Indranil wrote:I am still not sure Karan, why I could need more than say 6 missiles. By the way that interview was top class the interviewer was a Top Gun instructor and the interviewee was a TACDE commander. So both were men who played a role in strategy formation for their respective institutions, US Navy and Indian Airforce. So, you and me are far less informed. I love that podcast. Very informed and non political.
C'mon Indranil, this is "argument by authority" as you surely know. Its a fallacy or has limitations, when used as the primary support, when evidence exists to the contrary, and there is ample evidence to state that the actual institutions in question including the USN, USAF, IAF are all working to increase payloads and missiles. https://www.popularmechanics.com/milita ... new-f-15x/
This is merely one proposal to add more AAMs to the F-15 to support AAM limited F-22s.
Furthermore, by the same standards, the IAF has doubled down on the TVC Flanker with a far greater AAM load and routinely displays its A2A superiority loadout with multiple AAMs. So, in short, AM Masand has his view as a skilled MiG-29 expert, but it is not the official standardized view of the IAF or the Flanker folks who swear by its large payload and also, its TVC.https://qphs.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg- ... 687a34f7-chttps://hushkit.net/2019/07/20/flying-f ... interview/
Is TVC useful in air combat? If so, how should it be used?
“Most people think that it’s not! My suspicion is that’s because it requires skill to put it to good use. Once two beasts of this kind engage in combat, it goes down to the wire and in the low speed regime the TVC allows you just the edge you’ve been looking for. Just 300m is enough to get to the right angle and Boom!”
Mind you, its not just this regime the TVC will be useful in as I mentioned above. Steps are being put in place to enable it, budget permitting.
Second, the interviewer does not agree/disagree with AM Masand anywhere in detail, if we are precise. He is *very canny* and is maintaining his force's OPSEC. He says nothing about the baseline MiG-29s well known limitations regarding avionics and weaponry, given the fact the US had a bunch of Moldovan MiG-29s in the US, and exercised extensively with the Germans. The Luftwaffe opened up the MiG-29s entire bag of tricks to the USAF, RAF and all NATO AF. Space prohibits me from even mentioning some of the stunts they pulled, but many in NATO went into war against the Serbs knowing the ins and outs of the MiG-29 and its WCS.
AM Masand claiming limited AAMs are more than sufficient also has one more dimension. It needs to be kept in mind that the MiG-29 originally fielded the R-27R, a missile with significant limitations given its a SARH round and widely compromised in many ways. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Tolkachev
Of course, he may be now referring to the MiG-29 Upgrade, but again, the kinematics of its primary AAM, the RVV-AE are limited and the Russians themselves are now seriously developing the old R-27AE into an alternative.
Why would one need more "more than 6 missiles" well, the actual operational usage of these missiles as on Feb 27th and many other incidents in conflicts between well-trained and capable foes, have shown these AAMs are not single shot wunder weapons. They have hang-fires, get seduced by chaff (as did the AMRAAM on Feb 27th by the PAFs own admission), classic evasion tactics against FCRs, the list is long and ever increasing. Also, you have to understand surely, that given how flexible they are, their usage increases too.
The only real "win" in which these AAMs invariably win is where situational awareness is seriously compromised, exactly what the PAF tried to achieve vs the IAF by swarming the Su-30s with AAMs in the hope they'd lose track. However, their risk aversion was also obvious. They refused to get into the merge, again, they didn't use BVR missiles to set up the merge. The PAF knew the capabilities of a TVC Flanker and avoided the merge, going so far as to fire from RMax to try and stay out of the Su-30s BVR armament envelope.
Lastly, AM Masand notes, the MiG-29s had significant issues maintaining their mission requirements against Flankers. He mentions fuel as a key constraint. Yes, the MiG-29s with multiple FT, and limited AAM loadout vs a Flanker with a heavy fuel loadout and full pylon availability. Tell me, who wins? The Flanker which is able to launch multiple AAMs of different seeker diversity to increase Pk, and disengage, engage at will without worrying overmuch about fuel, or the AAM limited, fuel limited MiG-29?
As Kopp noted in his bit about the advantages of multiple rounds:
The mathematics of multiple round missile engagements are unambiguous - the size of a missile salvo launched is a stronger driver of success than the actual kill probability of the individual missiles.
In this fashion the aircraft being targeted has a difficult problem as it must jam, decoy and/or outmanoeuvre three or four tightly spaced inbound missiles.
Also , bear in mind that most airforces will have (at best) 2:1 ratio between BVR missiles and aircrafts and (4:1) ratio of WVR missiles and aircrafts. So, I don't see a sustainable fight strategy which banks on firing a lot of missiles per sortie.
I don't know where you are getting these numbers from, but they are mistaken. The actual ratio of BVR missiles to aircraft or WVR missiles to aircraft depends on the budget, basically affordability.
A fighting strategy which "wins" is completely dependent on the force with the better weapons, tactics, and deeper inventory, as the actual expenditure of all munitions will be heavy. Unlike most A2G ordinance, these missiles are being used against evasive targets.
Srai sahab, how many AMRAAMs does PAF have? If this is their strategy three cheers to them!!!
500 AMRAAMs purchased for a fighter fleet which is around 80 airframes strong. They made a good decision and quite frankly, $2.5 Million or thereabouts spent to knock down a $70Mn asset, invaluable aircrew and land a propaganda victory, is peanuts to be honest.