F-16 Block 52 vs Mirage 2000-5 Mk2

[Storm Force]

To my Pakistani experts simple question.

If the mightty amraam c5,is sogood why the hell have the paf been begging the French to upgrade the jf17 with rc400 radars and mica bvr.

There is a five hundred page thread open on it now today.

Paf chasing French upgrade to thunder.

You people are hypocrites.

Always have been

 

[Basel]

The 'no escape zone' (NEZ) is a loaded subject. As emotionally loaded as how people are passionate about the radar cross section values of the fighters that are the focus of their adoration.

The major problem with the NEZ is that any claim cannot be verifiable and I have no problems applying that skepticism even to US. The recipients of these claims, meaning the missiles' targets, are usually already dead and cannot give testimonies to any manufacturer's claim to lethality. So unless we can get Madam Zola to channel the spirits of the victims of these missiles to tell us what happened, let us take these claims with grains of salt.

But at least there is one agreed upon qualifier about the NEZ: That the 'no escape zone' is an area of airspace where the target cannot escape by agility alone.

The NEZ is derived from:

1- Whether that airspace volume is detected by radar or infrared sensor,

2- The assumption is that as long as the sensor continues to provide the missile with credible target discrimination,

3- The missile have superior speed,

4- And the missile have the necessary flight control systems to continue to pursue the target to the end.

The higher the quality of each item, the greater the NEZ.

1- Radar is superior to infrared in many ways that it is the preferred primary sensor for target acquisition and lock. If infrared is coupled with radar with appropriate switching algorithm to compensate for countermeasures then we raise item one over a competitor that have only radar or infrared.

2- Target discrimination is not a given just because there is a sensor of any type. Target discrimination is data driven, meaning how sophisticated is the sensor package in weeding out the target from background. It is how fast does the sensor data get to the processor section and how fast does the processor section work on that data. If a missile have solid state avionics over a competitor that have majority analog electronics, then we raise this missile over its competitor.

3- Most missiles have superior speed over the target anyway, so this is a plus for all manufacturers' claims.

4- Flight controls involves more than just actuators and deflection fins. It is navigation laws sophistication that will predict the target's future spatial location and direct the missile to that estimated location. It is the granularity of that prediction, as in whether the target is calculated in meters (plural) increment, meter (singular) increment, or less. If the actuators and deflection fins cannot respond to the commands from the navigation laws, this will affect the entire NEZ calculus -- negatively.

Since missiles are obviously export controlled items, how can any manufacturer claim his product is superior to his competitor if all competitors have the same technology base ?

According to US, when the AMRAAM was under development, an F-15C fired four missiles at four QF-100 drones that were under high maneuvers and discharging countermeasures, and all four drones were hit. The public have no other information about the above four items, especially on how much the drones tried to escape via agility and countermeasures. Countermeasures falls under item 2: credible target discrimination.

Over Iraq, the AMRAAM destroyed several Iraqi MIGs. Obviously, these are 'real world' situations. But the problem is that we do not know if the Iraqi MIGs have done anything similar to what the test drones did. Was it because the Iraqi pilots did not have radar warning receivers ? Maybe they have but the RWR system was not good enough ? Maybe the RWR system was good enough but the Iraqi pilots did not know what to do, which would make this a training issue and incompetency in combat from the same. Maybe these AMRAAM kills came from a mixture of both failure of warning and human incompetency ?

Over Serbia, an AMRAAM hit a Serbian MIG flying low level using terrain as cover, this indicate the AMRAAM have high item 2: credible target discrimination. Flying low level using terrain as cover is tricky. Depending on altitude, the pilot maybe maneuvering in response to terrain features. But it also mean his maneuvers are limited, else he would crash into a hillside or a vertical cliff, this also means the target may not be able to maneuver to the extent that he stresses the AMRAAM's navigation laws and flight controls. We can even criticize that terrain would restrains the target to be well inside the AMRAAM's 'no escape zone', making verifying the manufacturer's large NEZ claim difficult. Going back to the Serbian MIG shoot down. All we know is that the AMRAAM can distinguish a target from heavy Earth clutter, not how much the AMRAAM's technology was stressed before it hit the MIG.

The fact that the American AMRAAM have been used in combat with measurable success and yet can still be criticized means that no missile is above skepticism, regardless of how a person maybe biased towards one side or the other.

What is your opinion about thread topic? As Indians are claiming that there upgraded M2Ks are superior then Pakistani block-52s and their MICA-RF/IR will eat AIM-120-C5/AIM-9M.

To my Pakistani experts simple question.

If the mightty amraam c5,is sogood why the hell have the paf been begging the French to upgrade the jf17 with rc400 radars and mica bvr.

There is a five hundred page thread open on it now today.

Paf chasing French upgrade to thunder.

You people are hypocrites.

Always have been

Delusional people like you are claiming that, PAF has no interest in French package for domestic use as they already have on par or better tech available to them with TOT from various vendors.

JF-17 program is constantly evolving and AESA radar and 5th Gen avionics are also available for it, so anyone who thinks it will be inferior to Tejas or any other current jet in IAF (excluding MKIs) then they are living in fools heaven.

Don't be surprised if in future conflict IAF may find latest Russian or western IR missiles chasing their tails.

 

[Windjammer]

PS : Range factor is ignored as both aircraft are capable of inflight refueling. The F-16 has more range than the mirage at the cost of agility if it carries CFTs.

"The CFTs have very little adverse effect on the F-16's renowned
performance," said Maj. Timothy S. McDonald, U.S. Air Force project pilot for
CFT testing at Eglin. "You could hardly tell they were there. A set of CFTs
carries 50 percent more fuel than the centerline external fuel tank, but has
only 12 percent of the drag."
PS: The CFTs are cleared for 9g.

 

[NKVD]

Pakistani block-52s and their MICA-RF/IR will eat AIM-120-C5/AIM-9M

Thats because MICA is superior with its TVC and versatile G load of 50g+ excellent acquisition and tracking performance authorize 360° launch envelope with first shoot / first kill capability even in case of a threat in backward sector.
the best Version Aim-120D can pull Max g load of 40g Athough it Has Slight Advantage in Range

In fact,Latest MBDA Meteor’s NEZ was to be three times as large as that of AIM-120C. Active version of missile is equipped with radar Aster, designed to shoot down cruise missiles, which thus can be used against targets with low RCS.

 

[Basel]

Thats because it is superior with its TVC and versatile G load of 50g+ excellent acquisition and tracking performance authorize 360° launch envelope with first shoot / first kill capability even in case of a threat in backward sector.
the best Version Aim-120D can pull Max g load of 40g Athough it Has Slight Advantage in Range

In fact,Latest MBDA Meteor’s NEZ was to be three times as large as that of AIM-120C. Active version of missile is equipped with radar Aster, designed to shoot down cruise missiles, which thus can be used against targets with low RCS.

Will M2ks be able to launch MICA first? It has max range of 60 km which means in most encounters pilots will use it to 40 km max.

 

[NKVD]

To my Pakistani experts simple question.

If the mightty amraam c5,is sogood why the hell have the paf been begging the French to upgrade the jf17 with rc400 radars and mica bvr.

There is a five hundred page thread open on it now today.

Paf chasing French upgrade to thunder.

You people are hypocrites.

Always have been

Same Experts some time Back Claimed that the Their JF-17 Scored a Kill on F-16's in Dog fights

 

[Basel]

@NKVD plz don't bring Meteor in discussion as no one in sub continent use it now, if you are talking about future of IAF then PAF will have PL-21 in future which is the only counterpart of Meteor for near future.

 

[gambit]

What is your opinion about thread topic? As Indians are claiming that there upgraded M2Ks are superior then Pakistani block-52s and their MICA-RF/IR will eat AIM-120-C5/AIM-9M.

The difference between comparing jet to jet vs missile to missile is that the jet is a reusable item, whereas the missile is one-way one-time use weapon.

In dissimilar air combat training (DACT), we can analyze each fighter's performance in just about every conceivable air combat scenario. We WILL know how each fighter recover from a spin and how quickly, which is best at which altitude, who climbs faster, who has the best controlled angle-of-attack, etc...etc...

But this is not even about missile meeting missile but missile meeting fighter with at least one catastrophic end and hopefully -- two. If the enemy 's missile fail to hit one of our fighters, how can we analyze THAT missile's performance ? We cannot. Same for the other guy if our missile failed to kill one of his fighters. If a missile a fighter, regardless who hit whom, unless there are eyewitnesses to the engagement, we are essentially blind to what really happened. Pilot ability matters.

Remember what I said in back in post 75:

That the 'no escape zone' is an area of airspace where the target cannot escape by agility alone.

If the pilot cannot handle 7g when 8g is needed to break the missile's claimed NEZ, then how would we know how that 8g is the magic figure ?

Back to the same post about 'credible target discrimination'. Countermeasures -- chaff and flares -- are for disruption of that process. If our fighter was lost, how do we know that our countermeasures were at fault ? What if the pilot did not deploy enough and/or at the wrong time ? What if the right amount of countermeasures at the right time foiled the missile, but how would we know the precise quantity and time because we could not retrieve the missile to study it ?

In comparing jet vs jet, I can understand and even willing to place a guess on such a scenario. But missiles against jets, especially when both missiles have parity technology and features ? Sorry, but I place no value on any claim, unless Pakistan is willing to let India examine the AMRAAM and India allow Pakistan to examine the MICA. Good luck with that hope.

 

[Basel]

@gambit plz compare both missiles on their published parameters, it is important to conclude discussion here.

 

[NKVD]

Will M2ks be able to launch MICA first? It has max range of 60 km which means in most encounters pilots will use it to 40 km max.

How many Kill score aim-120C Has Achieved above 60 Km. M2k can launch it First due it Less RCS that of f-16 blk 52 and better radar

@gambit plz compare both missiles on their published parameters, it is important to conclude discussion here.

@gambit is a Professional Spare him here From just Satisfy your Fan-boyish Fantasies.You can find Equivalent Comparisons on other sources on Internet As-well.

@NKVD plz don't bring Meteor in discussion as no one in sub continent use it now, if you are talking about future of IAF then PAF will have PL-21 in future which is the only counterpart of Meteor for near future.

My purpose to use Meteor Example to just tell you that MBDA is taken BVR tech to Step further with MICA & Meteor to future of Next gen BVRS.PL-21 is Far fetched Dream you will get it operational beyond 2025

 

[Taygibay]

The AASM is not in service yet with the ADA but will be in the next few years

If ADA stands for French Armée de l'Air ( ex acronym AdlA ) then the text from your quote must be very old as the AASM was used in A-Stan, Libya, Mali and currently in Iraq.

4.It has an anolog FBW .(troung whats the difference between analog and digital FBW?)

Analog FBW refers to direct input from pilot through stick translated by an electronic control circuit to actuators of mobile surfaces ( older F-16 ) and may include some input from sensors on the surfaces. It allows relaxed stability aircrafts as the pilot does not have to fight the surfaces load to maintain flight. Think assisted direction in a car. The pilot still has to generate the right movement sequence though.
In a digital FBW, the pilot's input is translated by a computer into what surfaces should be moved to obtain the changes. For instance, when the pilot "asks" for a flat 15ᵒ right turn on the Rafale, the computer finds a solution to achieve it by moving tail fin, flaps and canards in unison taking into account CoG and load. This includes all sensors, aerology measuring devices plus pilot input merged into an entirely new set of commands including throttling to achieve what is required. Think how a dancer or athlete asks its body to move through space and the brain and neural system and proprioception combine to execute the moves say a pirouette without having to sequence things : activate left calf, activate left quads at 55% max, raise right arm, tighten transverse abdominis, lock R internal oblique, contract L external oblique, contract R hamstring, etc.

Mirage 2000H /TH were powered with P2, so I'm guessing 2000 I/TI should have p3.

The upgrade does not include engine change, ma'am!

JF-17 program is constantly evolving and AESA radar and 5th Gen avionics are also available for it

Hum? I understand it could get an AESA although I wonder which, maybe one from SELEX ( you can't just slap an AESA on any plane and radars as in the RDY-2 vs 3 or SABR, RACR and the likes have to be made to fit )?

But I really would like to know what 5th Gen avionics are? 5th generation fighter definitions, a mess in and of themselves, all talk of advanced avionics. It can't be the AESA from above which is retrofitted to 4th gen platforms. It can't be sensor fusion which already exist to the highest degree on Rafale which Lockheed insists is not 5th gen due to relative absence of stealth. It cannot be network centric comms either as those can be ported and so on.
No disrespect, man but using that crappy 5th gen classification is ballyhoo in any case. You must have meant advanced avionics which is just fine as in FLIR systems and the likes which is just dandy and possible.

Good day all, Tay.

 

[gambit]

@gambit plz compare both missiles on their published parameters, it is important to conclude discussion here.

For intellectual honesty's sake -- I cannot.

I was in that business -- in and out of the military -- long enough to know better. Look up on how we estimated and valued the MIG-25. For US, it was a Soviet 'wonder weapon' that could render the USAF next to helpless. Then we finally had the Foxbat in our hands to study and what a piece of junk it was.

Take missile navigation laws, for example...

IEEE Xplore Abstract










-
Two robust homing missile guidance laws based on sliding mode control theory

Two new guidance laws for short range homing missiles are developed by invoking the sliding mode control (SMC) theory. Guidance law 1 as structured around the basic proportional navigation (PN), with an additive switching term, which is a function of the line of sight (LOS) rate alone. An adaptive procedure is suggested to select the gain of the switching term, in order to reduce chattering. This guidance law is nearly as simple to implement as the PN itself and does not require any explicit target maneuver estimation. Guidance law 2, based on a first order sliding surface, is designed such that it results in a continuous acceleration law, thereby reducing the chattering problem. While explicitly taking into account the effect of aerodynamic drag, it requires the second derivatives of LOS angle and range, which are not directly measured. An estimation scheme, again based on sliding mode theory, is presented to estimate these quantities.

Do we know the details of these laws for either missile ?

Base on that brief abstract, I have an idea of what the authors were talking about, but it is pointless because we do not know the pro-nav derivatives that both the AMRAAM and the MICA use. I know enough to be confident that in a tail chase situation, both missiles will resort to pure pursuit laws...

Pursuit guidance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

...But I do not know the details about angular differences that missiles' radars will detect when the target begins to maneuver so that each missile will begin to deviate from pure pursuit guidance and into pro-nav based complex algorithms.

Proportional Navigation is the foundation of both missile guidance and ship collision avoidance.

Cambridge Journals Online - The Journal of Navigation - Abstract - A Line of Sight Counteraction Navigation Algorithm for Ship Encounter Collision Avoidance

A new navigation method, called a Line of Sight Counteraction Navigation (LOSCAN) algorithm has been introduced to aid manoeuvre decision making for collision avoidance based on a two-ship encounter. The LOSCAN algorithm is derived from an extension of the basic principle of traditional missile proportional navigation, recognising that the objective of the latter is target capture rather than target avoidance.

Based upon the above abstract, I can say that the initial algorithm for LOSCAN is exactly as missile guidance -- to capture the target, but then the capture solution is routed to an exclusion filter to produce real time continuous updates to the ship's pilot on what is the best and safest path to avoid the other ship. The entire set up depends absolutely on radar resolutions of all targets within the scan field. In a multiple targets situation, each target is treated through the LOSCAN algorithm as if it is still one ship vs one ship situation.

We can have better guesses on ship avoidance laws than on how missiles go after jet fighters.

Raytheon and MBDA can make all the public announcements about their missiles but until both missiles meet their targets in actual combat, there is no way to intellectually honestly say which is fighter/missile the better combination. With the AMRAAM, at least we have Iraq and Serbia to give us an idea of how the AMRAAM performed in real world situations. We do not have any combat experience for the MICA.

According to Raytheon, in a tail chase situation, best range estimation for the AMRAAM is roughly 20 km, but in a head on scenario, best range increases to 70 km. Does that mean the AMRAAM user should go for the head-on shot every time ? Hardly. No pilot like head-on engagement. But precisely because how pro-nav laws works, the head-on engagement offers the highest kill probability. In a head-on engagement, radar targets produced by countermeasures will trail the fighter that dispensed them by at least an order of magnitude, rendering radar countermeasures at least 50% ineffective, and that ineffectiveness factor increases as the enemy fighter approaches the AMRAAM user. The bad part is that the head-on engagement put the AMRAAM user into the same vulnerability as the fighter he is trying to kill. So why should he put himself at such risk ? Better off to try to get into a tail chase engagement but with shorter distance.

What about SLAVE or BORE coupling ? In SLAVE mode, the missile, AMRAAM or MICA, is guided by the parent radar as to what target to go after. In BORE, both parent and missile looks straight ahead for any target that happens to be within the boresight aperture. SLAVE is good in multiple targets situations as the pilot can assign each of his missiles to specific radar targets. BORE is good in close quarter combat where a wingman offers enough protection to allow lead to focus on a single target. The issue here is that the decision to SLAVE or BORE the missile depends on the pilot and his judgement at the immediate combat situation. If he chose wrong and the missile failed, how is that a negative point against the missile ? Assume that the AMRAAM is somehow inferior to the MICA. If the AMRAAM user/pilot was good enough to isolate his target into a situation where BORE is best and the missile shot was a kill, how is that a positive for the AMRAAM ? In SLAVE mode, the better the parent radar, the better the odds that the pilot can position his target into the missile's claimed 'no escape zone', therefore, the better odds for a kill. The AMRAAM and the MICA are BVR weapons but make no mistake about it, if the pilot deems the situation is better served with the BVR missile even when he is within visual range, he will use the BVR weapon.

I know that people want absolute answers but that is not going to happen. There are too many variables and most important of all -- it is the pilot.

 

[Taygibay]

In correlation to @gambit 's excellent technical explanation, let me offer this :

The best non-war way to find out about a combo AC/missile properties is monitored DACT.
The top one worldwide is undeniably Red Flag which gives an advantage to the US in that field.

Even then, the participating forces A- do not use real missiles but restitution pods and
B- most airforces will bridle their equipment as not to give away their best solutions.
And if the foreign invitees gain operational knowledge, the USAF gains a lot more through
monitoring of the exercises by way of outside planes and various observation sensors.

In order to find out superlative values of such systems barring opening them up, a perfect scenario
would be to have all the world's AC/missile combos available for live engagements. But even if we
restricted such non-simulated trials to the MICA and AMRAAM, you'd still need all possible combos
in at least two units sets as targets. After all, AMRAAM of same model would perform quite differently
as launched by a Raptor or a Cessna?

Then, you'd want the same pilots performing all chases and kills.
That would factor in pilot but still be subjected to variations of the said man's mental and physical shape
as the guys would sometimes be more relaxed or more stressed or tired.
Yet even then, to make it a perfect study, it would also require the target's pilot to be the same in same
shape for all attempts. Which considering he'd be dead after the first trial is impossible?

So that a perfect evaluation is impossible to achieve.

And in any case, von Reichtoffen got more out of the Fokker Dr.1 than any of his colleagues just as it was
not the skate brand that made Wayne Gretzky so superior to the rest of the guys on the ice with him.
Wait a few decades, good people and when pilots are gone from fighters, simulations will be sufficient to
judge confrontations … still assuming all data to be available to build these on, of course!

Good day all, Tay.

 

[Corsair]

Just for the matter, the Mirage 2000 pictured on the second image of the first post is not a Mirage 2000-5 Mk2 but a french Mirage 2000-5F.

First image (HAF..) is correct.

Yes RC400 or RDY-3 are ment to be fit in smaller aircraft such mirage F1 have smaller size antenna than other RDY radars.

No, RDY-3 and RC-400 are not the same radar. They use the same base components but the RC-400 is the one which as a smaller antenna to fit in smaller aircraft.

RDY-1, RDY-2 and RDY-3 are all designed to be installed on the Mirage 2000. The latter was even supposed to be installed in the Mirage 2000D as part of its MLU.

AIM-120-c5 has higher NEZ in your mentioned air to air missiles. @gambit please shed some light on capabilities of AMRAAM-C5 vs MICA-ER and thread's topic.

That doesn't mean anything. NEZ depends on a bunch of parameters and I highly doubt you have access to both missiles NEZ calculation methods.

To have some other point of view, here is the comment made from a Greek military I got :

I was also skeptic for many years about the French fighters. Having flown several times (in actual life) with HAF F-16 Block 50 and 52+, before a have a chance to fly - only once - with a Mirage 2000-5Mk, II in 2010, I can tell you that the french, knew very well what they were doing, when they built the ultimate and most advanced version of the Mirage fighter with RDY-2 radar and MICA EM IR missiles.

Sure the price tag was high.. but Mirage 2000-5Mk II represents today one of the best combination in the world for Air to Air interception and superiority missions! I also heard the best comments about the Rafale capabilities from other F-16 pilots that where part of the 4Gen evaluation fighter selection for HAF (eventually postponed for the future)!

Let me clarify that I m a great fan of the F-16, especially the latest versions which consider them very capable fighters in every aspect! But after what i have experienced in 2010 i feel sorry for the poor guys that will have to face the -5 in real combat..

Just my "5 cents" from a Viper fan that had the luck to fly for 1,5 hours in a Mirage over the (real) Aegean!

 

[Levina]

The upgrade does not include engine change, ma'am!
.

My conclusion was based on