wrightwingYes well, VP and CLOS are used against (almost) stationary targets (some don’t even measure distance to target, due the speed difference) in a terrain sensitive projectiles (CLOS) and Beam Riding has been kicked out 30-50 years ago.
Anyway, the point being is that the missile HAS to match EVERY move by the target to stay on intercept vector, unlike to what you’ve claimed.
Missile’s corrections are smaller while the missile is faster and further from the target, but it’s still very possible to “kill” the missile 30km away, by making enough 180° turns while flying fast.
Exact figures would depend on numerous factors, but there’s no guidance in this world that can prevent this.
Ironically, it would be better to have Beam Riding guidance in such situation than the proportional one.
Air breathers (like Meteor) are by far, the most difficult opponents in such situations.
It sounds like we’re arguing semantics here. Of course the missile will adjust its course in flight, but while at long distances, its adjustments won’t be nearly as dramatic as a hard maneuvering fighter’s, in order to remain on a collision course. It’s not until the target is at WVR ranges where the missile will have significant challenges, in matching turns. I’d also say that it’d be dangerous to assume that the pilot will be aware of a missile at 30km, with 100 percent certainty. In many cases, the pilot might not be aware till the missile goes active.
wrightwingBasically, if we’re talking parity and balance of power as an interest, then taking into account let’s say R77M or an equivalent etc., it’s arguable to ponder a sooner parity date than 2019, etc.
This is operating under the assumption that the R-77 has not only reached parity, but taken the lead from the -120D. I’m not sure that this is a foregone conclusion, based upon anything I’ve seen. I’d say it’s the other way around.
wrightwingDoD, Lockheed Finally Finish JSF LRIP 4 Talks
By Amy Butler / AW
Details have not been released, but are expected within a few weeks.
the LRIP-4 agreement is expected to be worth more than 5b for 32 aircraft, 30 for the US, 1 for the Netherlands, and 1 for the UK. 5b/32=156m
The end of the article has more cost information.
These packages include much more than just airframes(i.e. you can’t divide the total by the # of aircraft, to get the flyaway cost).
wrightwingAs long as the target in question stays in the related cone. In the vertical every AAM runs into problems.
Naturally, and I wouldn’t claim otherwise.
wrightwingHere are the different types of navigation types-
Velocity Pursuit
Proportional Navigation
Command-to-Line-of-Sight
Beam Riding
What do you disagree with, in terms of the missile leading the target, being the point of Pro-Nav? You seem to continually ascribe meanings to my posts that are non-existent.
wrightwinghttp://www.scribd.com/doc/23040926/Proportional-Navigation-Guidance-System
3.2.1 Proportional Navigation Guidance In proportional navigation guidance method, the missile turns at a rate proportional to the angular velocity of the line-of-sight (LOS). The LOS is defined as an imaginary line from the missile to the target. The ratio of the missile turning rate to the angular velocity of the LOS is called the proportional navigation constant denoted byN . The value of N is usually greater than one and usually ranges from 2 to 6. This means that the missile will always be turning at a rate faster than the LOS rate and thus build up a lead angle with respect to the LOS. Thus for a constant velocity missile and target (target not maneuvering), anuglar velocity of line of sight is zero and the lead angle generated can put the missile on a collision course with the target.
To put it in simple terms- the missile isn’t chasing the aircraft per se, but aiming for a collision course based upon the direction of travel of the aircraft. This is why the missile doesn’t have to match every single turn that the aircraft makes.
wrightwingGoing by the example of the Astra Mark 2 = a 150 km class missile, 34 km at tail chase, high alt. Then the 120D has a 40 km range, tail chase high alt.
If we take the example of a fighter doing M1.5, regardless of if it is the shooter or the target, then the NEZ for 120D will be some 2/3 of that, ~27 km/14 nm, high alt.
The tail chase is the worst aspect to fire from, which is why it’s also the least likely to be used, unless a merge has already occurred. In BVR combat, the head on aspect(or frontal aspect of some sort) will be the one utilized, giving the missiles a much greater range. I also suspect that you’re mixing subsonic/supersonic launch speed numbers, as well as 30k/60k launch altitude, interchangeably.
wrightwingThe missile constantly flies towards the intercept point, wherever it is.
That’s the point of proportional guidance. Dunno where do you get these concepts of yours?
the concept of Pro-Nav is that the missile isn’t wasting energy in getting to that intercept point, by matching every turn. In other words, it uses a smarter flight profile, to maximize the likelihood of a successful intercept.
MAWS does not need to detect a missile launch…Dunno where did you get that idea?
I never said MAWS did that. That would be an MLD.
What MAWS does, is (as the name says) it warns the pilot of an inbound object, that has been detected using various means (IR, IIR, radar).
IR MAWS needs a laser rangefinder to measure distance to the inbound object to plot a vector.
Radar MAWS substitutes IR and laser for detection and tracking, with radar and works in mm wavelength to accurately measure inbound object’s distance.Obviously, the launch distance is irrelevant.
The launch distance is irrelevant, but the distance that the MAWS can detect an incoming missile isn’t. The pilot will get warnings, but they’ll be measured in seconds, not minutes, in terms of advanced notice.
wrightwingAs we can see, an impressive 93 miles=81nm=150km range on a head on shrinks to a mere quarter on a tail chase, (21 miles=18nm=34km) which would be the first thing the shot at fighter would do, equipped with MLD/MAWS, and reasonable high alt agility.
If he then proceed to take a dive, we can shave off half of that quarter,
for an effective range of that 150 km missile in practical term is
~10 miles=9nm=17km, = well within visual range.
If fired outside of the detection range of the MAWS/MLD, the target isn’t going to know that it needs to do a 180 degree turn, and change altitudes significantly. The whole point of this excercise is that stealthy aircraft are going to be able to set up optimal shots against anyone that’s not stealthy.
It’s no surprise that a low altitude, low speed shot, at a receding target won’t have the same range as a high altitude, high speed shot against an approaching target. That’s why pilots are going to use the latter more often than the former, as their first choice of tactics.
wrightwingWhat can i say ?
Say good bye to your day dreaming.
For a missile with ~10 sec worth of fuel to be fired at such distance and still have enough speed to remain in controlled flight would require space, or an un-inhabited world with no atmosphere, to avoid the inevitable deceleration caused by friction.
But even then, there would be no atmosphere for the necessary friction to give the control surfaces any authority to change direction. (or remain in controlled flight)
The -120D is a 180km class missile, which means that in a head on shot, it’s quite conceivable that it’s fired outside of the detection range of the MAWS/MLD. Obviously it won’t be fired at 180km, but it’s not going to be falling out of the sky in 10 seconds.
wrightwingOkey, but as was mentioned earlier, a modern MAWS can detect a missile 800 miles away,
An ICBM, whose huge rocket plume is visible, not a small AAM, with no plume.
I think the primary issue is if the fighter has enough time to react, (like taking a dive) as you say as well. And that will depend on the range from which the missile was fired, and the relative speed that it is approaching.
That leaves us 3 options:
1/ Fire the missile at such close range that there isn’t time to react.
2/ F-22 way, semi close range with high initial speed so that there isn’t time to react.
3/ A BVR missile with such fantastic speed that there isn’t time to react, and/or it has such hysterical speed that the fighter appear to stand still, so it still won’t need particular agility, a laser would be the logical end result on that road.
The whole point of proportional navigation, is that the missile isn’t having to match every single move the fighter makes, and once the fighter starts pulling hard Gs and losing energy, it’s more vulnerable if the first maneuver didn’t work.
wrightwingTo be more accurate, the package of 20 aircraft, plus spares, related equipment, infrastructure, training, is worth $2.75B.
wrightwingIt may be directly proportional, but is it linear? Even still, let’s say that an unmodified Meteor is capable of 50gs, and a modified one is only capable of 40gs. That’s still enough to achieve a greater than 3:1 G ratio vs. a maneuvering target. In other words, even if the target is pulling 10gs, if the Meteor is fired within its NEZ, it’ll still have a good PK.
wrightwingThe question though, is whether the changes were of a tangible nature, or transparent to the user. If the performance loss wasn’t significant, then it’s all academic.
wrightwingThis presumes that we know what the design tolerances, etc… were in the first place. We only know the one variable in this equation, which is why I’m skeptical when someone presumes to “know” what the outcome of the design change was.
Sign In
