Forum: General F-16 forum

http://www.vmi.edu/uploadedfiles/archiv ... p_0405.pdf

Can someone with experience tell me if these numbers the author citing are correct? If so then what does that mean for BVR combat? I had no idea the missiles were so ineffective!

(Tell me if the link doesn't work).

F-16.net Sponsor

So much has changed since Vietnam and even Desert Storm which itself was over 20 years ago.

The problem has been two-fold, finding & IDing the target and getting a weapon to hit.

Now, every fighter being designed has Situational Awareness in mind. The networking that is being built into fighters like the F-22 and F-35 will allow the free exchange of info without the fear of giving one's position away. Even older ones like the F-16/18 and foreign designs like Rafale & Eurofighter will at least be able to receive data freely and merge it into their combat systems.

Additionally, hardware on the plane is getting better at finding the target. Not only are the newest generation of AESA radars leaps and bounds ahead of the old MSA,s, but due to inherent LPI pilots are comfortable in using them more often. Throw in a wider use of IRST and a positive ID is easier to make. Beyond that, electronic analyses is going to play a big part of future ID. Recent testimony stated that 4th gen systems use about 6-12 items to ID a target, the F-22 uses a couple dozen, and the F-35 will use over 600!!

Enough about sensors and Situational Awareness, let's talk missiles.

Two major advances have occurred since Desert Storm, IIR seekers and Active Seeker MRAAMs. Soon you will see a combination of the two.

IIR seeker will increase the pK of their respective missile several fold. The reason is simple, they are extremely hard to decoy and they have very quick lock on times. But, until they start widely using them on MRAMMs they are primarily a WVR weapon.

The second advancement is the Active Seeker. For the US this the AMRAAM missile. It did not see combat in Desert Storm and the ones that have been used were the early gen A/B models. They are up to the D model (A-B-C1-C3-C5-C7-D and maybe a few more sprinkled in there). Compared to the early A, the D is a completely different beast. It has easily 2-3 times the range, much better ECCM (the ability to ignore jamming), a GPS INS, a two-way datalink (this will allow the fighter and the missile to talk to each other, compare notes, and have a much better chance to hit the target), and the ability for any friendly fighter to help guide it. It does not stop there. By the end of 2013, ATK (the maker of the AMRAAM motor) is due to finish the designs on a new motor that will increase range, thrust, and might even have the ability to save a little fuel till it's close to the target in order to maneuver under full thrust. Besides hardware upgrades like newer seekers, better warheads, etc, the AMRAAM is constantly being upgraded with better software to get past jamming and to increase range.

AMRAAAM Combat history

According to what's up on wiki (because I do not have the time for more research as it's past midnight) as of 2008 the AMRAAM's record is 9:11 (yikes, I just got that). Again, these were earlier generation missiles. If I find better info I will post it. One thing that I found suspicious about that PDF is that even though it came out in 2005, it completely ignored the 6:6 AMRAAM kills against Mig-29s in Kosovo that happened SIX YEARS before the report came out.

Another thought: the article doesn't mention how much of an important role BVR shots played in the victories. In a number of encounters missiles were fired BVR and the enemy managed to evade the initial shot but then was disadvantaged when the aggressor aircraft pursued a WVR engagement.

A lot of detractors from the BVR doctrine will say that BVR missiles can be defeated with countermeasures and evasive maneuvers. That's true although I think that missile guidance tech has improved a lot in the last few decades. But even if the BVR shot didn't actually get the kill, it may have played an important part in the aerial victory.

Even if a BVR missile is never fired, I'm sure that most people will agree that being able to detect your enemy before he detects you makes a major difference. You can at least position yourself well for the dogfight. So even if it's true that BVR technology hasn't directly caused many kills (and I dispute those numbers to some extent), it definitely helped to make many kills possible.

One of the problems with statistics, is that you really don't know all of the information. We don't know how many missiles that were fired, passed within lethal distance of the target(i.e. 2 missiles fired, both would've killed target, doesn't mean that the Pk is .5), how many missiles were fired outside of their WEZ/NEZ either intentionally(for a mission kill), or unintentionally, or how many missiles simply malfunctioned. Without this information, any number of conclusions can be reached, but they may not be telling the whole story.

Last edited by Meteor on Jul 26, 2012 - 07:23 PM; edited 1 time in total

For the last 5000 years combat identification has been a problem. Fixing the problem is really easy in a lab in Texas, or over a beer in the O'Club. It is a heck of a lot harder during actual combat operations, when the fog and uncertainty or war lay waste to the best of plans. Thousands of years ago warriors painted their shields differently so as not to kill their fellow tribesmen. In the dust and screams and sh*t and blood of actual hand-to-hand combat, inevitable there was fratricide.

Not too long ago two USAF F-15Cs, at close range and in broad daylight, shot down two USA UH-60s, killing a couple of dozen fellow Americans. The USS Vincennes (in broad daylight and close range) blew a civilian A300 airliner out of the sky, killing over 300 innocent civilians. A USAF B-52, (in broad daylight and in communication with the troops it was supporting), dropped a MK84 on a USA SOF unit, killing most of them and their Afghan counterparts. A flight of USAF A-10s attacked British armored vehicles, killing a number of them. Another flight of A-10s bombed an infantry unit on a nightime training exercise. During the first Gulf War a USA Patriot battery shot down an RAF Tornado returning from a combat sortie, despite having numerous BVR ID systems to identify the friendly aircraft.

We tend to forget that a fundamental tactic in warfare is to confuse, deceive, mislead, and trick your adversary. A camouflage paint job makes it harder for the enemy to ID you, giving you a slight tactical advantage. Jamming IFF modes does the same. Injecting algorithims into his radar and computers makes ID even more difficult. We do it to the bad guys.....and they do it to us!

Be careful about biting off on colorful sales brochures from manufacturers. War is the most complex and unforgiving thing man does. NOTHING is easy, including identifying your foes.

That's true but that business with fog of war etc. applies to non-BVR combat as well. Just because the enemy can use tactics to spoof BVR missiles doesn't meant that they can't be a highly effective weapon in combat. Everything comes with its unique set of problems.

I'm pretty sure that these days our simulations are much more accurate than what they were in the past. Are they 100% accurate? Probably not. But I'm sure that enough tests have been run with BVR missiles to know whether or not they are effective. Seeing as billions have been invested in BVR tech by the US, Europe, Russia and just about everyone else in military aerospace, I think they have a good reason.

This is a perfect example of academia in a bubble. I'm sure the faculty at AWC lauded the $hit out of that paper, but it is missing a few things; namely, realistic definitions, actual facts, tactical relevancy, and information. Beyond the fact that a missile that doesn't result in a kill is not just an abject miss (maybe...defeated?), his info about fighter technology is, at best, basic. In reality, he's mostly just misinformed/wrong. To use the early days (i.e. 'Nam) of BVR missiles as an indicator of current BVR missile capability is like comparing a Commodore 64 to your shiny, new Macbook Pro. Both of those machines "do" the same thing, but it would be ridiculous to compare their performance. It's the same for missiles then and now; they both guide to a target to kill it. Beyond that, it's almost apples and oranges. He clearly has never heard of WSEP.

Beyond these shortcomings, I just have to shake my cranium at Air University...they forget, in their academic isolation, that the real world exists.

plus what if you are fragged for DCA and you have heaters only? The advantage of a BVR missle is unparamount. In an initial sweep or DCA cap sometimes its as simple as "I am here" and "only bad guys are over there". Outlaw is very usefull. TGP ID' etc....

icemaverick wrote:

I'm pretty sure that these days our simulations are much more accurate than what they were in the past. Are they 100% accurate? Probably not. But I'm sure that enough tests have been run with BVR missiles to know whether or not they are effective. Seeing as billions have been invested in BVR tech by the US, Europe, Russia and just about everyone else in military aerospace, I think they have a good reason.

This is the standard argument for those that have never served in the military (or forget everything about what it was like in the military). The military can and does spend millions (sometimes billions) on stuff that ends up not working. The fact that a program is expensive and has not been cancelled says absolutely, positively nothing about its success or viability. Period. Do program fall short and subsequently get cancelled? Yes, all the time. However, if a program or capability is deemed necessary to national security or is a pillar of the current doctrine (the BVR concept/capability is a great example of this), it will likely not get cancelled. I'm not saying BVR doesn't work, on the contrary, I think it is very useful on the modern battlefield. I'm simply saying that you can not at all draw the conclusion that it is successful because it is expensive and hasn't been cancelled.

Simulations also tell you close to nothing about capabilities and limitations of a system. If you fly a company simulator and try to do a given task, guess what? That task usually works! Missiles guide, radars always see the bad guy, chaff/flare always works, you're always in the net, always get the ID...etc, etc. Simulators can still not accurately replicate random, individual system anaomalies. What happens in the real world is, you learn what will happen in the real airplane, through test, evaluation and tactical experience and THEN you build that behavior into the simulator. The sim is not demonstrating reliability, rather it is REPLICATING reliability statistics that have been observed in the field.

I also laugh at the guys that "shake their craniums" at the Air University guys who write papers like this. The Air University (and I'm not a graduate, so I have no allegiance) is the academic center for the United States Air Force. The faculty and students at the Air University are USAF personnel, who have been engaged in ACTUAL AIR WARS (as pilots, maintainers, missileers, etc.) for their entire careers. Who is better qualified to write papers like this? The fact of the matter is, with all due respect, the vast majority of folks on here that throw stones at "anti-technology" posts/articles/etc., have no experience with actual combat operations. When a guy who has made his living in the USAF releases a paper (a factually accurate one, by the way..even if you disagree with his conclusions) and is scoffed by high-school and college kids because he doesn't agree with the Raytheon AMRAAM brochure, we probably need to re-evaluate the basis for our arguments. Cheers.

twintwinsingle wrote:

icemaverick wrote:

I'm pretty sure that these days our simulations are much more accurate than what they were in the past. Are they 100% accurate? Probably not. But I'm sure that enough tests have been run with BVR missiles to know whether or not they are effective. Seeing as billions have been invested in BVR tech by the US, Europe, Russia and just about everyone else in military aerospace, I think they have a good reason.

This is the standard argument for those that have never served in the military (or forget everything about what it was like in the military). The military can and does spend millions (sometimes billions) on stuff that ends up not working. The fact that a program is expensive and has not been cancelled says absolutely, positively nothing about its success or viability. Period. Do program fall short and subsequently get cancelled? Yes, all the time. However, if a program or capability is deemed necessary to national security or is a pillar of the current doctrine (the BVR concept/capability is a great example of this), it will likely not get cancelled. I'm not saying BVR doesn't work, on the contrary, I think it is very useful on the modern battlefield. I'm simply saying that you can not at all draw the conclusion that it is successful because it is expensive and hasn't been cancelled.

Simulations also tell you close to nothing about capabilities and limitations of a system. If you fly a company simulator and try to do a given task, guess what? That task usually works! Missiles guide, radars always see the bad guy, chaff/flare always works, you're always in the net, always get the ID...etc, etc. Simulators can still not accurately replicate random, individual system anaomalies. What happens in the real world is, you learn what will happen in the real airplane, through test, evaluation and tactical experience and THEN you build that behavior into the simulator. The sim is not demonstrating reliability, rather it is REPLICATING reliability statistics that have been observed in the field.

I also laugh at the guys that "shake their craniums" at the Air University guys who write papers like this. The Air University (and I'm not a graduate, so I have no allegiance) is the academic center for the United States Air Force. The faculty and students at the Air University are USAF personnel, who have been engaged in ACTUAL AIR WARS (as pilots, maintainers, missileers, etc.) for their entire careers. Who is better qualified to write papers like this? The fact of the matter is, with all due respect, the vast majority of folks on here that throw stones at "anti-technology" posts/articles/etc., have no experience with actual combat operations. When a guy who has made his living in the USAF releases a paper (a factually accurate one, by the way..even if you disagree with his conclusions) and is scoffed by high-school and college kids because he doesn't agree with the Raytheon AMRAAM brochure, we probably need to re-evaluate the basis for our arguments. Cheers.

Well said! I bet you people don't realize that to advance in the Air Force are required to attend Air War College in order to get to the wing commander or above ranks. I bet you people don't realize that some Air Force officers end up taking for their post graduate work - Naval War College or Staff Command College (Army) as will officers of other services that will attend Air War College. Some of the people that teach Air War College were commanders themselves!

SpudmanWP wrote:

AMRAAAM Combat history

According to what's up on wiki (because I do not have the time for more research as it's past midnight) as of 2008 the AMRAAM's record is 9:11 (yikes, I just got that). Again, these were earlier generation missiles. If I find better info I will post it. One thing that I found suspicious about that PDF is that even though it came out in 2005, it completely ignored the 6:6 AMRAAM kills against Mig-29s in Kosovo that happened SIX YEARS before the report came out.

Sorry Spud but that’s just wrong. March 26 1999 (Operation Allied Force) J. Hwang (F-15C 86-0156) and J. McMurray (F-15C 84-0014) fired 3+ AMRAAM at a pair of Serbian Mig-29s. Hwang fired two 120Cs and McMurray fired at least one. It was later determined that both Hwang’s missiles hit and McMurray’s did not.

Quote:

Captain Hwang became the first pilot in combat aviation history to single-handedly and simultaneously destroy two enemy aircraft during a single intercept using radar-guided missiles. In recognition to his achievement, he was awarded the Mackay Trophy on September 14th, 2001 in Washington, D.C.

Right there you’ve got 3:2 (at least, possibly 4:2) so I don’t know where you’re getting 6:6 from.

I’ve got a spread sheet somewhere where I tracked down each and every AIM-120 shot taken with the results gained. If you separate them based on whether they were fired from BVR range or not ( > 6-7nmi IIRC) the hit probability is only about 40%. If you include all weapons fired I think it’s about 55-60%; there’s a question whether three missiles which were fired during a chase of MiG-25s during (OSW IIRC) which all missed were 2 AIM-120C and 1 AIM-7 or 2 Sparrows and 1 AMRAAM but either way it sure isn't one missile fired for one bogey splashed.

I was going by public info. If you have something official I would love to see it.

SpudmanWP wrote:

I was going by public info. If you have something official I would love to see it.

Me too

I'll see what I can find Spudman. The USAF likes to mention how many kills it scores but not not necessarily how many misses.

These were the details I tracked down for the combat history of the AIM-120. They are by no means exhaustive but they were the best I could uncover with my limited google-fu. It's not a perfect count, I haven't included 18/01/93 engagement as a kill as it couldn't be confirmed (and the AWACs wasn't convinced). There is also a question over the number and types of weapons fired on 15/01/99 in the MiG-25 tail chase, different sources quote that there was only one AIM-120 fired and not three as reported to the media. Unfortunately that engagement is the only one with an official source to back it up which, subsequently has been challenged.

If anyone else has some better info by all means post it up.

29-DEC-92
F-16D
G.North
MiG-25 Foxbat E
Fired: 1 x AIM-120A Range: 3nm
Hits: 1 Kills: 1
Notes:
AWACS lock and track at twenty miles. F-16 AMRAAM lock tone at less than 8 miles. Launch forward quarter at approx. 3nmi, missile running time approximately 8 seconds.

Links: http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopi ... art-0.html
http://www.sci.fi/~fta/amraamsrc.htm

17-JAN-93
F-16C
C.Stevenson
MiG-29 and MiG-23
Fired: 2 x AIM-120A Range: Unknown
Hits: 1 Kills: 1
Notes:
An F-16C Falcon downs a MiG-29 north of the 36° Parallel with 2 x AMRAAM's.
F-16C Blk 30 (86-0262) 23rd FS "Hawks", 52nd FW Deployed with the 7440th Composite wing at Incirlik. Aerospace Daily (1/20/93) said the target was a MiG-29 Fulcrum. 2 x AMRAAM's were reported utilized v MiG-29 and a MiG-23 wingman and it was the MiG-23 that was reported killed in the original press releases. Normally reported as a MiG-23 kill. Actually a MiG-29.

Links: http://www.sci.fi/~fta/1993-ops.htm

18-JAN-93
F-15C
Unknown
MiG-25 Foxbat E
Fired: 1 x AIM-120A Range: ~27nm
Hits: 1 Kills: 0
Notes:
An F-15C Eagle from the 36th Fighter Wing at Eglin, was said to have not downed a MiG-25 Foxbat E after firing 1 x AMRAAM and 1 x AIM-7 Sparrow at it. Other information says the MiG might have actually fired a missile at the F-15 and then landed. A Hughes memo (19Jan93) states that:
"Launch was at a confirmed MiG-29 from Eglin F-15 on 18Jan93. Launch range was 27 nm at shooter altitude of 35K. At 17 nm, he shot a Sparrow at the same target". Other reports say he launched a Sidewinder AIM-9M at it in close. Hughes is sure that the AMRAAM got the kill.
AWACS was uncertain of the results. There was smoke observed and the Iraqi SAR alert was sounded. Not confirmed.

Links: http://www.sci.fi/~fta/1993-ops.htm

28-FEB-94
F-16C
B. Wright
J-21
Fired: 1 x AIM-120A Range: Unknown
Hits: 1 Kills: 1
Notes:
The Serbian Jastrebs headed northwards, back to their base. At 6:45 a.m., the NATO fighters engaged their opponents. Captain Robert G. Wright fired an AIM-120 AMRAAM, downing the first Jastreb which was flying at 5,000 feet. J-21 destroyed.

Links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banja_Luka_incident

14-APR-94
F-15C
E. Wickson
UH-60A
Fired: 1 x AIM-120A Range: <7nm
Hits: 1 Kills: 1
Notes:
Blue on blue. Confirmed visually that the target was a Mi-24 Hind(??) before engaging and destroying the UH-60A. Wickson closed to ~7nm an determined that target was a helicopter. Repeated IFF queries drew no response. Target engaged and destroyed.

Links: Page 86 of
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=UEC ... AEwAw#v=on

15-JAN-99
F-15C
Unknown
MiG-25
Fired: 3 x AIM-120A 1 x AIM-7 2 x AIM-54 Range: unknown
Hits: 0 Kills: 0
Notes:
5 January 1999 -- In two separate incidents, two F-15s and two F-14s fired a total of six missiles at four Iraqi MiG-25s over the southern no-fly zone. None of the missiles found its target. Missile count disputed. Other sources have stated that 3 x AIM-7 and 1 x AIM-120 were fired by the F-15s.

Links:
http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/tran ... riptid=852

24-MAR-99
F-16AM
Tankink
J-21
Fired: 1 x AIM-120 Range: Unknown
Hits: 1 Kills: 1
Notes:
The MiG-29 flown by Maj. Dragan Ili? was damaged by an AIM-120 fired from a Dutch F-16AM fighter. He landed with one engine out and the aircraft was later expended as a decoy. Possibly SA-6 red-on-red

Links:
http://www.f-16.net/news_article4505.html

24-MAR-99
F-15C
C. Rodriguez
MiG-29
Fired: 1 x AIM-120C Range: 30-20nmi
Hits: 1 Kills: 1
Notes:

Links: Page 80 of
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=UEC ... AEwAw#v=on

14-APR-94
F-15C
M. Shower
MiG-29
Fired: 3 x AIM-120C Range: ~6nmi
Hits: 1 Kills: 1
Notes:
Capt. Showers fires two AIM-120C across the nose of F-117A neither of which creates a fireball as a result of striking the MiG-29. Concerned that the MiG was still active and that there was a stealthy F-117A nearby which may be under threat, Shower pressed the attack and fired a third AIM-120C from approximately 6nm that hit and destroyed the MiG-29. Follow the link to AWFC Public Affairs story and Shower's description of the engagement. After the above engagement, Capt. Showers got a lock and id on a second MiG-29 and fired from ~5nm. No Fireball.

Links: Page 79 of
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=UEC ... AEwAw#v=on

http://www.f-117a.com/AFMissions.html

26-MAR-99
F-15C
J. Hwang
2 x MiG-29
Fired: 3 x AIM-120C Range: ~17nmi
Hits: 2 Kills: 2
Notes:
Hwang was second shooter of a pair of F-15C's. His wingman "Boomer" McMurray fired one AIM-120C at ~18nm which missed. Hwang fired two AIM-120C from ~17nm which both hit destroying both target aircraft. Follow the link to Hwang's account of the engagement.

Links:
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/ar ... 17178.html

Page 81 of
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=UEC ... AEwAw#v=on

04-MAY-99
F-16C
H. Geczy
MiG-29
Fired: 1 x AIM-120C Range: Unknown
Hits: 1 Kills: 1
Notes:

Links:

Generally accepted that up to 2008 there have been 10 AMRAAM kills.
Totals:
17 fired for 10 hits - Pk 0.59
3 definite WVR shots for 3 kills gives Pk(WVR) 1.0
14 likely BVR shots for 7 kills gives Pk(BVR) 0.5

or, if you believe the other sources regarding missile types fired on 15/01/99
15 for 10 - Pk 0.66
12 likely BVR shots for 7 kills gives Pk(BVR) 0.58

twintwinsingle wrote:

I also laugh at the guys that "shake their craniums" at the Air University guys who write papers like this. The Air University (and I'm not a graduate, so I have no allegiance) is the academic center for the United States Air Force. The faculty and students at the Air University are USAF personnel, who have been engaged in ACTUAL AIR WARS (as pilots, maintainers, missileers, etc.) for their entire careers. Who is better qualified to write papers like this? The fact of the matter is, with all due respect, the vast majority of folks on here that throw stones at "anti-technology" posts/articles/etc., have no experience with actual combat operations. When a guy who has made his living in the USAF releases a paper (a factually accurate one, by the way..even if you disagree with his conclusions) and is scoffed by high-school and college kids because he doesn't agree with the Raytheon AMRAAM brochure, we probably need to re-evaluate the basis for our arguments. Cheers.

Can anyone actually confirm that the author is an actual war fighter that has been in ACTUAL AIR WARS or even practiced them? If the author is the same guy I'm thinking he is, then he is a Materials Command guy with no ACTUAL AIR WARS experience or even training to ACTUAL AIR WARS. Regardless, while factually correct, the paper is also factually incomplete, inadequate and already well out of date. Amazingly, this paper was written in 2005, when much of the data could could have been found open source to support different theories.

But hey, I'm just a guy who continues to train to ACTUAL AIR WARS...Cheers!

Forum: General F-16 forum

Article - Promise and reality: the air-to-air BVR