Forcing the Merge

Agreed, it will never be a fair fight but how would the F-16 match up against the ... ?
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

gc

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 164
  • Joined: 20 May 2015, 02:12

Unread post26 Jul 2017, 01:35

Forcing a merge is certainly possible in the days before the introduction of 5th gen fighters. I am sure one of the primary mission for F-22/F-35 during counter-air missions is to eliminate the possibility of a merge but staying away and above the messy fight and keeping a god's eye view of the evolving air situation, using multiple advanced sensors to perform long range target ID even in degraded conditions, ensuring all bogeys are targeted and if need be step in to kill leakers before they can merge with friendly fighters. 4th gen US fighters are also now equipped with AESA radars that can keep higher fidelity track of far larger numbers of targets from much greater ranges employing ECM or reduced RCS. And most importantly, a huge emphasis is now place on training fighters to deal with overwhelming enemy numbers in air to air combat, with aggressor units trying their best in employing creative tactics to slip thought the BVR net.
Offline

klearhos

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 16
  • Joined: 18 Jul 2017, 11:21

Unread post26 Jul 2017, 15:16

@ gc

Yep, that's what the industrial complex will have you believe.

Recall that the AIM-9M's strong point was supposed to have been its resistance to IRCM and the AIM-9X was being advertised as a wpn invulnerable (as opposed to resistant) to IRCM. In practice pilots found they had to use radar missiles in lieu of AIM9X/Ms because the AIM9X/Ms were being decoyed away.

When combat is joined the first casualty is the advertising campaign.
Offline
User avatar

botsing

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 826
  • Joined: 05 Dec 2015, 18:09
  • Location: The Netherlands

Unread post26 Jul 2017, 19:10

klearhos wrote:When combat is joined the first casualty is the advertising campaign.

That reminds me a lot about Russian advertising...

klearhos wrote:In practice pilots found they had to use radar missiles in lieu of AIM9X/Ms because the AIM9X/Ms were being decoyed away.

Do you have any source for this claim, especially about the AIM-9X?
"Those who know don’t talk. Those who talk don’t know"
Offline

klearhos

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 16
  • Joined: 18 Jul 2017, 11:21

Unread post26 Jul 2017, 21:01

It is generally accepted that WVR commences when the range has closed down to within 10 miles.

Now, if a 4th or 5th gen a/c can fire an AMRAAM or a P77 at, say, 30nm on a target approaching head on at 30,000'' then if the target simply reverses to present a tail-on aspect, firing range is now down to well below 10 nm. Similarly if the same aircraft engages a high aspect (head on) target at low alt (say 3-5000''), then again the AMRAAM or P77 cannot be fired at more than 10 nm. You see where this is getting, don't you?

The target has a say on engagement range. The target can decrease your firing range by changing aspect, speed and height. Plus the target can degrade your sensors by aspect and power management. And, yes, he can force you into WVR before you can get a shot off.

It is the tactics you'll come up with, not your technological advantage, that will decide the outcome.

Since 1991, a lot has changed BUT THINGS HAVE REMAINED THE SAME. We had -9Ms back then we have -9Xs now, with a technologically advanced seeker and superb maneuverability. The -9M was being decoyed away in 1991, the -9X was decoyed away the other day. SO, though weapons have been improved, THE TACTICAL SITUATION IS THE SAME.
Last edited by klearhos on 26 Jul 2017, 22:18, edited 2 times in total.
Offline
User avatar

botsing

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 826
  • Joined: 05 Dec 2015, 18:09
  • Location: The Netherlands

Unread post26 Jul 2017, 21:36

Soooo... will you care to answer this one or will you just be another one way street visiting this forum?

botsing wrote:
klearhos wrote:In practice pilots found they had to use radar missiles in lieu of AIM9X/Ms because the AIM9X/Ms were being decoyed away.

Do you have any source for this claim, especially about the AIM-9X?
"Those who know don’t talk. Those who talk don’t know"
Offline

gc

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 164
  • Joined: 20 May 2015, 02:12

Unread post27 Jul 2017, 00:58

If anything the recent F/A-18E vs Su-22 engagement showed us that redundancies exists and air to air combat training is of extreme importance. There can be so many reasons why the AIM-9 shot failed but another option was available and the pilot was able to execute that option.
Offline

basher54321

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1765
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2014, 15:43

Unread post27 Jul 2017, 12:49

klearhos wrote:It is generally accepted..........


Can you provide a link to where Ratheon advertise AIM-9X being immune to all IRCM?

It's one thing to dismiss advertising - entirely another to then blindly form your opinions on poor sources of information.

The reason you were asked for a source was because:

1. Every source presented thus far has been of no credible substance and does not back up your assumption.
2. There is a lot more to it than you demonstrably realize.

One tip for you - unless this is a language barrier issue - putting your thoughts on here in capital letters does not make them any less mis-informed I'm afraid. You took an example from 1991 - maybe that is a good starting point for you.
Offline
User avatar

botsing

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 826
  • Joined: 05 Dec 2015, 18:09
  • Location: The Netherlands

Unread post27 Jul 2017, 15:14

gc wrote:If anything the recent F/A-18E vs Su-22 engagement showed us that redundancies exists and air to air combat training is of extreme importance. There can be so many reasons why the AIM-9 shot failed but another option was available and the pilot was able to execute that option.

As far as I know we do not even know if an AIM-9 was used in that engagement (all reports about an AIM-9 being used in that engagement seem to point back to one single source that was repeated forever). Hence the reason I am asking klearhos for sources.

klearhos wrote:@ botsing

As a dutch person that's what you should be studying, esp in the middle of July.

<span class="skimlinks-unlinked">http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/documents/UNIBAM.Vol.I.pdf</span>

When you finish this there is a volume 2.

Right... Thank you for obfuscating this discussion with clueless remarks, I guess...
"Those who know don’t talk. Those who talk don’t know"
Offline

klearhos

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 16
  • Joined: 18 Jul 2017, 11:21

Unread post27 Jul 2017, 21:33

Angels225 wrote: but what of say a fighter like the F-16 going against a Flanker-S. However, considering that they are both close by will the massive radar on the sukhoi really give it any advantage if the viper has AEW support(just as the flanker might)?


You are raising an important subject with far reaching implications. In short, if there is a secure (jam proof) link to an AEW, that is sufficient for our F-16 to NULIFY ANY RADAR OR MISSILE RANGE ADVANTAGE THE ENEMY MAY HAVE.

We can identify two adverse scenarios
1)the enemy has a radar range advantage, but a similar missile range. What does he earn from this? If he can see us before we do, then he can reform his flight in such a way that will put him in an advantageous position by the time we start picking him up, eg start a PINCER or CHAMPAGNE. Clearly the link will extend our situational awareness (SA) so that we will be able to react to the enemy moves.
2)the enemy has a missile range advantage as well. As I described in other posts, we can maneuver the F-16 to decrease his missile range to manageable proportions. However, these maneuvers will normally place the enemy a/c beyond our radar gimbals, ie we lose SA. If the AEW is kind enough as to share its picture with us, we will be able to keep track of the enemy while we maneuver, observe his reactions, carefully timing our counter attack (pitch-back). Therefore the link greatly assists us to defeat an enemy with superior missile armament.

Of course some fighters have been fitted with PESA/AESA radar, which is far superior to legacy sets. They are far from invincible though. For example they still use the same techniques (doppler filtering) to detect targets in clutter. So, if you know how to get into the clutter and how to defeat doppler then you can avoid those fighters' intial attack, while outflanking them on both sides to cath them in a PINCE; and kill them.

Others, esp the Russians point to their IRST sensors. Keyboard warriors have attributed IRST with mythical powers. Bear in mind that 52% of this planet is covered in cloud at any one moment. CLOUD RENDERS IRST IRRELEVANT. Russia is covered by a cloudy sky more often than not, but then again, it's their money, they can spend it wherever they want.

Further IRST cannot track subsonic, non-afterburning, high aspect targets at any meaningful range (not beyond WVR), while, at long range vs low aspect targets, it can be easily confused by certain IRCM.

All this combines to suggest that the other side have yet to produce an effective answer to the F-16, despite all their claims. The F-16's attack is not so much different than the head on attack profile described by Boyd himself in “Aerial Attack”. It is only changed somewhat to account for tech evolution.
Offline

gc

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 164
  • Joined: 20 May 2015, 02:12

Unread post28 Jul 2017, 03:41

Assuming both the Flanker-S and Viper are radio-silent and are relying on datalink and off-board sensor support till just prior to missile launch, I would believe the viper will hold an advantage as it has a much smaller RCS. With the Have Glass 5 upgrade being introduced, the Viper will be detected at much reduced distances by AEWs compared to the huge Flanker-S signature. This will enable to viper to manoeuvre to a better position and make the first shot.

An Eagle driver described the range at which the APG-63(v)3 and AIM-120D combination can engage a target as 'eye-watering'. I believe the F-16's SABR and AIM-120D combination will allow the same.
Offline

klearhos

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 16
  • Joined: 18 Jul 2017, 11:21

Unread post28 Jul 2017, 12:26

@qc

Well, not all users can afford the SABR and not all will be cleared to receive the -120D.

"Taking the first shot" doesn't mean anything, especially if the enemy simply sidesteps around your missile. You need to elaborate and specify the point in the envelope where shot will be taken.
Previous

Return to F-16 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests