Simulated BVR ACM

[Pumpkin]

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

[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

[elp]

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

[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)

• R-27 / AA-10 Alamo
• R-77 / AA-12 Adder

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

[Pumpkin]

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

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 ) [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,

[elp]

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

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 ) [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.