Last time I checked, AIM-120A (in ’80s) had following modes of guiding:

1) It could home on jam (HOJ)

2) It could be fired via STT or TWS and forget (radar off, turn away,…). The missile would fly by INS to predicted intercept point and engage the target.

3) It could be fired via STT mode and guided like a SARH weapon (AIM-7) to the target, with benefit of continuing on INS guidance, in case of a radar lock break.

4) It could be fired in TWS mode and guided to the target via reduced pulse frequency of TWS mode (unlike AIM-7) and that was granddad of today’s LPI.

5) Pilot could override all launch safety procedures and fire missile ballistic. Missile would, after predetermined time, turn on its active radar and engage any IFF noncooperative target, within its seeking limits, sorting target priority by RCS size.

Now, the AMRAAM didn’t have any secure radio link towards the launching aircraft, but all mid-course updates were provided through radar reflections from the launching aircraft.
To avoid confusion and reduce probability of jamming, the aircraft radar’s beams got encoded in a peculiar way and only missile with matching filter could be guided by that beam (missile from the same aircraft).
So, although the missile was able to receive guiding updates from other planes in formation, it was cropped to launching aircraft only.

Now, this is the official version, and in combat, with less sophisticated enemy, those beam decoders in AMRAAM’s heads have been “broadened” to more than just launching aircraft.

However, the issue of buying a mid-course guidance has never risen. Ok, today’s AMRAAMs may have direct secure channels to the launching aircraft, as an extra redundant ECCM asset, but pilot always have the option to update missile’s trajectory to the target using his plane’s radar, regardless of that radio link.

Cheers, Cola

A couple anecdotal stories aside, if NOE penetration bombers were truly viable when facing a strong IADS, USAF wouldn’t have retired F-111s and relegated the few surviving B-1s to non-nuke standoff attack duties.

Don’t compare Tornado and F-111 (let alone B-1), since it’s lighter than both and faster. In 1983 Tornado had top speed at sea level 1480 km/h and was technically the fastest NATO combat aircraft at low level. Moreover, Tornado has RB199 engines, which have low SFC and flies at a penetration height of <60 meters. Russians could hardly field a plane that could catch it. If you consider that missile’s envelope drops well below the nominal value, at sea level and if Tornado already managed to turn the tail, then it’s very difficult to catch.
As for NOE being obsolete, I’m not convinced that’s the case. This may especially prove true if you don’t have all those fancy Boeings with high power jammers at your disposal. Planet’s surface (ground or water) is still efficient hiding place for an intruder and may well be the only one at your disposal.

Cheers, Cola

Yes well just a I thought.

nhampton, don’t quote me anymore, skip my post and have a nice life 😀

Cheers, Cola

Hey nhampton,

Apart from being in the same knowledge class with pfcem, are you perhaps payed by LM or US to “advertise” F35? (no need to elaborate. Yes or No will sufice)

I mean, most of your posts end up with statements that claim F35 is “far superior than” pretty much everything else, but American goods and you hardly, IF EVER back it up with some aerodynamic, electronic, medical or some other argument.
However, when it comes to politics you’re fairly loud, but on the other hand, anyone can bark and that really isn’t measure of anything.
Well, we all red dr.Joseph Goebbels doctrine of advertisement, it’s nothing new. Now, I’m not sure, but if my posts spoil your business, just say so and I’ll back off.
I’m not merc per se. I’m only interested in finding out what’s going on in modern aerial warfare and I don’t take sides apart from neutral.
As you can imagine, I’m having hard time in making progress, with some of you obstruct any reasonable and meaningful conversation.
Really, if I’m interfering with your propaganda, just say so and we’ll avoid future misunderstandings.
You can go PM, no problem.

Cheers, Cola

It is you who needs educated.

It is a known fact that the F-22 has no AoA limit (which it demostrates regularly in even significantly ‘toned down’ public displays). An F-22 pilot can put the F-22 into any AoA & have complete control over the aircraft. And in the very piece you reference in a lame attempt to disprove that fact states in the very next sentence to the one which you want people to believe indicates an AoA limit (which it doesn’t it only states that there is a slight buffet 20 deg to 40 deg) that “At no AOA is buffeting a problem“.

Really don’t know what to say except “…pfcem, oh man…” and please, don’t quote me anymore and skip my posts. Thx

Nice article about 1980s technology. Too bad this is 2009.

ETA: VHF and UHF anechoic chambers have been around for half a century. Don’t you think some evil American :diablo: could figure out how to apply that technology to an airplane?

Yes well, just don’t forget RF was RF yesterday and will be tomorrow. And btw, F22 layout was conceived in 1980s.
And as for evil Americans vs. VHF frequencies, they managed to solve that one too (man, those guys solve anything :)). Too bad it took a few cubuc meters of otherwise useful space on B2. I’d like to see fighters flying with let’s say 2 cubic meter of VHF dampener. 😀
And finally you forgot “Resonance scattering region” (UHF) and “Raleigh scattering region”(VHF). Once those kick in you don’t need any radio saturation. Actually when resonance/Raleigh sc. reg. strikes “exact resonance frequency”, effective RCS becomes 5 times (5x) larger than the absolute size (regardless of stealth) of the plane!
Now, even hillbilly can take over from there…

Cheers, Cola

Maybe you should compare it to a demo with a full combat load instead of one center line tank. Try this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeDWlJauHwQ

Why?…wait, on second though, sorry nhampton, don’t bother to answer…

Cheers, Cola