Russian Air-to-Air tactics - Radar first, then heat seeker

I Read about a Russian air-to-air tactic a long time ago which said that during air combat, an aircraft should fire a radar guided missile first, followed by a heat seeker.

How effective do you think this tactic is?

I believe the tactic is called ripple fire (maybe I played too many games). The point is that the first missile will cause the enemy aircraft to lose all of its energy dodging the first missile and the second will have an easy time with it. This is based on energy combat theories. The loss of energy from dodging leaves the aircraft with lower airspeed and maybe high AOA. It can't do much from that position so the second missile flies up the thing's keister. I've heard of the US doing something similar with 2 AMRAAMs but can't confirm anything as I'm not anywhere near the military.

Horrido!

Well, the sequence and choice of weapon "depends".

In the fairytail world with perfect identification of all the players it makes sense to fire the longest-range weapon first most of the time. Sparrow was not too good, as it left a huge smoke trail that pointed AT YOU! AMRAAM not so bad. Don't know albout the Alamo, but maybe a Russkie here could let us know.

oooops, family business..... to be continued

*************

back...

The early 'winders also left a visible smoke trail. The Lima and Papa and Navy versions after 1975 or so had very reduced exhaust. So firing them didn't "mark" you as much as earlier.

My buddies from the 'nam era used two tactics. 1) Shoot, shoot, look., or 2) shoot, look, shoot. If the geometry of the engagement dictated, then the second missile would usually be a 'winder for option "2". If GCI was really good, then the second misille would be another Sparrow, as the first shot would be out there at 10 miles or more.

When we got into Vipers, we could easily turn and run from a Sparrow that was fired at max range in a head-on scenario. The missile slows down after the motor quits, and the large smoke plume let us know the bandit had fired (RHAW gear let us know the bandit had us locked, but not that he had fired. new stuff prolly much better) .

The AIM-9L and Navy variants were really the best HO shot if the gomer didn't know you had him locked up. The sucker would guide immediately, and you knew you had a "solution" by using the audio and the HUD stuff. Then you went into a classic knife-fight, which the Viper had an immense advantage in those days.

My personal preference would be hose a Slammer at the bandit at max range, then maneuver for a follow-up shot using another Slammer or a 'winder/Aphid, etc.

The funny thing is that with all the rules and such, is that the gun is more than "fun". You're so damned close that there's no problem with ROE or ID.

Bottomline: The Russkies didn't have a "lock" on missile tactics. In fact, until the 80's, the PVO Strany used basic stern attacks with an immense amount of control by GCI. Even then, they continued to employ "close control" GCI a lot more than the NATO folks, IAF or the Pakistani troops.

That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.

Gums sends......

Don't know albout the Alamo, but maybe a Russkie here could let us know.

Well if you ask a Russian, he will tell you Alamo is great- You'll never hear a Russian say that Russian weapons are bad/inferior to Western ones. But combat record proves that the Alamo is not very impressive (Same thing combat record proved about many other Russian weapons). during the Ethiopean-Eretian conflict 24 Alamos were fired- only 1 hit. Don't know if it leaves a big smoke trial though.

shocktroop wrote:

Don't know albout the Alamo, but maybe a Russkie here could let us know.

Well if you ask a Russian, he will tell you Alamo is great- You'll never hear a Russian say that Russian weapons are bad/inferior to Western ones. But combat record proves that the Alamo is not very impressive (Same thing combat record proved about many other Russian weapons). during the Ethiopean-Eretian conflict 24 Alamos were fired- only 1 hit. Don't know if it leaves a big smoke trial though.

Probably so

Most Russian weapons are reverse engineered anyways.

shocktroop wrote:

Most Russian weapons are reverse engineered anyways.

BS. Please keep your preconceptions to yourself if you don't have anything to say, ok?
Just to clear things up, I'm not Russian and I'n not particularly fond of their technology, but I know a few things about it.
See the attached image of Soviet/Russian AAMs - only the AA-2 Atoll (R-3) was a copy of the AIM-9B and R-13 was a copy of AIM-9G. The rest are original Soviet designs.

Now back yes, ripple fire was part of the Soviet PVO doctrine for a few reasons:
1 higher PK
2 early Soviet semi-active radar AAMs' proximity fuses would usually go off before the impact fuse - result only a wounded plane - especially if it was a big US bomber
3 an issue with asymmetrical loads on some Soviet made planes - hence the symmetrical ripple fire

How effective was it? - well it worked in the case of KAL 007

So the only proof of concept was the downing of the largest, fattest, and most helpless target they could find? A 747?

BS. Please keep your preconceptions to yourself if you don't have anything to say, ok?
Just to clear things up, I'm not Russian and I'n not particularly fond of their technology, but I know a few things about it.
See the attached image of Soviet/Russian AAMs - only the AA-2 Atoll (R-3) was a copy of the AIM-9B and R-13 was a copy of AIM-9G. The rest are original Soviet designs.

Misunderstanding here, what I ment to say was that alot of Russian weapons that were reverse enigneered turned out to be not very impressive and much inferior to the western designs that they were reverse engineered from (I wasn't just talking about AAMs).
When I said most, I ment to say alot or many (didn't really mean most) so sorry for that.

My point is, if you take some missiles that are mentioned in the attached image, and fire them at some targets, I don't think you'll be very impressed with the results. I'm sure the missiles will score well against a 747 or even a B-52, but I don't think their preformance will be very impressive against smaller and more manuverable targets.

My point is, if you take some missiles that are mentioned in the attached image, and fire them at some targets, I don't think you'll be very impressed with the results. I'm sure the missiles will score well against a 747 or even a B-52, but I don't think their preformance will be very impressive against smaller and more manuverable targets.

True, only the R-60 and R-73 would score relativly good against a manouverable target.
But the tactic you asked about at the start of the thread would have been used mainly against large bombers and recon planes - against them it could have been succesfull - if we don't take EW, ECM into consideration - this wasn't so much of an issue in the early 60's when this tactic was developed.

When it came to tactics, the Soviet concept was to try and get an unseen shooter into the conflict. They preferred the furball because they knew as was shown by the AIMVAL/ACEVAL Test, reguardless of the quality difference between one side versus the other.
In these test the F-15A beat the F-5 64-0 in 1V1. As the number of aircraft increased the kill ratio came down so by the time you get thirty-two or more aircraft on each side the F-15A had a kill ratio over the F-5 of only 2:1!! The unseen shooters were making the kills.

If you study the incident between the Libyan MiG.-23 and the USN F-14A's in January 1989, it is a very good example of Soviet tactics versus NATO style tactics of the late Cold War period.
The F-14's approached the fight in a line-abreast formation. The Libyan used the Soviet "trail" formation, in which one aircraft follows another at a different altitude. The idea was that the Western radars would detect the first aircraft but, not the second aircraft trailing.
The F-14 pilots knew the MiG.-23's could not look down into "sea clutter" well. That is why as the F-14's approached the MiG's they continued to lose altitude. By the time the two groups were twenty-seven miles apart, the F-14's were at 5,000ft and descending, the lead MiG at 9,000ft and, the trailing MiG. at 13,000ft a few miles behind his leader. The F-14's had been locked-up five times but, once at 5,000ft or lower the F-14's were not locked-up by the MiG's again.
After the FSU developed the MiG.-29 and Su-27, the desired tactic was to use MiG.-21's or 23's to engage the US aircraft. Get the Western aircraft into a furball reducing their energy then, have the MiG.-29's and/or Su-27's enter the fight at a higher energy state and prevail. To lose a MiG.-21, MiG.-23 (or two/three) for the loss of an F-14 or F-15 while greatly reducing the losses of the MiG.-29's and Su-27's is a good exchange. This would prevent the West from getting an aerial war from gaining anything better than air parity.

01/89 -LARAF MiG.-23's Vs F-14A's audio
http://www.ka8vit.com/sd/shootdown.htm

Mike's Dogfight Recording & Transcript Page
Main Page -There are five other dogfights described on this page.
http://www.flight-level.com/dogfight/index.html
F-14A Vs MiG.-23
http://www.flight-level.com/dogfight/dogfight.html

shocktroop wrote:I'm sure the missiles will score well against a 747 or even a B-52

Actually, the missiles fired against the KAL-007 B-747 both missed but, close enough damage the flight controls that it took over eight minutes to drop from thirty-seven thousand feet down to approximately eight thousand feet when it erupted into a massive ball of flames.
(This was the second airliner KAL lost to PVO interceptors!)

Adrian

Ripple fire was standard Soviet tactics for PVO fighters for 30 years. Air defence interceptors were allways armed with both SARH and IR homing versions of same medium range missile.

And they were launched in the same time, no intervals. Idea was, that hostile aircraft starts jamming and expects incoming SARH (and evades it) - IR missile will finish the job.

Standard medium range armament for MiG-23 Flogger was one SARH R-23R and one IR R-23T.

For MiG-25 - two SARH R-40R(D), two R-40T(D).

Missiles can be easoly indentified by their different nose cone.

Soviet avionics were designed to launch 2 missiles when pilot press the trigger.

Only newer types like Fulcrum have selecton switch "Launch/0,5 Launch" - and they do not carry 50/50 IR/SARH missiles. Fulcrum normally carries R-27R SARH missiles (2 on inboard pylons).

Soviets even had SARH modification of R-13/R-3 Atoll missile (it is designed R-3R).

Other task for those large IR missiles was to destroy incoming Western bombers that are non-maneuverable and jam the SARH missiles. They have usually very large IR signature and can be detected either visually or whith IR tracker.

R-27, R-40 and other russian medium range missiles were never designed to fight against fighter aircraft - even the R-27 can hit 7 G targets, so that is good against bombers and they would not hit anything more elusive than F-111.

I cant understand why russian propaganda claims R-27 as good missile against fighters. Thats pure bravo-sierra.

Other reason for ripple fire is that those missiles are normally on underwing pylons, heavy and cause great drag. So firing only one creats big drag/weight assymetry that makes the aircraft hard to maneuver.

I dont know about R-77 Adder, but R-27 is pretty inferior even to latest Sparrow and has pretty low kill probability. That also explains its poor combat record - they were designed for anti-bomber role and not for fighter combat. The rest is russian propaganda Bravo-Sierra.

I dont know about R-77 Adder, but R-27 is pretty inferior even to latest Sparrow and has pretty low kill probability. That also explains its poor combat record - they were designed for anti-bomber role and not for fighter combat. The rest is russian propaganda Bravo-Sierra.

Well in that case the Russians have a serious problem with their air-to-air missiles. According to what you wrote, it seems that the only Russian medium to long range air-to-air missile that was built for combat against other fighers is the R-77 and the R-77 has some very serious problems (which I mentioned in some of my other post) and test results worn't very promising aswell, so unless the Russians put the R-77M in mass production and fully operational service- they are going to have a serious problem and I can't guarantee that the R-77M will be much better either.

Currently, the reference to that phrase refers to something that appeared in the May 24, 2002 issue of AW&ST. The article was about statements made by industry officials and USAF officers in and about Congressional hearings on funding on USAF programs. Here 'in part' is the article;

The Russian-built Sukhoi Su-30MK, the high-performance fighter being exported to India and China, consistently beat the F-15C in classified simulations, say U.S. Air Force and aerospace industry officials.

In certain circumstances, the Su-30 can use its maneuverability, enhanced by thrust-vectoring nozzles, and speed to fool the F-15's radar, fire two missiles and escape before the U.S. fighter can adequately respond. This is according to Air Force officials who have seen the results of extensive studies of multi-aircraft engagements conducted in a complex of 360-deg. simulation domes at Boeing's St. Louis facilities.

"The Su-30 tactic and the success of its escape maneuver permit the second, close-in shot, in case the BVR [beyond-visual-range] shot missed," an Air Force official said. Air Force analysts believe U.S. electronic warfare techniques are adequate to spoof the missile's radar. "That [second shot] is what causes concern to the F-15 community," he said. "Now, the Su-30 pilot is assured two shots plus an effective escape, which greatly increases the total engagement [kill percentage]."

THE SCENARIO in which the Su-30 "always" beats the F-15 involves the Sukhoi taking a shot with a BVR missile (like the AA-12 Adder) and then "turning into the clutter notch of the F-15's radar," the Air Force official said. Getting into the clutter notch where the Doppler radar is ineffective involves making a descending, right-angle turn to drop below the approaching F-15 while reducing the Su-30's relative forward speed close to zero. This is a 20-year-old air combat tactic, but the Russian fighter's maneuverability, ability to dump speed quickly and then rapidly regain acceleration allow it to execute the tactic with great effectiveness, observers said.

If the maneuver is flown correctly, the Su-30 is invisible to the F-15's Doppler radar--until the U.S. fighter gets to within range of the AA-11 Archer infrared missile.

Towards the end, an 'industry observer' was quoted as saying, this is a 20-year-old air combat tactic. I chuckled.... for this maneuver was described in Steven Coontz book "Flight of The Intruder." The book was published in 1986 and was about an A-6 pilot in Viet Nam, who used the "beam maneuver" to elude a MiG.-21 on a night mission.

Adrian

Beaming a dopppler radar to hit his notch has been around as long as doppler radars have been.