Scorpion82I agree partially to the fact that BVR combat is something that has to be fully proven in combat, but we have come a long way since its early days, not to mention with data fusion, VLO assets , one can possibly be better placed to win a decisive Beyond visual range battle . Even if we assume that due to the untested nature of BVR a lot of ACTUAL COMBAT would enter into the WVR , a 4.5 gen LO asset like the euro canards etc will enjoy better situational awareness , and could use this to be better placed to enter WVR combat against legacy jets , Same goes for the VLO’s like the raptor , PAKFA j20 etc , which may well enjoy better Situational awareness and would be harder to detect by the legacy jets as they enter WVR thereby choosing how , when and under what conditions they enter WVR. So in a way the Supercruise , VLO airframes and Integrated avionics do offer the PAKFA’s , Raptors of the world a better shot at entering WVR with an advantage over legacy jets .
I guess this is why we see so much of emphasis on C2C assets, integrated battlefield, Datalinks and SATLINKS , and large flexibility in A2G and A2A weaponry. I guess in a situation where such assets are envolved in real combat , the C2C capability, the capability to destroy the other’s ground based radar and defences and limit his sensor reach might be decisive in achieving victory and favorable kill rates especially in the bvr..
Just my 2 cents..
A well considered post, I agree with what you say. Starting an engagement early on may help to force the enemy into the defensive and obtain a more favourable position to finish him, if the BVR engagement fails.
Scorpion82In training, getting a firing solution is treated as a “kill” never mind counteractions.
That’s not correct. The engagement geometry, calls for missile launches and the ability to keep tracking the target etc. are taken into account. The pk subsequently isn’t 100%, not even in training exercises where shots are being simulated. But the pk certainly is still optimistic.
Scorpion82Not too long ago, armies used to be composed of spearmen who stood shoulder to shoulder and advanced towards their enemies. Fortunately, tactics and weapons have changed.
The BVR “proof” you point to is by airplanes designed in the 1960s and 1970s, which lack the technologies that resulted from ACEVAL/AIMVAL exercises. There have been over a dozen exercises where F-22 has participated and the results have always been overwhelmingly one sided in the F-22’s favor. No, the details of tactics used by F-22 have not been released and they never will be. But if F-22 was only capable of parity with other jets, why would Russia be pursuing T-50 and China pursuing J-20? Were Russia and China tricked into throwing their money away? Or is there something to this stealth stuff?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FR95DeRfA5w
Irrelevant examples and comparisons. Point is BVR missiles weren’t overly successful in all past conflicts, even when many of them were launched WVR they missed their targets and these targets often were cooperative due to the lack of situational/threat awareness, adequate training and counter measures. Results from BVR DACTs aren’t really representative as no missiles are fired at all, so no proof about their pk, reliability of opposing forces threat warning sensors and counter measures and their overall impact on missile pk. I don’t think that the problem lies with the launch platform, but with the missiles and their relative performance and effectiveness.
Scorpion82It wasn’t meant to be an insightful, quality analysis, it was taking the p**s out of idiots who think BVR weaponry is something only fools use. Jesus, some people are dumb as rocks round here.
Like with like appears to be your strategy, but in such a case you shouldn’t complain about “not so insightful analysis”. If we face the facts, they are that BVR has not been dependable up to date. Of course technology evolves and matures and todays platforms and weapons are certainly more capable than they were in the past, but the same is true for performance, threat warning sensors and counter measures. Claims like “if it emits it dies” or “the target won’t come closer than 30 miles before it’s dead” are just nice phrases, but they aren’t bolstered by any credible facts. Statistics thus far suggest that BVR combat isn’t reliable enough, of course past results are not necessarily representative for today, but as long as there is no current proof that the technology is working satisfactory today you can’t blame people for casting doubts on that theory, which sounds nice, but which hasn’t met expectations in the real world thus far.
Scorpion82While I will not get into a debate about what the PK of an AMRAAM is, the Aim-9X Blk2 can be fired in any aspect and has LOAL with EODAS guidance. Actually, the F-35 is currently the BEST plane suited for the Aim-9x Blk2.
I suppose you mean cueing. EODAS itself can’t guide a missile in flight, it can just cue it prior launch generating angular target coordinates. Updates could be send by data links, but which DL is compliant with the system fitted on the AIM-9X blk 2?
Scorpion82The F-22 pilots were not wearing their Combat Edge anti-g suits and that alone makes a tremendous difference to the amount of sustained G that can be pulled. If they’d have been allowed to wear them, providing of course they are safe, then the outcome would almost certainly have been very different.
That’s partially incorrect as they didn’t wear the vests and possibly didn’t make use of the pressure breathing provided by the mask. They still wore the anti g trousers and this is effectively similar g-protection as found on an F-16 or most other fighters for example. The seat inclination helps as well. If they used TVC to some extend they weren’t pulling to many gs anyway. I agree that it can make a difference, but not necessarily THE difference as you insist.
And no doubt the Typhoons would have had a very different experience had they not slicked off their jets as much as possible, which of course effectively turns them into point defense fighters as they need the drop tanks for anything else such as OCA or DCA. Without drop tanks they are essentially a 21st century English Electric Lightning.
We don’t know whether the F-22s were fully fueled, let alone armed either. Of course the performance of the Typhoon would suffer if you add missiles and tanks, but if a Typhoon would be forced into a knife fight with guns only against a demanding opponent you can be sure that the pilot would use up his missiles first and get rid of his tanks so that you end up with an aircraft which is rather light and sleak. F-22’s range performance and endurance isn’t overwhelming either on internal fuel only, its fuel fraction is about the same as that of a Typhoon with internal fuel and when Typhoons were easily able to loiter longer with the two tiny 1000 l tanks than the F-22s there can’t be such a big discrepancy in range performance and endurance on internal fuel. The possibility to jetisson tanks when it comes to the merge exists, but in exercises you aren’T going to drop tanks so it’s better to leave them home in the first place.
Scorpion82In the real world, Typhoon would die 30 miles before the merge.
Study of the results of ACEVAL/AIMVAL of the mid-1970s opened some eyes at the Pentagon. The key finding was everybody dies in a furball. The key to victory was to kill the Soviet fighters before the merge. So the Pentagon began an R&D spending spree.
Radar technology was improved to add electronic scanning, allowing vast volumes to be searched quickly. And non-cooperative identification allowed aircraft to be identified at beyond visual ranges. (APG-63v2, APG-77 and APG-79)
Electronic support measures were developed to identify Soviet emitters and pinpoint their locations passively. (ALR-94)
Purpose-built stealth jets were built to keep the Soviets from detecting our jets. (Have Blue and Tacit Blue resulting in F-117, B-2 and F-22)
Long range missiles carried internally with active terminal guidance allowed beyond visual range kills.(AIM-120)
Nobody wants to play with the F-22s if using the F-22’s BVR rules, so the peacetime training ROEs were changed to require the F-22s to engage in WVR. The idea is for F-22s to simulate late model Sukhois with thrust vectoring for the F-15s/16s and 18s to practice against.
If LM’s advertisements supported by the USAF can be trusted then yes. But in the real world the pk of BVR missiles hasn’t proven to be overwhelming, even against insophisticated foes. How well are such missiles working against a well trained and equipped foe?
Scorpion82Has no one thought to mention that the F-22 has maneuvering restrictions placed on it at the moment and also whilst it was flying in Alaska?
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2012/07/hostage-flies-raptor.html
As long as it isn’t known what maneuver restrictions they had this point is somewhat moot. IIRC it was stated that the amount of gs to be pulled at high altitudes was more restricted for that reason, but are these altitudes even relevant for the BFMs there?
Scorpion82That image in #6 looks pretty nice.
Scorpion82Indeed that’s DA5. The image must be older as the aircraft has been retired on 30th October 2007 after it completed the LEX trials. The aircraft has been sponsored to the Luftwaffe and is used as a ground load trainer with the TSLw 3 at Fassberg.
Scorpion82Huh, NATO aircraft are all required to have imperial indicators?
Imperial is the international standard for aviation, not only for NATO but ICAO as well. The French are no exception btw. What’s not necessarily imperial are weight, dimensions or thrust. Most countries with the metric system are still using kg/tonnes, m etc. for these, however when it comes to speed, altitude, range etc. NATO uses a unified standard of the imperial system (ft, kt, nm…). This is important for interoperability and communication.
Scorpion82The AS/UBS upgrade is so to speak a NATO/ICAO interoperability standard upgrade, similar to what others have done. It includes a coloured MFD replacing the old CRT and IIRC an up-front controller as an avionics interface. Systems are linked to each other via a MIL STD 1553B databus and the aircraft is fitted with LINS/GPS and NATO compatible radio navigation systems (ILS and probably TACAN), new radios and mode 4 IFF and the indications are now imperial and not metric anymore.
Scorpion82Why ? Rafale was not in service before 2002, after all.
– First delivery of M2/3 on 4th December 2000
– Creation of the Flottile 12F on 18th May 2001
– IOC October 2002
– FOC 25th June 2004
I would either expect first delivery or inauguration to be the base date, other articles/sources appear to regard the FOC date as the base.
Scorpion82The exact quote is
but did concede that the Rafale’s EW systems would be highly effective in a real conflict situation.
Doesn’t mean “gives it the advantage BVR”.
It’s worth noting that Grüne was one of three pilots commenting on the BFM with the F-22, not the only one.
Scorpion8210 years? Weird calculation.
Sign In
