Physics only support my arguement. Go look at the G forces an F-22/F-35/SU-57 + it’s pilot can handle and then look at the G forces that BVR missile can pull.
these BVR missiles are many times ramjet assisted to boost to Mach 3/4, but they simply cannot turn like a fighter jet can at that speed without being crushed.
This is why they aren’t as effective. You seem to think in your mind a BVR can pull same G forces as a ground base interceptor which is basically a BM converted to attack aerial targets. That can’t be further from the truth. BVR vs a ground based interceptor like Sayyad-3 or Patriot or Arrow or S-400 is night and day in terms of maneuverability with the win going to ground based.
Add to the fact that most modern fighters have afterburners and advanced warnings systems and any BVR missile even if traveling at Mach 3+ will take over 5 minutes to reach a fighter that is evading at 100KM in the opposite direction with afterburners on. That is assuming a worst case scenario that the pilot is not confident about the match up or risk/reward analysis and wants to exit the airspace.
Let that sink in for a moment and you will realize why BVR kills at long range is a myth.
So you proved my point even in case of F-22 he will go to Visual range and use a BVR or WVR to kill his target.
But it becomes a whole different ball game when it’s F-22 vs F-22 (I’m using an example). That’s when BVR is less and less likely without powerful ground based radar feeding tracking data. The seeker on that missile or the F-22 is simply not powerful enough to pick up a similar object over 40KM a way.
That’s what some of you fail to grasp. Even the most powerful radars at the current moment in ideal conditions could reasonably detect AND target (this is key detection alone means Jackshit if you can’t target it) F-22 object at maybe 40KM and F-35 object maybe 50KM or so.
Now if F-22 screws up and runs into a hidden air defense zone or gets illuminated at a bad angle then sure the distance could be greater. Even then he greatest threat to 5th Gen fighters will be ground based air defense systems not BVR.
This is simply fact.
You aren’t detecting a 5th gen object at long ranges with your onboard radar. I don’t know who told you this. Even Russia IRST on SU-35s and SU-57 could do it at MAYBE 40-50KM in an ideal scenario.
You are more likely to pick up F-35 or F-22 like objects on IRST then radar. And infrared has its limits due to curvature of the earth (plus limits of optic sensors) as does radar. Aircraft radar is not OTH (over the horizon) and the seekers on these BVR missiles are no where powerful enough to be fired to a general section of airspace and asked to “search” for the plane.
Especially considering what I just mentioned about the fighter jet being able to literally be anywhere else by the time the BVR arrived.
This is the F-22 vs F-16 example. And in many instances you cite as “evidence” of usefulness of BVR it is really a glorified pissing contest with nothing truly at stake. These aren’t bombing runs to turn the tide of the war, these are Turkey vs Greece playing footsie in the air. Pakistan and India playing wanna be badass in the air.
The pilots don’t truly have life or death missions in many cases. The last true air to air battles was PG War I and that was decript Iraqi pilots running away with no maneuvering, no adequate warning systems, and generally just flying extremely poorly for trained pilots. This is not my analysis but the actual analysis of USAF who have also questioned the viability of BVR.
AD usually belongs to the defender. So in nearly all cases the defender will not be a NATO country it will be aggressor. Thus a 4th gen fighter in its own airspace with an adequate fully fleshed out defense network will be very challenging for a 5th gen fighter who has to be fighting multiple avenues of threats at the same time.
5th gen vs 4th gen in neutral territory than yes 4th gen will have extremely hard time competing. Which makes sense the gap between them is nearly 30-40 years in some cases. 5th gen has his weapons in an internal bay not contributing to RCS whole 4th gen has his fuel tank and pylons all contributing.
It’s like expecting a F1 car from 1985 to stand toe to toe with an F1 car from 2023. You are talking about decades of progression.
But that progression can be chipped away by staying in friendly territory with ground based systems and by building so called hybrid 4th/5th gen variants like F-15EX.
Lol I will wait for this so called F-16BVR verified killed. More likely Ukraine will be flying F-16 very low then popping up and firing BVR at VR ranges.
Statistics say otherwise especially at BVR ranges and 2 missiles being fired.
Stop disputing facts - facts - facts. BVR is not effective at killing
Yes if it’s F-16 against a poor SU-22 from 1960’s sure. If it’s F-16 vs SU-35 then any pilot worth its salt is not shitting bricks for being illuminated.
Illumination =/= kill
The SU-35 pilot knows F-16 will have less than a 1/5 chance getting a kill with a single BVR and that he can pull more G forces than BVR can.
You think a ramjet assisted BVR can turn at Mach 3-4 like a fighter jet? It will get crushed by that G force.
BVR are just a last line of defense for fighter jets to assist ground based defense systems. Even 10-15% KR is better than not having anything.
Lets address these 1 by 1 - and there are no facts since you quote nothing but your own opinion.
Physics does not make your case - if anything you are cherry picking to try and make a crow out of feathers and completely ignoring science to try and justify a ridiculous argument. Unlike you - IIl back it up everything with actual
links and proof of how its done.
1.First off, the idea that BVR missiles turn into pancakes at high speeds is, well, not exactly accurate(more childish than anything) Missiles, whether they're for air-to-air or surface-to-air engagements, are engineering marvels designed to handle extreme stress. Sure, physics applies to everything, but modern missile design takes into account the need to pull some serious Gs.
- they can turn but there are parameters for it:
This applies to ALL missiles - it is NOT a cherry picked situation for BVR or BM - it is physics and applies universally everywhere.
Missiles, irrespective of their launch platform or target type, must be designed to endure extreme acceleration forces during launch, flight maneuvers, and terminal phase engagement. These forces influence the structural integrity, guidance systems, propulsion, and payload delivery effectiveness.
Structural Design: The missile's airframe and internal components must withstand the mechanical stresses induced by high G forces - This applies to the materials on the S-400,Bavar, the AIM-9 and the AIM-54 as well.
Aerodynamics: The shape and surface characteristics of a missile influence its aerodynamic efficiency, stability, and maneuverability - therefore modern SAMS aren't just BMs anymore.
Guidance and Control Systems: These systems must function accurately under high G forces to maintain the missile's trajectory towards its target. This includes sensors, actuators, and onboard computers capable of rapid data processing and control adjustments. This applies to both A2A, A2G, BMs and SAMs based upon their requirements.
The universal application of these principles across missile types are shared challenges in missile engineering of which importance of G tolerance is part of ensuring mission success. Although the specific requirements for air-to-air versus surface-to-air missiles may vary based on their operational environments and objectives, the fundamental physics governing their design and performance under high G conditions remain consistent.
So no - missiles do not CRUSH at those speeds - they all have different limits for tolerance and maneuvers.
Please read to G tolerances of missiles - 1950/60s era AIM-9B could pull ~10G max at Sea Level and ~3.5G Max at 50,000 ft - modern missiles are capable of MUCH More.
The AIM-7 was rated to 20-25G , AIM-120 is rated to 30-35G - R-77 to 35.5+G , the AIM-54 is rated to 15-30G maneuvers and so on. The IRIS-T is rated for 50G off the rail. No crushing happens per your FALSE fanboy claim.
Why don't you let that sink in if there is space - and also realize that BMs actually are rated lower in many cases - at times as low as 6-8Gs. Ever wonder why some failed BM tests have missiles crumpling? its because their lower tolerances have been crossed.
For proof - here is an ACTUAL scan of a AIM-9C manual G loading -this is from the 50s..and its capable of 16.5Gs at SEA LEVEL. The final nail in your coffin of foolish "will break under G argument"
2. Let's talk about speed then .
Calling low speed a speed at which the missile is too slow to hit maximum G. Corner (Medium) speed will be the speed around which the missile is first able to reach maximum G. High speed will be everything between medium and top speeds.
- At low speeds there is not enough airflow over the fins to turn at maximum G so the fins will be at maximum deflection. Interestingly, in this speed region the missile will still have near its tightest available turn (smallest turn radius). speed loss due to turning will be large here.
- At medium speeds the missile finally has enough airflow to hit maximum G with the fins at maximum deflection. This speed will give the highest G, fastest turn rate, and tightest turn radius. Speed loss due to turning will still be large so you will quickly end up at low speed.
- At high speeds the missile is structurally limited to maximum G and the fins will NOT be at maximum deflection. A maximum G turn at these speeds results in slower rates and larger radii as speed increases. Speed loss due to turning will be smaller as the lift coefficient used for turning is smaller as speed increases
So at and above Corner Speed, the missile can turn at maximum G if needed. At corner speed everything about the turn is at it's best, but as the missile will quickly be much slower it would hopefully already be near the target by this point.
Knowing the above - the factors that allow calculation of a missile probability of kill is NOT just illumination as your simplistic notion highlights but the combination of factors including height of the launch platform, angle, speed - environment factors - which go into the missile that then uses that to calculate the optimal intercept course.
If you think the physics is different -
read here
2. The second fallacy in your argument is assuming that the missile is trying to get to advantageous firing position like dogfighting aircraft - instead it is trying to hit the aircraft instead and will do this by trying to get to collision course usually using proportional navigation logic. While the target aircraft might turn much tighter due to much slower speed, it doesn't mean much if it can't get outside the turn radius of the missile. Turning tighter might actually make it easier for missile to hit due to geometries involved. When target aircraft is turning in smaller circle the missile actually needs to turn less as the missile tries to collide with the aircraft and aircraft turning tighter will move less relative to missile. While higher speed will make missile need a wider turn radius, it will also reduce time to target and make it harder for target aircraft to get outside the missile turn radius. This applies to all hit to kill systems. If anything - the SAM also has to work against Gravity compared to the A2A missile.
3. Lets talk to the piecemeal argument regarding afterburners and the like - you are under the impression that somehow BVR missiles travelling at Mach-3. It stems from not math I think -
Let's break down the numbers and physics in the simplest of math to clarify this point to you.
Firstly, the speed of sound at sea level under standard conditions is about 343 meters per second (m/s), or approximately 1,235 kilometers per hour (km/h). Mach 3, therefore, translates to roughly 1,029 m/s or about 3,705 km/h.
The distance to the target is given as 100 kilometers. To find the time it would take for a missile traveling at Mach 3 to cover this distance, we can use the basic formula for time calculation:
Time=Distance/ Speed
Plugging in the values:
Time=100,000 meters/1,029 meters/second≈97.18 seconds - clearly not 5 minutes!
So for a missile like the R-77 basic which follows a straight line this wont be the case - but since you do have simplistic ideas - Ill actually be more realistic and talk to boost phases and free coasting assuming the target isnt maneuvering. Lets do you a favor and look at simple lofting trajectories of missiles such as the AIM-54 - it hits Mach 4 at maximum and then comes down to the target.
The actual speed profile is more complex for this argument lets say it slows down to 450 knots before impact.
With the missile decelerating to 450 knots before impact, and considering a simplified average speed from Mach 4 at apogee, through an average Mach 2.5 speed during the coasting phase, to the final approach speed of 450 knots, the calculated time to target is approximately
116.6 seconds, or about
1.94 minutes - NOT 5 MINUTES!
Now I will go more complex to help you understand missile physics - and we are assuming a perfect parabolic path :
A foundational aspect of missile performance is calculating the change in velocity (Delta V), essential for understanding missile speed and capability. This can be estimated with a formula considering the missile's specific impulse, and the ratio of initial to final weight:
- Isp is the specific impulse of the propulsion system (in seconds),
- Initial mass (launch weight),
- final mass (weight after burning the fuel).
Given the AIM-120A's specs:
- Launch weight: 335 lbs
- Motor weight: 156 lbs, with 85% being fuel
- Specific impulse: 245 seconds (solid rocket motors)
Lets say the AMRAAM is launched at 550 knots , we get an initial speed of approximately 0.825 Mach. With the AIM-120A AMRAAM's propulsion providing a delta-v of about 1227 m/s, the final speed, when adding this boost to the initial velocity, results in a final Mach number of approximately 4.4. Lets say it takes 9 seconds for it to reach that 4.4 while the motor is burning and drag is constant(WHICH IT ISNT) on a parabolic arc.
With that - the time to flight is 133 seconds - lets add a penalty for 60 seconds just for the heck of it.. but its STILL not 5 minutes.
Again, both math and physics is missing in the ENTIRITY OF YOUR SUPERFLUOUS ARGUMENT LIKE THAT OF A FLAT EARTH BELEIVER.
- although the Math might go over your head Ill put the conclusion of this study which is on the algorithms for high angle of attack missiles(ooooh.. and they will be pulling Gs..). Now, if you are actually a little smart - you wont fixate on the "air to surface" part but also read the air to air but that is up in the air.
"Several air-to-surface engagements involving launch against targets in front and behind the aircraft were studied. In every case, the missile accomplishes target intercept, with over 210 degrees flight path angle changes in certain scenarios. Although the emphasis of the study was on air-to-surface missions, a few air-to-air engagement scenarios were also examined. For air-to-air engagements, the target was assumed to be capable of 9G evasive maneuvers. Successful interceptions under various engagement geometries were demonstrated."
3. Lets not ignore that you simply "forgot" factors into the missile launch because you're not versed in them.
I'll list them in case more educated people want to reach into it:
- MOR: Maximum Operational Range. The furthest distance at which a missile can effectively be employed against a target under specific conditions. This can vary based on altitude, target aspect (front, side, rear), and missile version.
- MAR: Maximum Acquisition Range. The maximum distance at which the missile's seeker can acquire and lock onto a target. This range can be affected by the target's aspect, electronic countermeasures, and environmental conditions.
- Notch Pole (N-pole): In radar and missile engagement terminology, "notching" or the "notch" refers to a maneuver or condition where an aircraft positions itself relative to a radar emitter (such as a ground station or an aircraft) in such a way that the radar's emitted signals are parallel to the aircraft's flight path. This makes it difficult for the radar to detect the aircraft due to the Doppler effect, as the radar relies on changes in the frequency of the returned signal to detect movement. When an aircraft is in the notch position, the Doppler shift is minimized, effectively making the aircraft disappear from the radar screen or significantly reducing its radar signature.
All of these factor into where the missile is launched and where it has the highest probability of getting a kill:
All of which factor into the overall probability of Kill -
Here is an official USAF
link for how they calculate simulation engagements for training pilots in BVR. The F-16 vs F-22 was a follow up onto your example - you can go F-16 vs F-16 - or Su-35 vs F-16 but missile dynamics wont change - all that will change is how RCS for detection, illumination and then different missile performances will factor in. I am not sure why you're repeating the old generation vs new generation concept in trying to adopt it for your argument - that could also apply to an Iranian F-4 with a Sparrow trying to go after a German F-4KIWS with the AMRAAM.
The same parameters that will impact the Su-35(all the factors including position, speed and altitude , aspect and so on that impact launch) engaging the F-16 (which to defeat the missile has to trade energy vs position to try and escape it). So the pilot knowing 1/5th is sheer ignorance on your part - the pilot will know the F-16 will try to evade the missile - he will try to launch it with factors that give it the highest probability of kill if possible and if he does not then will be looking to push the F-16 so he can set up a better follow up shot.
As for the AD aspect - that is the concept of combined operations and yes in general Aircraft do not operate in silos but with supporting elements. In a defensive environment the aircraft with COORINDATED AD cover(just so no fratricide occurs) will be a more effective force versus one that is not. But those are pure scenario based situations that for one have zero relationship to how missile kinematics work - nor missile tolerances.
They will impact how the aircraft behave when launching BVR - how effective can they make that launch to achieve a kill for those missiles.
Now talking to your USAF pilots questioning the viability of BVR? please post the link to it - I cannot take your word for it. Please quote the source. When everyone else is fielding and using BVR systems - the word of an anonymous Iranian on a Pakistani defense forum holds no weight. I've quoted you actual sources.. so Im not disputing any facts since you NEVER presented anything other than your rather hollow opinions.
@Hack-Hook
