The JH7B---Rashid Minhas---Navy Frigates---Less Subs

[Al-Taïr]

Th



I had heard that after the 6 day war, whenever there was a high level intelligence briefing, it was the duty of 1 out 10 analysts to play devil's advocate and bat for things however illogical and improbable they might seem. It was done so that Israel is never out of the loop.

Policy was instituted by Golda Meir herself

I think u have heard it from hollywood movie "world war Z" :p

 

[Viper0011.]

I'm quite sure either you did not also fire any BVRs.

It is a well documented fact that the lesser the altitude the lesser the range. You will get 25+ km range if it is sea level. How come the kill zone will be 40-60 miles Gosh! I'm aware that kill zones are increasing adding new technology but its rubbish to say 40-60 miles kill zone! You need a lock-on(mostly) to fire a BVR and 60 mile kill zone mean 96 km which means you will have a lock-on at distance of 96 km on the enemy.

Which radar have such lock-on range left alone 'kill zone' range. Do some research before tying such fan boy non-sense.
Or ask some experts @Oscar, @500 @MilSpec

See the bold and my answers:

1) How are you so sure? Care to elaborate? Apparently, you seem to know more than I do!!

2) Where are the documented facts? Care to show us the links? And btw, there wasn't ANY talk about altitude, just so you know. Most of BVR engagements take place at higher altitudes so the Radars can see clearly and there is no signal scrambling due to any ground objects, resulting in wasting a missile!!

3) Yes, 96 KM lock!!! Wow, you are really in the 90's aren't ya!!! The -16 (as one example) can lock onto an SU-30 from over 120 KM's!! An SU-30 will also see a -16 from the same distance. The SU-30 can lock onto a bigger RCS from over 200 miles away. Whether it as that advance missile or not, its a different story. But it does have Russian missiles that can hit out to over 100 KM!

4) No offense, the users you put on there as "experts" outside of Oscar (who's qualifications are unknown to me), haven't impressed me a bit. But I'd love to see what they have to share. Here, read up on BARS radar:

Bars radar
Variant N0111:
The maximum air-to-air detection range is over 400 km when used as an airborne early warning role, and when used for intercepting role, the range against a typical fighter sized target is 140 km against a head-on, and 65 km tail-on.
Variant N011M:
N011M has a search range of 400 km and a tracking range of 200 km, with 60 km in the rear in the air-to-air mode. Detection range fighter type MIG-29 in area of review of over 300 sq. deg: - on towards course - up to 140 km; - in pursuit of - up to 60 km.[4] Up to 15 air targets can be tracked at once in track while scan mode with 4 of these engaged at once.

The R-77 BVR Missile Profile:
Initial Version:
First seen in 1992 at the Moscow Airshow (MAKS) 1992, the R-77 was immediately nicknamed Amraamski by Western journalists. The basic R-77 is known as the izdeliye 170, while the export variant is known as the izdeliye 190, or RVV-AE. The R-77 and RVV-AE have a range of 80 km

Advanced Version (2nd generation for India and China):
The newer Su-30MKK has a N001 (Su-27 radar) with a digital bypass channel incorporating a mode allowing it to use R-77s. The export RVV-AE has been sold widely, with China and India placing significant orders for the weapon, as was the case for the R-73. The baseline R-77 was designed in the 1980s, with development complete by around 1994. India was the first export customer for the export variant, known as the RVV-AE, with the final batch delivered in 2002.[5][6] There are other variants under development. One has an upgraded motor to boost range at high altitudes to as much as 120–160 km; it is known as the RVV-AE-PD. The 'PD' stands for Povyshenoy Dalnosti, which in Russian means "improved range".

Now the US BVR Missiles:
AMRAAM C5 and D are much more modern and highly capable Fire and Forget missiles. The ANXX radars used on F-16's like I explained above, can track a SU-30 from over 120 KM's and AMRAAM's can be fired just like the R-77 above. Ideally, to get a better kill ratio, they tell you to fire it at 60 Miles. But who has time to do so if your opponent fired two missiles from 80 miles. Would be be trying to break the lock or remembering to fire your missiles at 60 miles? All these are claims and hear say, not tactics!!!

AMRAAM's range has always been classified for C and D variants as they are brand new. AMRAAM replaced Phoenix. So here's the data on Phoenix (a 45 year old missiles, so you can be rest assured the newer missile system is MUCH more capable than Phoenix!!

Characteristics AIM-54 C (Phoenix)


A technical drawing of AIM-54C
The following is a list of AIM-54 Phoenix specifications:[19]

• Primary function: long-range, air-launched, air-intercept missile
• Contractor: Hughes Aircraft Company and Raytheon Corporation
• Unit cost: about $477,000, but this varied greatly
• Power plant: solid propellant rocket motor built by Hercules Incorporated
• Length: 13 ft (4.0 m)
• Weight: 1,000–1,040 pounds (450–470 kg)
• Diameter: 15 in (380 mm)
• Wing span: 3 ft (910 mm)
• Range: over 100 nautical miles (120 mi; 190 km) (actual range is classified)
• Speed: 3,000+ mph (4,680+ km/h)
• Guidance system: semi-active and active radar homing
• Warheads: proximity fuze, high explosive
• Warhead weight: 135 pounds (61 kg)
• Users: US (U.S. Navy), Iran (IRIAF)

Now the AN/APG 68 (V5 Radar)

Country of origin USA
Type Pulse-doppler airborne radar
Frequency Starting Envelope frequency around 9.86 GHz
Range 296.32 km, 184 miles
Azimuth ±10 degrees / ± 30 degrees / ± 60 degree

This is the V5 version. V9 version used in the Pakistani and Israeli F-16's has a 30% more detection range!!!! So add about 80 more KM's to the 296 KM figure. I think that would help you understand the locking mechanism!

Again, here you go without understanding 'Radar range' Your missile have 400 k.m range but you need a radar lock-on to fire it at the ship. Now whats your look-down radar range? I'm not aware of JH-7 radar, but ELTA/2032 have a range of 105 A2A and 75 km A2G. Suppose JH-7 has same radar range (IsaF wanted their F-16 Sufa with ELTA/2032 replacing APG series radar as they felt that 2032 is good than F-16 Blk 52 APG radar!). you need to come to as close as 50 km close to the jet which will put you well under the SAM coverage)

Again, you are talking from both sides of your mouth, WITHOUT paying attention to what I or MK was saying. You obviously haven't grasped the topic in hand to know what MK was talking about. The plane with the Radar in question DOES have the range required to lock onto ships even at 300-400 KM distance.

MK is talking about a heavy duty AESA radar. Your example of ELTA-2032 isn't applicable on here compared to AN-APG 68 radars as those are primarily X-band PD radars. Can't compare PD with AESA, two very different tech and associated capabilities!!!

And the SAM coverage scenario isn't applicable on it yet. We are still the strike package to get out to a launch range successfully. It would still be before the SAM coverage.

 

[rockstarIN]

1) How are you so sure? Care to elaborate? Apparently, you seem to know more than I do!!

2) Where are the documented facts? Care to show us the links? And btw, there wasn't ANY talk about altitude, just so you know. Most of BVR engagements take place at higher altitudes so the Radars can see clearly and there is no signal scrambling due to any ground objects, resulting in wasting a missile!!

You can search in this forum itself to find out, there were ex-USAF, PAF pilots were part of in this forum and talked much detailed manner in this forum about the engagements.

3) Yes, 96 KM lock!!! Wow, you are really in the 90's aren't ya!!! The -16 (as one example) can lock onto an SU-30 from over 120 KM's!! An SU-30 will also see a -16 from the same distance. The SU-30 can lock onto a bigger RCS from over 200 miles away. Whether it as that advance missile or not, its a different story. But it does have Russian missiles that can hit out to over 100 KM!

4) No offense, the users you put on there as "experts" outside of Oscar (who's qualifications are unknown to me), haven't impressed me a bit. But I'd love to see what they have to share. Here, read up on BARS radar:

Bars radar
Variant N0111:
The maximum air-to-air detection range is over 400 km when used as an airborne early warning role, and when used for intercepting role, the range against a typical fighter sized target is 140 km against a head-on, and 65 km tail-on.
Variant N011M:
N011M has a search range of 400 km and a tracking range of 200 km, with 60 km in the rear in the air-to-air mode. Detection range fighter type MIG-29 in area of review of over 300 sq. deg: - on towards course - up to 140 km; - in pursuit of - up to 60 km.[4] Up to 15 air targets can be tracked at once in track while scan mode with 4 of these engaged at once.

there is a difference in 'search','track' and 'lock on' modes in radars. MKI may search @ 250+ kms but may not able to track it. (But you are saying it can lock on as away from 200 miles away!) I would suggest you to search more on this particular site itself for @gambit's posts for details.

 

[500]

I'm quite sure either you did not also fire any BVRs. It is a well documented fact that the lesser the altitude the lesser the range. You will get 25+ km range if it is sea level. How come the kill zone will be 40-60 miles Gosh! I'm aware that kill zones are increasing adding new technology but its rubbish to say 40-60 miles kill zone! You need a lock-on(mostly) to fire a BVR and 60 mile kill zone mean 96 km which means you will have a lock-on at distance of 96 km on the enemy.

Which radar have such lock-on range left alone 'kill zone' range. Do some research before tying such fan boy non-sense.
Or ask some experts @Oscar, @500 @MilSpec

You'r right. A2A missile range depends a lot on altitude:

At high altitude AIM-120 it has over 120 km range, at 5 km - little more that 30 km.

Again, here you go without understanding 'Radar range' Your missile have 400 k.m range but you need a radar lock-on to fire it at the ship. Now whats your look-down radar range? I'm not aware of JH-7 radar, but ELTA/2032 have a range of 105 A2A and 75 km A2G. Suppose JH-7 has same radar range (IsaF wanted their F-16 Sufa with ELTA/2032 replacing APG series radar as they felt that 2032 is good than F-16 Blk 52 APG radar!). you need to come to as close as 50 km close to the jet which will put you well under the SAM coverage)

Detection range of big targets like ships is limited only by horizon.

 

[rockstarIN]

Now the AN/APG 68 (V5 Radar)

Country of origin USA
Type Pulse-doppler airborne radar
Frequency Starting Envelope frequency around 9.86 GHz
Range 296.32 km, 184 miles
Azimuth ±10 degrees / ± 30 degrees / ± 60 degree

This is the V5 version. V9 version used in the Pakistani and Israeli F-16's has a 30% more detection range!!!! So add about 80 more KM's to the 296 KM figure. I think that would help you understand the locking mechanism!

Again, range(search mode) is quite different from tracking range and lock on mode.

AMRAAM's range has always been classified for C and D variants as they are brand new. AMRAAM replaced Phoenix. So here's the data on Phoenix (a 45 year old missiles, so you can be rest assured the newer missile system is MUCH more capable than Phoenix!!

There is a reason USAF selected on 'medium range BVR' than longer range Phonix! They preferred medium range with more kill zone rather than having long range shots

Again, you are talking from both sides of your mouth, WITHOUT paying attention to what I or MK was saying. You obviously haven't grasped the topic in hand to know what MK was talking about. The plane with the Radar in question DOES have the range required to lock onto ships even at 300-400 KM distance.

MK is talking about a heavy duty AESA radar. Your example of ELTA-2032 isn't applicable on here compared to AN-APG 68 radars as those are primarily X-band PD radars. Can't compare PD with AESA, two very different tech and associated capabilities!!!

And the SAM coverage scenario isn't applicable on it yet. We are still the strike package to get out to a launch range successfully. It would still be before the SAM coverage.

I do understand your scenario you are talking about but i quoted only on the context of firing ASM @200 k.m away.

Detection range of big targets like ships is limited only by horizon.

But you need a big radar a.k.a big antenna to search such a large area, specially for a fighter jet class, right?

 

[gambit]

Radar 'Search' and 'Track' operations have different scan behaviors and signal characteristics.

Assuming the radar is the typical mechanically scanning type. For simplicity's sake, also assume that this mechanical scan rate will be 120 deg/sec, meaning from left to right in one second, then right to left in the next second. The 'Search' signal characteristics will be that of lower 'pulse repetition freq' (PRF) in order to have higher amplitude (energy) on any object out there. The trade off of a lower PRF for higher energy on object is that of lower target resolution in terms of:

- Altitude
- Speed
- Heading
- Aspect angle

When the radar is switched to 'Track' operation, the operator must specify what target or targets are worthy of extra attention regarding the above resolutions. The scan rate will be higher and even with different scanning behavior, such as conical scan...

Conical scanning - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Air defense radars uses conical scanning in order to extract as precise threat resolutions (above) as possible prior to retaliatory weapons fire. The early Phalanx CWIS radar used conical scanning to track incoming missile threats.

Jack Abraitis - M.L.B.W. Glossary - Naval Weapons

The Mark 68 control system consists of a manned topside director; a conical scan acquisition and tracking radar;...

Combine a scan behavior with one set of signal characteristics and a 'radar warning receiver' (RWR) will be able to determine if it is being tracked or merely inside a search pattern. If a pilot know that he is inside a 'Search' pattern but no changes in radar behaviors to indicate any higher attention, he can continue as is or make course change to get out of that pattern. But if his RWR detect high PRF and very narrow scan rates, he will know that he is the center of attention and that his response must be immediate.

Against an AESA system with matching sophisticated software that will produce true simultaneous multiple beams and this will be a whole different story.

 

[Arsalan]

I think i do have an idea of what posts you are referring too @MastanKhan, I guess like you others also exercise there right to post whatever they feel right about.
About your posts sir, frankly, i do, almost always, enjoy reading your posts. Sometimes you do get a bit too harsh but you are pointing to the realities in most cases. So i do find your posts to the point and informative. I will suggest/request that you just ignore any negative feedback, use it only to improve your posts if you feel so, also request to bring it down a notch With the authenticity of the material you post, there is not need to overly stress on the wordings, the facts speak for themselves. Also will request to keep sharing more of your thoughts, as you see fit because we are all here to learn and personally i am open to anything that will tell me about something new.v

As for the JH for naval strike platform for Chinese, what about the J-11? the J-15 and J-16 which are all better multi role platforms with better or equal range and payload capacity. Not to mention new modern air frame and much better avionics. So why JH7 and investment on decades old platform to bring it close to aircraft that you are already making. I understand they are categorized differently but what is there that Chinese will want to modify a JH7 for that they cannot get out from the existing/developing fighters?

 

[untitled]

@MastanKhan

The look at the 3 BVR's hanging on the wings close to the fuselage---then farther outside you have LR missiles on the wings

Which BVR is the B-52 carrying in the pic you posted ?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

As I have said before B-52 is not the first big aircraft to carry air to air missiles but certianly the first to carry bvrs

The British had modified their Nimrods to carry the AIM-9(G)???? if I remember correctly

-----------------------------------------------------------

Lastly I must commend you for your patience to have gone through those Dreamland novels which mentioned those if I may quote the author mutant B-52s

 

[Viper0011.]

Again, range(search mode) is quite different from tracking range and lock on mode.

There is a reason USAF selected on 'medium range BVR' than longer range Phonix! They preferred medium range with more kill zone rather than having long range shots

I do understand your scenario you are talking about but i quoted only on the context of firing ASM @200 k.m away.

But you need a big radar a.k.a big antenna to search such a large area, specially for a fighter jet class, right?

1) Did you read through the details? Or are you just going to act like a 12 year old stubborn child? The details were provided. SU-30's scanning range is over 350KM. But it's lock on range is defined at around or below 140KM. Similarly, APG V9 is estimated to have over 300 KM range too. But its lock on range against a fighter sized target 3m2 is around 110-120 KM.

The real question is, is your missile's range enough to reach out to the level of radar's lock on capability? And yes, we ALL understand that a BVR missile and a radar for that fact gives you different performance under different situation depending on altitude, angle, speed and object's location in different flight envelops (terrain, etc).

Our discussion started where you said that no BVR missile can target out to 60-75 KM's. And that is not a kill zone under any BVR engagement, and isn't possible.

The distance I mentioned is 46.5 miles (equals 75 KM) and it is VERY much a standard BVR engagement range. I don't understand why are we going off the track here.

2) Who told you the USAF selected medium range over long range? Give me some links. Another comment made over personal understanding vs. the facts!!!

3) Advanced AMRAAM's are long range (C5 was the first one with longer range,C7 and specially the D series have much longer ranges but classified for obvious reasons). These replace Phoenix as the F-14 doesn't exist in the USN anymore, and the newer replacements like the -18 and others, have smaller and more composite based main frames that are agile. There is no need to carry heavy BVR's like phoenix, plus its very old tech and AMRAAMs are much modern, lighter and sleek in design. Although Phoenix was old, but was way ahead of its time by a few decades.

4) Please point me to the part of the post where I was discussing a 200 KM BVR scenario. You were silly arguing (without experience) that 60-75 KM (46.5 miles) was too much range and it doesn't work. We never discussed 100KM BVR scenario, let alone 200 KM! You are trolling to the never land!

5) Now you are back to square 0. You've talked about all this stuff above and then the last statement says "you need a bigger radar and antenna".....well again, the systems in question lookout to over 300 KM's and can lock onto targets at over 100 KM so they do have radars and antennas already built in.

You should ask a professional or do some research before just posting stuff and arguing based on personal ideas. Gambit above provided a very good overview. But outside of it, 46 miles (75 KM) is a normal BVR engagement range, just to close the loop on the original disconnect between the two of us!

 

[MastanKhan]

I think i do have an idea of what posts you are referring too @MastanKhan, I guess like you others also exercise there right to post whatever they feel right about.
About your posts sir, frankly, i do, almost always, enjoy reading your posts. Sometimes you do get a bit too harsh but you are pointing to the realities in most cases. So i do find your posts to the point and informative. I will suggest/request that you just ignore any negative feedback, use it only to improve your posts if you feel so, also request to bring it down a notch With the authenticity of the material you post, there is not need to overly stress on the wordings, the facts speak for themselves. Also will request to keep sharing more of your thoughts, as you see fit because we are all here to learn and personally i am open to anything that will tell me about something new.v

As for the JH for naval strike platform for Chinese, what about the J-11? the J-15 and J-16 which are all better multi role platforms with better or equal range and payload capacity. Not to mention new modern air frame and much better avionics. So why JH7 and investment on decades old platform to bring it close to aircraft that you are already making. I understand they are categorized differently but what is there that Chinese will want to modify a JH7 for that they cannot get out from the existing/developing fighters?

Hi,

As I have stated a few times that the Chinese have recognized what americans are doing with their older platform. They are re-furbishing them from frame up---fine tuning their engines---installing state of the art electronic warfare packages---and loading them up with the most modern weapons----.

And now you have a 3 gen plane turned into a 4th and 4.5 gen aircraft.

What is an F16----a 70's plane----what is an F 15---a 70's plane----the newer one are not re-furbished---but they are similar to the older ones with newer upgrades---and the older ones can be upgraded to newer versions to launch modern weapons.

So---in the end---you need something---to fly---long distance---can carry a very good load of modern weapons 8000--10000 KG---has state of the art electronics package----has excellent jammer capability---can launch BVR and wvr missiles----and to top that off---you want something cheap to do all that because you do not have enough money---or you are looking for a free handout----.

To top it off---you want to use the weapons that you can buy from china----. Because what you are going to use in your naval strike version---you won't be able to buy it from USA or other European countries----.

The chance of a JH7B being shot down by the enemy is the same as a J11 or a SU35 being shot down.

The chance of a JH7B to get thru the enemy defences is the same as that of the J11 or the SU35---actually it is more----. The Growler version of the JH7B will be escorting the Su30 Chinese for missions----.

What is important is that you can launch these aircraft farther away from our border and farther away from the visibility of the indian radars and awacs---.

So---at 20-25 million a pop---a JH7B---a totally refurbished aircraft---with a massive aesa radar---possibly around 1600/1800 T/R modules ( the BLK 60 has around 1000 T / R modules ) and a very high cycle time---with massive jamming capabilities available in the growler mode---and all the missiles it can carry and strike deep into the enemy territory----you have a win win situation---you cannot lose on this bet---.

20 aircraft for 1 /2 billion dollars and another 1 /2 billion dollars for assistance weapons and training---it is an all out winner.

Just look at the number of standoff weapons it can carry and see from how far they can be launched from---would change the mind sof many.

Remember---Paf used the A5 Fantan---with 300 miles strike radius---and that aircraft was a dog---what did it carry----
3000 KG of weapons load.

 

[rockstarIN]

1) Did you read through the details? Or are you just going to act like a 12 year old stubborn child? The details were provided. SU-30's scanning range is over 350KM. But it's lock on range is defined at around or below 140KM. Similarly, APG V9 is estimated to have over 300 KM range too. But its lock on range against a fighter sized target 3m2 is around 110-120 KM.

The real question is, is your missile's range enough to reach out to the level of radar's lock on capability? And yes, we ALL understand that a BVR missile and a radar for that fact gives you different performance under different situation depending on altitude, angle, speed and object's location in different flight envelops (terrain, etc).

Our discussion started where you said that no BVR missile can target out to 60-75 KM's. And that is not a kill zone under any BVR engagement, and isn't possible.

Now you are acting like a kid posting wiki stuff. First of all read what I told you to search in this very forum for results. Your these details were thoroughly discussed in this very forum years back with experts posting their views (ex-USAF F-15 pilots) and read the Gambit post above should have given a fair idea.

The moment you start paint a.k.a track an enemy jet, he is aware of that and nobody take a soot @ 75-90km range the probability to hit is, may be 10% and the cost of a AMRAAM is USD 1.7 Mil a unit.

Few evasive maneuvers will easily get rid of the long range treat if you fire @maximum range.

Employment of AAMs involves satisfying the requirements of the particular
missile in the given situation. Missiles are complicated systems com46
FIGHTER WEAPONS
prised of many interdependent subsystems, each having limitations. All
these limitations must be observed for a successful shot.
One method of visualizing the capabilities and limitations of a missile
is to study its firing envelope.

two such envelopes for
a hypothetical Doppler-radar-homing AAM. One envelope is for a nonmaneuvering
target, and the other is for a target in a continuous level turn.
The nonmaneuvering envelope is a scale diagram looking down from
above a target (the arrow) which is flying toward the top of the page. The
various boundaries depicted illustrate the missile capabilities and limitations.
Assume first of all that the shooter has obtained the required radar
track on the target and has aimed the missile in the proper direction for
launch.
The outermost boundary is the maximum aerodynamic, or "kinematic,
'' range at which the missile is capable of guiding to within the lethal
miss-distance of the target. This boundary reflects the capabilities of the
missile propulsion, guidance, and control systems, as well as the speeds of
the launching aircraft and target and the aspect (position relative to the
target) from which the missile is launched. One of the most striking
features of this boundary is the great difference in maximum range between
forward-quarter and rear-quarter shots: here, about five to one. This
obviously reflects the fact that the target is flying toward a missile fired in
its forward quarter and is running away from a rear-quarter shot.
The seeker-limit line shows the tracking limit of the missile's radar
seeker based on the reflectivity of this particular target. Remember that
this reflectivity is a function of target size and other factors. Since missile
radar antennas are necessarily small, their range is limited. In this case the
seeker capability restricts the maximum forward-quarter firing range; but
with a larger target, or at a lower altitude (where maximum aerodynamic
range is reduced), it may not.
The narrow zones marked "look-up required" on both sides of the target
are associated with ground clutter, the Doppler MBC previously discussed.
Missiles required to look down on the target, especially at low altitude,
from a beam aspect are likely to lose track of the target in the clutter.
Looking up at the target reduces MBC and allows continuous track of the
target.
The wider areas on either side of the target reflect the fuzing and
warhead problems associated with beam-quarter target intercepts. The
missile may guide to well within lethal distance, but the geometry of the
intercept and the design of the fuze and the warhead may cause detonation
to occur on the far side of the target, possible resulting in no damage. A
missile launched from this area is not considered to have a high probability
of success. The small area in the stern quarter near maximum-kinematic
range is also the result of a fuze limitation. In this case there is insufficient
missile closing velocity at target intercept for proper fuze functioning.
The inner boundary surrounding the target is the minimum-range limit.
Depending on the aspect this may be the result of fuze-arming time, the
missile's turning capability, guidance reaction time, or the seeker's gimbal
limits or gyro-tracking rate.

The maneuvering envelope illustrates the same conditions, with the
target still flying toward the top of the page, except this time the target
begins a level left-hand turn just as the missile is launched and continues
this turn throughout the missile TOF. The diagram is labelled "hot side"
and "cold side" to define the target's direction of turn. The labels "inside
the turn" or "outside the turn" also could have been used. These terms
reflect initial conditions only (i.e., the instant of missile launch), as the
cold and hot sides rotate with the target aircraft as it turns. An observer on
the hot side of the turn at any point normally would be looking at the top of
the target aircraft, while on the cold side he would have a belly view.
The maneuvering aerodynamic max-range envelope is highly asymmetrical,
with the hot-side range being much greater than the range on the cold
side, as the timing of the turn is such that the target essentially is flying out
to meet missiles fired from its left side, and flying away from those initially
coming from the right. By choosing the direction and rate of turn, the target
can exert tremendous influence on this max-range envelope. The minrange
boundary is also affected, expanding somewhat on the hot side, but
not to as great an extent.
The regions of the envelope requiring look-up are greatly expanded in
the maneuvering case. A missile fired from these regions would have to
pass through the target's beam area before intercept could occur, greatly
increasing the chances of losing target track in clutter, especially if it was
looking down. These regions comprise a considerable portion of the entire
kinematic envelope, particularly at longer ranges, and serve to emphasize
the importance of look-up when employing this type of missile against
maneuvering targets.
The fuze-limited regions are also increased somewhat in the maneuvering
case. A missile launched in one of these regions would intercept the
target at close to a beam aspect, either hot side or cold side, with low
probability of warhead damage. Also note that all max-range limits have
been reduced to below the seeker-sensitivity limit, so that restriction does
not affect this case.
These envelopes are already confusing, but a full picture of the capabilities
of this missile would require many such charts to cover a wide range of
possible target maneuvers, shooter/target speeds, and altitudes. In addition,
a single fighter may carry two or three different kinds of missiles, all
with widely differing operating characteristics and envelopes. Envelope
recognition, therefore, becomes one of the major difficulties in AAM
employment. Even if the fighter pilot could draw each envelope from
memory, how would he determine the vital parameters necessary to decide
which envelope was valid (including target speed and turn rate) and
his position within that envelope (including range and target aspect)?
Probably the most workable solution to this problem is to equip the
fighter with a tracking radar system and a fire-control computer. Such
systems can accurately assess and display to the pilot the missile's aerodynamic
capabilities, and as many of the other limits as might be deemed
desirable, almost instantaneously. Most modern fighters have such
systems.
In order to make inputs to the fire-control computer it is necessary that
the radar track, rather than just detect, the target. Automatic radar tracking
is possible using electronic methods that vary with the design of the
particular radar system. The transition from radar detection to automatic
track is called the "acquisition" or "lock-up" process. Depending on the
sophistication of the radar, this too may be an automatic procedure requiring
very little time or aircrew effort, or it may be a manual process of
designating the target LOS and range or closing velocity so that the radar
can determine which return is the desired target. Manual methods are
generally adequate at longer ranges, when LOS rates are low, but once a
fighter is engaged in a close-range swirling "dogfight" some automatic
means of target acquisition is almost a necessity. The ability of Doppler
radars to distinguish between moving airborne targets and ground clutter
makes automatic acquisition systems more practical.
In some cases, however, a radar lock may not be available. If the missile
(a heat seeker, for instance) does not require a host-aircraft radar lock for
guidance information, then some other means of envelope recognition is
necessary. Generally it is achieved by reducing the many envelopes to a
very few, relatively simple "rules of thumb" which describe optimum
firing zones for the missile under expected combat conditions of altitude,
speed, target turn rate, etc. Pilots then must memorize these thumb rules,
along with any special operating restrictions for the missile, such as
requirements for look-up, acceptable load factor at launch, etc. In essence
these rules of thumb provide the pilot with very simplified envelopes that
give him a "ballpark idea" of his missile's capabilities. Of necessity, such
simplifications will underestimate the weapon's true performance under
some circumstances and be overly optimistic in others.
Once the envelope is known, recognition of the critical parameters
becomes the problem. Often range and target aspect must be estimated
visually, based on the apparent size and presented view of the target.
Stadiametric ranging, the method by which gunsight mil dimensions are
compared to the apparent size of a target of known size, was discussed in
relation to air-to-air gun employment. This method may also be used with
missiles, but because of the typically longer ranges of AAMs, where slight
variations in apparent target size may equate to very great differences in
distance, it is generally useful only at short range. A more widely used
method involves the ability to discern various features of the target aircraft
and equate this ability to approximate target range. For instance, at some
range the target will appear to change from a mere black dot to something
recognizable as an aircraft. A little closer, depending on aspect, its type
may be apparent, then the canopy may become visible, followed by its
markings and color scheme. Mastering such methods requires a great
amount of practice, and at best this method results in rough approximations.
In tests of experienced fighter pilots estimating the range of familiar
aircraft, it has been found that errors of 50 to 200 percent can be expected.
The results will be even worse against unfamiliar target aircraft.

 

[rockstarIN]

@Viper0011.

Below is few BVR engagement tactics.

The Beam

The concept of the beam is based on exploiting a flaw inherent to most modern Radar. In
order to reduce ground clutter on the radar scope, modern radars filter out what they see
as stationary objects through the use of the Doppler Effect. What that this means to you as
a pilot, is that if you were able to make you aircraft appear stationary to the hostile radar, it
will indeed filter you out just as it does buildings on the ground. Initially you might think this
not possible, however “Beaming” your bandit does exactly this. The term “Beam” refers to
your 3 and 9 o’clock lines. So following logic, to beam or the act of beaming refers to
placing the object in question along that axis of your aircraft. When that object is a Pulse
Doppler type radar the end result is that you have effectively zeroed your speed relative to
the radar. The only closure the radar senses is that of its own aircraft’s speed. At this point
you are filtered out as being nothing more important to the radar than a tree. At best this
will prevent the bandit from locking you solidly enough to engage, but more realistically it
will make their life more difficult by providing intermittent chances of locking. In order to
apply this technique in a BVR fight the Bandit should be identified and locked by no closer
than a 20 nm range. This will give you adequate time to set up for a head on engagement,
which is desirable in this situation. While head on, keep a close eye on your range to
target, his aspect, and closure rate. You may launch at anywhere inside 20nm and
possibly acquire a kill, but generally speaking 12-15nm is preferred depending on closure
and aspect (aspect simply put is the number of degrees you are off your target’s nose).
Launches at the longer ranges (15nm+) are often successful in spooking the bandit just
enough for him to go defensive, which sometimes is an adequate resolution to the
engagement, while ranges closer than that dramatically increase your PK (Probability of
Kill). In any case, practice in Dogfight type engagements setup in Falcon for BVR will allow
you to find the range that you feel allows you both the highest chance of a kill as well as
highest chance of survival. With much practice that range will greatly decrease.

The Drag

“The Drag” concept is the most simple of the options and should be learned to proficiency
first. It offers a high chance of survival, however it also diminishes you ability to maintain
accurate Situational Awareness, and by its very nature forces you into a very defensive
stance. The technique involves a mid to max range shot on the bandits (12-20nm miles)
and a Split-S maneuver to reverse and extend from the incoming threat (the AA-12). This
is most effective in a nearly head on engagement.
The bandit needs to be identified and locked on to by no later than 15nm in order to
ensure success. When this is accomplished, preferably prior to 20nm, wait patiently for the
range to pass 15nm, unless a low PK shot is desired with the hopes of pushing the bandits
to go defensive. In either event, once your AMRAAM is off the rail a negative Split-S
maneuver is performed, reversing your course 180 degrees, accompanied by several
bursts of chaff.
Several things are accomplished through the Split-S. First and foremost, you are
increasing your kinetic energy (speed) while establishing a heading that is more or less
directly away from the bandit and its missiles, reducing the closure rate as well as the
missile’s PK on you. The increase in kinetic energy improves your situation should you
need to defeat the missile close in. During the reversal, specifically during the vertically
nose down portion of it, you are essentially a target with no relative speed and for a brief
moment making it difficult for the hostile radar to maintain lock, effectively beaming the
bandit (as discussed above). This in and of itself will not prove effective enough to spoof
the missile entirely, however it may provide you with a very few valuable seconds to add to
your defensive time. As with the “Beam” above, make sure that your ECM are off,
preventing a HOJ situation during the maneuver.
548 kts
13134 ft
0 deg
298 kts
20923 ft
377 kts 71 deg
17712 ft
225 deg
1 DAX
353 A- A Handbook
The downward vertical velocity of your aircraft ensures that your chaff bursts will be as
effective as possible. Instead of being merely between you and the missile (leaving you as
a still very lucrative target in front of the chaff) the chaff are now independent targets while
your aircraft is quickly trying to exit the cone of sight of the hostile missile. Once a reverse
heading is established, maintain a 10-15 degree nose down attitude, preferably in full AB,
for the drag. At this point the inbound missile will be just a few miles aft of you in full
pursuit, with more than likely a solid lock on your aircraft. Regardless of the lock, you have
a very high chance of defeating the missile in the energy fight. All that is left to do ideally is
to maintain best possible forward speed until the hostile missile has lost all its energy and
drops from the sky. Should enough distance still separate you and the missile at this point,
it will be likely that the hostile aircraft is still locked on to you and guiding the missile, as

As with the Beam tactic,
the Drag is enormously effective and very easily executed. If timed correctly and
performed at just the right range, a CAT III loaded F-16 can easily dispense of two Slot
backs, with a high chance of survival. The Drag is also the most reliable tactic with regards
to evading multiple missile launches as it keeps all missiles launched at you in your rear
hemisphere with little to no change in heading on your part to evade. Effectively, this lines
up the multiple missiles directly behind you and you need only use the same tactic to spoof
them all. The downside, again as with the Beam, is the immediate loss of radar contact,
situational awareness and most hope of visually acquiring your bandit. Should the bandit
evade your launch, The Drag places him in your rear hemisphere, should he choose to
maintain the offensive. Defensively you are in a safe position, high energy with good
separation and the option to completely disengage form the fight or drag into friendly
controlled airspace. Should your bandit go on the defensive and perform a similar evasion
tactic, the separation will be much greater at which point you have the option to bug out or
reengage.
Should you reengage, the separation and comparative energy states should be such that
you have effectively neutralized the fight. However, kill confirmation is difficult at best in
both the Drag and Beam often making it a tough decision to re-engage or bug out. Support
from any trailing flights in your package or AWACS can help alleviate this problem. Reengagement
or re-establishing original heading from a Drag evasion can be dangerous
and should be performed only when adequate SA has been reacquired. While the Beam
and Drag are primarily defensive in nature the remaining two tactics offer a more
aggressive engagement that allow for maintaining SA and an offensive stance.


the missile hasn’t closed within range to go active with its own radar guidance (pitbull).

 

[MastanKhan]

@Armchair

Hi,

I do not know if you got to read this thread from 4 years---ago---.

 

[Armchair]

@Armchair

Hi,

I do not know if you got to read this thread from 4 years---ago---.

thanks MK, I'll do so now!

 

[khail007]

@MastanKhan
Sir, if you are going to contest 2018 election for the ministry for MOD - I will vote for you unconditionally.