crobatoFor a brief history of ARH missiles, the first primary use of ARH are antiship missiles. That was one or two decades before AMRAAM.
Because AshMs are rather big missiles, they got big seekers. Their targets are obviously very big and give out quite a reflection. Unlike the 16km acquisition range of the R-77 seeker or so on, the seeker acquisition range of an antiship missile is huge, like 50 or 60 km or so. In fact, the acquisition range can be longer than the flight range of the missile, like in the case of the early Exocets, which only have 40-47km of range.
Thus, antiship missiles are often shot off in true “fire and forget” style.
And yes, even your old, dinosaur Chinese Silkworms and Seersuckers are true ARH missiles.
What if the range of the ship target is farther than the acquisition range, like using long range AshMs.
Unlike planes, ships however, dont’ move very far. They’re quite slow or turtle like. they can’t get out of the seeker acquistion range like 50km in 2 or three minutes before the missile arrives on the scene. That’s why such missiles only use INS systems without update guidance or datalinks. With supersonic antiship missiles it’s even better, since the target ship will certainly cannot escape the basket before the missile arrives. These missiles arrive to the “scene” so fast. That’s one reason why the Russians developed supersonic AshMs, especially on the big and longer ranged ones. The longer the range, the greater the chance the ship escapes the acquistion basket, so the more the need to hurry.
Up to a 120km or so, you probably don’t need update guidance. For really long range AshMs, like well over 150km or so, you will need update guidance.
Going back to the AMRAAM, the longest reported range kill the missile had on record is about 40 to 41km. Most of its kills were done within half of that range or just beyond WVR. This is so that the missile can quickly enter its seeker acquisition range. If you play it like that, it’s somewhat fire and “forget”. The little ARH misisles like MICA, R-Darter and the Derby are pretty much this philosophy. I think the Derby does not even have a datalink—the missile looks like a Sidewinder with a radar seeker. IMO all are glorified dogfight missiles.
crobatoCrobato, ARH is fire-and-forget.(1) An active radar homer is an autonomous seeker needing no help from a radar to hit its target when it is within range. That an ARH AAM would have a flight envelope way beyond its seeker’s engagement range doesn’t stop it from being a fire-and-forget. The IR version of the Ash has flight envelope along the horizontal far beyond the range of the IR seekerhead to engage.
No. It stops it from being true fire and forget. True fire and forget do not need the parent radar to tend to the missile once the missile is released from the rail. Currently only IR missiles are true fire and forget.
For much of its flight path, the ARH missile has to be command guided by the parent fighter radar. Only in its final destination is that command released. Thus the real difference between ARH and SARH with INS is only in the final short seconds of flight.
Look up ARH and fire-and-forget and you’ll see the terms together. The same with AMRAAM and R-77. These things are always associated with the term “fire-and-forget.”
Its only a marketing term. In reality it does not work out that way. Like I said only passive missiles (IR and ARM) are true fire and forget missiles.
An active homer within the engagement range of its seekerhead could lock on to a target. You lose all advantage of range if you don’t use the radar but the seekerhead can still engage without an aircraft radar if its own is turned on. The AMRAAM can be fired in WVR combat if you want to expend a 500,000 missile instead of a Sidewinder.
Precisely. But this is only fire and forget with WVR. and not true fire and forget in BVR.
Not only is the radar is needed to be turned on in the case of the SARH AAM, it needs to be locked on with a narrow beam on the target no matter how close the range.
Which is precisely why planes carry IR AAMs in the first place. And why some BVRAAMs also have an IR seeker like the R-27T.
You actually described why it is very different. The SARH is homing on the reflection from a radar. The SARH has be able to receive the frequency and pattern of its parent radar to engage. SARH is tied to a specific radar because of this.
The ARH is homing in on a frequency and pattern it already knows, its own.
What makes you think that SARH does not know what frequency it is using. Before it is ever launched, those frequency and pattern are already built both into the design of the missile seeker and the parent radar through software.
The only difference between SARH and ARH is the location of the illuminator. SARH means “Semi-Active Radar Homing”. Not really “Active Radar Homing” but “Semi-Active” like halfway through the same concept.
On location, a missile can’t tell location unless it uses a specific way to do so. There are different ways. One is doppler and the other is a directional receiver that can take in signals from its front hemisphere. There could be other methods. Russian and American SARHs might not necessarily use the same methods.
To use a Sparrow on a Russian set or the Ash on a Western set is not an easy thing because you have to deal with the different ways it’s handling the above problems. You are talking about one device (the AAM) being able to discern and process the signals of another device (the plane’s radar.) Radar and SARH missile can’t help but be tightly coupled.
No. Both ARH and SARH/INS are tightly coupled to the parent radar because the parent radar continues to give command instructions via datalink after launch. The parent radar must track the target and give instructions to guide the ARH or SARH missile. No difference here.
In the final phase of the flight, the ARH missile turns on its illuminator, and guides via directional reciever. In the SARH missile, the radar STOPs sending instructions and just lights the target with an illuminating beam, for the missile’s directional reciever to home in.
The only difference is that in the case of ARH, the radar stops sending instructions and sends a final instruction for the missile’s seeker to activate when the radar sees that the missile is terminally close to the target. In SARH/INS, the radar continues its tracking, but stops sending command guidance, turns on the illumination beam, and instructs the missile to turn on its seeker.
The ARH is easier, maybe just marginally, to convert to a radar it wasn’t initially paired with.
The SARH beam rider system is actually the easiest because you never have command guidance with datalink protocol in the first place. There is no need for the radar to “talk” to the missile as we have with ARH and SARH/INS. The moment it is launched off the missile’s seeker is already live and following the reflections. The target is already lighted up from the get go as the missile is launched. All the parent radar is track the target and keep its illumination at it.
Why do you think beam riders are the first kind of BVR AA missiles to be introduced in the first place?
I would disagree very much. Even for a single target. The SARH firer can’t break off at any time without his missile going dumb and missing. The ARH shooter could break off immediately if he within the range of his AAM’s radar.
Yeah, but its only in the final seconds of flight. But why bother then, he would probably stay tracking the target to confirm the kill.
In practical terms, unless you are in serious danger, “forget” is not a useful policy.
IMO, ARH is overrated. Even today, the best SAMs remain command guided—AEGIS/Standard, S-300 systems, Patriot systems, etc,.
The ARH is no different from a WVR IR AAM except its engagement range is about five times that of the average IR AAM. It is fire-and-forget.
No. Under ideal conditions the seeker range maybe 15 or more km but in actual conditions is may even be lower. It pretty much matches the acquisition range of the average IR AAM. At times it may even be shorter than the IR AAM because IR AAM seekers can acquire tail aspect targets at distances much greater than their rocket motors allow. IR releases much greater radiant energy for seekers to work on.
It is certainly not like 5 times. More like 1x.
Then again, much of what I’ve said above could be proven wrong if the FC-1 or J-10 one day fires both the FD-60/PL-11 and the R-27, Crobato 🙂
But I doubt very much that the R-27 will be carried on a Chinese built plane other than the J-11. Except for the J-8IIM with the Phazotron radar, I’ve never seen the AA-10 on the J-8II.
Maybe, but perhaps the Chinese just doesn’t like to let you know about it. I heard rumors that the Indians manage to get the R-27 working off the RDM radar of their Mirages.
Remember that old english people’s daily article about the J-10 that quipped that the radar is electronically phase array, that the J-10 can carry 7 tons of weight etc,.
How correct is the article I don’t know, but it also said this.
Ten J-10 fighter-bombers, a type long expected by military equipment fans, were firstly put into service in the Nanjing Military Command, according to the Hong Kong based Asia Week, December 2. J-10 is by now the most advanced fighter developed by China. With sophisticated aerodynamics design the fighter is even superior to the mobility-noted Su-27, foreign expert estimated. Another character of J-10 is big weapon load. As estimated, its maximum taking-off weight is around 18 tons, including 7 tons of weapons, equivalent to that of heavy fighter B-29 used during the World War II, and this is quite distinguished among light fighters. With strong external loading capacity it can effectively launch attacks towards the ground and sea. What’s more, made of many compound materials J-10 presents a self-weight a little lighter than F-16 but equivalent engine capacity to the latter, which made it quite agile in air fighting. Besides the China-made PL series air-to-air missiles and YJ series missiles, the J-10 fighter will also be quipped with the Russia made R-73, R-27 air-to-air missiles introduced in together with S-27. The electronically scanned phased-array radar installed on J-10 could track 24 targets at the same time and launch attacks on four of them. Developed in later time and benefited from the state-of-the-art technology, J-10 would turn out superior in many aspects to the F-16 and Mirage 2000 dominating the 1980s. The J-10 will become the main equipment of China’s air and navy forces in the 21st century.
http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200212/13/eng20021213_108423.shtml
crobatodont the F15Js have radar that can be easily upgraded to support the AMRAAM?
i wouldnt bet on the JDF not having a ARH AAM in any possible conflict scenario. if there are signs that tensions are mounting to a point where opent conflict is a real possibility, then the JDF would most likely order AMRAAMs from the US, which would be shipped to japan in no time. (any talk of china launching a suprise attack on japan are just the delusions of neocons trying desperately to draw paralels between the china of today and the evil japanese empire of WWII )
I think its difficult to tell. The F-15Js appear to have a radar that was modded or made by Mitsubishi. If the radar is proprietary and follow their own standards—like anything Japanese, e.g. like their DoMoCo cel phone system—-it may not work with US systems which has strict Mil Std. specs. US systems have open bus specs that you may have heard off, like the famous Mil Std. bus 1553, or the 1780 in recent F-16s. You would need to adhere to certain specs to create a compatible architecture, much like computers.
You don’t order AMRAAMs on the fly. Taiwan got theirs after three years of waiting. You would have to pull out existing stocks from the US Air Force or Navy, and I’m not sure if they are willing to give them just like that. A lot of testing is needed, so is training.
crobatoWhat I mentioned above, which is SARH+INS (inertial navigation system) first started on the AIM-7M. Previously, SARH missiles like the AIM-7F are just direct homing with no INS.
You just light the target with your radar. Your missile only follows the reflected signals. No midflight updates are needed.
Nothing is simpler than that. That’s how the first BVR AAMs worked. You don’t need a computer to work out flight coordinates and relay them to the missile via a digital protocol via radio.
The AA-10 Alamo had a datalinked INS system but apparently it wasn’t very good. So it really works more like a direct homer than something like the AIM-7M. If your SARH has good INS, you can engage targets via TWS, with your radar automatically switching only to STT/illumination mode through a countdown timer. AIM-7M/P allows engagement while on TWS; the AA-10s work only in STT. This makes you think that despite the presence of a rudimentary INS, the AA-10 works more like a direct homer.
If that is your only concern, it would not be hard to fit the AA-10 on the Grifo. If you want to work the datalink, I presume the Ukrainians would be willing to provide the specs for the communication protocol to the datalink.
BTW, ARH missiles both have a seeker lock after launch and lock before launch. The former is used in true BVR engagement; the latter is only used within direct seeker acquisition ranges (with the example of the R-77, like 16km or so). The latter is almost a dogfighting mode for the missile.
crobatoARH is not a fire and forget AAM. Where did you get that?
When it is fired off the rail from true long range distances, it is no different than a SARH missile with inertial navigation. Both needs the fighter’s radar to search for the target, identify the target, track the target, lock on to the target, and guide the missile through datalink updates.
ARH by no means is not independent of the fighter radar.
The only difference between the inertial SARH missile and the ARH missile is the final 15 to 20km distance of flight. This is where you can “forget” the missile BUT it is always never a good policy to TAKE your radar off your target even in the final phase of your missile’s flight unless you need to make a drastic survival maneuver. To “forget” means losing situational awareness. You must maintain your awareness of the target at all times. Did you get the kill? Or did he survive and is attacking you now?
In that sense, you might as well keep your target lock and illuminated right to the very end.
ARH is as equally dependent as SARH for that reason. As for the ability to pick out signals, reflected signal is different from illumination signal, and both SARH and ARH have to deal with the same issue. No difference here. In principle, the only difference between SARH and ARH is the location of the illuminator, the former on the fighter and the latter on the missile.
The missile’s illuminator, being very small compared to a fighter’s, do not have the signal strength to cover a large distance. In the case of the R-77, the seeker range is only 16km against a 5m2 RCS target and it goes down with smaller RCS.
Which is why for much of the trip, the ARH missile still has to be guided by the radar until it reaches the target within distance of its acquisition basket.
In the classic battle where both combatants enter in BVR ranges, engages with BVR missiles, then finish each other off with IR AAMs in a merge, ARH actually has no tactical value over SARH, since both combatants intend to keep each other within their radars.
Thus in a single target engagement, it, ARH has not much value over SARH. ARH comes into its own with multiple target engagement, like engaging several cruise missiles heading to your carrier at once.
crobatoModern propellant are better but the great increase in range comes from other factors :
– the structure around the solid propellant was made of steel. Nowadays, carbon with liner is much lighter
– the electronic used to be huge. In the first sparrows missiles, the electronics took more room in the body that the propellant. So think about less state of the art russian electronic …
The R-27 is modular. Which means the rocket booster, and the warhead/seeker section are seperate. We have seen enough pictures and drawings of both to so easily and visually conclude that the booster is so much larger than the seeker/warhead module.
crobatoHas US already designated Japan as one of the chosen recipients of the Raptor? By 2014 I expect a few of those would have changed hands.
No. Knowing Japan, they would rather build one of their own first.
crobatoWow, my bad, I thought Japanese F-4Js and F-15s as well as F-2s were all equipped with AIM-120. That would change the scenario heavily. Does Japan plan to equip it’s fighter with AIM-120?
Apparently not. They have this homegrown thing complex and would only want something homegrown like their XAAM-4 which I have not verified yet to be operational (taking too long already).
crobatoCheetah, or what?
http://bbs.china.com/images/2004-07-08/1089256505001.jpg
Dual engined as it seems, canards, and deltas???
A Typhoon crash. I think this is the one that happened over Spain.
crobatoI think the intake tunnel may have ended up being heavier than expected. There may be reasons for this, not necessarily due to the more voluminous intake airflow requirements. One reason for example is that the tunnel may have been beefed for hardpoints, like for carrying bombs (remember the four hardpoints supposedly in the fuselage area)?
CAC is said to be working on the diverterless intake concept (like the JSF intake). CAC calls their project with an appropriate acronym—BUMP. I suspect BUMP may be used on the twin engined “J-10” project.
crobatoThe AA-5 is not only way too large, it’s a SARH AAM mated to a very specific radar, the Smerch (always remember this because it sound like the James Bond’s SMERSH badguy outfit.)
This story is pretty much full of holes.
But if its the AA-10, you’d have the same problem with another SARH that is mated to Russian radars. SARH requires continuous communication between radar, plane and missile until the moment the fuse is set off.
An active homer is easier to configure into a different radar than a SARH since the radar (under the very simplest engagement parameters) is used only to fire the AAM in the direction of the target until the AAM’s own radar takes iver.
So since we’re guessing it to be something other than the Ash, it could be the R-77 too.
It’s not that easy, since ARH AAMs are fired from the Track while Scan mode (TWS) as opposed to the single tracking mode. Your radar could be tracking 8 targets for example, with automatically selecting two of the most threatening targets (by the radar computer’s opinion), from which you can launch off ARH missiles at each of them.
The multiple engagement is the hard part. Your TWS should be good enough to provide good enough lock on information and then continue to guide multiple missiles simultaneously towards multiple targets, with the radar feeding updates.
SARH missiles are generally fired from the STT (Single Target Tracking mode), and with only one target with one or two missiles (ripple fire) to guide, it would be easier than multiple tracking, multiple targeting and multiple engagement.
FIAR Grifo radars, from Italy, should have support SARH missile modes through STT as a basic feature. After all they made Aspides. Guess who makes Aspide copies too? And guess who might sell Aspide copies to Pakistan?
My other guess is of course, if you can guess what I’m leading, are Chinese FD-60s (Aspide copies) with Ukrainian improved seekers. Perhaps China might be interested to get rid of their excess stock of AA-10s to Pakistan too.
The easiest BVR principle is actually the old style SARH illumination without inertial updates aka like the way the Sparrows used to before the AIM-7M came along. And the same way Aspides used to of course, since the Aspide is much like an AIM-7F. You illuminate the target with radar like a flashlight, and the SARH missile simply homes in on the reflections. It’s a brute force method—all you do is illuminate the target and the SARH missile takes care of the rest, no inertial updates and all that. If the enemy is using ECM, just increase the radar beam strength and burn through using brute force. I think the AA-10s still use this principle. If so, it makes it very easy to adapt. Just find out what the frequency the AA-10 uses to home in and modify your illuminator radar to have that frequency. If your Aspide and AA-10 have different frequencies, use a switch.
crobatoThe nose is actually a little flat on the top and on the bottom. A little bit of oval. You can’t have a perfectly round nose when you have an underslung intake like that. The nose bottom should be designed to give a slight lift and helps route the air into the intake and under the canards, while the top of the nose should give a downward push.
The J-10 probably had problems in the engine intake area. It probably was intended to be smaller or didn’t properly anticpate the production AL-31FN would actually suck that much air. You can see from the pic, the three braces helping to hold the engine intake which looks clumsy and hacked. But it seems it worked nonetheless.
They should change the nose color to light grey and get rid of the screaming “shoot-me” red PLAAF decals into low visibility grey ones.
crobatoCurrently Japan is stronger, why? It’s navy is much stronger than the Chinese, or the South Korean or Taiwan’s Navies even combined. The Japanese Navy is not only large but very sophisticated with some of the best ASW capabilities in the World. Having that said, the Japanese AF is no joke either, perhaps the strongest in E. Asia. Although China has many more Flankers and much bigger AF now than anyone in Asia, the Japanese have over 200 F-15s with AWACS(something China does not have).
Those F-15s don’t shoot ARH BVRAAMs, while a substantial portion of China’s Flankers do. No direct evidence that AAM-4 is operational and no AMRAAMs either. No direct evidence that SD-10 is operational but they won’t be directly fitted on the Flankers not yet anyway (J-8IIs, J-10s and FC-1s get them first), but we do know they got R-77s for sure. Those AA-10E Alamo-Es (R-27E with 120km) also got better range than Sparrows, not to mention many of them got thermal seekers for a totally passive approach. And when the planes merge, we will bet on the Flankers not just being more maneuverable, but they got the unfair advantage of helmet sights and wide off boresight locking R-73 Archers, while the best the Japanese could muster are AAM-3s which is somewhat better than an AIM-9L.
Just on paper, the tables have long changed.
And China is clearly developing AWACS already, with at least one prototype (maybe more) flying. Better yet, it does have an extensive GCI network, and many of the Chinese planes, the Su-30s in particular and maybe the JH-7s, could have a tactical group datalinking of their own.
However, those disputed islands like in the Ryuku chain, and there is something called Taiwan in the middle before Chinese planes could get to them. So it’s not a mainland Chinese issue, but a Taiwanese one. It was Taiwan originally making those claims, not China; China went along for the ride with the logic whatever Taiwan claims, it should belong to China too.
So its more of a comparison between the ROCAF and the JASDF. But what can 200 Eagles do with Sparrows, against nearly 340 F-16s, Mirage 2000s and F-CK-1s with ARH missiles like AMRAAMs, MICAs and TK-2s? Those AMRAAMs are block Cs too, the best in the world. Japan has AWACs, but so does Taiwan. Without a direct air to air advantage, all those AWACS can do is vector the Eagles to certain doom in a massed Viper’s pit. The Japanese F-2s and F-4s won’t make a difference either; they don’t have ARH, and I doubt given the flight problems of the F-2, you’re not going to mix it up with a Mirage 2000-5 or an F-16A MLU.
The JSMDF is another story, but once the air cover is gone, it won’t be pretty on the ships even on the AEGIS equipped Kongo class destroyers. it should be noted that Taiwan’s Kidds could actually get newer missiles—only two of the Kongo class got Block III Standards, that all four Kidds would have, and the Kidds would have Harpoon 2s. Personally I don’t understand some of the decisions that went into the AEGIS/Standard systems. While magnificent, it’s mostly on an radar illuminator with semi-active homers like Sparrows. The whole system seems crying out loud to “ECM me”.
crobatoYou know Deino, your version still looks too much like a Mirage F.1.
I would have the design modded to incorporate more of Chinese style aerodynamic cues we have seen in actual older Chinese planes.
For example, the ventral fin should be either bigger or put two of them.
Put wing fences on top of the wing like a JH-7.
I would lessen the size of the intakes to half, make it more like the JH-7’s intakes, which happens to be similar to the Jaguar as well.
I might clip part of the top rudder to give it a more “Russian” look.
I would increase or make prominent the size of the structural spine running across the length of the aircraft. Give it more beef for structure or space for holding fuel.
Make the nose rounder and angle it downward like a JH-7 or a Phantom’s.
Make the thing holding the back parachute under the rudder and over the engine nozzle considerably bigger.
I would put wing tip rails for hardpoints.
I would put rails on the tips of the elevators too like a MiG-21 or a J-8II.
Now get back to me if the finished product looks more “Red” or not.
crobatoso wouldnt the AA-10U need to be integrated with a FIAR radar ?
does ukraine have a independent design bureau to develop new versions of AA-10 or is this referring to old stocks held from the USSR days?hmm interesting comment Crobato – if true would mean SD10 is out of contention for the FC-1 and Pak still needs a reliable BVR missile.
I think China pretty much bought out Ukrainian hold over stock pretty cheap. I mean they bought a lot.
I don’t think it would be hard to figure out how an AA-10 Alamo would tick and integrate it with your own radar. It’s fundamentally a basic SARH missile like a Sparrow. If you have a radar illumination mode that can use a Sparrow you can use the AA-10, by adjusting the radar to use the same illumination frequency. For a sum, the Ukrainians are more than willing to assist I bet.
SD-10 is clearly for the FC-1. That intention is clearly stated when China is fitting a NRIET Type 147X radar into FC-1 05 prototype. This family of radars have been testing the SD-10 onboard the J-8IIs, and is also used on the J-10. It’s for sure that at least the PLAAF FC-1s would use this radar and the SD-10. I don’t know about the PAF. You might have integration issues since the Grifo S-7 isn’t a packaged deal like the Type 147X/SD-10 combination.
Sign In
