[QUOTE=GoldenDragon]Both the AMRAAM and the AIM-54 has active pulse Doppler radar homing. Doppler gives you much more information and finer, more exact guidance. (1)
[quote]

Wrong. Both use CWI monopulse techniques. Doppler has problems against maneuvering targets (remember the doppler notch and the beam maneuver?) Doppler is also more vulnerable to ECM measures and ground clatter. Lastly, you won’t want to use doppler if someone throws out chaff.

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_armament_article3.html

Not sure about the R-77.

The Sparrow does use a seeker able to take in pulse doppler.(2)

No it does not. It uses an inverse monopulse seeker working on the CWI principle.

But the argument is not whether an AAM uses guidance from a doppler radar whether on its own or from the plane’s radar. We’re talking about the method of comparision, or doppler shift. (3)

The doppler method is needed to discern whether you are approaching or going away from source/reflection. It is used in fusing as well as homing.

Wrong. Proximity fusing is a totally seperate device from the seeker. Explain to me then how proximity fuses work in IR missiles.

The bottom line is a SARH missile is much more dependent on a particular system and a particular radar than the ARH. This was my original argument.

Wrong argument. The only difference SARH and ARH is the use of the illuminator on board the radar.

Again, if you don’t use method that tells you the doppler shift, you use a directional receiver. You simply ignore signals coming it behind you. It’s simply another way of solving the problem of discerning between echo and source (in the directional receiver, the solution is to ignore the source entirely.)

Let me tell you once again that missiles don’t use doppler shift.

The overwhelming majority of AshMs are active radar homers. Heat dissipates fast and in all directions.

But not bad enough to target ships tens of kilometers away. Many new generation AshMs are planning to use heat seekers to counter ECM, and the fact that radar does not work well near the coast, due to clatter from the coastline and coastal structures both natural and manmade.

We’ve heard about long ranged IRSTs for years. In the early 90s, a lot of people thought the Russians had lapped everyone else with their IRSTs on the MiG-29 and Su-27. A totally passive, undetectable aquisition unit rivaling radar, able to send long range IR missiles against unsuspecting western aircraft.

It never turned out that way.

Who told you it didn’t?

Now even the West is starting to use IRSTs in their planes, like the Typhoon.

At short range, IR works extremely well. But simply can’t match radar over distance. Otherwise, we would put huge IR aquisition units in heat-proof glass nose noses on our fighters and our BVR AAMs would be passive IR homers.

No, IR works surprisingly well over range. It is just that frontal aspect does not emit much heat, relying entirely on heat from air friction.

The key to IR is the differential between a particular heat signature and its surroundings while the same time hoping that heat reflective and concealing things like clouds don’t get in the way.

This is alerady a moot issue solved within the first generation of IR missiles. When I mean solved, that was like over forty years ago.

So distance causes several major problems for IR. 1) heat attenuates (weakens as it radiates from center,) 2) chances of an interference of cloud becomes much greater and 3) heat radiating from far away becomes less intense than heat signatures radiating nearby. Or worse, you could have a near object radiating the same intensity and confusing the IR seeker.

Differentiation is never a problem with modern IR seekers. You are only echoing issues that were concerns in the past and were dealt with.

The problem of IR is water vapor, and that with clouds. Other than that, it works well in a clear sky.

You can’t focus a guidance beam for IR like you would for ARH so it could stay focus. Of course, we have IR imaging for the new IR missiles so they would remember what they are going after.

Yes you can. It’s called a laser.

But currently, IR can’t match radar. Not currently and not in the diameter needed to place a seeker or aquisition unit. There is a reason why BVRAAM and planes use radar as their primary means of aquiring targets, not infrared.

No. IR has its place in the tail aspect. Radar, and doppler shift, has problems against receding targets. Range dramatically drops to a fraction of head on detection ranges and I mean really drop. The development of missiles like the R-27T apparently was intended to resolve problems radar has against tail aspect attacks. IR is much more efficient in tail attacks.

Let me see…

No pretty PLA MM there…

I see some unguided bombs and rockets…

There are Kh-29Ts hanging under the wing of the MKK.

Some large KAB bunker busters in the distance.

A huge possibly Russian air liner or transport, probably an IL-76…

and oh yeah, the tail of a J-10 caught sticking out in the bottom picture…
(there might be the tail rudder of a second J-10 too, just farther away).

The way the stuff is displayed, it’s like an airshow but for who?

That’s isn’t the top half of a Song sub in the Kilo. The Kilos are really built that way. Furthermore, the Kilo’s sail is still different from the Song’s. The stabilizers on the Kilo are thicker and slightly heavier than those in the Song.

Makes me wonder why China had to buy those two new Sovremannies.

Progress on the 052C and its weapons system are so fast that it makes the 956EM and the 052B look like PCs—obsolete before they’re in service.

There are not many BVR kills in the Arab-Israeli conflicts. This has led to a belief among the Israeli that BVR isn’t as important as WVR, and WVR is still where the action is at. That is why they have long emphasized development of the Python series over the Derby, and the Derby is still a dogfight missile with added range. Kills over the Bekaa valley were done mostly by one missile—the Python 3.

Crob,
I would have completely agreed with you if it weren’t for the original Super-7 drawings/models from the 1980s and the rollout of the FTC-2000. While i would need accurately measured drawings on the latter trainer, it looks an awful lot like the nose of an FC-1 mated to the fuselage and wings of a JJ-7/MiG-21U. And this is almost exactly what the early Super-7 pictures showed: a MiG-21 rear fuselage, with modified wings and a new nose with sidemounted intakes. While you are most likely right that at least all the detail design and engineering work on the FTC-2000 and FC-1 was done in the PRC after the post-Tienanmen withdrawal of US support, i am wondering how far the original (but undoubtedly rough) Grumman design was altered.

It appears that you confused the FC-1 and the FTC-2000.

Two different companies first of all, in two different regions. Kind of let’s not mistake Grumman’s product with Northrop.

The FTC-2000 is truly a modified JJ-7. JJ-7 in turn comes from the MiG-21U. It does not hide that fact. It also has the WP-13B engine that was evolved from the R-11-300 Tumansky. It has no connection to the Super 7 project since this particularly company (Guizhou AC? Or is it Hongdu?) is not connected to it in any way. Any resemblence to the Super 7 may be superficial or coincidental. The FTC-2000 was probably meant to mimic the FC-1. It is not intended as a Super 7 fighter, but only as an advanced trainer that can make use of an existing production line, engines and logistical infrastructure. It does have the potential to be a single seater, but that would certainly put this plane and company in competition with Chengdu, and I don’t know (and I don’t think) if the PLAAF would be interested with another MiG-21 variant.

The FC-1 is totally a new plane. It uses an engine with a much larger diameter than a WP-13B, the RD-93, which is almost identical to the RD-33 but with the gearbox lowered to the bottom. In that sense the RD-93 is the RD-33 what the AL-31FN is to the AL-31F. That alone would have required a new airframe design. Airframes and engines are generally custom made for each other, unless you specifically design an engine for that particular airframe. But for new plane designs, it’s the other way around.

The planform resembles the F-16’s but all surfaces are new. This means wing tip rails and a clipped delta with a fairly high aspect compared to the MiG-21. No double delta here from the J-7E either. Unlike the MiG-21 which holds some fuel on the spine, the FC-1 appears to hold fuel on two tanks just above the engine intakes, which bulges then flows into the curves of the body.

Note the intakes are angled. The avionics and FBW would all be new too. The Grumman input would be zero since the plane in reality, is all new, the resemblence to the original Super 7 would only be in the spirit of the program. There is a faint resemblence between the FC-1 and MiG’s proposed single engined fighter (also in an RD-33 based engine, hence the name Project 33), but the planform is quite different and so are the location of the wings. Project 33 has a planform like a MiG-29, with wings on the bottom, not mid wing; wings are swept not clipped deltas; the lateral intakes are vertical, not angled like a V, lacks wing tip rails and ventral fins.

The fact that the FC-1 is no MiG-21 lies in the fact that the plane is costly compared to the J-7, cannot use existing J-7 production tooling, and does not fit within the J-7 logistical structure—all which are prime goals for Super 7. That’s why CAC also proposed the F-7MF, which looks it has the J-10’s front end and intake hacked on to a J-7E body, with small canards. It looks like a modern version of the YE-8. The idea is to create a BVR capable J-7, possibly with the J-10’s radar, and can use the PL-12/SD-10. For a while there, this serious proposal has more fan support to it than the FC-1.

Personally, i don’t consider either the Ching Kuo or the T-50 to be indigenous. The Ching Kuo design program was supported heavily by General Dynamics under the Ying Yang (with the sounds such that it should read Soaring Eagle) program for the airframe, direct input from Westinghouse for the radar and Allied Signal taking care of the engines. AIDC basically was only responsible for project management and systems integration.

Yes.

It’s probably a bit more vague for the T-50. While the project existed a bit longer, it only took shape when Lockheed began ‘assisting’ Samsung with the project as one of the offset deals for the huge Korean F-16 purchases. No wonder it looks so much like a Lawndart.

I heard Ching Kuo designers were involved in the T-50. The planform is similar to the F-16’s and the F-CK-1 for sure. Engine is definitely from the US, which is GE F404, and so is the radar, which like the F-CK-1, is the APG-67. It’s not even a modified version of the APG-67 like the GD-53, but a vanilla version that’s been upgraded somewhat with similar functionality to the APG-66v(2) MLU.

So to me, this plane is a borderline case. It seems to me, it’s almost LM’s own project as it is Korea’s, given that LM itself seems intent in marketing the plane. My gut feeling says no, as it lacks the spirit and motivation of independence you see in projects like the LCA.

No, just the ones already posted in the CDF.

The R-27s could have come from the Ukraine, not Russia. Everyone of the Federated states had existing stocks they wished to sell.

The poor R-27 kill rate may be attributed to something similar in the Vietnam and even the early Desert Storm experience, when there was AMRAAM misses. One of the fallacies of BVRAAM use is to shoot the missile towards the end of the range or as soon you get a lock. In training missions or simulations, which only use simulated missiles, it’s relatively easy to lock, shoot and “kill”. In simulations, missiles seem to “work” better than they do in real life.

The Sparrow and AMRAAM misses were due to firing the missile at longer range. When the pilot is more patient and experienced, he should wait for the target to get closer, so the warning time for the target will be much shorter and the missiles will have more reserve propellant to pursue and counter any evasive tactics. Its the modern air combat equivalent of “wait till you see the whites in their eyes” before firing. From what I heard, the majority of AMRAAM kills were close shots, just beyond visual ranges to give the maximum possibility of a kill.

The pilots in the Ethiopian/Eritrean war, in my opinion, do not have sufficient experience in BVR combat. Skills may have atrophied, and these pilots do not have the luxury or the hours to spend on compared to their Indian or Chinese counterparts. For that, they were novices at least in terms of BVR, though they seem to do well enough fighting into the merge. They probably did the same thing, shot the missiles from the farthest extent possible, and expected them to work like magic. I won’t use the Ethiopian/Eritrean experience as an example of how the AA-10 Alamo might work in actual combat in the hands of more seasoned pilots.