Page 17 – Key Publishing

StarfishPrime

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 10 posts - 241 through 250 (of 250 total)

← 1 2 3 … 15 16 17

Author

Posts
October 13, 2016 at 9:15 am in reply to: What's the difference between energy–maneuverability theory & Supermaneuverability #2200788

StarfishPrime
Participant

Stop starfish.. just stop posting these ridicules whishing post. It does not make it more real

That is where the EF figure came from. The statement was 25% better than an F-16 for climb rate. Furthermore the EF has the TWR to back up that claim.

Source: Telegraph 1st November 2009.

October 13, 2016 at 9:13 am in reply to: ECM pod can reduce RCS? #2200792

StarfishPrime
Participant

Just like the ASRAAM, there is no documentation that the Python4/5 has a datalink and we know that the AIM-9x did not get a datalink till the recent Block2. Even then it’s only a 1-way datalink. The source is BS, especially about the datalinks being 2-way (the AMRAAM just got a 2-way link in the AIM-120D).

Stick to government or mfg sources or continue to be deceived by lazy “reporters” who have spent more time playing video games then doing any research.

For example, here is the Python-5 pdf from the mfg. In the section that talks about HOBS, it touts the seeker, algorithms, etc but makes no mention of a datalink.

http://www.rafael.co.il/marketing/SIP_STORAGE/FILES/9/1189.pdf

AIM-9X didn’t acquire LOAL until Block 2 either though. According to Mercurius, the Python V does have a data link even though they never stated it, but then you’d have every right not to believe that.

However, I’m confident you don’t need one with a HOBS IIR seeker for ranges of 60-70km at say 40,000ft. The target simply doesn’t have time to move that far and the seekers can rapidly detect anything 25+km away given the staring array nature.

October 12, 2016 at 6:44 pm in reply to: F-35 News and discussion (2016) take III #2201021

StarfishPrime
Participant

I think that for a 4th gen asset to effectively serve as a “deep magazine”, it needs to have a longer ranged weapon than the AMRAAM.

Hence the Meteor. I guess you could also use the likes of SM-6 though in defensive air situations.

October 12, 2016 at 6:31 pm in reply to: ECM pod can reduce RCS? #2201036

StarfishPrime
Participant

The missile is exactly the same except the seeker. So what difference would it make if it’s IR or EM?

Nic

Test to see how good that 2×128 element is at IRST when you factor in the scan and image generation time, relative to a 128×128 element staring array.

October 12, 2016 at 6:23 pm in reply to: ECM pod can reduce RCS? #2201045

StarfishPrime
Participant

As regards CAMM, the missile does have a better rocket motor than ASRAAM, but it does have a small ‘built-in headwind’ in the form of the extended rear fuselage aft of the tail fins. This is used to house the sideways-firing thrusters used to turn the missile over in the direction of the target prior to motor ignition.

More BS I see.

That makes it three strikes now.

http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2013/04/uk-complex-weapons-part-5-common-anti-air-modular-missile/

Design
The missile itself takes a great deal from ASRAAM but it is not a surface launched ASRAAM with a new name. Common components include the very low signature rocket motor from Roxel, the warhead and proximity fuse from Thales

October 12, 2016 at 6:20 pm in reply to: ECM pod can reduce RCS? #2201048

StarfishPrime
Participant

sure… blind spots being around 45* behind , not straight behind, that’s why mirrors are there. I’ve never seen a human alive able to look straight behind (except turning head as much as possible (about 90* sidewards tops) and then looking further back in the corner of his eye. With your HMD, especially as you have, according to you, no external input, the direction you’ll point to will be at best 120 degrees off boresight if you can twist your upper body somewhat… no way that your missile goes after a target at your 180 degrees with that sort of “designation”

Can a mirror see a low bollard beneath boot/trunk height? My advanced driving instructor demonstrated how much ground is actually not visible in mirrors and it’s an eye-opener.

You rotate your body as well as your head. FFS, do I have to spell everything out.

http://www.mbda-systems.com/air-dominance/asraam/

Instantaneous cueing from radar or helmet sight
Highest speed
All round target designation

Also note we’ve just proven that ASRAAM uses the same motor as CAMM.:cool:

October 12, 2016 at 6:11 pm in reply to: ECM pod can reduce RCS? #2201052

StarfishPrime
Participant

Sea level shot? Show me ONE 5Km+ OTS shot from ASRAAM 😉 . The only thing mentioned is that the target was low alt. G’bye

http://defense-update.com/newscast/0309/asraam_loal_test_130309.html

This engagement simulated a “chase down” situation by an enemy fighter and successfully demonstrated the potential for an all-round self protection capability with the ASRAAM. The missile was fired at a target located behind the wing-line of the ‘shooter’ aircraft, flying at low level and typical fighter speed, at a target located behind the fighter at a range in excess of 5km. The result was a direct hit on the target.

Now bear in mind an OTS shot is actually more kinematically challenging than even a tail chase shot at low altitude and this is for an AMRAAM B, note tail chase range at sea level.

So far I haven’t seen any OTS shots by MICA IR.

October 12, 2016 at 6:02 pm in reply to: ECM pod can reduce RCS? #2201060

StarfishPrime
Participant

First off, I read that arguement. You did your best to twist his words, he emphatically stated what he saw and was told. Not to mention he is paid to know such details. No one reading that thought that you did anything but make an arguementative fool of yourself.

Really? so even though the umbilical is still feeding target data until launch, your assuming that a datalink is a must? No, it is not. Especially considering the seeker head has such a large FoV. BTW, here is yet another source stating a difference between the CAMM and the ASRAAM is a datalink:

http://aviationweek.com/awin/mobile-air-defense-missile-options-proliferate

We can keep going with this, but it’s pretty clear you’ve no idea what your talking about.

I did not twist his words, they blatantly didn’t match each other. Case in point:

http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?137768-ECM-pod-can-reduce-RCS&p=2347298#post2347298

Here is an example from a US Gov site:

http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA324120

Well the second of those two doesn’t specifically say no data link and other links like this, seem to imply it does:

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/raaf-kills-over-the-shoulder-asraam-05323/

The combination of new wide-angle ‘staring’ seekers, exponential growth in onboard computer processing, 2-way data links, and the ability to lock onto a target anywhere within the pilot’s field of view, makes modern missiles like the Python 4/5, AIM-9X Sidewinder, and AIM-132 ASRAAM qualitatively different from their predecessors.

But hey, given the massive kinetic advantage of ASRAAM over MICA (based on CAMM kinematic advantage of same motor on a larger, draggier missile, I don’t think that matters. The turn it will have to perform inside the 25km seeker range is small by comparison at these ranges (60-70km).

October 12, 2016 at 5:54 pm in reply to: ECM pod can reduce RCS? #2201065

StarfishPrime
Participant

Same link : “The test was carried out in October 2008 but only announced by MBDA on 5 March. “
It’s the very same test, whether you like it or not.

Yet the link also implies the HMD could be used:

http://www.military-quotes.com/forum/australias-over-shoulder-asraam-has-t72998.html

Australia’s upgraded Hornets are equipped with HMDs but the October test was carried out using offboard sensor data supplied by a second F/A-18 via its Link 16 datalink.
“A ‘simple’ helmet shot is less impressive these days,” one programme official told Jane’s .

Having precise data is not required due to the nature of the ASRAAM’s internal processing power, neither is a data link apparently. If you say it has no data link, that makes it more impressive not less. Lower signature, no data link to jam. Not even an RF proximity fuse (laser), like MICA to jam. Wyy is one not needed for MICA-type BVR ranges? See below.

In the space of 30 seconds, a target doing M0.9 can move a maximum of 7.965km away from the predicted point, that puts it only 18.58deg at the most off boresight at the 25km seeker range, hardly a large manoeuvre and well within the coverage of the seeker. In that time at 40,000ft, a closure of 40km would have been achieved, with the seeker reaching out to 65km.

Look at it this way, R-27 doesn’t even know the start speed or position of a target, let alone a predicted position and yet they still found PPS mode worthwhile, even for a much narrower FoV seeker.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-27_(air-to-air_missile)

In cases of maximum head-on range launches where lock-command cannot be utilised, missile can be fired in PPS: In this mode, missile will fly straight until achieves target lock. As missile lacks capability of maneuvering before lock, aircraft itself must maneuver so that missile will be pointed to no more than 15 degrees bearing of the target for confident capture by the IR seeker after launch

And yes, despite the claims of our French friends ASRAAM does use the same Roxel motor that powers CAMM.
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2013/04/uk-complex-weapons-part-5-common-anti-air-modular-missile/

Common components include the very low signature rocket motor from Roxel, the warhead and proximity fuse

I rest my case, same motor on a heavier, draggier missile with a gas turnover system and still longer range than MICA VL (identical to MICA) by >25%.

And reaches Mach 3 even from a surface launch too:

[uhttp://www.armyrecognition.com/british_united_kingdom_missile_systems_v…

So definitely far better kinematically than MICA.

October 12, 2016 at 5:43 pm in reply to: What's the difference between energy–maneuverability theory & Supermaneuverability #2201071

StarfishPrime
Participant

That graph was made by me for an F-35 analysis I’ve done in the past. F-16 climb rate data is taken from F-16 manual (but interpolated for inter-ps lines). It also shows >306m/s climb rate for F-16 @M0,9. Please, go on showing me my errors by using the graphs drawn by me… Its really entertaining…

Rest of your comment is nonsense as usual, clearly showing you not only didn’t understand my posts, but you also don’t understand what Peregrine Falcon says now. Anyway, I will try my best NOT to interfere with your “discussion” and leave the response to him.

The point was that the climb rate stated for the EF was derived from a statement saying 25% more than the F-16. And that was then applied to 254m/s to get >318m/s but in reality it’s way more.

From 2:55.
Author

Posts

Viewing 10 posts - 241 through 250 (of 250 total)

← 1 2 3 … 15 16 17