[Tactics] How is a BVR Air-to-Air combat actually handled ?

Read the forum code of contact

Member for

19 years 11 months

Posts: 451

RE: Simulated Combat -For Civilians!

> Foxbat1155
> get a simulator and find out for yourself
If you want to take a fifth generation aircraft with all its assets and ability against a third or fourth generation aircraft and use the tactics of these older aircraft, so you can have a "fair fight," then go ahead. If you want "air dominance" then you use the tactics of which 'only' the F-22 can use. The ability to hit while not being detected, to leave the combat arena if detected and return under circumstances favorable only to the F-22.
Aerial combat on a simulator or on the Internet might be about fairness but, in real life.... you want all the advantage you all the advantage you can get.
When the USAF found out the Russian aircraft had an interface problem between the aircraft and its missiles, the USAF pushed the advantage and charged as fast as they can to insure they win and the folks flying the Russian aircraft looses, to hell with fairness!
To me this is a classic example of being fair and not using your head and people died because of this foolishness! During the Viet Nam War a North Vietnamese GCI vectored a MiG.-21 to intercept a B-52. The GCI instructed the MiG to approach from the tail or six o'clock position. NOW, the B-52 has only one gun position.... in the tail gun. Why not attack the B-52's from three or nine o'clock where there is no threat? The MiG.-21's were shot down and the B-52's recorded the kills. There are four comfirmed kills and three of them during "Operation Linebacker Two."

Adrian

Member for

18 years 7 months

Posts: 11

Four? How did this happen? Did the MiGs try to shoot down the B-52s with guns?
Anyway, MiG-21s also shot down B-52s.

Member for

19 years 4 months

Posts: 362

Anyway, MiG-21s also shot down B-52s.

Negative. no B 52 lost to MiG.
In Vietnam USAF lost 16 B 52, all to SAMs.
However if you consider that this is ~2 % per sortie, that speaks volumes of the efficiency of the EW suite. Also consider that hundreds of SAMs were fired against them.

However, B 52 tailguner had two MiG 21 kills!

Member for

18 years 7 months

Posts: 11

Is there proof of that? Or are you just believeing the US claims and ignoring the Vietnamese ones?

Member for

18 years 7 months

Posts: 563

> Merlock
> Is that this book?
YESSSS, this is the book! What is nice is when you use it as a reference book, you can read about aerial combat that happened somewhere (like US Navy F-14's versus the Libyian MiG.-23's on 01/04/89), you can go to the book and from mass media accounts see the tactics as they are diagrammed in the book and have a complete picture of that aerial combat. On this particular dogfight, they played the complete transcript of the encounter on TV and I recorded it on my VCR. Then I made a transcript from the recording and then figured out from what was being said, the tactics used.

Gawd, inflation has really hit. I paid $15.95 (late 1980's) and now they want $31.96 for members ($39.96 for non-members). Amazon is cheaper!
http://www.usni.com/ _____________________ Main Site
http://www.usni.org/press/press.html _____ Press Site

I just ordered a copy fron Amazon, it should arrive within a month...
Its long but it worth the time, and considering the shipping prices for faster deliveries I prefered the "long but cheap" solution. Even there I pay almost 9$ for 26$ book... :mad:

On the Amazon Site you are able to read some twenty-one sample pages and you can see the level of knowledge required to read and understand. If the index does not get you salivating, nothing will.

Salivating ? I almost FLOODED the room I stay in, while reading the book's first pages! :diablo:

Good Luck and Enjoy -Adrian

Thanks for all, guy! :)
________
LOVE STORIES DICUSSION

Member for

19 years 4 months

Posts: 80

> Merlock
USAF "Air Intelligence" discovered that a very high speed, head-on approach caused an "inter-face" problem between the fire control system and the missile. This is why the US aircraft charge head-on at Russian/Soviet aircraft! This problem appears to exist with the AA-10 Alamo and AA-12 Adder!
Adrian

Hi Adrian - can you enlighten us more on this supposed aircraft to R27--/R77 interface problem that Russian origin aircraft suffer from? Is this still the case and is it a problem that late model Fulcrums, Flankers and Bisons are still handicapped with?

Thanks in advance.

Richard

Member for

19 years 11 months

Posts: 451

RE: [Tactics] How is a BVR Air-to-Air combat actually handled ?

> YMB29
> Four? How did this happen? Did the MiGs try to shoot down the B-52s with guns?
It is called "blind obedience" to GCI! GCI brought the MiG.'s up directly behind the B-52. Yes the B-52 only had four 50Cal. cannons while the MiG.-21's had a 30mm but, the range of the rear firing 50Cal. is greater than a forward firing 30mm cannon! The B-52's machine guns are radar guided.

> MiG-21s also shot down B-52s.
Yes two B-52's were killed by MiG-21's but, the B-52 like the B-17 has a positive kill ratio! Three of the kills occurred during "Operation Linebacker 2." All kills were on different days.

> Is there proof of that? Or are you just believeing the US claims and ignoring
> the Vietnamese ones?
America's claims overall turn out to be fairly accurate. American historians have gottened together with German, Italian and, Japanese counter-parts and compare notes to determine what really happened.
Several Soviet pilots who flew during the Korean War and have gone to work with Americans to figure out more accurate aerial kill figures. The latest figures are around 750 North Korean/Chinese MiG.-15's shot down to only 81 F-86's shot down, an 8.25:1 kill ratio but, a ways from the original claim of 13:1. There is a book out writen in collaberation with others to tell of the Korean Aerial War from their perspective. America trys to be accurate and open concerning this topic in history. The F/A-18C being shot down by the MiG.-25PD is just one example of America's openess on this topic. The Iraqi AF does not credit itself with the kill of the F/A-18C but, the USAF/USN does.

> cru
> Negative. no B 52 lost to MiG.
Affirmative there were MiG.-21's who got through the top cover and killed
Two confirmed kills and two unconfirmed kills, according to the NVPAF.

> Fulcrums
> can you enlighten us more on this supposed aircraft to R27--/R77 interface
> problem that Russian origin aircraft suffer from?
From what I gather (and that is not much), it appears to be a data-transfer issue between the aircraft's fire control system and the missile recieving the data. I would like to read something about this in AW&ST, Janes or, Journal of Electronic Defense. A periodical that is very technical, indepth and, authoritative.

> Is this still the case and is it a problem that late model Fulcrums
I am not that knowledgeable about this but, in October 2004 an Israeli F-15 shot down a Syrian MiG.-29.
I have also read that as a dogfight mode, the heart of its envelope a AIM-120 is between 15 and 18nm; that for R-40 is 12-15nm.

REFERENCE;
ACIG.ORG
http://www.acig.org/

Indochina Database
http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/cat_index_17.shtml

Vietnamese Air-to-Air Victories, Part 2
http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_246.shtml

U.S. Air-to-Air Victories during the Vietnam War, Part 2
http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_244.shtml

NOTE:
One B-52 was killed by a MiG.-21. The B-52 errupted in a massive explosion which destroyed the MiG!

Enjoy Your Weekend -Adrian

Member for

18 years 7 months

Posts: 11

in October 2004 an Israeli F-15 shot down a Syrian MiG.-29.

Where did you hear this?

Member for

20 years 5 months

Posts: 1,220

1 question:

How to aviod enemy firing BVR missile at you, but you being able to fire at him? especially if they're head-on...I'm assuming same missile and aircraft on both sides..

I enter simulator's multiplayer lobbies..and ppl just go head to head...fire missile at each other, break out and hope that the other's missile misses..it gets bit boring after the initial excitement.

Member for

19 years 11 months

Posts: 451

RE: [Tactics] How is a BVR Air-to-Air combat actually handled ?

> YMB29
> Where did you hear this?
This made the mass media, I first heard about it in my local newspaper. Then I ran to the library several days later and read AW&ST. At first Israel Air Force said nothing happened but, the Israeli press disagreed. The IAF then said the incident did not occur in October of 2004 but, on Sept 01, 2001! Then there is the incident of April of 2002, where two F-15C's charged two Sryian MiG.-29's killing them with IR missiles.

Either way, no matter what happened when, the accounts of the F-15C's charging the oncomming MiG.-29's remains the same and there are several incidents since 2000 that indicate nothing has changed. That is a puzzle to me, why something this important, that has been known for over a dozen years (that I know of) and, no action. I can not concieve that in original testing this problem was not found out, I don't understand the inactivity to correct it?? The problem at least to appear to be in more than one missile and more than one aircraft. It doesn't matter if the problem is hardware, software, firmware, etc..... no excuses, damn it fix it! (my opinion on the problem) If for some reason the problem can not be solved (the technology is too advanced?) then, instruct the pilots under no circumstances do you ever get into this situation -a head-on attack.
URL;
Middle East Database
Israeli Air-to-Air Victories since 1974
http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_270.shtml

Israeli - Syrian Shadow-Boxing
http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_437.shtml

> phrozenflame
> How to aviod enemy firing BVR missile at you, but you being able to fire at
> him? especially if they're head-on...I'm assuming same missile and aircraft
> on both sides..
I will a dynamic answer to this question;
You prefer to be the one who to be the one who fires first. If you recieve indications the other guy fired first, you must initiate counter-measures and counter-moves. The frequent counter-move (if you are charging head-on) would be the "notch" where you roll 180º and go into a steep dive. After losing ten thousand feet or more, pull maximum number of G's you/your aircraft can handle to pull out of the dive. (Ideally, you would like to see the missile so you can time your pullout of the dive to cause the greatest steering problems to the missile. This is what the the MiG.-21 (IRAF) did to avoid a Phoenix Missile fire by a I²RAF F-14A. The MiG.-21 pulled "9½ G's" to avoid the Phoenix Missile. It came as a surprise that the MiG.-21 could pull 9½ G's! No information I know of as to whether there was any structural damage or "skin wrinkling" on the wings. This is also when the USAF F-16C [Benji 41] that shot down the IRAF MiG.-25 did on 12/27/92.)
After you find the missile did not hit or your indications that the missile was fired were incorrect, you now have lost at least "potential energy." You must now work to correct the situation for as long as you are low on energy you are now a "missile magnet!" You now have nothing in the way of maneuvering to avoid any incomming missile, now. While your opponent can exit the area and re-enter if they choose to. (He would only do this if he is almost directly over you.) He most like has a significant altitude advantage due to you going into a dive. He most like has you in a position where his missile's kill percentage is a lot higher than your missile's kill percentage.
You must also assume "worst case" also, that he has fired a ARH (Active Radar Homing) missile rather than a SARH (Semi-Active Radar Homing) missile. There are games a pilot can play with his radar to miss lead you as to the weapon fired at you.
The enemy does not have to use radar lock-on to launch a missile at you, (I know) the F-14A can use track while scan mode then use the data link to the Phoenix Missile to update your position. No radar lock-on will leave you with no indications there is a missile inbound until the missile turns on its terminal guidance radar. You then have only a couple of seconds to take "effective action!"
The enemy could keep you illuminated with a CW signal that would indicate that either the missile fired is a SARH missile which tend to have less capability than ARH missiles.

Adrian

Member for

18 years 7 months

Posts: 11

This made the mass media, I first heard about it in my local newspaper. Then I ran to the library several days later and read AW&ST. At first Israel Air Force said nothing happened but, the Israeli press disagreed. The IAF then said the incident did not occur in October of 2004 but, on Sept 01, 2001! Then there is the incident of April of 2002, where two F-15C's charged two Sryian MiG.-29's killing them with IR missiles.

Either way, no matter what happened when, the accounts of the F-15C's charging the oncomming MiG.-29's remains the same and there are several incidents since 2000 that indicate nothing has changed. That is a puzzle to me, why something this important, that has been known for over a dozen years (that I know of) and, no action. I can not concieve that in original testing this problem was not found out, I don't understand the inactivity to correct it?? The problem at least to appear to be in more than one missile and more than one aircraft. It doesn't matter if the problem is hardware, software, firmware, etc..... no excuses, damn it fix it! (my opinion on the problem) If for some reason the problem can not be solved (the technology is too advanced?) then, instruct the pilots under no circumstances do you ever get into this situation -a head-on attack.


You are talking about the problem as if it was proven, but it is just your speculation.
Are not reports of Israelis shooting down MiG-29s false? There is much uncertainty about the incidents, so don't assume that they are 100% true.

Member for

18 years 7 months

Posts: 563

If you're operating in a mountainous area you do have the opportunity to get down and dirty.

What if flying over a flat land/sea ? Flying low again , I mean VERY low ?
I heard some AA missiles have a minimum altitude flight control, fact or wrong ?
________
Subaru vivio specifications

Member for

19 years 9 months

Posts: 12,109

yeah but that would be in a strict defensive sence..There is not a whole lot u can do offensivly at low altitudes unless ofcourse u intend to fly all the way undetected and surprise the opponent like the migs in vietnam however they had GBR support!

Member for

19 years 8 months

Posts: 483


Radio calls informing other friendly aircraft about what AAM you're employing.

"Fox one" indicates a simulated or actual launch of a semi-active radar-homing (SARH) AAM, i.e. AIM-7 Sparrow.

"Fox two" indicates a simulated or actual launch of an IR-homing (IRH) AAM, i.e. AIM-9 Sidewinder.

"Fox three" indicates a simulated or actual launch of an active radar-homing (ARH) AAM, i.e. AIM-120 AMRAAM or AIM-54 Phoenix.

My recollection is that "Fox three" was a guns attack, and the tongue in cheek "Fox four" was ramming. Am I wrong? Was there a change at some point in time?

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 527

My recollection is that "Fox three" was a guns attack, and the tongue in cheek "Fox four" was ramming. Am I wrong? Was there a change at some point in time?

Not sure. The AIM-54A achieved IOC in 1974. I don't know what "Fox three" meant prior to the arrival of ARH AAMs.

Guns attack, wouldn't that be "guns, guns, guns" or something?

"Fox four"? Never heard of it.

Member for

19 years 8 months

Posts: 483

Fighter Pilot Slang

Fox One: A long-range missile attack.
Fox Two: A short-range missile attack.
Fox Three: A gun attack.
Fox Four: A mid-air collision (used only as a joke).

USAFE: A Primer of Modern Air Combat in Europe, by Michael Skinner, p. 50.
Presidio Press (1983)

Member for

18 years 7 months

Posts: 563

Funny, I heard:

Fox 1: Firing IR missile
Fox 2: Firing SARH missile
Fox 3: Firing ARH missile

So where's the truth ? :confused:
________
TOYOTA MARK II

Member for

19 years 11 months

Posts: 451

RE: [Tactics] How is a BVR Air-to-Air combat actually handled ?

> YMB29
> You are talking about the problem as if it was proven
No, there are several confirmed kills by Israeli. The speculation comes from these two incidents only but (11/01 versus 10/04), the other incidents are confimed kills. The " The "Israeli - Syrian Shadow-Boxing."

> Are not reports of Israelis shooting down MiG-29s false?
No, remember the wreckage fell outside of Israel, the press was all over the wreckage sight.
One aspect of of the F-15's record, the wreckage takes place where the owner of the F-15 has no ownership. The only F-15 kills that have taken place where there was no wreckage sight was the four kills of the Saudi AF. The wreckage fell in the Persian Gulf. The Iranians do not contest the claims.

> There is much uncertainty about the incidents, so don't assume that they are 100% true.
You don't have to assume' anything is true, there are so many ways something can be checked out. You also do not have to believe what you read on the Internet, there are sources that you can verify as to the accuracy of what they write.
Do you believe the statistics from ACIG that the Iraqi AF shot down thirdteen F-14A's from the Iranian AF? One kill was with a MiG.-21.
So many of these incidents are reported in the mass media if you know where to look. AW&ST, Time, Janes, Reuters and, several other international publications from Europe carry news of these incidents. Stay with periodicals which have technical expertise.
When a publication comes out with a story that is not true, their reputation as an authority suffers. Reputation translates into sales/dollars. This is why AW&ST and Janes are so highly thought of.
As far as the ACIG, there are several foreign pilots of whom are interviewed when doing the research for their books they publish, some of the results are shown as statistics on their web site.
There are people who listen to aircraft radio traffic and can tell when something is taking place. (There was a newspaper in Israel that knew the raid on Entebbi, Uganda was going to take place because of "the radio traffic of the C-130's to the control tower and military command center, as they left Israeli air space on their way to Uganda! The paper did not reveal what they knew but, did have a special addition ready to start printing as soon as the rescue was complete.)
During the Cold War, any time there was a conflict, it made the news. For people like myself who have a reading addiction, a large percentage of these events I already knew about. Now I no longer remember the dates of such incidents but I do remember them.

> Viper01
> If you're operating in a mountainous area you do have the opportunity to get down
> and dirty. Get below the deck and try to put major topographic obstacles between
> you and the bad guy.
When you get fired on you have to be fairly low to start with in order to get close enough where the background will cause problems. You are not going to decend from 15,000 feet into the weeds in a short enough time to avoid a missile. On the otherhand if you are at 500 feet when you get the indications that you are under attack then, dropping to 50 feet can be done more easily.
A pilot must also know what type of missile will most likely be fired again him and what type of clutter will cause the missile problems.
IR missiles are disrupted best by the hot background of a desert. Sea clutter until recently was a good means of avoiding radar lock-on when going against Soviet aircraft.
The USSR was a land power and paid little effort to sea clutter, just ground clutter. So, in incidents like two F-14A's went up against Libyian MiG.-23's, the F-14's constantly stayed a lot lower than the MiG.-23's. This prevented the MiG's from getting radar lock-on like they had "up until 20 miles." At that point the F-14's dropped down to 3,000 feet and the MiG's did not lock them up again but, the MiG's made the mistake of maintaining high altitude and potential maneuver energy but, what good is it if you can't lock-up the target. It then limits you to IR missiles only.
The ground does not maintain a constant ability to reflect a signal. Land covered with heavy leaf coverage or deep snow can greatly decreaase the strength of the return signal. This was first discover with terrain following radars of cruise missiles!
How effective being down in the weeds is, greatly depends on the altitude of the aircraft looking down. If the aircraft is up around 20,000 feet then, the distance of which you can be detected is reduced and the altitude at which you can fly at above the ground can be increase. Now, if the look down aircraft is at 2,000 feet then you will have to be much closer to the ground to avoid detection or lock-up. The Jaguar's and A-10's are real good at this, hugging the deck while straffing ground units and stay low enough to avoid radar lock-up F-15's at 10,000 feet!

> The AIM-54A achieved IOC in 1974.
Along with the Tomcat in carrier operations.

> I don't know what "Fox three" meant prior to the arrival of ARH AAMs.
Prior to the Phoenix there was no "Fox Three" there was no need. The USAF has never had a "Fox Four."

> Guns attack, wouldn't that be "guns, guns, guns" or something?
Yes, you call out guns "if" you are for some reason moving that close to use guns.

Today's cannons allow a pilot to stay back and fire accurately at distances of a 1½ mi or 2.4 Km (the 50 Cal machine gun has an effective range of one and a third miles!). Calling out a missile is done to inform to inform your flight mates of your actions. That is more or less required when when you are you are using "division tactics" -or greater. When you have gone past the merge calling the usage of your guns is not really necessary.

> Merloc
> I heard some AA missiles have a minimum altitude flight control, fact or wrong ?
Incorrect, the only thing lack of altitude does is to make it more difficult for the sensors to isolate you. If you are flying at 50 feet and a fighter at 5,000 feet fires a missile at you, different types of terrain can make your aircraft blend in more to the ground clutter. The missile has a tenuous lock on you and you are over the desert, that background is tough on some IR sensors. Add some flares and it will be tough for the missile to hit you.
If you are at 50 feet above the sea and a SARH or ARH missile is fired at you the way the sea reflects the signals back to the missile 'can' confuse the missile.
In both of these cases we are talking about the missile being fired downward at a steep angle. From a slight angle like 2 miles behind you and he only is 1,000 feet altitude, you are in a bad condition. Break hard and try and keep the missile at your three o'clock or nine o'clock position.

If the fight starts at (say) 30,000 feet (9,150 meters), this is not an option. If the bad guy turns towards you, to remain neutral you have to turn to face him. If your aircraft is a F-14, F-15 or, Su-27 you want to charge in or near transonic speeds. This is where other aircraft have diffuclty doing. Your opponent will have to come close to matching your speed. If he doesn't he takes the risk that he lacks energy if the fight gets past the merge! If you fire first he will brake hard left or right. He might pull seven plus G's to evade. If your missile hits or damages his aircraft then he must control your aircraft and brake-off combat number one. If that is not possible, depending on his high energy state he most likely broke the other direction. If he turns your way then you might be able to have a WVR fight but, if not then he will try to position himself in a place where he has a high percentage missile shot against you and you have a low percentage missile shot against him. Things look grim.

Adrian