Best BVR Capable Fighter in South Asia

[Chogy]

I have 2 questions-- in the above scenerio, won't you think twin seater jets have a clear edge as there are two men to do this job? but most of the US fighters have only one pilot, even F-22 has one pilot only.

But remember that there is only one radar, of course. In an F-14, the GIB (Guy In Back) works the long-ranged stuff, and is the primary radar operator. The pilot has auto-acquisition modes and shorter-ranged stuff available. The transition to single seat was made successfully with the use of HOTAS (Hands On Stick And Throttle) in the 1970's. ALL radar functionality is controlled on Stick and/or throttle. One person can make decisions faster than two; coordinating with another guy can be difficult at times. For visual lookout, 2 is better, but in most other ways, single-seat works, and frees up a large volume for fuel, ECM boxes, etc. In the space occupied by a WSO, you can place a lot of goodies.

Second, I heard that USSR/Russian doctrine of firing two missiles at a time to the enemy fighter, how effective is this in such a scenerio?

They based their decisions I'm sure after much careful thought, taking into account the Pk of the missile(s) in question, and much testing. In Vietnam, 2 was normal for the U.S. because the missiles lacked reliability in those days. Post Vietnam, as missiles like the AIM-7F and AIM-9L became available, reliability skyrocketed... but pilot were still shooting two. It took years to drop that habit. The rule became "shoot one, and watch. If it looks like it's guiding, be patient." Even then, there have been many occurrences of two missiles shot, and the first one impacts, with the second flying through the fireball. Or an AIM-7 is fired, and because its flight profile can appear odd, a second is fired, even though the first guides and scores.

Missiles are expensive and precious, not an infinite resource. I wouldn't be surprised if Russia has possibly changed this "2-missile" rule as well. Radars, electronics, and missile components have really advanced in the last 20 years. In the great "gun or no gun" debate with the F-22, I was in the "no gun" camp.

Cheers!

 

[nightcrawler]

In the great "gun or no gun" debate with the F-22, I was in the "no gun" camp.

@Chogy
What reason you can think of that Russians still retained a gun in the much advanced Super Flanker i.e su-35 & T-50

 

[WAQAS119]

I am now officially became a Biggest FAN of Sir Chogy!!!!!!!!!

 

[SQ8]

I suppose the same logic remains in having an ammo less gun in the RAF typhoons.
However.. (although the jets I am about to mention were adept for this scenario).. I heard that in Afghanistan.. Mudhen's that had expended their ordnance.. and still had fuel.. were able to make strafing passes to help out the grunts.. and.. there will always be the old faithful warning shot... in case some fellow decided to act all cheesy and not answer the radio or aggressive maneuvering...So the day of the Gun isnt numbered..yet.
Eventually though.. with the Directed energy weapons coming into play..the Projectile will bow out..

 

[Donatello]

I see, Chogy has presented some very good points.

Chogy, as J-10 appears and JF-17s are fielded in larger numbers, what do you say, how will the scenario for PAF change?

 

[krash]

m4 is not a unit of area . Pathetic physics.

lol pathetic common sense i believe and an ubber sense of idiocy

 

[Muhammad-Bin-Qasim]

@Chogy. No gun camp?

What if other countries achieve 5th Generation Fighter Jets... It could become a repeat of the Phantom mistake of Vietnam dont you think?

 

[500]

Singapore's F-15SG with APG-63(v)3 AESA radar.

 

[500]

@Chogy. No gun camp?

What if other countries achieve 5th Generation Fighter Jets... It could become a repeat of the Phantom mistake of Vietnam dont you think?

You still have heat seeking missiles.

YouTube - F-22 Raptor in action at Farnborough Air Show

 

[Chogy]

On the gun: Everyone knows the decision to have no gun on missile-carrying F-4D's in Vietnam was a dumb mistake, fixed with the F-4E. The logic wasn't that bad, but the missiles of the day didn't live up to expectations.

By the time of the Raptor, missiles HAD proven themselves over and over, and more importantly, a new generation of more agile, short-ranged missiles had appeared that totally overlapped the gun envelope with the sole exception of extremely close ranges, like inside 200 meters. The Soviet Aphid (Vympel R-60) was one of the first.

Achieving a valid gun shot takes what feels like geologic ages in an air war, making the attacking platform very vulnerable to supporting fighters. IR missiles can be fired much faster, and the attacker can bug out.

With the emphasis today on high off-boresight missile shots, and with missile Pk's very high as well, the weight and space of the gun can be better used for fuel. You can never have too much fuel.

If a fighter is expected to perform air-ground duties, then by all means, a gun is useful, but for dedicated air-air, as I'm hoping the F-22 will remain, I don't think it is necessary anymore. But those in charge of the program felt otherwise, and the gun went in. Lockheed Martin did not want to put a gun in the F-22; the USAF did.

With regards to the PAF: I don't know enough yet about the JF-17. It appears to be modern, capable, really nice cockpit and human interface. I do know the F-16 intimately, the AIM-9M and AIM-120, and in it's current upgraded state, the F-16 with these is a lethal machine. Hopefully, the JF-17 will supplement and prove as successful. More importantly, it is a strong start for a native aerospace industry.

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

JFT has KJ-10 radar not kj-7...... as posted by storm guy.

 

[rockstarIN]

@Chogy

What is your opinion about TVC in BVR combat? Is this a real adventage, so that the fighter can move their nose to any direction so easily and to guide an active radar missile to its target. Also it can engage/disengage any time as it can switch to different directions so fastly.

It is also very helpful to evade the incoming missiles too, is it? by changing the angles?

Also is there any A2A missiles which has got TVC capability?

 

[500]

What is your opinion about TVC in BVR combat? Is this a real adventage, so that the fighter can move their nose to any direction so easily and to guide an active radar missile to its target. Also it can engage/disengage any time as it can switch to different directions so fastly.

It is also very helpful to evade the incoming missiles too, is it? by changing the angles?

TVC improves horisontal maneuverability at low speeds (below 800 km/h) and high altitudes (over 5 km). However with helmet mounted sight guided missiles importance of maneverability seriously decreased.

Also is there any A2A missiles which has got TVC capability?

Many short range missiles have TVC today. First was Soviet R-73. Also TVC have AIM-9X, MICA and IRIS-T.

 

[Jungibaaz]

What is your opinion about TVC in BVR combat? Is this a real adventage, so that the fighter can move their nose to any direction so easily and to guide an active radar missile to its target. Also it can engage/disengage any time as it can switch to different directions so fastly.

JHMCS can do that and more, but TVC has hardly any advantage for long range BVR combat.

It is also very helpful to evade the incoming missiles too, is it? by changing the angles?

modern missiles such as the AMRAAM can easily out turn any TVC plane.

Also is there any A2A missiles which has got TVC capability?

AIM-9X sidewinder does use TVC

 

[rockstarIN]

JHMCS can do that and more, but TVC has hardly any advantage for long range BVR combat.

JHMCS provides support for raster scanned imagery to display FLIR/IRST pictures for night operations and provides collimated symbology and imagery to the pilot. The integration of the night-vision goggles with the JHMCS was a key requirement of the program.


Can you explain how is this replace TVC?