Emu

I know, but when it says 'New Build', what does it mean? The range is quite a bit increased. [ame] [/ame] In fact CAMM, which is based on ASRAAM, is only marginally longer (3.2m vs 2.9m) and manages >25km from a ground launch, which is 25% more than a MICA-VL (rated at 80km air-to-air - http://spsmai.com/exclusive/?id=19&q=MICA-missile-for-upgraded-Mirage-2000), so I would say the video is conservative. http://www.mbda-systems.com/?action=force-download-attachment&attachment_id=5906 The ASRAAM's internal volume is 71% more than an AIM-9 (so a fair chance of a good bit more propellant), it's also dual burn. Think about it, would AMRAAM have about the same range if it were 138mm wide instead of 180mm? Load wise, it still manages 50g, and doesn't rely on TVC, which will become dead-weight after the burn phase.

ASRAAM new build. Sounds interesting. Based on CAMM maybe?

Just read an interesting thread on F-22 fuel capacity. http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=33&t=14545&p=317577#p317577 What is the figure manufacturers actually quote for internal fuel? Does it vary cross borders? Do they quote total fuel volume, or usable fuel volume? Does usable fuel exclude reserve?

Oh sure bullets can't be decoyed, as long as you: a) Are inside 300-400m; and b) Manage to accurately snipe an aircraft doing 400-600mph by precisely pointing the nose of an aircraft whilst experiencing 9g of lateral loading, which is basically akin to trying to shit through your nose whilst treading an unpredictable needle that's doing 600mph. Now part b) is tricky, because in getting here you've implicitly made the assumption that radar won't work, so finding a gun solution without radar is going to be a little WWII, finger in the air, spray and pray. And if you fire a hundred bullets, and the enemy doesn't change direction as you're firing, maybe you'll get lucky, or maybe you won't, or maybe your gun will jam. So we see bullets actually have many countermeasures, range, speed, direction, interfering with the gun solution etc. They can't be decoyed, but then neither can the ground, which has ironically proven far more lethal to aircraft than bullets in the last 25 years, both in war and in peace. But those larger IIR missiles will still achieve BVR kills and failing that, they'll stuff enemy aircraft in the face whilst still closing WVR. Only one gun kill in Ethiopian-Eritrean air war and that was finishing off an aircraft after a missile had already achieved a mission kill. That was with aircraft using the R-27R, which performed worse dog poop to put it mildly. All but 2 kills were made using R-60/R-73, which are IR missiles (not IIR) and lack the capabilities of AIM-9X/MICA IR/ASRAAM. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-27_(air-to-air_missile) https://adalvoice.wordpress.com/2008/04/18/quarrels-over-the-border/ I know the ASRAAM is being integrated as an internal and external carry on the UK F-35. The damn crazy thing is that if you plonk the F-35A at the same internal fuel fraction as a Gripen NG or F-16C, that gives it a weight of 41,000lb, a T/W of 1.05 and a wing loading equal to the F-16C, whilst still providing for internal carriage and carrying a targeting pod and having EODAS, HMCS and HOBS/LOAL IIR missiles. And apparently the nose pointing ability is well above F-16 level. Is it really as bad as many people think it will be in a dog-fight? The Gripen NG which many Sprey-ites praise as 6th gen, has a T/W of 0.88 with the same internal fuel fraction (29%) and has to lug around external stores, which will have a relatively high impact on a light aircraft. [ame]http://saab.com/globalassets/commercial/air/gripen-fighter-system/gripen-ng/technical-brochure-gripen-ng-english-ver.2-jan-2015_low.pdf[/ame]

The longer IR stick is for use against stealth, not because missiles don't work. Guns have been retained barely, almost wasn't on the Eurofighter. Mostly it's about ground targets in high collateral areas and not air combat. Eventually we'll all have AESA headed missiles like the Japanese AAM-4B and then countermeasures will be redundant.

True, Bekaa Valley, but only 8 (10%) of those kills involved gun use and they were still on the Lima version of the AIM-9 and Foxtrot version of the AIM-7. Desert Storm was pretty much a re-run against a similar enemy with updated missiles and circa 60% of kills were outside 10nm, which was determined as BVR, 1 of the ones inside 10nm was at 8.5nm, and only 5 of the WVR kills involved dogfighting, with no gun use against fixed wing aircraft.

http://www.janes.com/article/58549/kirov-class-cruisers-to-be-equipped-with-new-tsirkon-hypersonic-asm

http://defense-update.com/20160304_fcas.html

An AWACS would have limited range against stealth planes. You could in theory do BVR with a stealth drone but it would be a matter of getting the decision making aspect of it right.

Yep. Stats read AF 3:1. Navy 6:1 for Vietnam.

Vietnam was about the last time a gun was widely used in air combat. Since then, only a couple in Falklands, one in Ethiopian-Eritrean War. Unless you count Desert Storm A-10 kills on helicopters. In Desert Storm less than half F-15 kills were WVR, less than 20% involved dogfights. F-15 at the time had no IRST or middle distance IIR AAMs.

I think it may have been sarcasm.:smilewink:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a19760/russias-new-fighter-trainer-has-backward-wings/

There's actually so many things standing in the way of a dogfight now that the only way it can really happen is if a routine escort suddenly turns hostile, which would probably require a pilot to have a mental breakdown of some kind. When you think that an F-15 with no IRST hit a MiG-21 from 8.5nm (15+km) head-on with an AIM-9M in Desert Storm, you really have to question how an aircraft is getting past even longer range IIR AAMs combined with IRST in order for a dogfight to ensue. Seems to me that the bigger factors in manoeuvrability would be things like climb rate (for positioning), acceleration (for escape) and high speed turns (for evasion) in BVR - for two aircraft of similar RCS that is anyway.

2020... ish.

I can't remember the reason but there was a problem with accidental launches on the F-16s I think. So there was literally no possibility of a kill, as there was no target on many of the launches. The F-15 pilots were arguably better trained and also had NCTR radar capability for BVR shots. I think these are the full stats: http://www.rjlee.org/air/ds-aakill/By%20Weapon/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-15_Termit

http://theaviationist.com/2016/03/01/heres-what-ive-learned-so-far-dogfighting-in-the-f-35-a-jsf-pilot-first-hand-account/ More at link.

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/171702/israel-reconsidering-purchase-of-f_35-fighters.html I see it mainly as a ToT issue.

B-21 Singularity.

F-14 Bomcat ;) http://www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=21889

nice. This is a quality website for round comparisons. http://www.quarryhs.co.uk/tankammo1.html

http://www.nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/look-out-america-china-can-un-stealth-us-fighter-jets-15293