BVR Combat

danhutmacher · by **danhutmacher** » 22 Jan 2005, 05:30

Hey CRU,

What I'm refering to is the fact that despite the feather duster test that were condutcted in 1965 the air force wouldn't change their tactics. The feather duster test showed that the air forces tactics wouldn't work. In spite of that and combat results the air force stubbornly stuck to its prewar tactics.

Operation bolo was a deception operation that worked.

The 8th fighter wing was the best air to air wing but it could have done a lot better if the air force had adjusted it's tactics.

Wildcat · by **Wildcat** » 27 Jan 2005, 20:39

In my opinion, advances in communications and global knowledge of the battlefield now make possible to use BVR missiles on BVR range. As long as you get a clear view of what happens, it is possible to use long-range missiles, even in a rather crowded airspace, as it was proved by F-16 shots at MIG-29s in Balkans.

On the other hand, if fighters have to rely solely on their own sensors (like on a remote and large land, like Afghanistan or Iran, where it would be hard to maintain a complete AWACS activity 24 hours per day), they might need to close to visual range to get a positive ID, if they do not have a long-range IR or EO system (like the Typhoon and the Rafale F2).

PhthaloType · by **PhthaloType** » 28 Jan 2005, 03:04

What about NCTR (non-cooperative target recognition)? Don't need to get close for visual ID if radar can do it for you. From what I've read it's not totally reliable as implemented in current fighters, but I'll bet the technology has come a long way in the F/A-22.

Wildcat · by **Wildcat** » 28 Jan 2005, 11:57

I did not mention NCTR because, as you wrote, it is not completely reliable, and I am not aware enough of progress being made about NCTR.
However, if anyone has information about NCTR (past, present or future), I am greatly interested.

danhutmacher · by **danhutmacher** » 30 Jan 2005, 01:32

I believe that NCTR relies on signal processing of a radar beam. Modern radars can take pictures of the ground that appear to look like high quailty pictures. Unless i'm wrong that same processing can make a high quality picture to aid the pilot in IDing the type of aircraft that it has a lock on. But in order to use this one would have to have a radar trained at the aircraft in question. Such use of a radar would alert everybody with a warning systems as to where you are. It would also take several radar sweeps to generate that picture. And if the enemy has a good ECM it can jam the radar that is trying to generate that picture thus putting us back to needing a visual check prior to launching any BVR missiles. In the end It will still require a well trained pilot to use the technology right. If anyone has more info I would like to know about it also.

parrothead · by **parrothead** » 30 Jan 2005, 07:11

danhutmacher, I don't understand the whole of the technology and I'm certain that the details are classified, but the newest radars are apparently much harder to detect due to the use of frequency hopping among other things. I agree, in the end it's up to the pilots and others to make the decision to fire.

danhutmacher · by **danhutmacher** » 30 Jan 2005, 17:32

Parrothead. How are you doing? I don't understand it all either. What I do know I have been able to piece toghter through bits and pieces that I have learned. Most of it is classified so I could very well be wrong in how it works. But I don't think so.

As for modern radars being harder to detect I think that if you can build the radars this way then you should be able to build a detector as well. The trick is to have the computer processing power to decode the radar signals.

So it will be tough but not impossible.

parrothead · by **parrothead** » 31 Jan 2005, 05:38

danhutmacher, I'm doin' alright, thanks for asking

I agree that it might be possible, but very difficult. That would indeed take a lot of processing power!

danhutmacher · by **danhutmacher** » 03 Feb 2005, 14:01

Yeah it does. But like all IFF systems there will be ways to beat it.
When you come right down to it I don't think that the BVR missile will ever have a PK higher than twenty percent. So I don't think it's worth the money that is spent on it.

swanee · by **swanee** » 09 Feb 2005, 01:08

TC wrote:If I could jump in on this and clear a few misconceptions up here...

First off, as to the advantage of the gun. Sure, every little thing you can have to your advantage could be helpful, but one must remember the last U.S. guns kill of an enemy aircraft was made by now retired USAF BGen (I believe 1LT at the time) Gary Rubus (an old acquaintance) back in 1972, flying an F-4E, against a MiG-21. It's been all missiles since then.

Sorry, but my bullsh*t meter just spiked here.

Gen Rubus had the last a2a guns kill against a fixed wing aircraft, but 2 A-10s from Davis Monthan (I believe, those I could also be bullsh*tting and it be a different unit :wink:

) had 2 a2a guns kills on 2 Iraqi helicopters, as their aim 9s missed the target...

The Wing King from the A-10 Unit Called up the Wing King from the 1st Fw and bragged about having more kills in an A-10 than his f-15s at the time!

Life is too short for ugly sailboats, fat women and bad beer!

TC · by TC » 11 Feb 2005, 00:55

OH WOW! A GAU-8/A took out a stationary helicopter, just rising off of the ground! WOO HOO! :shock:

I wonder how many pigeons and mallards they took out too... :roll:

Yeah, I knew about the A-10 air to air kills, but what we were trying to focus on is REAL air to air combat, which is fighter v. fighter. Just like chopper and trash hauler pukes aren't real pilots.

OOPS! Did I say that out loud? Just kidding. I'm only having a little fun at the expense of our friends who WISH they were fast mover pilots! :poke:

Beers and MiGs were made to be pounded!

swanee · by **swanee** » 11 Feb 2005, 02:53

TC wrote:OH WOW! A GAU-8/A took out a stationary helicopter, just rising off of the ground! WOO HOO!

I wonder how many pigeons and mallards they took out too...

Yeah, I knew about the A-10 air to air kills, but what we were trying to focus on is REAL air to air combat, which is fighter v. fighter. Just like chopper and trash hauler pukes aren't real pilots.

OOPS! Did I say that out loud? Just kidding. I'm only having a little fun at the expense of our friends who WISH they were fast mover pilots!

Beers and MiGs were made to be pounded!

yeah i read ya man. wasn't a difficult kill, though I just think it's interesting that their missles missed(!). Just another log for the fire...

parrothead · by **parrothead** » 11 Feb 2005, 04:18

I don't know about the situation involved with this kill, but it sounds like the Hawgs attacked from overhead. Could the failure of the Sidewinders to guide be attributed to heat from the ground throwing off thier lock?

danhutmacher · by **danhutmacher** » 11 Feb 2005, 09:52

I don't remember any of the details of those kills. But what I do find intresting is that on the first morning of the gulf war in '91 A strike group from the USS Sartoga was inbound to its target when it was engaged by an Iragi Mig-25. The Awacs providing support to that strike NEVER detected the Mig even though several members of the strike saw its afterburner plume.

The Mig wasn't engaged by the strike because the ROE stated that any fighter must get clearence from the AWACS BEFORE it fires a shot.

I wonder what everyone thinks about this?

TC · by TC » 12 Feb 2005, 00:48

ROE required the AWACS permission, because so many friendlies were over the area. It is ok to let an enemy a/c go, if it means lessening the possibility for a friendly kill. This unfortunately occured just a few weeks later, with the infamous "Blackhawk Incident." It occured due to several issues, including the Army using the wrong IFF code, and the $hithead controller in the AWACS monitoring that sector kept dozing off.

What really sucks is that the F-15 pilots were court-martialed for doing what they were supposed to do, and that @$$hole in the AWACS that should have been doing his job, received no punishment, and was allowed to "quietly leave the Air Force." What a crock of $hit!

The moral of my rant?...An AWACS only works as good as the idiot scope dope sitting at the computer terminal.

Any questions?

Beers and MiGs were made to be pounded!

BVR Combat

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