[Cookie Monster]

Here is an elaborate explanation about BVR air combat. It is written by leroy on a non-existent forum so I won't provide the source. But I can pm the source if requested for verification or other purposes.

Ok, this board seriously needs an introduction to the basics of modern air combat. I am going to try to give one even though my gut tells me that this will basically be a huge waste of time. This is a very very long post. You don?t have to read it, stop now or forever hold your peace?

I am not going to address close range combat here because it is just too complex and dissimilar to beyond visual range combat for it to be worthwhile to attempt to deal with both in one post/thread. I am also not going to get into a discussion of electronics warfare for the most part because that is also a topic in itself.

To understand modern beyond visual range air combat you must understand modern air-to-air missiles. All modern beyond visual range missiles share certain characteristics. They are active radar homing. They posses datalinks for midcourse guidance updates, and under the right circumstances they are capable of defeating any maneuver a manned aircraft can attempt. The conditions under which a missile can not be evaded through any combination of maneuvers or acceleration is termed a missile?s ?no escape zone.?

All modern missiles are highly reliable, highly accurate, and highly lethal. That means that if your aircraft is locked onto by such a missile while you are within its no escape zone the odds of your survival are very very poor. It is the objective in BVR air combat to place your opponent in that situation without allowing him to do the same to you.

Now, to understand how someone would go about doing this you need to look at a typical head on BVR engagement. In this scenario we have two jets approaching each other head on. As the distance between them closes they will eventually detect each other on their radars. The range at which each aircraft is detected is determined by the power of the radar in use, and the RCS of the target. A plane like an Su-27 has a powerful radar, but it also has a giant RCS erasing its advantage for the most part.

Once this has happened each pilot will begin planning when they are going to begin firing their missiles. Eventually one or both jets will make the decision to fire. When the missile first launches it is flying blind. Because its radar is so much smaller than that of the jet launching it, it can not detect its target until it has already completed most of its flight in a long range shot. This means that the missile is relying on its launch aircraft to guide it towards the target by providing position updates until it is close enough to lock on to the target itself. Eventually as the missile nears its target its active seeker will lock on to the target. At this point the missile will begin to home and the launch aircraft plays no further role in its flight. If the target is within the missile?s no escape zone the target will very likely be destroyed. If the target is not within the missile?s no escape zone the target aircraft can at least in theory escape, usually by doing a 180 degree turn and turning on its afterburners to run away from the missile causing the missile to fall short.

Where things get complicated is that that last scenario did not account for the possibility that both aircraft may have fired. There are several ways this can play out.
Assume we have two planes and two missiles. Jet A and Jet B and Missile A and Missile B.

If Jet A has a huge advantage in radar and missile performance it will locate Jet B first. Move into relatively short range where its missiles will have Jet B within their no-escape zone almost the moment they launch and fire. Jet B will be destroyed before locating Jet A or firing itself. This scenario will take place if a modern jet is flying against a first-second generation jet that lacks a beyond visual range capability, or if an F-22 is flying against anything.

Another scenario:
If Jet A has a large advantage in radar and missile performance then it will locate Jet B first. Jet A will fire its first missile, probably at relatively long range and outside of its missile?s no-escape range. Jet B will probably not be aware that it has been fired on immediately and will continue to fly towards Jet A. At some point it will fly into missile A?s no-escape zone dooming itself. Meanwhile Jet A continues to track Jet B to provide Missile A with accurate target data in case Jet B maneuvers. Because the distance between the two jets is closing Jet B eventually locates Jet A and fires. This does Jet B little good however because Missile A is either about to lock on to Jet B or it has already locked on to Jet B, and is now homing. This leaves Jet A free to turn and burn to escape any potential return fire from Jet B. Jet B does not have that same option. Missile B was fired later and perhaps does not have as good as seeker. Because of this it has not yet locked on to Jet A. If Jet B stops providing positional updates Missile B will almost certainly miss because of Jet A?s maneuvers. Jet B is now in a very bad situation. It has a missile bearing down on it with only a few seconds to react. If it turns and runs it might escape Missile A, but its own shot will certainly miss because of Jet A?s evasive maneuvers. If it stays on course it will certainly die but its missile might have a chance to lock on to Jet A.

Assuming Jet A estimated the ranges correctly when it first fired it doesn?t matter what Jet B does. Jet B will be within Missile A?s no escape zone and Jet B will be destroyed. Once this happens Missile B will not get any target updates. In theory it might still locate a target but in practice it won?t because Jet A is already going the exact opposite direction at its maximum available power. Even if Missile B somehow locked on to Jet A it would still probably be out of its effective range because by turning around Jet A will have turned a head on shot to a tail on shot at high speed. This sort of scenario will most likely unfold when two BVR capable aircraft with significantly different levels of capability face off. An F-15 vs a Mig-29 would be an example.

(Please note, I am not confused about active radar homing and semi-active radar homing. If you think I am, you just don?t know what you are talking about. Look up datalinks and ask yourself why they are on AA missiles before trying to correct me.)

The remaining scenarios are variations of the above. As a fighter pilot you want to locate your target first. That gives you more time to plan your attack and it allows you to engage at your missile?s maximum possible effective range. You also want the longest possible effective missile ranges. This enables you to engage your targets outside their effective range. You want to fire first. The sooner your missile locks on to its target the sooner you can run away to avoid return fire. Getting your missile in the air first by more than a few seconds is a decisive advantage.

Depending on the relative aircraft, missiles, and launch ranges it is possible for both missiles to hit, destroying both planes. It is possible for both missiles to miss, allowing both planes to consider their fuel status and flight suit cleaning needs.

There is a great deal of strategy involved in when an aircraft fires its missiles, what its wingman or wingmen are doing and intercept angles. A head on encounter between two aircraft at equal altitude is good to explain some of the basics, but it is not a scenario that will happen in real life often. In addition, it is important to consider that this fight can unfold, very very fast. Reaction times are a significant factor in such a fight. That is one reason why ?force multipliers? like airborne radar planes are such a huge advantage. Even if you had two perfectly matched aircraft facing off with each other, if one of them knows that he is about to detect the other and what the battle space around him looks like before hand he will almost certainly get his shot off far earlier and gain a large advantage in the fight.

All in all, the fencer analogy someone made is a good one. In a BVR fight the objective is to close with the enemy close enough to take an effective shot, then open up that distance again as quickly as possible to avoid being destroyed along with them.

Now, some of this is in response to the F-18E/F thread and the debate about top speed/acceleration in fighters.

Going into a BVR fight it is almost always the case that both jets are flying at high subsonic speeds. Going to afterburners before firing will give you a theoretical missile range advantage because of the greater launch speed, but it will also badly handicap your ability to turn and run after you have fired. You don?t want to fly yourself into range of your opponent if you already have the advantage. As a general rule these engagements almost always happen at subsonic speeds. However, they almost always end at super sonic speeds. Once your missiles have locked on you are going to want to open up some distance as fast as possible. Here is where acceleration and to a lesser extent top speed matter. So far as the SH is concerned it is a poor performer in that area, but that doesn?t mean that it isn?t an exceptionally deadly fighter despite that.

The SH has a large and powerful radar. The SH also has the lowest RCS of any fighter besides an F-22 or F-35. This means that the SH will almost always get the first shot and will be free to leave the area sooner. It might not be as fast a sprinter, but it gets a head start. This is why the SH is such an exceptionally deadly fighter in BVR combat. In practice a SH will destroy something like a Mig-25 or 31 every single time in this engagement, despite the Mig?s greater sprint speed.

Alright, another problem I have with this board and others like it. Just because various weapons are in the same ?class? does not mean they are equivalent.

The AA-12 is an inferior missile to the AMRAAM. Sorry if that seems unfair.

The various Soviet, Russian, and Chinese radars are significantly inferior to their Western counterparts without exception. That whole ?just wait, we are only 5-10 years behind and our next one will be blah blah blah? line means ?we suck and we know it.?

Here is how I see modern aircraft breaking down.

Mig-29: A good airframe for what it was designed to do. Deadly in a dogfight but badly limited in range and radar performance when compared to aircraft that were designed for BVR. It is also not multi-role and is generally obsolete.

Su-27/30: A much better airframe for BVR engagements. It is a larger aircraft with a bigger radar, longer range and greater carrying capacity. If it weren?t crippled by its under performing radar, its giant radar cross section, and its reliance on the AA-12 it would be competitive. As it is it is not a good BVR fighter, despite what anyone tells you. It is however very deadly in close range fighting and it is advisable to stay away from such fights with this aircraft. Su-27/30 tactics are all variations on how to get close to your opponent. (someone is going to put up some internet numbers showing how great its radar is, don?t bother? why do you think anyone with money that buys one of these jets rips out all the avionics?)

Su-??: Whatever the scary future Sukhoi design of the year is. These planes have all been basically the same plane as the Su-27/30 series only with more fins. They do not address the plane?s primary weaknesses. It is still a plane with a huge radar cross section, an under performing radar and a deficient BVR missile.

F-15: The gold standard. This aircraft is big, fast and maneuverable with an extremely good radar and the best BVR missile currently available. This is the aircraft that both the Rafale and EF are trying to emulate. Its primary deficiencies are that it does not posses the same level of low speed handling as some of its opponents and it does not have a particularly small radar cross section. There is honestly no need to replace this plane unless you have access to something far better. The F-15 is still winning fighter contracts around the world.

F-16: A good plane with a budget in mind. It gives up some radar performance because of its smaller dish but it also has a relatively small RCS itself by virtue of its small size. This isn?t the plane that you pick first for any role but it is the world?s most successful export aircraft because it can do just about everything and do it all for half the price. It is worth noting that an F-16 with an AESA radar will have an advantage on any other aircraft in the sky with the exception of another AESA equipped jet.

F-18: Honestly not that great a plane. It is just too lacking in range and payload to do what it was intended to do. It is very maneuverable so those of you who think the Su-30 is nifty ought to like the original F-18s. They can turn unbelievably well.

F-18E/F: The plane they meant to build the first time. As others have said this plane is effectively a new design with an old name. They got it right this time. The SH is exactly what the navy always wanted. It has far better range, payload and BVR combat characteristics. It has the best RCS of any aircraft within its generation giving it a decisive advantage in BVR combat. These planes will be around for a long while.

F-22: A completely new level of performance. There is not an aircraft in existence that could realistically expect to win against the F-22. This is the reason the F-15 is being replaced.

Eurofighter: A good design, seriously. The plane?s primary problems are politics. The plane would be competitive if it had the same level of support as the F-15. As it is it needs a new radar and does not yet have a multi-role capability. I suspect this design will be around for a while and will perform well.

Rafale: A good design, if you like over paying. The Rafale doesn?t honestly offer anything over the EF and only a little over the F-15. Meanwhile it costs far more than either of those planes and most of its features are ?coming soon.? If the French manage to sell some of these it is time to open a bribery investigation. This plane will probably die because the export orders are not going to materialize. It will achieve its multi-role capability sometime around the same time the JSF arrives with a better capability across the board, for less.

[MB.]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-54_Phoenix

An entire post about BVR combat without mentioning this system? This guy clearly knows his salt. :|

Anyway, all this silliness is why USAF airpower enthusiasts endorse switching to larger more persistent systems ('missile bus' 747s, B-1Bs with air to air capability, and new aerospace cruiser platforms). This scares the daylights out of the USN and USMC because it would mean less funding for the attack fighters they desire.

There is not an aircraft in existence that could realistically expect to win against the F-22.

F-23!

[Typhoon]

I think the author approaches the subject from the wrong angle, its not about missiles/radar or who fires first (though this helps) but physics and the underlying principals governing the missiles and aircraft. If the author had explored what might have happened if two matched aircraft had come into contact rather than sticking to unbalanced scenarios the article might also have been more insightful.

I think the definition of 'no escape zone' is misinterpreted as the zone in which you are garenteed to get a hit rather than what it really is; the zone at which you cannot run away. It is possible to defeat a missile in this zone but it requires warning, skilled flying and an understanding of how missiles work. As with WVR combat energy is important as soon as the missiles motor burns out then its energy is vulnerable to paracitic drag while the aircraft with its thrust endurance can keep the missile turning until it runs out of energy.

Its a shame electronic warfare is not addressed but then its also a shame that systems like airborne warning and control are not gone into in more detail or then the link made between AWACS and ground control which may have avoided some of the problems encountered with Soviet doctrine later, where it was common practice for aircraft not to rely on their own radar but be guided to targets by other assets.

Which leads onto the biggest problem, keep the article pure dont get bogged down in east vs west arguments that result in such stupidly unsupported statements as "AA-12 is an inferior missile to the AMRAAM" and "various Soviet, Russian, and Chinese radars are significantly inferior to their Western counterparts without exception", based on what is my response to that.

Still its easy to criticise and on the whole does a fair job at explaining the basics of BVR combat but a reading list would have been better and less controversy...

[Igor Antunov]

Article is too opinionated and up itself to present a partial and subsequently valid analysis.