Tell me, what country are you from? If it ain't here, everything you say comes across as a 'trying to convince the other guy not to kill you by
telling him is sword isn't sharp enough.'
Ka-SCHWING! Damn I hate proving a point to a neckless spouting torso.
I'm in California now, before I lived in Seattle, my pops served in Turkey as an AFOSI officer, so no bias and hidden agendas here.
I'm glad you're participating in this one though, because I'm looking forward to your contribution to the topic at hand.
No. The Vietnamese never had Air Superiority in Vietnam. Never ONCE did they succeed in preventing U.S. visitations to whatever part of their
benighted land. Don't fall for the BS which states continuing penny ante attrition 'adds up' to anything more than a refusal to win the war
ch1466, from your other post I figure you were actually yanking and banking in Nam, so I can only ask you if it was not the FM boys that wrote the
color coded charts on energy/speed/alt engagement envelopes.
I did not say that Vietnamese ever had air superiority, but considering the losses they have inflicted prior to reorganization and implementation of
FM tactics, they would have succeeded in are denial.
Additionally, the adversary course was underway before Vietnam ended. The FX compeition was over before the Fighter Mafia /began/ applying EM
theory to the LWF/ACF entrants. And the resulting YF-16/17 are some of the most poorly designed fighters of the 1970's, being optimized almost solely
towards the perspective of 'fightering' in a daylight, CAVU, environment at short ranges. All of which were utterly irrelevant to either 1980's
Europe OR 1990's ME confrontations. And had become so by the end of Vietnam where night and BVR once more predominated our tactics. And where weather
had traditionally been a problem from Day-1
That I simply can not disagree with, because I for one share your point of view here entirely.
No. Considering the only plane which came close to doing what it needed to was the F-15 and Boyd and Riccioni in particular did everything he
could to sabotage it rather than applying his EM theory to make it better.
I agree partially, but again the main reason here was again cost control and trying to keep the project from being perverted into another over bloated
"jack of all trades".
The A-10 is a farce. The F-16/18 can't go anywhere to do their jobs and have had /piles/ of money thrown at them to recreate capabilities
which were already present in the F-4.
Yes and no. A-10 was a necessary measure to counteract the absolute superiority of Soviet armor in the European theater and considering the
funds/time available A-10 was a good solution at the time, even though it still turned out to be a giant target with cross hairs painted all over it.
On F-16 absolutely yes. Another technological wonder that still ended up costing more then it can do, and you are right, F-4 was more then capable of
doing everything the Falcon was supposed to do better.
IMHO MiG-21 ended the era of single engine fighters, and F-16 is a travesty considering the all around superior F-5. Falcon was pushed by GE
lobbyists and it's just a damn shame that the excellent F-5 ended up as a small time export novelty.
The Raptor will cost 70 billion. If they hadn't _deliberately_ screwed with the production economies of the jet (scaling back the line to only
produce 24 instead of 60 jets a year) that 70 billion would have bought 380 jets with the 335th one 'averaging out the program' at 74-78 million per
unit. Another 20 billion would buy the necessary A2G mods like a new radar and EOTS level optics. Say 90 billion overall. INCLUDING R&D.
We all know how DOD and Pentagon works with budgets, and even with the initial fund allocation it would've as always ballooned into a situation
we're in now, so no surprise here.
The F-35 is going to run 257 billion. At least partially /because/ it is now paying out Lunchmeat's 'unstated' (technology buy in, a highly
illegal Anti-Deficiency Act violation) R&D dividend on the F-22.
DO NOT LUMPSUM THE TWO UNLESS YOU MEAN TO DAMN THE JSF ALONE.
JSF is still in the pipe, the project budget is already pushing 45% over the initial "estimate", and unlike the Raptor the last time a checked it's
still not in service, with various models being dropped entirely.
ADA scam is troubling, but again nothing new and only to be expected.
Oh please. That's like asking the foxes to define what a chicken is.
That said, the USAF has wanted to drop their JSF purchases to 1,200 or less for the last 4 years. Congress want's 1,763 of them to make sure that
production economics scale out to make 'export variants' affordable at 45-50 million. They want pork to make their districts happy and to balance a
severely negative trade status. And they don't give a damn about making this nation even more risked by exporting LO.
Yea but we've missed the export boat on this one. While bickering over how much funding is going to be siphoned, Europeans used that time to develop
their own solutions and are bailing out.
Even the Israelis threatened to drop JSF contract if they were not given access to the technologies, so after the initial contract fulfillment then
can pull out and start cranking out their own domestic models. We caved in just to keep the program going. Damn shame but what are you gonna do.
The facts of the matter are simple:
1. 90%+ of all conflicts we get into don't have an air superiority component. The reason they don't is because nobody wants to try. Either because
they believe we are the good guys. Or because they don't like losing. Or because they can't afford to buy the chips. With the advent of ARH+AESA
'across the board', along with our shattered reputation as white-hatters, this is quite likely going to change so long as a threat can risk one jet
to kill 2-6 others.
Man there's a lot to be said here.
Air superiority component is an active political leverage tool which is actually proved to be more useful then a passive nuclear deterrent. Another
form of costly bluff which even now can be called by a number of nations.
2. What makes the F-22 a superior platform is not it's 'air superiority' factors but simply it's ability to transit from X to Y (some
600-800nm) at Mach 1.35 or better. Which means you can TRIPLE sortie rates in a given day, at half the cost in followon tanking support.
F-22s super cruse does give it an ability to run tripled sorties, but not with out the expense of increased pilot fatigue. Super cruise Flankers are
already available, and again at the fraction of the cost. If needed, existing platforms can be vary quickly and cost effectively enabled with super
cruise capability, again giving a numerical advantage to possible enemies.
3. Given 1+2 -and- the advent of DEWS, it is overwhelmingly likely that the best BOMBER _does not have a man onboard_. Because then you don't
have to deal with fatigue issues as well as about 5-10,000lbs of weight penalty to justify an object which will increasingly have to choose between
flying through the trashfire and being flash vaporized by a 1-2MW or better laser. Of course, for purely egotistical reasons, not having any 'truly
fighterlike' features gives the worthless Sky Knight Association a reason to go on breathing pure O2. But that's okay because it also makes the jets
cheaper and lets you segregate targeting from fires, as it should be.
Unmanned platforms are cost effective against inferior enemies which are not able to implement new gen of jamming technologies. If 2MW laser you are
referring to is the Boeing chem laser, unfortunately it's is a lost cause. We are far away from a usable energy/mass weapon. Chemical load is
dangerous even to it's crew, and requires kid gloves just to get in the air.
While in position the platform can not maneuver at all, and basically turns into a giant target that will blow up even if it's slightly grazed.
We are still far, far away from a reliable unmanned force, even though we are on the right track.
How many Sidewinder kills in DS? Sparrow kills in DS? How many AMRAAM kills thereafter? Exactly WHAT PERCENTAGE of these have occured as a
function of dynamic maneuver? Oh, /that's right/. DAMN NEAR ALL have been 'big missile' decided with next to ZERO 'dogfighting'.
I agree, while engaging a technologically and numerically inferior enemy, BVR engagements work, but it is Nam/Iraq stigma. Today
Indian/Pakistani/Russian/Chinese forces are forces to be reckoned with, and will not be easily contained.
When the USAF went to India with both F-15 and 16 jets, how well did our Steve Canyons do against their Bombay Bad Boys? Oh that's right,
/with equal training and WVR weapons systems/ the USAF got their heads handed to them TWO YEARS RUNNING. Like we want to duel other human beings when
_being human_ is the chief disadvantage inherent to limited dogfight performance to begin with.
Agree entirely, yet again, even though unmanned systems are the future they are no the reality of now. We'll absolutely get there and dominate any
theater, but for now we are loosing precious political leverage. Especially considering the volatile state of world economics and the flat world of
the global supply chain, if we waste the funds on "super stars" we simply cut the branch we are sitting on, and giving everybody else the precious
time to catch up.
Air Combat is won in the intercept phase. He who lines up his geometry ducks right WINS. Because his missiles come off first, with the most
advantageous pole and aspect conditions which dictate, not only 'first to see, shoot, kill'. But ONLY one to do so.
Agree, and with potential 12 to 1 ratio, it's a dead golden goose situation.
The F-22 is a 15 mile per minute airframe which isn't /detected/ to be counter engaged. The F-35 is an 8nm/minute airframe which _cannot do
better_ without burner which would alert every IRST for a 100nm in all directions as well as botch the fuel useage percentages on a 700nm radius. The
F-teens are similar except that they go fuel-critical at 450nm. DOGFIGHTING IS DUMB. Further, it only degrades to that by virtue of the speeds you
have to sprint to to get missile shots and the near certainty that you will be detected and countermaneuvered against, wasting shots that might
otherwise have gone in. LO+SSC+OffboardMCG changes ALL of this.
I'm sorry man, but it's the same story over and over again. MGs of WWI created the fantasy that the days of foot soldiers is over and so on.
Dogfighting will always be here even when the super unmanned beasts will be prowling the skies. It exactly the same as with air force and troops on
the ground, you HAVE to see your enemy to achieve a total victory. It's the presence that wins the final battle.
The missiles do the dogfighting provided you bring them close enough, fast enough, to an _extended_ envelope to avoid impaling yourself on the
other guys knife.
While again, what the idiots and morons brigade don't get is that THE NEXT DOGFIGHTER is going to be a 747 with a pulsar turret that turns 'Vipers'
into atomized fireballs. At _186,000 miles PER SECOND_. And probably line of sight downrange (the ABL is seriously underestimated for total power
There is a BIG problem with ANY kind of 747 size weapon platform, because they're simply giant flying targets. Back in the 60s Soviets were trying
to figure out the most cost effective method of intercepting our supersonic high altitude bombers, and figured out that shooting down is a lot more
effective then shooting up. Even back then they drafted plans for low orbit satellites lopping down intercept re-entry vehicles which air burst and
saturate the area with shrap.
At supersonic speeds nothing can maneuver worth of sh!t, and if it's big, it's just easier to hit it.
Considering the moder age of SAMs the days of flying battleships are long gone.
What source do you attribute this to? The _GE_ F136 was a life-support maintenance of the technology coal bed to keep the F135 'honest'. It
has not had 50% of the investments needed to productionize it. And now, because of spiraling total program costs, it never will. RR is unhappy because
they think that 100 people and 1 billion dollars is a 'big deal' relative to a 257 billion dollar program in which the worthless UK is lining itself
up to be FACO-for-EU. And yet they refuse to pay for it alone on 'their' F-35K so the question then becomes how seriously they expect us to treat
One of the briefing pdfs. It's the maintenance cost the drove the last nail in the coffin. The price was over 100million in the first 5 years I
think, which after delivery kills the budget entirely.
And we have repeatedly rolled that system right up. Always taking the majority of our casualties from S2A fires in the process. Indeed the
/greatest threat/ EVER posed by threat-air has _always_ been to specialist platforms like RB-66 and EKA-3. Because it's by hitting the tankers and
the targeting and the jammers and the chaff layers that you leave the rest of the formation potentially naked.
The fewer you have of these node-critical vulnerability points in your system, the better.
With all do respect I disagree here entirely. I have looked into structure in depth, and it makes perfect sense. To this day (thank God) we never
had to deal with such a system in the way it was intended to function.
Russians historically fought with land, or in this case air space. In case of Nam there was simply no elbow room to properly implement Soviet defense
strategy. Soviet SAM cluster/VVS/land forces doctrine simply did not work in Nam for the lack of operational space.
All of which were false posits at the time they were introduced. The MiG-29 because it has the radius of the MiG-21 and a radar system that
isn't worth the horse laughs.
Man, you are putting me in a uncomfortable position here. I fully respect your personal experience and knowledge, but there are factors involved here
which you are not mentioning.
MiG-21, mach 2.5 fast runner, no rear visibility, why? Soviets were the first ones to bubble their Yak's and La's in WWII, so why the change all
Change of doctrine. They wanted to "cycle" as many fresh units to the front lines, dump the payload and head back to re-fuel/re-arm. They
continued the tradition of the WWII front line fighter ideology, but at Mach 2.5.
MiG-23 follows the tradition perfectly, but by adding variable-swept wing it increased maneuverability MiG-21 lacked at mid range, and dramatically
lowered the landing speed, which was a big problem for Fishbeds.
Soviets were not satisfied by being completely reliant on airfields, and from their WWII experience they knew that airfields were a liability and
prime targets. They were strapping JATOs to Fishbeds and blasting the from truck chassis, because they knew that in the opening move of the conflict
its the airfields that'll be burned.
In the case of the Fulcrum, it's perfect for the intended role. It is supposed to be a cheap short range mud digging front line fighter. It's
radar was more then enough for the planned operational ranges and is simply cheap to manufacture.
GCI is absolutely crucial to control the massive air presence. The supposed disadvantage of Soviet pilots of being automatons who are totally
controlled by CGI is simply incorrect.
I'm sure you know that GCI is not simply a matter of telling a pilot to go "there" and drop a stick. They closely work together in concert with
other layers of defense. SAM traps, ambushes, sweeps/escort for CAS etc, it's the primary role of the Fulcrum, and not being the knight in shining
armor fighting for the air dominance.
It's quick and dirty, basically a flying AK-47.
Super short take off from mud strips is allowed by the top mounted air intakes. The shutters on the main intakes close, and the top intakes literally
suck the air to provide additional lift and prevent all the crapp and being sucked into the turbines. One of it's main requirements it to be able to
operate together with the SU-25. Where Frogfoot goes, the Fulcrum has to.
High maintenance costs of the Fulcrum are also misunderstood. Being a mobile front line fighter filed maintenance was out of the question, and all
maintenance aspects were design to be modular. Modules were designed to be switched out by untrained personal and sent back for re-manufacturing,
instead of hulling a whole crew around.
Short engine life and slow turbine spin-ups and its distinctive smoke trail also make perfect sense considering the built in ability to run on dirty
fuel. Fulcrum can be fueled by a mix of low grade kerosene mixed with diesel, just like the SU-25.
Heavy shaft gives the engines to superb stall resistance at massive AOAs and allow them to chew through all kinds of crapp sucked in from the dirt
puddles it was designed to operate from.
It all makes since as soon as one factors in the intended role of the platform.
The Su-27 because it is 'one plane two fighters' for EM performance under realistic (all internal) fuel loads for radius. Even as it has
'twice' the MiG-29 radar system with more power but no real ability to deal with ranged threats in terms of sorting and morting under severe ECM and
formation breakout conditions. Hell, they have to /manually/ set the clutter, PRF and notch gates! Their missiles also genuinely suck as you have
about eight out of ten pylons which cannot take the only extended-shot weapons which give the Flanker a positive pole performance edge over the
I don't know what your personal opinion is on Flanker, but I was sceptical until I saw one in action. Beck in early 90s I was at a air show, and
when I saw the Flanker for the first time I was almost laughing. Knowing the capabilities of the Eagle, I though that the Russians simply could not
make the avionics/weapons systems small enough, because the Flanker was absolutely HUGE.
As soon as a saw then take of and pull a dirty loop right of the bat I though man, we're in trouble. The damn thing flew like nothing I've seen
before. Super high AOAs with out chopping up the air, it was smooth, and the landing was unbelievable. For being such huge birds they came down slow
and easy at about 35 degrees AOA, breaking with the airframe even before the touch down.
As for its radar and weapons control, they do not need to range and sort sort targets, that's what the GCI is for. R-27s don't suck, as all of the
independent test data showed time after time (India/China). Extended ER/ET long sticks are carried on the same pylons as the regular Rs/Ts, so I
don't know where you got that info from.
The MiG-31 weapons system was totally compromised by Agent Donald and in any case constitutes a tiny fraction of the active Soviet defense
forces, having ALWAYS been a dedicated PVO-Strany asset, not Frontal Aviation one. Even it cannot kill what it cannot see and the RD-33 is a bomber
killer whose absolute range is directly tied to the expected profile and burnthrough distances of a platform designed to literally rundown and impale
targets that it cannot kill at range. Bluntly, 19nm in lolo lookdown is NOT impressive.
Here we go again.
Foxhounds weapon system was not compromised. The data on Zaslon grid delivered by Alexander Tolkachev was under suspicious circumstances to say the
Soviet are historically known for throwing disinformation around, and staging capability leaks.
Work on MiG-31B was already in full swing with totally upgraded systems across the board, and was implemented far to quickly of it was forced by
Considering that the Foxbat was "delivered" in 1976, it only raises questions to how exactly Soviets allowed such a leak.
Judging by how their system worked simple treason is out of the question. What does makes since, is that considering the strategic area of the Artic
as a main incursion point for USAF bombers, just as with Foxbat, giving up the info on the interceptor capabilities only forces another cycle of
immense expenditures or refocusing the efforts.
It is all about PVO, it is a dedicated interceptor. It focuses on high priority targets and leaves the tango to the Fulcrum/Flanker tag team.
Again I don't know what you know about the Foxbat in its intended role, but your notions seem to be a tad of base.
Foxhounds systems and the method of their use have been adopted by the F-22.
I'm sure you know that Zaslon was the first phased array radar to fly, but it's not all about the power, but how it is utilized.
Foxhounds work in concert through a fully digital multi channel data link. The most interesting part is that the system is said to be completely jam
proof because it utilized multiple channels for data transmission.
No RF channel is fully jam proof, so their system is aided by the optical data link through retractable IRST.
It's effective as hell. Other then cutting down RF emissions between platforms, the more Foxhounds are in the group the more data they can share,
and cut down individual radar emissions exponentially, all while setting up a multi point tracking cluster.
It's a simple concept. Instead of burning the target with a lock from a single radar, multiple platforms link up and intermittently sweep on scan
(blinking), and by combining the data calculate a firing solution for the designated shooter.
In this manner Foxhounds can fire on multiple targets with out locking on and setting of TDW lock warning.
While TWD alerts the pilots of the radar sweep, AMOS is already in the air.
An interesting (and unconfirmed) piece of info I heard is that a number of Foxhounds in formation can emulate an AWACS sweep.
I'm not sure what you meant by RD-33, but I take it's the Amos, since RD-33 is the Fulcrums turbofan.
So far R-33 is the most capable long range stick in the air. I don't know where you get your info from.
It's fully data linked, and can engage everything from SR-71 to a cruise missile.
It is the multi point targeting data linking together with the active seeker that gives it its teeth. I'm tired of people saying that it's a copy
of the Phoenix because they look alike. At long rang aerodynamics dictate the shape, and it's the length that creates the heaviest drag, not the
radius. Operationally they are nothing alike.
Missile tracking data is shared from (what I recall) up to six Foxhounds, and its intercept point is corrected by all available data together with its
Forward Foxhound acts as the "hub", focuses Zaslon on the Amos and actively tracks it during all stages of flight. The rest of the group feeds the
"hub" with data collected from all data collected, compares the target data with the position of the stick it's tracking, and through the narrow
tracking beam sends correction data to the stick.
Depending on the situation, hub position can be passed on to the following Foxhound thus never entering the engagement f-pole of the target.
Basically they use the same method as a SAM cluster.
To this date it's still the only air borne system of its kind.
Man, there is a lot to ponder on here, so instead of covering one point at a time I'll try to sum it all up.
I'll start here;
That would be the F-16 and 18. Not the F-14/15 or even the A-10 which you so loudly extol the virtues of yet which the Fighter Mafia
universally decried. Specialist systems work when the _environment_ in which they are expected to function is strictly scenario-parsed. OTOH, when you
acknowledge that expecting a fixed scenario over enemy airspace is a fools dream and you INVENT LOW OBSERVABILITY TECHNOLOGY TO COMPENSATE
(resimplifying the assumptive dataset) it hardly makes sense NOT to apply multifunction weapons systems to the resulting airframe solution. Because
once nobody engages you, _to make your mission valid_ (valuable) you need to make the shots happen yourself at whatever range point you can
All the way to here;
And this requires a highly specialized platform which has _nothing to do_ with 'fighter' anything. But simply a basic performance point
compatible with existing tacair sortie rates and ingress/egress speeds (not a 110-230 knot Predator but a 450-500 knot X-45). Combined with cheap
manufacture and ROLE LIMITED performance sufficient to fly for hours in combat. And hardly at all in training.
IOW: a UCAV.
You bring up a lot of good points for now, but not the future.
To cut right down to it, it's all about the Future Combat System.
Our current vision of it is total data networking and real time global SA, which will allow for unmanned platforms and BVR everything.
F-22/UCAV combo along with everything else sound great at the beginning, but then the details come in.
First, the larger the network is, the more susceptible it is to hacking, that's a fact.
No amount of encryption can protect any network from intrusion or disruption.
Our idea of global battlefield data network relies of RF/SAT comm, GPS nav etc, all of which are incredibly venerable.
If you remember, Russians already tested their portable GPS jammers in Iraq with such success, that Pentagon was not only forced acknowledge it, but
to press the White House into taking political measures.
This brings me to your notions on S-300.
We agree that it's a old system, which already is being replaced by modern networks, but for the just of let's examine what we do know, and apply it
to what is current and is to follow.
First S300 system is fully mobile, and is design to be quickly re-deployed and set up.
Other then the well known features, for the purpose of this particular issue let's focus on it's main advantage.
A full cluster consisting of 64N6E Big Bird, 36N6E Flap lid and 12 launchers can be spread over a 1km radius, and networked by a hard-wire data link,
giving it a full ECM capability.
With RF data link that distance can be increased to a radius of over 5km.
I'm sure you know that it's called a SAM trap.
Given 3 networked (both wire and RF) S300 sites, the picture you described changes drastically, and the coverage area increases exponentially.
I'm sure that you also know that TOR-M1 is also designed to network with each other and with S300 clusters, thus covering the area with point defense
layer against low alt targets and most importantly cruise missiles.
Since the data path is are specific, the network can be increased to infinity with out choking the data pipe.
The S300 hard-wire network range is limited only by the copper wire delay time, and that is the past.
These days, a dedicated pulse jet carrier or a UAV delivers a flex fiber optic cable line to over 5km, even over the trees, and simply plugs in.
Short range ECM hardened RF repeaters are utilized as nodes in such optical networks, and data link air borne platforms into the system, instead of
relying on satts.
Sat comm emissions give up position even if using commercial bandwidths.
This is were jamming comes in.
The whole idea of the FCS and GPS sound really good until its use is denied by massive jamming. In the past jamming blinded both parties and mutually
gave up positions, but with point defense optical networks and short range RF pulse repeaters, it's no longer so.
High power EMP/ECM units (air dropped if needed) act as are denial ring, forcing intruders into SAM cluster traps spread out over large areas.
That's where even the basic Flankers can more then hold their own against supep high tech LO super stars.
Su-27s do not work alone, again, none of the Russian weapons systems are designed to be stand alone systems. They have always been designed to work
as a part of the network, or exactly what we are doing with FCS right now.
In this case our future is their past.
Flanker family is cheap to build, can be equipped to taste, and again are meant to be used as a part of a network not as isolated fleet fighting for
That is the new age, it's not all about BVR, and LO does not make the enemy come out to you, but forces the LO craft into narrow operational area
riddled with SAM traps.
Cruise missiles that didn't dropp with out GPS correction and go on internals are managed by point defense networked TOR/Tunguzka units.
That is the modern scenario, and staking EVERYTHING on RF bases SA network and LO is putting all of the eggs in one basket.
By our standards those "primitive" systems Russians are using in their fighters are built that way for a reason.
As I'm sure you know, that "backwards" tube radar of the Foxbat was powerful enough to burn through ECM and was totally EMP proof.
The same tradition was carried on to later generations.
Instead of hardening everything, only the avionics systems are protected.
This gives an immense advantage to the optical based network with area denial EMP generators, because as soon as any given unit is activated, all
fighters in the effected area are automatically forced into a "flight only" mode by switching off all non essential systems.
Another interesting thing most people do not consider, is that active EMP protection method already exists.
Ionized plasma effectively protects circuits from EMP pulses and allows them to function with out interruption. Much talked about Russian 100 kilo
cold plasma "stealth" generator gives a lot to ponder about.
Who cares about its radar absorbency capabilities, if it's able to effectively shield the airframe from EMP/ECM interference, the whole "flying
supercomputer" concept goes right out the door.
Concentrated EMP/ECM/SAM area denial is the current reality, not BVR/RF/SAT/GPS/UAV based global FCS.
Modern EMP generator use is still largely misunderstood. Most still think of it as a massive pulse that burns out the circuits, but such a massive
energy pulse is simply not necessary to effectively disable any given system.
Considering the complexity of modern systems, low power pulses corrupt data flow to the point of malfunction.
Such data corruption completely overpowers ECC, parity and redundancy error correction implemented by modern systems, and slows the system down to a
crawl. Avionics, radar/weapons control, missile tracking, all effected to the point of malfunction.
Even the most basic low power portable Russian GPS jammers easily dropped GPS guided cruise missiles and misdirected air traffic in Iraq, think about
an actual theater sized network. It's a whole new ball game out there, and that is why dog fighting is even more essential then before.
You HAVE to be with in the visual striking range of your target to ASSURE a kill. While Radar guided smart missiles can be burned by EMP/ECM, IR
guided dum-dums will get there.
In this new age of electronic battlefield it's all about area denial by data denial, and the operational theater is actually shrinking, not expanding
through the use of standoff capabilities.
Concepts of silver bullet BVR kills, auto loitering and long missions by do-it-all super wonders are extinct.
It's all about precision, network coordinated intercepts and point defense in conditions of heavy EMP/ECM.
What is a 'Front Line Fighter'? Do you mean a CAS airframe?
Front line Fighter is required to operate from unprepared fields together with CAS and ground units. It's a mobile integrated unit supporting each
Fulcrum is basically geared for short range escort of CAS and tactical bomber wings (SU25/SU24/SU34), point defense of front line assets, and scramble
intercepts, thus its short legs, mediocre radar and small payload.
The weight was put into hardening of all of its systems for the life in the mud of the mobile front line units. It was designed to take of and land
on potato fields, literally.
Now maybe here you can help me out.
THis is my view on BVR, so please correct me where I'm wrong
BVR is not a game of chicken or poker, it's a game of chess.
BVR engagement is not about scoring a kill, it's all about area denial and forcing your opponent out of position to accomplish a mission, and
possibly force/drag them into a SAM trap.
SAMs are dedicated BVR killers and are simply deadly in comparison to any air borne BVR platform.
Dedicated interceptors are tailored for BVR kills, but mostly against high priority targets such as AWACS and bombers, cruise missiles.
I still can't believe that the Tomcat will not have a replacement. It's just backwards.
In the engagement between evenly matched opponents, fighter on fighter kill is a luxury, because they are not there to bounce around like Red Barons,
but to work together with SAM units and provide cover for various tactical missions.
IMHO active guided missiles are not as effective in bringing down targets as modern semi-active riders, but are a lot more effective in are denial,
especially against multiple threats.
The tracking signal strength fed to semi-guided tracker simply overshadows the output of the tiny active seeker, but gives the active tracker a
tactical edge by allowing the launching platform time to keep multiple bandits dancing.
Smart semi-active missiles "stick" much better and are harder to jam then active non supported "silver bullets".
A fully supported active tracker is more accurate and deadly, but at three (or more) times the price.
Realistic BVR kill ranges start in the hood of 20-25km given good weather conditions and favorable f-pole.
At longer distances and common engagement altitudes medium range missiles bleed like pigs and simply loose to much energy by the time they get there.
Not to mention cloud cover, humidity, rain/snow etc.
long legged mediums that rely on aerobalistic trajectory are especially finicky, because if the stick has to loop through thick clouds you might as
well kiss it good buy.
Even if the track is solid cloud chop will kill the trajectory and flip the missile sideways even if it still has speed on it.
Foxhound claims of total crapp weather BVR kill with R-33 is only when it's fired from a FoxPack and supported with data from multiple platforms.
Realistic kill zone starts at around 10-15 kliks and closing.
That's just my take on it.