man, just align the flanker with the missile, the flanker curve will be inside the missile curve, then there is a distance of “no return” turning for the AMRAAM, at that distance the target should start to turn, and wont be intercepted

NO WRONG!!!!!

THATS WHY I SUPERIMPOSED THE TWO CURVES – AS THE DISTANCE GETS CLOSER – THERE WILL ALWAYS BE A POINT WHERE THE TWO CURVES INTERCEPT! YOU CAN NOT GET TO A POINT WHERE THE ONE CURVE DOES NOT TOUCH THE OTHER!!!! THE DISTANCE IN THE X – CORD OR THE Y IF YOU DO FLIGHT MECHANICS IS THE LATERAL TRANSLATION!!!! THERE IS NO POINT WHEN THE LATERAL TRANSLATION OF THE AIRCRAFT IS GREATER THAN THAT OF THE MISSILE.
________
LovelyWendie99

Funny..the “koppo equation”…poor newton 😀

Lmraptor, everybody knows that, is ok, nothing new has been said, the only thing is again that you need a crystall ball to know if the “flanker ” will be dumb enough to meet the missile in the interception point, which wont happen

Don’t be a cretin over G…. The Kopp website said that the Flanker can out-maneuver an AMRAAM with 2.2 Gs – which is ridiculous. Do you understand the concept of an agenda? Go an read up on it.

Either way – its got nothing to do with PN or meeting the missile at the interception point…. The missile has the performance to hit the target from a direct tail chase or during a PN inteception. No matter the distance from the missile – be it 50 m – 5 km – 20 km – 40 km, if the aircraft is within the missiles NEZ; it cannot beat the missiles lateral/vetical translation.
________
Babe Asian

Carlo Kopp is claiming the missile has to follow the aircrafts exact path which it does not. He is ignoring the fact that the missile can maneuver to intersect the aircrafts path as demonstrated by others above – by means of proportional navigation (PN).

Kopp talks nonsense when he only applies the centripetal acceleration equation to the situation of aircraft vs. missile and then ignores the differences in lateral translation experienced by the missile and the aircraft due to their different velocities.

Kopp claims that for the missile at Mach 3.5 to have the same turning radius as the aircraft at Mach 0.95, the missile needs to pull 13.5 times the G the aircraft is pulling. That is indeed correct – but irrelavent as explained below.

Kopp is claiming that the missile needs to have the same turning radius to intercept the aircraft – which is not true at all. What they need instead, is to have the same effective lateral translation, for an intercept to occur.

Lateral translation is the effective distance an object has moved along the Y reference axis of the fixed coordinate earth axes; notation used in the study of flight mechanics – assuming the aircraft is making a banked turn to evade the missile. In other words the effective distance the aircraft or missile achieves in moving to the right or left in a certain period of time.

So we know the much faster AMRAAM – fails in matching the turning radius of the slower aircraft in Kopps example – as it needs to pull 13.5 times the number of G the aircraft can – since a Flanker can pull 9G. But it doesn’t need to match the turning radius – it needs to match its lateral translation. Something the missile can do with ease.

An example:

A Flanker flying at Mach 1 vs an AMRAAM flying at Mach 3.

Assuming the Flanker can pull 9 G at Mach 1 (Which I doubt it can).
Assuming the AMRAAM can pull 27 G at Mach 3. The AMRAAM pulls 3 times the G and is also going at 3 times the speed.

At sea level Mach 1 is approximately 340 m/s and Mach 3 is approximately 1020.

Using the centripetal acceleration equation: a=(V^2)/R.

The Flanker has a turning radius of 1309m. The AMRAAM has a turning radius of 3927m. Exactly 3 times the turning radius of the Flanker.

One might therefore wonder – how does the missile intercept the Flanker? The answer is – you cannot ignore the respective velocities of the missile and the jet. The AMRAAM is traveling at 3 times the velocity and is therefore translating laterally at the same rate as the aircraft. So the Flanker might be able to turn in a circle 3 times smaller than the missile, but it is also doing the turn 3 times slower. Therefore with the same lateral translation = intercept.

The Flanker can do 9G – the missile can do 27 G – 3 times the G. The rule of thumb applies as most BVR missiles do around 3 times the speed of the aircraft being intercepted – therefore for the same lateral translation they need 3 times the G.

Assuming the AMRAAM is traveling at Mach 2.5 and can do 27 G.
Assuming the Flanker is traveling at Mach 1 and can do 9 G.

The Flanker has a turning radius of 1309m. The AMRAAM has a turning radius of 2727m. However the missile only needs to pull around 22.5 G as it’s doing 2.5 times the speed of the Flanker – for an intercept.

This is the top example of the AMRAAM vs Flanker – in Autodesk Inventor 2009 – CAD.
________
UGGS

The downside is that it can’t be used as DAS (looking at the ground through the floor of the aircraft etc)

Could you clarify this?
________
Coach Purses

Indeed, is the same tale of “stealthy mode” turn on/off…LPI is a tale, radar is energy, energy can be measured, in concept the only LPI radar mode should be a very very very very low frequency radar, because the very low energy quanta levels…the other LPI stuff is just merchandising rubbish

Nice myth, everything has their limits , everything has it balance, going to total pasive tactics you will lose initiative, and who gets initiative is attacking

I love the way the USAF continued to ‘merchandise’ the B-2s LPI radar after the 21 planes were payed for and delivered. As they obviously had an agenda to sell the jet to say…. um.
________
Hawaii dispensaries

Nope. They can only send data for initial (AWACS) as in one time only or continuous midphase (fighter). Why don’t you go learn some radar technology while you’re studying aero engineering?

They are incapable of generating and feeding the kind of data you need in the terminal phase. The data used in the terminal phase is not just a high data rate, but continuous wave, all made very rapidly and at very high frequencies. The kind of radar an AWACS uses is a pulse usually a low to mid PRF, and set at a much lower frequency and at a much lower pulse rate for sheer range and range determination (time between pulses is used for range determination). The fighter is between the AWACS to the missile seeker’s, in terms of frequency, pulse rate, scan rate but its still pulse, and pulse doppler does not provide the data and exact unambigious precision the missile seeker uses with CW.

Further more you really don’t know how radar homing missiles home do you? They got a receiver in one end, and a receiver in the other end. The front receiver is behind the emitting antenna on the nose as a separate unit, because unlike pulse radars, this emitting antenna is only a 100% emitter and does not have a receive cycle. What the missile does is to compare the results received in the front end to the results in the back end. So base on those results it knows its heading or receding from the target. This system is so precise that the missile can actually physically hit the moving target without trying to use a proximity fuse.

Adding datalink information—far less precise, and furthermore, useless in that mode of operation—what for?

Hi Crobato.

I suggest you read my proposition again before you attack my knowledge on the subjet. The benefit of reading someones viewpoint properly, is the fact that it spares you from going off on tangents. Someone might read into your self righteous attack on my knowledge on radars, as an inferiority complex, be it true or not.

I will propose it again to save you the trouble of scrolling up:

Yet surely its good enough to put the seeker back in the basket if lock was ever lost….?

To which you responded:

Assuming that the host plane is still tracking the target (which under some circumstances it may not, as it may be turning away to avoid missiles aimed at it). There is a good chance that if the missile’s seeker has lost the target, the missile itself does not have the kinetic energy to double around and still assume it has enough energy left to make the kill.

At this point, its better to put your bets on the second missile fired after the first one.

Which discounts:

To repeat my point: I am not suggesting that the data-links are powerful enough to transfer the information needed for an intercept of a supersonic fighter without the need of a seeker. What I proposed is that if lock was ever lost: Data-links in the terminal phase of the missiles flight, might have the ability to get the seeker back on target.

Hence why I responded with this:

An AWACs or a ‘sentry’ fighter could feed the missile data. There definitely is a use for the datalink in the terminal phase.

One thing I have learnt at my time in Bristol is you need to think outside the box in order to improve your solution. I would be suprised if the engineers at Raytheon haven’t looked at this idea – and I wouldn’t be surprised at all, if the AIM-120D could do what I suggest.
________
Hawaii marijuana dispensaries

Obligatory – such systems are on fighters like the EF and the F-22; but are of much greater use when the missile is picked up well before the terminal phase. It is very plausable for there to be less than 15 or so seconds by the time the missile goes active and impact.
________
Kitchen Measures