US Air-to-Air Missiles

Garry, but then with the advent of energetic all aspects short range AA missiles and helmet mounted sights, doesn't that mean an older fighter can go toe to toe with a 5th gen fighter in a dog fight?

A large driving force behind stealth fighters was the helmet mounted sight and high off boresight AAMs.

It is what kept the F-22 alive after the end of the cold war and the main driving force behind the F-35... the threat of the R-73 was a one all plane for plane situation... if the enemy can launch their AAM before your missile hits them there is a good chance both aircraft will be destroyed and the west could not afford to trade aircraft one for one.

You are comparing 1980s R-27 with 1960s Vietnam era AIM-7 Sparrow. 1980s AIM-7M had a much better kill rate in the 1991 Gulf war.

Not really... it was still being used against targets that generally were unaware they were being targeted.

Another critical aspect is that Sparrow needs to continuously paint the target to guide the sparrow to hit that target... tha makes it an easy target for the much faster R-27P passive radar homing AAM.

Well the pilot believes he physically dodged the Amraams - although was is not dark at the time, so I don't know how he might have seen the missiles in the first place?

Rate of turn for a missile is pathetic compared with almost any aircraft for BVR missiles... this is because of the combination of small control surfaces and high speed... outmanouvering does not mean dogfighting... it just means turning inside an arc that the missile cannot manage.

It is a problem with larger BVR missiles and a big reason why R-77 was fitted with its grid tail fins to allow harder turns in terminal guidance.

Ivan the Colorado wrote:
The AIM-7M had a much better kill rate in GW1 because it was used to hit archaic 3rd or already outdated and very early 4th generation aircraft at best. The early R-27 was being utilized against super-maneuverable Su-27s and MiG-29s. Of course there is going to be a difference in how they perform against their targets.

Yes, but the AIM-7M still worked though didn't it?
Most of the aircraft that the Iraqi air force was using in Desert Storm were absolutely not archaic or outdated. MiG-23ML, MiG-29, MiG-25PD, Mirage F1IQ, Su-24, Su-25, all leading frontline types in the WArsaw Pact as well. Although, yes, they were equipped with inferior EW, ECM. That was Iraq's poor choice in choosing Soviet technology in the 1980s. Should have bought American?

BlackArrow wrote:

Ivan the Colorado wrote:
The AIM-7M had a much better kill rate in GW1 because it was used to hit archaic 3rd or already outdated and very early 4th generation aircraft at best. The early R-27 was being utilized against super-maneuverable Su-27s and MiG-29s. Of course there is going to be a difference in how they perform against their targets.

Yes, but the AIM-7M still worked though didn't it?
Most of the aircraft that the Iraqi air force was using in Desert Storm were absolutely not archaic or outdated. MiG-23ML, MiG-29, MiG-25PD, Mirage F1IQ, Su-24, Su-25, all leading frontline types in the WArsaw Pact as well. Although, yes, they were equipped with inferior EW, ECM. That was Iraq's poor choice in choosing Soviet technology in the 1980s. Should have bought American?

Yes, they were archaic, there were no MiG-29 equipped with a radar, the main MIG-29 was a trainer version, congrats you killed inferior army with trainer jets with massivley decreased capabilities.

BlackArrow wrote:

Ivan the Colorado wrote:
The AIM-7M had a much better kill rate in GW1 because it was used to hit archaic 3rd or already outdated and very early 4th generation aircraft at best. The early R-27 was being utilized against super-maneuverable Su-27s and MiG-29s. Of course there is going to be a difference in how they perform against their targets.

Yes, but the AIM-7M still worked though didn't it?
Most of the aircraft that the Iraqi air force was using in Desert Storm were absolutely not archaic or outdated. MiG-23ML, MiG-29, MiG-25PD, Mirage F1IQ, Su-24, Su-25, all leading frontline types in the WArsaw Pact as well. Although, yes, they were equipped with inferior EW, ECM. That was Iraq's poor choice in choosing Soviet technology in the 1980s. Should have bought American?

They were archaic in the way that they were not upgraded and nearly all those aircraft were heavily downgraded monkey models. Aircraft must be upgraded thoughout their lifespan in order to have them win dogfights or aerial superiority. Iraq's aircraft were not upgraded to the point where they could have been a threat to any coalition aircraft. The American aircraft were very well equipped with the newest tech enabling them to achieve aerial superiority without a struggle. However, as other countries have proven (notably Germany with their MiG-29s), an up to date Soviet fighters with a well trained pilots pose quite a serious threat to USAF birds. Sorry about bursting your bubble.

Ivan the Colorado wrote:
They were archaic in the way that they were not upgraded and nearly all those aircraft were heavily downgraded monkey models. Aircraft must be upgraded thoughout their lifespan in order to have them win dogfights or aerial superiority. Iraq's aircraft were not upgraded to the point where they could have been a threat to any coalition aircraft. The American aircraft were very well equipped with the newest tech enabling them to achieve aerial superiority without a struggle.  Sorry about bursting your bubble.

Most equipment exported by the Soviet Union in the 1980s was 'downgraded' - another way of saying it was crap. But like I said that was there own fault for not buying American.

" However, as other countries have proven (notably Germany with their MiG-29s), an up to date Soviet fighters with a well trained pilots pose quite a serious threat to USAF birds."

That didn't happen in real life though. How many MiG-29s were shot down by F-16s and F-15s in the last 20 years or so?

BlackArrow wrote:

Ivan the Colorado wrote:
They were archaic in the way that they were not upgraded and nearly all those aircraft were heavily downgraded monkey models. Aircraft must be upgraded thoughout their lifespan in order to have them win dogfights or aerial superiority. Iraq's aircraft were not upgraded to the point where they could have been a threat to any coalition aircraft. The American aircraft were very well equipped with the newest tech enabling them to achieve aerial superiority without a struggle.  Sorry about bursting your bubble.

Most equipment exported by the Soviet Union in the 1980s was 'downgraded' - another way of saying it was crap. But like I said that was there own fault for not buying American.

" However, as other countries have proven (notably Germany with their MiG-29s), an up to date Soviet fighters with a well trained pilots pose quite a serious threat to USAF birds."

That didn't happen in real life though. How many MiG-29s were shot down by F-16s and F-15s in the last 20 years or so?

You fool really believe americans give to customers domestic versions and not downgraded stuff?

You only fool yourself, it is a common doctrine and a very good one to export only downgraded stuff to other countries, it was always the case and will always be the case.

BlackArrow wrote:

Ivan the Colorado wrote:
They were archaic in the way that they were not upgraded and nearly all those aircraft were heavily downgraded monkey models. Aircraft must be upgraded thoughout their lifespan in order to have them win dogfights or aerial superiority. Iraq's aircraft were not upgraded to the point where they could have been a threat to any coalition aircraft. The American aircraft were very well equipped with the newest tech enabling them to achieve aerial superiority without a struggle.  Sorry about bursting your bubble.

Most equipment exported by the Soviet Union in the 1980s was 'downgraded' - another way of saying it was crap. But like I said that was there own fault for not buying American.

" However, as other countries have proven (notably Germany with their MiG-29s), an up to date Soviet fighters with a well trained pilots pose quite a serious threat to USAF birds."

That didn't happen in real life though. How many MiG-29s were shot down by F-16s and F-15s in the last 20 years or so?

And how many aircrafts did US use with the assistance of AWACS against targets that didn't? How many Iraqi AWACS were used? How many of them had the datalinks that are on current Russian jets? What kind of setup were the MiG's? What kind of radar did they have installed? What kind of assistance did they get? How many of them were flying together in formation against US? How many ships did US use in order to help pilots track?

It has never been a 1 on 1 and it is easily admitable that US does have good command and control systems where they can communicate and transmit data to each other. Iraq didn't have any of that. Majority of Iraq's equipment were quite old and still not even on same soviet level. If Iraq on the other hand had the AWAC's, the command and control datalinks and what not, then I bet it would have posed a serious threat. But as much as was known about Iraq's military (airforce and ground forces), they never quite recovered from the Iran/Iraq war era and were about on par in both Desert Storm and the 2003 Iraq war.

Much like how old MiG-29's in Russian service are being phased out due to them also having inadequate avionics and other sensory and datalink capabilities. MiG-29M which started in the 80's had most to all of that. MiG-25's didn't and didn't get such datalink type equipment till the 80's when MiG-31's arrived and were able to share data with each other. By the early 2000's, mostly newer equipment that joined Russia had all of the same abilities but were in few numbers. Only recently did they get all that stuff.

On paper, in terms of plane on plane, Soviet/Russian stuff would easily compete and trump the westerners equipment (and vice versa). But with all these additional and communication proved priceless for the Americans in various conflicts. And most see that as well. Now all MiG-29's of modern use (SMT, M2, UPG, etc) all have such equipment where they can communicate with ground radar, AWAC's, etc. Hence why India has proven quite capable, even in exercises (Su-30MKI vs Typhoon recently where MKI's won).

As well, Su-24's and Su-25's are not meant for air to air engagement.

Yes, but the AIM-7M still worked though didn't it?

More often it didn't work.

Most of the aircraft that the Iraqi air force was using in Desert Storm were absolutely not archaic or outdated. MiG-23ML, MiG-29, MiG-25PD, Mirage F1IQ, Su-24, Su-25, all leading frontline types in the WArsaw Pact as well.

Third rate export models... the Iraqi MiG-29s had technology comparable to late model previous generation aircraft and in rather smaller numbers than the Warsaw Pact had.

Although, yes, they were equipped with inferior EW, ECM.

Inferior? You mean none.

That was Iraq's poor choice in choosing Soviet technology in the 1980s. Should have bought American?

Hahahaha... yeah, the americans sell their best stuff to countries they invade.... Ask Iran.

Most equipment exported by the Soviet Union in the 1980s was 'downgraded' - another way of saying it was crap. But like I said that was there own fault for not buying American.

Not all crap... Konkurs can penetrate Abrams tanks... of course the Saudis wouldn't buy downgraded export models they will have gotten upgraded improved models the US Army can't even afford and they are still trashed by ancient Soviet ATGMs...

That didn't happen in real life though. How many MiG-29s were shot down by F-16s and F-15s in the last 20 years or so?

The MiG-29 has shot down thousands of western aircraft in testing and western forces spent long hours trying to develop tactics to deal with it as a threat... something the Iraqi and Serbian pilots did not get to learn from. Of course what the west learned is use AMRAAM and don't get within visual range of a MiG-29 when flown by a competent pilot...

U.S. Navy reveals longest-range air-to-air missile at RIMPAC

The U.S. Navy has unveiled the AIM-174B, an air-launched variant of the versatile SM-6 missile, at the Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) exercise.

The AIM-174B, previously shrouded in mystery, has been spotted on U.S. Navy F/A-18E/F Super Hornet fighters during RIMPAC, the world’s largest international maritime exercise.

This missile is designed as a very long-range air-to-air missile, capable of engaging high-priority ground targets, such as air defence sites and warships, functioning in a quasi-ballistic manner.

Photographs from Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam, Hawaii, show an F/A-18E from Strike Fighter Squadron 192 (VFA-192), the “Golden Dragons,” equipped with a pair of AIM-174B missiles in training-round form. The unit is currently deployed as part of Carrier Air Wing 2 (CVW-2) aboard the aircraft carrier USS Carl Vinson (CVN-70). Another Super Hornet from VFA-2 “Bounty Hunters,” also attached to CVW-2, was seen carrying a pair of these missiles, modified for special tests.





https://bmpd.livejournal.com/4839647.html

This is obviously a response to the success of the R-37 in Ukraine. A quick response was the only NATzo SAM with a long reach - the navy's SM-6. Well the USN surely needs an interceptor with long range AAM's. Wonder if it's going to find it's way into the airforce?

This is rather sad... essentially what they have done would be the equivalent of the Russians taking a S-400 SAM and designing an air launched version of it and called it a new super AAM.

The irony though is that they are very careful to say it is the longest range AAM the US has ever had... not the worlds longest range AAM or anything like that.

I believe that thing is heavier than the R37M?

How would this affect the carrying options?

Makes you wonder though doesn't it... instead of handicapping your light and medium weight fighters with big heavy long range AAMs, wouldn't it make sense to go the other way and put these big heavy AAMs on heavier aircraft.

The MiG-31 carries the R-33 and R-37 because it can climb to altitude and it normally operates at supersonic speeds so its reach with these missiles will be rather better than a smaller lighter aircraft like the Mach 1.8 limited F-18 could manage.

I would think a Tu-22M3M would be a good platform for carrying S-400 and S-500 missiles for air launch.

The long range S-400 has a lofted trajectory and can reach 400km range targets, so being launched from 14km altitude (above the thickest part of the atmosphere) and flying at mach 1.6-1.8 (as opposed to sitting on the ground in a launcher), should massively increase the height and speed it could achieve... which should increase the potential flight range too.

Of course the massive range can be taken advantage of by having multiple mini air to air missiles as a payload so you can attack multiple targets rather than just hitting one.

But then replacing these solid rocket motor powered missiles with scramjet powered missiles will reduce size and weight dramatically while at the same time extending range and increasing flight speed.

The US does not have an equivalent or approximate version of the Mig-31.

kvs wrote:The US does not have an equivalent or approximate version of the Mig-31.  

They had the North American Rapier. But it got cancelled.

lancelot wrote:

kvs wrote:The US does not have an equivalent or approximate version of the Mig-31.  

They had the North American Rapier. But it got cancelled.

Nothing was ever deployed. There were all sorts of experimental craft in the USA and USSR. They are irrelevant for the current discussion.

It is obvious isn't it... it would have to be stealthy (sic) and super expensive.... they will bring the SR-71 back and make it a long range interceptor...

The US... when you can't come up with a good new idea.... raise the dead... and open the purse strings...

They also had the F-12 program. Which also got cancelled by McNamara.


Basically a fighter variant of the same airframe as in the SR-71.

As you say the YF-12 was developed as an interceptor and like the SR-71 - it was an incredible design for that time - and a major record breaker of note. It had one major flaw though. It took about 24 hours and more prepping to get this thing into the air! No good for an interceptor no matter how fast it could go.

The usual... a record breaker, but not fit for purpose.

Maybe they could buy some F-14s back from Iran...

Mir wrote:This is obviously a response to the success of the R-37 in Ukraine. A quick response was the only NATzo SAM with a long reach - the navy's SM-6. Well the USN surely needs an interceptor with long range AAM's. Wonder if it's going to find it's way into the airforce?

The believe the USAF is already fielding the AIM-260 for that long-range purpose.  The impressive thing about this AIM-174B is not only its ability to target long range aerial targets, but ground targets as well.  Its versatility in combining A2A & A2G duties is what makes it not only lethal, but quite unique as well.

It is crazy what the US spends on developing these weapons systems, but they certainly don't turn out to be monkeys that's for sure.  This is a lethal weapon not only for its A2A range, but because of that versatility and while it certainly appears to be the US' response to the R-37, along with the AIM-260 it's also challenging the Meteor's dominance.