Historical evaluation of Russian hardware in combat breakout thread.

I am surprised you know NCTR and IFF but you don’t know TWS!

Righttt…….!

I did actually know what it meant when applied to radars but the missile part threw me into thinking it was something else, especially with the talk of OTH shots. But yeah, when applied to radars I’m fully aware of TWS and STT.

Nope, it was actually because of the F-15’s NCTR radar capability and RoEs that required two forms of IDing enemies. The IFF at that time was absolute cack and people were instructed not to rely on it to avoid friendly fire.

I am surprised you know NCTR and IFF but you don’t know TWS!

Righttt…….!

Apparently it did not..

Despite the much-vaunted capabilities, the Phoenix was rarely used in combat, with only two confirmed launches and no confirmed targets destroyed in US Navy service, though a large number of kills were claimed by Iranian F-14s during the Iran–Iraq War. The USAF F-15 Eagle had responsibility for overland combat air patrol duties in Operation Desert Storm in 1991, primarily because of the onboard F-15 IFF capabilities. The Tomcat did not have the requisite IFF capability mandated by the JFACC to satisfy the rules of engagement to utilize the Phoenix capability at beyond visual range. The AIM-54 was not adopted by any foreign nation besides Iran, or any other US armed service, and was not used on any aircraft other than the F-14.

Nope, it was actually because of the F-15’s NCTR radar capability and RoEs that required two forms of IDing enemies. The IFF at that time was absolute cack and people were instructed not to rely on it to avoid friendly fire.

Why wouldn’t it be recognized?

How would you suggest the target RWR can distinguish it from the normal PD search mode?

OTOH, they were forced to be used at fairly short ranges because the IFF capability of the F-14As sucked hard compared to USAF F-15s.

It’s not the IFF capability per se, but rather restricted ROE’s (due to many allied flights present over Iraq) and the AWG-9’s lack of NCTR capability which caused the F-14A’s to be restricted to fleet CAP missions only.

Telescopic capabilities of F-14 outclassed anything on F-15. And until the Cold War was practically over IFF technology was pretty weak and overly burdensome to use in multinational air campaigns

Apparently it did not..

Despite the much-vaunted capabilities, the Phoenix was rarely used in combat, with only two confirmed launches and no confirmed targets destroyed in US Navy service, though a large number of kills were claimed by Iranian F-14s during the Iran–Iraq War. The USAF F-15 Eagle had responsibility for overland combat air patrol duties in Operation Desert Storm in 1991, primarily because of the onboard F-15 IFF capabilities. The Tomcat did not have the requisite IFF capability mandated by the JFACC to satisfy the rules of engagement to utilize the Phoenix capability at beyond visual range. The AIM-54 was not adopted by any foreign nation besides Iran, or any other US armed service, and was not used on any aircraft other than the F-14.

Engagement at range.

Telescopic capabilities of F-14 outclassed anything on F-15. And until the Cold War was practically over IFF technology was pretty weak and overly burdensome to use in multinational air campaigns

What are telescopic capabilities?

Out of morbid curiosity, do you know the story of how the Aspide was designed? The Sparrow M and the Aspide were built by different companies, with different components ( same control surfaces, btw). Both the Skyflash and Aspide offered some advantages compared to the “F”. Raytheon was a partner on Aspide, and the Sparrow M incorporated that technology.

No, either control surfaces were different: Aspide get initially a foldable four steering fins (Sparrow had only two, other were fixed) in the surface to air version but it was in a second time changed into pentagonal small diameter monolitic ones to prevent corrosion problem.

No ,it was not SO different.IT was just A COMPLETELY ,ABSOLUTELY, TOTALLY other Missile.
Different seeker, different control surfaces, different warhead, different control engine all with not any US component inside: only thing that was taken from Sparrow was the external body frame for compatibility with existing launchers.
For the rest Sparrow M was a fine one, just arrived five years later.

Out of morbid curiosity, do you know the story of how the Aspide was designed? The Sparrow M and the Aspide were built by different companies, with different components ( same control surfaces, btw). Both the Skyflash and Aspide offered some advantages compared to the “F”. Raytheon was a partner on Aspide, and the Sparrow M incorporated that technology.

The Phoenixes had 0% Pk because they were used solely against fighter sized maneuvring targets. OTOH, they were forced to be used at fairly short ranges because the IFF capability of the F-14As sucked hard compared to USAF F-15s.

For what I remembered the ones that was launched by the USN was all at about the maximum range and in head on engagements.
They failed because of that: the Iraqi planes knew F-14/AIM-54 all too well and as soon as their RWR identified the F-14 radar (so let’s sayTWS doesn’t seem to work in the way it was hypotized) they just broke contact and ran away. well, almost is a mission aborted.

IRIAF has claimed a way greater percentage (60/70%) but for what I have read they used them in more conventional air combat maneuvers, tail-on and at a closer range so to put enemy in a no escape zone i.e. the way missiles have to be used against fast and maneouvrable targets.

I know right? The Aspide was SO different from contemporary Sparrow variants produced (F and M). Sarcasm aside, the Aspide was a major improvement over early U.S.,Sparrow variants. Sparrow gets a bad reputation from the poor performance in Vietnam. The later ones had little commonality other than name and airframe.

No ,it was not SO different.IT was just A COMPLETELY ,ABSOLUTELY, TOTALLY other Missile.
Different seeker, different control surfaces, different warhead, different control engine all with not any US component inside: only thing that was taken from Sparrow was the external body frame for compatibility with existing launchers.
For the rest Sparrow M was a fine one, just arrived five years later.

Telescopic capabilities of F-14 outclassed anything on F-15. And until the Cold War was practically over IFF technology was pretty weak and overly burdensome to use in multinational air campaigns

Well, Sparrow was just a stopgap, the real one we aimed to use was the Aspide but we had to wait until 1986 to have it.
And no, F-104S doesn’t had BVR capability, the radar they had was not enough powerful for such a range.:(
And about the Aim-54: i didn’t know what the system US navy used to reach the 100% MISS percentage they get but the result speak for itself…

The Phoenixes had 0% Pk because they were used solely against fighter sized maneuvring targets. OTOH, they were forced to be used at fairly short ranges because the IFF capability of the F-14As sucked hard compared to USAF F-15s.

The Phoenix can be launched in TWS mode which supposedly would not be recognized as being tracked by the target’s RWR or at least not by those older RWR systems.

Why wouldn’t it be recognized?

Sparrow missile? Why we would have used that crap when we have Aspide?

I know right? The Aspide was SO different from contemporary Sparrow variants produced (F and M). Sarcasm aside, the Aspide was a major improvement over early U.S.,Sparrow variants. Sparrow gets a bad reputation from the poor performance in Vietnam. The later ones had little commonality other than name and airframe.

F-104S? If my memory is correct, the 20mm cannon was removed to make space for the additional avionics needed to allow the use of Sparrow missiles.

Well, Sparrow was just a stopgap, the real one we aimed to use was the Aspide but we had to wait until 1986 to have it.
And no, F-104S doesn’t had BVR capability, the radar they had was not enough powerful for such a range.:(
And about the Aim-54: i didn’t know what the system US navy used to reach the 100% MISS percentage they get but the result speak for itself…

All I know is that the space was needed for Sparrow-related hardware. According to Bill Gunston, a lot of work had to be done to make the missile compatible with the fighter’s NASARR radar.

The amount of work probably depends on the selected radar and it’s supported features. For these earlier Sparrow missiles, I’d presume a CW-illuminator antenna is a must, plus at least some interface with the missile to provide the target offset data to the seeker (presumably through the upgraded WCS). But, that’s OT, so I’ll try to dig around for some more info.