F-16 Block 15MLU/50/52 Fighter

[blain2]

Very valid posts by Jliu and Shehbazi.

Without the Meteor the Rafale is almost dead against a Su-30MKI due to lack of AMRAAM (and all other BVRAAM integration). MICA @50-60km doesn't cut it against a ~80km AA-12 when given the fact that the Bars-M the IAF possesses at cruising altitude ~15,000km has a claimed detection range of 300km (I instead rely on the tracking range as a true est-200km) v the "track 40 and engage 8" of the RBE-2 (unless the French cut numbers and/or win export comps they are never going to get an AESA version as the CAPTOR-E/CAESAR is out of the question). Based on those figures and extensive consultation I say the tracking range of the French radar is a paltry 60-100km. Now while the RG MICA is not to be underestimated I would hate to be on the recieving end of 3-4 AA-12s coming my way.

The one interesting aspect about all this BVR talk is that the theoretical ranges are totally blown out of the water when you take into consideration the appropriate WEZ (Weapons Engagement Zone) in air combat situations (with WEZ being the area around the target where the missile can reach and destroy the target). Theoretically speaking, the ranges being talked about are assumed to be straight on, face shot (with adversary moving into your direction) when most engagements involving aircraft with 360 degree MAWS/RWR sensors will not carry on the head on approach against another aircraft equipped with extended range BVRAAM. As soon as the aircraft starts maneuvering, this engagement zone changes drastically and most of the time ends up considerably reducing the range of effective employment. Add to this other points made by Shehbazi and you can see that a 50-60 km MICA/IR vs. a 70-80 km AIM-120C vs an AA-12 have no sure shot way of killing their targets at their theoretical max. ranges. While its less risk with AA-12 to have the ability to lose a few and run off, the western solutions (AIM-120 and MICA) provide pretty good range.

 

[fatman17]

Very valid posts by Jliu and Shehbazi.



The one interesting aspect about all this BVR talk is that the theoretical ranges are totally blown out of the water when you take into consideration the appropriate WEZ (Weapons Engagement Zone) in air combat situations (with WEZ being the area around the target where the missile can reach and destroy the target). Theoretically speaking, the ranges being talked about are assumed to be straight on, face shot (with adversary moving into your direction) when most engagements involving aircraft with 360 degree MAWS/RWR sensors will not carry on the head on approach against another aircraft equipped with extended range BVRAAM. As soon as the aircraft starts maneuvering, this engagement zone changes drastically and most of the time ends up considerably reducing the range of effective employment. Add to this other points made by Shehbazi and you can see that a 50-60 km MICA/IR vs. a 70-80 km AIM-120C vs an AA-12 have no sure shot way of killing their targets at their theoretical max. ranges. While its less risk with AA-12 to have the ability to lose a few and run off, the western solutions (AIM-120 and MICA) provide pretty good range.

so pls correct me (as i am a layman). so a BVR-less aircraft has a better chance of survival against a BVR equipped aircraft if it can (somehow - flying skills) get the adversary in a WVR situation?

 

[blain2]

so pls correct me (as i am a layman). so a BVR-less aircraft has a better chance of survival against a BVR equipped aircraft if it can (somehow - flying skills) get the adversary in a WVR situation?

It depends. What if the BVR equipped aircraft is also equipped with good WVRAAMs and has good maneuverability? If the assumption is that a non-BVR capable aircraft has a better pilot, then yes the possibility is that he would be better in WVR as well and would be able to handle the BVR equipped aircraft in the WVR arena.

If you have no BVR, then you have to come up with some really smart tactics and play the numbers game against the BVR equipped adversary. Let him close in or you get some more distance in between.

 

[shehbazi2001]

I dont think that a fighter carrying BVR AAM will be at a disadvantage when it comes to close dogfight because every fighter carries WVR missiles too....those heat-seeking missiles are too much important and are the first weapon of aircraft nowadays alongwith gun........

Any air superiority fighter carries a gun, short range dogfight missiles like Sidewidner or AA-11 Archer and BVR AAM like ADDER or AMRAAM.

WVR missiles are more lethal than BVR missiles....and it seems that BVRs can pull less Gs as compared to WVR missiles but their advantage is more reach.

Another important thing, which is generally overlooked when we talk of BVR AAMs is their minimum range. Lets suppose a fighter could not use all of its BVRs and got into a close dogfight.......now he is carrying weight and cant use them due to minimum range limitations......

In this scenario, MICA seems to beat AMRAAM........AMRAAM can be used only when the target aircraft is at least 2km away, taken from following site,

Raytheon AIM-120 AMRAAM

On the other side, MICA's minimum range is 500 meters. Therefore MICA is also a dogfight missile. If you run out of Sidewinders or Magics, switch on to your MICA.......

Also it seems to me that among all BVR AAMs including Derby, MICA is the only one using thrust vector control (TVC) imparting it high maneuverability, which is required near the end of engagement. But this could also be the reason of having a little overall range disadvantage wrt others.

I personally would prefer TVC if it improves the kill probability rather than having a few extra miles to go but not being able to pull more Gs or turn tighter.

 

[Contrarian]

Other missiles like Python 5 use advanced surface control's to achieve high maneuverability. TVC is not necessary.

 

[Myth_buster_1]

Other missiles like Python 5 use advanced surface control's to achieve high maneuverability. TVC is not necessary.

Aim-9x, aim-132 asraam, A-darter, Pl-13 all use TVC with accurate 80-90° off-boresight hit capability.. they dont have larger fins like python5...

 

[shehbazi2001]

Other missiles like Python 5 use advanced surface control's to achieve high maneuverability. TVC is not necessary.

My topic was BVR AAMs. Pythons are WVR. I had mentioned that within BVR category, its MICA that has TVC.

 

[fatman17]

ASIA PACIFIC
Date Posted: 03-Oct-2008

Jane's Defence Weekly

Pakistan plans Cobra modernisation but F-16 upgrade remains uncertain
Joshua Kucera JDW Correspondent - Washington

Key Points
Pakistan plans to upgrade eight AH-1F Cobra helicopters, as well as some of its F-16s

Supporters of the F-16 upgrade are struggling to make a case for continued funding


Pakistan is planning to upgrade eight AH-1F Cobra attack helicopters using funding from the United States, as uncertainty continues over who will pay for upgrades to some of Pakistan's F-16 fleet.

On 26 September the Defense Security Co-operation Agency (DSCA) announced a potential deal for upgrades to Pakistan's Cobras, which it valued at USD115 million.

Under the deal, Pakistan will use US military aid to refurbish the helicopters, which were formerly in service with the US Army. The work will be done by US Helicopter: a subsidiary of Bell Helicopter in Ozark, Alabama. The deal will also include rewiring some of Pakistan's current fleet of Cobras, as well as parts, support equipment and training.

The Pakistan Army operates 27 Cobras. Most were procured from manufacturer Bell in 1984, but the US sold eight additional refurbished AH-1Fs in 2002 and another four in 2007.

The Cobra deal comes amid debate in the US Congress about the merits of funding Pakistan's F-16 programme. Pakistan is seeking 46 mid-life upgrade kits for its fleet of F-16A/B multirole fighters. The upgrades would add the Lockheed Martin AN/AAQ-33 Sniper targeting pod, enabling the use of precision-guided munitions and night operations, as well as Link 16 networking capabilities.

The US State Department in the first quarter of 2008 announced its intention to pay for the F-16 upgrades out of US funds earmarked for counterterrorism. The entire upgrade programme is budgeted at USD891 million, of which Washington was originally planning to pay USD108 million; the rest was to come from Pakistan. However, Pakistan has said that it is unable to meet the payments and in mid-2008 the contractor, Lockheed Martin, stopped working on the aircraft for a week because it was not paid.

The State Department has proposed spending an additional USD110 million by 15 October and another USD142 million in 2009 to assist Pakistan. "Helping with these payments will provide the newly elected Pakistani government valuable fiscal flexibility as they deal with rising food and fuel prices," said Donald Camp, principal deputy assistant secretary of state for South and Central Asian affairs.

However, some members of Congress objected to the move, saying that F-16s were not an appropriate use of counterterrorism funds. The dissenting members singled out Cobra helicopters, as well as TOW (tube-launched, optically tracked, wire-guided) missiles and night-vision goggles, as hardware more deserving of US funds. Those members have placed the funds for the F-16 upgrades on hold. State Department officials have said that if the money is not released by 15 October then Lockheed Martin will have to stop work. Lockheed Martin officials did not respond to requests for comment.

The US government has attempted to show that the F-16 has been a useful weapon for Pakistan in the fight against Islamists. "F-16s provide a critical counterterrorism capability to Pakistan," Camp said. "The new and enhanced F-16s will provide Pakistan with the ability to attack fleeing targets with precision during all weather conditions."

Helicopters are more commonly used in counterinsurgency, as their loiter capability and slower speeds make them better suited for ground attack. While the use of jets like the F-16 might be regarded as overkill against the kind of soft targets usually presented by militant groups, the F-16 does offer some advantages. It is more survivable than the Cobra and Taliban air defence capabilities have been getting more sophisticated. In addition, helicopters are unable to fly at some of the altitudes necessary in Pakistan and can take too long to arrive at a fight, said Richard Aboulafia, a Washington-based aviation analyst.

"When you're dealing with vast distances and high altitudes, you want something supersonic," like an F-16, Aboulafia said.

© 2008 Jane's Information Group

Jane's Login

 

[Munir]

What a joke... Joshua Kucera is known anti pak "journalist"....

Harldy informative and 100% sponsored by India to write rubbish info. Just check his name by using Google and you will see only anti islam or anti pak posts.

 

[Black Stone]

I like the Falcons, nice birds.

 

[IceCold]

I like the Falcons, nice birds.

As long as they fall into the category of birds and not worms on the ground.

 

[fatman17]

ASIA PACIFIC
Date Posted: 03-Oct-2008

Jane's Defence Weekly

Pakistan plans Cobra modernisation but F-16 upgrade remains uncertain
Joshua Kucera JDW Correspondent - Washington

Key Points
Pakistan plans to upgrade eight AH-1F Cobra helicopters, as well as some of its F-16s

Supporters of the F-16 upgrade are struggling to make a case for continued funding


Pakistan is planning to upgrade eight AH-1F Cobra attack helicopters using funding from the United States, as uncertainty continues over who will pay for upgrades to some of Pakistan's F-16 fleet.

On 26 September the Defense Security Co-operation Agency (DSCA) announced a potential deal for upgrades to Pakistan's Cobras, which it valued at USD115 million.

Under the deal, Pakistan will use US military aid to refurbish the helicopters, which were formerly in service with the US Army. The work will be done by US Helicopter: a subsidiary of Bell Helicopter in Ozark, Alabama. The deal will also include rewiring some of Pakistan's current fleet of Cobras, as well as parts, support equipment and training.

The Pakistan Army operates 27 Cobras. Most were procured from manufacturer Bell in 1984, but the US sold eight additional refurbished AH-1Fs in 2002 and another four in 2007.

The Cobra deal comes amid debate in the US Congress about the merits of funding Pakistan's F-16 programme. Pakistan is seeking 46 mid-life upgrade kits for its fleet of F-16A/B multirole fighters. The upgrades would add the Lockheed Martin AN/AAQ-33 Sniper targeting pod, enabling the use of precision-guided munitions and night operations, as well as Link 16 networking capabilities.

The US State Department in the first quarter of 2008 announced its intention to pay for the F-16 upgrades out of US funds earmarked for counterterrorism. The entire upgrade programme is budgeted at USD891 million, of which Washington was originally planning to pay USD108 million; the rest was to come from Pakistan. However, Pakistan has said that it is unable to meet the payments and in mid-2008 the contractor, Lockheed Martin, stopped working on the aircraft for a week because it was not paid.

The State Department has proposed spending an additional USD110 million by 15 October and another USD142 million in 2009 to assist Pakistan. "Helping with these payments will provide the newly elected Pakistani government valuable fiscal flexibility as they deal with rising food and fuel prices," said Donald Camp, principal deputy assistant secretary of state for South and Central Asian affairs.

However, some members of Congress objected to the move, saying that F-16s were not an appropriate use of counterterrorism funds. The dissenting members singled out Cobra helicopters, as well as TOW (tube-launched, optically tracked, wire-guided) missiles and night-vision goggles, as hardware more deserving of US funds. Those members have placed the funds for the F-16 upgrades on hold. State Department officials have said that if the money is not released by 15 October then Lockheed Martin will have to stop work. Lockheed Martin officials did not respond to requests for comment.

The US government has attempted to show that the F-16 has been a useful weapon for Pakistan in the fight against Islamists. "F-16s provide a critical counterterrorism capability to Pakistan," Camp said. "The new and enhanced F-16s will provide Pakistan with the ability to attack fleeing targets with precision during all weather conditions."

Helicopters are more commonly used in counterinsurgency, as their loiter capability and slower speeds make them better suited for ground attack. While the use of jets like the F-16 might be regarded as overkill against the kind of soft targets usually presented by militant groups, the F-16 does offer some advantages. It is more survivable than the Cobra and Taliban air defence capabilities have been getting more sophisticated. In addition, helicopters are unable to fly at some of the altitudes necessary in Pakistan and can take too long to arrive at a fight, said Richard Aboulafia, a Washington-based aviation analyst.

"When you're dealing with vast distances and high altitudes, you want something supersonic," like an F-16, Aboulafia said.

© 2008 Jane's Information Group

Jane's Login

7 Oct 2001
Start of Operation Enduring Freedom, in which F-16s participate in air operations against terrorist training camps and infrastructure within Afghanistan.

its ok for the US to use F-16s in the WoT but not Pakistan. what a bunch of hypocrites.

 

[IceCold]

Yes its ok for them because they manufacture it. Its their jet and perhaps they can use whenever and whereever it deems fit. We on the other hand are incapable for even providing funds to the contractor for upgrades and obviously if the US will pay for it, they will create issues too specially when it comes to Pakistan, many anti Pakistan lobbies get active. So no surprise at all.

 

[fatman17]

Yes its ok for them because they manufacture it. Its their jet and perhaps they can use whenever and whereever it deems fit. We on the other hand are incapable for even providing funds to the contractor for upgrades and obviously if the US will pay for it, they will create issues too specially when it comes to Pakistan, many anti Pakistan lobbies get active. So no surprise at all.

the only thing i agree with you is highlighted above. and whose fault is it if funds are "diverted" for other purposes. i am sure you are aware that the whole F-16 program of new a/c and upgrades is based on pak funds. the 28 a/c we r getting refurbished, we have paid for them already, remember (658m).

 

[niaz]

the only thing i agree with you is highlighted above. and whose fault is it if funds are "diverted" for other purposes. i am sure you are aware that the whole F-16 program of new a/c and upgrades is based on pak funds. the 28 a/c we r getting refurbished, we have paid for them already, remember (658m).

I thought I read somewhere that the $658-million owed to us had been paid or adjusted a long time back