I have some question and some ideas about the stuffs like the ECm, teh awacs, the arm missile. Here below:
– the Ft 2000 has only passive guidance? So it is unuseful vs not emitting ( i think mostly ECms insthead of radar emissions) aircrafts
– Because teh FT 2000 is passive and long range, and seen how the US deployed as ARM missile even a version of the Talos in vietnam, i would suggest this awing concept:
COULD BE TAHT THE FT 2000 CAN BE USED AGAINST THE TAIWAN AIR DEFENCE RADARS?
If we look, the distance is on average of 200 km between the taiwan and China coasts, to not to talk about the little isles.
now, seen how many radars and radar guided missiles are in Taiwans, what best of a supersonic, modern and huge missile like this? The range could be enough.
Atleast if it’s 100-120 and not 50 Kms. in the SAM role, i think it could be twice in the SS role.
If the guidance system is optimized to do so , with a loft trajectory and tehn a dive by high levels, what kind of better help for the destruction of the taiwan AD?
Also, i have heard of a chinese or iraqui-north korean SSM version of the guideline, someone knows?
At the end, the second, shocking idea: More than to fight the AWACS, i think that a SAM/ ARM missile is good to shot at a ECM source. Not only a EA-6, but also a tactical fighter with ECMs. So, if it use them, it could be targetted by the FT-2000. If it don’t use them it could be targetted by teh lte’s say, Sa-10 or even 2. This could be a really good combo.
Because the AWACS and the ECM using both radar emissions it is useful to note several differences:
1-the AWACS has a directional emission, the ECM has a broad if not omni directional emission antennas. This means that the AWACS is visible only every x seconds on a ESM, and it’s not so easy to spot it because teh work frequences could be not always cathced. Totally different the ECM. They are omni directionals, they couver a broad band, they are continuos. They are bright stars on a ESM panel scope. If a ARM target a AWACS it will dififcult to find it with continuos manner. A E-3 has 10 rotations for minuts or so, so if it flyes at 600 kmh it will be seen only every 1 km it flies. Not good for a ARM missile, less it flies forward or behind the awacs. Totall different an ECM equippment. it is the perfect target for a ARM missile.
-a Awacs is capable to work even at 300 km away from the enemy, a ECM isn’t over 100 km, so the ecm plane should fly behind the enemy lines and be in the range of many missiles.
-A awacs emits because it want to see all around. A ECm is emitting only to blind the enemy. So the awacs has a clue of what approaching, and could escape.
A Ecm aircraft isn’t. More, when uses to fully power its hardware, it could be blinded in the RWR and communications, like it seems happned several times in the DS operations. So when it cames active it could lost the SA and can be attacked by a determined enemy.
So, definitively i cannot see the meanings why every hig speed ARM that appears is regarded as a possible AWACS killer, while a much more probable target is a Prowler and, if the missile is good to manouvre, a fighter bomber.
So, when i heard stuff like ” the foxbat F could engage a AWACS” i am awed. To engage an awacs it’s much better a normal foxbat with AAMs. But it seems that the usefulness of a ARm vs ECms isn’t understood, So or i am wrong or the real potential of these weapons are not well known.
By: nuke1 - 21st November 2004 at 15:02
it’s so. the best system to fight a Harm shooter is to contrast him with a passive system. Imagine as example a SA 10 site with a belt of Sa-13 all around (the SA-13 has teh magick box with passive ESMs to lock a target emitting radar but also, i mean, ECM, plus an advanced passive IR seeker and a rangefinder radar: te best you can do , except if you put a laser rangefinder insthead of the radar).
I though also that the ALQ 184 of the Taiwaneses fighters are target for the FT 2000, it’s not believable that this was meant only for AWACs.
Rougly, an passive-ESm is like a an eye vs a light spot, it’s possible and likely to track at longer range than the range of the radar or ECm the “source”, like it’s possible to see from the space the lights of a city. So it’s not difficult in theory lock before the launch even if the radar wave are more elusive than the light or the sound wavelengths. It’s more easy to spot a light or sound source than a radar, but even so, the best way to counter attack a Sead with passive missiles is to use another passive system: a airplane must emit some kind of energy while the SAM position at the ground can stay totally silent, with active radars and engines shut off.
By: Farbod - 20th November 2004 at 07:31
Guys one question
Is there a possibility to use the FT-2000 in an anti SEAD role, for example when you have Harm carrying F-16 CJ’s in the area and have to turn off your radar, you can use this passive missile against it instead. I dont know wheter it still needs a radar for the initial lock or wheter you can shoot it (without radar may be just random salvo’s or optically guided) and obtain a lock later?
Also the passive HOJ seeker on the Russian AA-10 Alamo missile has a claimed range of 200km, if the FT-2000 has a similar ranged seeker than you may even lock before launching the SA-2/ Could someone please elaborate?
By: nuke1 - 19th November 2004 at 12:37
So, if -ipotesis- Vietnam defense had putted let’s say, a derivate of the Srihke searchead or a HOJ in the guideline, or also a IR seeker even of simple type ( the space is enough in a Guideline almost for every employ, perahps also a pilot of low heigth-see the manned version of hte V-1) this could have transformed every B-52 in a “bright star” instead of a jamming blinder source. Us were lucky
By: crobato - 19th November 2004 at 01:45
You got it. The ARM can lock on to a much wider range of frequencies. In the case of the FT-2000 I beleive it is 2GHz to 18GHz. I’m not that impressed with the lower figure though, since it’s not going to home on long range search radars with longer lower frequency than 2GHz.
By: nuke1 - 18th November 2004 at 13:11
perhaps the real difference between the home on Jam missiles and the ARm is that these latter are capable to lock not only their usual wavwlenght but also a larger wavw band, so if a patriot can HOJ on a jamming on it a Ft2000 can d othe same with a jammer let’s say disturbing also a SA-2 or 10. This is important.
I have heard also that hte SA 2F had a sort of HOJ capability.
My guess is: if the nord-vietnameneses in 1972 were putted a :
ARM searchead (vs. radar jammer, or a real HOJ vs their radar jammers)
Ir passive (ex. a AA-2 or AA-3 IR)
or a SARH (ex. a SA-4 or 6),
with 200 missiles fired at 100-120 B 52s, i think that the 1972 bombing campaign in linebaker II could shortered to max 2-3 days..foer shortage of targets!
By: nuke1 - 13th November 2004 at 13:57
Effectively, i cannot see why the chineses devepodped a long range SAM ARm missile: there moust be reasons taht we don’t know. More, i have heard that a HARM hitten a B 52 because its tail radar or ECM.
By: crobato - 13th November 2004 at 01:17
You have good observation, and yes, you are correct. ARMs are going to be more lethal against ECM targets.
However, you do not need a dedicated ARM to go after ECM targets. Any existing SAM or AAM can be modified to go after ECM targets using existing antennas and components. That is what you call the HOJ or Home on Jam mode, and it is present on the AIM-7 Sparrow, AIM-120 AMRAAM and even the Patriot missile. The Patriot is said capable of targeting a ground based jammer.
Also an ARM has an INS guidance system. Thus it does not need for continious homing. If a radar or AWACS makes a sweep, the ARM memorizes its position through the INS, and the missile will continue to fly on the same path, only making midcourse corrections if necessary when the missile’s seeker recieves signals from the second sweep.
Realize since the missile is small and will probably have antiradiation coating, it is going to be hard to detect in time.
As for the FT-2000, there is a possibility I mentioned before that it might be able to be used against ground targets like radars and ECM. Likewise, these seekers can also be used in theory on the naval HHQ-9 on the 052C, so it can be used against jamming targets on sea or shore.
Sign In
November 12, 2004 at 5:21 pm