6 ms·

Wikipedia disagrees and claims the last BVR missile engagement at BVR range was 30 years ago and BVR missiles are usually combat ineffective. https://en.wikipe

by VLM 4y ago

Wikipedia disagrees and claims the last BVR missile engagement at BVR range was 30 years ago and BVR missiles are usually combat ineffective. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beyond-visual-range_missile https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beyond-visual-range_missile BVR is kind of a cold war tech; "its WW3 shoot down all the soviet bombers" it doesn't have another mission at this time. To risky to use.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
mlyle 4y ago
Russia has been nibbling at and slowly attriting the Ukrainian air force with R-37's. BVR is a tricky technology. If your rules of engagement let you indiscriminately kill something without being sure of its identity, it's capable. But you need to not have normal air traffic in the area or not give a shit about the consequences or both.
dralley 4y ago
Wikipedia is wrong. Conflicts between two powers where both have fighter jets are infrequent so of course BVR engagements are infrequent, so saying "it hasn't happened in 30 years" would be misleading even if it wasn't incorrect. But it is incorrect, because most engagements in Ukraine ever since the first month of the war have been at beyond visual range. And should a conflict ever break out between China and the US, pretty much if not literally every air engagement would happen at beyond visual range. Just because it hasn't happened much doesn't mean it's an outdated idea, it just means that powers with significant air forces haven't shot at each other lately.
- hef19898 4y ago
  BVR engangements are happeneniing when the shooting side discovers the targeted side first. If they don't, it is visual range again. Obviously low observability aircraft, e.g. a F-35 or 22, have an advantage here. But then the other side can have AWACS to guide their attackers. And let's not forget, jets like a Rafale of Eurofighter, or even a F/A-18, have smaller radar signatures than a F-15. An once the stealth aircraft fired their BVR shots, everybody knows where they are. And, given that BVR kills are not instantly, the other side has a window to close in enough to shoot back. The Phantom (?) initially didn't have a cannon. Why? Becaise before Vietnam everybody thought dog fighting to be obsolete. Then the US Navy created Top Gun, becaise it turned out dog fighting very much did happen. Same for BVR, and as soon as the other side is stealthy enough to be only discovered up close, well, all engagements are going to happen at visiual range again anyway. Not to forget, a F-22 or F-35 carrying serious load outs, tanks l, missiles, bombs, is pretty mich non-stealthy any way.
  - jki275 4y ago
    The F4 didn't have a cannon, but the real problem in Vietnam was bad missiles, not lack of a gun, and the massive improvements in missile technology were what made the Phantom effective. A gun is almost utterly useless in modern fighter aircraft, especially for air to air engagements, especially in a world where the AIM-9X and its opposing side equivalents exist. You will never, even WVR, even if you graduated TOPGUN, get into a position where you can use a gun against an opponent with an AIM-9X on the rail.
    - dralley 4y ago
      And training. There was almost no tactics developed on how to use missiles properly, and no training. Which compounded with the technical limitations of those early missiles.
    - wolverine876 4y ago
      What is that based on?
    - stametseater 4y ago
      Note that although the F-4 did not initially have an internal gun, the F-4E variant did acquire an internal M61 20mm gattling cannon and a few kills were made with this gun during the Vietnam War. Also, earlier Phantoms could be equipped with an M61 in a gun pod slung under the jet, and some kills were made with those as well. From what I understand, these guns were desired by pilots but the results in practice were mixed. And apparently ground crews hated dealing with the gun pods.
    - VLM 4y ago
      We just spent 20 years using guns for close air support, wouldn't call that useless. The problem with BVR is there's zero room for risk and zero room for error and BVR missiles are pretty random/shotgun weapons. If BVR missiles are only effective 1/3 of the time you're better off going non-BVR and using your logistical might to put 3x the number of planes in the air...
      - 4y ago
kevbin 4y ago
Indiana Jones captures the benefits of stand-off weapons here https://youtu.be/vdnA-ESWcPs?t=120 https://youtu.be/vdnA-ESWcPs?t=120

by VLM 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

mlyle 4y ago

Russia has been nibbling at and slowly attriting the Ukrainian air force with R-37's. BVR is a tricky technology. If your rules of engagement let you indiscriminately kill something without being sure of its identity, it's capable. But you need to not have normal air traffic in the area or not give a shit about the consequences or both.

dralley 4y ago

Wikipedia is wrong. Conflicts between two powers where both have fighter jets are infrequent so of course BVR engagements are infrequent, so saying "it hasn't happened in 30 years" would be misleading even if it wasn't incorrect. But it is incorrect, because most engagements in Ukraine ever since the first month of the war have been at beyond visual range. And should a conflict ever break out between China and the US, pretty much if not literally every air engagement would happen at beyond visual range. Just because it hasn't happened much doesn't mean it's an outdated idea, it just means that powers with significant air forces haven't shot at each other lately.

hef19898 4y ago
BVR engangements are happeneniing when the shooting side discovers the targeted side first. If they don't, it is visual range again. Obviously low observability aircraft, e.g. a F-35 or 22, have an advantage here. But then the other side can have AWACS to guide their attackers. And let's not forget, jets like a Rafale of Eurofighter, or even a F/A-18, have smaller radar signatures than a F-15. An once the stealth aircraft fired their BVR shots, everybody knows where they are. And, given that BVR kills are not instantly, the other side has a window to close in enough to shoot back. The Phantom (?) initially didn't have a cannon. Why? Becaise before Vietnam everybody thought dog fighting to be obsolete. Then the US Navy created Top Gun, becaise it turned out dog fighting very much did happen. Same for BVR, and as soon as the other side is stealthy enough to be only discovered up close, well, all engagements are going to happen at visiual range again anyway. Not to forget, a F-22 or F-35 carrying serious load outs, tanks l, missiles, bombs, is pretty mich non-stealthy any way.
- jki275 4y ago
  The F4 didn't have a cannon, but the real problem in Vietnam was bad missiles, not lack of a gun, and the massive improvements in missile technology were what made the Phantom effective. A gun is almost utterly useless in modern fighter aircraft, especially for air to air engagements, especially in a world where the AIM-9X and its opposing side equivalents exist. You will never, even WVR, even if you graduated TOPGUN, get into a position where you can use a gun against an opponent with an AIM-9X on the rail.
  - dralley 4y ago
    And training. There was almost no tactics developed on how to use missiles properly, and no training. Which compounded with the technical limitations of those early missiles.
  - wolverine876 4y ago
    What is that based on?
  - stametseater 4y ago
    Note that although the F-4 did not initially have an internal gun, the F-4E variant did acquire an internal M61 20mm gattling cannon and a few kills were made with this gun during the Vietnam War. Also, earlier Phantoms could be equipped with an M61 in a gun pod slung under the jet, and some kills were made with those as well. From what I understand, these guns were desired by pilots but the results in practice were mixed. And apparently ground crews hated dealing with the gun pods.
  - VLM 4y ago
    We just spent 20 years using guns for close air support, wouldn't call that useless. The problem with BVR is there's zero room for risk and zero room for error and BVR missiles are pretty random/shotgun weapons. If BVR missiles are only effective 1/3 of the time you're better off going non-BVR and using your logistical might to put 3x the number of planes in the air...
    - 4y ago

kevbin 4y ago

Indiana Jones captures the benefits of stand-off weapons here https://youtu.be/vdnA-ESWcPs?t=120 https://youtu.be/vdnA-ESWcPs?t=120