RMAF's Sukhois to arrive in May — one year late
-
The merge is the entry into close range combat. If I were to merge and blowthrough, I would not enter a dogfight since I'm gaining lateral seperation from my enemy. Hence technology today allows a pilot to target high-aspect weapons on the merge and allows them to blow through without having to "Turn" and formally enter the "dogfight." The window for escape at that point is still rather wide, however the moment I have to turn, my window for escape closes, and I either have to win a turning fight or die trying.
shot gun you seem to have knowledge in this,
ok if the merge did happen and takes them into range of SRAAM with each other, the first pilot to turn to escape will offer its opponent a tail end shot....why?
-
Originally posted by Skye2:
Wrong again. All modern airforces have BVR weapons and the latest ones too. Lol. More airy-fairy ideas. You are losing credibility fast. Im pretty sure air-force pilots invest a lot of time in tactics to maximise gain and reduce losses. The problem with you is that you are unable to swallow the fact that your airforce is poorly equipped at the moment. As such, you try and paint a better picture of it via WVR combat using general ideas which amounts to nothing. Im sure you we have already agreed on these points;
1) Aerial warfare is no longer about individual platforms but entire systems. Systems are force multipliers which allow individual platforms to perform significantly better than without it. See first, shoot first, track first, etc, etc.
2) BVR will dominate air combat from now henceforth.
3) In WVR, Western jets are just as capable if not more capable than the Ruskies via thier own niches. In the case of Western combat jets, the greater emphasis is on systems and weapons. For example, the current Amraam 120-C5s/C7s and the incoming 120-D are already better than the Russian equivalent. The AIM-9X and Asraam are much much better than the R-73s.
What is there to argue any more?
The problem with you is that you are unable to swallow the fact that your airforce is poorly equipped at the moment.
wait2 my air force? you mean RSAF? what are you talking about dick?
-
Lol. You are clutching at straws and now you have reverted to an older argument which you have conceded. But not very good at it. Dunno say dunno lah. Wrong ^. This is bereft of tactics and strategy. I have already noted that in my preceding posts. Pilots dont just form up in a line and fire off thier bvr missiles and then go in for a wvr fight. This is even assuming that the they survive the first wave of BVR strikes. Surest way to wipe our your airforce. Merge for dogfights? Inevitable? Start shooting WVR missiles? And then cannons? What are tactics for? Here`s something you can do. Check how many bvr AAMs a Super hornet can carry in A to A mode. It is not for nothing that the F-22 carries 6 BVR AAMs. They can do it all from BVR. Silly you.sigh...yes, yes...i never dispute the advantage of BVR! i only said in the event the enemy were hell bent in attacking you and both side have spent their BVR...it is inevitable the fight will turned into a dogfight....
No. it isnt. Read up on elisra and EW management.very funny statement, so who is airy fairy now?
-
wait2 my air force? you mean RSAF? what are you talking about dick?
why are getting so excited and rude? Do you want to be banned Malaysian?
-
Skye2 forget it. I've said it before. Let him have his WVR fantasies.
True. Only way for him to make up for the obvious limitations in the air force he loves.
-
im saying this because newer generation of fighter were equip with EWb that were designed to defeat AMRAAM type missile, so there is no guaranty that the other side will loose badly nor does on our side... although an attacking forces with numerical superiority will get the upperhand...in this case there will be no WVR fight because the loser will retreat (unless they were suicidal)
-
Originally posted by Skye2:
why are getting so excited and rude? Do you want to be banned Malaysian?
what malaysian you frakking moron, im a singaporean!!! why the heck whenever a person dispute someone or disagree with him some arrogant kid like you will label Malaysian? why? singaporean cannot dispute or disagree with each other is it? -
im saying this because newer generation of fighter were equip with EWb that were designed to defeat AMRAAM type missile, so there is no guaranty that the other side will loose badly nor does on our side... although an attacking forces with numerical superiority will get the upperhand...in this case there will be no WVR fight because the loser will retreat (unless they were suicidal)
Not all modern jets are equipped with capable systems. Some are specially designed with more jamming capabilities. Newer Western AAMs are also more resistant. In addition, why carry several BVR missiles in the first place when in A to A mode? Duh. Why see first and shoot first? Why detect and track first? Must you just shoot one missile and wait? Again, what are tactics for? To the contrary, the guarantee will be very high you will fry you opponents in the air before he can react first killing the planned assault.
Again, your argument is bereft of tactics. It does not mean they absolutely have to get into WVR. They can do it all, if not most of the time, from BVR. Numbers matter. Systems matter. Tactics matter. Weapons matter. Technology matters. Radar matters.And much more.
although an attacking forces with numerical superiority will get the upperhand...in this case there will be no WVR fight because the loser will retreat (unless they were suicidal)
Good you realise this part ^ Bravo
-
ok if my point is rather weak it is not fair to label me like that or belittle my oppinion left and right.
here is an example of a rather recent conflict, not the 60s.
(June the 8th, Kecskemet AB, Taszar AB, Hungary ex. Lariat Response '01).
a/c: MiG-29 9.12B '07' (2xUZR-73E, 1x1500l) and MiG-29 9.12B '03' (2xR-27R training missile kit, 1x1500l) of the 59. Fighter Wing Hungarian Air Force, call sign 'Titan 1 and 2'.
Takeoff from Kecskemet.
4x F-16C blk.40 of 555.FS/31.FW USAFE, Aviano AB, Italy, call sign 'Hammer 1-4' (training AIM-120B,C and training AIM-9M, 1x300 gal) Taking off from Taszar.
Pilot of a/c 07, a 40 years old major (who made the only visual identification by Hungarian AF fighters - that time MiG-21MFs - of airspace violating Yugoslavian military a/c during the early 90s) and pilot of a/c 03, a 28 years old captain told the story.
The mission was about autonomous operation, target detection and attack by the Triple Nickels on CAP and GCI intercept for the MiGs (in each mission a pair of F-16s was assinged a single MiG in a given airspace). It was to be a one sided BVR thing, but became a totally different story (at least for one mission).
The F-16s were in much separated line abreast formation to optimise search for the MiG 'somewhere around'. The pilot of Fulcrum '07' relied himself on GCI data, RWR indications, no emissions, low level and low speed (200m and around 400 km/h) to avoid RWS or TWS look-down detection and entry to STT (lock on). When range reached around 40 kms, he started beaming which given his already low speed was effective even at around 60 degrees. Without stabilised detection (one time they got returns the other time not), no track, no lock, Hammer flight (at around FL150) just closed the distance. By avoiding lock and launch ('bogey drop' was called for the last time by the F-16s) the situ reached a point where the MiG pilot made a visual tally on the Falcon leader silouetted against the sky, perfected beaming to 90 degrees, and waited as it passed overhead. He then engaged AB to pump up speed, switched the N019 to 'close combat' mode and executed a hard 9G climbing turn behind the Falcon. This time Hammer 1 also made visual on the attacking MiG and made a break into what was now a WVR BFM fight. However, it was too late: while totally perpendicular to the incoming MiG's flight path, it was locked on by the N019 with R-73 launch simulated at 2km slant range. As the american wingman was quite far away searching in a different direction he could not intervene in time to save his leader.
During debriefing the F-16 jocks asked about active jamming, chaffs, and just couldn't belive that none of them were used (9.12 has no active ECM onboard and chaff usage is forbidden over Hungary, because animals can eat it, when finally it falls to the ground...). Finally the American pilot was upset because it was not to include BFM in WVR. He thought the MiGs will just fly head-to-head and wait for the AMRAAMs!
The next mission the other pair of F-16s reestablished the pride of the famous Triple Nickels, as they hunted down the incoming, R-27R equipped (training rounds) Fulcrum (this time '03', Titan 2 with a much less experienced pilot) from around 50 kms and 'launched' not less than 4 AMRAAMS. -
what malaysian you frakking moron, im a singaporean!!! why the heck whenever a person dispute someone or disagree with him some arrogant kid like you will label Malaysian? why? singaporean cannot dispute or disagree with each other is it?
why are you hyper-ventilating ?
Oh. disagreements are fine. So many in the forums here. Look around. It`s just `you'. Too obvious. Where are you working again? -
i work in pahang...i eat sotong, i drive a jeep cherokee, and i went fishing before i went to work. thank...you
-
here is an example of a rather recent conflict, not the 60s.
link? Oh come on, I will take that with a pinch of salt. Dripping with ego and nationalism. You might as well post the story of how an F18 shot down an F22. Nobody is saying that it cannot happen. Also, this does not take into account other systems such as AEW planes,newer radar capabilites, ground systems etc.
-
i work in pahang...i eat sotong, i drive a jeep cherokee, and i went fishing before i went to work. thank...you
Cari forums ->
<- Sg forums
-
But what do you exactly work as?
-
give me 100 dollar and i tell you
-
Originally posted by Skye2:
link? Oh come on, I will take that with a pinch of salt. Dripping with ego and nationalism. You might as well post the story of how an F18 shot down an F22. Nobody is saying that it cannot happen. Also, this does not take into account other systems such as AEW planes,newer radar capabilites, ground systems etc.
it does happen...wa lau, even with such detailed data you still want to argue? -
it does happen...wa lau, even with such detailed data you still want to argue?
I asked for the link? Where is it? No one has argued about that ^. You are hallucinating again. It is also alleged that an Iraqi farmer brought down an Apache helicopter once using a rifle. So farmer is better than Apache. Logical right(sarcasm).
-
wait...i will find the link to the story
You are hallucinating again
ooo you are sooo sopan...
It is also alleged that an Iraqi farmer brought down an Apache helicopter once using a rifle. So farmer is better than Apache. Logical right(sarcasm).
its not the same
-
ooo you are sooo sopan...
Dont be rude next time.
its not the same
Of course it isnt. You cannot draw conclusions from such incidents.
-
Originally posted by Skye2:
Dont be rude next time.
Of course it isnt. You cannot draw conclusions from such incidents.
of course you can....tactics and strategy were devised by studying after mission briefing like this -
of course you can....tactics and strategy were devised by studying after mission briefing like this
I was talking about inherent capability in that instance. You cannot possibly conclude that a farmer is more capable than an Apache pilot. Freaks of incidences happen. Secondly, you cannot singularly use that as an example which is devoid of other factors such as AEW planes, ground systems, modern multi-mode and multi-function radars, AESA radars, age of systems, modern EW systems, etc. My point in coming up with the Apache example is to show you that coming up with such examples is an inadequate response in the larger scheme of things and that does not detract from the main arguments in this thread about BVR and WVR combat. Also, I have doubts about its authenticity as it is more about boasting about the latter`s experience.
Where is that link again?
-
from wiki
MiG-29 in Yugoslav and Serbian service
Two Yugoslav MiG-29s (No.18102 and 18109) at Batajnica AB, shortly after deliverey in 1987.
MiG-29 No.18109.
Serbian Air Force MiG-29 No.18101The SFR Yugoslav Air Force purchased a total of 14 MiG-29s and two MiG-29UBs from the USSR, in 1987. MiG-29s were taken into service with the 127. Lovacka Avijacijska Eskadrila (127. LAE, Fighter Aviation Squadron), known as Vitezovi (Knights), part of the 204. Lovacki Avijacijski Puk (204. LAP, Fighter Aviation Regiment) based at Batajnica Air Base, west of Belgrade, in what is today the Republic of Serbia. The aircraft was designated L-18 (Lovac, fighter), or NL-18 ('Nastavni Lovac, trainer fighter) for the "UB" version.
Serial numbers of MiG-29 fighters in YuAF:
- MiG-29: 18101-18114
- MiG-29UB: 18301-18302
The MiGs continued their service in the subsequent FRY Air Force and finally in Serbian Air Force. During the long arms embargo placed upon the country, the condition of the MiGs worsened. When operation Allied Force started, Yugoslav MiGs were 15 years old and deprived of spare parts. The first two destroyed MiG-29 were No.18112 (Maj. Iljo Azrinov, downed near Priština) and No.18111 (Maj. Nebojša Nikolić, near Titel), on April 24. They flew out of Slatina Air Base. MiG-29 No.18106 flown by Maj. Predrag Milutinović was downed near Kruševac on same day. On April 26 MiGs 29 No.18114 flown by Maj. Slobodan Perić and No.18113 flown by Capt. 1st Class Zoran Radoslavljević took-off from Batajnica Air Base to intercept a high-flying NATO aircraft – probably a Mirage IV on a reconnaissance mission over north-western Serbia. Perić was shot down near Bjeljina, and he ejected safely, but Radoslavljević, shot down near Valjevo was killed. The MiG-29 No.18109 flown by Maj. Slobodan Tešanović crashed near Užice-Ponikve Airport in a noncombat flight on May 4. Other aircraft (No.18103, 18104, 18107, 18302) were destroyed by NATO during the strikes on the ground.
The unit continued flying its remaining five MiG-29s (at a very low rate) after the war as well, even if it had to replace the losses by MiG-21s evacuated from Pristina after the war. In spring of 2004, however, news appeared that what is now the Serbia and Montenegro Air Force ceased MiG-29 operations, because the aircraft could not be maintained.
MiG-29s will continue their service in Serbian Air Force, in 101.LAE (ex-127.LAE together with ex-126.LAE), part of 204th Air Base when their engines come back from overhaul in Russia. First two MiGs should have became operational by December 2007, second two by the beginning of 2008 and last one in summer of 2008.[7]
-
Originally posted by Skye2:
I was talking about inherent capability in that instance. You cannot possibly conclude that a farmer is more capable than an Apache pilot. Freaks of incidences happen. Secondly, you cannot singularly use that as an example which is devoid of other factors such as AEW planes, ground systems, modern multi-mode and multi-function radars, AESA radars, age of systems, modern EW systems, etc. My point in coming up with the Apache example is to show you that coming up with such examples is an inadequate response in the larger scheme of things and that does not detract from the main arguments in this thread about BVR and WVR combat. Also, I have doubts about its authenticity as it is more about boasting about the latter`s experience.
Where is that link again?
but some time in air battle these other factor (AEW planes, ground systems, modern multi-mode and multi-function radars, AESA radars, age of systems, modern EW systems) might not be there, it could happen. BVR and WVR is a subjective matters, you cant simply assume everytime both side fight in a exellent condition (ie : having all those factor that you wrote above) -
Originally posted by tankfanatic:
shot gun you seem to have knowledge in this,
ok if the merge did happen and takes them into range of SRAAM with each other, the first pilot to turn to escape will offer its opponent a tail end shot....why?
Merge is often used to describe the entry into a dogfight. At that point, when they past each other (usually about 500kts) they make a choice. Turn and fight, or go full afterburners and run for it. This is called the escape window.While its true that the pilot deciding to make a run for it will present his tail, he will also be gaining distance against his opponent. By the time his opponent is able to make a 180 degree turn and while losing airspeed to do so, the pilot escaping would have already past mach 1.0 and outside the any WVR weapon's WEZ.
The pilot who made the turn would not be able to catch unless he's prepared to engage in a high (fuel guzzling) speed pursuit. Of course, if he's got BVR missiles, he would use it on his fleeing prey which he MIGHT be able to kill if he can get enought airspeed and altitude.
Now can you see why its so disadvantageous to take any engagement past BVR and into WVR? Flights would turn away from each other before they even get within 20nm of each other and let their Active Radar missile do the job of pushing their opponents back.
In the tactical engagement exercise, the Hungrarian pilot already went outside the scope of the exercise. He may have gotten the kill, but in a real operation, where SIGINT/ELINT and AWACs assets operate in tandem, he would have been spotted and splashed at BVR.
Examine the Outcome of Operation Allied Force. No Serbian MiG-29 was able to fly at altitude and had to resort to low level hit and runs with passive WVR weapons. IIRC while a single F-16 was lost to such an attack due to some kind of lapse in AWACS coverage. That detail I can't really remember. However, Air Superiority was attained with most of the MiG-29s grounded or shot down.
Hence we see a 2nd situation where WVR may possibility be used as primary tactic. IE: Where Network Centric warfare capabilities are lacking.
With regards to EW against active radar missiles. Weapons such as the AMRAAM C4 to C7 series have a "Home on Jam" capability where its able to passively track the source of jamming emissions. Leaving jammers on against such a weapon only serve to broadcast, "I'm over here, please shoot me."
