Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Fighters, Bombers and Recon Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Missile tactics versus gun tactics.
Maratabc    4/26/2013 1:07:57 PM
This will be a discussion of why the Americans and British made a serious technical error in the 1950s and 1960s.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15   NEXT
Maratabc       4/26/2013 2:31:35 PM

This will be a discussion of why the Americans and British made a serious technical error in the 1950s and 1960s.

 
The problem in 1945 for the Americans USAAF and the British RAF was that their future enemy (Russia) would attack them with large bombers equipped with atomic bombs. Their own campaigns against the Germans had been successful because the Germans had been late to develop sufficient weaponry powerful enough to destroy large bombers.
 
With Russian bombers equipped with atomic bombs, the fighters sent against those machines had to attain guaranteed shoot-downs.  
 
Both the American and the British air forces concluded that the machine gun and the auto-cannon was not good enough.
 
So the first solution fielded (pioneeredc by the Germans in WW II) was the interceptor fighter firing barrage rockets at the Russian imitation of the American Superfortress and the follow-on aircraft the Russians could develop.
 
The Russians, of course, did not follow that line of development (intercontinental missiles, instead), but they did pursue regional bombers that were useful to attack targets at sea that approached Europe, and to attack targets in Europe and east Asia. These were the targets for the Tu-16, Mi-4, and even the obsolescent Tu-4.
 
The Americans and the British became interested in the X-4 Rurhstahl as a solution.
 
 
but the wires were a nightmare.
 
The British began development of a radio-beam steered missile called Firestreak. It was a complete failure against maneuvering targets.
 
The British began development of an infrared signal seeker tail-chaser, but that missile, too was a failure. 
 
Redtop would replace it, but that too (claimed as an all aspect missile) was a failure against maneuvering targets.
 
==============================================
The Americans went along two paths because they had two air forces.  Their air force chose FALCON. This family of missiles failed along the lines of the British efforts and for much the same reasons. Signal chase methods chosen were either too advanced for the electronics available, or the signal chase logics chosen were wrong. 
 
The American navy adopted two missiles, Sidewinder and Sparrow, which historians maligned and still malign for their combat performance during the Vietnam War, but what many of those historians forget, is that these missiles hit maneuvering small fast Russian fighters (10% PK Sparrow and 23% Sidewinder) when no other western air to air missile could at all. They did so under conditions when air combat rules (lawyers) favored the gun armed Russian fighters over Vietnam.         
 
The big clumsy American fighters (Phantom IIs) were shooting down Mig 17s, 19s and Mig 21s.
 
ACIG US air to air victories Vietnam. Part 1.
 
 
ACIG US air to air victories Vietnam Part 2.
 
 
===================================
 
Note all the air-to-air missiles? Sparrows and Sidewinders, the Americans used  when the Israelis were using the gun. American fighters (Phantom IIs) for the most part could not use what they did not have (internal gun and the capability to turn in an angle fight with the more agile Russian fighters.
 
An air force learns to fight the way its technology allows.
 
Since the Americans were the first to learn how to successfully use the air to air missile in war. It was not the war they expected nor the kind of missile tactics they anticipated.
=================================>
 
 
Quote    Reply

Maratabc       4/26/2013 3:02:30 PM
================================>
 
But that Russian bomber force was not what the Americans fought. Their allies, their navy and their air force fought Russian fighters in proxy wars.
 
The American air force bomber destroying interceptors, armed with Falcons were virtually useless in air to air combat with fighters. (less than 3% PK per launch.)
 
The American navy interceptor, the Phantom II with its navy missiles could stay with Russian fighters in a turning fight well enough for the missiles to work (at least 10% PK per launch.)  
 
The Americans learned that such a plane had to be used differently. You still had to fly to bring the aircraft nose to bear on the target aircraft so that the missile could 'see' it by using classic dogfight maneuvers, but now the battle was longer in range and time than a gun action. The American plane had to stay with its adversary for seconds up to a half minute until the Sparrow steered into the target, because the Sparrow needed the launch aircraft's radar to reflect a signal off the target to signal chase.
 
The American pilot was not using his gun to shoot the enemy aircraft. He used his radar to shoot the enemy aircraft and waited for many seconds for the missile to arrive to finish the engagement action by close detonation after the missile finished its chase pursuit.   
 
That is not what fighter pilots are by inclination, nor combat experience trained to do. Get on the tail, chase to within as close as you dare, because your machine guns and auto cannon beyond 500 meters are virtually useless as is your gun-sight because of bullet scatter and spray in a wildly maneuvering engagement. The enemy will evade the moment he hears and sees your cannon fire.
 
Missiles are different. If the launch aircraft could fire a missile from ambush above and behind the target aircraft? Those conditions were temporary as the Russians reacted to such incidents as Operation Bolo.
 
 
The whole point is that after Rolling Thunder, the Americans technologically and doctrinally became the air power that taught the rest of the world what the future of air warfare would be.
 
This was because the Phantom II, which should not have been able to fight under the rules it was required to fight was shown to be able to fight and do that well with the first generation missiles it had.
 
The Americans relearned how to air combat maneuver to compete against the agile Migs, but they also learned to be patient chasers so that their missiles (especially their radar signal chasing Sparrows) had the time to fly out and kill.   
 
An American fighter did not have to lead pursue. It just had to be good enough so that the radar cone could stay on target so a little lag pursuit was permissible. But it was vital that the aircraft could instantaneously jerk to evade gunfire and also out accelerate and out-climb its adversary, so that it could throw its missiles and keep its radar pointed at the enemy when it reversed.
 
 
 
 
Most military aircraft today carry a radar warning receiver, and many carry a heat detector as well. Ambush is harder.  
 
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       4/26/2013 3:48:03 PM

This will be a discussion of why the Americans and British made a serious technical error in the 1950s and 1960s.

 
The problem in 1945 for the Americans USAAF and the British RAF was that their future enemy (Russia) would attack them with large bombers equipped with atomic bombs.
The British began development of a radio-beam steered missile called Firestreak. It was a complete failure against maneuvering targets.
 
The British began development of an infrared signal seeker tail-chaser, but that missile, too was a failure. 
 
Redtop would replace it, but that too (claimed as an all aspect missile) was a failure against maneuvering targets.
 
The Americans went along two paths because they had two air forces.  Their air force chose FALCON. This family of missiles failed along the lines of the British efforts and for much the same reasons. Not true, the Falcon failed in the early versions because it did not have a Proximity fuse! Later Modals were successful when so equipped! Signal chase methods chosen were either too advanced for the electronics available, or the signal chase logics chosen were wrong. 
 
The American navy adopted two missiles, Sidewinder and Sparrow, which historians maligned and still malign for their combat performance during the Vietnam War, but what many of those historians forget, is that these missiles hit maneuvering small fast Russian fighters (10% PK Sparrow and 23% Sidewinder) when no other western air to air missile could at all. They did so under conditions when air combat rules (lawyers) favored the gun armed Russian fighters over Vietnam.         
What was conclusively shown was that the vast majority of misses, the 90% & 77% above were caused by "Out of Parameter launches" that could never of hit no mater what!
 
Note all the air-to-air missiles? Sparrows and Sidewinders, the Americans used  when the Israelis were using the gun. American fighters (Phantom IIs) for the most part could not use what they did not have (internal gun and the capability to turn in an angle fight with the more agile Russian fighters. Note that when fitted with the internal gun, it was well able to dog fight with any of them. It just required the right tactics to "Maximise your advantages and Minimise theirs"!
 
 


 
Quote    Reply

Maratabc       4/26/2013 5:07:09 PM
Nonsense will be ignored.
 
Marat.

 
The problem in 1945 for the Americans USAAF and the British RAF was that their future enemy (Russia) would attack them with large bombers equipped with atomic bombs.
The British began development of a radio-beam steered missile called Firestreak. It was a complete failure against maneuvering targets.
 
The British began development of an infrared signal seeker tail-chaser, but that missile, too was a failure. 
 
Redtop would replace it, but that too (claimed as an all aspect missile) was a failure against maneuvering targets.
 
The Americans went along two paths because they had two air forces.  Their air force chose FALCON. This family of missiles failed along the lines of the British efforts and for much the same reasons. Not true, the Falcon failed in the early versions because it did not have a Proximity fuse! Later Modals were successful when so equipped! Signal chase methods chosen were either too advanced for the electronics available, or the signal chase logics chosen were wrong. 
 
The American navy adopted two missiles, Sidewinder and Sparrow, which historians maligned and still malign for their combat performance during the Vietnam War, but what many of those historians forget, is that these missiles hit maneuvering small fast Russian fighters (10% PK Sparrow and 23% Sidewinder) when no other western air to air missile could at all. They did so under conditions when air combat rules (lawyers) favored the gun armed Russian fighters over Vietnam.         
What was conclusively shown was that the vast majority of misses, the 90% & 77% above were caused by "Out of Parameter launches" that could never of hit no mater what!
 
Note all the air-to-air missiles? Sparrows and Sidewinders, the Americans used  when the Israelis were using the gun. American fighters (Phantom IIs) for the most part could not use what they did not have (internal gun and the capability to turn in an angle fight with the more agile Russian fighters. Note that when fitted with the internal gun, it was well able to dog fight with any of them. It just required the right tactics to "Maximise your advantages and Minimise theirs"!
 
 



 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       4/26/2013 6:22:28 PM


Nonsense will be ignored at the peril of your intellectual honesty.

 

Maratabc. (All Bs Crammed!)





 

The problem in 1945 for the Americans USAAF and the British RAF was that their future enemy (Russia) would attack them with large bombers equipped with atomic bombs.

The British began development of a radio-beam steered missile called Firestreak. It was a complete failure against maneuvering targets.

 

The British began development of an infrared signal seeker tail-chaser, but that missile, too was a failure. 

 

Redtop would replace it, but that too (claimed as an all aspect missile) was a failure against maneuvering targets.

 

The Americans went along two paths because they had two air forces.  Their air force chose FALCON. This family of missiles failed along the lines of the British efforts and for much the same reasons. Not true, the Falcon failed in the early versions because it did not have a Proximity fuse! Later Modals were successful when so equipped! Signal chase methods chosen were either too advanced for the electronics available, or the signal chase logics chosen were wrong. 

 

The American navy adopted two missiles, Sidewinder and Sparrow, which historians maligned and still malign for their combat performance during the Vietnam War, but what many of those historians forget, is that these missiles hit maneuvering small fast Russian fighters (10% PK Sparrow and 23% Sidewinder) when no other western air to air missile could at all. They did so under conditions when air combat rules (lawyers) favored the gun armed Russian fighters over Vietnam.         


What was conclusively shown was that the vast majority of misses, the 90% & 77% above were caused by "Out of Parameter launches" that could never of hit no mater what!

 

Note all the air-to-air missiles? Sparrows and Sidewinders, the Americans used  when the Israelis were using the gun. American fighters (Phantom IIs) for the most part could not use what they did not have (internal gun and the capability to turn in an angle fight with the more agile Russian fighters. Note that when fitted with the internal gun, it was well able to dog fight with any of them. It just required the right tactics to "Maximise your advantages and Minimise theirs"!

 

 










 
Quote    Reply

Maratabc       4/26/2013 6:47:57 PM
My honesty is not questioned, one who calls himself shooter.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Maratabc       4/27/2013 3:41:52 AM
 
The gun-armed Russian fighters of the 1960s  that were most often encountered was the Mig 17 or the Mig 19.
 
Mig-17.
 
 
The plane could shoot for 6 seconds.
 
Mig-19.
 
 
Again the plane could shoot for about 6-7 seconds.
 
Mig-21 F-13.
 
 
30 cannon shells for NR-30, (5 seconds) this Russian fighter in Vietnamese service KILLED with the K-13 (R3S) Nato (AA2 ATOLL-i.e. Russian SIDEWINDER) missile.
 
 
This odd fact accounts for 95% of Mig 21 over F-4s and F-105 victories in that war.
 
On the other hand, Mig 17s and Mig 19s were almost exclusively gun kills.
 
As it can be seen after 1967, about 70% of the US aircraft downed in air to air combat were air to air missile kills by the maligned Russian version of Sidewinder
 
The Sidewinder was a revelation to both air forces that used it in that war.
 
Russian (Vietnamese) tactics quickly adapted to the missile to use it as a fire and flee weapon. Ground controllers in a manner not too dissimilar tame boar tactics developed the Germans in WW II against the RAF where the ground controllers tried to place the Fishbeds into the approaching American aircraft so as to approach from the rear and underneath. When  the Fishbeds were close enough they would zoom climb and close on reheat until they were in ATOLL acquisition, then launch their missiles, turn and then flee before the Americans could turn to pursue. Very effective as long as their airbase sanctuaries were off limits in North Vietnam and the People's Republic of China.
 
The Americans' aircraft, with their huge hot SMOKY jet engines made beautiful thermal targets.
 
The Americans were slow to develop defenses and counrter-measures. (Not until after Vietnam in fact.)
 
The way that the Mig 21 was used as a missile fighter, forced the Americans to develop a new generation of aircraft radars that could pick out low flying Russian fighters from ground return signal clutter. Their own jet engine technology had to change to burn smokeless so as to not provide an enemy visual cues. Urgent-most was a launch warning detector based on heat signature for surface to air missiles and for air to air missile launches.
 
The Americans learned startling anti-missile tactics to handle Russian (Vietnamese) air to air missile tactics. The most obvious was the constant 'S' turn to check to see if the aircraft was being chased by an adversary aircraft. When the adversary was detected, more-so than in a gunfight, the need was to immediately turn to face him in a head-on pass. Radar steered missiles gave the Phantom II a head on firing pass advantage against the Migs; not much but the Sparrow was there. It did work 10% of the time. The Mig had to dodge it, and while it did, the Phantom could set up a tailpipe shot with Sidewinder.   
 
Sidewinder and Atoll had similar Pks when used in their respective no-escape zones (about 18% for Atoll, about double that for Sidewinder.)
 
Both the Russians and Americans learned you fired about four misses for every hit, and if you fired two, you squared your chances for a kill. How hard it was to teach pilots to use pairs of missiles to chase a single plane? Americans taught their pilots one launch at a time. Now they know better.
 
The Russians (Vietnamese) learned quicker-two launches then run for your life.
 
 
The Americans, during the Vietnam War in the end proved to be slow learners who did not learn the main lesson that the French knew and Israelis learned. Migs and SAMS cannot hurt you; if the aircraft, missiles, and the radars and fighter director centers that support them are smoking ruins on the ground in a surprise attack. 
 
Failing that, then you better be good with missile tactics in the air. 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Maratabc       4/27/2013 3:41:42 PM
Air com,bat maneuvering with missile weapons.
 
The planes, attacker and defender have more time to maneuver than in a gunfight. There are three or four maneuvering objects in the fight, the attacker aircraft, the launched chaser missile, and the defending aircraft.  
 
Depending on the attacker and the radar used:
 
The attacker must keep his nose pointed at the defender since it is his radar that provides the reflected off the defender radio signal that his launched chaser missile signal chases in a steer to meet pursuit. Depending on whether the missile which uses this method (called by Americans semi-active radar homing) applies a predict lead pursuit logic or a lag-lead pursuit logic to center the radio signal in its field of view, will determine the fly-out of the reflected  radar signal chasing missile. Most radar steered missiles still use semi-active radar homing a it is cheap, and now very reliable. Average PKs of 20 to 30% are possible with these kinds of missiles when fired in pairs. When the missiles do not perform to these probabilities, the deficiency must be sought in maintenance competence and in the pilot training of the users.        
 
Most of the SARH missiles are lag-lead signal pursuit. This means that the missile will follow a long energy inefficient sine curve pursuit course as you see it chase the defender aircraft. The better SARH missiles will use predict-lead signal pursuit. These are the expensive missiles with the computer and a programmed algorithm solution in the signal processor that directs the missile autopilot. These kinds of missiles have a more efficient flight path to the target as the attacker plane can sort of lob them into a ballistic throw trajectory, if the pilots are trained how to use the radar to set up a launch window to a section of sky and if the defender aircraft cooperates by blindly flying into that section of the sky the attacker plans to drop his missiles--the Americans call this section of sky the drop basket. This radar tactic is only used when the attacker is confident of a maximum missile fly-out ambush shot with a massed missile volley.       
 
It is rarely used. 
 
More often the attacker plane radar or a supporting airborne radar or ground radar sees the defender aircraft before the defender aircraft radar sees the attacker plane. This allows the attacker the choice to accept or refuse engagement. It also allows the attacker to dictate position when he chooses to attack within the cushion of time and distance that his radar gives him as a first see and first track solution advantage.
 
This is more or less how the Vietnamese learned how to use their ground radars and how the Americans learned to use their airborne radars against each other to out-position each other during the later years of the Vietnam war.
 
To a much greater extent, than the Arabs and the Israelis, the Americans and the Vietnamese learned that missile tactics, even with the heat-seeking Sidewinder that both sides used against each other, was radar tactics matched to much longer ranged air combat maneuvering to attain ideal attack position. 
 
The missile launch and the steering of the missile into the defender required the attacker to stay with the defender and keep his radar pointed at him, so that the radio-signal chasing missile steered to a successful intercept with the defender aircraft. 
 
What that meant in real terms as the Americans (The Vietnamese generally did not have or use air to air radio signal seeking missiles) was that Sparrow with its signal pursuit logic and its flight characteristic had to be fired no closer than a mile to the defender aircraft so the missile could capture signal, and no further than seven to ten miles so that rocket motor could sustain the missile to give it enough flight energy to jerk close to the enemy at the end when it came upon the defender aircraft.
 
Within those parameters, a properly maintained Sparrow, could achieve 35% PKs
 
Quote    Reply

Maratabc       4/28/2013 4:29:06 PM
The semi-active radar homing missile as discussed was a difficult missile to use. The air forces which used such weapons in real warfare discovered that the missiles did not have the operating no-escape zone ranges to be effective beyond limit of Human vision, nor were their rocket motor's burn times sufficient to keep enough potential energy in the missile's flight time so that the missile could steer on lift alone to reach the dodging defender fighter aircraft with a final jerk maneuver. Missiles such as Sidewinder were never intended to maneuver against Mig 21s. That they hit at all, was remarkable.
 
The missiles that were fortunately able to hit defender aircraft (18-25% PK) were the infrared sensing (heat-seeker) missiles. of the many types that Russia, the United States, the UK and France produced, the only one that worked was the Sidewinder.**
 
**Ironically most successful air to air missiles trace their ancestry directly to technology leased or stolen from two American companies, Loral and Hughes, whose missiles divisions, eventually both to become both subsumed under Raytheon.  
 
===============================================================
 
Sidewinder==============>
 
The first Sidewinder could close to defender aircraft using mechanical logics to steer to signal chase the heat the defender aircraft gave off. This made it possible to build a small agile steerable rocket with relative simple means to hand available in the 1940s. The Americans had made some extremely clever solid rocket motor fuel and casing discoveries (Guggenheim later JPL) that allowed for 90/10 ratio rockets that could behave akin to their sound signal chasing underwater guided weapons (torpedoes) in a four pole 2-d signal steer solution. This fishtailing signal chasing which caused the rocket to wobble side to side as well as up and down as it chased the heat signal gave the AIM 9 its name of Sidewinder.
 
The snake...
When an attacker pilot saw that missile chase doing that wobble, he knew that it was in acquisition. When a defender pilot saw it wobble as it chased him, he knew he either could eject or die. This is what some Vietnamese pilots did.
 
Nevertheless for a missile that showed in tests that it should track signal and kill defender targets more than fifty percent of the time, it was killing less than twenty five percent of the time. Why?
 
The Ault Report.
 
The main finding? Besides the Navy and industry failure to maintain the missiles (Sparrow and Sidewinder) properly, the pilots did not realize that they had to maneuver to point their attacker aircraft close enough, and stay with the defender aircraft long enough in lag pursuit to give both launched missiles a chance to acquire and chase.  This combined with the design defect in Sparrow (not a dogfight missile at all) threw the main burden of defender aircraft killing on the Sidewinder.
 
And the Ault report damns that missile, and the way it was used, too.
 
The signal seeker was not good enough, and the pilots launched too far off bore-sight too far away, and the missile BROKE UP in flight when it had to jerk too hard (more than thirty gees) to hit to collide. Add fuse failures and a puny warhead, and it is easy to see how that Chinese Mig managed to fly home with a Sidewinder stuck up in its tailpipe. The Sidewinder, if given a chance would fly up that tailpipe.
 
The lowest cost bidder delivered a 'marginal' weapon... 
 
... that was still so advanced, that the Russians rewrote everything they thought they knew about rockets...  
 
The Sidewinder could not be used properly unless the pilot in the attacker aircraft who employed it was close (ideally just about a kilometer from the defender aircraft) slightly above and directly behind. A clear view of the jet motor exhaust plume would cause the Sidewinder to 'growl'.
 
================>
 
Quote    Reply

Maratabc       4/28/2013 4:41:52 PM
==================>
 
This happened provided that the flight time was a bit under ten seconds, the defender did not jerk off track to mask his heat signature with something hotter (the Sun) or something on the ground. (forest fire) the AIM 9 would fly up the tailpipe and explode inside the defender plane.  
 
This happened often enough that when Mig 21 pilots felt something wrong at the back end of their aircraft, they assumed a Phantom II had ambushed them and shoved a Sidewinder up their tailpipe. So they rode their SK-1 ejection seats out of the plane rather than wait for the Sidewinder to detonate. 
 
Thus there are more than a score of instances where the Americans (and the Vietnamese) do not know if a Mig could have survived a Sidewinder impact, when a prudent pilot chose discretion over valor.
 
Curiously, when an ATOLL hit, it usually exploded when it struck a Phantom or other American aircraft. The Russian missile missed more often, but when it hit, its fuse functioned.     
 
 
 
Quote    Reply
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics