BVR future or not?

[Spetsznaz]

My question is with newer and better fighters like the F-22 will all air combat be fought with BVR? ACM and BFM will no longer be required?

With more sophisticated Missiles and radars, wouldn't missile evasion and jamming of BVR threats also get more sophisticated? Will air combat see dog fighting once again?

One more questions related to this, how difficult would it be to outmaneuver a missile so that it loses lock, and how effective is Chaff?

 

[Bonza]

My question is with newer and better fighters like the F-22 will all air combat be fought with BVR? ACM and BFM will no longer be required?

With more sophisticated Missiles and radars, wouldn't missile evasion and jamming of BVR threats also get more sophisticated? Will air combat see dog fighting once again?

One more questions related to this, how difficult would it be to outmaneuver a missile so that it loses lock, and how effective is Chaff?

This is just conjecture but given the advancing pace of weapons and sensor technology it wouldn't surprise me at all if air combat became increasingly BVR. However one can certainly see the close-range fight as an eventuality when one considers the increasing number of countries/companies working in the LO space.

I don't know how effective chaff is against modern missiles, but outmaneuvering one is, from what I understand, very difficult indeed. I've seen numbers thrown around for the AMRAAM as being 30G capable, and modern close-range missiles even higher (though of course the mere fact that these numbers are in the public domain makes them suspect). In addition, certain missiles like Meteor (because it keeps itself powered in flight for much longer than, say, AMRAAM) are designed to have far more energy remaining when they reach the terminal homing phase than their predecessors, making them even harder to avoid.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Short answer: Both sides stealth a/c = less BVR fighter combat. Could be matter of time.

Long answer:
I think statistically, BVR has become the primary feature of A2A combat. See slides 20 to 25 per rand analysis for statistical data on BVR.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/files/2008_RAND_Pacific_View_Air_Combat_Briefing.pdf

Fighter load-outs and doctrine will determine missile kills and load-outs are not only increasingly BVR-skewed, doctrine dictates first choice = BVR in a fox-three so BVR kills can only go up.

It makes sense if BVR A2A become more effective.

Defensive measures will also become more effective. That's a given. It will apply to both BVR and WVR missiles and in an increasingly sophisticated manner, so that's a given too.

Even if pk of BVR missiles is reduced by counter-measures, so long as pk is positive, BVR missiles are still necessary even if there's a gap in pk between BVR missiles and WVR missiles. A pilot that faces an incoming missile will not be firing back soon even if the missile eventually misses.

Does BVR missile success = decline of WVR missiles? Not at this time imho.

Does BVR missiles = future fighter combat? Not necessarily because of stealth tech which will reduces detection range. Whilst stealth may reduce fighter combat distances, BVR missiles will still similarly be relevant as not all a/c are stealthy.

 

[Bonza]

Also of relevance to BVR combat is the increasing prevalence of AWACS systems, datalink technology enabling target information sharing between distant platforms, and even directed energy weapon development (an airborne laser, for example, could potentially deploy with an effective range measured in hundreds of kilometers).

The first two points in particular are important enablers for comprehensive BVR combat as they play a big part in giving an air combat system the information and flexibility of response necessary to prosecute BVR targets consistently.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Traditional awacs will face high risk in a stealth combat environment.

AWACs will probably evolve into stealthy a/c as well to eliminate this danger. However, continuous rotating beams will probably be replaced by more stealthy and directed search patterns to reduce detection or reduce risk of targeting by anti-radiation missiles.

Its a changing world.

DE is a very interesting field. DE weapons could be the future but its still a very very long way away from fighter combat application. Size is a constraint.

 

[Spetsznaz]

Short answer: Both sides stealth a/c = less BVR fighter combat. Could be matter of time.

Long answer:
I think statistically, BVR has become the primary feature of A2A combat. See slides 20 to 25 per rand analysis for statistical data on BVR.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/files/2008_RAND_Pacific_View_Air_Combat_Briefing.pdf

Fighter load-outs and doctrine will determine missile kills and load-outs are not only increasingly BVR-skewed, doctrine dictates first choice = BVR in a fox-three so BVR kills can only go up.

It makes sense if BVR A2A become more effective.

Defensive measures will also become more effective. That's a given. It will apply to both BVR and WVR missiles and in an increasingly sophisticated manner, so that's a given too.

Even if pk of BVR missiles is reduced by counter-measures, so long as pk is positive, BVR missiles are still necessary even if there's a gap in pk between BVR missiles and WVR missiles. A pilot that faces an incoming missile will not be firing back soon even if the missile eventually misses.

Does BVR missile success = decline of WVR missiles? Not at this time imho.

Does BVR missiles = future fighter combat? Not necessarily because of stealth tech which will reduces detection range. Whilst stealth may reduce fighter combat distances, BVR missiles will still similarly be relevant as not all a/c are stealthy.

I am assuming PK is Probability of Kill right?
And WVR is within visual range, I am guessing?

I think, if stealth is the future, getting close in WVR to get the enemy on Radar and to get a lock means we will see WVR more.

If an aircraft shoots a missile at BVR at another aircraft, the other aircraft can use more sophisticated chaff and out maneuver the missile, and so can the aircraft that shoot the missile in the first place.

So hypothetically speaking, is it possible that both aircraft will just continue evading missiles till they get into WVR, and start using the missiles in close and cannon?

Or am I wrong? Just taking a shoot in the dark

 

[Bonza]

Traditional awacs will face high risk in a stealth combat environment.

AWACs will probably evolve into stealthy a/c as well to eliminate this danger. However, continuous rotating beams will probably be replaced by more stealthy and directed search patterns to reduce detection or reduce risk of targeting by anti-radiation missiles.

Its a changing world.

DE is a very interesting field. DE weapons could be the future but its still a very very long way away from fighter combat application. Size is a constraint.

Agree on the DEW points, although size, while constraining the size of the platforms on which such a weapon can be deployed, may not necessarily constrain the deployment of the weapon itself. Instead we may see the requirements of such a weapon determining the size of future platforms, rather than platform size determining appropriate weapons fit.

A changing world, as you say - it will be very interesting to see how AWACs looks in the future. Distributed LO drone networks, perhaps?

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Good points. UAVs to perform radar searches. AEW to become passive network node just to consol the data from the UAVs.

Next gen MALD will do jamming on behalf...no reason why autonomous drones can't search an area of airspace. Not out of the question....

 

[Juramentado]

My question is with newer and better fighters like the F-22 will all air combat be fought with BVR? ACM and BFM will no longer be required?

With more sophisticated Missiles and radars, wouldn't missile evasion and jamming of BVR threats also get more sophisticated? Will air combat see dog fighting once again?

One more questions related to this, how difficult would it be to outmaneuver a missile so that it loses lock, and how effective is Chaff?

Never say never. F2T2EA and ROE sometimes will not allow a BVR shot and instead calls for close-in verification/classification of the target. By then, if it proves to be hostile, an SRM or guns engagement ensues. The last bird that I can think of that had long-range visual optics was the Tomcat with it's TCS, which sometimes helped against slower flying opponents to get an early indication of the threat. ACM will always taught because when technology fails, it still boils down to getting into the saddle and gunning the other guy. That's true even if the future is UAV only - the remote operator or the AI still has to known how to do this.

 

[STURM]

I don't know how effective chaff is against modern missiles, but outmaneuvering one is, from what I understand, very difficult indeed.

A very good question. Given however that chaff is still carried as a standard feature in all fighter jets, including I presume the Raptor, I would guess that chaff still has a role to play even against even the latest radar guided missiles.

Though the trend now is increasingly moving more and more towards BVR engagements, as shown in the 1st Gulf war, Bosnia and Kosovo, I think WVR engagements will still be around for quite a while, especially amongst non NATO air arms and those from the developing and 3rd World, due to a lack of resources to devote more training and acquire hardware geared towards BVR. As Juramentado pointed out ... it stills boild down to getting into the saddle and gunning the other guy when technology fails. But who knows, assuming that the Raptor, Typhoon and Rafale are not replaced by an unmanned platform in years to come, we may see future aircraft not being fitted with cannons at all. Given that it's virtually impossible to outmaneuver missiles like the Sidewinder X, ASRAAM and Archer, I would think that even future WVR engagements will be very bloody for all involved and will boil down to who fires first.

 

[Bonza]

Never say never. F2T2EA and ROE sometimes will not allow a BVR shot and instead calls for close-in verification/classification of the target. By then, if it proves to be hostile, an SRM or guns engagement ensues. The last bird that I can think of that had long-range visual optics was the Tomcat with it's TCS, which sometimes helped against slower flying opponents to get an early indication of the threat. ACM will always taught because when technology fails, it still boils down to getting into the saddle and gunning the other guy. That's true even if the future is UAV only - the remote operator or the AI still has to known how to do this.

The point should also be made that the increasing capabilities of sensor systems mean targets can be classified from further away, or the targeting data can be passed from a sensor platform to a BVR shooter without the shooter engaging its own sensors. Regarding instances where technology fails, it should also be mentioned that some sensor technology is actually getting more reliable, rather than less so (AESA versus legacy radar, for example) - so due to these two points I would think instances of the above would become less frequent rather than more frequent.

Add prevalent LO platforms to the mix though, and things change again... I think though the main threat to the dogfight's existence is battlespace management systems more so than an individual type of aircraft or weapon technology. When you add emerging sensor systems together with networking/information sharing capabilities and weapon system advances, you start getting a system where the overwhelming amount of information available on the battlespace will be such that close encounters between combat jets become less likely, because a) a more complete picture means the range of responses to a hostile aircraft opens up considerably, and a high-risk engagement like a dogfight will likely take a much lower priority than a BVR shot, and b) in such a system the priority will probably be killing aircraft (and I think this will ring doubly true for LO aircraft) on the ground, where they're vulnerable.

Of course it could be argued that this picture of the battlespace is compromised by LO aircraft and there will be no choice but to engage some of them at close range, but on a large scale I think the priority for killing LO aircraft will almost certainly be doing so while they're on the ground, in addition to attacking their support facilities and logistics chains. Doesn't matter how good your whiz-bang new LO fighter is if your runways are cratered, your munitions dumps are bombed and your fuel supply is on fire...

Just my thoughts, anyway. Your mileage may vary.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Agree with Juramentado, advanced visual processors like Sniper/Litening pods allow visual ID at extended ranges for air combat.

Its internal carriage for the 5th gen. The detection range can only get further with optics tech advancement.

 

[Spetsznaz]

The point should also be made that the increasing capabilities of sensor systems mean targets can be classified from further away, or the targeting data can be passed from a sensor platform to a BVR shooter without the shooter engaging its own sensors. Regarding instances where technology fails, it should also be mentioned that some sensor technology is actually getting more reliable, rather than less so (AESA versus legacy radar, for example) - so due to these two points I would think instances of the above would become less frequent rather than more frequent.

Add prevalent LO platforms to the mix though, and things change again... I think though the main threat to the dogfight's existence is battlespace management systems more so than an individual type of aircraft or weapon technology. When you add emerging sensor systems together with networking/information sharing capabilities and weapon system advances, you start getting a system where the overwhelming amount of information available on the battlespace will be such that close encounters between combat jets become less likely, because a) a more complete picture means the range of responses to a hostile aircraft opens up considerably, and a high-risk engagement like a dogfight will likely take a much lower priority than a BVR shot, and b) in such a system the priority will probably be killing aircraft (and I think this will ring doubly true for LO aircraft) on the ground, where they're vulnerable.

Of course it could be argued that this picture of the battlespace is compromised by LO aircraft and there will be no choice but to engage some of them at close range, but on a large scale I think the priority for killing LO aircraft will almost certainly be doing so while they're on the ground, in addition to attacking their support facilities and logistics chains. Doesn't matter how good your whiz-bang new LO fighter is if your runways are cratered, your munitions dumps are bombed and your fuel supply is on fire...

Just my thoughts, anyway. Your mileage may vary.

Wow, dude really great job, especially about hurting LO on the ground Did not even consider that.

But with more advanced jamming systems and countermeasures, hurting radar distance, wouldn't that make WVR even a bigger priority. If the world turns to BVR, than surprising someone with WVR is a great weapon.

 

[Bonza]

Wow, dude really great job, especially about hurting LO on the ground Did not even consider that.

But with more advanced jamming systems and countermeasures, hurting radar distance, wouldn't that make WVR even a bigger priority. If the world turns to BVR, than surprising someone with WVR is a great weapon.

Well, from what I understand of WVR combat with modern systems, it's an extremely high-risk environment. With helmet-mounted sights and high off-boresight missiles, as soon as someone can see you, you're very likely going to die. Modern WVR missiles like ASRAAM and AIM-9X have incredible agility (I've heard claims of 60G turns, with 90 degree off-boresight lock-on possible) and modern IR seekers are apparently very difficult to fool with flares.

So while it is certainly a fight that can bring big rewards, the risks are equally prevalent, so I think it would be difficult to prioritise this region of the fight when advanced, distributed sensor networks can potentially keep the BVR fight practical, as you'd have to accept significant risk on what are extremely expensive platforms. That's not to say the WVR fight isn't sometimes necessary, just that I would be surprised to see it take priority when the risks are so great. Granted these risks can be managed with various measures (one anecdote regarding the F-22 came from an RAAF officer, who said he hated flying against the thing in exercises because even when he could visually see it, he couldn't put a weapon system on it), so I could be wrong, but I'd be surprised to see the WVR fight take priority once more.

This is all just guesswork on my part anyway, I really don't know for sure. The next 10-15 years are going to be fascinating (and in my opinion revolutionary) in terms of technological progress, so who knows what the future air war will look like. It's very interesting stuff, anyway!

Here's a short video of some test shots of the AIM-9X, in which you can see a bit of the off-boresight capability (and includes a successful shot on a drone which is pumping out a solid stream of flares, if I remember correctly):

[nomedia]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpBpzuDRt0A[/nomedia]

 

[Spetsznaz]

Well, from what I understand of WVR combat with modern systems, it's an extremely high-risk environment. With helmet-mounted sights and high off-boresight missiles, as soon as someone can see you, you're very likely going to die. Modern WVR missiles like ASRAAM and AIM-9X have incredible agility (I've heard claims of 60G turns, with 90 degree off-boresight lock-on possible) and modern IR seekers are apparently very difficult to fool with flares.

So while it is certainly a fight that can bring big rewards, the risks are equally prevalent, so I think it would be difficult to prioritise this region of the fight when advanced, distributed sensor networks can potentially keep the BVR fight practical, as you'd have to accept significant risk on what are extremely expensive platforms. That's not to say the WVR fight isn't sometimes necessary, just that I would be surprised to see it take priority when the risks are so great. Granted these risks can be managed with various measures (one anecdote regarding the F-22 came from an RAAF officer, who said he hated flying against the thing in exercises because even when he could visually see it, he couldn't put a weapon system on it), so I could be wrong, but I'd be surprised to see the WVR fight take priority once more.

This is all just guesswork on my part anyway, I really don't know for sure. The next 10-15 years are going to be fascinating (and in my opinion revolutionary) in terms of technological progress, so who knows what the future air war will look like. It's very interesting stuff, anyway!

Here's a short video of some test shots of the AIM-9X, in which you can see a bit of the off-boresight capability (and includes a successful shot on a drone which is pumping out a solid stream of flares, if I remember correctly):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpBpzuDRt0A

How effective are countermeasures, especially chaff, going to be?

With higher risk of WVR warfare but higher payoff, it could be a dangerous gamble, but with a good win that will attract pilots?

 

[Bonza]

How effective are countermeasures, especially chaff, going to be?

With higher risk of WVR warfare but higher payoff, it could be a dangerous gamble, but with a good win that will attract pilots?

Not sure as to the effectiveness of chaff on modern radar-guided weapons, though it wouldn't surprise me if the next generation of missiles (google JDRADM) has a significantly improved capacity to discriminate between targets and countermeasures. As far as IR guidance goes, the modern missiles like ASRAAM are apparently very, very difficult to fool with flares.

I don't really know what you mean about attracting pilots? The whole "dangerous gamble" thing doesn't really seem like a good idea when you've got a 100 million dollar plane and a pilot with 2 million dollars worth of training (not an exaggeration) poured into him on the line... pilots take a lot of time and money to train. Putting them in a high risk position doesn't seem sensible unless those risks can be managed consistently - and the lethality, agility and accuracy of modern WVR weapons mean that consistency is harder to achieve. As I said previously though, this is just conjecture on my behalf.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

They have been saying WVR combat will go away for the last 60 years. But I think it will never go away completely, the US will learn the hard way time and time again.

The F-22 and F-35 both are able to do "dogfighting" with AIM-9X and 20/25mm cannon.

 

[Scorpion82]

Who knows how dogfights or better said WVR fighting will be defined in the future. For the foreseeable future close in combat remains to be relevant, albeit BVR combat will take the major share of aerial engagements. Who knows maybe they'll develop new sensor technologies which will make current stealth designs obsolete, but which will trigger new counters. It has ever been a race between sensors and their counters.

 

[Spetsznaz]

Who knows how dogfights or better said WVR fighting will be defined in the future. For the foreseeable future close in combat remains to be relevant, albeit BVR combat will take the major share of aerial engagements. Who knows maybe they'll develop new sensor technologies which will make current stealth designs obsolete, but which will trigger new counters. It has ever been a race between sensors and their counters.

Another big thing to look out for is how effective will ECM be? Are we going to have E-767(Just an example) capable of such powerful ECM, it significantly reduces the range of BVR?

 

[gf0012-aust]

A changing world, as you say - it will be very interesting to see how AWACs looks in the future. Distributed LO drone networks, perhaps?

That is exactly whats happening. AWACs are not just battlespace managers, but they will be hive managers of other sensors and arrays.

the use of UAVs to become airborne sensors hooked into the greater grid is a variation of what the BAMS philosophy is.

UAV's in a sense will be the 21st Cent version of the radar picket - much like ROV/UUV/USV's are becoming the radar/sensor/sonar picket for submarines.

the common key word is "dismount". UAV's in the grid will act very much like dismounts/pickets.

add in the fact that conformal arrays are starting to become a reality, then the AWACs will be changing in "looks" and capability.

ironically it could be harder for the VLO to see the AWACs based on future developments. A decent sized AWAcs (and that will be determined by physical size and onboard power) should have the first drop on a VLO.