Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

WVR Or BVR???

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • WVR Or BVR???

    The West seems to have made great emphasis on developind BVR tactics while Russia has put most of its eggs in the WVR basket. My question is this. Which tactic do you think is better suited to today's combat environment. Remember that 5th generation fighters are coming out,with stealth which will make it harder for enemies to see each other until targiting radars that can target stealth planes are perfected.


    So...BVR or WVR???
    "They want to test our feelings.They want to know whether Muslims are extremists or not. Death to them and their newspapers."

    Protester

  • #2
    BVR when possible, WVR when neccesary.

    I would point out though that the new US AIM-9X significantly exceeds the performance of the AA-11 in all respects.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by MIKEMUN
      The West seems to have made great emphasis on developind BVR tactics while Russia has put most of its eggs in the WVR basket. My question is this. Which tactic do you think is better suited to today's combat environment. Remember that 5th generation fighters are coming out,with stealth which will make it harder for enemies to see each other until targiting radars that can target stealth planes are perfected.


      So...BVR or WVR???
      i wouldnt say taht russians have put most of their eggs in the WVR basket. surely they havent worked much in stealth but thats just one aspect of performance in BVr they have worked on stuff like plasma stealth. their missiles are good. radars though not aesa but still not bad at all.Though russians are surely way ahead in WVR .

      Comment


      • #4
        Doesn't the AIM-9X have thrust vectoring like the AA-11?
        "The right man in the wrong place can make all the difference in the world. So wake up, Mr. Freeman. Wake up and smell the ashes." G-Man

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by M21Sniper
          BVR when possible, WVR when neccesary.

          I would point out though that the new US AIM-9X significantly exceeds the performance of the AA-11 in all respects.
          and i would point that that is not true, not significantly anyways

          well, in response to stealth, wouldn't they just make radars more powerful?

          BVR is the "cool thing" now, jokes, but i did really enojy the good ol' days when there were dogfights and everything that mattered was maneuverability, and speed, much more exciting days
          for MOTHER MOLDOVA

          Comment


          • #6
            The AIM-9X launched from the F-22 is virtually a BVR weapon in it's own right in many profiles, and has a full 90 degree off boresight capability(vs 60 degrees for the AA-11), and also has a new state of the art next generation IIR seeker.

            I'd say that qualifies it as significantly better.

            AIM-9X is THE state of the art in heat seeking missiles.

            Comment


            • #7
              well, consider how much older the Archer is compared to the AIM-9X, finally you guys caught up in off-boresight, also, BVR weapon, no it can't, what's its range, isn't it 26 km

              the Russian company Vympel is working to make new missiles that will replace the AA-9, AA-10, and AA-11 missiles which will come out in about 2012-2015, the same time the T-50 comes out, AA-9 is already pretty much replaced by the AA-13, but now they're going to try to develop something to replace the old AA-11 and AA-10, which will be hard
              for MOTHER MOLDOVA

              Comment


              • #8
                I really cant understand the Plasma stealth BS. As a physicist I have difficulty understanding where the vast quantities of energy required to constantly produce plasma is coming from. There is no way you can make the plasma stick around your airraft, for christs sake. Containing it would only be a marginal improvement and require a second insulating skin. It really does seem like BS at first glance. If someone vaguely respectable actually had info on it, id like to know...

                Comment


                • #9
                  well, they've tried testing a screen on an Su-35 a few years ago, but it was basically created for "covering" the radar, it worked, something like a 25% decrease in RCS i believe it was

                  it was only a screen though, not plasma cloud that engulfs the entire aircraft
                  for MOTHER MOLDOVA

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Dima
                    well, they've tried testing a screen on an Su-35 a few years ago, but it was basically created for "covering" the radar, it worked, something like a 25% decrease in RCS i believe it was

                    it was only a screen though, not plasma cloud that engulfs the entire aircraft
                    sources?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      i've already given the sources like a few times, okay, let me look again

                      here

                      http://home.iae.nl/users/wbergmns/stealth2.htm
                      for MOTHER MOLDOVA

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Dima
                        i've already given the sources like a few times, okay, let me look again

                        here

                        http://home.iae.nl/users/wbergmns/stealth2.htm
                        this seems to be a good news. But clearly the developmnt is years away from being actually used for fighters.
                        I wonder if it can be used in ships for stealth.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I would consider any approach that blinds the operator as having marginal value at best.
                          "We will go through our federal budget – page by page, line by line – eliminating those programs we don’t need, and insisting that those we do operate in a sensible cost-effective way." -President Barack Obama 11/25/2008

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            blinds the pilot, explain, the screen wouldn't absorb or reflect all the aves away, also, think about the future if Plasma stealth is used, aircraft will practically become insivisble to radars, so the way to fight will be dogfighting, also, won't it only relfect and absorb RW going towards the aircraft, what about inwards
                            for MOTHER MOLDOVA

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              By blinding the operator, I was referring to the fact that his own radar will not work when the screen is active. It blocks the signals from both sides. The US has taken a different approach that doesn't have this problem.

                              Wrt your other comments on "plasma stealth", I'm not going to waste my time commenting on a technology that doesn't exist.
                              "We will go through our federal budget – page by page, line by line – eliminating those programs we don’t need, and insisting that those we do operate in a sensible cost-effective way." -President Barack Obama 11/25/2008

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X