BVR Combat

Discuss air warfare, doctrine, air forces, historic campaigns, etc.

How likely are we to see BVR missiles used at true BVR range?

100% - We wouldn't have them otherwise.
18
40%
50% - We might, but we'll probably need a visual ID before we fire on a target.
25
56%
0% - The enemy will be too afraid of us and will stay on the ground.
2
4%
 
Total votes : 45

  • Author
  • Message
Offline

VPRGUY

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 853
  • Joined: 24 Apr 2005, 18:03

Unread post15 Jun 2005, 21:17

LWF wrote:IFF is an unreliable system. Even though it's never been jammed, it sends out false signals, doesn't send the right ones, and an enemy could spoof it, making you think your enemy is your friend, or jam it making you think your friend is an enemy, and when you figure this out, you can't use BVR missiles anymore. And IFF can tell someone exactly where you are. Pilots don't even like using IFF because they know it's unreliable. The longest range that aerial combat can be conducted at is around optimal sidewinder range.


If IFF is unreliable, how do we explain away the THOUSANDS of sorties that go off without a hitch? People seem to latch onto one or two (or in this case a half dozen) situations and think they are proof positive something doesn't work, while not realizing (like I said above) the several hundred (or thousand) times that it did work. Some of the incidents we're discussing in this thread go all the way back to 1991- fourteen years ago. How many combat sorties around the world have we (and our allies using almost the exact same equipment) made in those 14 years, and we're saying because of two blackhawks, a couple patriots, and one or two other incidents the systems are crap? Don't think so. It is terrible that we've lost troops to our own guys, and I for one don't ever want to see it happen. The only way for that to be the case is to ship them all home and put them to work at walmart, because mistakes will happen in war.

As for BVR, why do you say we won't engage past sidewinder range? What happens when we go to war against a nation with a decent air force; our F/A-22's/F-15/F-16/F-35's/F/A-18's go in, knowing full well (at least in the beginning) anyone on the radar screen is going to be a bad guy, and starts tagging them 30-100 miles out (up to the max weapons range, whatever it is). Right off the bat, BVR missles have put a dent in the bad guys air force (anyone who thinks they'll all be buried next time is a fool in my opinion). Then, as the war rolls on, whatever wasn't killed in the first waves and ground strikes may try to fight. In that case, an F/A-22 that detects an aircraft taking off from a bad guys airbase 50 miles out can probably safely assume it isn't an F-16 taking off, and can pop them.
Remember that a lone amateur built the Ark. A large group of professionals built the Titanic.
Offline

danhutmacher

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 130
  • Joined: 01 Jan 2005, 13:46

Unread post18 Jun 2005, 12:43

In gulf war two the patriots locked up a tornado,f-16,and an f18 thinking they were tactical ballistic missile. the f-18 and the tornado where acutally shot down by the patriot.

The patriot also routinely picked up FALSE missile tracks. During allied force one of the biggest complaints was that the AWACs operators were not trained to us standards and made mistakes. It's because of similar incidents at the begining of Vietnam that led to the Roe concerning sparrows.

The history of IFF continuously shows that the sytems are not fullproof and that they can be defeated. Things like NTCR can help by they are not full proof either.

In the end I think that BVR shots will be taken but that they won't hit anything more than about 10-20% of the time.
Offline

avon1944

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 404
  • Joined: 24 Nov 2004, 02:03

Unread post10 Apr 2006, 04:31

cru wrote:John Boyd was an instructor ther at the end of the Korean War (1953), so at leat by '53 the FWS at Nellis already existed

Yes, the USAF did have a fighter weapons school but, it did not teach dogfighting. It taught basically how to kill bombers or fighters at long range not fighters in a furball. The theory was missiles like the Sparrow would make dogfighting a part of history.

Teaching ACM as we know it, did not start until the Navy started Top Gun.

Adrian
Offline

zero-one

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1362
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post11 Feb 2014, 21:09

Its been years since someone last posted here:

Just finished watching this documentary from Northrop



Near the end, the guy says something like
ROEs will at times restrict us from avheiving BVR kills which is why ACM is just as important now as it was in the 70s

Curious, with all the sensors Northrop is making like the APG-77/81, AN/AAQ-37, you would think that Northrop would say that ROEs would not be as restrictive as they were.

Are there still situations today where a VID is needed in order for permissions to be granted.

I for one have always believed that future air combat would be a combination of BVR and WVR engagements, as for the WVR part, I never thought VID would be the reason,

I always thought that increasing the Pk would be the primary reason for closing in to the enemy.

ACEVAL AIMVAL was particularly driven by the fear of all asspect IR missiles, but with advancements in IR reduction and IR countermeasures, is the threat from all asspect missiles the same as it was 30 years ago?
Offline

basher54321

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1346
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2014, 15:43

Unread post12 Feb 2014, 01:31

zero-one wrote:ACEVAL AIMVAL was particularly driven by the fear of all asspect IR missiles, but with advancements in IR reduction and IR countermeasures, is the threat from all asspect missiles the same as it was 30 years ago?



Who knows really - IR missiles have advanced as well - AIM-9X/AIM-132 etc all use Imaging IR Seekers for one thing.
Offline
User avatar

smsgtmac

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 830
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2013, 04:22
  • Location: Texas

Unread post12 Feb 2014, 04:10

zero-one wrote:Its been years since someone last posted here:

Just finished watching this documentary from Northrop



Near the end, the guy says something like
ROEs will at times restrict us from avheiving BVR kills which is why ACM is just as important now as it was in the 70s

Curious, with all the sensors Northrop is making like the APG-77/81, AN/AAQ-37, you would think that Northrop would say that ROEs would not be as restrictive as they were.

Are there still situations today where a VID is needed in order for permissions to be granted.

I for one have always believed that future air combat would be a combination of BVR and WVR engagements, as for the WVR part, I never thought VID would be the reason,

I always thought that increasing the Pk would be the primary reason for closing in to the enemy.

ACEVAL AIMVAL was particularly driven by the fear of all asspect IR missiles, but with advancements in IR reduction and IR countermeasures, is the threat from all asspect missiles the same as it was 30 years ago?


This topic is part and parcel with a Q&A series I just started over at my place, so this is stealing my own thunder a little bit talking about it here.
That video, content, applicability, etc, is F-14/Navy-centric, part of an F-14 Navy-Centric series, so it's missing a lot of other (USAF) perspective. When the guy laments that there were people who knew were the MiGs were but didn't pass the information, he was talking about the fact that the EC-121s (EB-66s too? I don't know) had systems on board that could detect and query the MiGs 'secure' IFF system. One of the reasons knowledge of this capability wasn't spread far and wide was the same problem the Allies faced when using their Enigma knowledge in WW2. It was felt that the utility would disappear if the North Vietnamese/Russians ever got wind of it. When eventually the system was made small enough to put in a pod, the Combat Tree system was deployed on AF aircraft. But the Navy never did use it as far as I know. When the AF's F-4s radars were suddenly and strikingly more effective, acquiring radar targets at twice the previous average range, the enemy caught on and changed tactics, only turning on their systems at the beginning of the attack, which in turn made the Combat Tree system less of a game changer, but still a big assist for the F-4 crews.
The idea that a visual ID (VID) was required was a short-hand way of thinking about it and as such is not exactly accurate. A positive ID (PID) was required. The problem was that through most of the war (all of it for the USN I believe-- I might be wrong) the only way to get a PID was to get a VID. The AF was allowed to use the Combat Tree systems to begin their attack BVR under certain conditions, like no friendlies within x miles of target.

AIMVAL/ACEVAL Pronounced AIM-VAL ACE-VAL (We never called it AIM-e-Val/ACE-e-Val on the AF side, at least that I ever heard during the project. :lol: ) was initially focused on short-range missile requirements. What they found out was that the new AIM-9L (Navy's was a little bit older with a larger launcher 'IR coolant source, probably a left over from their AIM-9D experience) was almost as good as the planned-on-paper ASRAAM, and that the need was greater for an AMRAAM-like missile with BVR capability. For a gratuitous AIM-9L missile crewchief 'there I was' story (far more boring than hand flying like the fighter pilots, but what the heck ) here's a couple of still shots taken during the filming a then-classified movie for a Pentagon dog-and-pony show on the AIM-9L FOT&E circa late 1977(?).
AIM9LFOTandE1.jpg
Circa 1977-8
AIM9LFOTandE2.jpg

The all-aspect missile is still the game changer it was, made no less effective due to countermeasures, even with a back and forth cycle of advancement between missiles and countermeasures. I'd call the advantage in 'adaptation' as clearly going to the weapons because the initiative always belongs to the weapons the countermeasures seek to defeat. This is especially true for the expendable CMs, as they must be more economical for the right cost-benefit balance, and are far more constrained as to the amount of real estate they are allowed to take up.
--The ultimate weapon is the mind of man.
Offline

zero-one

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1362
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post12 Feb 2014, 16:22

Thank you smsgtmac

So in the future I'm guessing that EOTS will do much of the VIDing if a PID is needed, plus I believe fussion from multiple sensors can make a fairly good PID for aircraft without EOTS like the Raptor, am I right

In light of this, I expect ROEs in the future to be more relaxed and less requirements for VID needed.

I won't go as far as saying VID will no longer be required ever, though that is a possibility.

I think pilots may still find themselvs in a phonebooth due to other reasons which means DACT and ACM excercises are still critical.

By the way, what happens if we start flying with an allied nation flying Russian aircraft? For Example, in hypothetical scenario against China, what if Vietnam offers help and starts flying Sukhois to support Allied forces, this should be interesting. :mrgreen:
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4001
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post13 Feb 2014, 06:12

Let's not forget even at shorter ranges Stealth Fighters like the F-22 and F-35 will still have the advantage. As they will see there opponent first and will be able to put themselves in the best position to attack first!


Remember comments from F-15C Pilots fighting F-22A's.


We never even saw them (F-22's) until the flew over our heads! :shock:


FIRST LOOK, FIRST SHOT, FIRST KILL! :twisted:
Offline

zero-one

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1362
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post13 Feb 2014, 13:39

Corsair1963 wrote:Let's not forget even at shorter ranges Stealth Fighters like the F-22 and F-35 will still have the advantage. As they will see there opponent first and will be able to put themselves in the best position to attack first!


Remember comments from F-15C Pilots fighting F-22A's.


We never even saw them (F-22's) until the flew over our heads! :shock:


FIRST LOOK, FIRST SHOT, FIRST KILL! :twisted:


Not only that, but their reduced Radar & IR signatures mean that their conuntermeasures will be that more effective against enemy sensors and missiles.

looking at the Aim-9X test video, the F-4 phantom looks like a pretty big flare at the begining of the test, which is probably why the actual flares seemed less attractive to the advanced sidewinder.

Against modern aircraft like the F-35/22, I expect them to be much less effective.
Offline

strykerxo

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 401
  • Joined: 21 Mar 2008, 04:40

Unread post13 Feb 2014, 18:10

zero-one wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:Let's not forget even at shorter ranges Stealth Fighters like the F-22 and F-35 will still have the advantage. As they will see there opponent first and will be able to put themselves in the best position to attack first!


Remember comments from F-15C Pilots fighting F-22A's.


We never even saw them (F-22's) until the flew over our heads! :shock:


FIRST LOOK, FIRST SHOT, FIRST KILL! :twisted:


Not only that, but their reduced Radar & IR signatures mean that their conuntermeasures will be that more effective against enemy sensors and missiles.

looking at the Aim-9X test video, the F-4 phantom looks like a pretty big flare at the begining of the test, which is probably why the actual flares seemed less attractive to the advanced sidewinder.

Against modern aircraft like the F-35/22, I expect them to be much less effective.


A pilot once said that WVR he could not get a lock on an F-22,
You can't shot what you can't see - Unknown
Previous

Return to Air Power

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests