Starfish PrimeEventually. To the best of my knowledge, the first definitive lists of Meteor test flights were compiled from 2011 onwards by Jane’s author Rob Hewson using information contained in press releases, obtained from leaks, and deduced from other evidence. I don’t have access to the on-line version of the various IHS publications, so cannot give the dates on which they were published. The article you are citing has less detail on the individual firings that Hewson published, so was probably based on his data, with the addition of some new stuff such as the details on how the motor throttles.
If it was such a black-and-white issue, why are defence journalists and PR men not regularly jailed? Mark Hewish (who made the first journalistic inquiries into the Chevaline nuclear payload) would have been a good candidate, along with Duncan Campbell (articles on sigint, and the ‘outing’ of Zircon), and Peter Laurie (who traced the government’s microwave communications links). Bill Sweetman must have got up a few official noses in his time at Jane’s, and they would have needed to allocate a cell for semi-permanent occupation by Chapman Pincher.
I tell you how it is – you can believe it or not. There is no point in continuing a discussion with someone whose response is to suggest that the other party is perverting the situation. It is a bit like ‘non-discussions’ with JSR; all I can do is to post information so that other forum members can make their own decision as to what to believe.
And still far more evidence than of testing with RWR mid-course AMRAAM updates.
Defence journalists do not sign The OSA. And there is no way of knowing what was actually covered by The OSA. Take Porton Down, not disclosed until many decades later.
No, I tell it like it is, you tell it how you want it to be for the benefit of your argument. Something is either classified or it isn’t. And language like, “to some extent, range,” speaks for itself. The old ‘classified’ ruse is something used by people who wish to claim capabilities that don’t exist to their knowledge. That doesn’t mean the capabilities don’t exist, it only means that they don’t really have a clue.
Now think about this carefully. Is it even possible for a mid-course update to be passive? Is there such thing as a psychic data link?
Starfish PrimeSo Russia is flipping out over the possibility that a missile not even in development might one day exist…
True when you look at it that way but there was a plan to introduce SM-3-IIB at a later date originally. Now officially that’s cancelled, however there is such a thing as black budgets.
Starfish PrimeSo no one took any videos of the ammo dumps on wheels going off like a fireworks display as they all burned off after the mortar/predator/a-10 strike?
You guys really need to learn to stay on target, because “it was someone else who did it!”… followed by “they were carrying fireproof ammunition anyway” makes Russians look stupid as well as FOS.
Fair’s fair. Both sides do that. The initial statement is always, we had no planes in the area, followed by, oops yes, we blew up the hospital by accident.
Starfish PrimeAn inspirational video of the X47 hose refueling on the Omega tanker (707):
Pause the video at 00:31 and 00:55s 😉
Seems to suggest a higher empty weight than expected but 14,000lb did seem a little silly. Maybe they meant ~14,000kg.
Starfish PrimeThe current missile yes. A future missile though?
How do you mean? Boost-glide? Or do you mean a later version of the SM-3 like I stated here.
I don’t think any ABM has a confirmed capability against boost-glide yet but the US is definitely working on upgrading THAAD to this end. However, mid-course interception would still be against an essentially ballistic launch vehicle.
Starfish Primefor as long primary attacks consist of throwing metal pieces at each other, performance will remain the primary attribute of a fighter,
once DEW takes over as the primary weapon, its not going to be rcs,
its going to be who got the most power generation
That’s not the case with stealth fighters. You can’t fire if you have no target. Well you can, but it’s a waste of missiles and it does literally become a lump of metal then.
Which in the case of DEW, will not be a fighter at all.;) It will also be about efficiency of the laser system and beam quality, as well as the type of laser, as atmospheric attenuation will vary for different frequencies. At present a laser system outputs only about 10% of the power you put in and beam divergence will also affect range, e.g. double the power is no good if you’ve got twice the divergence, because the spot area will be quadrupled at any given range.
Starfish PrimeThe mission statement for the shield is mentioning intercepting ballistic missiles whilst still in space. So.. !
Yes but in order to intercept an ICBM, it would need more range to be effective.
Starfish PrimeThat may have been their judgement, but Russian judgement has proven to be shaky in the past, as Operation RYaN demonstrated in the early 1980s. (Never was such a massive intelligence-gathering operation launched on the basis of so few facts.)
The land-based Standard has nothing to do with countering the Russia ICBM force, and there are good indications that Russia knows that. But why they ignore this reality is a question that falls into the realm of politics, a topic that is of little interest to me.
Well SM-3-IIA can’t realistically (it does have marginal intercept potential against an SS-19 if based in North Sea not Poland) but such a missile could be replaced with a more capable upgrade later in the day and I think that’s the issue. Obviously the ability to intercept shorter range BMs is also a factor.
Starfish PrimeA strategic bomber is not used only for aggressive purposes. It is an instrument of deterrence — something that Russia clearly considers important given their well-publicised concerns regarding NATO missile defences and the corresponding broader refurbishment of their nuclear armament complex.
I don’t doubt that, in the abstract, Russia can continue to justify a niche interceptor platform. But we are not working in the abstract, but rather with a nation having limited resources and many other competing and arguably more urgent priorities. A combination of T-50, MiG-31BM, and ground-based AD elements could handle the task of defending Russia’s airspace almost as well as that mix plus PAK DP.
The other problem with PAK DP is that I doubt that Russia can offer a truly transformative leap over the current MiG-31BM with the current state of technology. Given the future development of hypersonic and near-space technologies, a dedicated interceptor would seem an ideal candidate to be pushed back another decade — not the presently mature subsonic VLO flying wing!
PAK DA would make more sense to me if it were conceived as much as a strike platform (to replace Su-34 and Tu-22M) as an interceptor. Even then, I’m still not sure I would prioritise it over a strategic VLO platform.
I’m not sure that a stealth bomber adds that much considering that stealth cruise missiles tend to be used for strategic delivery against peer adversaries anyway. I’m not even sure Russia has any actual bombs left in its operational nuclear inventory, mostly MIRVs and cruise missiles now, the latter of which can be launched from 5,500km away. Even the B-2 and B-21 are to be equipped with LRSO.
Starfish PrimeOnce AOA or TDOA is determined, in theory you can compute the range. Problem is that this would factor light speed, so the initial error on say AOA would result in huge incertitude on range, making it useless.
The method , is about computing range without factoring light speed , to get less uncertain results.
It is not attempting to measure the Doppler shift of the signal as such , but rather the relative changes in Doppler shift between each antenna elements .
In short, or rather schematically .The phase measured on an element has 2 possible origin : the AOA and eventual Doppler shift on that element. Remove AOA and you end up with Doppler shift change between elements .From this, you can calculate the relative differences in radial distance to emitter between the elements. Knowing the AOA it allows to compute the radial distance to emitter, without having to factor speed of light notalby.
There is guessing involved either way as already mentioned. TDOA is more accurate but still contains significant error. The calculation of phase is based on amplitude, which involves a guess as to the immediate pk-pk value. Calculating the phase difference between two close together points this way is going to yield some error which, when applied to a small angle (that between target and the two array points) is going to yield significant errors in distance. At the end of the day both IRST passive range-finding and phase interferometry both come down to a measure of size – immediate amplitude of wave relative to pk for TDOA and size of aircraft for IRST. +/-1 degree bearing even at 50km leads to a huge guess, placing the aircraft anywhere on a 1.8km arc. IRST would be much more effective overall in generating a geolocation passively but still not full-proof and with weaknesses at range.
Starfish PrimeYou are trying to see this in binary black/white terms, as in “It’s either classified or it isn’t.” In reality, it is more a matter of shades of grey.
I know of a case where a company new to the defence field had been told by the MoD that they must not say anything to the press other than what had been cleared by the MoD. But they could see in the pages of the technical press articles on their rivals’ products that contained significant information that had not been cleared. Faced with the situation that there seemed to be one law for established defence contractors and another for newcomers to the field, they wondered how to go about getting similar publicity for their product.
The answer was that the established companies had PR staff who were experienced in knowing “how much they could get away with” without incurring the wrath of the MoD. That is what the art of leaking is all about.
So that is why a journalist, defence academic, or analyst may have been told about something in general terms, but does not have the detailed information.
No, not all trials were announced. In some cases, news of the trial leaked, or could be deduced from other announced facts.
Whether classification = censorship is a question I am content to leave to philosophers.
That’s because the law surrounding The Official Secrets Act is black and white, you’re choosing to pervert it into a grey area simply because it suits your line of argument.
Flawed argument. An article simply relaying the fact there had been a test would not provide any information besides that which the LM employee allegedly stated to Sweetman. It doesn’t need to mention range, altitude etc. it only need to mention that an AMRAAM was provided a mid-course update using only RWR.
Pretty much all tests were released with some quite specific details. Certainly far more than simply mentioning a mid-course update via RWR.
http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/defense/2012-07-08/theres-no-escaping-mbdas-meteor-missile
The first of these guided firings (GFs) was from a Gripen in mid-2009 in a snap-down, tail-chase engagement. That tested the seeker against background clutter. Then came five ejector-launched GFs over the Hebrides range in northern Scotland from UK Royal Air Force Tornado F.3 interceptors operated by QinetiQ.
GF2 was a tough test of the missile’s ability to snap-up through thick air in a tail chase. GF3 then tested high-altitude performance, GF4 was a longer snap-down tail chase against background clutter and GF5 was a high-speed head-on engagement at “well in excess of 100 kilometers,” said Bradford. The Meteor’s actual maximum range is classified.
Finally, GF6 was another long-range and head-on engagement in March-April of this year that fully tested the missile’s data link to and from the launch aircraft. Bradford noted that the targets for all except GF5 were high-subsonic Mirach drones with a radar cross section “equivalent to a real-world fighter,” according to Bradford. GF5 engaged a BQM-167 drone.
“All the targets conducted a final evasive maneuver,” added Bradford. There have since been three more firings from the Tornados over the Aberporth range off the coast of Wales, to test the Meteor’s performance against countermeasures (chaff and jammers).
Starfish PrimeNobody question nor even debate whether or not the radar can provide better track at range . I think the original question was whether RWR could provide sufficient data quality for a mid course update in BVR . This led to debating passive range finding.
Both radar and RWR loose accuracy at short range ( calculation error depending on inverse of range distance) , so ultimately the IRST bearing accuracy will get better than the radar or RWR one , as range decrease.
Still IRST will not provide range , hence laser ranging in the Rafale’s Trial example .
From my understanding the trial was less about being passive than validating shot in collaborative context by cueing the OSF for a shot from an RWR track provided by another aircraft . it would be dubious a total passive shot would ever get disclosed and the means to achieve it exposed .
But I still see no evidence that it can. I believe you could get away with a shot just outside WVR, simply because the errors are minimalised and the missile doesn’t have far to go to get in seeker range.
Well IRST does provide range but the question in both cases of IRST and RWR is accuracy.
1:11 in this video even suggests Lock-On capability but again, range is debatable. 1:19 even says ‘From Long to short distance target locking’. But again, ‘long’ is qualitative not quantitative.
Yet the claim is that such information has already been released. So again, either classified or it isn’t. If the former then this debate is moot because nobody outside a specific inner circle knows and if unclassified, then where is the reference to such a trial?
Starfish Primesource? Are you sure you are not confusing two distinct events?
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/new-radar-could-boost-rafale39s-export-prospects-318499/
The only other instance didn’t involve a missile being fired but was believed to simulate a MICA IR OTS shot at 8.5nm. But the validity is debatable because no missile was launched and no target was destroyed.
Starfish PrimeHow a new interceptor is considered a higher priority than a VLO bomber is beyond me.
Depending on speed, there is logic to it, given the focus on hypersonic attack weapons.
Starfish Primeapparently someone didnt focus on transonic acceleration, there’s nothing there,
and that abysmal acceleration once drag sets in means the top speed becomes theoretical, not practical to ever reach
But how does that change anything in a head-to-head closure scenario? It doesn’t increase detectability or detection, and going subsonic is better for reduced detection as already mentioned. Now back in the day, when they were trying to design faster and faster high altitude bombers to fly over enemy air defences with nukes and long range AAMs were… somewhat experimental… and IRST didn’t exist then speed was a big factor. Maybe things will change again with the drive for hypersonic delivery methods, but if so, neither M2.0 nor even M3.0 will cut it. Missile delivery kinematics are better for faster fighters but useless if you have no target. 4th gen vs 4th gen it makes sense because radars can pick them up a long way away, much further than IRST can, but when radar range is greatly inhibited by stealth, the range of the missiles becomes moot, unless you’re using 4th gen in collaboration with 5th gen, then having Meteors on something like a Typhoon makes sense, so it can fire on the targets picked up by the F-35 flying ahead.
Sign In
