just found a nice research done by USAF..

[Kaktus29]

..about BVR being maybe beyond reach to be real and effective)) interesting take..

 

it would seem its like hunting a dream.. so close yet so far away.. data proves one thing.. its a pipe dream..

 

http://pogoarchives.org/labyrinth/11/09.pdf

 

especially because of IFF problems its almost impossible to fight BVR with any proficiency that is needed .. also fighting an enemy with same level of technology makes BVR almost useless and only overwhelming numbers can tilt the game for one side or the other..

 

was surprised by the lack of radar guided kills.. IR rules so far.. maybe optical will be future..but still BVR is as it seems out of reach..

[marcos]

..about BVR being maybe beyond reach to be real and effective)) interesting take..

 

it would seem its like hunting a dream.. so close yet so far away.. data proves one thing.. its a pipe dream..

 

http://pogoarchives.org/labyrinth/11/09.pdf

 

especially because of IFF problems its almost impossible to fight BVR with any proficiency that is needed .. also fighting an enemy with same level of technology makes BVR almost useless and only overwhelming numbers can tilt the game for one side or the other..

 

was surprised by the lack of radar guided kills.. IR rules so far.. maybe optical will be future..but still BVR is as it seems out of reach..

I have asked on several forums what the longest confirmed A-A kill is and no one has been able to confirm anything that's even truly BVR. In the Gulf of Sidra incident in 1989, 3 missile shots were taken with AIM-7s from 14nm, 10nm and 5nm. Only the last one connected.

 

EDIT: And this document doesn't show any beyond 16nm, at which range, even a stealth aircraft can be detected. Also well within the range of shorter IR AAMs.

Edited February 25, 2013 by marcos

[Mandrake5]

Interesting, but remember you don't have to actually hit anything to win a BVR engagement and deny airspace to the enemy.

[marcos]

If you waste all your missiles not hitting things that's a little counter-productive and expensive.

 

And how I defeat SAMs on DCS.:D

[Kaktus29]

@marcos...

you are quite correct.. so far evidence is showing that there is no such thing as BVR .. unless you are fighting Mig's without RWR or working radar and in staggering numerical superiority plus AWACS support to make the contact even possible..

 

in all fights Migs were fighting they were without AWACS support while the opponent had it..

 

It would seem AWACS was done for precise reason to be a "counting machine" of friendly planes.. and track them.. so everything that was not "accounted for" was designed as if not enemy than at least a bogey.. if you don't have this AWACS than its pretty much pipe dream doing any BVR except in DCS and other military theory academies where they decide to spend insane amount of money in this or that doctrine...

 

Which is why in the future AWACS will be under heavy attack from VLRAAM .. -very long range anti-air missiles .. Russian, european designers already doing them, i bet usa doing the same.. of course this missiles are worthless to hunt agile fighters..but AWACS fur sure dead man walking..

 

so, what happens when you loose your excell spreadsheet in the skies that keeps track of ally sorties and planes? ..chaos pretty much..

 

of course before you go all over me-i am writting in a situation you are dealing with equal opponent,meaning they have RWR that detect when you paint them with radar and vice versa of course.. but if you are running on the premise BVR is possible -since enemy will never be able to detect our radar painting them, nor able to detect missile launch, nor able to detect being hit, etc etc.. well, on that premise you don't even need BVR, you need to come near the enemy and shoot him with a hand gun.. but we are not talking about that.. but a major air war with equal size and tech enemy.. and in this condition and situation BVR does not work..proven by this gentleman from USAF .. who collected the info from all encounters and debunks most BVR hits on the basis i described above..

 

it is kinda annoying though for us armchair pilots.. we are basically playing theory, we are in a simulation of theory, not reality.. for instance to simulate train, or civilian airplanes that can be done and can really be called simulating this or that.. here, we military simulations are merely simulating THEORY of what various institutes THINK would happen in real life..

 

)))

 

would love some civilian DCS though.. i think there is even bigger market for that.. since not all arm chair pilots are military buffs.. i would enjoy a Tupolov MS-204-300 flight from high-fidelity Moscow ---> Vladivostok )) .. flying across Russia, landscape, clouds and high fidelity DCS russian civ plane.. they can do something different than other civ sims and put "passengers" in the seats and after you reach cruise speed, altitude you can jump in passenger seat and enjoy the flight as a passenger, watch from the window, watch a movie, whatever..maybe even hit on a flight attendent and get arrested after you get angry cuz she doesn't respond to your advances )) lol.. and then swithc back to pilot to make urgent landing in Sverdlovsk to get the crazy passenger off the plane escorted by police for disturbing the flight.. ))

 

what do you think..would you like this? .. man, ..and flying to Crimea-Sevastopol..yes.. i mean, Simferopol.. actually i would like to be able to walk on foot from Moscow airport and rent-a-car and go for a ride in Moscow.. damm, DCS are you listening? ))) lol...

 

p.s.: i know i know, its impossible to do this.. but,it doesn't change the fact how much i would like this to happen in sim one day.. i know i can do much of this in real life-apart from being the pilot though.. ))

 

 

to get your imagination working better with what i wrote)) ..

[FanBoy2006.01]

Very nice read. Thank you.

 

But I don't agree with all that he is saying.

 

Basically you need to have best possible detection range and best possible accurate engagement range with any weapon.

 

So you will strive to for increased BVR capability for fighters regardless of what it is now.

 

Besides in FC2 the PK for AMRAAM is something like 30% (I think.). And engagements ending up WVR is a common occurrence. Sounds close to reality to me.

 

"US air supremacy faces asymmetric challenges in the future—anti-radiation missiles, counter-network operations, directed energy, electromagnetic pulse weapons, or geopolitical legal constraints. Incrementally improved BVR capability (i.e. F-22 and AMRAAM) does not help counter any of these challenges."

Agree and disagree here. A stealth aircraft with a long ranged stealth cruise missile will work here. I know he is talking about BVR here but F22 is not just a one trick pony (AMRAAM).

 

Further more, in air-to-air (Not interceptor against strike package.) the heavy BVR fighter (F15 and F4) have beaten the lighter fighter (MiG 21 and MiG 23).

 

Also, even after the success of the "light" Mirage IIICJ in the Six Day War Israel still got the "heavy" F4E because of the shortcomings that the Mirage had.

 

Lastly, the author completely ignores the fact that there are limitations in all aspects of aircraft development. Not just BVR related problems.

For instance limited armament on MiG 21 and Mirage III. Gun predictor radar that couldn't lock on to targets at low altitudes. Unreliable engines, etc.

 

The only conclusion I can come to, is that a country with a big budget must get combat aircraft to deal with a wide spectrum of problems. At the top - Air Superiority (F22/Typhoon/Su Pak-FA). In the middle - Multi Role (F16/JAS 39). At the bottom - COIN (Super Tucano).

 

In short. I think the USA (And any country, for that matter.) should dramatically increase their defense budget!:thumbup:

[RIPTIDE]

If you waste all your missiles not hitting things that's a little counter-productive and expensive.

Nope. If you force a strike package to drop everything = mission accomplished in some respects.

[RIPTIDE]

..about BVR being maybe beyond reach to be real and effective)) interesting take..

 

it would seem its like hunting a dream.. so close yet so far away.. data proves one thing.. its a pipe dream..

 

http://pogoarchives.org/labyrinth/11/09.pdf

 

especially because of IFF problems its almost impossible to fight BVR with any proficiency that is needed .. also fighting an enemy with same level of technology makes BVR almost useless and only overwhelming numbers can tilt the game for one side or the other..

 

was surprised by the lack of radar guided kills.. IR rules so far.. maybe optical will be future..but still BVR is as it seems out of reach..

 

I think historically with Major vs Minor asymmetrical opponents in conflicts, Strict ROE were kept to because they could be. In a Major vs Major war I guess visual IDing will be scrapped at the expense of a few Blue on Blue (Red on Red) kills.

[Kaktus29]

to those saying F-22 this or that.. yes, but the study shows IF F-22 is fighting his own equal (which is the premise of BVR of the study) then BVR is a fluke, it will not work.. the enemy will detect being painted, evade the missile, same with F-22..and all ending up in dogfight..

 

The study was about is BVR a reality IF you are dealing with same tech generation planes.. i mean, F-22 doesn't really need BVR so far, he can kill you off with Aim-9L..

 

so, this study is about BVR that was promising "duking it out with missiles long range and ending the enemy in that way" ..which is of course by data provided so far a very big whoop of nothing..

 

I think the F-22 is a proof that BVR doesn't work.. the reason stealth was implemented was for precise this reason..because BVR doesn't work.. the stealth is the component that negates SA and response from the enemy and thus making so called BVR work.. otherwise it does not.

 

it is incredible seeing how much money on missile development was spend regardless of real data showing its all BS )) and i don't mean -black shark))

[marcos]

Nope. If you force a strike package to drop everything = mission accomplished in some respects.

And what if their escort is up front? If that theory worked we'd just fire unguided rockets and hope that the enemy shits themselves.

[Maior]

If you ask me, this study reminds me of other older studies. Remember Vietnam? People could swear back then that guns were useless in fighters. It looks like more of the same to me. Anyway, I think combat will be more and more BVR especially now that LASER weapons are being developed at an accelerated pace.

[GGTharos]

I think the F-22 is a proof that BVR doesn't work.. the reason stealth was implemented was for precise this reason..because BVR doesn't work.. the stealth is the component that negates SA and response from the enemy and thus making so called BVR work.. otherwise it does not.

 

Actually the F-22 shows that BVR DOES work, and is designed to win BVR. It's like a sniper putting on a ghillie suit, while another sniper tries to find him while dressed in an orange jumpsuit, shining a flashlight around. You can't say 'the rifles don't work' ... both rifles work just the same, but one guy has SA, the other doesn't.

 

Situational awareness wins battles, period, end of story. To quote Adam Steiner, 'Information is ammunition', and the purpose of the F-22 is to deny this information to the enemy while gathering a bunch of it for itself. It doesn't stop an AIM-120 from blowing flying things up 100km away.

 

 

 

it is incredible seeing how much money on missile development was spend regardless of real data showing its all BS )) and i don't mean -black shark))

 

The data shows that longer ranged missiles are getting more and more effective. The US, China, Russia, and EU are all investing in more effective MRMs and SRMs, so I'd say the BS here is your logic.

[Kaktus29]

@GG ... you don't understand what this study was trying to say or what i'm trying to say .. BVR doesn't work.. the reason F-22 was created was to MAKE IT work.. but that is under assumption F-22 will have no equal and therefore make the BVR shot possible..

 

the STUDY if you read it, clearly documents that BVR ideology was intended as a way to battle an enemy that is EQUAL to you and STILL provide a win situation before you go into WVR battle..

 

that is why i say F-22 is evidence BVR doesn't work.. if it did, F-22 would have fancy missiles that can destroy a target at 200 km, and F-22 would press buttons from safety etc.. BVR right?.. the fact that stealth was incorporated was to actually get close enough to inferior enemy to actually be in a position to fire a BVR shot..

 

but imagine 2 F-22 fighting against each other.. now tell me GG.. can you see this ending in BVR or will it end in WVR? .. you see, with equal weapon tech and plane tech you end up in WVR.. BVR does not work..

 

all the cases where BVR supposedly worked was such overwhelming odds no BVR missiles were needed, in fact most kills were by IR missiles..

 

But i'm not saying BVR doesn't work IF (that is very important IF) you have yourself F-22 fighting a Mig-29 .. but again, the study does not cover such situation because that doesn't belong in BVR study but in overwhelming power study that has nothing to do about BVR..

 

BVR as a tactic has failed.. the battle field is now in the datalinks, stealth, early detection, etc.. if you are superior you will win ,if not you die.. but if you are EQUAL there is no BVR..that is what the study was all about.. and it documents this very well.

 

 

All this long range missiles developed by US, Russia, China, EU are not proof of success of BVR, but HOPE your informational, stealth, EW and other systems are much more superior to the enemy.. otherwise all this hi-tech missile junk will fail and all will degenerate into WVR fights..

 

of course, from practical point of view.. the possibility of level playing field are minute, so in that case we can say BVR "works"..which isn't really BVR but overwhelming superiority of one side against the other.. big difference when arguing that BVR works..

[EtherealN]

@GG ... you don't understand what this study was trying to say or what i'm trying to say .. BVR doesn't work.. the reason F-22 was created was to MAKE IT work.. but that is under assumption F-22 will have no equal and therefore make the BVR shot possible..

 

Something I suspect you don't understand: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

 

;)

 

Where's all the other studies? Di you really select just the one that confirms your opinion, go with that, and ignore all the rest? See the problem? :)

 

that is why i say F-22 is evidence BVR doesn't work.. if it did, F-22 would have fancy missiles that can destroy a target at 200 km, and F-22 would press buttons from safety etc..

 

F-22 doesn't need 200km range missiles to fire from "safety". ;)

 

200km missiles would be very big, meaning reduced payload, meaning you can handle less enemies, meaning you have to be a lot more careful about who you actually take a shot at, meaning you have to wait until you have a more sure shot...

 

...meaning you might as well have twice the amount of missiles, but slammers.

 

but imagine 2 F-22 fighting against each other.. now tell me GG.. can you see this ending in BVR or will it end in WVR? .. you see, with equal weapon tech and plane tech you end up in WVR.. BVR does not work..

 

War isn't equal. F-22's (and Typhoons, Gripens, Rafales etcetera) operate as part of an integrated war machine. Who fires at what and when isn't an Airquake 1v1 joust. All the previous mentioned aircraft can fire their weapons (well, I don't know about Rafale, but it should have it by now) without even using their own radar. They can fire their slammers etcetera just fine using sat-linked information from highpowered radar assets elsewhere. However, do remember that in the case of the F-22, the Typhoons, Rafales, Gripens and their friends might not have a blip at all even from their AWACS/IADS/etc, while the F-22's support will see them clear as day.

 

...then who gets the first shot? And why would the F-22's allow that to mature into WVR?

 

Now, in matched opponets; yes, it will mature into WVR some of the times. So what? Is your next argument going to be that all missiles are pointless because you might end up in real close BFM and thus the gun is all we should ever need? Of course not. There is, after all, a reason why the F-22 (and all other modern jets) carry both MRMs and SRM's.

 

all the cases where BVR supposedly worked was such overwhelming odds no BVR missiles were needed, in fact most kills were by IR missiles..

 

Not like they never test these things themselves, you know. Try wargames. And reports based thereon that neither you nor I have access to. ;)

 

BVR as a tactic has failed.. the battle field is now in the datalinks, stealth, early detection, etc.. if you are superior you will win ,if not you die.. but if you are EQUAL there is no BVR..that is what the study was all about.. and it documents this very well.

 

If you are equal in technology and numbers, it is training and tactics that picks up the slack. (And of course situation: if one side only has to defend airspace while the other has to take it...) And the fight will start in BVR. Yes, it may mature to WVR, but again - so what?

 

All this long range missiles developed by US, Russia, China, EU are not proof of success of BVR, but HOPE your informational, stealth, EW and other systems are much more superior to the enemy.. otherwise all this hi-tech missile junk will fail and all will degenerate into WVR fights..

 

Once again your argument seems to be that BVR "fails" because it cannot guarantee that 100% of fights will be fully BVR? Is assault rifles a bad idea because soldiers still have a use for service pistols, bayonets and knives? The assault rifle is good and all, but in a good battle you still tend to find yourself in hand-to-hand fighting, thus we find it proven that assault rifles are a joke, based solely on the HOPE of being superior to the enemy, and we should all realize that it would be much better to equip our soldiers with swords and shields.

 

You see the point I'm making here?

 

of course, from practical point of view.. the possibility of level playing field are minute, so in that case we can say BVR "works"..which isn't really BVR but overwhelming superiority of one side against the other.. big difference when arguing that BVR works..

 

So your argument is:

 

BVR sucks in your own idealized picture of it's purpose.

Your idealized picture does not correspond with the real-world situation.

BVR does, however, on account of sucking in your fictional universe, still suck in the real-world situation where it doesn't suck?

 

:)

[EtherealN]

As a further note, something you should look at real close with this "study":

 

byline: one person.

receiver: the faculty.

and

"In partial fulfillment of the graduation requirements"

 

So... this isn't a "study."

This is one dude, in school, that wrote a short paper as part of his studies. Sort of like how I, when I studied history, did a "study" of the causes to the first world war, disagreed with some aspects of the accepted view, and made my case. Doesn't make me a historian, and doesn't mean that there is suddenly a massive revolution in the view of what really caused that war.

[Maior]

Well, one simple point not addressed would be that, even if this student were to be right, even if the missile doesn't hit and score a kill, it's still better to face an enemy WVR that is busy trying to dodge a missile than one that is stable and ready for you. That's what would probably happen if one side has BVR missiles and the other only relies on WVR.

[Weta43]

Actually the F-22 shows that BVR DOES work, and is designed to win BVR. It's like a sniper putting on a ghillie suit, while another sniper tries to find him while dressed in an orange jumpsuit, shining a flashlight around. You can't say 'the rifles don't work' ... both rifles work just the same, but one guy has SA, the other doesn't.

True - unless of course the other guy also buys a ghillie suit and a decent set of optics, then neither can find each other at range, and they end up creeping closer and closer until they finaly start shooting at each other with an MP5SD and a 9mm VSS

[Weta43]

Not like they never test these things themselves, you know. Try wargames. And reports based thereon that neither you nor I have access to

 

They will test them, and they will have reports - but who knows what they say, or how they're interpreted.

 

I don't share your faith in the ability of governments to make sensible conclusions about the effectiveness of new technologies.

 

Think about the work by the Nazi German government "Aggregate" rocket family (V2 et al).

Wernher von Braun and Arthur Rudolph spent years and millions of deutschmark developing this family of weapons, assuring the Nazi high command these would be a game changing weapon. Now I'll admit that their work led to significant advance in rocket science, and the scientists that were engaged on this programme later went on to design intercontinental ballistic missiles for the USA, and the Saturn 5 rocket that got the first man on the moon. However, given the technology at the time, they were never going to win the war for Germany. They were too expensive, they were too inaccurate, and they couldn't deliver a payload of sufficient size to do any real damage.

 

The Nazi German government must have been getting reports, and having experts oversee these programmes, but the leadership was captured by proponents, and they were all blinded by the technological 'superiority' that this path promised.

 

By the time the ancillary technology needed to make the intercontinental ballistic missile a realistic threat was mature, all the major players were again back on a level (ish) playing field. The Americans had their ICBM's designed by German scientists smuggled in under operation 'paperclip', the British and Russians had designed their own, and everyone had the bomb.

 

Stalemate again.

 

It may be that low observability will become a necessary part of all military aircraft design, but in a relatively short time (as things go) once again all sides will be roughly equivalent technologically.

The US might have a short term advantage through fielding their aircraft first, but can they put that to any significant use ?

Do you think they're going to do battle with Russia, Europe or China before they field similar technology ? If the answer is no - then how has the F-22 made BVR any more likely as an actual occurrence of strategic importance than it has been to now (which is close to nil).

 

Don't get me wrong - the US has to build the F-22, and everyone else has to play catchup - but everyone will, and once they have, the playing field will once again be (fairly) level.

Edited March 17, 2013 by Weta43

[Kaktus29]

@weta43 .. yeah, i agree with most of what you wrote.. it's hard for BVR fans to accept the fact that unless you have 1 generation advantage against the enemy there is no BVR whatsoever..

 

thats why they avoided the what happens if 2 F-22 fight against eachother.. will it end in BVR or WVR? .. answer is simple WVR ..

 

sooner or later the 5gen will be the norm.. now you will say but US will have 6 gen. by then.. you see, that doesn't change the debate we are having here, which is BVR debate.. if you have 2 equal planes with equal sensors there is no way in hell you can finish the plane in BVR fight.. that is what i'm saying, that is what the study confirms, and that is why US goes with overwhelming numbers, AWACS support, Jamming stations, tomahawk attacks and number of other elements in play to win in a so-called "BVR fight" between a F-15 vs. Mig-29 )))

 

people don't want to understand what BVR is about, its about finishing off the opponent of EQUAL tech level.. if you are starting from superior level, you don't even need BVR, as i said, F-22 today can kill you off with Aim-9.. so what is this BVR talk ?.. once another 5 gen is in the air, F-22 will have problems getting into a BVR shot of 14-20nm .. so what is this BVR talk we are hearing.. even today, most BVR shots are 13-15 nm at best.. unless you are facing with a drone that will not move for the next 3 minutes, than you can wipe it out with R-33 for instance at a distance of 200km.. but sadly not many drones out there..uppss i mispoke, usa has them alot so maybe there is some BVR potential there for the enemy to employ))

[Kaktus29]

@etherealN about bias.. read millennium war games back in 2002 or something.. how the RED demolished the blue using asymmetric warfare and what did the generals do, resurrect the sunk ships of the blue and started again with certain "adjustments and direct orders to the RED to obey" in order to get the results you speak of-those that affirm the bias that this and that works but other doesn't))

 

so far, data, real data shows 1vs1 fighting with same radar, RWR, will dodge the missiles and will close to WVR .. which is proven by US massive spending in 5gen fighters for this reason.. imagine if US stayed with F-15.. imagine your BVR now? .. that's why i say F-22 proves BVR is dead.. F-22 is neccessary to make BVR possible.. meaning, the enemy must not be AWARE you are targeting him, painting him, firing a missile at him, and of course killing him.. if the enemy IS aware how can you have the BVR?.. you can't..simple as that..

[EtherealN]

The Nazi German government must have been getting reports, and having experts oversee these programmes, but the leadership was captured by proponents, and they were all blinded by the technological 'superiority' that this path promised.

 

Not necessarily. The Nazis are a bad example because they were very much driven on the whims of one man: Me-262 was first delayed because Hitler felt it unecessary, then it was designated to be the Stürmvogel instead of the Schwalbe, again on Hitler's decision while the Luftwaffe begged to be allowed to make them fighters. It was a LOT of persuation work for the Luftwaffe to be allowed to do with it what they had wanted to do since something like 1942; and by then it was too late to get it out in sufficient numbers as a fighter.

 

Similar things went on with other Wünderwaffen, like the Ratte and Monster "Landkreuzers"; absolutely rediculous projects, loved by Hitler, and it was only when Speer saw them upon being placed in charge of the industrial machine that it was cancelled (because Speer managed to convince Hitler that they simply couldn't afford them no matter how cool they might be).

 

Basically, in a dictatorship, if you can convince one dude about the practicality of whatever you're doing...

 

But in the case of the United States, the situation is very very different: leaders get swapped out constantly, the bosses of departments get swapped out constantly, etcetera. Thus we reach the difference that in the Nazi German example, it was enough to sing a tune to one person - Hitler - while on this "BVR thing" it's not even enough to sing a tune to every US administration and all the people they have placed in charge of departments; you have to sing the same tunes in Britain, Germany, France, Spain, Sweden, Norway, Poland, Russia, China, India...

 

...now that's a VERY big conspiracy. :D

 

Do you think they're going to do battle with Russia, Europe or China before they field similar technology ? If the answer is no - then how has the F-22 made BVR any more likely as an actual occurrence of strategic importance than it has been to now (which is close to nil).

 

"If you want peace, prepare for war."

The F-22's key doctrine, after the cold war ended (before it got airborne), is precisely that it shouldn't be needed. Like nukes: if you have them, you make it too expensive to mess with you. The risk of the US being attacked conventionally - and let's not forget the risk of their allies like Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, Israel etcetera - is reduced through it's existance and it's capability.

 

Basically, half the job of a "superior" fighter is to make sure it never has to be used. Yes, that might get "reset" in the future (but on the other hand, I'm curious to see what'll come out of those "slowmover" and "fastmover" research jets they have flying around Area 51 :P ), but that reset assumes that the americans don't exploit their head start. Remember, the russians are still working on building missiles that match previous-gen Slammers (since they were held back for so long due to the collapse of the USSR), but it's not like the americans sat there and waited. :)

[EtherealN]

@etherealN about bias.. read millennium war games back in 2002 or something.. how the RED demolished the blue using asymmetric warfare and what did the generals do, resurrect the sunk ships of the blue and started again with certain "adjustments and direct orders to the RED to obey" in order to get the results you speak of-those that affirm the bias that this and that works but other doesn't))

 

If you're going to send me a literature reference you'll have to be a weee bit more specific than that. ;)

 

Anyways, first point: the victory wasn't achieved specifically through "assymetric" warfare. It was achieved with a massive cruise missile salvo. Last I checked, they are a naval equivalent to BVR? :)

 

Anyhow, I don't see how it's relevant right here. You've been questioned regarding very important points on the previous, please don't hide it with a shifting goalpost.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts

 

so far, data, real data shows 1vs1 fighting with same radar, RWR, will dodge the missiles and will close to WVR .. which is proven by US massive spending in 5gen fighters for this reason.. imagine if US stayed with F-15.. imagine your BVR now? .. that's why i say F-22 proves BVR is dead.. F-22 is neccessary to make BVR possible.. meaning, the enemy must not be AWARE you are targeting him, painting him, firing a missile at him, and of course killing him.. if the enemy IS aware how can you have the BVR?.. you can't..simple as that..

 

First of all, like I already stated: air combat is not a 1v1 jousting match. What would happen in a 1v1 scenario like you described is 100% irrelevant. Air forces don't care about that because they don't send planes out solo to fights. Fighter jets always operate as part of a very big machine. The moment they don't is the moment your side already lost the war.

 

Anyways, what is your source for the claim that an F-22 is necessary to make BVR possible? This is a rediculous notion; are you still thinking 1v1 jousting fights where the princess gives the bold knight a handkerchief as a token?

 

Further, on the specific point of this quote:

"the enemy must not be AWARE you are targeting him, painting him, firing a missile at him"

 

The ability to achieve the above is possessed quite fine in F-15, F-16, F-18, Typhoon, Rafale, Gripen etcetera etcetera. F-22 doesn't give you anything new there. (At least not that is publically known.) Did you read my extensive responses to you previously? Please do consider answering the points I made there rather than simply reiterating points I have already refuted in my previous response. Glossing over the post and then writing the same thing again is not okey. :)

 

What I am particularly interested in is exactly what you think that pre-exam paper you quoted (remember: it's not a study!) specifically say about these situations? You see, I'm starting to suspect that you glossed over a lot in this guy's paper; you can see a lot in what specific information and data he uses towards which conclusions.

 

"Despite the shortfalls of the existing IFF system, the combination of AWACS and NCTR gave commanders sufficient confidence to permit BVR shots for US F-15Cs. Nevertheless, a positive determination was still required to ensure the target was hostile and there were no friendlies in the area."

 

In his conclusions, we also find this gem:

 

"Air-to-air combat has not transformed into a long-range slugfest of technology wherein radar-guided missiles score near-guaranteed kills. Human factors, such as pilot skill—or the opponent’s ineptness—still trump technology."

 

To which it is only possible to say: duh. ;)

Claiming that BVR technology failed because it's not a "near-guaranteed" kill is silly, because that's not what the proponents have believed either - evidenced by the fact that they didn't abandon the SRM's. Thus, the argument is a straw-man. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man_argument

[GGTharos]

Are you sure that isn't you? BVR is about implementing some of the important rules of combat:

 

1) See first

2) Shoot first

 

There is nothing more to it. MiG-29's can't win BVR fights against F-15's any more than F-16's can ... and F-16's have a lot of trouble with it even though they're shooting AIM-120's, and they have AWACS and ECM, too in exercises.

 

As for certain large exercises having specific scripts for red, that is the point, and you don't understand this, either: Training is geared for achieving certain results. It's not intended as an experimental way of applying tactics. That happens in different exercises.

 

people don't want to understand what BVR is about

[Sharpe_95]

..about BVR being maybe beyond reach to be real and effective)) interesting take..

A fascinating read - many thanks.

Now a question to those who design/test DCSW: Is IFF, probability/possibility of fratricide, 'fog of war', target vectors (or lack thereof) and the need to VID (or even just ID) a target modelled in any way into the in game AI? If the AI 'automatically' knows friend from foe from long range (unrealistically, depending on what IFF kit is on the platform) he can fire with total impunity. Only interested as it clearly puts the 'human' pilot at a disadvantage to their AI competitor - we 'may' be concerned about hitting our own guys, depending on who it is.........

-Many thanks,

Sharpe

Edited March 17, 2013 by Sharpe_95

[Kaktus29]

@ethereal..

 

you say F-15, F-16, etc can do all the above "shoot at a target without the target being aware etc" .. no, they can't.. they can if you take the enemy's EW, and he doesn't have AWACS.. under such conditions did the so called BVR happen in iraq..

 

you speak of this jousting issues.. i don't see any jousting in same gen fighter duking it out with or without awacs support ..

 

to say f-16 going at a mig-29 would end with f-16 shooting the mig-29 without him knowing he was painted, fired upon, locked on etc.. is delirious .. unless we are talking about badly serviced mig-29 that is obviously falling apart in mid air before amraam even touches him..

 

If your BVR works, you don't need awacs, you put f-15 with radar searching stuff, and su-27 with infra hugging terrain or flying high with radar searching.. no awacs.. and the likelyhood of all this ending up in 1 plane being clueless of being painted, locked on, and fired upon is ZERO(actually Su has the advantage because he at least has some passive system to use to track while f-15 doesn't)..

 

BVR doesn't work because you need to overwhelm the opponent with many other shit.. like AWACS, jamming of supporting planes etc. . while the enemy doesn't have access to this either in quality or numbers.. ergo this is not BVR anymore its simple overpowering position..

 

thats like talking a Boxer is more capable of putting down a Kung-fu master.. well, if the boxer is 28 years of age in peak condition and is 7 foot tall, weighing at 200 pounds..and the kung-fu master is 82 years old man, standing at 5 foot tall weighing 115 pounds.. guess what the boxer is going to kill him.. and here you are arguing its because boxing works))) no it doesn't.. put the SAME age and weight on the other side of kung-fu master and the boxer will die in 5 seconds..

 

but you mistakenly equate overpowering the enemy equals BVR works)) this is what the guy in the study painfully and logically explains .. and this is why BVR doesn't work and never will.. F-22 sneaking upon you and knocking you off is not BVR.. i would say its more of a stealth WVR almost.. but that works only if the enemy flies a 4 gen fighter..

 

you say today's 4 gen can do BVR no problem.. really? against F-22? ..woww.. thats something new.. no?they can't? ohhh so i was right when i said BVR works only if you are dealing with a generation LESS fighter than yours..

 

again that is not BVR, its called overpowering your enemy by quality or numbers.. while BVR concept was about totally different idea.. about a way how to fight..not tactical and strategical concepts of overpowering someone.. BVR is a tactic not strategy.. yet it cannot be employed unless you have strategic advantage-numbers, or quality, preferably both is needed to do so called BVR))

 

about that missile salvo of cruise missiles in naval excercise.. so you know it afterall?) ..

you speak as if its easy to find a naval fleet and sink it with inferior navy.. the blue did not employ highly sophisticated ships or boats like the blue did..yet, with BLIND tactics he found the ships, directed the coordinates to anti-ship missiles and send them to the bottom of the ocean ONLY to be resurrected because people in pentagon are like our GG here who does not like outcomes that do not fit his views-which is:we know what we are talking about, everybody else doesn't.. our way is smart, your way is stupid, to prove to you we are right we are resurrecting the ships and giving you restraints so we can PROVE that our doctrines are better ))

 

this was a mockery of the naval exercise ..the most expansive so far.. i write this because you lovingly wrote how experts do exercises and thus they know what they are talking about.. enuff about that now.. this "myth" has been debunked already..