just found a nice research done by USAF..

[GGTharos]

BVR doesn't work

 

BVR doesn't mean what you think it means.

Let me explain:

BVR= BEYOND VISUAL RANGE.

 

Whatever excuses you want to make up for 'BVR not being BVR' are not worth anything. If the combat occurs at > 8nm, it is BVR. Period.

 

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..

The F-22 will sneak around the stick a fork on you from >8nm. BVR.

 

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..

It definitely works against lesser capability aircraft. It also works against similar capability aircraft, and that is what those weapons and systems are designed for.

 

BVR is a tactic not strategy

BVR is an acronym. It means 'BEYOND VISUAL RANGE'. It is neither a tactic nor a strategy.

 

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..

 

Exercises are scripts designed to get people to do certain things in certain situations. Evaluations of tactics are not carried out in such exercises.

 

Here's a clue for you if you really care to educate yourself:

Look up RED FLAG, see how much missile and tactical testing is done during RED FLAG, as opposed to training. Look up RED FLAG's purpose.

 

Then look up AIMVAL. Hopefuly things will become very clear to you.

Edited March 19, 2013 by GGTharos

[Maior]

 

Exercises are scripts designed to get people to do certain things in certain situations. Evaluations of tactics are not carried out in such exercises.

 

Here's a clue for you if you really care to educate yourself:

Look up RED FLAG, see how much missile and tactical testing is done during RED FLAG, as opposed to training. Look up RED FLAG's purpose.

 

Then look up AIMVAL. Hopefuly things will become very clear to you.

 

 

regarding exercises, you can always check my post on how to conduct a proper discussion of aerial warfare. The link I posted has a whole section on exercises and their point. It's exactly how GG is describing them but they provide some supporting documents. You should read it Kaktus29. You'd enjoy it.

[FanBoy2006.01]

After I read the thread up to here I just want to make a couple of comments to posts in general.

 

And I must come out straight at the beginning, and say I am on the side of keeping BVR capability as an important part of fighter development.

 

GGtharos - I just want to point out that the writer of the article used 5nm as the border between BVR and WVR! This is much closer than the 8nm limit which you gave for BVR engagements. And he is giving evidence of how in actual combat, BVR combat largely failed! Meaning, that in the real world, fighter engagements beyond 5nm largely failed to result in kills or didn't even materialize because of real world circumstances!

 

Another important thing is; regardless of what the conclusions of the author are, look at the statistics. Let them speak for themselves. He is giving us real world figures.

 

And now for my biggest critique against this article. Because of certain limitations of information available, the author does not include figures of air-to-air combat after Desert Storm (1991) or Iran-Iraq conflict.

 

But what does he show us (Actually allot more than these few points below.):

 

 

• Firstly, the cost (Including running cost.) of a BVR focused fighter is much higher than non-BVR types.
  
• A low percentage of real world kills have taken place with radar homing missiles (RHM) compared to guns and hearers.
  
• RHM achieved a low Pk.
  
• BVR engagements (Beyond 5nm!) are rare and mostly unsuccessful.
  

BUT! His statistics also show that in Desert Storm:

 

 

• 59% of air-to-air kills were made by radar homing missiles.
  

 

• Radar homing missiles had a 27% Pk (WVR and BVR shots together.).
  

That means a dramatic improvement for radar homing missile effectiveness before 1st gen. Amraam.

 

What possible alternative to BVR can I personally suggest.

 

Spend R&D budget in developing a fighter that is specialized to win the WVR range fight. But give it improved measures to successfully defeat BVR attacks against it. Like anti-radiation AA missiles, ECM, low RCS, etc.

 

Yes, I am saying that BVR capability can be completely removed by incorporating BVR anti-radiation missiles. Eh...Cough...Cough:clown_2:

 

But my strategy would have severe shortcomings.

 

• It firstly assumes that you could get a much greater enhancement in maneuverability, performance, RWR, ECM, IR missile capability, etc. over current and proposed future BVR capable fighters.
  
• Secondly it assumes that enemy BVR capability will not catch up to your advances to counter it.
  

 

 

 

Thus, I can only conclude that a balanced approach should be followed (Fighters with both BVR and WVR capabilities.).

 

In the end. If you look out of the HUD of an F15 or a MiG29, you will see a range scale which shows you when you can engage a maneuvering fighter and when not to (Rtr, Rpiand Rmin.). This should have dispelled and misconceptions about what BVR missiles can do and not do.

Edited March 20, 2013 by FanBoy2006.01