BVR weapons and engagement

With all the talk recently about BVR weapons, here’s a little bit of basic info. BVR is obviously the art of destroying that which you cannot see, or is “Beyond Visual Range”. An advantage of a BVR-equipped aircraft over a non-BVR equipped aircraft is first-shot/first-kill. The aircraft with BVR weapons can shoot first and more than likely get the kill. This would be the case with (this really is a valid example this time) India and Pakistan. Indian MiG-29’s and Su-30’s, with R-27R/ER and R-77 AAM’s would eat the Pakistani F-16 and F-7 fighters, which are only armed with short-range AAM’s.

When you have two aircraft going at it, and both of them are BVR capable, you have to take a few more things into account. First, range obviously matters. An aircraft with a 20nm ranged missile will have problems against an aircraft with a 40nm ranged missile. Also you have to realize that maximum range is misleading…this is usually obtained by a high-altitude, high-speed launch, which gives the missile more kinetic energy coming off the rail. This translates into more range. This is also why many of Russia’s interceptors are high-speed, high-altitude aircraft.

Guidance also matters. A SARH missile has an obvious disadvantage, but I’m relatively sure everyone understands basic guidance principles.

Bottom Line: BVR isn’t the end-all in air combat, but it is a deadly weapon if used correctly. And you have to know when not to use it as well: if an AMRAAM-equipped F-16 tangles with an AMRAAM-equipped F-4, (I know this is an unlikely scenario but it will suffice for the sake of explanation), the F-16 will want to close the gap ASAP to get to where he has the advantage: close combat. On the other hand, the MiG-31 will want to stay in BVR at all costs, as it can’t turn for a damn!

Comments?