aurcovNot that bunkum again. TVC was NOT used in Red Flag but in 1vs1s at Mountain Home, where it allowed the MKIs to have a huge edge.
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2008/11/a-final-word-from-india-on-you.html
:p:p:p
And do you believe the Indians?
aurcovWrightwing :
It would be nice to stop posting such nonsense .
First , any good fighter can climb to 50.000ft and accelerate to high mach before firing a BVR missile . The Raptor is not the only one to use the technique and there are faster jets around .
Secondly , you ‘re not gonna gain 30-40% range but around 20-25% at most compare to a subsonic launch @25.000ft .Cheers .
From Codeone Magazine Oct. 2000:
Paul Metz, chief test pilot for the F-22
F-22 Pilot Perspective
This article appeared in the October 2000 issue of Code One Magazine.
The kinematic range of an AIM-120 AMRAAM, for example, increases by fifty percent as aircraft speed increases from 0.9 to 1.5 Mach (this assumes an altitude advantage for the shooter). That is, the missile can reach targets fifty percent farther away because its initial speed coming off an F-22 flying 1.5 Mach is much faster. The Raptor easily supercruises in this speed regime. This missile range advantage intensifies the F-22?s sensor advantage—the radar on a Raptor can see a bandit long before a bandit?s radar detects a Raptor.
However, if you know better than Paul Metz…
aurcovIt seems I might have explain the basics. “The shortest distance between two points is a straight line.”
A lofted trajectory makes the average speed lower relative to a straight line. Or in other words, it takes longer time to fly to the target .
At 30000 m a missile will lose 1/4 of its speed in 150 s. At 6000 it will lose the same in 30 s.
So, while the straight line might be the shortest distance, a missile will lose its speed dramatically; at high altitude due to low air density the speed will diminish less.
aurcovA lofted trajectory gives the missile a greater launch distance in a head on engagement, but range isn’t better. Mainly because it increases flight time by reducing ground speed and therefore allowes the target to get closer before impact.
It is true that the “ground speed” (That’s not the correct term, BTW) is reduced, but not so much compared to air density.
Here: http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/atmosphere/q0112.shtml you can see that indeed, at 30,000 m the speed is reduced (1086 km/h) vs 1225 km/h(sea level), but here http://www.usatoday.com/weather/wstdatmo.htm you can see that air density difference is much, much greater ( it drops to 0.018 kg/m3 compared with 1,2 kg/m3). That’s the trick behind the lofted trajectory.
That is a against a target flying in a straight line towards the launcher, if the target is maneuvering or flying in an angle relative to the launcher the improvement diminishes quite quickly. It also increases the time the launcher has to keep track on the targets position to guide the missile. That is especially a problem for an aircraft with a fixed AESA.
Also consider a scenario with an opponent that at the same time launches a ramjet powered missile that can fly in a straight line with full speed all the way. It has a good chance to take out the first aircraft before its missile is close enough to guide itself
I get it. The implied idea is that a fighter with AESA sowplate and capable of firing a ramjet is the best. Let me guess. It might be the Swedish midget? :diablo::D
aurcovAfter 60 km, that M4 missile is down to M2 already, at which point it can’t even intercept a Boeing 747, and that’s assuming a very generous 40,000 ft, as well as supersonic launch.
As the missile drops to less then M1, it will have to descend to remain in controlled flight, which will further reduce range, not to mention the target will need to dive in order to intercept the missile before the missile crash 😀
The numbers does not add up unless you allow the target to close in at high supersonic speeds.
This would be true if the missile would fly at low/medium altitudes. This is why I asked MSphere about lofted trajectory. At high altitude, a missile will not lose speed as fast …
aurcovOk, i will take only the EADS folks as selling an exagerated story. LM tells the truth, because they built well the F22 (but alas the politicians found the price exagerated).
Just a curiocity. Has LM ever explained at what range in real war conditions (transponders off) the F35 will have positive target ID against a legacy fighter so that it can shoot its missiles? I ‘d be curious to know. Because many of the aircrafts that were shooting Serbs or Iraquis at 15 kms were built by LM too.
No, actually they were built by Boeing (McDonell- Douglas), and the AMRAAMs were A not the present D. But I concur, paper perfromances are better than real life (for all missiles).
aurcovYes, i thought you made a typo, but apparently you don’t know Astra is a AAM,
just like AMRAAM.
Hint: Neither missile will ever fly anywhere close to 150 km, primarily because a cooperative target closing in at M1.5 is imagined in this example.
Sorry, I misred Aster, that’s why I made the AA comment. And the range in the the graph is correct depending of the shooter/target speed.
aurcovCheck page 91-93 and come back, again..
Do you know the difference beteween C deg. and F deg.?
aurcovPlease, educate us all 🙂 Especially on the ratio of missile body temperature depending on the flight profile..
You don’t know what you are talking about.
The AMARAAM will travel at 30,000ft (check th air density there, before postin the 600 deg. ) and make a J turn ending in the ennemy tail. In these conditions the defender can rely only on the MWS, not on the IRST.
aurcovSame as Astra Mark 2 in other words, “150 km” -93-mile head on range with a tail chase range of 21 miles.
and so will be roughly equalThe DRDO said Astra will be able to be launched from different altitudes but those alterations would affect the range.
It will cover nearly 70 miles when launched from an altitude of just more than 9 miles
but only 27 miles when fired from an altitude of 5 miles.At sea level the range is expected to be 13 miles.
Active homing range will be nearly 16 miles.A longer range version, the Astra Mark 2, will have a 93-mile head on range with a tail chase range of 21 miles.
http://www.upiasia.com/Business_News/Security-Industry/2010/07/15/Indias-Astra-tested-for-night-operations/UPI-69881279199751/
70 miles =60nm=110km
9 miles=14 km
5 miles =8km
27 miles=23nm=43km
13 miles=11 nm=20km
16 miles=14nm=26km
93 miles=81nm=150km
21 miles=18nm=34kmAs we can see, an impressive 93 miles=81nm=150km range on a head on shrinks to a mere quarter on a tail chase, (21 miles=18nm=34km) which would be the first thing the shot at fighter would do, equipped with MLD/MAWS, and reasonable high alt agility.
If he then proceed to take a dive, we can shave off half of that quarter,
for an effective range of that 150 km missile in practical term is
~10 miles=9nm=17km, = well within visual range.
I already told you in another thread that the situation is different in the case of an A/A missile vs. a SAM. The reason is that the shooter is moving too. Here is a graph that may give you an indication.
aurcovAll AMRAAM models use a boost-sustain motor, so the missile could also be detected during the 20 seconds or so of it’s sustain phase, or by frictional heating once the motor is burnt out and the missile is coasting.
Well, it seems that the manufacturer of the engine (ATK Corp.) disagrees with you: http://www.atk.com/Products/documents/AMRAAM%20-%20Advanced%20Medium%20Range%20Air-to-Air%20Missile%20Propulsion%20System.pdf
This motor represents an all-boost design that delivers a significant increase in performance as compared to the baseline production motor.
aurcovAn object flying at Mach 4 is visible for thermal imagers for the whole time of the flight as it heats up to over 600C, compared to ambient temperature way below the freezing point …
Do you know what “lofted trajectory” means?
aurcovMAW 300
Probability of Warning: > 99%what’s left to miss is those aam’s that failed to ignite, that’s the likelihood of a modern MAWS to miss anything.
I agree the limitation of AMRAAM is that it has less then 10 sec worth of fuel, so it isn’t really useful vs agile fighters at BVR, but that is a problem for all non breathing aam’s.
I wonder why the Swedes implored US to give them some…:p. BTW, the D is credited with ~ 150 km…
aurcovTry: http://defensetech.org/, the second article from the bottom
aurcovYou should see the numbers for the JSF! they make your eyes water.
UK from 150 JSF down to a very optimistic 70 (or a pessimistic 50). = a 46% to 66% cut
Where as the Typhoon (even with the unconfirmed tranch 3b cut) = 160/232 = at most a 31% reduction.
That’s counter-intuitive to your argument that the better platform gets more orders.
The sort of savage cuts to orders of the JSF is facing would make Sweeny Todd look like an amateur.
cheers
160 “Phoon”s? In your dreams. It could be ~ 100 in the end … http://[U]defensetech.org/2010/12/14/raf-could-be-reduced-to-just-six-fighter-squadrons-by-2020/#more-10730[/U]
Sign In
