Surviving 5th Generation A2A missile lunch

[GScholz]

What were the specific ROE for those individual conflicts?

You tell me. However it is irrelevant since they clearly didn't prevent BVR engagements.

Except, that ROE tends to prevent it from being used.

[Puma44]

You tell me. However it is irrelevant since they clearly didn't prevent BVR engagements.

What?  You don't have an answer? Your post implies some level of expertise on the subject.  Is that not the case?  It is relevant in that ROE applies to any missile employment. 

[GScholz]

You're the one claiming ROEs are restrictive, the burden of proof lies with you. The fact is that regardless of ROE the Sparrow and AMRAAM are the top killers in the last 20 years of air combat. That's the important statistic. If the ROEs were restrictive, they were evidently not followed. I chose to believe they weren't that restrictive.

[artik]

... The fact is that regardless of ROE the Sparrow and AMRAAM are the top killers in the last 20 years of air combat. That's the important statistic ...

Any references for this claim?

[GScholz]

Any references for this claim?

The Journal of Military Aviation, Vol 1, No. 1, Jan/Feb 92, by Bill Strandberg entitled "Desert Storm Shooters":


KILLS BY TYPE AIRCRAFT AND WEAPONS

06 x MiG-29 Fulcrum

... 4 x AIM-7 Sparrow Kills

... 1 x AIM-120 AMRAAM Kill

... 1 x Maneuvering Suicide

08 x F-1 Mirages

... 5 x AIM-7 Kills

... 2 x AIM-9 Kills

... 1 x Maneuvering Suicide

04 x MiG-21/F-7 Fishbed

... 3 x AIM-9 Kills

... 1 x AIM-7 Kill

08 x MiG-23 Flogger

... 6 x AIM-7 Kills

... 2 x AIM-9 Kills

03 x MiG-25 Foxbat

... 2 x AIM-7 Kills

... 1 x AIM-120 Kill

06 x Su-7/17/22

... 3 x AIM-7 Kills

... 2 x AIM-9 Kills

... 1 x Mk-83 Bomb

02 x Su-25 Frogfoot

... 2 x AIM-9 Kills

01 x IL-76 Candid transport

... 1 x AIM-7 Kill

01 x PC-9 Trainer

... pilot bailout

07 x Helo

... 2 x AIM-7 Kills

... 1 x AIM-9 Kills

... 2 x Gun Kills

... 1 x LGB

... 1 x Walleye

---------------------------------------

..... 24 x AIM-7 Kills (33 launches for 73%)

..... 02 x AIM-120 AMRAAM Kills (4 fired)

..... 12 x AIM-9 KIlls (14 launches for 86%)

..... 02 x 30mm Gun Kills

..... 02 x Maneuvering Suicides

..... 01 x Bailout

..... 03 x Air-to-Ground Ordnance

[Puma44]

You're the one claiming ROEs are restrictive, the burden of proof lies with you. The fact is that regardless of ROE the Sparrow and AMRAAM are the top killers in the last 20 years of air combat. That's the important statistic. If the ROEs were restrictive, they were evidently not followed. I chose to believe they weren't that restrictive.

You clearly don't know what you are talking about with regard to ROE and BVR missile employment.  Point proven.  You are dismissed.

[GScholz]

Sure Puma... Whatever you say. Fact: Half of the total kills in the Gulf War was done with BVR missiles, more than double those of dogfight missiles, so clearly the ROE did not "prevent it from being used"... but I'm sure you know better... Show us all how the ROE has prevented BVR missiles from being used in the last 20 years. Pretty please  

[Puma44]

Sure Puma... Whatever you say. Fact: Half of the total kills in the Gulf War was done with BVR missiles, more than double those of dogfight missiles, so clearly the ROE did not "prevent it from being used"... but I'm sure you know better... Show us all how the ROE has prevented BVR missiles from being used in the last 20 years. Pretty please 

Fact is you still don't understand ROE. 

[GScholz]

What do I not understand about ROE? Please enlighten me.

[morfiend]

Fact is you still don't understand ROE. 

  Puma,

  If I understand you,you never said the missles weren't used but that the ROE forbid BVR launches. So If I have that right all it means is the target must be identified under ROE.


   Of course I claim no expertise on this subject,just some common sense...



   

[GScholz]

http://www.fas.org/man/eprint/carpente.htm

An in-depth analysis of the BVR ROE of the Gulf War. In short the coalition fighters were required to identify the enemy by two separate means before releasing weapons. The USAF was able to do this at BVR range, but the USN did not due to systems limitations. So, USAF fighters positively identified enemy aircraft electronically at range and were free to engage them at BVR ranges, but the Navy could not. It became somewhat of a controversy.

[Puma44]

  Puma,

  If I understand you,you never said the missles weren't used but that the ROE forbid BVR launches. So If I have that right all it means is the target must be identified under ROE.


   Of course I claim no expertise on this subject,just some common sense...



   

You've got it.  ROE is an integral part of modern warfare.  Having a requirement to ID a target, whether it be VID or EID, is essential because no fighter pilot worth his salt wants to have a fratricide kill on his hands.  There are/have been scenarios were fighter jocks were required to VID even to shoot a BVR weapon because of the remote possibility of the good guys getting mixed in with the hostiles.  This can result in using a "heater" or going guns when the adversary steps into the phone booth for a knife fight because the radar shot is inside the radar missile's F-pole. 

ROE be very simple or very complex depending on the combat scenario, but it will be complied with or there can be dire consequences for the fighter jock's career,  not to mention the political fallout.   

[Rich46yo]

Yet there will be fratricide if we ever go against an enemy worth their salt in a complex electronic environment. I could have sworn we lost one fighter to our own missiles in Gulf-1, or suspected. Gulf-1 WAS a turning point for BVR but I dont think it gave a clear picture simply cause the Iraqi's werent worth a darn and did more running then fighting.

I was always under the assumption that all our fighters/missiles would be networked together, and with AWACs support , that this would be the revolutionary threshhold that would allow BVR to become commonplace and extremely effective. Am I wrong here?

Cant the missiles be launched from one fighter and vectored in by others on the network? Until they turn on their own radar/IR seekers?

[dedalos]

So just so I understand.

We spend billions on weapons we are not allowed to use.

we are too dumb to keep track of where our planes are.

If the bad guy has BVR weapons they can just fire all day long at us with no danger to them selfs.

And the F-pole lol.

 

[Puma44]

Yet there will be fratricide if we ever go against an enemy worth their salt in a complex electronic environment. I could have sworn we lost one fighter to our own missiles in Gulf-1, or suspected. Gulf-1 WAS a turning point for BVR but I dont think it gave a clear picture simply cause the Iraqi's werent worth a darn and did more running then fighting.

I was always under the assumption that all our fighters/missiles would be networked together, and with AWACs support , that this would be the revolutionary threshhold that would allow BVR to become commonplace and extremely effective. Am I wrong here?

Cant the missiles be launched from one fighter and vectored in by others on the network? Until they turn on their own radar/IR seekers?

Yeah, the Gulf War was akin to shooting ducks in a barrel for the NATO fighters.   As far as as the modern data link, I'm not aware of the capability to guide another fighter's weapons remotely within the network.