The rationale behind the AMRAAM was not to mainly to increase pk, but to improve tha tactical usefullness. The active seeker was meant to make evasive maneuvers to avoid enemy fire possible. But in the conflicts that has ocurred so far the opposition has been so inferior that they havent been able to shoot back in BVR anyway.

Not exactly. The active seeker for the AMRAAM was PRIMARILY designed to give US fighters the ability to launch missiles against more than one aircraft at a time. Something that could not be done with the AIM-7 Sparrow.

The AMRAAM itself was chosen because the AIM-7 couldn’t be carried on the F-16’s wingtips. A far more capable missile would have been developed had the AIM-7 been fitted with the active seeker guidance package and data-link that AMRAAM eventually used, but the BVR capability of the F-16 wouldn’t have been improved and as AMRAAM was a wholly USAF program, in the beginning, that was a primary aim of the project.

I do however belive that BVR missiles, or rather the BVR wepons capability the the missiles is a part of, has improved since. Its though from a very low level and I see a great uncertainty against competetive opposition.

One should hope so. An AWFUL lot of money and research and development time has gone into the weapons themselves…

To put it in a simple way, if I were a fighter pilot I would want to carry modern BVR missiles into the fight. But I would also want backup from ground radar/AEW&C, a low RCS and a state of the art EW suite together with a good wingman.
I would also want to carry good WVR missiles coupled to an HMS/HMD, a gun and an aircraft with speed and maneuverability. If you look at modern airforces, how they train and equip themselves, it seems to me that they think in a resonably similar way. As they are the professionals I feel that I’m not too much off. Consider how the USAF fought for the F-22, even though its unrealistic that they will meet any numerically superior opposition of advanced fighters.

I doubt any would disagree with this.

Again, this obsession of Carlo Copp that makes you see things that arent. Nowhere did I refer to anything from APA and seriously are you playing stupid or do you think that pk of missiles is exlusive to them?

It’s not but you seem impressed by that sort of argument…

You have been forced to admit the limitation of field of view of fixed AESAs, but you are desperately trying to claim that it doesnt have any negative effects. Latest you tried to make us believe that optical sensor would make up for it. And the advantages that AESA do have does not help keeping a target in view of a fixed array during a turn.

I don’t think it does have a serious negative affect and nor does Raytheon, Northrop Grumman, Selex, NIIP, Elta or Dassault, as they are ALL building modern fixed AESA array radars for various fighter aircraft.

In fact the only major fighter manufacturer that is intending to build AESA designs with a moveable array is the Eurofighter consortium. What does your obviously preferred method of “non-empirical” evidence say about that?

It might be able to do that against inferior enemies, but not likely when facing modern competition.

That is what it is being designed for, but you’re probably right. L-M couldn’t possibly design a clearly superior fighter to the other manufacturers, could it?

It has a big engine and lots of fuel, because it has to as big as it is. What is relevant is the resulting performance and that is something different. A 9G airframe is nothing special, actually most of todays aircraft can momentarily take more and I assume JSF can too. Other aircraft can also have newest electronics when JSF will be inducted in numbers and may actually have more modern avionics due to shorter lead times.

Any fighter can have “anything” if you are willing to provide a stable and generous funding base for the capabilities you seem to think will magically appear.

Show me a fighter in the world that IS funded to include a 360 degree spherical IR defensive warning system.

Show me a fighter in the world that IS funded to receive a 2nd generation LPI capable AESA radar.

Show me a fighter in the world that IS funded to receive an LPI data-link capability.

There is only one. Any number of things “could” happen, but until they do it is nothing more than speculation. There IS only one fighter in the world that IS funded and IS being developed to provide these capabilities.

And there comes that again… I have never claimed any specific numbers for pk of AMRAAM, I just point out that no BVR missiles has been tested in real combat against a competetive enemy. But a quick Google came up with this link:
http://www.vmi.edu/uploadedFiles/Archives/Adams_Center/EssayContest/20042005/HigbyP_0405.pdf

There is much interesting to read in it for those who bothers.

Very much so. For starters not one of the tables included in that report have any consideration of ANY AMRAAM variant whatsoever. By all means, let’s use other missile data to assess AMRAAM performance and consider ourselves intellectually honest. Why stop there though? Perhaps we could use cannon data? WW2 machine gun data? Wouldn’t that be a fair comparison? Most modern weapon of the day and all that?

Of course YOU are also providing selective editing now. Prior to Desert Storm according to that author’s research there were only 4x confirmed BVR radar-guided missile kills.

During Desert Storm there were 16x confirmed BVR kills, four times as many as the entire previous history of air warfare and in his rather briefly discussed “post Desert Storm section he mentions quite a few AIM-120A AMRAAM kills without providing any context or analysis of the kills. Fact is, from Desert Storm onwards BVR kill percentages have been rising. What other factor has been introduced since Desert Storm? Oh, yeah, the use of the AMRAAM missile…

He also prefaces with this disclaimer, “since radar guided missiles were procured to score BVR kills, the overall success is the percentage of BVR kills based on total radar missile firings”.

Apparently therefore a BVR weapon that gets a kill under some “summarily decided” range limit (15k’s normally) is not counted .

Oh yeah, there’s some quality analysis there…

I have several times times made clear that my observations is about all BVR missiles. As you apparently can read I have to conclude that you are deliberately misrepresenting what I say to score cheap points in a dishonest way.

Again, so a BVR capable weapon that achieves a kill at less than BVR range, is not effective? Tell that to the family of the downed pilot…

Which makes it necessary to keep track of the target in the radar and with a fixed AESA making it necessary to continue against the enemy. And ECM also get an easier job at short ranges.

You DO understand the difference between ACTIVE radar guidance and semi-active radar guidance, don’t you?

Aircraft firing AMRAAM or indeed any other active radar guided missile do not need to “paint” the target with their FCR for the duration of the engagement.

I mentioned the large resources put into ELINT/SIGINT, new digital jammers, towed decoys etc. If that doesnt convince you, fine.

Your own resource shows BVR kill rates steadily rising…

Please give a source for that statement from LM

Seen the Norway briefing?

LOL, so if a JSF driver in a 2020 combat scenario meets an aircraft that has been upgraded to the same or even better standard than his own aircraft it doesnt matter because the comparison isnt “intellectually honest”?

Now you are simply acting the fool. Show me a Country or Countries that are spending the tens of billions the USA is to develop the F-35’s capabilities, on developing upgrades for their own fighters.

Do that and I’ll concede I don’t know what I am talking about…

Seriously, war is not like paralympics or a friendly game of golf with handicap. But its a great argument to not buy JSF when it first comes out. As the old say is, “never buy the A-model”.

Aha. No fighter aircraft would EVER be purchased if that rationale were to be followed.

Did you advocate nations not buy Tiffy T1, Rafale F1 or Gripen -A?

You are clearly no longer thinking straight. Every major platform in the world has a plan for the delivery of capability over time.

Typhoon has it.

Rafale has it.

Gripen has it.

F-22 has it.

JF-17 has it.

Apparently the same is not acceptable in the F-35 though.

Grow up!

You first brougt up Airpower Australia in post #123, doing the usual trick of attacking it instead of taking the debate on the forum. And I know who is behind it.

And you implied the use of Chris Mills’ ridiculous “Pk figures”, unless you are referring to some other analysis?

Your point being, then?

It does not make it able to take away the limitations of a fixed AESA that you tried to claim. Cant you just fess upp? Its like pulling a tooth.

I’m starting to wonder what you are even arguing? I’ve already agreed previously that a fixed array radar won’t have the FOV of an M-SCAN.

What’s your point? AESA has other advantages which MORE than make up for this one limitation.

What is humour is how you carefully edited your reply to not include the post that you reacted so strongly to. I will post it again for everyone to see if it really was such a “Flanker strong” post or that you were just overly touchy about your favourite aircraft.
Originally Posted by Sign
flankers come in heerds with shear firepower, speed, and endurance each, lightings dont..
F-35 as a system have some really good sides, but lacks in some other.
And and that is a hole other thread

If you think others need to keep reading the same posts. Once again, I’ve explained my post. You seem filled with the need to flog dead horses. You’re not an APA contributor, by chance are you?

If you have problems with the criticism of JSF, then adress that instead of making wild claims.

I didn’t make any “wild” claims. I said that the JSF should be able to kill Flankers without being detected. Given even F-15 aircraft have achieved kills without being detected, I don’t see this as so “wild”.

I would say that I think that JSF will have an overall edge against the Flanker, but that is a minimum requirement for an aircraft under initial development. I also think that other modern aircraft already flying have an edge too.

Very big of you. I’m sure L-M and the partner nations are so very relieved now…

Your enthusiasm is charming, but remember that JSF is not operational yet. at the time it gets inducted its planned capabilities might not be so revolutionary compared to the upgrades todays fighters will receive. LM’s performace claims is also quite vague.

Let’s see that list of features I discussed earlier, shall I?

Big motor? Check.

Low RCS, (compared to any current fighter bar F-22)? Check.

Newest sensor/avionics and EW kit? Check.

A 9G rated airframe (in the A model, which is what I am basing my arguments on)? Check.

Plenty of internal fuel? Check.

Yah, there is hardly any basis to assume the F-35 will be a capable multi-role fighter…

For a weapons system to be effective its not enough to score single kills aginst inferior enemies. It has to be robust and dependable, scoring hits again and again against a competetive enemy with modern weapons, sensors and countermeasures. And I am refering to BVR missiles as such, so saying that other missiles isnt better than AMRAAM is no argument.

So by this rationale, you believe there is NO “effective” fighter aircraft nor BVR weapon in the world?

Once again, what are you basing your opinion of the AMRAAM Pk on? APA’s figures, some other work? What?

It is a perfectly acceptable argument that AMRAAM has combat kills AND exercise and range data to support the claims of it’s capability. Other BVR weapons only have the exercise and range data. Again, it’s amusing that you don’t seem interested in holding MICA, R-77 or any other modern missile up to the same spotlight that AMRAAM has to undergo…

Basic fact is that AAM’s due to their small size which means a small disposable battery powered seeker that together with short endurance makes it less than perfect. Meteor will have increased endurance, but it will not make it perfect.

Which is why these small seekers aren’t activated UNTIL they get close to a target. At least on a weapon with a 2 way data-link, like modern AMRAAM variants…

My point was that you asked about how countermasures were updated and I answered. Now that can not be discussed because its classified (unlike any other military system?). That does not mean it does not exist, rather that its very important and big resources is used for it.

I did NOT ask HOW they were updated. I asked you to demonstrate WHICH of these systems has been upgraded as comprehensively as the AMRAAM missile system.

You replied with some generic fluff about daily software updates. Forgive me for remaining unconvinced…

I have seen no decision or funding for more than 4 internal missiles on JSF. Carrying more than 4 missiles is not the issue, designing an ejection system that works at all speeds with acceptable weight penalties and paying for it is.

L-M have stated it is a requirement for their Block IV aircraft.

Just such an ejector system has been designed for the F-22, but you are correct, funding as opposed to potential is the issue and getting the Block III level of capability developed, tested and delivered is a priority at the current time.

Again, it’s amusing to see the F-35 held in such a critical light for the so-called “limited” capability of the very FIRST operational aircraft that will be delivered.

Did you hold Tranche 1 tiffy’s, Rafale F1 or early Gripen’s or even F-22A for that matter, to the same critical viewpoint? I defy you to name an initial operational air combat aircraft, that will have an equivalent weapons and sensor capability to the F-35 Block III.

To do so, you need to include an AESA radar, an electro-optical surveillance and targetting system, helmet mounted sighting system, operational EW self-protection and ESM capabilities, WVR HOBS heaters and active radar guided BVR missiles and internal cannon capabilities, un-guided A2G munitions, LGB’s, JDAM, SDB and JSOW equivalents. ALL of which are operational in the first “operational” block of the fighter.

Then why compare Tiffy T2/3, Rafale F3 and Gripen C/D’s to the first generation of F-35’s that are delivered? It’s hardly intellectually honest.

A more reasonable comparision would be Block IV F-35’s to T2 Tiffy’s, F3 Rafales and C/D Gripens and Block V F-35’s to T3 Tiffies, F4 Rafales (if they even eventuate) and Gripen NG (again, if it eventuates).

Sucks to be you, eh ;). You could consider the possibility that that the problem is that they do not live up to the hype or that some people are just to touchy.

Not at all. As I mentioned, I find it highly amusing the spotlight the F-35 and F/A-18E/F are required to endure, but not their competitors…

But of course not, its all a conspiracy of the evil Dr Carlo Kopp…:rolleyes:

Kopp has an agenda alright, but he is not totally responsible for the ills of the commentary on the F-35.

Its quite clear that the AESA technology has many advantages against an MSA, but a fixed AESA also has limitations in field of view. If you are not able to understand how that limits the efficiency of the aircraft, especially how it makes it dependant on the missile seeker in A2A combat, it is you problem. IIRCC the F-22 does not have an inclined array, and there might be a reason for that.

You do not recall correctly. Both the APG-77 and APG-81 are canted for LO reasons.

As I said before, radar is but one sensor on the F-35 platform and indeed all modern 4th gen or beyond fighters. The F-35 unlike any other fighter, has a 360 degree optical sensor suite, to help…

It does make your idea of JSF being able to shoot down any number of enemy aircraft without being detected look as silly as it is.

There is all the world of difference between being detected and being tracked. I wasn’t serious earlier and was merely responding at a level that the original “flanker strong” poster seemed to post at. If you want a more involved discussion, I’m willing to oblige.

However the F-22 and any future VLO fighter aside, the F-35 stands a better chance of shooting down enemy aircraft without itself being detected than ANY other fighter in the world.

When has AMRAAM or any other similar BVR missiles been tested in real combat against an enemy with contemporary weapons, sensors and countemeasures?

Er, so the AMRAAM’s that HAVE been used in A2A combat never had to face ECM or defensive systems or manoeuvres, that were of a similar generation of the AMRAAM model of the day? Please.

AMRAAM’s were never fired in “any possible contingency” but were rather limited by RoE’s?

No, it hasnt, so we have to look at fundemantals instead. In the fight between an aircraft and a missile, consider these questions;
Which one has most room for sensors and countermeasures?
Which one has most power for these systems?
Which one is the most valuable asset and is worth the most resources?
Which one is easiest to upgrade without scrapping and buying new ones?

1. An aircraft obviously, but we are not discussing a fight simply between one aircraft and a missile. There are OTHER factors as well not the least of which is that AMRAAM-C onwards are equipped with 2 way data-links and will not be active at ALL until they are in their terminal phase. Your defensive aids would want to be mighty good at that point because they have seconds at that point to lure the missile away.

In addition to which, AMRAAM-C features strong ECCM capability AND a home on jam capability. It is not for nothing that THE most favoured guidance system for beyond visual range missiles in the current era is active RADAR guidance. IR and ARH guidance systems have distinct disadvantages of their own, no matter who wants to talk them up.

2. Aircraft obviously. However radiating strongly is a double edged sword. ESM is MUCH longer ranged than any FCR and all the brute “power” in the world isn’t much use in the face of capable ESM that will eat up your electrons all day long…

3. An aircraft is the most valuable asset. But this comes down to the old “armour v weapon” argument. The aircraft needs to be protected because it is so valuable, however it also needs to be destroyed BECAUSE it is so valuable…

4. Actually I’d give it to the missile this time. Name one defensive EW system on an aircraft that has been upgraded as extensively as the AMRAAM missile, considering it has had, as I said earlier, 14 product improvement phases. I asked you earlier and you haven’t answered, but I suppose there is no harm in asking again, is there?

Also in a real combat against a competetive enemy, will the pilot be able to wait for the perfect launch opportunity and risk being shot down himself or lose track? Or will he shoot even if the firing solution isnt perfect.

And here we have another problem for the APA fanboys of the world. The idea that TACTICS are actually employed by fighter pilots.

You and they seem to like to envisage the idea that both sides will line up at 1000k’s fly extended line fighter forces straight at each other and the one with the biggest radar and the mostest missiles will therefore win.

Fancy a fighter pilot firing a missile in a less than optimal situation deliberately, because he needed to disengage rather than fight, and then overlooking THAT fact and simply counting the firing as a miss.

Who would do such a thing, on top of adding the lowered Pk value of counting two direct missile hits on the same target as only one kill and therefore a 50% Pk value.

Wing Commander (Retd) Chris MILLS, released on APA’s website for one. If that is where you obtain your Pk data from, I pity you. You quite obviously don’t understand any better…

I cant recall that even Star49, that I think was banned some time ago, claimed the Flanker was unbeatable.

It is very amusing to see that the very high standard of criticism applied to F-35 and F/A-18E/F is not reciprocated on Euro or Sino-Russian 4th gen fighters however…

LOL. Have you considered what happens when you try to both keep the target in view of an AESA that is both fixed and inclined backwards and turn away? A clue, to turn the aircraft has to bank and therefore turns the antenna away from the target. The margin for a turn is quite limited and the aircaft will quickly get close to the target.

Indeed I have. Obviously a fixed array will not possess the FOV that a mechanically scanned radar could achieve. Conversely a current generation M-SCAN radar sized to fit within a typical fighter sized nose cone is unlikely to achieve the range and discrimination performance that a similar sized AESA array will achieve.

I do NOT think this limits the aircraft to the degree you obviously seem to though and the FCR is but one sensor system on the aircraft. Your 1 v 1 based scenario seems predicated upon the idea of F-35 aircraft “running out of missiles” and the extremely simplistic notion that external weapons carriage will entirely ruin the combat capability of the F-35 aircraft.

And you are of course free to only ignore the improvements in countermeasures against these missiles. But I would call it wishful thinking.

What is wishful thinking exactly? Arguing that missiles have not improved since 1990?

Or that countermeasure systems have benefited from the same degree of development? AMRAAM models have benefitted from no less than 14 publicly announced product improvement stages. Name a defensive system that has been so thoroughly and continuously upgraded throughout it’s lifespan?

What is wishful thinking IMHO, is taking data that has been disingenuously analysed (a most excellent example of this is the infamous APA calculation where 2x AMRAAM hits from 2x AMRAAM’s launched against the same target somehow equals a 50% success rate) in the first place and is relevant to a weapon system that was state of the art 20 years ago and implying that it is somehow relevant to today’s and even future models…

Of course there ARE other options than AMRAAM available for the F-35, just like any other fighter, should a customer require them…

It is interesting though that AMRAAM appears sufficient to the majority of F-35’s Western fighter competitors. Not all of whom are upgrading to a newer missile system…

And what would happen if both can make each others missiles ineffective, what is left then? Guns.

With tri-mode seeker missiles in the development path, I don’t see the F-35’s missiles being rendered “ineffective” any time soon.

Close and personal. Or at least guiding the missile with its own radar all the way to impact, and with a fixed AESA it means flying nearly straight against the enemy.

So fixed AESA’s have no off-boresite capability eh?

Northrop Grumman seems to think otherwise…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRkpFsXz9yk&feature=related

What range will the JSF radar have under heavy jamming and how large area will it be able to scan? And with a fixed AESA how will it be able to both stay out of the fight and still keep its radar pointed in the right direction.

Still think the radar can’t scan off the trajectory of the aircraft eh?

Oh well…

Exactly. That was the original point about the fantasy about shooting down the enemy aircraft without being detected. And it does not have to be 20 to 1, considering the number of missiles carried and real world PK numbers. The ratio can become much much lower with just a bit of bad luck. Who has then put their money to best use?

Real world Pk numbers, eh? Can you by any chance tell me what the real world Pk numbers of Russian, Chinese or even French BVR weapons are?

I know it’s popular to rag on the AMRAAM’s Pk, but do you ever ask yourself how those ideas were created? About which missile? Is there by chance a difference in capability between an AIM-120A and an AIM-120C7 for example? Does the “real world” firing data that exists for AIM-120A bear any relevance whatsoever to a missile that has been developed for nearly 20 years since that firing data was largely generated and has been upgraded more than 10 times in that process?

I’m sure it is relevant if YOU want it to be…

flankers come in heerds with shear firepower, speed, and endurance each, lightings dont..
F-35 as a system have some really good sides, but lacks in some other.
And and that is a hole other thread 🙂

Let’s look at this simplistically then.

Flankers come in hard, with sheer firepower, speed and endurance.

Lightning II’s, sneak around, don’t reveal their presence, make precise pinpoint attacks and then leave without flankers even knowing where the Lightning II’s are.

The first time the Flankers even become aware of the Lightning II’s presence is when their radar warning receivers start howling that radar terminal seekers have just gone active on them, meaning they have seconds to try and “do” something…