manjgu wrote:Karan..u did not get my gun analogy. What was i was saying that both missiles and guns have a certain envelope in which there is a high kill probability ( we will not argue abt %'s). When guns were predominant the idea of the combatants was to stay out of this guns high probabilty kill zone/envelope. same is the idea today as well for both the combatants... to stay out of enemy missile high kill probability zone.
Problem is Manjgu, you may not have that option. Once you enter into the merge, all bets are off.
Again, a gun kill depends on the platform's performance and pilot skill both.
Here, technology has advanced to the point, where a 1000 hours on the type pilot, can be gunned down by a relative novice, because he has HMS & wide field of view missile.
Therein lies the issue.
But the actual point is that in modern day missile combat you have two successful approaches - slash & strike, turn & burn. The LCA is well optimized for the former & with HMS & Python-V's, it will be literally a killer in that arena. Because, as of yet, IIR seekers cannot be jammed or countered effectively.
People keep comparing the LCA to some completely different system, claiming the other will "turn better". The issue is the LCA (or the Mirage) won't do that. The pilots would be trained to their platforms unique strengths since with modern day missiles, ITR (instantaneous nose pointing) is the key factor & by either luck, perspicacity or both, the LCA has managed this.
The best way to look at this is Greek AF Mirage 2000s vs Turkish AF F-16s. Frequent intercepts and dogfights. The Mirage 2000's have had the better of F-16s several times.
Here's a cocky Mirage 2000 view.
Greek AF pilot wrote:Interviewer : Would you agree with these statements of a former HAF fighter pilot?
Statement 1 : To conclude, the Mirage 2000 is slicker than the Viper but less powerful.
Statement 2 : With good pilots on both sides, they are probably equal in dogfight.
Answer : Statement 1 is true.
Statement 2 is wrong. A good pilot in an M2K (Mirage 2000) will kill a good pilot in an F-16 9 out of 10 times (1 provided for launch failure).
I served in an M2K fighter squadron in HAF. We analyzed tactics and combat scores against HAF F-16 squadrons all the time.
The M2Ks higher INSTANTANEOUS turn rate gives it an advantage during the first pass. The F-16 cannot outturn the Mirage. It has to climb in hopes of avoiding the lock. A good M2K pilot will end it right there (the Magic 2 is a better IR weapon than the AIM-9L/M).
A rookie in the M2K, however, will probably lose the F-16's climb. The more powerful viper will escape and will then gain the advantage because of 1) Altitude 2) Higher SUSTAINABLE turn rate.
Interviewer : As for turn rates, altitude differences are purely theoretical and in practice make no difference EXCEPT for sea level manuevers where the more powerful Viper starts gaining the advantage. Would you agree with the statement that F-16 is a better choice for multi role missions than Mirage 2000 ?
Absolutely. The M2K is a multi-role fighter also, but its performance varies greatly among roles - whereas the Viper performs almost all missions at a very satisfactory level.
HAF M2Ks are specialized. 331's (where I served) primary role is now TASMO (naval strike with AM-39 Exocet) and 332's primary role will become Deep Strike (with SCALP EG). CAP & Air Supremacy are their secondary roles.
The F-16 sqdns OTOH undertake a number of roles such as SEAD, CAP, CAS, and numerous specialized strike missions (enemy AFBs, enemy C&C centers etc). The Viper is a much more volatile weapons system.
So this is why the Python-V, Dash sight & & long range AESA & datalink all make a difference to the LCA, which is why IAF Test pilots note:
http://www.business-standard.com/articl ... 734_1.html
The Tejas' avionics - radar, laser and inertial navigation system - enhances the accuracy of these weapons. Its highly rated Elta EL/M-2032 multi-mode radar provides multi-role capability, allowing the pilot to fire air-to-air missiles at enemy aircraft; and also bomb ground targets with a highly accurate navigation-attack system. The pilot operates his weapons through a head-up display (HUD), or through a helmet-mounted sighting system (HMSS) by merely looking at a target. Experienced fighter pilots say the Tejas is the IAF's most "pilot friendly" fighter.
The Tejas' likely adversary, the Pakistan Air Force's F-16 fighter, has a slightly larger flight envelope, but the Tejas' superior avionics give it a combat edge over the PAF's older F-16A/Bs (currently being upgraded in Turkey); and superior to their new JF-17 Thunder light fighter, co-developed with China. Only the PAF's 18 new F-16C/D Block 52 fighters, flying since 2010-11 from Jacobabad, may be a match for the Tejas.
Said an NFTC test pilot during the IOC ceremony on December 20: "As a multi-role fighter, the Tejas is at least the equal of the IAF's upgraded Mirage-2000. It can more than hold its own in our operational scenario."
So, if the LCA does get into a close in fight & the pilot does use the Python-5 within its NEZ (unless there is a technical failure), the opponent is very very likely to be toast.
manjgu wrote:with such sophisticated missiles and electronics , automation at ones disposal has only increased pilots workload and demands on his skill and not decreased the pilot skill factor in combat. I am not arguing against the increased sophistication of modern day missiles of whatever range/type but all of them have limitations vs as advertised in their sales brochures.
Limitations yes, but those limitations are marginal & the systems have increased the lethality of platforms manifold.
This was what happened to USAF and NATO pilots when they first went against R73E & HMS. Remember, this is relatively "old" stuff.
Interview with Johann Koeck, a NATO trained pilot and Leader of the 1. Staffel / Jagdgesschwader 73 of German Luftwaffe which took over the Mig-29 of the former GDR air force.
"But when all that is said and done, the MiG-29 is a superb fighter for close-in combat, even compared with aircraft like the F-15, F-16 and F/A-18. This is due to the aircraft’s superb aerodynamics and helmet mounted sight. Inside ten nautical miles I’m hard to defeat, and with the IRST, helmet sight and ‘Archer’ I can’t be beaten. Period. Even against the latest Block 50 F-16s the MiG-29 is virtually invulnerable in the close-in scenario. On one occasion I remember the F-16s did score some kills eventually, but only after taking 18 ‘Archers’. We didn’t operate kill removal (forcing ‘killed’ aircraft to leave the fight) since they’d have got no training value, we killed them too quickly. (Just as we might seldom have got close-in if they used their AMRAAMs BVR!) They couldn’t believe it at the debrief, they got up and left the room!
Guess what the NATO/USAF did - they non stop trained against the Archer threat. To the point that:
The most impressive aspect of the Fulcrum's performance for the American pilots was its low-speed maneuverability. "In a low-speed fight, fighting the Fulcrum is similar to fighting an F-18 Hornet," explained Capt. Mike McCoy of the 510th. "But the Fulcrum has a thrust advantage over the Hornet. An F-18 can really crank its nose around if you get into a slow-speed fight, but it has to lose altitude to regain the energy, which allows us to get on top of them. The MiG has about the same nose authority at slow speeds, but it can regain energy much faster. Plus the MiG pilots have that forty-five-degree cone in front of them into which they can fire an Archer and eat you up."
The off-boresight missile, as described in the opening scenario, proved to be a formidable threat, though not an insurmountable one. "Some of their capabilities were more wicked than we originally thought," said McCoy. "We had to respect the helmet-mounted sight, which made our decisions to anchor more difficult. In other words, when I got close in, I had to consider that helmet-mounted sight. Every time I got near a Fulcrum's nose, I was releasing flares to defeat an Archer coming off his rail."
"Before coming here, some of our pilots may have thought of the MiG's helmet-mounted sight as an end-all to a BFM fight," explained Lt. Col. Gary West, commander of the 510th. "We have found that it is not as lethal as we had expected.
We encountered some positions-particularly in an across-the-circle shot or a high-low shot and in a slow-speed fight-where a Fulcrum pilot can look up forty-five degrees and take a shot while his nose is still off. That capability has changed some of the pilots' ideas on how they should approach a MiG-29 in a neutral fight. Below 200 knots, the MiG-29 has incredible nose-pointing capability down to below 100 knots. The F-16, however, enjoys an advantage in the 200 knot-plus regime. At higher speeds, we can power above them to go to the vertical. And our turn rate is significantly better. By being patient and by keeping airspeed up around 325 knots, an F-16 can bring the MiG-29 to its nose. But the pilot must still be careful of the across-the-circle shot with that helmet-mounted sight.
So by spending a ton load of resources, NATO pilots finally started understanding the MiG-29 and the Archer threat.
Then they introduced their equivalents. By memory, R73E was 24G, ASRAAM, Mica, IRIS-T, AIM-9x all started appearing with HMS thereafter & neutralizing that "advantage". These are all missiles which are more capable than the R73E.
Guess what happened then, the Russians have introduced TVC. Now, with TVC, the instantaneous rate of turn (or nose pointing if you prefer), of the Su-30 climbs up rapidly. In the meanwhile, either the pilot or the WSO is busy lining up Archer shots.
So while NATO fixed the missile & HMS, the Russians improved the launching platform to the point that again, they had the edge in taking shots. This is why NATO forces are so eager to train vs IAF and RMAF.
The Su-30 MKI thanks to TVC is very effective at guns - eg 1vs1s at Red Flag Mountain Home
Erstwhile Dewline blog on IAF response about Red Flag wrote:it is understood that the kill ratio (at Mountain Home AFB) was 21 : 1, in favour of the Su-30MKIs).
With R73E & HOBS this goes up even more. (All depends then on whether flares work against R73E).
While we won't display all our cards, what we do show them is invaluable from their perspective.
Consider now what the LCA is capable of. It's a high ITR (delta wing) aircraft with a Dash helmet & Python-V combination.
Has Pakistan or China trained to such a threat? Has the LCA been exported? Are they even aware of what it can bring to the table?
The US (and to some extent the IAF) trains WW against every possible threat. They learn, learn, and implement. Hitherto, before Cope India (11 years back) they had training restrictions in Red Air. Those went within a year (that's the speed at which they operate).
Yet, countermeasures against IIR CCM are yet to appear. Now lets stop and think for a moment. Why is this?
The answer lies in BVR. The US has realized that countermeasures in the CCM game is a mugs game. Of course they are working on it & will deploy as much as possible. But the aim is to not to be forced into the merge at all!!
Of what use is your CCM & HMS if you can't detect an opponent like the F-35 who will fire AMRAAMs at you from 50km, trying to get you within the NEZ & you don't get any indication till the seeker goes active at some 10 odd km?
To counter this, the world over, AF's are introducing LPI Digital RWRs, DRFM equipped SPJs, MAWS & automated defensive suites - the aim is to somehow break that kill chain. Force the opponent into the knife fight.
But the IAF does not have that luxury (yet) of sticking only to BVR. The Su-30 MKI, LCA will all be great at BVR. But missiles are limited & RF seekers can be jammed & techniques already do exist.
Hence, manufacturers are even introducing non RF options to cue & fire near BVR missiles - CCM missiles are not really that C anymore.
The EF for instance has the Passive Pirate IRST & the near BVR ASRAAM with its IIR seeker. If memory serves, the same one as on the Aim-9X or a variant. Ranging may require a radar spot if a single EF or an offboard feed.
The Rafale has sensor fusion, and uses a variety of sensors including the OSF-IT for passive acquisition & the Mica IR.
So they don't have airframe stealth or radar LPI but have worked out different ways to attack.
Our MKI has a feature wherein it makes one look & then flies into the WEZ to attack with AA-10s.
The point though here is that CCM/Knife fight systems have become very very lethal. No options exist but to avoid this as far as possible.
Which is where the LCA's ITR + HOBS + Python-5 + datalink is so deadly.
Remember the 45 degree off boresight angle for the R-73E? So basically, a cone in front of the fighter, which you have to avoid. Don't cross the nose guys - you will be fired at.
Python-5.
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/spyder/
The PYthon 5 missile is Rafael's new very high agility dogfight air-to-air missile. PYthon 5 is a development of the PYthon 4 with a dual-band focal plane array and imaging infrared (IIR) seeker which gives a very wide field of view.
PYthon 5 retains the same airframe - with pitch and yaw control, delta-shaped canards and two roll control swept fins and the same rocket motor, warhead and fuse - as the PYthon 4 missile. The wide field of view allows LOAL at an angle of more than 100° off boresight. The dual-band seeker gives increased detection range, improved target discrimination against background clutter and a lower false target acquisition rate.
In LOAL mode, the target data is transferred from the command and control unit via the launcher to the missile. The missile's guidance and control systems are active for a three times longer period than for the earlier PYthon, enabling the missile to counter targets making evasive manoeuvres. The high explosive fragmentation warhead is fitted with an active laser proximity fuse.
So, that's 100 degrees off the front of the aircraft nose, on either side. The Dash helmet sight can literally allow you to look sideways & fire the missile.
Why would you stick around? If you are a well drilled LCA pilot who goes up against aircraft superior to the JF-17 (in the IAF) & F-16s (RSAF visits KKD regularly), what do you think you will pick up?
Does the PAF or PLAAF have the same benefit? Can they find opponents (NATO ones) who regularly train against them with such capabilities? The Turkish AF is the only one & they can host only a few PAF pilots a year. Red Flag is so expensive, we go once in 5 years. PAF will have similar limitations.
This is why I said the LCA HOBS+Python-5 combo (when considered with IAF standards & LCA design is a sure shot). Once it enters widespread service, we will see many many surprised MiG/Sukhoi and other drivers who struggle to pick up small LCAs & discover in post mission briefing that the ACMI shows firing solutions generated repeatedly.
Their true worth or actual kill probablity can only be determined in actual combat if indeed any of us have access to such classified information..like how many missiles fired..how many kills..etc etc. Unless u can provide hard data of the type requested , ur kill % will be only theoritical at best.
These missiles are tested against representative targets utilizing a variety of countermeasures & against a variety of targets firing mission profiles. Again, search for Aim-9x testing & you'll get a very good idea of what's done. The US is generally far ahead of the rest of the world & hence is ok with sharing a plethora of details on test profiles and capabilities.
DRDO too does this (which IMO is more a function of them having to prove themselves to a wary customer).
Coupled with hard tests (physical), the simulations are run over countless iterations mimicking a range of profiles. The tests are then done at extreme points of the performance envelope (to prove as many complex test points as possible, because each missile round can cost up to a million $).
For instance, Python-V is a development of the Python-4 with a new seeker and more improvements. The Python-4:
Kopp wrote:The intent of the designers was to produce a missile which can not only be shot from a wider range of angles than earlier missiles, but which can also maintain track on a highly manoeuvrable high G target engaged during the merge or opening phase of an engagement. A passing target on a reciprocal heading can be engaged in most of the forward hemisphere, if the Python fails its first opportunity to hit, it will maintain track on the target and continue a tail chase geometry pursuit on a reciprocal heading to the launch aircraft, running down the target for a tail-aspect hit. The missile is claimed to have sufficient turning performance to defeat high G evasive manoeuvre by any existing fighter aircraft. Existing ACM experience with the missile suggests a typical engagement duration of much less than 30 seconds.
Now, the best way to avoid such a missile is to hit your opponent first (which is where TVC on Su-30 MKI comes in when mixed with HOBS missiles and HMS) or BVR & then scram.
Otherwise, you have Python-5. Other guy has Aim-9X. It all comes down to training, luck, airframe performance & such a myriad mix of factors that the attrition rates will zoom.
Until & unless effective countermeasures are found (eg DIRCM, Flares, automated cues all in combo), the risks are just very high.
In fact - our TVC equipped Su-30s are probably the only fighters which can probably try and engage in extreme position changes to frustrate seeker & algorithm geometries. Again, the pilots need to be able to detect the launch though (which is where MAWS comes in) and the IAF needs to then implement these protocols based on technical data they have.
Needless to say i am enjoying ur technical poweress on matters related to missiles/ other aspect of air combat.
Thank you.
One interesting thing. IAF will be the one AF in the world with the most varied kind of advanced CMs in service.
ASRAAM, Mica-IR, Python-V and R-73E.
That should hopefully help them in devising countermeasures as well.
