BVR Fighter Rankings

Military aircraft - Post cold war aircraft, including for example B-2, Gripen, F-18E/F Super Hornet, Rafale, and Typhoon.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 7645
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post13 Feb 2019, 03:17

"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
Offline

f4u7_corsair

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 124
  • Joined: 27 Apr 2015, 17:28

Unread post13 Feb 2019, 04:15

Oh god please..
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 5209
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post13 Feb 2019, 04:38

Somebody is bored......... :|
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1124
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post13 Feb 2019, 07:44

popcorn wrote:https://hushkit.net/2017/05/16/the-top-fighter-aircraft-of-2017-bvr-combat/


In our original list from four years ago, the Gripen did not even make the top ten. Its dramatic jump to the number two position (see last year’s list here) was due to one reason: the entry into operational service (in April 2016) of the MBDA Meteor missile. The Gripen is the first fighter in the world to carry the long-delayed Meteor.


Wow … such a mediocre light-fighter is rated so highly, over much better fighters, via just fitting a new missile to it? Why not call it the, “Top BVR Missiles Rating For 2017”, if that's all it takes?
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial Distance = LIFE . . . Always choose Stealth
Offline

zero-one

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1967
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post13 Feb 2019, 10:11

Lots of good discussion about BVR here:
viewtopic.php?f=36&t=54668

Hushkit is one of the better researched blogs out there and he did put a disclaimer out there
Hushkit wrote:By its nature, any top ten is simplistic and should serve as the basis for discussion rather than as a conclusion.

Lets go a little easy on him.

In my opinion the Gripen is a bit too high on the list, I would personally put it below the other 2 Eurocanards once they get Meteor integration.
And if Chinese and Russian Ramjet powered BVRAAMs are any close to being comparable, then maybe the Su-35 and J-11/16 could be above it too. The US can afford to stick with the AMRAAM because of the immense advantage of their launching platforms (F-22 / 35)

These are just my opinions, so feel free to disagree. Without any nationalistic biases, would any of you pick an AMRAAM armed F-15/16/18 over a Meteor armed Gripen in a BVR fight (Legitimate question, its not sarcastic :mrgreen: )
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2682
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post13 Feb 2019, 12:23

zero-one wrote:In my opinion the Gripen is a bit too high on the list, I would personally put it below the other 2 Eurocanards once they get Meteor integration.


I agree with this. First, AFAIK both Dassault Rafale and Eurofighter Typhoon are now qualified to use Meteor missiles. And both have much more powerful radar and other sensors than current Gripen. And according to Swiss evaluation, Gripen was less capable than F-18C and significantly less capable than EF Typhoon and Rafale. The biggest problems for Gripen were endurance and aircraft performances, which can not be significantly improved with current aircraft. Even with the proposed upgrades with AESA and IRST, Gripen was found to be significantly less capable than the other Eurocanards. It scored lower or significantly lower in target detection, acquisition and engagement criteria. All of which are pretty important for BVR fight. It actually just reached about similar level of capability as F-18C even with all the upgrades. So there is no way that having Meteor missile is going to convert it to one of the top BVR fighters.

I think more realistic list would be if Gripen was at position 10 and both F-16 E/F and SH would be higher in the list. I don't think Su-30MK should even be on this list as it doesn't have particularly impressive radar or other sensors and I really doubt R-77 is anywhere near latest versions of AIM-120 or Meteor. It also has large RCS itself.
Offline

zero-one

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1967
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post13 Feb 2019, 13:48

You got a point there Hornetfin.
However, I'd like to point that all BVR engagements so far have occurred well below 20 NM, at least all of the ones I've heard and read about (correct me if I'm wrong). This is well below the maximum ranges of most fighter sensors.

I think the limiting factor is the missile. Even shots made beyond 10 NM seem to have a very low PK (judging from the missed shots from Dozer's F-15 lobbing AMRAAMs beyond 10 NM, ) So I think a if missile can have relatively high PK above 10 NM it will give that fighter a tremendous advantage.

Weather or not the meteor is that missile remains to be seen. But if it is, then the Gripen is in the conversation. Because even if the Teen series see the target first, they're effective shots are closer to the target than the Gripen's? At least thats the theory.
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2682
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post13 Feb 2019, 14:29

Yes, but theoretical maximum range of sensors and real world maximum ranges are usually not the same. EW systems and other interferences can degrade that effective range quite a bit. Besides, having longer ranged sensors gives better SA which gives better tools for succeeding in BVR fight. And sensors have other attributes as well, like ability to track larger number of simultaneous targets, track quality, EW and NCTR capabilities. Rafale, SH and F-16 E/F have AESAs which give superior performance in these.

I agree that missiles are one limiting factor, depending on target and exact conditions of the engagement. Nominally 100 km range missile can have less than 10 km effective range against target running away fast at low altitude. But there are other attributes in missiles also that make them more or less effective. For example France went with smaller and shorter ranged MICA missile that allows more missiles to be carried without sacrificing performance too much.
Offline

knowan

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 169
  • Joined: 24 Jul 2018, 10:39

Unread post13 Feb 2019, 15:36

Given the poor kinematics of the R-77, I'm not sure I'd put any aircraft relying on that missile in the top 10 at all.
Offline

swiss

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 324
  • Joined: 10 Jan 2017, 14:43

Unread post13 Feb 2019, 16:47

I would say, thanks to the Danish and Swiss evaluation we have a good pictures about the top western BVR fighters. No doubt, on top would be F-22 and F-35. Thanks to sensors and stealth. Followed by Rafale and EF. Then SH, F-15 with Aesa and F-16E. The F-15 has the bigger Radar, but the SH probably 2 order of magnitude lower RCS. So its hard to say which US Fighter is on top. And i assume every US 4 gen with AESA and Aim-120 C7/D is superior to Gripen E and Su-35.
Offline

fidgetspinner

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 20
  • Joined: 17 Nov 2018, 02:27

Unread post20 Feb 2019, 04:49

https://idstch.com/home5/international- ... -missiles/

“Detection range against a subsonic fighter-sized target is 90 km from the front and 145 km from the rear. It has an ID range of 40 km, and can track a maximum of 200 targets” Pirate IRST claim referencing a Su-27

Just to be sure can RWR's cue IRST systems to look specifically at a certain direction to where a target is?
Offline

esq

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 1
  • Joined: 24 Jun 2018, 17:53

Unread post20 Feb 2019, 09:35

fidgetspinner wrote:Just to be sure can RWR's cue IRST systems to look specifically at a certain direction to where a target is?


RWR with regard to the technical solution that it have can find the direction, not the target itself

lower detection level, more noisy, fewer detection parts - shorter distance and area of search
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2682
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post20 Feb 2019, 10:44

fidgetspinner wrote:https://idstch.com/home5/international-defence-security-and-technology/technology/photonics/infrared-search-and-track-irst-emerging-as-preferred-solution-for-engaging-stealthy-aircraft-and-cruise-missiles/

“Detection range against a subsonic fighter-sized target is 90 km from the front and 145 km from the rear. It has an ID range of 40 km, and can track a maximum of 200 targets” Pirate IRST claim referencing a Su-27

Just to be sure can RWR's cue IRST systems to look specifically at a certain direction to where a target is?


Quite a lot of errors in that web page. For example things like stealth aircraft requiring larger wings and RAM heating up quickly. Both are totally incorrect. Does F-35 have larger wings than competitors? Definitely not as it's about the same size as F-16. F-22 has only slightly larger area than F-15C.

Why are carbon fiber composites used as thermal insulation and shielding if it heated up quickly? Carbon fiber can have very good thermal properties depending on exact composition. Of course there is always topcoat paint used to lower thermal signature of the aircraft. Besides most of the thermal signature comes from engine and exhaust and internal systems. Skin heating is minor component in overall thermal signature of fighter jets in normal operating speeds. Even supercrusing F-22 likely generates most of the heat from engine.

Of course there were numerous other errors in that document. But IRST especially when combined with sensor fusion (and other sensors) is good tool for many things, including detection and tracking of VLO targets. But of course it's just one tool and not some magic system.
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 8108
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post20 Feb 2019, 16:59

fidgetspinner wrote:Just to be sure can RWR's cue IRST systems to look specifically at a certain direction to where a target is?
That depends on the system. Advanced systems like that of the Growler & F-35 already claim weapons-grade Geo-Location capabilities in their ESM so they would have no problem queuing an IRST. Older RWRs that only provide a bearing would have a hard time queuing an IRST while older still systems that only give a warning would not have a clue where it was coming from.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

fidgetspinner

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 20
  • Joined: 17 Nov 2018, 02:27

Unread post21 Feb 2019, 09:15

Thank you guys a bunch.

Return to Modern Military Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests