Your Nation's Air Force Mark III: Best Korea Edition

[Austrasien]

The Mig-25 and Mig-31 were always pointless. The XB-70 they were meant to shoot down was never built.

[Zhouran]

Mig-31 were always pointless.

"MiG-31 can shoot down bombers only".

Going by that logic, the F-14 is a pointless plane too.

The MiG-31 was technically Russia's best fighter jet (in terms of avionics) from its introduction in the early 80s 'till the existence of the Su-27M and Su-37 in the 90s. During the last days of the Soviet Union, the MiG-31 was their only fighter/interceptor that had aerial-refuelling capability, powerful long-range PESA radar with multi-target capability, and capability to carry long-range AAMs. The MiG-31 would of been the only Soviet/Russian fighter that would of pose a massive threat to the US F-15s and F-14s in terms of BVR combat, both the MiG-29 and Su-27 at the time had sub-standard radar and wouldn't really stand a chance in BVR combat against F-16s, F-14s and F-15s.

Is there any point to maintain and even develop specialized interceptor fighter like MiG-25/31 and F-106, or multiroles and air superiority fighters are adequate enough?

Well for 4th gen. fighters, there really is no point to make specialized planes. Nowadays your better off with a multirole fighter that's flexible enough to do various task such as air-superiority and air-defense intercept.

[Gallia-]

XB-70 lives on among the stars.

Going by that logic, the F-14 is a pointless plane too.

OK.jpg

[Austrasien]

"MiG-31 can shoot down bombers only".

Going by that logic, the F-14 is a pointless plane too.

The MiG-31 was technically Russia's best fighter jet (in terms of avionics) from its introduction in the early 80s 'till the existence of the Su-27M and Su-37 in the 90s. During the last days of the Soviet Union, the MiG-31 was their only fighter/interceptor that had aerial-refuelling capability, powerful long-range PESA radar with multi-target capability, and capability to carry long-range AAMs. The MiG-31 would of been the only Soviet/Russian fighter that would of pose a massive threat to the US F-15s and F-14s in terms of BVR combat, both the MiG-29 and Su-27 at the time had sub-standard radar and wouldn't really stand a chance in BVR combat against F-16s, F-14s and F-15s.

1. There was nothing about the Mig-31 that meant it had to have better avionics or aerial refuelling. These capabilities were added to give it some capability against the actual threat after the design threat evaporated.
2. Supersonic dashes at Mach 3 and ~20 km altitude are of very questionable value to say the least when the primary targets of interest is a B-52 or cruise missile flying at an altitude of about 100 meters and a speed of about Mach 0.8. The USAF switched entirely over to low altitude penetration, the Mig-25 and Mig-31 had no particular advantage in low altitude engagements. They were pointless. A fighter with longer endurance and excellent subsonic agility would have been substantially more useful.
3. I said "capability added" for a reason. Everything the Mig-31 could do except fly very high and fast could have been done by another, cheaper aircraft. And flying very high and fast was ultimately irrelevant to the air threat the USSR actually faced.

[Zhouran]

1. There was nothing about the Mig-31 that meant it had to have better avionics or aerial refuelling. These capabilities were added to give it some capability against the actual threat after the design threat evaporated.
2. Supersonic dashes at Mach 3 and ~20 km altitude are of very questionable value to say the least when the primary targets of interest is a B-52 or cruise missile flying at an altitude of about 100 meters and a speed of about Mach 0.8. The USAF switched entirely over to low altitude penetration, the Mig-25 and Mig-31 had no particular advantage in low altitude engagements. They were pointless. A fighter with longer endurance and excellent subsonic agility would have been substantially more useful.
3. I said "capability added" for a reason. Everything the Mig-31 could do except fly very high and fast could have been done by another, cheaper aircraft. And flying very high and fast was ultimately irrelevant to the air threat the USSR actually faced.

1. The initial radars on the MiG-29 were less powerful than the MiG-31's Zaslon radar, the Myech radar for the early Su-27 was also weak as well. The Zaslon radar was the only good fighter jet radar the soviets had in the 80s, plus aerial refuelling means a MiG-31 can go on longer patrols than an Su-27.

2. The upgraded MiG-31BM has capabilities against very-low flying cruise missiles

3. When the MiG-31 entered service in the early 80s, the Soviets didn't have any other 4th gen. fighter planes in their inventories. Even when the Su-27 and MiG-29 entered service in the mid-to-late 80s, these were early variants that weren't as effective as the MiG-31 in BVR combat. You have to remember than by the fall of the Soviet Union, the Russian aerospace industry took a hit and was dying. The MiG-31 would of been retired early had the Russians commissioned the Su-27M and Su-37 into service, except that they didn't have the funds to do that at the time of the 90s. Plus last time I checked the MiG-31 is still in service, so why's that?

The MiG-31 isn't a one-trick pony. It may not be a dogfighter but that doesn't mean the MiG-31 is a crappy fighter that was meant to shoot down high-speed bombers only. It's like saying the F-14 or F-15 sucks because it can't outmaneuver and outmatch an Su-27 in a dogfight even though the Tomcat or Eagle could still shoot a Flanker from several kilometers away at beyond-visual-range. At best the MiG-31 is basically a high-speed missile truck with a powerful radar.

If I had to pick, I'd rather pick any heavy fighter including the MiG-31 over any tiny light fighter. I'd rather sacrifice maneuverability for powerful radar. The MiG-31 and F-14, despite being different designs, share the similarities of being heavy fighters equipped with powerful radars and armed with long-range AAMs. The MiG-31 however is more focused on speed and therefore has little dogfighting capability whereas the F-14 has better maneuverability and dogfighting capability than the MiG-31 despite being slower.

The Su-35S and even the Su-30SM would no doubt make a good replacement for the MiG-31 since they have better radars, better capability for low-level flight, and better dogfighting capability. Problem is Russia's economy is going down the drain and there's still like what around 200 MiG-31s in service. It would take a lot of money to make enough Su-35S and Su-30SM to fill the gap left by the MiG-31. It's why the MiG-31 still undergo modernization despite changes in threats.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Su-37 is an airshow demonstrator...

[Zhouran]

Su-37 is an airshow demonstrator...

Apparently Sukhoi actually offered the Su-37 to the air force, but it wasn't accepted. Although the Su-37's tech was later applied to the Su-30 and Su-35 series, the Russian Air Force didn't have the Su-35S or Su-30SM until years after the Su-37 first flew. That meant from the first flight of the Su-37 to the commissioning of the Su-35S, the Russians still had to rely on their Su-27s. They did modernize some of their Su-27s, but the number of Su-27s upgraded isn't enough plus these Su-27 upgrades aren't as capable as the Su-35S or Su-30SM.

[Austrasien]

2. The upgraded MiG-31BM has capabilities against very-low flying cruise missiles

But that had nothing to do with its capabilities as a high-speed interceptor.

3. When the MiG-31 entered service in the early 80s, the Soviets didn't have any other 4th gen. fighter planes in their inventories. Even when the Su-27 and MiG-29 entered service in the mid-to-late 80s, these were early variants that weren't as effective as the MiG-31 in BVR combat. You have to remember than by the fall of the Soviet Union, the Russian aerospace industry took a hit and was dying. The MiG-31 would of been retired early had the Russians commissioned the Su-27M and Su-37 into service, except that they didn't have the funds to do that at the time of the 90s. Plus last time I checked the MiG-31 is still in service, so why's that?

Because the Russian Air Force still needs it, a new air defence interceptor (if it ever materializes) is many years into the future. And the Mig-31 is the only Russian fighter compatible with the R-33 missile, which they still evidently have a substantial quantity of. Even if they wanted to switch to the Su-30 they would need to procure new long-range AAMs compatible with the Flanker as well to replace that capability and none of those projects (K100, R-37, the two stage R-37, the chode R-37) have made it into service yet.

The MiG-31 isn't a one-trick pony. It may not be a dogfighter but that doesn't mean the MiG-31 is a crappy fighter that was meant to shoot down high-speed bombers only. It's like saying the F-14 or F-15 sucks because it can't outmaneuver and outmatch an Su-27 in a dogfight even though the Tomcat or Eagle could still shoot a Flanker from several kilometers away at beyond-visual-range. At best the MiG-31 is basically a high-speed missile truck with a powerful radar.

It can climb and fly very vast in a straight line (but not for too long) and fire missiles. Which is fine for its original role of rapdily scrambling to shoot down supersonic bombers. But not ideal for anything else.

[The Akasha Colony]

"MiG-31 can shoot down bombers only".

Literally no one said this. MiG-25 was designed to deal with a very specific bomber, namely XB-70 Valkyrie. Which would have required extreme speed and altitude to intercept. But then the USAF cancelled it, so MiG-25 suddenly had no opponent. But the Soviets were never willing to admit it was a mistake, and dumping them entirely would have been a waste, so they soldiered on.

Going by that logic, the F-14 is a pointless plane too.

F-14 was designed to intercept bombers that really did exist, namely Tu-22M. Which the Soviets fielded in large numbers. Unlike XB-70.

The MiG-31 isn't a one-trick pony. It may not be a dogfighter but that doesn't mean the MiG-31 is a crappy fighter that was meant to shoot down high-speed bombers only. It's like saying the F-14 or F-15 sucks because it can't outmaneuver and outmatch an Su-27 in a dogfight even though the Tomcat or Eagle could still shoot a Flanker from several kilometers away at beyond-visual-range. At best the MiG-31 is basically a high-speed missile truck with a powerful radar.

If I had to pick, I'd rather pick any heavy fighter including the MiG-31 over any tiny light fighter. I'd rather sacrifice maneuverability for powerful radar. The MiG-31 and F-14, despite being different designs, share the similarities of being heavy fighters equipped with powerful radars and armed with long-range AAMs. The MiG-31 however is more focused on speed and therefore has little dogfighting capability whereas the F-14 has better maneuverability and dogfighting capability than the MiG-31 despite being slower.

MiG-31 has atrocious wing loading for a fighter. Which means that in fact, it is a crappy fighter. Its wing loading is significantly higher than Su-27 or F-15. In fact, it's nearly twice F-15's wing loading. It flies like an apartment building.

It has lots of missiles and a big radar but the Soviets could have had that capability much more cheaply on a simpler platform, and would have been better served by more Su-27s. It can't even sustain its famous speeds for very long, which means that ultimately in actual use it's not really any faster than any other fighter of the era, and probably slower on average than any fighter capable of supercruise.

[Gallia-]

What is Chode R-37 I must see it. Is it Kewt like Chode 7x36mm or 7.92x24.5mm?

[Austrasien]

"RVV-BD" is about 18 cm shorter than the original R-37.

[Zhouran]

-snip

-snip-

I would agree that the Flanker series would be better served in the role of air-defense than the MiG-31. Though in the 80s, Sukhoi wasn't too particularly focused on long-range BVR for their Su-27, which is why the initial flankers carried the myech radar, while the MiG-31 was the PVO-Strany's premiere air-defense fighter as well as the Soviet's first fourth generation fighter. The VVS wouldn't want the MiG-31 since it's not a dogfighter and has poor maneuverability while PVO-Strany on the other hand didn't care if the MiG-31 could only fly in a line as long as it's a plane that fires long-range AAMs and carries a long-range radar. However, by the late 80s there was the Su-27PU (predecessor to the Su-30) which would of been a suitable replacement for the MiG-31, as well as the Su-27M/37 of the mid-to-late 90s.

But the Soviets were never willing to admit it was a mistake, and dumping them entirely would have been a waste, so they soldiered on.

Even several years after the fall of the USSR, Mikoyan wants to make a high-speed stealth fighter replacement for the MiG-31. Pretty much retiring the MiG-31 for a slower replacement would be seen as a waste, and plus the Russian Air Force do believe that once you introduce a certain capability to a fighter jet (high-speed for the MiG-31, supermaneuverability for the Flanker series), you stick to those capabilities even if the threat situation changes.

[Iltica]

The MiG-31 isn't a one-trick pony. It may not be a dogfighter but that doesn't mean the MiG-31 is a crappy fighter that was meant to shoot down high-speed bombers only. It's like saying the F-14 or F-15 sucks because it can't outmaneuver and outmatch an Su-27 in a dogfight even though the Tomcat or Eagle could still shoot a Flanker from several kilometers away at beyond-visual-range. At best the MiG-31 is basically a high-speed missile truck with a powerful radar.

If I had to pick, I'd rather pick any heavy fighter including the MiG-31 over any tiny light fighter. I'd rather sacrifice maneuverability for powerful radar. The MiG-31 and F-14, despite being different designs, share the similarities of being heavy fighters equipped with powerful radars and armed with long-range AAMs. The MiG-31 however is more focused on speed and therefore has little dogfighting capability whereas the F-14 has better maneuverability and dogfighting capability than the MiG-31 despite being slower.

MiG-31 has atrocious wing loading for a fighter. Which means that in fact, it is a crappy fighter. Its wing loading is significantly higher than Su-27 or F-15. In fact, it's nearly twice F-15's wing loading. It flies like an apartment building.

It has lots of missiles and a big radar but the Soviets could have had that capability much more cheaply on a simpler platform, and would have been better served by more Su-27s. It can't even sustain its famous speeds for very long, which means that ultimately in actual use it's not really any faster than any other fighter of the era, and probably slower on average than any fighter capable of supercruise.

The F-15 and 14 can hardly be called "light fighters" either, they just don't suffer from the same overspecialization of having to be able to reach mach 3... or using an airframe developed in the late 60's...
Zhouran might have a point though, I'm starting to think that the most important thing for a fighter is being able to take the first shot before its opponent can acquire target/lock on/whatever. The larger radar would certainly play a big role in that, but so might anything that can help it get into a favorable position to launch quickly. Maybe climb rate, speed, how quickly it can scramble, and service ceiling?

[Kanugues Wed]

Ok, I actually have two questions.


If I were to want to modernize 70 F-14a that I got in the mid 90s, what would be the most important part to change? My nation has an advanced electronics industry that is state-owned, which I think could make developing new avionics a bit cheaper.

Additionally, my nation acquired F-20 tigersharks, and so did one or two other nations (Regan did loosen up the F-16 regulations, but we are also a bit too socialist for him to be comfortable), and we later acquired domestic production rights because it really wasn’t useful to the US and they wanted the factories. What sort of upgrades could have been done to the F-20s since it remained a prototype? I’ll definatley upgrade to the F414 since it’ll both be more powerful and simplify logistics, but what else could be helpful?

[Connori Pilgrims]

Ok, I actually have two questions.


If I were to want to modernize 70 F-14a that I got in the mid 90s, what would be the most important part to change? My nation has an advanced electronics industry that is state-owned, which I think could make developing new avionics a bit cheaper.

Additionally, my nation acquired F-20 tigersharks, and so did one or two other nations (Regan did loosen up the F-16 regulations, but we are also a bit too socialist for him to be comfortable), and we later acquired domestic production rights because it really wasn’t useful to the US and they wanted the factories. What sort of upgrades could have been done to the F-20s since it remained a prototype? I’ll definatley upgrade to the F414 since it’ll both be more powerful and simplify logistics, but what else could be helpful?

If you want to keep em around until maybe 2020, consider overhauling the whole weapon system (so radar, fire-control and missiles) and engines. That applies to both of them. Take note though that the F-20 has some payload limits; some weapons like heavier bombs and missiles will be difficult if not impossible to install without further rework of the airframe (whereupon you may as well design new planes)

Electronics industries are all well and good, but you need actual experience in the design and construction and use of said systems. ANd even then, if you’re gonna start from reverse-engineering AWG-9/AIM-54A, chances are you’ll just get life-extensions of them and not much increase in performance. You will still need significant tech transfer/foreign expertise if you want to get current gen4+ type capabilities now or reasonably sooner.

[Kanugues Wed]

Ok, I actually have two questions.


If I were to want to modernize 70 F-14a that I got in the mid 90s, what would be the most important part to change? My nation has an advanced electronics industry that is state-owned, which I think could make developing new avionics a bit cheaper.

Additionally, my nation acquired F-20 tigersharks, and so did one or two other nations (Regan did loosen up the F-16 regulations, but we are also a bit too socialist for him to be comfortable), and we later acquired domestic production rights because it really wasn’t useful to the US and they wanted the factories. What sort of upgrades could have been done to the F-20s since it remained a prototype? I’ll definatley upgrade to the F414 since it’ll both be more powerful and simplify logistics, but what else could be helpful?

If you want to keep em around until maybe 2020, consider overhauling the whole weapon system (so radar, fire-control and missiles) and engines. That applies to both of them. Take note though that the F-20 has some payload limits; some weapons like heavier bombs and missiles will be difficult if not impossible to install without further rework of the airframe (whereupon you may as well design new planes)

Electronics industries are all well and good, but you need actual experience in the design and construction and use of said systems. ANd even then, if you’re gonna start from reverse-engineering AWG-9/AIM-54A, chances are you’ll just get life-extensions of them and not much increase in performance. You will still need significant tech transfer/foreign expertise if you want to get current gen4+ type capabilities now or reasonably sooner.

We don’t have much experience designing fighters, but we have plenty of experience building them. About a decade ago, we designed our first indigenous fighter, but we’ve been building fighters since the sixties, starting with some MiG-17s.

We’d be able to get advisors from america and Europe, and probably plans. Could the F-14 be refitted to carry AMRAAM, ASRAAM and either penguin or Exocet cause we are afraid of naval invasions?

[Vassenor]

If you want to keep em around until maybe 2020, consider overhauling the whole weapon system (so radar, fire-control and missiles) and engines. That applies to both of them. Take note though that the F-20 has some payload limits; some weapons like heavier bombs and missiles will be difficult if not impossible to install without further rework of the airframe (whereupon you may as well design new planes)

Electronics industries are all well and good, but you need actual experience in the design and construction and use of said systems. ANd even then, if you’re gonna start from reverse-engineering AWG-9/AIM-54A, chances are you’ll just get life-extensions of them and not much increase in performance. You will still need significant tech transfer/foreign expertise if you want to get current gen4+ type capabilities now or reasonably sooner.

We don’t have much experience designing fighters, but we have plenty of experience building them. About a decade ago, we designed our first indigenous fighter, but we’ve been building fighters since the sixties, starting with some MiG-17s.

We’d be able to get advisors from america and Europe, and probably plans. Could the F-14 be refitted to carry AMRAAM, ASRAAM and either penguin or Exocet cause we are afraid of naval invasions?

An upgrade to the F-14D to allow it to lob AMRAAM was planned but scrapped.

[Gallia-]

F-14D died because the U.S. Navy was getting ATA which could sling AMRAAMs anyway, and NATF, which was going to replace F-14 in everything with AIM-152 and what becomes AAQ-40 EOTS.

ATA dies because McDD/GD couldn't figure out how to literally make the thing and when Cheney visited their factory they tried to bamboozle the SECDEF by showing him defective composite structures with the "DEFECTIVE" labels removed. Which he finds out when he goes back to Washington a little while later. When your defense contractors are literally lying to your face about how they are on budget, on time, and in reality, they have neither any idea how long or how expensive their new plane will be, you kill the program and do something.

Fleet Forces Command, having given up the idea of NATF, pushes hard for a new 5th generation long-range striker in the form of A/X, which is slightly less "striker" and slightly more "fighter", but still a strike jet. This is going to replace A-6 still (ATA was only going to replace A-6 because NATF was going to replace F-14), but has an aggressive time schedule (IOC of something like 2002) and shows up around 1992 and goes for a bit longer than ATA did. It's quickly replaced with A/FX because FLTFORSCOM realizes it still needs something sling AMRAAMs at Bears and cruise missiles in the far future of the year 2000. DOD at this time does a BUR of NAVAIR programs and Fleet Forces Command mulls either Super Hornets or continuing A/FX. The BUR goes to Congress in 1993 and A/FX gets the axe in favor of SH.

Why? Because there's no guarantee that A/FX will ever have composites moulded, much less enter service, while Super Hornet is a relatively staid derivative of Hornet and can be in IOC before the year 2000. In reality it comes a bit later, but not much later, and probably around the time that the Navy was expecting A/FX. Given how badly managed JSF is and that is with an experienced contractor who knows VLO, A/FX would probably not be in service today if it had been continued, and the USN would be either waiting for it still (perhaps it would be on track for a 2020 IOC!) or simply stuck with F/A-18C/D as its only aircraft.

tl;dr America fell apart. But F-14/F-18 are still useless in the 2020+ so talking about them is sorta silly. Might as well use be using P-51 to hunt Mi-24s in 1985.

[The Akasha Colony]

I would agree that the Flanker series would be better served in the role of air-defense than the MiG-31. Though in the 80s, Sukhoi wasn't too particularly focused on long-range BVR for their Su-27, which is why the initial flankers carried the myech radar, while the MiG-31 was the PVO-Strany's premiere air-defense fighter as well as the Soviet's first fourth generation fighter. The VVS wouldn't want the MiG-31 since it's not a dogfighter and has poor maneuverability while PVO-Strany on the other hand didn't care if the MiG-31 could only fly in a line as long as it's a plane that fires long-range AAMs and carries a long-range radar. However, by the late 80s there was the Su-27PU (predecessor to the Su-30) which would of been a suitable replacement for the MiG-31, as well as the Su-27M/37 of the mid-to-late 90s.

Remember all the factors that made BVR combat problematic in Vietnam?

MiG-31 still suffered from all of those because the Soviets never managed to develop all of the ancillary target recognition techniques and technologies that the USAF and USN invested in during and after Vietnam. Which somewhat reduces the utility of having a giant radar and slinging missiles at extreme range. This wasn't a problem for MiG-25 and MiG-31's original design concept because it was expected to be targeting something like XB-70, and there aren't a lot of bomber-sized Mach 3 planes out there. But once you start dealing with fighters, suddenly you find that there are lots of fighter-sized targets flying around a conflict zone. And a lot of them will be yours. The reliability issues that plagued Western aircraft of the Vietnam issue also plagued Soviet aircraft, but this problem was never fixed to the same degree it eventually was in the West.

Su-27's radar was a simple admission of this fact: BVR combat was not practical. At least not by fighters alone. If a ground tracking station had enough resolution to identify a target then it could vector a unit of Su-27s on target and the Flankers wouldn't need powerful radar anyway. The relatively poor performance of Russian radar is one of the reasons the Russians held on to their IRSTs, which the USAF ditched once they deemed more modern radar sets to obviate the need for such devices in F-15 and F-16. The other major difference is that much of Zaslon's superior radar performance comes from the fact that it is simply gigantic and of a size that would have been impossible to fit on any reasonably-sized fighter.

Even several years after the fall of the USSR, Mikoyan wants to make a high-speed stealth fighter replacement for the MiG-31. Pretty much retiring the MiG-31 for a slower replacement would be seen as a waste, and plus the Russian Air Force do believe that once you introduce a certain capability to a fighter jet (high-speed for the MiG-31, supermaneuverability for the Flanker series), you stick to those capabilities even if the threat situation changes.

The Russians have no choice. They know how to make planes fast and they know how to make planes maneuverable, but they know they can't match the West where it really matters: stealth and avionics. They aren't even that good at making them that fast, since MiG-31 doesn't have the necessary TPS or cooling system to allow it to sustain high speeds for long. It had nothing on a real Mach 3 interceptor like YF-12 in terms of performance, but unlike YF-12 it was actually built.

The F-15 and 14 can hardly be called "light fighters" either, they just don't suffer from the same overspecialization of having to be able to reach mach 3... or using an airframe developed in the late 60's...
Zhouran might have a point though, I'm starting to think that the most important thing for a fighter is being able to take the first shot before its opponent can acquire target/lock on/whatever. The larger radar would certainly play a big role in that, but so might anything that can help it get into a favorable position to launch quickly. Maybe climb rate, speed, how quickly it can scramble, and service ceiling?

Big radars are nice but the problem has always been target identification. Various means have been developed to help deal with this problem, but none of them are perfect. This is one of the reasons why engagements still tend to happen at much lower ranges than the actual maximum detection range of a given radar set. That blip on the radar at 150 km probably can't be identified until it closes to around half that range unless off-board sensor platforms like E-3 are able to handle ID themselves and feed this information to friendly aircraft.

Beyond that, stealth fighters have very strong incentives to limit radar usage given how readily it can give away their position. This may be somewhat less of a concern for completely unstealthy aircraft like MiG-31, but going forward this does not seem to be the preferred solution.

[Gallia-]

YF-12 was built.

[Zhouran]

-snip-

So, I'm currently stuck in the middle in this argument between BVR and WVR combat. There seems to be two camps: the BVR camp and the WVR camp with the former generally favoring the F-15 and the latter generally favoring the Su-27. I always thought BVR combat is the key to aerial success, which is why the BVR camp argues strongly that the Su-27 is no match for the F-15, but you also mention the issues surrounding BVR combat. Would the most practical be simply to value WVR and BVR combat equally rather than emphasizing solely on WVR or BVR combat? And would that mean that a fighter such as the Su-35S or Eurofighter Typhoon would be the most ideal fighter due to having both powerful radars and good dogfighting maneuverability?

I've always thought the one with the biggest radar ones, that had always been my impression after reading the performances of Soviet fighters compared to that of their American counterparts. In a hypothetical air battle between 4th gen. fighter jets in a battlefield saturated with electronic jamming, would that mean maneuverable fighter jets would win over any less-maneuverable fighter jets that are fitted with more-powerful radars?

I find it hard to believe that BVR combat isn't as "practical" as I expected, and the fact that stealth fighters would still need to limit radar usage to avoid giving off emissions. I know that with the F-14s, since their radars gave off emission, the Iraqis would simply have their fighters retreat if the radar emission from Iranian F-14s were detected, but with PESA and AESA radars aren't they meant to have low-probability-of-intercept, making them difficult to detect compared to conventional pulse-Doppler radars?

[The Akasha Colony]

So, I'm currently stuck in the middle in this argument between BVR and WVR combat. There seems to be two camps: the BVR camp and the WVR camp with the former generally favoring the F-15 and the latter generally favoring the Su-27. I always thought BVR combat is the key to aerial success, which is why the BVR camp argues strongly that the Su-27 is no match for the F-15, but you also mention the issues surrounding BVR combat. Would the most practical be simply to value WVR and BVR combat equally rather than emphasizing solely on WVR or BVR combat? And would that mean that a fighter such as the Su-35S or Eurofighter Typhoon would be the most ideal fighter due to having both powerful radars and good dogfighting maneuverability?

WVR and BVR are not dichotomies.

F-22 dominates in BVR (obviously) but it also far outmaneuvers F-15s and F-16s in BFM. Which means it is extraordinarily capable in WVR too. Although it'd be even better if it finally got an HMD and AIM-9X.

Su-27 is a "WVR" fighter only because Soviet radar technology was inferior to Western radar technology and N001 could not match APG-63 despite being larger. The state of Soviet technology and the political considerations involved forced Sukhoi's designers to focus on agility, but there was never a thought that this would somehow make it worse at BVR combat.

The Su-27 airframe has lots of potential because it's enormous and can fit huge radars and beefy engines and voluminous fuel tanks and tons of ordnance, but the Soviets and now the Russians just don't have the technology to make full use of it compared to Western fighters. Their technology situation has gotten better over the years but unfortunately for Putin their financial situation has not.

Typhoon is not a particularly good example of "powerful radar" given that it has yet to receive an AESA upgrade and has a nosecone diameter of only ~70 cm, which is in the same class as F-16 and smaller than real heavy fighters like F-14, F-15, F-22, and Su-27 that have nosecone diameters of 95-100+ cm. MiG-31 had a nosecone diameter of approximately 140 cm, which is why it could fit a gigantic radar. One of the major limitations on radar power these days is cooling capacity, since the development of gallium nitride semiconductors has made it possible to significantly increase radar output, but existing cooling systems were never designed to handle this kind of waste heat generation.

I've always thought the one with the biggest radar ones, that had always been my impression after reading the performances of Soviet fighters compared to that of their American counterparts. In a hypothetical air battle between 4th gen. fighter jets in a battlefield saturated with electronic jamming, would that mean maneuverable fighter jets would win over any less-maneuverable fighter jets that are fitted with more-powerful radars?

The answer is that victory will go to the side that has the most options, so the one that has a combination of good radar and good maneuverability and lots of thrust and big fuel tanks and the lowest signature has the highest chance of winning. Because like infantry and tank engagements, there is a huge amount of variability in air combat engagements. All fighter capabilities (agility, speed, range, payload, sensors, detectability) are interlinked and important because they define what options are available to the pilot. And the more options the pilot has, the less likely he is to be caught in an unfavorable situation in which he is likely to lose. Of course, fighters that combine these traits (Su-27, F-15, F-22) are expensive. But cheaper fighters like F-16 and MiG-29 are still designed to balance these traits, albeit at a lower price point.

This is why fifth generation fighters like F-22, Su-57, and J-20 aren't just stealth MiG-31s with giant radars and extreme speed but no maneuverability. They are designed to outperform previous-generation fighters in all aspects, and that's actually what separates them from 4.5++++++ generation fighters like Su-35 that have marginally better manueverability and better avionics but are still in all other ways essentially the same plane that started flying in the 1970s.

I find it hard to believe that BVR combat isn't as "practical" as I expected, and the fact that stealth fighters would still need to limit radar usage to avoid giving off emissions. I know that with the F-14s, since their radars gave off emission, the Iraqis would simply have their fighters retreat if the radar emission from Iranian F-14s were detected, but with PESA and AESA radars aren't they meant to have low-probability-of-intercept, making them difficult to detect compared to conventional pulse-Doppler radars?

The name says it all. Low probability of intercept. Any emission creates a risk of detection. Using LPIR radar is still better than using an older, more easily detectable radar, but it is still preferable to avoid even a small chance of being detected if at all possible. Especially since just as radar technology has advanced, so too has passive receiver technology. F-22's passive detection technology is arguably more important than APG-77. F-35 has a similar and more advanced but somewhat simplified system (with fewer receivers), and it also has DAS. F-22 was even supposed to have an IRST but that got ditched early on as a budget-saving measure.

BVR combat is still more likely to occur today than it was in the 1970s or 1990s. But it hasn't taken over to the point where BFM is irrelevant.

[Zhouran]

So, I'm currently stuck in the middle in this argument between BVR and WVR combat. There seems to be two camps: the BVR camp and the WVR camp with the former generally favoring the F-15 and the latter generally favoring the Su-27. I always thought BVR combat is the key to aerial success, which is why the BVR camp argues strongly that the Su-27 is no match for the F-15, but you also mention the issues surrounding BVR combat. Would the most practical be simply to value WVR and BVR combat equally rather than emphasizing solely on WVR or BVR combat? And would that mean that a fighter such as the Su-35S or Eurofighter Typhoon would be the most ideal fighter due to having both powerful radars and good dogfighting maneuverability?

WVR and BVR are not dichotomies.

F-22 dominates in BVR (obviously) but it also far outmaneuvers F-15s and F-16s in BFM. Which means it is extraordinarily capable in WVR too. Although it'd be even better if it finally got an HMD and AIM-9X.

Su-27 is a "WVR" fighter only because Soviet radar technology was inferior to Western radar technology and N001 could not match APG-63 despite being larger. The state of Soviet technology and the political considerations involved forced Sukhoi's designers to focus on agility, but there was never a thought that this would somehow make it worse at BVR combat.

The Su-27 airframe has lots of potential because it's enormous and can fit huge radars and beefy engines and voluminous fuel tanks and tons of ordnance, but the Soviets and now the Russians just don't have the technology to make full use of it compared to Western fighters. Their technology situation has gotten better over the years but unfortunately for Putin their financial situation has not.

Typhoon is not a particularly good example of "powerful radar" given that it has yet to receive an AESA upgrade and has a nosecone diameter of only ~70 cm, which is in the same class as F-16 and smaller than real heavy fighters like F-14, F-15, F-22, and Su-27 that have nosecone diameters of 95-100+ cm. MiG-31 had a nosecone diameter of approximately 140 cm, which is why it could fit a gigantic radar. One of the major limitations on radar power these days is cooling capacity, since the development of gallium nitride semiconductors has made it possible to significantly increase radar output, but existing cooling systems were never designed to handle this kind of waste heat generation.

I see. More options means better chance of success. Indeed the reason why stealth fighters focus to dominate all aspects of aerial warfare rather than a few areas.

And yeah, the Flanker airframe has so much potential. It's the reason why I love the Flanker series and the F-15 series, luckily there's the Su-30SM and Su-35S while there's the F-15E, F-15SE (too bad that it got cancelled) and F-15 ADVANCED.

The answer is that victory will go to the side that has the most options, so the one that has a combination of good radar and good maneuverability and lots of thrust and big fuel tanks and the lowest signature has the highest chance of winning. Because like infantry and tank engagements, there is a huge amount of variability in air combat engagements. All fighter capabilities (agility, speed, range, payload, sensors, detectability) are interlinked and important because they define what options are available to the pilot. And the more options the pilot has, the less likely he is to be caught in an unfavorable situation in which he is likely to lose. Of course, fighters that combine these traits (Su-27, F-15, F-22) are expensive. But cheaper fighters like F-16 and MiG-29 are still designed to balance these traits, albeit at a lower price point.

This is why fifth generation fighters like F-22, Su-57, and J-20 aren't just stealth MiG-31s with giant radars and extreme speed but no maneuverability. They are designed to outperform previous-generation fighters in all aspects, and that's actually what separates them from 4.5++++++ generation fighters like Su-35 that have marginally better manueverability and better avionics but are still in all other ways essentially the same plane that started flying in the 1970s.

So pretty much the chance of winning an air battle isn't based on a few factors like having the biggest radar but rather multiple factors instead? I guess pilot training and skills would become an even more-decisive factor in an air war, regardless if two sides both employed advanced heavy fighters.

The name says it all. Low probability of intercept. Any emission creates a risk of detection. Using LPIR radar is still better than using an older, more easily detectable radar, but it is still preferable to avoid even a small chance of being detected if at all possible. Especially since just as radar technology has advanced, so too has passive receiver technology. F-22's passive detection technology is arguably more important than APG-77. F-35 has a similar and more advanced but somewhat simplified system (with fewer receivers), and it also has DAS. F-22 was even supposed to have an IRST but that got ditched early on as a budget-saving measure.

BVR combat is still more likely to occur today than it was in the 1970s or 1990s. But it hasn't taken over to the point where BFM is irrelevant.

And I thought 5th gen. stealth fighters would be the one to bring back WVR dogfight, but it seems that 4.5th gen. fighter jets could also bring back dogfighting as well.

Also, if the F-22 was fitted with IRST or other comparable electro-optical equivalent, would that significantly increase their dogfighting capability?

[The Akasha Colony]

I see. More options means better chance of success. Indeed the reason why stealth fighters focus to dominate all aspects of aerial warfare rather than a few areas.

And yeah, the Flanker airframe has so much potential. It's the reason why I love the Flanker series and the F-15 series, luckily there's the Su-30SM and Su-35S while there's the F-15E, F-15SE (too bad that it got cancelled) and F-15 ADVANCED.

So pretty much the chance of winning an air battle isn't based on a few factors like having the biggest radar but rather multiple factors instead? I guess pilot training and skills would become an even more-decisive factor in an air war, regardless if two sides both employed advanced heavy fighters.

The more options a pilot has, the more ways he can parlay those options into a favorable engagement, regardless of specific conditions. There may well be instances where victory comes down to radar power, but a fighter that has an amazing radar but is deficient in everything else will lose every battle where radar is not the deciding factor.

And I thought 5th gen. stealth fighters would be the one to bring back WVR dogfight, but it seems that 4.5th gen. fighter jets could also bring back dogfighting as well.

Also, if the F-22 was fitted with IRST or other comparable electro-optical equivalent, would that significantly increase their dogfighting capability?

It would have zero impact on their BFM capabilities.

IRST is just another way to detect targets. It is valuable because it is completely passive and therefore emits no detectable radiation, and because it is generally harder to fully mask an IR signature than it is to reduce a radar cross section. At least for a fighter using low-bypass turbofans where hot core gases are a significant part of the exhaust signature. There are ways to do it though.

The US used to regularly use IRSTs in the 1960s due to the shortcomings and reliability issues with radar sets of the time, but these IRSTs had very limited resolution and range. Because of these problems, the USAF elected to drop IRST with their fourth generation fighters since radar technology had come a long way. The USN did not drop IRST to the same extent and F-14 still carried both IRST and more advanced TISEO derivatives. IRST was still useful for F-14's mission of intercepting bombers because while fighters could only be spotted at ~15 km or so (too short of a range to be useful), large bombers could be detected at ranges of 100+ km. F/A-18 dropped IRST though because it was not designed for the interceptor mission like F-14.

Interest in IRST was later revived thanks to developments in better thermal imaging technology, especially the development of focal plane arrays that could massively increase resolution and improve detection ranges significantly enough to once again be useful against fighter-sized targets and because its value as a passive sensor increased as emissions control became more critical to air combat. F-22 was supposed to have an IRST but this got dropped (like the cheek arrays and even the HMD). F-35 did end up getting it though, in at least some form. And now the USAF and USN are interested in buying fuel tanks with IRST sensors on them so they can integrate that capability onto existing fighters.

The Soviets never dropped IRST because their radar technology never caught up to quite the same level as the US, and the Soviets have generally preferred to use a wider array of sensors to compensate for their weaknesses in developing particularly good sensors (this is also allegedly true of their submarines). This is even true of Su-57, which has a gazillion radars to make up for the fact that none of them are particularly good.

[Iltica]

The F-15 and 14 can hardly be called "light fighters" either, they just don't suffer from the same overspecialization of having to be able to reach mach 3... or using an airframe developed in the late 60's...
Zhouran might have a point though, I'm starting to think that the most important thing for a fighter is being able to take the first shot before its opponent can acquire target/lock on/whatever. The larger radar would certainly play a big role in that, but so might anything that can help it get into a favorable position to launch quickly. Maybe climb rate, speed, how quickly it can scramble, and service ceiling?

Big radars are nice but the problem has always been target identification. Various means have been developed to help deal with this problem, but none of them are perfect. This is one of the reasons why engagements still tend to happen at much lower ranges than the actual maximum detection range of a given radar set. That blip on the radar at 150 km probably can't be identified until it closes to around half that range unless off-board sensor platforms like E-3 are able to handle ID themselves and feed this information to friendly aircraft.

Beyond that, stealth fighters have very strong incentives to limit radar usage given how readily it can give away their position. This may be somewhat less of a concern for completely unstealthy aircraft like MiG-31, but going forward this does not seem to be the preferred solution.

One would think acquiring and firing first should be desirable at any range, from BVR missile distances all the way down to gun fighting. Ideally, it would probably be best to stay further away, but being able to take off, locate the target, get into a favorable position (above them I guess), and fire more quickly than the enemy is probably going to win out most of the time over just focusing on maneuverability.
I think the ideal missile fighter (or interceptor at least), is a radar/IIR/etc laden, fast-climbing plane that can take off on short notice. Prolonged maneuvering dogfights would be avoided if possible in favor of 'hit & run' attacks that give little time for retaliation.