Saab Gripen.

The Typhoon is competitive tactically and some integrated tech evolution versions should be under development. They should include diffusive radar technology rather than stealth solid design.

The Tornado's Foxhunter Radar is Fantastic and should be evolved in a similar way to the Jaguar platform into a geniuine mid-range striker with Foxhunter2 as an addition to the some tech integration.

Still the best design ['with' the rear trick]


A. Call in Rolls Royce and ask for a Pegasus evolution costing in three ways:

To the existing design: 1) More power 2) Lighter

3) Scaled down versions [miniature Peg’s] for high manuverable Peg drone designs. Half, Quarter,..    

Establish a testing and rebuilding centre in Britain;

[i] To evolve the Harrier for the new evo engine chosen.

[ii] To Simplify the maintenance disassembly & re-assembly to reduce down time.  

[iii] Improve close fighter capability. [Canbnards & variable intake cowling]

[iv] Inclusion of inter-tech field.

Jaguar 2

Jaguar - Still the best striker platform - Just Crying out for a proper Bespoke 'Striker' Evo

Key Rule: A numerical advantage of 'capable weapons' will win.

The Russian Mig-35:
Is an evolution of the Mig-29. {Russia's F-15 F-16 Match} The 35 is titanium structure base reducing its weight by 2,000 kilos.
It has a new radar system with pre select targeting and an advanced close range phasic dispersement setting to disguise its reflective radar signature. {Russia having noted the aerodynamic downside to stealth shape advantage.}
The pre targeting radar is probably stolen US technology. Coupled to the Russian Helmet Targeting systemm, gives the pilot look & lock at angles. These are upsides without the downside.
Very slight wing alterations from the 29 give the 35 an increase of agility beyond its previous limit. The 35 without the Russian vector thruster addition makes
The Mig-35 iss the most superior close fighter in the worlds sky for a next engagement. 
The Sukoi's Su-37
A larger multi purpose fighter bomber interceptor weapon. With the Russian Vector thrusters and the addition of canards mean this plane can match the profile of the Tornado. Its range and can out turn a Typhoon.
Make no mistake these two planes are a superior team to Tornado Typhoon or Lightning Raptor/ Falcon Eagle. With a priority on simplicity and rapid cheap build choices, they can be built cheaper and faster than the US counterparts. The UK has little to no build capability for Typhoon, Tornado or any fighter or striker, anywhere especially not on the UK Mainland.
The nod on the horizon is a trend to choose 2nd choice 4th generation fighters for a lower cost option, being better weapons and to suit mass production. America are leaning towards the Tiger-shark types [T-50 latest] and the new Scorpion along with turbo props such as the Bronco types to deliver smart bombs to destination. The development days, complexity and high perices of the likes of the F-22 are being seen as liabilities as a weapon in real action and of numbers and time and cost to build.
Stealth has agility issues and has had its day as only a test reject. Diffusing radar systems can achieve the same without the loss of agility or the costs associated.

Key Rule: {"If you want peace, prepare for war."} Vegetius.