Please settle argument

I had an argument with a buddy of mine. He said in today's air to air combat, there are no more dogfights and that everything 20+ miles out. I argued that's not correct. Although I am not a pilot, when I'm playing FC3, all kills are WVS....that is under 10 miles. If you fired a missile over 20 miles, the enemy has time to take defensive maneuvers. I haven't played FC3 in a while, but I recall you had two long range, which are designed for 20+_ miles and 2-4 short/med range which are for 10 miles in. I don't recall ever getting a kill over 20+ miles out.

So who's right?

I had an argument with a buddy of mine. He said in today's air to air combat, there are no more dogfights and that everything 20+ miles out. I argued that's not correct. Although I am not a pilot, when I'm playing FC3, all kills are WVS....that is under 10 miles. If you fired a missile over 20 miles, the enemy has time to take defensive maneuvers. I haven't played FC3 in a while, but I recall you had two long range, which are designed for 20+_ miles and 2-4 short/med range which are for 10 miles in. I don't recall ever getting a kill over 20+ miles out.

 

So who's right?

I'd say both wrong, there is almost no air-to-air combat today.

Only deterrence and occasional accidents.

You can't compare real life to DCS, the scenarios and capabilities are different.

P.S.: I might add, do what works best for you within the bounds of what the simulator can offer, and more importantly, have fun :thumbup:

"Out of 41 kills in Desert Storm, 16 involved use of BVR shots, but only five kills are known to have been made at BVR."

https://defenseissues.wordpress.com/2013/04/27/usefulness-of-bvr-combat/

So you're saying that the scenarios played out on FC3 would never take place in real life?

It's just that we haven't had to deal with real adversaries in decades. The last time was in VN. Now, we're not going against the Chinese or Russians. So you don't have two elite jets going up against each other anymore. Not even F16 against Mig 29s. It's very one sided, depending on the airspace.

But if we were to have an incident, let's say over Syrian airspace with a Turkish F16 and a Russian SU27, how would the combat take place? Over 20 miles with missiles? Or within 10 miles with missiles and guns?

"Out of 41 kills in Desert Storm, 16 involved use of BVR shots, but only five kills are known to have been made at BVR."

 

https://defenseissues.wordpress.com/2013/04/27/usefulness-of-bvr-combat/

>Picard on BVR

Just saying... :P

Edit: As for the OP, BVR is the thing today, it'll be the thing tomorrow, too.

WVR can and will happen, but it ain't gonna be Topgun. The thing we all love - Maneuvering fights - Those don't happen anymore...I'd rather let the missile go rate around the circle than my nose.

DCS (specifically FC3) doesn't currently model in-depth some of the things that could seriously impact a BVR engagement...

I'm pretty sure we'll get there eventually, for example look at the Mirage (yes the missiles are foam darts, I know...), it'll probably have the most realistic radar in-game for a while...Once Razbam is finished with some patches and stuff.

PiedDroit is correcty; air-to-air combat rarely takes place. When looking at potential future encounters, these could be either isolated incidents or during a state of war. Isolated incidents take place under typical "cold war" conditions where one would only engage when fired upon or when warnings to disengage are being ignored. Chances are that these events would finally escalate at medium to short range, and are likely to end up in a dogfight.

During a state of war the entire scenario would change. Air-superiority then becomes a complex system of information gathering and sharing, and engagements are likely to occur at medium to longer ranges. Parties will most likely lob missiles at each other, evade and return to a safe engagement position. This engagement buffer would essentially sterilise airspace over wide area, and the victor will most likely be the one with the best strategy and technology.

I have seen documentaries where aircraft such as the B-1B could be modified to act as a AMRAAM-truck, circling in an area behind F-22's and F-35's trying to lure enemy fighters closer. B-1B's can then literally launch a barrage of AMRAAM or similar medium-range air-to-air missiles at an enemy that is likely to overwhelm their countermeasures and evasion techniques. The B-1B will ripple a barrage, turn tail and run, and then rejoin the combat holding pattern.

These are but just two scenarios to describe the possibilities, and there are probably lots and lots more. It is an interesting discussion, but there are way too many variables that will need to be satisfied to settle the argument. So until then, everyone is right, and everyone is wrong ;-)

So you're saying that the scenarios played out on FC3 would never take place in real life?

 

It's just that we haven't had to deal with real adversaries in decades. The last time was in VN. Now, we're not going against the Chinese or Russians. So you don't have two elite jets going up against each other anymore. Not even F16 against Mig 29s. It's very one sided, depending on the airspace.

 

But if we were to have an incident, let's say over Syrian airspace with a Turkish F16 and a Russian SU27, how would the combat take place? Over 20 miles with missiles? Or within 10 miles with missiles and guns?

Depends on which scenarios you refer to.

If we consider the most likely scenarios (not considering air battles or fun scenarios whatever), I'd say they could take place in FC3, why not, everything is possible.

However the countries that can fight against each other are not doing it because that would degenerate quickly :music_whistling:

So, what I mean is that while not technically unrealistic, those scenarios are not likely to happen because of deterrence (nuclear, economic, pick any).

Also the capabilities in DCS in terms of IFF, radars, missile performances are different from real world, so it's not possible to decide that if in DCS everything is BVR (or WVR) then it will be the same in the real world.

Also rules of engagement are stricter IRL as far as I know (e.g. an IFF non-answer is not enough to declare hostile).

What we see now are mostly proxy wars. The only time we'll see a real competition between modern fighters will be when one of those proxies, a well equipped one, will go at war against another well equipped proxy :D

In the time being, we have asymetric kills, plus sporadic incidents that are not enough to declare a trend.

Edit: about your last question, the winner would be the best equipped one I guess, not only aircraft and missiles but also training, AWACS, intel, it's VERY hard to decide ;). However, if we consider only an F-16 vs SU-27 match-up, I guess a combat within DCS is a good way to decide and have fun trying different ways of winning.

During a state of war the entire scenario would change. Air-superiority then becomes a complex system of information gathering and sharing, and engagements are likely to occur at medium to longer ranges. Parties will most likely lob missiles at each other, evade and return to a safe engagement position. This engagement buffer would essentially sterilise airspace over wide area, and the victor will most likely be the one with the best strategy and technology.

The victor will be the guy who follows up with a LOT of cruise missiles once that first wave starts landing.

One sortie for you! :D

I'd say both wrong

Agreed!

Technically speaking BVR no longer exists in DCS World.

Well... it does... you just won't kill anyone who knows what they are doing in BVR these days.

The missile performance now is a million miles away from the days when you could get 20nm+ kills in FC2. These days, to achieve any sort of decent PK you have to be inside of 10nm... well inside of 10nm! Especially against someone who is not new to the sim.

The only shots I take outside of 10nm are on Astronauts who's tactic is simply to go as high and as fast as they possibly can then run at you, you have to be firing early at these guys.

Every other shot I take I can actually see my target WVR, ideally I fire between 8-4nm.

Shots taken outside this range are disappointingly easy to evade.

I had an argument with a buddy of mine. He said in today's air to air combat, there are no more dogfights and that everything 20+ miles out. I argued that's not correct. Although I am not a pilot, when I'm playing FC3, all kills are WVS....that is under 10 miles. If you fired a missile over 20 miles, the enemy has time to take defensive maneuvers. I haven't played FC3 in a while, but I recall you had two long range, which are designed for 20+_ miles and 2-4 short/med range which are for 10 miles in. I don't recall ever getting a kill over 20+ miles out.

 

So who's right?

Thew view that your friend holds is one that's been shared by military commanders, commentators, military & defence 'experts' and manufacturers of military equipment for decades. And it's been proved to be wrong nearly every time.

6-day war.

Vietnam.

Yom Kippur war.

Indo-Pakistani war of 1965.

Indo-Pakistani war of 1971.

The Falklands campaign - 1982.

1st Gulf War - 1991.

Croatian "war of independance" - 1991 to 1995.

Bosnian war - 1992 to 1995.

Kosovo war - 1998 to 1999.

In each case the missile was supposed to have made WVR combat totally obsolete, whereas in each case a significant portion, or even a majority of air combat victories actually took place under WVR conditions.

One could make the argument that with modern aircraft & weapons BVR combat is likely to dominate, and this may prove to be true, but that's been believed many times before and it's never proved to be the case.

I'd say that based on all the historical evidence, WVR combat will be here to stay for the foreseeable future. Not only due to technical & scientific reasons but for operational & ultimately political reasons: it may well be the case that in a given mission positive ID of a target would have to be established before authorisation to fire would be given. If it's cloudy IRST won't do the job, and how many politicians would be willing to start a war based on NCTR identification?

EDIT: Spelling. I've been up all night & apparently can't type :)

It's just that we haven't had to deal with real adversaries in decades. The last time was in VN. Now, we're not going against the Chinese or Russians. So you don't have two elite jets going up against each other anymore. Not even F16 against Mig 29s. It's very one sided, depending on the airspace.

So you don't consider the Arab/Israeli wars real adversaries? Or Iran deploying F-14s against Iraq?

One of the biggest lessons in Viet Nam was that guns were still essential, and one of the first principals of warfare is that nothing ever goes to plan. What makes you think BVR won't be negated by such things as low radar profiles of modern aircraft?

We can guess, but things seldom work the way anyone predicts when the chips are down.

If, hypothetically, all the current battle-ready, maintainable and manufacturable fighters clashed with each other, there would be no way to avoid dogfights. Even with 4th generation fighter jets, there are too many holes to plug to contain it in BVR only. 5th gen fighters may have powerful radars but what about stealth technology? Jamming and other electronic warfare? Missile reliability? Now add to the equation the many airforces' older generation fighters... compared to a very limited number of 5th gen fighters and you have a furball :)

^^^^

Yeah, if you're living in DCS-land. In real warfare there has to be a reason to permit anything resembling a merge to happen.

So you're saying that the scenarios played out on FC3 would never take place in real life?

The scenarios in FC3 are not realistic in the sensors and missiles used, the people carrying them out, the objectives, nor in organization. They don't resemble reality.

But if we were to have an incident, let's say over Syrian airspace with a Turkish F16 and a Russian SU27, how would the combat take place? Over 20 miles with missiles? Or within 10 miles with missiles and guns?

That depends; there's no problem with 20nm shots, and there's really no reason that your opponent is necessarily capable of defending against them - all for reasons that you don't see happening in DCS. There are real life examples of successful 20nm shots, but there aren't too many of them. You get more as you approach 15nm. The reason isn't always missile capability, but relative capability (why engage at max range when you can engage at 2/3rds but your bandit can't do anything until the missile is already just a few miles away from impact?)

As for guns? Highly unlikely, the vast, vast majority of recent engagements have been ended with missiles regardless of range.

Mig-21s still operate at almost 20 countries. Can they avoid the merge easily? Cos if you fire an R-3R at a bandit and keep the lock until you expect it to hit.. you are going to merge him if he survives or his wingman :)

The fantasy world is a place where two hypothetical countries have AWACS and 5th gen fighters that are absolutely deadly against each other. AWACS and 5th gen technology combined with state of the art radar provide 100% situational awareness to all pilots. Missiles are extremely deadly and pretty much never fail. Countermeasures have been mutually defeated, be it stealth, ECM, or traditional countermeasures. None of them work. If you're in a missile's no escape zone and you get launched on you will get hit period. Beaming and low flying also don't work. Missile never loses track of its target. Careful tactics and asset deployment ensure that merges don't happen. Until that one hotshot drunken Russian pilot lands to get some vodka from a freeway supermarket, and then proceeds to splash an entire squadron of 5th gen Americans by just taking off the freeway, like the Finnish do! Don't forget to check motorways and country roads for extra planes lurking, waiting :)))

This thread is a great read, thank you guys! :thumbup::pilotfly:

Mig-21s still operate at almost 20 countries. Can they avoid the merge easily? Cos if you fire an R-3R at a bandit and keep the lock until you expect it to hit.. you are going to merge him if he survives or his wingman :)

DCS's R-3Rs aren't representative of the real one.

The real one sucks

The DCS one is something I want on my F-15.

See the problem there? I'd rather have 2 1960s vintage SARH SRMs than 2 1990s IR SRMs...

Wags has done an excellent job of making the RF Campaigns to give you the immersion of large scale operations.

They're probably about as realistic as you can with any game :)

See the problem there? I'd rather have 2 1960s vintage SARH SRMs than 2 1990s IR SRMs...

You're silly. Compared to the AIM-9M the R-3R has just over half the effective range, inferior turning and requires that the launching aircraft maintain radar lock until impact. Its only merits are all-aspect capability and ludicrous chaff rejection abilities, both of which you can exceed with an AIM-120C while also getting better range and fire-and-forget.

Stuge, i'm sorry but I don't understand the point you are making. I am certainly no expert on this subject but I would expect that any Mig-21 pilot that attempted to fire an R-3R and maintain the lock until impact against any generation 4 or newer fighter would be committing suicide. I can't think of any period in history after the Vietnam war where the Mig-21 was ever a capable fighter.

Sure, it could be dangerous. Historically, what about kamikaze flights? That's even more dangerous, and it really happened in real life.

What about two countries that only have Mig-21 or similar having an engagement?

That seems to be another fantasy that all air combat must be the United States alone against vastly inferior enemies who will (in theory) be always splashed in clean, 5th gen, pure BVR glory which could never ever end up in a merge :)

Why on earth did they give the F-22 vectored thrust and AIM-9X with helmet sight, such a waste of resources when clearly in this fantasy dogfights won't happen. :):):) The F-22 even has a gun! Such useless excess weight! Or maybe the designers learned a lesson after Vietnam and woke up from this fantasy.

....and AIM-9X with helmet sight...

Just saying, F-22 does not have Helmet sight nor can it carry the AIM-9X AFAIK

Just saying, F-22 does not have Helmet sight nor can it carry the AIM-9X AFAIK

Oh, ok I was misinformed then, apologies..

Edit: ...but actually according to Wikipedia an upgrade should allow F-22 to use AIM-9X with helmet sight. :)

Looks like they just started AIM-9X testing on the F-22 last year

http://www.afmc.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123447344

I'm still looking for the Helmet mounted sight.

A quote from that page about AIM-9X: "a tremendous capability for the Air Force"

How can they write this when clearly AMRAAM and BVR kills everything 100% of the time :):)

What are they suppose to say?; "we spend billions on this but we hope we don't need it" Every new weapons is always a "tremendous capability" or "a great addition" or what people say now for everything:"It's a game changer"

By the way for the Original post. Depends on the aircraft involve and the situation, etc. Some engagements might be BVR some not. But most Air Forces around the world would agree you should prepare for both