The SAAF Forum

This is my point of view as a software developer, and I may miss the ball by a mile of what happens inside a Gripen, BUT:

Surely BVR's main system is the aircraft radar and pilot interface (MDF's etc) - which must firstly pick up an enemy plane, BEFORE you start worrying about which missile you're going to fire (read also using). Getting a radar lock is surely the bigger percentage down to the aircraft's system, not the missile?
From a Programmer's perspective, whether my pilot has an IRIS or an A-DARTER on the wing, the interface to get the lock, identify the aircraft as an enemy, getting range, speed and altitude of the enemy, should all function the same on the inside of my jet.
Even different qualities like range and warhead, doesn't have to worry the pilot, as the warning to fire the missile, will depend on the missile's range, which is known to the computer on the aircraft, and that's why the alert to release the missile, will only go off when in range and when lock is 100%.

Let me know if I'm wrong...

Where SAAF may be bit short, is tracking an enemy or getting to pic them up earlier - someone who knows, please help us?

As far as Cheetah C avionic system pilot interface goes, you are correct. There were differences between pilot control and display for V3S (short range) and V4 (short range to BVR), but control and display was largely the same, so the pilot did not have to learn two different sequences and potentially get confused between them.

The aircraft gives cues regarding missile and target, but it is up to the pilot to make a decision to fire. (At least, in the SAAF it was up to the pilot - allegedly the Soviet-block pilots did exactly what ground control told them to do.) So the avionic system can tell you that the missile is locked on to the target or not locked, and the target is within range or out of range, but these are only indications and they depend on assumptions (target type might be assumed to be Mig-29, etc.)

An experienced pilot who has good knowledge of his missile and of the likely target type may know he can fire earlier, (for example if he believes the target aircraft is a Mig-21 with lower maximum turn rate than the assumed target), or may delay firing to increase success rate, (for example if he knows the target aircraft missile system is significantly shorter range than his own.)

Remember, you have a very limited number of missiles on your aircraft so you don't want to waste them. But you also want to fire at the longest useful range, since that keeps you further from the enemy's weapon system.

All in all, having knowledge of the performance of your own missile system and of likely target aircraft and their tactics can help optimise the use of missiles, particularly BVR missiles.

But I suppose the radar will warn you if your opponent is launching something nasty at you from beyond visual range and allow you to take evasive or counter actions?

You don't have any chance of detecting a missile at typical launch range with a fighter aircraft radar - the missile is just too small. You may have some indication from the electronic warfare system - for example, the EW system will tell you if it sees a Mig-29 radar in search mode (no immediate danger), or an F-16 radar which is locked on (they could fire soon.) But it's up to the pilot (and his experience and tactics training) to decide what the heck is going on and what to do about it.

But what about missiles such as Iris-T and A Darter, which have been designated to also act as self defence systems. Hence at some point, the incoming
missile is going to be detected and fired upon.

IRIS-T was designed to take cueing from almost any sensor system provided its fused in SW and its own seeker has a range matching its kinematic range. But cueing is key and if not assisted by radar the LITENING pod could eventually see a incoming missile (the new G4 pod can even detect the launch). But it's visually restricted so in for instance the rear there won't be any missile detection and IRIS-T could only be cued against aircraft as located by the RWR.

That is until Gripens get IR/UV missile warners - so far only fitted to Saabs tech demo. But a driver would likely already know he had an enemy up his rear and could engage appropriately. IR-missiles must be considered a final hard-kill weapon. Before that the EWS would manipulate signals in various ways potentionally combined with chaffs and create false targets, report false speed and altitude, change signature or jam the tracking radar and missile seeker heads.

I think the SAAF might even have become good in WVR by not spending as much time on BVR tactics etc. Speaking of exercises, Sweden take part in Frisian Flag right now (next to Eurofighters, F-15E etc) and after the first day they reported "all ground targets hit and aircraft in the air destroyed"

I know nothing about missile "self defence" modes. Not sure how that would work (and too lazy to Google).

But, let's look at the figures. If you are approaching an enemy head-on, and he fires a V4 / AMRAAM class BVR missile at you at a range of (say) 30 or 40 NM, I don't believe your radar is going to pick it up - at that stage you would probably be in single-target-track (Cheetah) or multi-target-track (Gripen), concentrating on the enemy, not scanning the skies for other possible targets. The first you are likely to know about the incoming missile is when it turns its radar on and starts looking for you - probably when it is about 6 NM from you. Assuming you are flying at 500 kt and the missile is at 800 knots, you (and your Iris-T or A Darter in "self defence" mode) have less than 15 seconds to react, find the incoming missile (how??), fire a missile, and intercept the incoming missile. I don't like the chances much, personally.

I believe that with current aircraft and systems, if your EW system tells you that an enemy aircraft which is known to carry BVRs has locked on to you in a mode which would support BVR missile launch, you will take appropriate action as if a missile is launched, on a "better safe than sorry" basis.

If you think your active EW suite will handle it, great. As Clint Eastwood said, "Do you feel lucky, punk?"

The idea of detecting "lock on" is however rapidly vanishing with new sensor developments which is why various imaging solutions see more developments but either way Gripen works with a layered defense principle and use what is necessary and required for each layer a process that begins from the start of the mission. The whole idea is to deny and avoid launches in the first place by being smart.

The idea with IRIS-T is just something extra that wasnt even a design requirement but came as a nice bonus. Basically you can start by letting it eyeball where it's being cued at and compare the acquired images, for instance after a radar scan cue the missile to watch a target while you use the radar to scan or engage elsewhere and the IRIS-T will report back from about 10-15nm if it detects something that looks hostile. One way to get out of a incoming launch would be to speed off and do a series of counter measures. Electronically (drfm, jammer), chaffs, and yes launch IRIS-T which will head after the missile and use both its own seeker to find a small high speed target and get cue from EWS once missile radar seeker is active.

It's certainly not bad to get another tool in the box!

No argument from me. Making use of new technology is great, I agree whole-heartedly.

But if you were a passenger in a JAS39D once IRIS-T and / or A-Darter are integrated, would you be happy if the pilot in control assumed that their new wonder-weapon would protect you against an enemy missile? I think not.

Well for the third time in as many posts, the capability to hit a missile is a new tool that shouldn't be used unless it really would have to be used. It doesn't take away anything from how the driver otherwise should behave in line with training and ROE's. All it does is increase the likelyhood to survive.

Here's a bit more info on IRIS-T:

http://www.diehl.com/en/diehl-defence/p ... ation.html

Hmm ....

Why shouldn't the 'new tool' be used? If it's mounted on the plane for decoration only, it's a useless tool.

Another thing:-
There is a creeping disease in Western military doctrine, training and battle readiness, and that is called ROE (Rules Of Engagement). If anything has delayed victory in Afghanistan by the coalition forces, it is this nonsense of political correctness, otherwise refered to as ROE. The Taliban are laughing all the way, everyday, about the West and its ROE!

It seems like good well trained military personell must pay the price for politically imposed ROE.

If you don't or cannot go into a war with a clear goal to win, don't go.

Thanks for your posts from Sweden knightone, I enjoy the technical insight you bring to the discussion.

_________________
Travelling in Europe - including photos.
http://anewad.blogspot.co.uk/

My Portfolio of Airplane Pictures
http://www.airplane-pictures.net/member ... php?p=6981

Missiles such as IRIS-T are primarily meant to target aircraft, that they have a limited ability to hit large incoming missiles is a 'bonus', not a main function. Relying on this ability is very risky.

ROE is the difference between professional soldiers and criminal terrorists.

Well said Roger the Dodger.

Tally-Ho, thanks. Well the ejection seat can be used too but it shouldn't IMO using missile vs missile means something has gone wrong with the mission and as such is a rather desperate measure. But nice to have. Another tool are towed decoys. Some info here http://articles.janes.com/articles/Jane ... weden.html

Saab make a note of the killing capability in presentations.

Could not agree more.

_________________
A plan is simply a basis for change.

Article from mil.za
http://www.af.mil.za/news/2012/014_2012.html

Picture threads at UKAR
http://forums.airshows.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=42028
http://forums.airshows.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=42021
http://forums.airshows.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=41787

Video from the HuAF (might wanna skip first 3 minutes)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYPqiT426yw