Rules of Engagement in the air.
Thread Starter
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
From: Some-r-set
Rules of Engagement in the air.
Okay, just seen a debate going on in another forum, and I was wondering:- do the Rules of (lets call it) Aerial Engagement mean that a visual is needed?
Because, in the case of the Gulf of Sidra (where Libya created a "line of death"
) the F-14s tried 5 times to get behind the attacking MiG-23s and were matched each time, constituted an attack.
Is this commonplace?
Just a question.
Because, in the case of the Gulf of Sidra (where Libya created a "line of death"
) the F-14s tried 5 times to get behind the attacking MiG-23s and were matched each time, constituted an attack.Is this commonplace?
Just a question.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Joined: Jul 2000
Aviation Qualifications: Spotter
Posts: 24,662
Likes: 7,348
From: Peripatetic
It depends.
In a WW3 secenario, operating in a kill box for example, the ROE would allow BVR engagements at maximum range. Other scenarios may allow engagement using electronic means of ID.
In more limited scenarios where friendly/neutral aircraft may be in the area, visual ID may be required.
In peacetime scenarios, such as air policing, command authority from the political level may be required.
Nothing, of course, denies a pilot the right to self defence, but he would have to be able to justify it in a court of law afterwards.
Once the ftr has closed beyond the minimum range of a radar missile, he would have to get inside the firing envelope of his IR missile, and older ones, such as AIM-9G etc, were not all aspect. Which probably accounts for getting intoa turning fight at close range at Sidra.
In a WW3 secenario, operating in a kill box for example, the ROE would allow BVR engagements at maximum range. Other scenarios may allow engagement using electronic means of ID.
In more limited scenarios where friendly/neutral aircraft may be in the area, visual ID may be required.
In peacetime scenarios, such as air policing, command authority from the political level may be required.
Nothing, of course, denies a pilot the right to self defence, but he would have to be able to justify it in a court of law afterwards.
Once the ftr has closed beyond the minimum range of a radar missile, he would have to get inside the firing envelope of his IR missile, and older ones, such as AIM-9G etc, were not all aspect. Which probably accounts for getting intoa turning fight at close range at Sidra.
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 1,034
Likes: 8
From: The Road to Nowhere
After posting, I noted I had been beaten to it by ORAC, with a better response than me, but I'll leave this in anyway, if for no other reason than the link.
Rules of Engagement (ROE) are many and varied, and apply in the air just as on the ground. However, they only apply to those who follow them - that is to say, if NATO, for example, is faced with a threat, its response to that threat is determined, in large part, by what has gone before and what the politicians agree. Their decisions are based on political intent, but also advice they receive by an army of lawyers. However, not all potential adversaries (countries, factions, terrorist groups) follow such things as ROE - or indeed recognise the authority of international courts.
Returning to your original Q, I don't think it's terribly likely that a western power would authorise engagement of an ac without visual inspection unless it was part of a larger conflict that had already developed, or there was extremely reliable intelligience (oxymoron?) that the threat was such that immediate long-range engagement were necessary.
The thing is, these days, it may not be necessary to visally ID a target to establish the type. Non-cooperative target recognition (NCTR) may give a level of assurance of the type such that engagement may be authorised without visual ID. More info here:
NCTR
The other thing to bear in mind with ROE is that the right of self-defence always exists, and you may respond if you or a friend are under attack. Long-range missile launch indication against you or a friend may be enough in itself to justify a long-range response, even without NCTR.
Sorry, I got a bit carried away there - this really is a massive subject, and perhaps I shoud just have said 'No, not always!'
STH
Rules of Engagement (ROE) are many and varied, and apply in the air just as on the ground. However, they only apply to those who follow them - that is to say, if NATO, for example, is faced with a threat, its response to that threat is determined, in large part, by what has gone before and what the politicians agree. Their decisions are based on political intent, but also advice they receive by an army of lawyers. However, not all potential adversaries (countries, factions, terrorist groups) follow such things as ROE - or indeed recognise the authority of international courts.
Returning to your original Q, I don't think it's terribly likely that a western power would authorise engagement of an ac without visual inspection unless it was part of a larger conflict that had already developed, or there was extremely reliable intelligience (oxymoron?) that the threat was such that immediate long-range engagement were necessary.
The thing is, these days, it may not be necessary to visally ID a target to establish the type. Non-cooperative target recognition (NCTR) may give a level of assurance of the type such that engagement may be authorised without visual ID. More info here:
NCTR
The other thing to bear in mind with ROE is that the right of self-defence always exists, and you may respond if you or a friend are under attack. Long-range missile launch indication against you or a friend may be enough in itself to justify a long-range response, even without NCTR.
Sorry, I got a bit carried away there - this really is a massive subject, and perhaps I shoud just have said 'No, not always!'
STH
Last edited by SirToppamHat; 22nd February 2007 at 20:27.
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 379
Likes: 0
From: UK
ROE change with the 'operation'. Different ops/areas have different ROE. Sometimes a 'visual' is required, particularly for policing operations, but that's not always the case either.
In some regions, the use of AWACs and other high value assets can ascertain the 'hostility' of the target aircraft (they know when he gets airborne and watch him). Do not confuse ROE with the status of the target either ... Most ROE will define what constitutes a hostile act and therefore whether the aircraft is hostile or not. Even then, engagement is unlikely without permission from the ground based Regional Commander.
Even being 'visual' (I say 'visual' as a purely grammatical statement - there is another codeword for being visual with a hostile aircraft) with a hostile aircraft does not necessarily give the fighter carte blanche to engage.
In some regions, the use of AWACs and other high value assets can ascertain the 'hostility' of the target aircraft (they know when he gets airborne and watch him). Do not confuse ROE with the status of the target either ... Most ROE will define what constitutes a hostile act and therefore whether the aircraft is hostile or not. Even then, engagement is unlikely without permission from the ground based Regional Commander.
Even being 'visual' (I say 'visual' as a purely grammatical statement - there is another codeword for being visual with a hostile aircraft) with a hostile aircraft does not necessarily give the fighter carte blanche to engage.
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 190
Likes: 1
From: Bristol
ROE Variations
Even with a command from Higher HQ to engage a certain aircraft it can be changed at a moments notice.
I have had experience of an initial "engage" for BVR to "engage" if identified as Hostile, to finally "engage" if hostile and seen committing a hostile act. All this in a peace enforcing role that had very restrictive ROE.
To continue 3.4 vein sometimes the ROE can be based on electronic means. For example in Veitnam the USAF had a piece of kit "Combat Tree" which could interogate Soviet IFF, therefore they were allowed to BVR if they had a psoitive reply from the Soviet IFF.
Most electronic ROE's are matched up with visual ROE's. But some can employ secret stuff that is supposed to guarantee a definate hostile ID. However if the oposition isn't radiating then it can't be declared Hostile and Visual ID will still be required.
I have had experience of an initial "engage" for BVR to "engage" if identified as Hostile, to finally "engage" if hostile and seen committing a hostile act. All this in a peace enforcing role that had very restrictive ROE.
To continue 3.4 vein sometimes the ROE can be based on electronic means. For example in Veitnam the USAF had a piece of kit "Combat Tree" which could interogate Soviet IFF, therefore they were allowed to BVR if they had a psoitive reply from the Soviet IFF.
Most electronic ROE's are matched up with visual ROE's. But some can employ secret stuff that is supposed to guarantee a definate hostile ID. However if the oposition isn't radiating then it can't be declared Hostile and Visual ID will still be required.
Thread Starter
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
From: Some-r-set
Thanks for the response.
Cleared things up abit.
But reading, the F-22, with the 144-1 kill ration, came within visual range twice.
2 were short-range IR missiles, 2 F-15s downed.
1 gun kill, 1 F-1 downed.
That was only after they ran out of Sparrows/MR missiles
Cleared things up abit.
But reading, the F-22, with the 144-1 kill ration, came within visual range twice.
2 were short-range IR missiles, 2 F-15s downed.
1 gun kill, 1 F-1 downed.
That was only after they ran out of Sparrows/MR missiles
