What's new

Best BVR Capable Fighter in South Asia

Status
Not open for further replies.
Great anlysis sir but with all due respect you might have missed the context to what i replied...The person i replied to inferred that every other dynamics between two fighters are very much comparable(including missiles)...The only real difference is that indian fighter will see pakistani counterpart few seconds and couple of minutes earlier...Nevertheless as said great analysis, though few questions....



Shall i infer that detecting an enemy is of no use unless and until you are stealthy enough to go close to the fighter so that it can be locked with in missile range????

Secondly it is often said that one who makes enemy fight on his terms has high probabilty to end up winner. Don't you think with detecting the enemy first even though missiles cannot be launched is going to increase the odds???

Thirdly with fighter's like MKI who have around 12 hard points don't you think a salvo can be fired just to put the enemy on defensive and force them to play by your rules????

of-course i am more of talking about 1-on-1 scenario which is not in synch with real-life but then the question i replied to was also theoretical....

lolz Chogy have flown F-15 and F-15 hav more hard points then MKI so no need of lame logics to prove your point and sorry to disappoint you MKI and Mig-29s are not the best BVR fighters in SA.
 
Detection range of APG-68

The AN/APG-68 radar is a solid state long range (up to 300 km) Pulse-doppler radar designed by Westinghouse (now Northrop Grumman) to replace AN/APG-66 radar in the F-16 Fighting Falcon. The AN/APG-68 radar system consists of the following line replaceable units:
* Antenna
* Dual Mode Transmitter (DMT)
* Modular Low-power radio frequency (MLPRF)
* Programmable signal processor (PSP)

The AN/APG-68v(9) radar is the latest development. Besides the increase in scan range compared to the last version,The AN/APG-68v(9) radar has a SAR (Synthetic aperture radar) capability.

The APG-68v(9) radar was supplied to several countries. some of them were:
Israeli Air Force (IAF) on F-16D block 52+ aircraft called Soufa (סופה).
Greek Air Force also on F-16D block 52+ aircraft.

Source - APG-68

Irbis-BARS.png


So Su-30MKI will detect F-16 @ distance of 75-85km, and F16's radar range is 300km, and the RCS of SU-30mki is huge, so i think it is safe to say that F-16 will detect SU-30mki @ distance of at least 200km.
 
Detection range of APG-68

The AN/APG-68 radar is a solid state long range (up to 300 km) Pulse-doppler radar designed by Westinghouse (now Northrop Grumman) to replace AN/APG-66 radar in the F-16 Fighting Falcon. The AN/APG-68 radar system consists of the following line replaceable units:
* Antenna
* Dual Mode Transmitter (DMT)
* Modular Low-power radio frequency (MLPRF)
* Programmable signal processor (PSP)

The AN/APG-68v(9) radar is the latest development. Besides the increase in scan range compared to the last version,The AN/APG-68v(9) radar has a SAR (Synthetic aperture radar) capability.

The APG-68v(9) radar was supplied to several countries. some of them were:
Israeli Air Force (IAF) on F-16D block 52+ aircraft called Soufa (סופה).
Greek Air Force also on F-16D block 52+ aircraft.

Source - APG-68

Irbis-BARS.png


So Su-30MKI will detect F-16 @ distance of 75-85km, and F16's radar range is 300km, and the RCS of SU-30mki is huge, so i think it is safe to say that F-16 will detect SU-30mki @ distance of at least 200km.

Errr... that's in nautical miles, 80 NMI = 148 KM. Goes very well with the given article. However we are considering a clean F-16 said to have an RCS of 1.2m^2. Add on the external fuel tanks and missiles and we are looking well in the the range of 3-5m^2. And the MKI can detect 5m^2 at 185KM.

There is one thing that doesn't seem to be right. The range of APG-86V9. Are there any sources for it except for the one you provided? Cause the same thing is written in wikipedia but with a range of 200KM.
APG-68 V9 is said to have 30% more range than APG-68 V7, which means APG-68V7 must have had a range of 200KM. Again APG-80 is said to have twice the detection range of APG-68V7.. that would be like 400KM. Kinda big for a 1000 T/R module RADAR powered by a single engined fighter. I think a maximum range of 200KM is more correct for APG-68V9. Anyone with proper info on APG-68V9 please clarify it.
 
Last edited:
Errr... that's in nautical miles, 80 NMI = 148 KM. Goes very well with the given article. However we are considering a clean F-16 said to have an RCS of 1.2m^2. Add on the external fuel tanks and missiles and we are looking well in the the range of 3-5m^2. And the MKI can detect 5m^2 at 185KM.

So if 1.2sqm will have 5sqm RCS with weapons, then Su30 loaded should have RCS of 100sqm, :lol:.

There is one thing that doesn't seem to be right. The range of APG-86V9. Are there any sources for it except for the one you provided. Cause the same thing is written in wikipedia but with a range of 200KM?
APG-68 V9 is said to have 30% more range than APG-68 V7, which means it must have had a range of 200KM. Again APG-80 is said to have twice the detection range of APG-68V7.. that would be like 400KM. Kinda big for a 1000 T/R module RADAR powered by a single engined fighter. I think a maximum range of 200KM is more correct for APG-68V9. Anyone with proper info on APG-68V9 please clarify it.

APG-68

AN/APG-68 | TripAtlas.com
 
Great anlysis sir but with all due respect you might have missed the context to what i replied...The person i replied to inferred that every other dynamics between two fighters are very much comparable(including missiles)...The only real difference is that indian fighter will see pakistani counterpart few seconds and couple of minutes earlier...Nevertheless as said great analysis, though few questions....



Shall i infer that detecting an enemy is of no use unless and until you are stealthy enough to go close to the fighter so that it can be locked with in missile range????

Secondly it is often said that one who makes enemy fight on his terms has high probabilty to end up winner. Don't you think with detecting the enemy first even though missiles cannot be launched is going to increase the odds???

Thirdly with fighter's like MKI who have around 12 hard points don't you think a salvo can be fired just to put the enemy on defensive and force them to play by your rules????

of-course i am more of talking about 1-on-1 scenario which is not in synch with real-life but then the question i replied to was also theoretical....


Chogy,

Adding to Decking's above questions --

How would a two way data linked missile help rectify the situation ? Where in a a/c simple fires away a salvo of BVR missiles and then lets the AWACS do the controlling of missiles by constant updation of co-ordinates. I believe AIM 120D and Meteor is very capable of accepting inputs from other a/c.
 
Modern AA missiles are not RPG's. They are very, very expensive. Even a simple AIM-9 is the equivalent of launching an extremely fine sports car off your rail in terms of cost. I cannot imagine launching salvos of even more expensive long-ranged radar missiles in some "fire for effect" method. It is unlikely they will even be detected or seen at such extreme ranges.

Besides, if this technique is used, a simple counter (which has in fact been used for decades) is to run decoys in first who will drag out, escape, at the edge of the missile envelope. Fired missiles are defeated kinematically, while those bringing up the rear behind the decoys can then engage.

Missiles lose energy very quickly upon motor burn-out, which is why extremely long-ranged missiles are lofted high into the atmosphere, where there is less drag, and they can come down on a target. Still, as range increases, the likelihood of a successful intercept drops.

Secondly it is often said that one who makes enemy fight on his terms has high probabilty to end up winner. Don't you think with detecting the enemy first even though missiles cannot be launched is going to increase the odds???

Unless you are executing a sweep, you will almost always have a threat axis, a known area where the targets will either come from, or are defending. Airspace in an air battle is usually cut up into slices, with areas of responsibility.

Let's say there are strikers inbound. Your super-radar sees them at 300 km and the aspect is 10L, flying nearly perpendicular to your axis. At 300km, you will not have any hope of intercepting them unless they turn into you. Others defending the airspace along their axis will have to make the intercept.

I'll try to summarize: At the range where there is a decent chance of a successful launch and missile hit, the likelihood that both sides will know the other is there is very high; further, extreme detection ranges rarely allow one to alter how the encounter will happen. You'll get faint and irregular hits at first, then someone in the flight will take a sample lock, enough energy to tickle the target's RWR. His RWR will display a threat at, say, 10:00, and he has the choice to disengage (turn 120 degrees right and drag out) or engage (turn 45 left to put the RWR hit at 12:00. His radar will reach out and find you.

Even if his radar lacks the range, he can take the RWR hits and keep them at 12:00. From your perspective, he is keeping nose-on to you. Eventually, he will see you, still outside effective missile range.

When executing a sweep, a flight of four relies much on RWR. If it displays a threat at 3:00 or 9:00, the entire flight will "snap" (turn hard) into the threat, and find the inbound bogies using disciplined radar search.

@Anathema: That is a whole different game. A very complex procedure and I can see much that would go wrong in real life. The missile energy is poor at the end-game; a heavily-jammed environment can create issues.

Here is something to consider for the long-ranged missile shot fans. You've got a target aspect of 14R (40 degrees off axis). You shoot. The missile doesn't fly at the target, it flies to a predicted intercept point which might be 50 km or more well to the side. the missile flies, is 1/3 of the way there. The target then turns hard to 14L. The point of intercept has now physically moved 100+ kilometers, to the other side of the axis. The energy of the missile is gone as it tries to solve this new problem, and falls out of the sky. A simple 60 degree turn by the target has defeated the long-ranged shot.

At closer ranges, that same turn moves the intercept point only 5 to 10km rather than 100+. This, the missile can handle.

I hope all this makes sense. Sorry for the long post.
 
Modern AA missiles are not RPG's. They are very, very expensive. Even a simple AIM-9 is the equivalent of launching an extremely fine sports car off your rail in terms of cost. I cannot imagine launching salvos of even more expensive long-ranged radar missiles in some "fire for effect" method. It is unlikely they will even be detected or seen at such extreme ranges.

Besides, if this technique is used, a simple counter (which has in fact been used for decades) is to run decoys in first who will drag out, escape, at the edge of the missile envelope. Fired missiles are defeated kinematically, while those bringing up the rear behind the decoys can then engage.

Missiles lose energy very quickly upon motor burn-out, which is why extremely long-ranged missiles are lofted high into the atmosphere, where there is less drag, and they can come down on a target. Still, as range increases, the likelihood of a successful intercept drops.



Unless you are executing a sweep, you will almost always have a threat axis, a known area where the targets will either come from, or are defending. Airspace in an air battle is usually cut up into slices, with areas of responsibility.

Let's say there are strikers inbound. Your super-radar sees them at 300 km and the aspect is 10L, flying nearly perpendicular to your axis. At 300km, you will not have any hope of intercepting them unless they turn into you. Others defending the airspace along their axis will have to make the intercept.

I'll try to summarize: At the range where there is a decent chance of a successful launch and missile hit, the likelihood that both sides will know the other is there is very high; further, extreme detection ranges rarely allow one to alter how the encounter will happen. You'll get faint and irregular hits at first, then someone in the flight will take a sample lock, enough energy to tickle the target's RWR. His RWR will display a threat at, say, 10:00, and he has the choice to disengage (turn 120 degrees right and drag out) or engage (turn 45 left to put the RWR hit at 12:00. His radar will reach out and find you.

Even if his radar lacks the range, he can take the RWR hits and keep them at 12:00. From your perspective, he is keeping nose-on to you. Eventually, he will see you, still outside effective missile range.

When executing a sweep, a flight of four relies much on RWR. If it displays a threat at 3:00 or 9:00, the entire flight will "snap" (turn hard) into the threat, and find the inbound bogies using disciplined radar search.

@Anathema: That is a whole different game. A very complex procedure and I can see much that would go wrong in real life. The missile energy is poor at the end-game; a heavily-jammed environment can create issues.

Here is something to consider for the long-ranged missile shot fans. You've got a target aspect of 14R (40 degrees off axis). You shoot. The missile doesn't fly at the target, it flies to a predicted intercept point which might be 50 km or more well to the side. the missile flies, is 1/3 of the way there. The target then turns hard to 14L. The point of intercept has now physically moved 100+ kilometers, to the other side of the axis. The energy of the missile is gone as it tries to solve this new problem, and falls out of the sky. A simple 60 degree turn by the target has defeated the long-ranged shot.

At closer ranges, that same turn moves the intercept point only 5 to 10km rather than 100+. This, the missile can handle.

I hope all this makes sense. Sorry for the long post.

Yes but then how come the F22 defeats all those F15s using BVR missiles in practice? From what you have written, it sounds to me that there is still room for actual dog fights in the future... Planes doing sharp turns and even using their guns to bring their enemies down...
 
Yes but then how come the F22 defeats all those F15s using BVR missiles in practice? From what you have written, it sounds to me that there is still room for actual dog fights in the future... Planes doing sharp turns and even using their guns to bring their enemies down...

Dogfights is not the term to be used nowadays....its more like "knife- fight in a telephone booth". but WVR combat still exists or else the F22 need not be so agile nor the PAK-FA/FGFA. The F 22 works on the principle of seeing the enemy before he sees you. The F 22 will be detected by radar but it would have been too late by the time you know he is there and the F 22 would have already fired a BVR missile at you. Even if you evade it you will lose energy and he might be still coming at you and you will be in the defensive.
 
Yes but then how come the F22 defeats all those F15s using BVR missiles in practice? From what you have written, it sounds to me that there is still room for actual dog fights in the future... Planes doing sharp turns and even using their guns to bring their enemies down...

The Raptor is an exception due to its LPI (Low Probability of Intercept) radar, the opposition's reaction time is compressed considerably and in most cases the RWR warning will be triggered only at end game when the missile seeker becomes active.
 
Last edited:
Modern AA missiles are not RPG's. They are very, very expensive. Even a simple AIM-9 is the equivalent of launching an extremely fine sports car off your rail in terms of cost. I cannot imagine launching salvos of even more expensive long-ranged radar missiles in some "fire for effect" method. It is unlikely they will even be detected or seen at such extreme ranges.

Besides, if this technique is used, a simple counter (which has in fact been used for decades) is to run decoys in first who will drag out, escape, at the edge of the missile envelope. Fired missiles are defeated kinematically, while those bringing up the rear behind the decoys can then engage.

Missiles lose energy very quickly upon motor burn-out, which is why extremely long-ranged missiles are lofted high into the atmosphere, where there is less drag, and they can come down on a target. Still, as range increases, the likelihood of a successful intercept drops.



Unless you are executing a sweep, you will almost always have a threat axis, a known area where the targets will either come from, or are defending. Airspace in an air battle is usually cut up into slices, with areas of responsibility.

Let's say there are strikers inbound. Your super-radar sees them at 300 km and the aspect is 10L, flying nearly perpendicular to your axis. At 300km, you will not have any hope of intercepting them unless they turn into you. Others defending the airspace along their axis will have to make the intercept.

I'll try to summarize: At the range where there is a decent chance of a successful launch and missile hit, the likelihood that both sides will know the other is there is very high; further, extreme detection ranges rarely allow one to alter how the encounter will happen. You'll get faint and irregular hits at first, then someone in the flight will take a sample lock, enough energy to tickle the target's RWR. His RWR will display a threat at, say, 10:00, and he has the choice to disengage (turn 120 degrees right and drag out) or engage (turn 45 left to put the RWR hit at 12:00. His radar will reach out and find you.

Even if his radar lacks the range, he can take the RWR hits and keep them at 12:00. From your perspective, he is keeping nose-on to you. Eventually, he will see you, still outside effective missile range.

When executing a sweep, a flight of four relies much on RWR. If it displays a threat at 3:00 or 9:00, the entire flight will "snap" (turn hard) into the threat, and find the inbound bogies using disciplined radar search.

@Anathema: That is a whole different game. A very complex procedure and I can see much that would go wrong in real life. The missile energy is poor at the end-game; a heavily-jammed environment can create issues.

Here is something to consider for the long-ranged missile shot fans. You've got a target aspect of 14R (40 degrees off axis). You shoot. The missile doesn't fly at the target, it flies to a predicted intercept point which might be 50 km or more well to the side. the missile flies, is 1/3 of the way there. The target then turns hard to 14L. The point of intercept has now physically moved 100+ kilometers, to the other side of the axis. The energy of the missile is gone as it tries to solve this new problem, and falls out of the sky. A simple 60 degree turn by the target has defeated the long-ranged shot.

At closer ranges, that same turn moves the intercept point only 5 to 10km rather than 100+. This, the missile can handle.

I hope all this makes sense. Sorry for the long post.

Sir - That was a wonderful post , thanks.

Can you please explain the bold part a bit more ? How does a decoy work ? Is it towed decoy ? or are their designated fighters which purposely try to lure missiles from other fighters away. I never really understood the concept of decoys much.
 
These members answered the question well. I'll simply add, in the tests where the F-15's got wiped out, their reaction was universally "We never saw him. We couldn't find him. Then we were dead. There was nothing we could do."

Not to be too jingoistic, but at this moment there is nothing in the skies that can touch the Raptor. It's too good. But time marches on, and one day, it too will be an average fighter among a number of equivalent types.
 
Besides, if this technique is used, a simple counter (which has in fact been used for decades) is to run decoys in first who will drag out, escape, at the edge of the missile envelope. Fired missiles are defeated kinematically, while those bringing up the rear behind the decoys can then engage.

This is simply a lead-trail formation, and has been used for decades. Here's how it works.

You've got 8 jets. Split them into two 4-ship formations. Send them in an overall lead-trail formation. Group 1 is at the front. Group 2 is 10nm to 30nm behind; the spacing depends upon the opponent and his missiles. The two groups are sent along the threat axis.

Pilots tend to target those they consider the greatest threat. In this case, the majority of the targeting by the defenders will be in the lead group. They may know the trailers are there, but they cannot ignore the leaders.

When the leaders are in missile range, even well inside, the defenders fire a number of missiles. Based upon timing, range, RWR, all three, the lead group scatters and drags... split-S, slicing turns, a confusing bomb-burst. ALL of them light their burners and haul-*** back to safety. Any missiles in-flight will be defeated. Missiles are very poor at tail-chase in circumstances like this.

Now, the trailers have been searching and sorting the defenders this entire time. The defenders must break lock and return to search, confused, flustered, and nervous. Missiles from the trailers may already be in flight. The trailers kill a number of the of the defenders, and any missiles they fire go dumb unless they are active.

Simple techniques like this were bread and butter for the Soviets, especially, and the U.S. Aggressor squadrons knew them all, and put them to use in training. It can be very difficult for the defenders.
 
This is simply a lead-trail formation, and has been used for decades. Here's how it works.

You've got 8 jets. Split them into two 4-ship formations. Send them in an overall lead-trail formation. Group 1 is at the front. Group 2 is 10nm to 30nm behind; the spacing depends upon the opponent and his missiles. The two groups are sent along the threat axis.

Pilots tend to target those they consider the greatest threat. In this case, the majority of the targeting by the defenders will be in the lead group. They may know the trailers are there, but they cannot ignore the leaders.

When the leaders are in missile range, even well inside, the defenders fire a number of missiles. Based upon timing, range, RWR, all three, the lead group scatters and drags... split-S, slicing turns, a confusing bomb-burst. ALL of them light their burners and haul-*** back to safety. Any missiles in-flight will be defeated. Missiles are very poor at tail-chase in circumstances like this.

Now, the trailers have been searching and sorting the defenders this entire time. The defenders must break lock and return to search, confused, flustered, and nervous. Missiles from the trailers may already be in flight. The trailers kill a number of the of the defenders, and any missiles they fire go dumb unless they are active.

Simple techniques like this were bread and butter for the Soviets, especially, and the U.S. Aggressor squadrons knew them all, and put them to use in training. It can be very difficult for the defenders.


Sir - Your posting are always very informative, thank you.

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.

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?
 
lolz Chogy have flown F-15 and F-15 hav more hard points then MKI so no need of lame logics to prove your point and sorry to disappoint you MKI and Mig-29s are not the best BVR fighters in SA.

May i know which country is flying f-15 in south asia....please keep your jingoism to yourself...I by no means is saying mki's are best...i am asking him some questions, so why poking nose if you cannot/don't want to answer????
 
Best BVR Capable Fighter in South Asia
From my side I will suggest two ways of identifying bestest BVR fighter
  1. Platform Centric--Sukhois & majority of Russian warplanes follow this technique; large radars greater payloads & augmented with high radar coverage I atleast suggest that their plane can survive if left alone!!
  2. Network Centric; with beautifully engineered datalinks & AWACS presence this philosophy is shared by US & also by NATO. The planes shoot in formations & all data is shared not only among them but via Satellites all down the way to HQ(I have seen this in their Red Flag warplane exercises)


As for the ability to turn away and sustain a track this is a typical solution for a platform centric approach to warfighting.
>>Referring to Sukhois

With network centric warfighting the hunter and killer do not need to be the same platform. Data linked fighters will operate in groups where the emitter hunts from a safe distance and the killer (with tactically significant stealth) darts in with a silent radar for the missile launch and kill based on the track developed by the hunter.
>>Referring to F-15/F-35/F-22
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom