ORIGINAL: Blu3wolf
could you be more specific on what you think is outdated, narrow minded or skewed?
I can give it a shot but of course I cant pen down all my thoughts.
The paper notes "IFF is still not considered reliable today" and for that refers to sources from 1993 and 1985. Even in 2005 that seems a bit dated but it's now 2014! Is IFF easy, no. But there have been and continue to be improvements. Then it also says that evidence to support this is that other systems like AWACS need to be present for IDing. I do not understand why it is a problem to have AWACS and others around for improved ID capability. This is highly likely in a modern air war. And even in a severely contested environment without AWACS there are still various ways.
I also don't like the assumption that an enemy is always going to be aware that he's being targeted, and if not it's training failure or equipment failure. Very easy to say at 1G.
I dont see why it is an issue that AWACS and NCTR were not in original BVR theory. I guess he's trying to say that original BVR theory was not feasible at the time. I dont disagree with that at all but I dont think it's relevant for a present day BVR debate.
Post desert storm engagements, there is no info on range or the situation of shots (especially the Southern watch ones) that may have influenced the situation, so I think it is stretching to try and draw a conclusion (yes he says "would appear" but still it's reads like a conclusion) that there is a continuing dismal BVR track record, even though there is no real info about the shots. They might have been very long range with a known low pk but taken for specific reason, we dont know, and as such i think it is a stretch to draw conclusions based on it. In fact, even for the Desert Storm shots there is still not all that much info. Aspect wise, tail on shots are always tricky. How many of the misses are low PK shots against fighters running full burner towards the Iranian border? I don't know. I still need to get the book "Debrief", it might help.
Counterarguments and responses. The first one I'm really not sure what he is trying to express.
Second one: Let me be clear, I completely agree that the "initial BVR promise" made before Vietnam etc was stupid and completely not met. I'm just talking about how I dont necessarily think everything still applies today. Again: I don't see the problem with having AWACS and NCTR and I think the "requiring an incompetent enemy" line is an overly quick conclusion.
Third counterargument and response about trashed shots being useful to gain initiative: Assumptions again being made about IFF. Big part of BVR lack of opportunities is the lack of full up BVR-able wars.
Assumptions being made about Home on Radar missiles. He seems to assume that these will materialize as a credible threat with a greater range than radar guided missiles. But of course, being able to remain silent is great, ARMs or not.. And perhaps possible but again the paper is almost ten years old and development doesn't stop.
Recommendations: 1) yes training is important. I fully agree training needs enough money. But just training is not going to win it, you do need to stay on the technological leading edge.
2) agreed. Doesn't mean you shouldn't keep developing improved systems.
3) assumptions about IFF technoloy again
4) a crude remark I think. Some of those weapons still need an air platform, other threats still need/are air platforms. How does he propose to take it out. With AIM-9 armed F-16As? I do not agree with his implied assumption that the air to air ARM will necessarily be able to defeat the AIM-120 equipped Raptor.
5) I'll take one F-22 over 5 lightweight F-5s any day.
6) I think I have already mentioned my complete shock at this seriously being in there with these pictures. As far as the actual argument goes, targeting pods, IRSTs and other means are not in his equation here.
So what is my problem with this paper? (besides the MiG-29 pics lol) I am fine with the talk about how in Vietnam and Desert Storm etc it wasnt all that awesome. I agree. And that is almost 25 years+ ago.
But I do not agree with reading this paper and concluding that BVR today is useless and that these missiles are crap. The "problem" is that there hasn't been a full fangs out, gloves come off kind of air war for a long time. In Command we can simulate that though. BVR needs this kind of war to shine. It needs a clear cut enemy threat, that enables ROEs to be set and BVR to kick into action. Is that likely to happen? In a China v USA scenario yes those ROEs are likely imo. Have we seen anything like that? No (I'm glad btw). As said earlier in an excellent post by Showtime (nice name, makes me think of Red Flag, though I guess it refers to the Vietnam F-4 3 kill?), they really wouldnt keep doing this if it didnt work. Even though there hasnt been a BVR war, the US does plenty of
Combat Archer action to have some idea of what these missiles can and cannot do (142 AIM-120 shots just in FY09). If they were truly crap they'd stop. But they havent. And neither have "the others". To seemingly suggest that the AIM-9 armed light weight fighter is the solution is pure madness and suggests to me that he has not been in the cockpit for a current day air to air (training) scenario. Be it a 2v2 or full up Red Flag DCA.
Again, some (not all) points not taken into account:
- AIM-120 abilities and developments vs legacy AIM-7. Active vs semi-active missiles is not even talked about.
- Assumptions about IFF abilities are not up to date.
- Datalinks are among other things an extremely SA enhancing tool and are not covered.
- Targeting Pods, Infrared Search and Track and other means may greatly aid SA, BDA and IFF.
- Assumptions are made about 100% effectiveness of target RWR at detecting tracking radar or missiles.
- Funnily enough nothing is said about jamming in the paper, that actually might make things trickier for BVR employment.
Do I think BVR is perfect and all missiles should hit? No. Do I think this paper is complete crap? No, it makes multiple good points. But I am not in favor of reading this paper and thinking: that's how BVR is today. I think it is more a paper about historical BVR development.
BVR needs a big war, with willing politicians, and not too many coalition countries, ideally USA only. Will it be perfect? no. Will it be a million times better than the alternative: you bet. (I'm not even sure what the alternative is actually, visual only AIM-9 merges?).
China, feel free to prove me wrong [;)]
Oh and about the software: do I think Command's PK is way off? No, it's pretty good. For some weapons it's better than others. The main weakness I think right now is that successive shots don't benefit from anything like energy degradation etc (yet), and that also for initial shots there is no difference based on configuration, speed, altitude and those sorts of things yet.
Hope that all makes some sense.
