undefined | Better HN

story

0 pointsdralley3y ago0 comments

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 Just because it hasn't happened much doesn't mean it's an outdated idea, it just means that powers with significant air forces haven't shot at each other lately.

0 comments

hef198983y 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.

jki2753y 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.

VLM3y 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...

Arrath3y ago

> We just spent 20 years using guns for close air support

In one of the most permissive airspaces possible.

Contrast that to Ukraine where we see CAS aircraft opting to lob unguided rockets from distance and bug out, lest some layer of the IADS knock them out of the sky. As near as I can tell, helicopters have more or less vanished.

We have to be careful taking too many lessons from a decades long counter insurgency effort forward and applying them to peer conflicts.

> 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...

Or would you be better of launching 4 missiles from standoff than risking a much more expensive airframe and pilot in close range knife fighting?

jki2753y ago

20mm is basically useless for CAS. I'm not talking about the A10 and its far more capable and designed for ground attack gun. The A-10 is not a fighter and not relevant in this discussion.

The AIM-9X is a WVR missile, I'm not talking about BVR at all.

dralleyOP3y 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.

stametseater3y 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.

wolverine8763y ago

What is that based on?

jeffdn3y ago

Both F-22 and F-35 have internal bays for weapons. Sure, they can also carry external loads that blow up their small RCS, but in a hypothetical scenario where that low RCS is still valuable (i.e. contested airspace), they wouldn’t be carrying external stores that make them vulnerable.

dragonwriter3y ago

> BVR engangements are happeneniing when the shooting side discovers the targeted side first.

Well, yes, also, most within-visual-range engagements probably also happen that way. Targeting the enemy first is kind of a big deal in air-to-air combat, and he who does it is probably going to be by virtue of doing so the shooting side.

> Not to forget, a F-22 or F-35 carrying serious load outs, tanks l, missiles, bombs, is pretty mich non-stealthy any way.

While both can carry external stores, the reason that they have internal weapons bays with significant capacity is specifically so that they can conduct combat operations while maintaining stealth. The tactical environment will determine how they are configured for any given mission.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

hef198983y ago

Not to forget, a F-22 or F-35 carrying serious load outs, tanks l, missiles, bombs, is pretty mich non-stealthy any way.

jki2753y 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.

VLM3y ago

We just spent 20 years using guns for close air support, wouldn't call that useless.

Arrath3y ago

> We just spent 20 years using guns for close air support

In one of the most permissive airspaces possible.

We have to be careful taking too many lessons from a decades long counter insurgency effort forward and applying them to peer conflicts.

> 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...

Or would you be better of launching 4 missiles from standoff than risking a much more expensive airframe and pilot in close range knife fighting?

jki2753y ago

20mm is basically useless for CAS. I'm not talking about the A10 and its far more capable and designed for ground attack gun. The A-10 is not a fighter and not relevant in this discussion.

The AIM-9X is a WVR missile, I'm not talking about BVR at all.

dralleyOP3y 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.

stametseater3y ago

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.

wolverine8763y ago

What is that based on?

jeffdn3y ago

dragonwriter3y ago

> BVR engangements are happeneniing when the shooting side discovers the targeted side first.

> Not to forget, a F-22 or F-35 carrying serious load outs, tanks l, missiles, bombs, is pretty mich non-stealthy any way.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse