announced DCS MiG-29A

[F-2]

The reason not to have the F-15a with our flanker is the F-15a is a 70s design while flanker or any flanker with a radar is 1991 or later, by the F-15s had apg-63 psp or apg-70 and aim-120a. 

Microwave Journal

Volume 47, Issues 1-6

2004

 

 

Quote

However, despite the success of RP-31, both institutes failed to develop the required systems on time, and less ambitious stopgap solutions were launched at the late '70s. NIIR designed and built the N019 Rubin (NATO: Slot Back) radar for the MiG-29, while NIIP developed the N001 Mech radar for the Su-27 (also called Slot Back by NATO). Both had traditional planar, mechanically scanned antennas. They were based on advanced solid-state technology and digital signal processing, but some radar controls were still partially analog. The main performance concession was that the radars could only track a single target with no track-while-scan capability. The biggest achievement was good look-down/shoot-down performance, with only a 20% range reduction. In the case of the N019 Rubin, the ranges were 85 km (detection) and 55-60 km (track). The maximum observation angle was 60 degrees up, 38 degrees down, and 67 degrees on either side. The range of NIIP's N001 Mech radar fell far short of expectations, with only 140 km against a bomber-type target and 100 km against a fighter-size target. In chase, the ranges were reduced by half. The radar failed to pass state trials in 1982, and in 1985 NIIP was directed to improve it. Finally it scraped by state trials in 1991 and was accepted to service, primarily because the alternative was that the Su-27 fighter would be left without any radar at all.

[nighthawk2174]

15 hours ago, HWasp said:

 

How do you clean up BVR with Aim-7s (or R-27R) ? At medium altitudes any shot beyond 10 nm with either of those has around 0% hit chance (unless the target flies like a target drone just straight into the missile...). If you have data, that the DCS Aim-7 is completely wrong, please share.

The farther back you go the worse the RWR tech for the Russians is, back in the mid to late 70's a large number of their jets only had the SPO-10 if even a RWR.  By the 80's the SPO-15 was starting to make its way a lot of the Russian front line jets but their allies would have lagged behind.  It would make defending against longer ranged sparrow shots a lot harder.  Keep in mind the current F15 radar in DCS is in some ways underperforming the original APG-63 on the F15A.  Such as less detection range, no RAID, no 8 bar scan, and no track memory.  Which for STT shots is a big deal as being notched is the end you will not reaquire and your missile will miss, irl it probably won't.

15 hours ago, HWasp said:

I get it, the F-15 has a very good radar, and that gives good SA, but if the weapon is the Aim-7, they'll have to get quite close to actually kill something, and that good SA will degrade quickly as they need to stay in STT to guide the missiles. 

Yes but there are tactics you can employ here to help with this, its why sorting is so important and the setup to the fight as well for Fox 1 fights.  Additionally shots within 15 miles for the sparrow at 20k feet are quite dangerous.  Only a split-S and increasing the range will save you, and well at that point you've given up the fight as you won't be able to turn back in safely unless there are other fighters to cover you and engage the enemy.  

15 hours ago, HWasp said:

At those 20-10 nm ranges where the real fight starts both 29/27 or even a MiG-23 should be able to get a lock on the F-15 and shoot missiles with comparable range, that are even faster. Are the F-15s going to just stay on target all the way, while their Aim-7s finally hit, hoping that the R-27 is just a shitty missile, and won't hit them anyway? Because if both break lock fearing the enemy missile at some point, then the F-15s just found themself somewhere less than 5 nm to those IR missiles, and their superior radar does not do much at those ranges.

Your ignoring ECM, the F15/F14 has an internal ECM suite and there are a number of USAF and USN OECM platforms as well.  From what we know the soviet radars of the 70's and 80's had extremely poor resistance to ECM (F4/F16A is probably in the same boat as well).  Which if combined with their rather poor detection range is not a good combination for the Russian jets.   The APG-63/70 would have faired far better being a more powerful radar with a lot of ECCM systems.  Close in the far superior cockpit visibility and usability of the close in radar modes should not be underestimated, not to mention superior maneuvering performance, and the maneuverability of the 9L, while not an archer, it is still a very maneuverable missile.  Plus the farther back you go the rarer flare dispensers on the Russian jets become.  Every common US jet has flare dispensers with a good number of flares.

15 hours ago, HWasp said:

And btw, what about the numbers in the 1980s? It would be quite realistic to have something like a 4v1 against GCI guided MiG-23s. How were they going to manage that if the range of their primary weapons are that close?

A flight of 4v8 would probably start with attrition the enemy flight down heavily before the merge.  This happened in every single engagement between western and PACT jets I know of.  Attriting the enemy down from superior or equal number down to equal or fewer in number.  Additionally as was shown in the Lebanon ground based GCI systems are extremely vulnerable to attack and jamming.  And if your jets are reliant on the system staying up when and if it goes down you will suffer heavily.   Meanwhile the airborne systems of NATO and superior radars on individual jets only makes this worse for the Russians.  Good luck effectively completing sorties and getting coordinated attacks with superior numbers if your entire GCI system is being attacked and jammed.   

15 hours ago, HWasp said:

So I think, that 1 to 6 ratio sounds like whishful thinking.

I don't think so the superiority of western jets in aerial combat, and traning, would absolutely make this a very likely outcome.

[nighthawk2174]

On 8/27/2021 at 1:57 PM, Gahab141 said:

55km? In which conditions? 

The AIM-7F when being guided by a CW signal had a limit of 22NMi against a 2m^2 target while being guided by a transmiter with rather lower power.  The kind you'd find on the earlier F4's.  When being guided by a PD signal from the -63/AWG9 it would have much better range than this.  Not only does it have more power to receive from the target but the PD signals in general have better range iirc.  30 miles for the seeker limit against a flanker sized target is probably a good conservative estimate.

  

On 8/28/2021 at 1:30 AM, Cmptohocah said:

Could you give us some more info on this? From what I read in the 29B's manual the radar doesn't seem very dependable in some situations. Mainly in LPRF (ЗПС) and close to the ground where the ranging would have an error as well as false targets would appear.

I don't have much but a friend of mine got access to some pretty in depth technical analysis of the MIG-29's radar for both the slotback 1 and 2.  I don't remember much as this was ~4.5 years ago but he ranted for over an hour about how bad the radar was.  The only thing I remember for sure is that he called the ECCM a joke and that in certain situations (tail chaise in particular I think?) the slotback's had difficulty in getting and maintain a solid STT lock.  In some situation I think it could take up to 30+ sec for the radar to establish an STT lock.  I'll see if I can find him and see if he still has access to said documents.

Edited August 29, 2021 by nighthawk2174
2m^2 target not 5m^2

[HWasp]

2 hours ago, nighthawk2174 said:

The farther back you go the worse the RWR tech for the Russians is, back in the mid to late 70's a large number of their jets only had the SPO-10 if even a RWR.  By the 80's the SPO-15 was starting to make its way a lot of the Russian front line jets but their allies would have lagged behind.  It would make defending against longer ranged sparrow shots a lot harder.  Keep in mind the current F15 radar in DCS is in some ways underperforming the original APG-63 on the F15A.  Such as less detection range, no RAID, no 8 bar scan, and no track memory.  Which for STT shots is a big deal as being notched is the end you will not reaquire and your missile will miss, irl it probably won't.

 

Yes but there are tactics you can employ here to help with this, its why sorting is so important and the setup to the fight as well for Fox 1 fights.  Additionally shots within 15 miles for the sparrow at 20k feet are quite dangerous.  Only a split-S and increasing the range will save you, and well at that point you've given up the fight as you won't be able to turn back in safely unless there are other fighters to cover you and engage the enemy.  

Your ignoring ECM, the F15/F14 has an internal ECM suite and there are a number of USAF and USN OECM platforms as well.  From what we know the soviet radars of the 70's and 80's had extremely poor resistance to ECM (F4/F16A is probably in the same boat as well).  Which if combined with their rather poor detection range is not a good combination for the Russian jets.   The APG-63/70 would have faired far better being a more powerful radar with a lot of ECCM systems.  Close in the far superior cockpit visibility and usability of the close in radar modes should not be underestimated, not to mention superior maneuvering performance, and the maneuverability of the 9L, while not an archer, it is still a very maneuverable missile.  Plus the farther back you go the rarer flare dispensers on the Russian jets become.  Every common US jet has flare dispensers with a good number of flares.

 

A flight of 4v8 would probably start with attrition the enemy flight down heavily before the merge.  This happened in every single engagement between western and PACT jets I know of.  Attriting the enemy down from superior or equal number down to equal or fewer in number.  Additionally as was shown in the Lebanon ground based GCI systems are extremely vulnerable to attack and jamming.  And if your jets are reliant on the system staying up when and if it goes down you will suffer heavily.   Meanwhile the airborne systems of NATO and superior radars on individual jets only makes this worse for the Russians.  Good luck effectively completing sorties and getting coordinated attacks with superior numbers if your entire GCI system is being attacked and jammed.   

 

I don't think so the superiority of western jets in aerial combat, and traning, would absolutely make this a very likely outcome.

 

The initial claim here, that I jumped on was that Su-27 vs F-15 the exchange ratio would be 6 to 1 in favor of the F-15.

Now we are talking about SPO-10 and MiG-21/23. 

Going 6:1 against the 21 and 23 sounds realistic and tbh it is close to the minimum requirement for an F-15 (or 14) given the numbers and the price difference between those aircraft.

I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that about a half squadron worth of 23s could be bought for the price of the F-15. And production numbers reflect that. (Let's not even talk about 21s)

 

In DCS a 15 nm Sparrow shot from 20k ft is absolutely no reason to splitS or break lock in any way. If you claim, that missile kinematics are modeled wrong for aim-7, then please post report to have them fix it. I have only seen charts for the 7F.

 

It might be considered otherwise IRL because, well it is IRL and they would respect any weapon launch much much more as it life or death. But that also means, that an R-27 launch would be treated with much more respect, as well, and could cause the enemy to break lock.

 

(BTW I've read it here often, that the R-27 is considered a shit missile because it scored almost 0 in the Ethiopia-Eritrea war without anyone knowing what happened there.

Never read anyone thinking about the possibilty, that maybe those mercenary pilots did not want to press a deadly head-on and rather broke lock trashing both missiles.

 

It's easy to turn a 100% pk fox1 to 0% if they break lock....)

 

 

[HWasp]

It's a bit off-topic, but I think it might be important to keep in mind, when those middle-east conflicts are quoted as proof for total western superiority, that while syrian mobile SA-6 systems were destroyed with ease there in the 1980s,  much more recently, in 1999 a shitty old SA-3 unit managed to stay alive with no losses in the NATO-Serbia war and scored 2:0 with all the ECM and harms flying around. 

I think that should be kept in mind before going to the very convenient conclusion that it would have been an easy fight in the 1980s in Europe

[bies]

On 8/24/2021 at 8:53 PM, Cmptohocah said:

Problem is that ED started an open arms race with the 3rd party modules and Russian/Soviet planes stayed behind with very slimm chance of ever catching up.

Now we have a situation where only western airplanes are becomimg more and more modern and we (red drivers) are left in the dirt. Of course people are complainign and wanting better/newer platforms).

I am talking about multiplayer experience.

 

I understand that but I fly Soviet Cold War MiG-29A, Su-25A and Su-27S on proper timeframe Cold War and 1980s scenarios and MP servers and i have a blast, it's both competitive and realistic at the same time.

No point really taking 1980s MiG-29 against 25 years more modern 2007 F-16, just like there is no point taking Bf-109 against 25 years more modern MiG-21 - it's a matter of realistic or fictional mission design.

[Cmptohocah]

3 hours ago, HWasp said:

...in 1999 a shitty old SA-3 unit managed to stay alive with no losses in the NATO-Serbia war and scored 2:0 with all the ECM and harms flying around...

This particular SAM battery was engaged over 20 times if not more (I would need to check the axact numbers) and mind you that SA-3 is a static system. So it's not as clear cut in RL as people would think.

A lot of discussions start with "analog, outdated..." Soviet technology, but just because something is not equal on paper does not mean that it can't be deadly.

It's wrong to apply NATO way of thinking to Soviet hardware as wrong conslusions can easily be drawn.

[GGTharos]

This particular SAM wasn't staying up to do its best against everything flying out there.   Yes, if you put your head down, hide, and pop up for the occasional shot you can survive a lot longer, and this was the idea.  The reason the military wasn't attacked on the ground is because they hid, anticipating a ground invasion.

 

If those SAMs had been told to 'make a wall', they'd be dropping just like those SA-6s.

 

As for 'old analog' yes, they can be deadly.  You can use MiG-21s with R60s in ambush CAPs and they'll work if your high-tech opponent isn't careful.  The 'knife fight' is where things get equalized a lot of times, because ambushes and close fights are just that.  Same with knife vs gun ... get close enough, suddenly it's the knife that's more dangerous.

 

Don't mistake the situation for technological differentiation.

[Cmptohocah]

58 minutes ago, GGTharos said:

The 'knife fight' is where things get equalized a lot of times, because ambushes and close fights are just that.  Same with knife vs gun ... get close enough, suddenly it's the knife that's more dangerous.

This is the basis of every fight: use your advantages and your opponents flaws.

 

You can't expect to win with a knife against a gun unless you bring the gun to where you are at an advantage.

This is what that SAM battery did. 

Anyway, my point was that Soviet technology was many times underestimated but also many times proved to be more than capable when needed. Starting from WWI throughout the cold war and possibly even today.

 

People also tend to compare Soviet hardware 1:1 and out of context. Sure Flanker had inferior radar, but it was a part of a greater system in which it operated and same goes for the Fulcrum.

 

[Exorcet]

1 hour ago, bies said:

 

No point really taking 1980s MiG-29 against 25 years more modern 2007 F-16, just like there is no point taking Bf-109 against 25 years more modern MiG-21 - it's a matter of realistic or fictional mission design.

The difference in years doesn't really say much. Technological growth was most faster post WWII than at the end of the Cold War (which included budget cuts and de-escalation).

 

The Fishbed and Bf are worlds apart. The Viper and Fulcrum have the similar speed, acceleration, and aerodynamics. The F-16 has advantages in avionics and weapons, but they are only 1 or two steps ahead of the Fulcrum compared to the pretty wide chasm between the other two; missiles vs no missiles. Also speaking realistically, the mismatch of early MiG vs modern western aircraft has happened, and the former still have shown the potential to be dangerous.

 

Modern red would be great, but what DCS currently offers isn't toothless.

[HWasp]

57 minutes ago, GGTharos said:

This particular SAM wasn't staying up to do its best against everything flying out there.   Yes, if you put your head down, hide, and pop up for the occasional shot you can survive a lot longer, and this was the idea.  The reason the military wasn't attacked on the ground is because they hid, anticipating a ground invasion.

 

If those SAMs had been told to 'make a wall', they'd be dropping just like those SA-6s.

 

 

Well, I think that is the point here, that they were able to adapt to the situation, use their equipment the best way possible.

In those other often mentioned conflicts it is usually the opposite, like not moving a mobile SAM unit for days, firing a lot of missiles on fake drone targets, shooting down their own aircrafts all the time, etc... Maybe there was a bit of difference in training standards, who knows?

 

Telling mobile SA-6 units to just stay there and form a wall is not something I would consider very clever....

 

Also being able to set up a SAM trap means, that they knew where to look and when (they allowed themself 20 seconds of radar emission at a time, then relocate as fast as possible afaik), so NATO wasn't really able to completely disrupt their "system". In 1999.

[GGTharos]

2 hours ago, HWasp said:

Well, I think that is the point here, that they were able to adapt to the situation, use their equipment the best way possible.

 

No, that's a poor point.  The NATO-Soviet engagements are a lot more straight up force on force scenarios as opposed to one side bringing overwhelming air power vs the other trying to hide out.

 

2 hours ago, HWasp said:

In those other often mentioned conflicts it is usually the opposite, like not moving a mobile SAM unit for days, firing a lot of missiles on fake drone targets, shooting down their own aircrafts all the time, etc... Maybe there was a bit of difference in training standards, who knows?

 

Maybe you missed reports of SAMs possibly downing their own aircraft in these 'other' conflicts (which having a distinct lack of their own aircraft to fire at while at it), and barely hitting anything despite the plethora of targets flying overhead?  Yeah, they managed a couple of kills and stayed alive.  And lost the war so what sort of great example do you want to take from this?

 

2 hours ago, HWasp said:

Telling mobile SA-6 units to just stay there and form a wall is not something I would consider very clever....

 

Air defense groups build static defenses in depth.   You can consider anything you want clever or not, it doesn't matter.

 

2 hours ago, HWasp said:

Also being able to set up a SAM trap means, that they knew where to look and when (they allowed themself 20 seconds of radar emission at a time, then relocate as fast as possible afaik), so NATO wasn't really able to completely disrupt their "system". In 1999.

 

I'm aware of their operations.  So what?  Like I said, good for them, they stayed alive.  Got a couple of kills, and lost the war.   So what?

Edited August 29, 2021 by GGTharos

[HWasp]

8 minutes ago, GGTharos said:

 

No, that's a poor point.  The NATO-Soviet engagements are a lot more straight up force on force scenarios as opposed to one side bringing overwhelming air power vs the other trying to hide out.

 

 

Maybe you missed reports of SAMs possibly downing their own aircraft in these 'other' conflicts (which having a distinct lack of their own aircraft to fire at while at it), and barely hitting anything despite the plethora of targets flying overhead?  Yeah, they managed a couple of kills and stayed alive.  And lost the war so what sort of great example do you want to take from this?

 

 

Air defense groups build static defenses in depth.   You can consider anything you want clever or not, it doesn't matter.

 

 

Ah, ok I guess it was stricty forbidden for soviets to move their air defenses around, especially since most their 1980s stuff was mobile, even the SA-10 has a deployment time of 5 minutes. But I guess they'll just use them as static defense in depth, because reasons...

 

They certainly did not think about trying to make highly mobile and redundant systems, like the SA-11, all the launchers having their own fcr. Just everything static. 

 

37 minutes ago, GGTharos said:

 

I'm aware of their operations.  So what?  Like I said, good for them, they stayed alive.  Got a couple of kills, and lost the war.   So what?

 

 

[WarbossPetross]

49 минут назад, HWasp сказал:

 

Ah, ok I guess it was stricty forbidden for soviets to move their air defenses around, especially since most their 1980s stuff was mobile, even the SA-10 has a deployment time of 5 minutes. But I guess they'll just use them as static defense in depth, because reasons...

 

They certainly did not think about trying to make highly mobile and redundant systems, like the SA-11, all the launchers having their own fcr. Just everything static.

It gets better, the latest version of SA-15 (Tor-M1-2U) doesn't even need to stop, like, at all. It aims and fires on the move. So does SA-22.

[GGTharos]

1 hour ago, HWasp said:

Ah, ok I guess it was stricty forbidden for soviets to move their air defenses around, especially since most their 1980s stuff was mobile, even the SA-10 has a deployment time of 5 minutes. But I guess they'll just use them as static defense in depth, because reasons...

 

So they'll just move around willy nilly because reasons ... I mean who need to actually defend anything, as long as the SAMs move around

20 minutes ago, WarbossPetross said:

It gets better, the latest version of SA-15 (Tor-M1-2U) doesn't even need to stop, like, at all. It aims and fires on the move. So does SA-22.

 

And guess what gets even better than this.    Mobile facilities that can move along with your SAMs so you can defend them.

 

Because hey look, lets compare little point defense SAMs to theatre defense SAMs. They're all the same and can run around, fire the move, blow up tanks with their missiles and win the entire conflict by themselves 'cause no one can ever challenge them because they are mobile. 

[HWasp]

15 minutes ago, GGTharos said:

 

So they'll just move around willy nilly because reasons ... I mean who need to actually defend anything, as long as the SAMs move around

 

And guess what gets even better than this.    Mobile facilities that can move along with your SAMs so you can defend them.

 

Because hey look, lets compare little point defense SAMs to theatre defense SAMs. They're all the same and can run around, fire the move, blow up tanks with their missiles and win the entire conflict by themselves 'cause no one can ever challenge them because they are mobile. 

 

Hey, everybody knows, that the key to successfully defend objectives is to have your SAMs at a fixed place, so that the enemy can locate their position exactly very easy. Don't ever try to hide them, don't deploy any decoys, just stay there, turn on the radar and take it. Just like in DCS.

[zerO_crash]

There are so many wrong assumptions here, that it´s completely crazy. I see people here are hung up on scenarios you find in an average bad scenario in DCS in MP or simply tied up comparing apples to oranges.

 

First and foremost, there would be little to none BVR if a conflict would erupt in Europe. The ROE would be a complete nightmare in such a crowded airspace as well as a scenario of this magnitude. The whole idea of BVR has been often proved wrong, as for example allies will not have the same IFF codes in all of their aircraft, and thus you can forget those imaginary 60nm shots that you so bluntly state here would save the day. There would be too big of a chance of Blue-on-Blue, therefore it would probably come down to visual identification, hence why Russians still believe in the dogfighting skills. That´s for one.

 

Two, you are comparing different aircraft meant for different roles and tactics, thus equipped with different equipment. It is not a an even race where everyone plays by the rules. Russians have always relied on GCI-controlled interception and airspace and thus one cannot talk about differences between an SPO-10/15 and a AN/ALR56, especially when US/Western tactics relies more on the individual performance. One of you can claim that one is better than the other, but frankly you have no idea. The western model is good in some ways, such as having a rather rapid nature of engagement, but on the other side, imagine how weak SA one pilot has in the west with his own aircraft compared to a soviet one, which must rely on the GCI, but the GCI then sitting with the picture of a couple hundred kilometres. Those are different ideologies, and one cannot say that one is better than the other, because if that was the case, then both sides would be using the same tactics. They are not sleeping over in the HQ´s. You cannot compare equipment directly because its not meant to be used to the same degree, or with the same priority. This whole point bears no value whatsoever. Everything is built to fit a specific tactic and that stands. You are all also underestimating the very important point of reliability. I don´t care how good your aircraft is, the more technology, the higher the chance that it breaks. That´s a statistical fact. Furthermore, analogue is maybe less "advanced" than digital, but do not make the mistake of thinking that it is necessarily worse. That is not always the case. Spec Ops from US often use AK´s in Afghanistan and other "dusty" climates due to reliability. ACOG and a laser will help you little when your gun jams and you are about to breach a door. Same goes for aircraft. (I have IRL accounts from military personal of varying military grades as to them often disliking western weapons due to reliability issues and malfunctions).

 

Three, you are locking the outcome of a whole conflict based on a couple of aircraft that you are mentioning in an isolated event which would never happen. There would be jamming from both sides, probably no satellites (because war), therefore back to EGI, and other doppler systems. There would be aircraft such as Mig25/31´s with far greater missiles and range. Same goes for the west, F-22/35, etc. There would be SAM´s, MANPADS, there would be electronic and digital warfare. The conflict you are trying to decide based on a couple of aircraft is just stupid as these aircraft would be a negligible fraction of theatre and all the parties involved. And the point still stands, what is the actual objective. Its great if you manage to win the air war, but what does that matter if all your aerodromes are bombed and you have nowhere to land. Or nowhere to come back to. And then, as a final cherry on the cake, in case of a potential defeat of either side, let me remind you of the funny amount of nuclear weapons we got in the world. Enough to decimate the earth a couple times over. Do you really want to talk about who´s RWR is the best?

 

To sum it all up, and prove to you all how your faith in technology alone and better equipment or training is the secret winning ingredient, well, no one has ever managed to seize Afghanistan. Guys running around with turbans, praying, eating and sleeping. No fancy-schwancy equipment, no airforce to speak of, not even a unified chain of command like the most powerful militaries in the world have; Russia, USA and China. Just splinter groups detached from each other, fighting between each other, as well as against foreign forces and still win by kicking US out after 20 years. Same fate as Soviets, same as Napoleon. That´s how much your fancy equipment matters on a battlefield, where guerrilla warfare so far is unstoppable. Reprise from Vietnam, reprise from WWII, where germans invaded USSR with more advanced equipment, but ended up having Soviet flag hung down from the Reichstag in the end. The equipment was so advanced that it broke down under itself, because of too much technology and too little reliability. This all comes down to one thing, tactics and morale of your army, their incentive to fight. If the cause is just, SPO-10 or not, they will go to war and die if necessary. A AIM120C will help you little, if your pilots feel they have no business being in a country fighting a war and giving away their life for something they don´t believe in.

 

@GGTharos Its great that you are always a firm believer of western superiority, and an eternal lover of F-15, but trust me, it doesn´t matter one bit in the grand scheme of things. Neither Apaches, nor F-15C secured US anything in the latest conflicts they have fought. In the end, if even a battle was won, the war was ultimately lost. So much for your fantastic futuristic tech. Mind you, when going to Iraq or Balkans, US brought more fighters with them than the enemy had troops on the ground (exaggeration, but you get the point). It wasn´t about equal 1v1´s to see who´s better, but rather about making the fight as unfair as possible, because that´s what a smart strategist would always do. It´s the tactics and strategy that wins you the war.

 

Arguing like kids over who´s aircraft is better leads nowhere. Worse yet, the misconception of applying western tactics to aircraft from the east, or vice versa. It´s a wrong assumption to make. Also, whoever disrespected their enemy has lost to them, that´s a fact. You better assume that your enemy is competent and can do more than you, cause that way at least you have a chance.

 

If you want to test yourself, go into DCS with a different mindset. Give yourself one life, as a real pilot would have, and see how long you will live. I can guarantee you that you won´t be thinking of Mig`s or Sukhois as carelessly, and vice versa.

Edited August 29, 2021 by zerO_crash

[Wizard_03]

8 minutes ago, zerO_crash said:

There are so many wrong assumptions here, that it´s completely crazy. I see people here are hung up on scenarios you find in an average bad scenario in DCS in MP or simply tied up comparing apples to oranges.

 

First and foremost, there would be little to none BVR if a conflict would erupt in Europe. The ROE would be a complete nightmare in such a crowded airspace as well as a scenario of this magnitude. The whole idea of BVR has been often proved wrong, as for example allies will not have the same IFF codes in all of their aircraft, and thus you can forget those imaginary 60nm shots that you so bluntly state here would save the day. There would be too big of a chance of Blue-on-Blue, therefore it would probably come down to visual identification, hence why Russians still believe in the dogfighting skills. That´s for one.

That goes against what pretty much every large scale excerise involving modern air combat in the last 30 to 40 years has shown. Go ahead and flip that, if a near peer conflict broke out you'd have next to zero dogfighting and almost exclusively BVR combat. IFF has come along way since the 70s at least in the west. It's fairly straightforward to determine if something is hostile at range now. 

[zerO_crash]

4 minutes ago, Wizard_03 said:

That goes against what pretty much every large scale excerise involving modern air combat in the last 30 to 40 years has shown. Go ahead and flip that, if a near peer conflict broke out you'd have next to zero dogfighting and almost exclusively BVR combat. IFF has come along way since the 70s at least in the west. It's fairly straightforward to determine if something is hostile at range now. 

 

Absolutely not, counting everything from civilian flights, through unidentified aircraft (different affiliation) to finally a defect IFF-module. I´d like to see a source showing where BVR has been used, esp. in a bigger conflict. Even a pilot making a human error and choosing a wrong IFF code. The risk is too high, and it´s there.

 

EDIT: I see you mention "exercise", yeah well... Let´s not compare exercises to real war, shall we?

Edited August 29, 2021 by zerO_crash

[Wizard_03]

8 minutes ago, zerO_crash said:

 

Absolutely not, counting everything from civilian flights, through unidentified aircraft (different affiliation) to finally a defect IFF-module. I´d like to see a source showing where BVR has been used, esp. in a bigger conflict. Even a pilot making a human error and choosing a wrong IFF code. The risk is too high, and it´s there.

 

EDIT: I see you mention "exercise", yeah well... Let´s not compare exercises to real war, shall we?

 

IFF and ROEs are used together, and there's quite a bit more to it then simply entering the right code. You can determine a lot based on just heading speed and altitude before we need to even worry about positive IFF responses. Never the less That exact problem is why they have large scale exercises involving multiple air forces, so that people can coordinate in fog of war conditions. 

[XPACT]

1 hour ago, zerO_crash said:

Mind you, when going to Iraq or Balkans, US brought more fighters with them than the enemy had troops on the ground (exaggeration, but you get the point). It wasn´t about equal 1v1´s to see who´s better, but rather about making the fight as unfair as possible, because that´s what a smart strategist would always do. It´s the tactics and strategy that wins you the war.

 

Not to mention that even with all their military might and air superiority they wouldn't dare to do ground invasion on Yugoslavia (they tried it from Kosovo with their backed UCK terrorists to see how army would respond, that attempt failed miserably) estimated casualties ratio was 1:2 in favor of NATO but still that would be hundreds of thousands dead NATO soldiers so that was scraped off the table really quick.

Vojvodina would fall pretty easily (there was still defense plan for it too) but everything south of Belgrade and Belgrade itself would prove bloodiest engagement yet seen in modern history with guerilla warfare they were not prepared to fight.

There is one thing many people don't take into account in such situations, and that is morale of troops defending is 10x as much as those who are attacking place on the map they didn't even know existed few days ago, so technological advantage can easily prove not enough.

[zerO_crash]

52 minutes ago, Wizard_03 said:

IFF and ROEs are used together, and there's quite a bit more to it then simply entering the right code. You can determine a lot based on just heading speed and altitude before we need to even worry about positive IFF responses. Never the less That exact problem is why they have large scale exercises involving multiple air forces, so that people can coordinate in fog of war conditions. 

 

I know how it works, but heading, speed and altitude give you little when you have a) fast moving jets, b) again, crowded airspace. And again, do not compare exercises. It is something completely different to actually be in war and feel the stress mount up due to potential casualty vs. getting "shot down" digitally and then debrief it. Exercises are good, but they are nowhere near a real conflict. Everyone will tell you that. Exercises are orchestrated and prepared, they are planned and followed through within boundaries. It is something completely different when you go to war and as soon as the conflict erupts, all the briefings and plans go to hell because your enemy is smart and counters, forcing you to counter again. Couple that with lack of supplies, sleep deprivation, all the possible emotions because of loss of fellow mates and friends and feeling of powerlessness. Add to that complete chaos, because war, and you are starting to understand a part of it. Let me put it this way, an exercise is better than doing nothing.

 

There is a reason why "Stormin´ Norman" - Gen. Schwarzkopf stated that the low casualties on the coalition-side during Gulf War were a miracle. It was a miracle and it was thanks to Saddam Hussain interfering with the decision of his generals without having any knowledge of warfare. If the contemporary would be schooled in warfare, it would be a whole different outcome. That and the morale of the army. And keep in mind, even then, Iraqis were combat hardened after 7 years of having fought Iran and occupied Kuwait. They had far more than just "training" in a synthetic setting.

 

You want to see what fighting is like, trained or not, vs. someone half-competent in warfare? Battle of Mogadishu anno 1993. To this day, it is a disgrace to USA that Maj. Gen. William F. Garrison was treated the way he was in the aftermath. Soldiers under his command themselves stated that they would go to war under his command any time. The loss of life was inevitable, and they fought against somalis with AK´s and RPG´s. Didn´t help to have helicopters, armored vehicles, convoys and fully geared troops. That gives you an idea what it is to fight against someone who knows a bit more about tactics than Saddam and how irrelevant technology can be, compared to reliability, morale and all the aforementioned factors.

 

Trust me, IFF and ROE is not what you think, even today. Even the militaries with the biggest budgets in the world, have boundaries as to how advanced equipment they can operate, and how much advanced.

 

 

25 minutes ago, XPACT said:

 

Not to mention that even with all their military might and air superiority they wouldn't dare to do ground invasion on Yugoslavia (they tried it from Kosovo with their backed UCK terrorists to see how army would respond, that attempt failed miserably) estimated casualties ratio was 1:2 in favor of NATO but still that would be hundreds of thousands dead NATO soldiers so that was scraped off the table really quick.

Vojvodina would fall pretty easily (there was still defense plan for it too) but everything south of Belgrade and Belgrade itself would prove bloodiest engagement yet seen in modern history with guerilla warfare they were not prepared to fight.

There is one thing many people don't take into account in such situations, and that is morale of troops defending is 10x as much as those who are attacking place on the map they didn't even know existed few days ago, so technological advantage can easily prove not enough.

 

Precisely that 

Edited August 29, 2021 by zerO_crash

[okopanja]

Looks like I am arriving late to the party.

In general the effectiveness of a weapon systems within a single conflict depend on following factors:

1. Own side qualities and quantities
   1. technical factors: offensive and defensive features
   2. numeric factors: available numbers for deployment
   3. human factors: crew availability, morale, knowledge, training, tactics
2. Enemy side qualities and quantities
   1. technical factors: offensive and defensive features
   2. numeric factors: available numbers for deployment
   3. human factors: crew availability, morale, knowledge, training, tactics.
3. Environment (e.g. if we compare Iraq and Yugoslavia, the difference is quite obvious in terms of relief and how it encourages/limits certain kind of weapon tactics).

In the aftermath of the conflict 99,99% of observers does not consider any of the above, but rather the end result. They tend to approach this like a sport match (especially if they or their family did not get affected!), so natural way to compare is obvious: western weapon X is better than eastern weapon Y, because at the end they inflicted/had so much casualties. In some cases they may be even right, but also very wrong, because they fail to recognize and consider all factors. At best such conclusions are speculations.

 

If you really wish to judge this you have to be able to quantify and compare all of these factors before drawing the conclusion.

Example:

1999 MIG-29A (export version) vs F-16CJ Block 50 performance (or F-15C).

Purely numerically: Mig-29 scored 0 victories and mostly got shot down almost always.

Obvious conclusion: Mig-29 and its missiles are inferior to the western counterparts (the next level of extrapolation is F-15C vs Su-27).

Now lets compare the sides briefly.
NATO:

- satellites

- ERW radars

- AWACS (multiple)

- JSTARS

- Tankers (multiple)

- Airplanes (over 1000)

- Airbases on virtually all countries around Yugoslavia, some set as deployment bases, some as emergency landing.

Yugoslavia:

- Country with long border surrounded by NATO, blockaded for almost 10 years prior to war

- ERW radars based on eastern/western, usability limited buy mountains.

- Mig-21 fleet which virtually did not fly

- Mig-29 (in theory 16, but sad reality is that probably no more than 10 or 11 could actually take off, far less to actually fight, most of them reported radar failure early on takeoff)

- Low number of pilot flying hours

 

Now lets assume Yugoslavia had F-15C instead and that 1-2 F-15C did fly to challenge combat group of 8+ aircraft dedicated only to air superiority tasks (I do not count AWACS and remaining support package here). Does anyone here really think that F-15C would have any better chance of downing any enemy fighters? I am pretty sure it would suffer the same sorry fate, except the conclusion of the "informed" people would be: F-15C is inferior to F-15C!

 

My point is here: historic results are often very poor information for modeling the fighter performance. To do this properly you have to have solid technical data, manuals, ELINT and do then the proper math work.

 

As for the discussion between analogue vs digital. As a student I had the chance and honor to visit units that had in their inventor different AAD systems. They even let us operate it (with direct instructions) in a simulator mode.

 

S-125 Neva (analog)

- first they show us the radar antenna: you watch huge targeting antenna (and probably heavy too) moving around as it was made of paper and hope it will not fall on you.

- control vehicle: really hot narrow place, they warned us about uncased FAN on entry and cautioned us to be careful if we want to keep all 10 fingers, nose and ears.

- had the feeling I am WW2 submarine (or maybe 1950s), since everything is operated with wheels and knobs

- the screen displaying the radar returns is filled in with white noise, and if you carefully use your eyes, you will notice a tiny barely perceivable blip there.

- target acquired using 2 wheels, locked, 2 missiles fired

- 10 seconds later when simulated rocket signal was lost, they told us it was a hit based on how far the needle went far! (I could not hide my disappointment)

- coordinate system is totally weird due to the antenna being tilted to easy the clearing of ground clutter.

- big plus: control vehicle is not source of radar emission! I am almost safe here!

 

Kub (analog+digital)

- way more comfort and modern: it combines analog and digital world. Displays are kind of analog blurry art, but they ensure us that the "computer" is digital.

- command station: another fast rotating uncased FAN and same joke: Watch your noses, ears and fingers!

- there is actually a designator above the screen that looks like a mouse (can perhaps enter into competition for early mouses, except it had the hand that transfers movement to measuring device)

- it actually looks like something common human might be able to use...

 

Swedish produced Giraffe 75 (digital) directing AAA guns:

- IKEA-like simplicity: nice cabin, comfortable chairs.

- Cost-savvy: everything in single vehicle (well obviously AAA guns are separate)

- Luxury: air-conditioned, we did not want to get out at 35 degrees out.

- Nice table with round shared screen in the middle for 1 commander + 3 operators.

- Each operator has a stick + buttons for basic operations like locking. I sort of expect the commander will open a hidden panel with dials and switched, sadly not this time.

- The plots are crystal clear and the thing actually shows the vectors! Sit back, relax, and let the cannons acquire the designated plots. From there they will easily acquire the location of that little patch on the sky where the target is, range the distance and ruin someones day.

- Except, if the HARM comes our way, I am sitting right below the antenna...

 

Who among them shot the F-117 and F-16CJ? (Answer: S-125).

Note also that F-16CJs were 4 ship flight armed with HARMs going deliberately for SAM hunting in that area.

[Wizard_03]

21 minutes ago, zerO_crash said:

 

I know how it works, but heading, speed and altitude give you little when you have a) fast moving jets, b) again, crowded airspace. And again, do not compare exercises. It is something completely different to actually be in war and feel the stress mount up due to potential casualty vs. getting "shot down" digitally and then debrief it. Exercises are good, but they are nowhere near a real conflict. Everyone will tell you that. Exercises are orchestrated and prepared, they are planned and followed through within boundaries. It is something completely different when you go to war and as soon as the conflict erupts, all the briefings and plans go to hell because your enemy is smart and counters, forcing you to counter again. Couple that with lack of supplies, sleep deprivation, all the possible emotions because of loss of fellow mates and friends and feeling of powerlessness. Add to that complete chaos, because war, and you are starting to understand a part of it. Let me put it this way, an exercise is better than doing nothing.

 

There is a reason why "Stormin´ Norman" - Gen. Schwarzkopf stated that the low casualties on the coalition-side during Gulf War were a miracle. It was a miracle and it was thanks to Saddam Hussain interfering with the decision of his generals without having any knowledge of warfare. If the contemporary would be schooled in warfare, it would be a whole different outcome. That and the morale of the army. And keep in mind, even then, Iraqis were combat hardened after 7 years of having fought Iran and occupied Kuwait. They had far more than just "training" in a synthetic setting.

 

You want to see what fighting is like, trained or not, vs. someone half-competent in warfare? Battle of Mogadishu anno 1993. To this day, it is a disgrace to USA that Maj. Gen. William F. Garrison was treated the way he was in the aftermath. Soldiers under his command themselves stated that they would go to war under his command any time. The loss of life was inevitable, and they fought against somalis with AK´s and RPG´s. Didn´t help to have helicopters, armored vehicles, convoys and fully geared troops. That gives you an idea what it is to fight against someone who knows a bit more about tactics than Saddam.

 

Trust me, IFF and ROE is not what you think, even today. Even the militaries with the biggest budgets in the world, have boundaries as to how advanced equipment they can operate, and how much advanced.

 

 

 

Precisely that 

 

Idk about all that, but your statement that modern IFF techniques are not reliable enough to do BVR is straight up false. You don't have to agree but pretty much every modern AF does, and trains under assumption they are. Including the Russians.

 

Hence the shifting emphasis on low observables, advanced sensors, and longer ranged weapons. None of which are necessary or even desirable for dogfighting. In other words they wouldn't be building fighters the way the do today if BVR was not the dominant form of air combat. 

[zerO_crash]

13 minutes ago, okopanja said:

Looks like I am arriving late to the party.

In general the effectiveness of a weapon systems within a single conflict depend on following factors:

1. Own side qualities and quantities
   1. technical factors: offensive and defensive features
   2. numeric factors: available numbers for deployment
   3. human factors: crew availability, morale, knowledge, training, tactics
2. Enemy side qualities and quantities
   1. technical factors: offensive and defensive features
   2. numeric factors: available numbers for deployment
   3. human factors: crew availability, morale, knowledge, training, tactics.
3. Environment (e.g. if we compare Iraq and Yugoslavia, the difference is quite obvious in terms of relief and how it encourages/limits certain kind of weapon tactics).

In the aftermath of the conflict 99,99% of observers does not consider any of the above, but rather the end result. They tend to approach this like a sport match (especially if they or their family did not get affected!), so natural way to compare is obvious: western weapon X is better than eastern weapon Y, because at the end they inflicted/had so much casualties. In some cases they may be even right, but also very wrong, because they fail to recognize and consider all factors. At best such conclusions are speculations.

 

If you really wish to judge this you have to be able to quantify and compare all of these factors before drawing the conclusion.

Example:

1999 MIG-29A (export version) vs F-16CJ Block 50 performance (or F-15C).

Purely numerically: Mig-29 scored 0 victories and mostly got shot down almost always.

Obvious conclusion: Mig-29 and its missiles are inferior to the western counterparts (the next level of extrapolation is F-15C vs Su-27).

Now lets compare the sides briefly.
NATO:

- satellites

- ERW radars

- AWACS (multiple)

- JSTARS

- Tankers (multiple)

- Airplanes (over 1000)

- Airbases on virtually all countries around Yugoslavia, some set as deployment bases, some as emergency landing.

Yugoslavia:

- Country with long border surrounded by NATO, blockaded for almost 10 years prior to war

- ERW radars based on eastern/western, usability limited buy mountains.

- Mig-21 fleet which virtually did not fly

- Mig-29 (in theory 16, but sad reality is that probably no more than 10 or 11 could actually take off, far less to actually fight, most of them reported radar failure early on takeoff)

- Low number of pilot flying hours

 

Now lets assume Yugoslavia had F-15C instead and that 1-2 F-15C did fly to challenge combat group of 8+ aircraft dedicated only to air superiority tasks (I do not count AWACS and remaining support package here). Does anyone here really think that F-15C would have any better chance of downing any enemy fighters? I am pretty sure it would suffer the same sorry fate, except the conclusion of the "informed" people would be: F-15C is inferior to F-15C!

 

My point is here: historic results are often very poor information for modeling the fighter performance. To do this properly you have to have solid technical data, manuals, ELINT and do then the proper math work.

 

As for the discussion between analogue vs digital. As a student I had the chance and honor to visit units that had in their inventor different AAD systems. They even let us operate it (with direct instructions) in a simulator mode.

 

S-125 Neva (analog)

- first they show us the radar antenna: you watch huge targeting antenna (and probably heavy too) moving around as it was made of paper and hope it will not fall on you.

- control vehicle: really hot narrow place, they warned us about uncased FAN on entry and cautioned us to be careful if we want to keep all 10 fingers, nose and ears.

- had the feeling I am WW2 submarine (or maybe 1950s), since everything is operated with wheels and knobs

- the screen displaying the radar returns is filled in with white noise, and if you carefully use your eyes, you will notice a tiny barely perceivable blip there.

- target acquired using 2 wheels, locked, 2 missiles fired

- 10 seconds later when simulated rocket signal was lost, they told us it was a hit based on how far the needle went far! (I could not hide my disappointment)

- coordinate system is totally weird due to the antenna being tilted to easy the clearing of ground clutter.

- big plus: control vehicle is not source of radar emission! I am almost safe here!

 

Kub (analog+digital)

- way more comfort and modern: it combines analog and digital world. Displays are kind of analog blurry art, but they ensure us that the "computer" is digital.

- command station: another fast rotating uncased FAN and same joke: Watch your noses, ears and fingers!

- there is actually a designator above the screen that looks like a mouse (can perhaps enter into competition for early mouses, except it had the hand that transfers movement to measuring device)

- it actually looks like something common human might be able to use...

 

Swedish produced Giraffe 75 (digital) directing AAA guns:

- IKEA-like simplicity: nice cabin, comfortable chairs.

- Cost-savvy: everything in single vehicle (well obviously AAA guns are separate)

- Luxury: air-conditioned, we did not want to get out at 35 degrees out.

- Nice table with round shared screen in the middle for 1 commander + 3 operators.

- Each operator has a stick + buttons for basic operations like locking. I sort of expect the commander will open a hidden panel with dials and switched, sadly not this time.

- The plots are crystal clear and the thing actually shows the vectors! Sit back, relax, and let the cannons acquire the designated plots. From there they will easily acquire the location of that little patch on the sky where the target is, range the distance and ruin someones day.

- Except, if the HARM comes our way, I am sitting right below the antenna...

 

Who among them shot the F-117 and F-16CJ? (Answer: S-125).

Note also that F-16CJs were 4 ship flight armed with HARMs going deliberately for SAM hunting in that area.

 

Well expanded point, only goes to show how irrelevant the discussion of "my aircraft is better than yours" is, given how little it affects the overall outcome. Pretty interesting with your experience on those three SAM/AAA´s as well