RAAF Hornet Downs Target Drone in Rear Hemisphere

Sepecat SG · 2009-04-14T12:50:54+00:00

At about 50 % Pk for AIM 120 in real combat & even in scenarios where the victors had air superiority, it is still an excellent record compared to...

Sepecat SG

It has been recently reported that the RAAF shot down a target drone at a range of 5 km BEHIND a Hornet using an ASRAAM.

Targeting data was send to launch aircraft via Link 16 & was provided by another platform . The ASRAAM was used in a LOAL mode.

Wonder if RSAF can perform this trick with a AIM9X or other missile.

Shotgun SG

Erm... well I guess we can try... But to what purpose does it serve?

The Hornet should have been toast already. Kinematic performance of the missile fired by the "bandit" behind it, would be superior than a rear-war or u-turning ASRAAM.

Sepecat SG

The Hornet is not toast yet unless you are assuming : -

1. the bandit has that good a missile in the first place

2. that the bandit's missile locks on after it leaves the rail

3. that bandit's missile hits the F18 or its prox fuze works and detonates close enough to kill the Hornet

4. that the Hornet's countermeasures don't work

5. bandit can still kill the Hornet with its guns when he runs out of missile options

I guess that a rear shot this gives the Hornet an additional option if & when the time comes to make such as shot. This test proves that it can be done. Whether , it is practical or achievable in a real war situation remains to be seen.

Joe Black SG

This demonstrates the worth of ASRAAM's LOAL mode coupled with HMS. It gives a Gen 3, Gen4 the ability to defeat super agile opponents like the Migs and the Sukhois.

Shotgun SG

The Hornet is not toast yet unless you are assuming : -

1. the bandit has that good a missile in the first place

2. that the bandit's missile locks on after it leaves the rail

3. that bandit's missile hits the F18 or its prox fuze works and detonates close enough to kill the Hornet

4. that the Hornet's countermeasures don't work

5. bandit can still kill the Hornet with its guns when he runs out of missile options

Okay, so the enemy is just a pilot flying his ejection seat trying to throw darts at the Hornet, is that what you are suggesting?

If you wanna consider such a situation where a rear-ward firing ASRAAM is useful, lets just consider a potential match up.

Hornet w/ ASRAAM vs Su-30MK w/ R-73 Archer.

What kind of situation will a rearward firing ASRAAM be useful.

1. On the merge, both sides will probably fire off as soon as they can, double kill.

2. Su-30 jumps the Hornet, gets onto his 6 o'clock. In such a scenario, the Su-30 better have missiles or else it has no reason to be there instead of bugging out. Save the "I'm going in for guns" for the movies.

People make decent assumptions when comparing capabilities. Definitely not flying ejection seat vs Hornet w/ ASRAAM.

A few rare scenarios for this capability to be useful. Hornet 1 engaged defensive against bandit. Hornet 2 locks on to the bandit but is unable to engage due to dangers of fatricide and stays further back. Hornet 1 shoots the ASRAAM via data-link in a LOAL mode.

That is the only realistic scenario i can think of at the moment.

Jack412 SG

i think it deminstates the capability of 360deg engaguement from a passive, straight and level flying platform and takes the individual manoeuvrability of each craft out of the equation, it seems to be another step towards drones

Sepecat SG

Okay, so the enemy is just a pilot flying his ejection seat trying to throw darts at the Hornet, is that what you are suggesting ?

Where in my post were “darts” mentioned ??

If that is your idea of an enemy pilot , then the RAAF doesn’t need ASRAAM ; probably a catapult will do – stones from catapults are faster than hand thrown darts

If you wanna consider such a situation where a rear-ward firing ASRAAM is useful, lets just consider a potential match up.

Hornet w/ ASRAAM vs Su-30MK w/ R-73 Archer.

What kind of situation will a rearward firing ASRAAM be useful.

1. On the merge, both sides will probably fire off as soon as they can, double kill.

Yes , the R73 fails to launch & explodes on the SU 30 rail just as the

ASRAAM impacts the SU 30. Double kill on the SU30.

2. Su-30 jumps the Hornet, gets onto his 6 o'clock. In such a scenario, the Su-30 better have missiles or else it has no reason to be there instead of bugging out.

Any SU-30 pilot worth his salt will go after the Hornet if he had guns & was already on the Hornet’s 6 oclock. Of course , I am not sure if the pilot is of teh "dart throwing" category.

Save the "I'm going in for guns" for the movies.

Yeah, I know of one pilot who wud chose “darts” over guns once the missiles ran out. I guess this will be the scenario for a “ dart throwing pilot “ in a SU30 after it runs out of missiles after downing ½ dozen Hornets with the superlative R-73. I wud think guns were better than darts , do you ??

People make decent assumptions when comparing capabilities. Definitely not flying ejection seat vs Hornet w/ ASRAAM.

Where in my post were “ flying ejection seats” mentioned ??

Clearly “darts “ & “flying ejection seats “ are your “ decent assumptions “.

That is the only realistic scenario i can think of at the moment.

“ I guess that a rear shot this gives the Hornet an additional option if & when the time comes to make such as shot. This test proves that it can be done. Whether , it is practical or achievable in a real war situation remains to be seen. -Sepecat”

Heh thanks – looks like there is such a useful scenario after all as I had suggested might exist. Great thinking man !

PS.

Please save “dart throwing “ for the next time when you are in a pub – not while you are flying in a SU30 – I heard that it cud be detrimental for your health

Shotgun SG

Okay, so the enemy is just a pilot flying his ejection seat trying to throw darts at the Hornet, is that what you are suggesting ?

Where in my post were “darts” mentioned ??

If that is your idea of an enemy pilot , then the RAAF doesn’t need ASRAAM ; probably a catapult will do – stones from catapults are faster than hand thrown darts

If you wanna consider such a situation where a rear-ward firing ASRAAM is useful, lets just consider a potential match up.

Hornet w/ ASRAAM vs Su-30MK w/ R-73 Archer.

What kind of situation will a rearward firing ASRAAM be useful.

1. On the merge, both sides will probably fire off as soon as they can, double kill.

Yes , the R73 fails to launch & explodes on the SU 30 rail just as the

ASRAAM impacts the SU 30. Double kill on the SU30.

2. Su-30 jumps the Hornet, gets onto his 6 o'clock. In such a scenario, the Su-30 better have missiles or else it has no reason to be there instead of bugging out.

Any SU-30 pilot worth his salt will go after the Hornet if he had guns & was already on the Hornet’s 6 oclock. Of course , I am not sure if the pilot is of teh "dart throwing" category.

Save the "I'm going in for guns" for the movies.

People make decent assumptions when comparing capabilities. Definitely not flying ejection seat vs Hornet w/ ASRAAM.

Where in my post were “ flying ejection seats” mentioned ??

Clearly “darts “ & “flying ejection seats “ are your “ decent assumptions “.

That is the only realistic scenario i can think of at the moment.

Heh thanks – looks like there is such a useful scenario after all as I had suggested might exist. Great thinking man !

PS.

Please save “dart throwing “ for the next time when you are in a pub – not while you are flying in a SU30 – I heard that it cud be detrimental for your health

Haha!

Seriously, the flying ejection seat was a joke. But it was really meant to draw an exaggeration of what you were suggesting, eg, fail-R-73s, Guns-engagement against a missile armed opponents.

Those are considerations that are inappropriate or impossible.

Firstly, is it not unwise to consider our opponents to have inferior or failing weapons when considering potential tactical advantages of new technology?

Secondly, why consider situations that will never happen in combat? "I'm going in for guns" do not happen. Any combat pilot worth his salt knows when not to fight. Air combat today isn't exactly like it was in the days of Baron Von Richtofen nor Vietnam.

Hence in scenarios, why do I not consider a rear-hemisphere ASRAAM very useful? Simple reason, why hold the shot when I can plug one (better still, two) in his face on the merge?

The Sneaky-30 coming up on the Hornet's rear position doesn't really add up either. The ASRAAM doesn't have very long legs, and a U-turn will burn up more fuel and get nowhere, hence even shorter range. Thus, a R-73 can be launched further out and nail the Hornet.

Therefore, the only possibility i could think of, was a low-level turning fight against the Su-30 class threat, with rearward firing missiles to clear the defensive fighter's 6 without fatricide. The only problem with this scenario is that, it is a very bad situation that should never happen.

The way I see it, the significance of this experiment has little to do with the ASRAAM. But rather the ability to hand off-targeting of a weapon to a 3rd party, and still achieve a kill. The same idea with handing off AMRAAM inertial updates to a 3rd party until active range. Let's say I have a boosted version of the ASRAAM that allows it to get to about 40km with LOAL and updates from AWACs. These updates can bring the missile in range such that its own Passive IR seekers can locate its own target. The target won't know what hit them.

cheeze SG

aircraft merges may/ may not always occur in a head on scenario. attacking aircraft may be surprised/ bounced on by enemy aircraft who may be vectored successfully into an offensive position ( behind 3/9 line in general).

i would believe that any fighter guy with survival instinct would break into the bandit upon finding out one at his six

but this capability of firing off rearward behind 3/9 at first sight with the HMS/ ASRAAM combination is definitely something that would be appreciated by a pilot. but of course then he has to start manouvring as well simultaneously for follow on action else just sitting duck..

Sepecat SG

The RAAF test only demonstrates that such a shot cud be done successfully if that kind of shot were needed. If gives the RAAF just one more option to utilize in such a scenario.

The combat track records of the most successful air to air missiles such as the AIM9L/M and AIM120 although excellent show that even the most advanced missiles do not work 100 % ( I believe may not even be close to 80 % success rate ) of the time. Also, dont forget that many of these kills were made in an environment where the victors enjoyed air superiority.

Anyone has the number of combat kills made by R-73 ?

Shotgun SG

i would believe that any fighter guy with survival instinct would break into the bandit upon finding out one at his six

You're right. Once someone rolls in on the 6'o'clock position, the pilot would instinctively execute a max g-turn and dump flares fully expecting an incoming heater-shot. I cannot emphasize how automatic and important that process is, and how often a heater-shot really would occur, which is like probably 80% of the time.

In any circumstance, the incoming heater would track for the aircraft's engines unless the pilot is able to turn his hot exhaust away from the heater's seeker, and drop a whole bunch of flares to decoy the missile. Hence, no pilot would fly straight into a defensive against a heater shot, which makes the entire rear-quadrant engagement questionable.

What I do believe is significant is not as much as the rear-quadrant launch, but the ability to target with weapons via Link-16. If you're familiar with slightly more legacy F-16s, we don't get to do that with AMRAAMs or Sidewinders. We may know who our wingmen are targetting, but we can't shoot weapons based on what our wingmen have designated on their FCR. I'm not sure what it is like today, but I imagine it has not deviated very far since this "rear-quadrant, link-16" launch was so hyped up.

Success rates of the AIM120 (B-C5s) have been more than impressive if you consider what it was meant to replace, ie AIM7. The AIM120 will *almost* assure a 100% kill if it was launched within its NEZ (No Escape Zone). Naturally, most engagements would occure outside the NEZ, where its success is largely determined by how alert and sharp the opposing pilot is. And honestly, that is hard to explain without explaining in rather good detail BVR engagement tactics. What I am saying is, depending on that enemy's "attitude", and range, the AIM120's kill probability will vary. Any missile can be kinematically defeated given sufficient distance.

Not sure about the R-73's performance in combat. I imagine it should be equivalent to at least an AIM-9M/L's performance aside for its off boresight capabilities.

Sepecat SG

AIM120 with almost 100% chance of kill ? Not so says Janes IDR Dec 2008 issue which reported that AIM120's combat record is far from sterling. Nine kills out of a total of 17 fired in real combat - only 53 % kill.

For AIM9L/M, I believe it is much better than 50 % - anyone with the numbers and also the source to back it up ?

So although R73 looks great on paper, without data on actual combat performance no one can tell how good it is compared to AIM9L/M.

Shotgun SG

For AIM9L/M, I believe it is much better than 50 % - anyone with the numbers and also the source to back it up ?

So although R73 looks great on paper, without data on actual combat performance no one can tell how good it is compared to AIM9L/M.

Even Jane's IDR doesn't have information of the condition those AIM-120s were fired in. That is the nature of BVR missiles as the target's aspect, altitude, airspeed and capability to accelerate, play an important part in defeating the missile.

Without understanding the concept of the "No Escape Zone" and the "Weapons Engagement Zone" and the effects of target aspect, altitude and airspeed have on them, its hard to explain to you the probability of kill.

To compare the AIM-9's pK to the AIM-120's is really comparing apples and oranges. One is fired within visual range, with the target fairly close to the aircraft, the other is where the target is "conservatively" 20 nmiles out. Unless we compare the pK of the 2 weapons fired within the same perimeters, eg, "3 miles out, from a 6'o clock position at 500knots", there is nothing to compare. In such a condition, I'm sure the AIM-120 will achieve greater than 90% despite chaff/flare counter measures + break turns.

Unfortunately, they are different waepons for a different purpose, and hence comparing the pK directly isn't going to go anywhere. Where the 120 can go, the AIM9 can only dream or fall like a rock to the ground.

As for the R-73, all I can say is that it is a credible threat in WVR. If its performance is only limited to the AIM9L/M, why would the Americans rush to create a new WVR missile called the AIM9X to match it's capabilities?

Sepecat SG

o Even Jane's IDR doesn't have information of the condition those AIM-120s were fired in. That is the nature of BVR missiles as the target's aspect, altitude, airspeed and capability to accelerate, play an important part in defeating the missile.

You are incorrect as Janes' report was based on a RAND National Defence Research Institute study. The study revealed that Pk rate of the AIM120 in actual combat was 53 %.

If you are an expert in this area , you will have no trouble explaining the above such as “ No Escape Zone” ……etc. You are also assuming that myself & others in this forum are ignorant of these matters.

Also, I’d rather believe the RAND figures than anyone else who has not stated his credentials in this area.

Nowhere in my posts did I compare the AIM9 vs the AIM120. I merely stated the AIM9 probably had a much better Pk & I asked if anyone had the numbers & source for such information.

Unless we compare the pK of the 2 weapons fired within the same perimeters, eg, "3 miles out, from a 6'o clock position at 500knots", there is nothing to compare. In such a condition, I'm sure the AIM-120 will achieve greater than 90% despite chaff/flare counter measures + break turns.

YOU may be sure that AIM120 can achieve > 90 % but the RAND study of actual comabt clearly shows otherwise.

We all know that the AIM9s and AIM120s are different classes of missiles. You shud explain this to novices.

I totally agree that the R73 is a very good AAM. But when

did I say that the AIM9L / M is better than the R73 ? I only

stated that without data on R73’s real combat

performance, one really cannot be 100 % sure that

the is better than the AIM9L/M.

However, it is a well known fact that , technically, the R73 is

far superior and a generation ahead of the AIM9L/M. Also ,

in actual air to air excercises & simulations, the R73

outclasses the AIM 9L/M. In real combat , it probably will

beat the AIM9L/M.

Shotgun SG

Well, if you as knowledgeable as you claim to be, I don't have to explain to you what a "No Escape Zone" is right?

Nope, I'm not an "expert" in this area. I'll leave it at that. I don't see a need to establish my credentials on an open forum. Choose what you want to hear, your freedom, sir.

Yes, you did compare AIM120 pK to that of an AIM9

For AIM9L/M, I believe it is much better than 50 % - anyone with the numbers and also the source to back it up ?

Well, I'm not an "authoritative source" according to you, so you can choose to believe the RAND.

You see, what you and I differ in a sense is that you are looking at the statistical analysis of the AMRAAM's pK.

I am looking at the launch dynamics of the AMRAAM affecting is pK. Both deal with pK, but one is a collection of data, the other is a literal "chance" to kill given the calculation of the energy state of the launching aircraft and the target.

I can agree with you that the AMRAAM's statistics have been so far less than perfect. However, we do not know how they were shot, and under what kind of conditions.

There are a couple of ways to shoot an AMRAAM under various conditions, and that affects the statistics kill probability cos some of these "ways" are less reliable but without exposing the launching aircraft as much. Under the most optimum conditions and "surest" way to shoot it, the AMRAAM's pK can be very high to a point of where its limited by its fault rate.

Hence, I agree to your point about the statistical pK of the AMRAAM. Just that I disagree on the pK of the weapon in terms of its kinematic ability to reach its target and turn its target into hair, teeth and eyeballs.

Sepecat SG

o Well, if you as knowledgeable as you claim to be, I don't have to explain to you what a "No Escape Zone" is right?

I never claimed to be an expert . But your statements such as the one below

“Without understanding the concept of the "No Escape Zone" and the "Weapons Engagement Zone" and the effects of target aspect, altitude and airspeed have on them, its hard to explain to you the probability of kill.”

implied that you are.

Nope, I'm not an "expert" in this area. I'll leave it at that. I don't see a need to establish my credentials on an open forum. Choose what you want to hear, your freedom, sir.

OK, I now accept that you are not an “expert”.

I also respect your freedom not to establish your credentials, whatever your reason.

Yes, you did compare AIM120 pK to that of an AIM9

For AIM9L/M, I believe it is much better than 50 % - anyone with the numbers and also the source to back it up ?

I have already stated in my earlier post as below : -

“ Nowhere in my posts did I compare the AIM9 vs the AIM120. I merely stated the AIM9 probably had a much better Pk & I asked if anyone had the numbers & source for such information” .

As you well know AIM120s and AIM9s are completely different classes of missiles. Given WVR scenarios , it is not surprising that WVR AAMs tend to give higher Pk in real combat.

Well, I'm not an "authoritative source" according to you, so you can choose to believe the RAND.

True since you failed to establish your credentials & also did not state any sources to prove your points.

Therefore, what you have posted are your opinions which I accept.

Therefore , in this case, I ‘d rather believe RAND.

You see, what you and I differ in a sense is that you are looking at the statistical analysis of the AMRAAM's pK.

OK, you have your opinion.

I can agree with you that the AMRAAM's statistics have been so far less than perfect. However, we do not know how they were shot, and under what kind of conditions.

The RAND study stated that all the targets were not sophisticated, poorly equipped & in many cases badly flown. The AIM120’s actual record is shaky in practice with Pk barely ½ of 100% in real combat situations against much lesser opponents.

The above sounds like theory.

Since you do not have the credentials to show , I accept your points as your opinion.

Facts speak for themselves. In real combat , one can see what is fiction & what is fact - Pk of anything close to 100% for AIM120 is pure fiction.

Jack412 SG

just to clarify..the aussie's chose the AIM-132 for the hornets ASRAAM (and the f-35 at this stage), we seem to think they are OK

the 24 transitional super hornets (12 wired as growlers) on order will come with standard USN weapons and will have AIM-9x so they are operational from day 1, there is no plan to spend the time or money to incorporate the AIM-132 on the supers at this stage

Jack412 SG

@shotgun re: " the pilot would instinctively execute a max g-turn and dump flares fully expecting an incoming heater-shot. "

the AIM-132 is an imaging infra red, so dumping flairs and max g-turn wont do much,

Jack412 SG

i found this site worth a read, russia has some good missiles coming

http://www.ato.ru/rus/cis/archive/17-2007/def/def3/

Vympel expects to complete its development of the short-range Izdeliye 760 missile — which is a significantly modernized version of the R-73 weapon, outfitted with an inertial flight control system and course correction receiver, improved rocket engine and with new multi-mode infrared seeker. The Izdeliye 760 is expected to be a close counterpart to the Western-built ASRAAM and Sidewinder AIM-9X missiles.

Shotgun SG

@shotgun re: " the pilot would instinctively execute a max g-turn and dump flares fully expecting an incoming heater-shot. "

the AIM-132 is an imaging infra red, so dumping flairs and max g-turn wont do much,

Thats right. Same goes to say for the 9X and Python 4-5.

However, even if dumping flares and executing max-g break turns into the missile doesn't work much, its still better than not doing anything. Who knows? Turning hard into the missile may cause its mechanical components enough stress for it to fail, by sheer luck?

Sepecat, sure go ahead and believe what you will.

I do consider myself familiar with some parts of shooting an AMRAAM though not to its entirety. There are several of considerations to making a good AMRAAM shot. Most of them are concerns over the missile's ability to reach the target with sufficient energy to make the smash. The aircraft's fire control radar and computers usually calculates that and the HUD symbology would relay that information to the pilot over the missiles potential ability to kill the target based on energy state calculations. Is that "Theory?" I leave that to you to decide.

I am less inclined to statistical pK to gauge a missile for a few reasons.

Firstly, the sample size isn't large enough. Just barely more than a dozen shots doesn't say for sure how reliable the weapon is, and especially so if they included earlier production batches of the weapon.

Secondly, accurate statistics should be done like scientific experiments in controlled environments. I'm pretty darn sure whatever statistics available weren't done in such a situation where you have equally experienced pilots, and launch conditions.

There used to be this Hughes/Raytheon "guide" on AMRAAM operations available of F-16.net, but I can't seem to find it now. It explains the DLZs in much greater detail than I'm willing to regurgitate here. Its not a very classified thing since a lot of information is freely available on the net. The only thing I remember to be classified still is the "burn-time."