IAF has no BVR capability?
-
The F-16’s can only carry IR missiles no sparrows AFAIK and I wasn’t asking about F-15’s as they aren’t what I’m flying.
-
well, you asked about the IAF, not about one specific class of aircraft they operate.
-
I specifically mention the F-16 in the original post but that’s not what’s important. I would just like to know why IAF F-16’s don’t carry BVR missiles (I’d assume there’s a reason) and how to counter enemy BVR threats without having any LR capability of my own as well as close in to IR range without getting shot down.
-
“Why doesnt the IAF carry BVR missiles”
Well, the part about countering BVR capable missiles is the trick, isnt it. The AI in KTO is fond of the “AmbushCAP” where you fly around behind a mountain and wait for them come to you. This negates the disadvantages of not having a look down shoot down radar (you get blue sky background) and longer A pole (they come to you, terrain madking preventing firing).
A former 1st VFW member I know is rather fond of a variantion on the Single Side Offset tactical intercept, which tends to work well on the AI in BMS. Essentially you only use the radar sparingly, to try to minimise their chances of becoming aware of you by their RWR - definitely no locking them up allowed. You take an offset, basically looking for 40AA or greater all the way into WVR. If you have more than 40AA, your intercept may require a notable speed advantage to react to bandit heading changes. If you have less than 60AA though, you will be on their radar. Best bet is to come in with more than 60AA, a speed advantage, and about a thousand feet between you - you lower than them.
I tend to prefer dragging the missiles out of them, and going in for the kill once they are disarmed, but the modified SSO can work well too.It all comes down to trying to engineer a situation where they cannot employ weapons. You can do that by denying awareness, denying WEZ, or denying weapons. The ambushCAP denies WEZ by coming in behind an unaware bandit as they overfly a ridgeline. The modified SSO described vaguely above seeks to deny awareness. Dragging and wasting their missiles denies them the weapons to continue the engagement.
Ultimately there is no “countering” the extra range, but you can take steps to try to minimise that advantage they have.
-
OK guys,
I’ll need to sort it once and for all (over and over gain :))F-16 in General DO NOT carry sparrow missiles…
there is a special adaptation implemented on specific variants of F-16 that add the CW transmitter on the radar that allows AIM-7 to be guided.
those variants are the F-16ADF (which is basicly an F-16A modified for the ANG - and later exported to some countries).
and the EAF F-16s - I believe not all, the block 32 are for sure, but we have allowed it to be carried by all EAF F-16s in Israeli Theater.all other F-16 can be modified to carry the AIM-120 (require software block and probably a module for the FCC to allow it to communicate with the missiles to provide mid-course guidance).
all CCIP jets (AM, BM, CM and DM) are AIM-120 capable.
some of the older models have also been retoffited at some point to allow AIM-120 (block 40-50 for sure, block 30 probably).
however, not all countries had done the CCIP or any “US mods”.the F-15I and F-16I has arrived with AIM-120 capability “out of the box”.
however, the other F-15s and F-16s in the IAF had arrived before AIM-120 was made available and do not have the capability.
the F-15s got that ability during the “BAZMASH” Israeli upgrade program.however, during the F-16 upgrade program (“Barak 2020”) it was decided, to not give them that ability. the exact reason is probably classified, but from the little we could gather, the costs where significant and the added capability of the AIM-120 over the “Near BVR” ability of the python 5 deemed that ability “un-necessary”. you need to remember that the Python 5 is a LOAL capable missile, which allows, like the MICA IR and R-27T/ET to be launched on targets outside of sensor lock range. (yet still within the kinematic envelope of the missile). this ability is not implemented in BMS as of 4.33. so the missile is in-fact nerfed compared to it’s RL namesake. yet it is a VERY capable missile as is, allowing the Barak Jets in BMS to engage almost every possible opponent in the theater.
A large part of the effectiveness require teamwork to effectively engage BVR capable opponents, but the Fire and Forget ability will give you an edge over the common BVR threat in the theater which is SARH missiles (AIM-7, AA-6/7/10)
-
…I’d also imagine that the fact that one can see from one end of the theater boundaries to the other in most cases reduces the “need” for BVR engagement…to an extent. So cost vs “bang for the buck” might lead to “requirement”.
-
Thanks for the response guys. I went back to the Korean theater now and having AMRAAM’s is cool and all but they tend to run out fast and it seems like overreliance on them is a mistake. I’ve had a few situations now where I didn’t even manage to get all my AMRAAM’s off the rails before being engaged in a turn fight with migs. Don’t get me wrong I love the long range on them but I can definitely see why the USAF still emphasizes BFM.
Side question: the more I get into modern flight sims the more I start to question the whole mentalitly that some people seem to have of “The Dogfight is Dead”. Didn’t we already learn this lesson in Vietnam and the Middle East? It seems to me that regardless of thechnology level eventually two or more planes will get vaguely near each other and knife fights will ensue.
-
The chances that it will never happen are miniscule. The chances that it will become vanishingly rare is quite high, I think.
-
Didn’t people say the same thing when the AMRAAM came around but then jammers became a thing and shortened the effective range of BVR or something to that effect?
-
This would be the first Id heard of it. Its possible Ive just not heard that though.
-
I remember some people on the DCS forums saying something to that effect with regards to another person claiming that the DF was about to die off. Another thing to think about is what happens when two stealth aircraft come in contact? They cant very well fight each other with BVR as they cant really see each other on radar.
-
VLO doesnt mean invisible to radar. It means you get detected at much shorter ranges.
With that said, Tom Clancy (among others) was fond of a cold war scenario where both sides developed stealth to the point where it was just something all fighters had - like flight computers. In that scenario, the dogfight was supreme, as long range radar missiles couldnt really track at useful BVR ranges.
For that scenario to be valid, it depends on stealth that is effective against radar. The only issue with that is that radar keeps getting better. Without having (classified) numbers to go by, its hard to say which will be the winner - airframe designers vs radar designers. Same old evolution - countermeasures improve, countercountermeasures improve.
-
Yeah it’s interesting to think about. The whole leapfrogging technology thing always seems to lead me back to the conclusion that the dogfight will stay around. Someone makes some awesome BVR thing and then someone finds a way to defeat it or make it less effective and thus we cycle back to the dogfight. That’s just my thought process of course, we may very well all start shooting at each other with lasers (elite dangerous anybody? lol).
Which Tom Clancy book has both sides using stealth fighters?
-
Im not sure I recall both sides using it in a specific book. I recall at least one book with the ‘F-19’ that was essentially an F-22 before they were thing. The both sides using stealth thing was from a magazine article I read some years back.
-
F19 was in Clancy’s Red Storm Rising… Great book.
Dogfighting will never die, even Star Wars and Battlestar G had dogfights…
-
Dogfighting in space makes about as much sense as trying to conserve sand supplies in the northern sahara. For that matter, fighters in space makes very little sense.
-
The only reason that the DF could die is the advent of remotely piloted fighters…things do seem to be leaning that direction. And even then, the problem is going to be getting the amount of in the cockpit SA to a guy operating from a ground station…
…OTOH, the USMC and USN variants of F-35 don’t have an internally mounted gun…and I thought we’d learned that lesson some time ago with the F-4. Here we go again…
-
Remotely piloted fighters have potential issues with comms. Specifically, the interception of, and the jamming of, the link between the pilot and the plane. If the drone can be jammed, its not particularly useful. If its controls can be hacked, its worse than useless.
-
Yup…but there are a lot of people talking about how the F-35 is likely to be the last manned fighter produced. So I figure there must be some folks working the issues…
-
There’s also the problem of signal latency with drones due to the distance between the operator and the drone itself which leads to some bad signal lag and would obviously be an issue when in combat. Also as Bluewolf pointed out if someone messes with communication on the drones they’re pretty much dead in the air.