Tactic vs. Tactic

[Webmaster]

Actually Viggen, that wouldn't work because of the escorts. It would get shot down before coming close to the plane. Plus something tells me that fanatics and flying supersonic aircraft somehow is a combination which will be less accurate than a AIM-120D at max range. At best, he'll ram one of the escort fighters head-on.

Alyster, the knife, bullit, nor the current Russian artillery shells have a seeker for guidance in the terminal phase.
Accuracy at range is of course important as well, but it becomes even more important when you have less range (also technologically less difficult), because the enemy will more effectively hit back. That artillery is not precise by default, but 25km off target is a lot, and they've seriously did something wrong there. But if a miss is acceptable you just make corrections and fire again, it's acceptable when you are outside enemy range. That's tactic, accuracy is the weapon.

The non-nuclear blast radius of the AIM-54 and R-33 will make up for their lack in accuracy, that's why the Genie needed a nuclear warhead. Anyway, I think the 85% hit probability of the AMRAAM will be sufficient especially when you launch multiple missiles at the target.

It is launched guided by the aircraft's radar, most will pick up a fighter sized target beyond that range. In mid-flight it can receive updates on the target's location. And in the terminal phase it will use its own active radar seeker to gets it's own bearing and of course it also has a proximity fuse. At 180km, it might have trouble hitting a highly mobile/agile target, which would need more trajectory corrections and thus uses up more fuel.
Regarding the mission; Let's say you launch four AMRAAMs in pairs at 2-second interval at 150km, plus 1 at each escort, break off, make sure you get out of the range of the escorts, which should be doing their evasive turns first before coming after you. I'm sure you'll get at least one full hit on the main target.

So regarding tactics, keeping your range is my favorite, whether is snipers, BVRAAMs, or stand-off weapons. Especially when combined with accurate/precise weapon systems that are mobile as well. But like I said, it all depends on your strategy, and then creating the best mix. A neutral country may first need to intercept and visually identify any hostilities, in which case stand off tactics and offensive weapons make less sense.

Let's continue the discussion, there are many different angles possible.

[alyster]

Well I am not etirely convinced of the 85% accuarcy rate. That's the problem. It is quite hard to actually test it. To shoot it at UAVs? I'd hardly would compare that to a Viper. Perhaps they’ve scored few kills on some third world country’s Khrushchev’s era MiGs, who’s pilot had probably never even seen a AMRAAM on a pciture. But shoot a R-33 at a F-16 or AIM-120 on a Fulcrum? Has it ever been done?
Currently the reason we’re debating about the different options of air warfare is that we don’t have a definate awnser. There hasn’t been a major air war in a long time. Atlist a war where both sides have a solid air force. Same problem was before WW2 and WW1. Major air forces were built up on guess work. They were mostly wrong. Nevertheless we have few smaller conflicts we could observe:

•   Eritrean-Ethiopian War – All kills in the war were made by R-73s, while R-27s were also in use.
•   Falkland’s war – kills were made by AIM-9L. Although I’m not sure about the mid or longer range missiles used. Does anyone care to add ? AIM-120 wasn’t ready by that time yet I think.
•   Iran – Iraq war – Well I also haven’t found any info about it yet, though I think AIM-54 should have been used along side with other short and medium range missiles.

BVRAAMs haven’t seen much action. I wouldn’t want to depend on them. Because the moment people relise these weapons are a failure(if they are!), is when their last BVRAAM has missed the enemy air plane which is closing in to score a kill either on them or their buddy in a bomber nearby. 

Ofcourse I don’t have data about the Iraq-Iran war here. If someone does I’d appriciate him sharing it.

[Globetrotter]

You are right, in Malvinas War the main misiles (A-A) were Matra 550 (Argentine side) and AIM-9L (Brittish side). We also had a pair or two of Matras 530s, but let me see if they were used.

[Viggen]

I have to disagree with you on this one Niels. You are are thinking of regular fanatics, the ones that strap homemade bomb to their waist. The Japanese kamikaze pilots were also fanatics, their emperor came first.  They sacrificed their lifes for his safty.

Anyone can be turned into a fanatic under the right circumstances. So by training a regular airforce pilot,  feeding him whatever nonsens that will break his will and look at certain things from your point of view. You will manage to get a fanatic pilot for the aircraft.

Ok, I dont think a regular fighter could be used, has to be a modified one. For example a rocket engine that can be ignited to gain speeds over Mach 4, the last miles.

Anyway its a far fetched idea, but it could be done. Taking out targets with suicidal maniacs is a well proven and unfortunatly a sucsessfull tactic.

[Globetrotter]

Well, you could compromise and make it so fast the enemy doesn't see what hit it... 

I think there's a Nuke AAM somewhere... Was it the Genie? I don't think so i can't remember which it was... Help anyone?

Yep, carried by F-106 (the sexiest ever) with a range of destruction of 5 miles, so you don't have to hit the target. AIM-2 it was called. So, if you get face to face with 10 F-16s.... well, you can get them all down wiith a F-106 and a Genie. (Cause its electromagnetics instruments would be dead, and as it is fly by wire.......) It was designed to attack large formations of Bears (Russian Bombers)

[Raptor]

Globetrotter-Of course, your F-106 would become shredded metal too, correct...?  Kamikaze anyway. 

Viggen-I agree with you. Suicide bombers are really successful. The only problem is they have to actually hit the target before they're blown up themselves. Which means i agree with Webby too.  I'm konfuzed...

The problem with BVRAAMs is that if you miss you're a goner, no? The distance between the two aircraft is closing even as the missile is fired. The fighter that shot the missile of course can turn away, but it takes time to get a firing solution...

[Globetrotter]

No... that's why my (I love that you called it mine ) can go Mach 2.5 and turn like hell as soon as you have launched the misile. It has the possibility of escape, ot that's what I read.

Anyway, 10 to 1 sounds fare

[Webmaster]

If you're not sure about the accuracy of BVR, you can't be sure about the accuracy of SRAAM and air-to-surface weapons aimed at moving targets either.

Yep, Globe is right. That's the good thing about active radar seeking, you can disengage the moment you've sent the BVRAAM on its way, like those IR weapons. Only then you're in most cases to close to safely disengage.

That's why the Sidewinder enjoyed such success, because for one, it was the first fire-and-forget missile especially ones it's accuracy and reliability improved with the later versions.

Iran-Iraq, check out www.acig.org articles and forum, you'll find that the AIM-54 despite being fired within their minimum range envelop on many occassions performed quite well, except on few occassions where the enemy could easily break away from the missile, as it isn't very agile, and not very accurate at too close range. I brought the Phoenix up because in the mission set out by Raptor, the target is a slow, heavy, big target, with dangerous escorts. I'm afraid that that the AIM-54/R-33 will not miss because of their inaccuracy, but because of electronic countermeasures and jamming deployed by air force one...

AIM-120, check out Gulf War I, Yugoslavia '99, and you'll find some convincing data.

SRAAMs may be more accuracte at their range (depending on type and countermeasures resistence), and I am not neglecting their use, especially for self defense they're more useful. Like I said it depends on the situation, which tactic you'd use. Why else do we still find both on the aircraft. I just think that overall the BVR capability (esp. with active seeking) provides a far more important evolution in air warfare, than the WVR missile evolution.

Ethi-Eri Which version of the R-27? Because I think they only got the older passive radar and IR seeking ones. Imagine R-77s in this conflict.

I think the only effective method of avoiding getting shot down by current generation of BVRAAMs, is using countermeasures, electronic self defense, in combination with evasive maneuvers. But just the agility won't do much good against an active radar seeking missile coming in at Mach 4.

Viggen, I don't know, as far as I know the Japanese Kamikaze pilots weren't that effective, and they weren't highly trained either... it's just the psychological effect it has/had on the enemy... it takes quite some resources to train a pilot to the level that he can avoid 4 escorting fighters on his way to target. Give him some missiles, and he might get home safely, if the missiles fail he can still ram or collide with the target (like a Su-15 did once with a An-12, IIRC, frustrated by the fact that he was too close to the target, and GCI had not ordered him/given permission to use his missile up to that point, and now it was crossing the border, exiting USSR airspace, actually they did not approve the ramming either, he ignored the order to disengage I think).

[tigershark]

I'm not sure if there called regular fanatics or what but I saw a Wings show about how small groups of German pilots rammed allied bombers and one from the show I saw live to tell about it. 

I think the Iraqi no fly zone was one of the first AMRAAM kills by an American aircraft.  A F-16 shot down a Mig-23 from over 20 miles away I'm looking for it now.

Eritrean-Ethiopian War - Very interesting since it was Russian built aircraft vs Russian built aircraft but the information given about even at www.acig.org may be flawed.   A poster in this other big name forum said the information was wrong and could not be confirmed.  I would think it would be hard to confirmed fighting in this region at that time as it would in the Iraq-Iran war.  Myself I'm not big fan of the AIM-54 and can't see it hitting a fighter size aircraft.  To me it's cold war weapons made to to hit slow moving Bear bombers not fighters.  I guess if fired at groups of fighters stupid enough to stay in group formations being painted by F-14 radar's then I guess its possible to score hits. 

[Viggen]

He he, no big deal. I was just trying to add a diffrent tactic to the topic. I agree with you that the kamikazes where not that sucssesfull. The pilots were just boys with only a few hours of flighttraining.

I know to little about missiles and avionics to give a real thought through tactic and come up with a plan too Raptors idéa. 

[Webmaster]

I think the Iraqi no fly zone was one of the first AMRAAM kills by an American aircraft.  A F-16 shot down a Mig-23 from over 20 miles away I'm looking for it now.

You're right, it wasn't during the war (desert storm) but after. But I think the one you are referring to was in '93.

In December 1992 an F-16 pilot fired the first AMRAAM in actual combat, shooting down a MiG-25 Foxbat during a confrontation over southern Iraq.
http://warfare.ru/?linkid=2519&catid=348

Eritrean-Ethiopian War - Very interesting since it was Russian built aircraft vs Russian built aircraft but the information given about even at www.acig.org may be flawed.   A poster in this other big name forum said the information was wrong and could not be confirmed. 

Well, it's important of course to remember that they are claims, not facts. And in some cases you could even question 'confirmed claims'. But was this poster able to prove the information was wrong, or he just thinks it's wrong because it's not confirmed?

Anyway, this kill record stuff is so sensitive, that I'm not even touching it on my pages (at least not to the extend that ACIG tries to). It can be challenging enough to get the normal facts right for Russian types, with so much outdated, errorneous info about.