Simulated BVR ACM

Discuss air warfare, doctrine, air forces, historic campaigns, etc.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

Pumpkin

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 901
  • Joined: 07 Nov 2003, 21:12

Unread post29 Jul 2004, 23:05

hey guys, from the following reports on BVR ACM, (without going into the details) I can't help but wonder, how accurate these results are :shock:

[1] Each RN pilot faced the MiG-29 in combat, and found the Sea Harrier to be a good match for the MiG – thanks to the Blue Vixen radar, the Sea Harrier won every time in beyond visual range engagements. (link)

[2] During exercises against the Royal Australian Air Force, RMAF MiG-29Ns, simulating R-77 launches against RAAF F/A-18As, have performed very well. According to sources - the RMAF Fulcrums were calling "Fox Three", the signal for the launch of a semi-active radar homing missile, at 34-37 miles (55-60km), while the RAAF Hornets were launching at 28.31miles (45-50km). (link)

[3] The trade journal Aviation Week and Space Technology reported last month that the exercises showed the SU-30s had a clear advantage over the F-15C in a long-range fight.

The US and Indian aircraft were seeing each other at the same time with their radars but the SU-30 pilots were able to simulate-fire their Russian-made AA-10 "fire-and-forget" Alamo missiles first, the weekly said. (link)

Thanks
Desmond
Offline

elp

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3143
  • Joined: 23 Sep 2003, 20:08

Unread post30 Jul 2004, 00:38

Pumpkin wrote:hey guys, from the following reports on BVR ACM, (without going into the details) I can't help but wonder, how accurate these results are :shock:

[1] Each RN pilot faced the MiG-29 in combat, and found the Sea Harrier to be a good match for the MiG ? thanks to the Blue Vixen radar, the Sea Harrier won every time in beyond visual range engagements. (link)

[2] During exercises against the Royal Australian Air Force, RMAF MiG-29Ns, simulating R-77 launches against RAAF F/A-18As, have performed very well. According to sources - the RMAF Fulcrums were calling "Fox Three", the signal for the launch of a semi-active radar homing missile, at 34-37 miles (55-60km), while the RAAF Hornets were launching at 28.31miles (45-50km). (link)


R-77 is an active not semi-active BVR missile. It is also unproven in combat and produced by an industry that has a history of lousy supply chain management. The answer could be anything. Either it is an excellent killer, or maybe it isn't all that great.

[3] The trade journal Aviation Week and Space Technology reported last month that the exercises showed the SU-30s had a clear advantage over the F-15C in a long-range fight.

The US and Indian aircraft were seeing each other at the same time with their radars but the SU-30 pilots were able to simulate-fire their Russian-made AA-10 "fire-and-forget" Alamo missiles first, the weekly said. (link)


Again, an exercise. The R-27 ( AA-10 ) is a semi-active BVR missile, NOT a "fire and forget" missile. There is an active BVR "fire and forget" version of it in development, but it isn't fielded yet. And anyway, Until those K model plain jane SU-30s get some kind of upgrade, they couldn't do a "fire and forget" active BVR profile shot with that missile. So like a lot of articles written on Cope India, it isn't correct. Also in most situations the F-15 was out numbered as much as 2.5 to 1.

R-27..... It is also a missile that has a poor combat record ( Ethiopia vs. Eritrea ). Statistically worse than the AIM-7 Sparrow, which itself was always waaaay over-rated in exercises. The SU-30 that India used in that exercise was a "K" model. Their first batch of SU-30's. The SU-30K is just a SU-27 two seater with aireal refueling ability added. Real world, if you want to take a jet that has a poor BVR missile like the R-27 against a F-15 proven force with a combat proven active BVR missile like AMRAAM. You will be in large trouble. Exercises are nice, but they are just that. Nothing more.

Someday India will get their SU-30MKI all sorted out. A two seater that has some French and Israeli avionics appliances, GPS/INS, Thrust Vectoring and the R77 ( AA12 ) missile. That will be a bigtime threat jet... That assumes of course that the R77 lives up to all the hype.

Consider early model R-27s fully compromised. R-27s from the German Air Force MiG-29s have been fired on our range off of Florida ;) The R-27s used by India are a newer version, but considering the R-27s track record, it is unknown how it will perform in combat.

An R-27 of more interest is the "P" model. A passive seeker that goes for enemy radar emissions:
  • Vympel R-27P/EP
  • Weight: 248kg/346kg
  • Warhead: 39kg
  • Length: 4m/4.7m
  • Diameter 0.23m/0.26m
  • Wing span 0.772m/0.8m
  • Fin span 972mm
  • Maximum altitude of target: 20 km
  • Maximum g-load of target: 5.5
  • Maximum range: 72km/110km
  • Minimum engagement range: 2-3km
Here is another view on the "P" model radiation seeker re: its supposed poor performance.

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=29224

Sources: ACIG Discussion Thread (registration (free) required)
Here is a Russian munitions chart composed ( still on-going ) by an ACIG team member "SOC". zip file opens up to an Excel file. For Air-to-air missiles use the "AAM" tab at the bottom of the chart. It gives some basic specs on various munitions.

http://www.designation-systems.net/non- ... ssiles.zip
Attachments
MiG29_alamo.jpg
German MiG-29 firing AA-10 "Alamo" ( R-27 ) off of Florida. USAF Photo
- ELP -
Offline

Pumpkin

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 901
  • Joined: 07 Nov 2003, 21:12

Unread post30 Jul 2004, 09:38

wow..that was quite a repsonse elp. Thanks for the effort. :D

My apologies, perhaps I have not made myself clear. Didn't mean to compare the performance of the Russian AAM to their western counterparts made. Not a comparsion on their track records, be it active or semi-active AAM either.

I was just wondering during these exercises, (have to agree, it is just an exercise :wink: ) [1] how accurate are these results, [2] how both parties can agree upon the results and most importantly, not compromising the classified range of the FCR, DLZ etc at the same time.

cheers,
Desmond
Offline

elp

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3143
  • Joined: 23 Sep 2003, 20:08

Unread post30 Jul 2004, 20:55

Pumpkin wrote:wow..that was quite a repsonse elp. Thanks for the effort. :D

My apologies, perhaps I have not made myself clear. Didn't mean to compare the performance of the Russian AAM to their western counterparts made. Not a comparsion on their track records, be it active or semi-active AAM either.

I was just wondering during these exercises, (have to agree, it is just an exercise :wink: ) [1] how accurate are these results, [2] how both parties can agree upon the results and most importantly, not compromising the classified range of the FCR, DLZ etc at the same time.

cheers,


Unfortunately I only get public consumption info and have to read a lot to get any useful info. I am afraid that a lot of the capabilities opinions of US force on force like you say, is classified.

Example: I am a big advocate of the F-22, ( even with its past, poor procurment method ) Having said that, It would be my opinion that USAF has two briefings on it. 1: What it really can do, and 2: What they want to spoon feed to congress and the public.

The short answer is: I don't know. But, there is enough out there to connect the dots if you continually hammer away at it. The old saw is; that 80% of military capability info is public consumption. That isn't too bad.
- ELP -

Return to Air Power

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests