Amiga500This is a classic case of knowing just enough to get it really wrong. A complete amateur would consider that military forces all around the world rely on missiles as the principal means of air to air and surface to air warfare, based on this one might be led to conclude that missiles are probably capable of intercepting aircraft.
Now, here we are on the internet and someone has once again discovered that with a little physics they can determine that missiles can’t actually hit maneuvering aircraft. (or not while moving fast anyway…) :eagerness:
Now, you are correct in a sense, for a missile to achieve the same turn radius at much higher speeds it would need a much higher G-load. Where the whole thing falls apart is in assuming that a missile needs to achieve the same turn radius to successfully intercept a maneuvering target, it doesn’t.
Modern missiles use sophisticated guidance algorithms that are capable of calculating an intercept point for even a maneuvering target. The missile will then fly to this intercept point making only small corrections late in its flight rather than stupidly trying to pursue its target in a tail chase scenario.
You post this…
then post:
An effective attempt to dodge a missile requires the ability to execute a sudden high-G maneuver in the moments before missile impact. Too late and obviously the missile will win, too early and the missile will need only adjust its aim slightly. The ability to visually acquire an incoming missile is a key part of this strategy, and of course a missile warning system would also be a significant advantage.
What on this green and blue earth did you think I was proposing?
As soon as a missile is fired at you turn and go around in f**king 9g circles?!?
Christ on a bike. :sleeping:
Amiga500I’m still not buying the Mach 2.8 top speed for the MiG-31.
Well then your out of luck.
The USAF have observed Foxhounds travelling at M2.6 for hundreds of miles.
Even sferrin has admitted this:
sferrin:
Just a point of interest. I was thumbing through a book about variuous “incidents” in B&N years ago (stuff like the Gulf of Sydra, KAL 007 etc.) and they had an interesting bit of information on the latter. Some might recall that F-15s and an E-3 were sent to the general area immediately after the shootdown and that the USSR responded by sending Mig-31s to the area. One of the F-15 pilots being interviewed commented that the Mig-31s “made the 620 mile run down at Mach 2.6”.
Amiga5004 rational posts in a row?
**wonders has he dandered into the wrong forum** 😎
Amiga500I see it is time for our bi-weekly exercise in disproving the “theory” that missiles work. :very_drunk:
Drop the absolute. I don’t believe anyone is claiming they simply don’t work.
They are however, not nearly as effective as the manufacturers (and proponents of BVR warfare) would have you believe.
There is a substantial amount of historical evidence to back this up.
How this feeds into aircraft design, tactics, training and munition design is much more important than an argument of A vs. B on a net forum.
For example – have the Russians designed PAK-FA to perhaps not have first look, or even first shot, but have excellent MAWS with the kinematic performance to both fire off return missiles and achieve evasion? etc etc
Amiga500It only takes one B2 to take out an entire squadron of MiG 25 :dev2:
with the help of a few AGM 129s
A Minuteman III would take out a helluva lot more!
Amiga500I don’t have time at the moment to go through everything in this post, but the above is not true.
The ability to pull 9Gs or more is not by itself much of a defense against an AMRAAM due to the way its guidance algorithms work. It is a pro-nav type system and will intelligently lead its target.
If the target is pulling 5g on an inside turn from running directly away at V = 1, and the missile is doing V=2, then the missile must turn at 20g to maintain the turn radius. Otherwise it will start to overshoot.
Nothing changes that maxim.
g = V^2/R
The way to dodge a missile is to change course very suddenly very late in the missile’s flight. This requires knowledge of the missile’s location relative to the fighter (the same reason visually acquiring SAMs was/is so important in order to evade them) and of course the ability to execute such a turn suddenly.
That is one of two ways of “dodging” a missile. [which I think confusion is arising on]
The way you’ve outlined, which is classical turn inside the missile, the 2nd, which is really only available to high speed aircraft, is to present a very adverse pursuit curve and go up against the missile motor, rather than the missile fins.
Bottom line, this is not easily done in practice and no pilot would claim that it is “no problem” to dodge AMRAAMs.
There is a long history of aircraft AAMs not having the Pks their manufacturers would have you believe.
Amiga500If you really want to know that shoot-down was primarily a product of miscommunication/ poor coordination on the allied side. Besides, nobody ever said the Mig-25 was incapable of shooting down a target.
It all depends how you define “evading.” Nobody questions whether a Mig-25 is fast and if allowed to turn tail will likely escape. We could also point to the Mig-25s that -didn’t- get away, including a couple during the Gulf War and the first AMRAAM kill back in 1992. (not to mention a number of Mig-25s lost during the Iran-Iraq War)
*sigh*
Did you read what I was responding to?
It would take one F-22, or one F-15, or even one F-16 or F/A-18 to shoot a MIG-25 or MIG-31 down. They are incredibly vulnerable for all of their speed.
Are you aware of any evidence that exists which would make the MiG-25 (or -31) incredibly vulnerable? Based on their operational record and their tactics, the Foxhound is still a formidable foe even today.
[ironically, no-one has mentioned the by far most effective US system versus the Foxbat… which is of course the F-14/AIM-54C combination.]
Amiga500No harm to them, but HAL would be safer shutting up and working on getting Tejas out the door.
Only when they have proved themselves competent in design/build (as opposed to building airfix kits sent from abroad with full instructions and a couple of examples of what it should look like to boot), will other manufacturers* be more willing to workshare with them!
*Dassault and Suhkoi to name two.
Amiga500In other Words, Greater speed = Shrinks the NOZ of any incoming missile.
Exactly.
If your high tailing it away from an F-15 at Mach 2.5 after firing off your own BVR shots, you don’t need 9g maneuvres to stretch an AMRAAM to its limit!
Amiga500It would take one F-22, or one F-15, or even one F-16 or F/A-18 to shoot a MIG-25 or MIG-31 down. They are incredibly vulnerable for all of their speed.
Now that statement is, at best, idiotic.
If the Foxbat was so vulnerable, how come one beat overwhelming numerical odds to nail a Hornet back in GW1?
How come there are recorded examples of a Foxbat evading up to 8 F-15s?
Amiga500A MiG-25R flying at Mach 2.6 has no agility to evade missiles.
Not in the sense of out maneuvering the missile… but in the sense of increasing the pursuit curve to a point where the missile just cannot close the gap before running out of motor.
Amiga500Question comes to this: Can F-22 (or AIM-120 should I say) succesfully hit a target flying at M2.5+ and 75000+ feet? For example, what is the ceiling of AIM-120C? What is its kill range when fired to 25000+ feet elevation difference?
For how long/far can a Foxbat run at M3?
[I know MiG-31s can run for phenomenal distances – at over Mach 2. What about the Foxbat?]
Amiga500You’re assuming that it’s a tail chase, rather than a headon intercept.
Its purely a question of vector mechanics.
Different origin points and different vectors produce different results.
The OPs point is that kinematically, it would take more F-22 to intercept a MiG-25RBS (with situational awareness supplied by whatever means) relative to the MiG-31 intercepting Blackbirds. Others will ask how that situational awareness is supplied.
Of course, we should bear in mind that a number of lightly loaded F-15 might be more suited to the task (kinematically).
Amiga500Ideally Sukhoi should have focused on a Vertical Take Off version of the PAK FA which could have been used from the Mistral LPH . But for reasons known best to Sukhoi they chose to ignore it .
I’m sure we could draw up quite a long list of reasons why they chose to totally ignore it!
Trying to make any high-performance aircraft VTOL is a bad, bad idea. All the added weight and complexity of the vertical lift system, along with the compromise of the OML/aerodynamics means your handicapped relative to the opposition before you start your engine*.
*making a twin-engine VTOL is even trickier.
Amiga500We’ve mostly assumed the wing LE arrays are for communication.
Well, seen this earlier and thought it interesting.
E2V has developed a non-lethal weapon that can disable the engines of motor vehicles and small boats at a distance of up to 50m in under three seconds.
‘At the weight of frequencies we’re taking about – L and S-Band – the wiring loom of, say a metre…is almost the perfect aerial,’ said Wood.
Obviously, it goes without saying that 50 metres is not very far and 3 seconds is not very quick for aerospace applications. But their unit is rigged for use on a pickup.
Sign In
