ELEC140@csc.canterbury.ac.nz (Chris Kaiser) (05/16/91)
From: Chris Kaiser <ELEC140@csc.canterbury.ac.nz> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: > 80%+ of all victims of air combat never even see the attacker, much less > have a chance to maneuver against him. This statistic must be largely based on the WW1 and WW2 situation, presumably the introduction of sophisticated radar carrying fighters is changing this, which brings me to some questions. 1) What are the limitations of a fighter's radar? Do aircraft such as the F-14 or Tornado interceptor have an all-round (ie. 360 degree) radar capability? 2) If they have radar blind spots (such as to the rear) do they have any means to detect the radar emissions of other aircraft? (eg. an enemy fighter with a radar lock on them from the rear) For aircraft operating close to home, the lack of all-round radar capability is probably not important, since ground based radar or AWAC aircraft could warn of approaching threats. However for a Tornado interceptor operating at extreme range, it must be a major consideration. 3) Basically, just how vulnerable are modern fighters to surprise attacks? How about long range strike aircraft and bombers? -- Chris Kaiser kaiser@elec.canterbury.ac.nz
daly@strawber.princeton.edu (John Daly) (05/17/91)
From: daly@strawber.princeton.edu (John Daly) ELEC140@csc.canterbury.ac.nz (Chris Kaiser) writes: >henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >> 80%+ of all victims of air combat never even see the attacker, much less >> have a chance to maneuver against him. I suspect this is still true. Most good pilots can evade what they can see. > 1) What are the limitations of a fighter's radar? Do aircraft such as the F-14 > or Tornado interceptor have an all-round (ie. 360 degree) radar capability? No. It's more like a 120 degree cone in front of the nose. This is why a controller (eg: AWACS) is so valuable in air-to-air conflicts. A friend of an A-7 pilot explained to me how his A-7 downed an F-14 in a navy exercise. The A-7 was cruising at low altitude when the pilot found himself in visual contact with a Tomcat high above him and headed away. The A-7 went to full military power and climbed. It took a while to catch up to the F-14, but he managed to score a similuated kill. The F-14 has a radar with a 150 mile range, but the crew still has to "check six". The most important component in a fighter is an alert aircrew. Otherwise, a Tomcat's no harder to shoot down than a Cessna. > 2) If they have radar blind spots (such as to the rear) do they have any means > to detect the radar emissions of other aircraft? (eg. an enemy fighter with a > radar lock on them from the rear) Yes. It's similar to the device you buy for your car to detect police radar.
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (05/19/91)
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >From: Chris Kaiser <ELEC140@csc.canterbury.ac.nz> >> 80%+ of all victims of air combat never even see the attacker, much less >> have a chance to maneuver against him. > >This statistic must be largely based on the WW1 and WW2 situation, presumably >the introduction of sophisticated radar carrying fighters is changing this, No, it hasn't. Fighters don't have 360-degree radar coverage, and for obvious reasons most surprise attacks are from behind. That percentage remained valid in Korea and Vietnam and I know of no recent results that seriously differ. Aside from lack of 360-degree coverage, note that a fighter might not use its radar all the time. A radar detector is much cheaper than a radar and has a greater effective range to boot, so using radar advertises your presence very widely. Missiles that home on radar are cheap compared to other medium/long-range missiles, and can be devastatingly accurate and effective. The classic example is the USS Worden, crippled off Vietnam by a single hit from a small US (!) anti-radar missile that homed on it by mistake. In fairness, nobody is yet known to have fielded an air-to-air anti-radar missile that I'm aware of. There *is* a considerable risk of tipping off the guy *you're* sneaking up on if you use your radar, though. You should also remember that seeing and identifying are two different things. In the sort of nightmare confusion you would expect in a major two-sided air battle (Iraq doesn't count :-)), it would be all too easy to be surprised by an attack even though you could, in principle, have seen it coming. -- And the bean-counter replied, | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology "beans are more important". | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry