4 ms·

The usefulness of long range missiles depends on the rules of engagement. If the F-35 will be allowed to shoot targets over the horizon based only on instrumen

The usefulness of long range missiles depends on the rules of engagement. If the F-35 will be allowed to shoot targets over the horizon based only on instruments, it will most probably work as intended. If visual confirmation will be required, it will be a boondoggle.

a_crc 5y ago
Could you expand on this? I'm struggling to imagine a realistic scenario where visual confirmation of a target would be a requirement. I also don't see why an F-35 is at a major disadvantage inside visual range of a target. (FYI Visual range is farther than short range air to air missiles and much farther than gun range.)
- hef19898 5y ago
  Roughly, because the stealthier an aircraft is the less maneuverable it an be. Also, you need ammunition for a dog fight, which is mostly carried on the wings negating any stealth characteristics. And large internal bays make an aircraft less maneuverable.
- throwawayffffas 5y ago
  The AIM-54 Phoenix was used 2 times with exactly zero kills, because of ID concerns[1]. You don't just go around firing missiles to radar tracks you can't identify. [1] by the US, Iran has used it more with more success. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-54_Phoenix#U.S._combat_experience https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-54_Phoenix#U.S._combat_exp...
  - a_crc 5y ago
    The article you linked makes it sound like sensor and rocketry failures on some platforms that were retired 15 years ago, nothing to do with a general fear of BVR missile use. Also I believe the willingness to engage unidentified radar tracks has more to do with the nature of the conflict. I doubt the same restraint would be shown in a war against a near peer foe.
    - throwawayffffas 5y ago
      The point was not the zero kills, the point is that the US navy decided to use them in only two occasions. In the case of the US involved conflicts it was working with allies and fighters lacking modern IFF that made the likelihood of friendly fire or collateral losses unacceptable to them. It's a matter of acceptable risks. The AIM-54 was designed with a world war III in mind, employed in the middle of the ocean in closed airspaces were unidentified contacts could be treated as hostile with minimum political consequences. The point I was making is here is an example of a time a major force decided not to use their prime BVR missile because of target identification concerns.
      - a_crc 5y ago
        As a counter example, the US has continued to use the BVR AIM-120 even after accidentally shooting down one of their own helicopters in an IFF failure. [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-120_AMRAAM#United_States_of_America https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-120_AMRAAM#United_States_o...
        throwawayffffas 5y ago
        In the particular case the missile was used after visual identification [1]. > The two F-15s now initiated a visual identification (VID) pass of the contact. > Wickson's VID pass was conducted at a speed of about 450 knots (520 mph; 830 km/h), 500 feet (150 m) above and 1,000 feet (300 m) to the left of the helicopters. Now I am not saying there is no room for BVR, ofcourse there is. The 2 tracks in formation coming from Russian airspace pinging you with their Russian military radars are definitely Russian fighters. But there are also a lot of times where there has to be a visual id. A military jet with it's radars turned off is almost impossible to tell apart from a civilian jet based on radar data alone, and everyone errs on the side of caution, of course the side of caution occasionally is to fire first and id later[2][3]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_Black_Hawk_shootdown_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_Black_Hawk_shootdown_inci... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655 [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airliner_shootdown_incidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airliner_shootdown_inc...
- greedo 5y ago
  AIM-9X has a 22 mile range...
  - a_crc 5y ago
    The horizon is hundreds of miles away at altitude. You have to consider that visual range includes optical enhancement (telephoto lens etc.)
    - greedo 5y ago
      IRST can help, but it's like viewing the world through a straw. It works best when cued by other systems. I'm unaware of any telephoto systems in use since the F-14 was retired (obviously excluding the few airframes Iran might still be using). Unaided pilot vision is unlikely to spot a target at 22 miles without some type of guidance.
      - a_crc 5y ago
        True overall, (although don't discount the effect of a pair of binoculars in the cockpit) but in this case we're talking about intercepting a radar target for visual confirmation. If you have a radar track, by definition you would have the type of guidance you need to put other sensors on target.
captainredbeard 5y ago
Air-to-air combat has been beyond visual range (BVR) for ages now.
- hef19898 5y ago
  There was not a lot of air-to-air combat between near-peer air forces going on in the last decades, was there? What little air combat we had was between top notch fighters and crew, supported by AWACS and all the fancy stuff that comes with it, against badly trained and coordinated almost obsolete fighters. Anti-air systems were the main concern.

a_crc 5y ago

Could you expand on this? I'm struggling to imagine a realistic scenario where visual confirmation of a target would be a requirement. I also don't see why an F-35 is at a major disadvantage inside visual range of a target. (FYI Visual range is farther than short range air to air missiles and much farther than gun range.)

hef19898 5y ago
Roughly, because the stealthier an aircraft is the less maneuverable it an be. Also, you need ammunition for a dog fight, which is mostly carried on the wings negating any stealth characteristics. And large internal bays make an aircraft less maneuverable.
throwawayffffas 5y ago
The AIM-54 Phoenix was used 2 times with exactly zero kills, because of ID concerns[1]. You don't just go around firing missiles to radar tracks you can't identify. [1] by the US, Iran has used it more with more success. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-54_Phoenix#U.S._combat_experience https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-54_Phoenix#U.S._combat_exp...
- a_crc 5y ago
  The article you linked makes it sound like sensor and rocketry failures on some platforms that were retired 15 years ago, nothing to do with a general fear of BVR missile use. Also I believe the willingness to engage unidentified radar tracks has more to do with the nature of the conflict. I doubt the same restraint would be shown in a war against a near peer foe.
  - throwawayffffas 5y ago
    The point was not the zero kills, the point is that the US navy decided to use them in only two occasions. In the case of the US involved conflicts it was working with allies and fighters lacking modern IFF that made the likelihood of friendly fire or collateral losses unacceptable to them. It's a matter of acceptable risks. The AIM-54 was designed with a world war III in mind, employed in the middle of the ocean in closed airspaces were unidentified contacts could be treated as hostile with minimum political consequences. The point I was making is here is an example of a time a major force decided not to use their prime BVR missile because of target identification concerns.
    - a_crc 5y ago
      As a counter example, the US has continued to use the BVR AIM-120 even after accidentally shooting down one of their own helicopters in an IFF failure. [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-120_AMRAAM#United_States_of_America https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-120_AMRAAM#United_States_o...
      - throwawayffffas 5y ago
        In the particular case the missile was used after visual identification [1]. > The two F-15s now initiated a visual identification (VID) pass of the contact. > Wickson's VID pass was conducted at a speed of about 450 knots (520 mph; 830 km/h), 500 feet (150 m) above and 1,000 feet (300 m) to the left of the helicopters. Now I am not saying there is no room for BVR, ofcourse there is. The 2 tracks in formation coming from Russian airspace pinging you with their Russian military radars are definitely Russian fighters. But there are also a lot of times where there has to be a visual id. A military jet with it's radars turned off is almost impossible to tell apart from a civilian jet based on radar data alone, and everyone errs on the side of caution, of course the side of caution occasionally is to fire first and id later[2][3]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_Black_Hawk_shootdown_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_Black_Hawk_shootdown_inci... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655 [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airliner_shootdown_incidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airliner_shootdown_inc...
greedo 5y ago
AIM-9X has a 22 mile range...
- a_crc 5y ago
  The horizon is hundreds of miles away at altitude. You have to consider that visual range includes optical enhancement (telephoto lens etc.)
  - greedo 5y ago
    IRST can help, but it's like viewing the world through a straw. It works best when cued by other systems. I'm unaware of any telephoto systems in use since the F-14 was retired (obviously excluding the few airframes Iran might still be using). Unaided pilot vision is unlikely to spot a target at 22 miles without some type of guidance.
    - a_crc 5y ago
      True overall, (although don't discount the effect of a pair of binoculars in the cockpit) but in this case we're talking about intercepting a radar target for visual confirmation. If you have a radar track, by definition you would have the type of guidance you need to put other sensors on target.

captainredbeard 5y ago

Air-to-air combat has been beyond visual range (BVR) for ages now.

hef19898 5y ago
There was not a lot of air-to-air combat between near-peer air forces going on in the last decades, was there? What little air combat we had was between top notch fighters and crew, supported by AWACS and all the fancy stuff that comes with it, against badly trained and coordinated almost obsolete fighters. Anti-air systems were the main concern.