or just use a high altitude UAV with a laser pod to blind the enemy pilot at 500KM, sounds like the same damage done to me. and probably 1/1000th the cost. you don’t even consider survivibility.

that uav will need to be very big

The range figures given out in these brochures are not 100% accurate. It would be silly to tell all the world the exact specs of your defensive weapons, would it? You want the attacker to underestimate your defenses, thinking he’s still safe when WHAM!.

On the other hand, it makes sense to exaggerate on the capabilities of your offensive ones. You want to make your adversary go defensive as soon as his RWR goes off. Even if the PK (probability of a kill) is in practice very low, the enemy has no way of knowing it and will have to expend his energy in assuming a defensive posture.

Air-launched missiles will therefore in practice have much smaller practical ranges compared to the ranges given out in public data than surface-launched ones.

Fedaykin made an important point in comparing the AIM-7 to the AIM-120. The prediction algorithms (the way the missile reacts to the targets’ movement) are far more advanced in newer missiles, IE they are smarter. This makes their practical range greater, because they dont have to waste their precious energy in unneccesary manouvres.

All these missiles i mentioned above are defensive missiles
Btw all missiles max range are against target that not maneuver so how come some small missile have equal or even much greater range than big missiles :
ESSM vs HAWK , AIM-120 vs AIM-7 , RIM-156 vs RIM-67 ER …etc
And some time bigger missile have longer range
KS-100 vs R-77 , AIM-54 vs AIM-120 ..etc

Similar ceiling yes but different kind of target, SLAMRAAM just doesn’t have the energy to intercept and engage a target moving at a re-entry speed of 5 to 10 Kilometres a second.

Engaging a ballistic missile on re-entry has often been described as trying to hit a .50 calibre bullet fired from the top of a mountain with a .22LR bullet fired from the base of that mountain. To have a hope of doing it you need a missile that can carry as much energy as possible combined with a radar and computer quick enough to compute a solution to place the smaller slower intercept missile with the larger faster incoming ballistic missile.

Certainly 12 miles down range and and 50000 ft can appear to be not that impressive but it is entirely in keeping with what the missile is designed to engage. SLAMRAAM might be able to get up to the same altitude but it hasn’t got a hope of engaging a ballistic missile. AMRAAM burns its motor and coasts to its target, end game maneuverability is useless in this kind of intercept as AMRAAM will have bled all its energy at that altitude. A ballistic missile is not an agile target, it is an incredibly quick target!

If both the PAC-3 and Aim120 have max ceiling of 15 km how come the PAC-3 have more energy at that altitude ?

How about the NACDE that have the same size as Aim-120 ?

The answer is in its speed and ceiling specifications! IT is also in what the primary target is intended to be.

Mach 5+
50000ft

This thing is designed to shoot straight up and get the missile up to altitude quickly. PAC-3 was almost entirely designed to intercept incoming SRBM and IRBM! Down range performance is not the important factor, shallower shot and this missile will a lot further then 12 miles.

PAC-3 was developed as part of the Extended Range Interceptor (ERINT) program and forms a component of the SDI Theatre Missile Defence initiative.

The Slamraam missile ensures a muchextended envelope, with a 15,000-metre ceiling and a 33-km range.

http://www.readperiodicals.com/201102/2306357481.html
the Slamraam also have equal ceiling and still have much longer range despite it a smaller missiles and have to deal with agile target :confused:

A nuclear armed country is going to have more tricks up their sleeves than that. Like an adversary is only going to have air defenses around the ICBM? You’re a perfect example of what I’m talking about ideal conditions. You need a S-400 stationed next to the ICBM being launched in order for this laser to get a chance. How far does this airbourne laser have to travel to get into range? Sorry to tell you but the country you want to stop isn’t going to allow an enemy airbourne laser to loiter over their territory just so it can knock down one of their ICBMs. You can have this laser how far outside enemy territory then when a launch is detected how fast can it get into range? The answer is the US would’ve already been hit by that ICBM by the time it gets into range. That’s called too late. Now who’s rolling eyes?

1- i was talking about the YAL-1 secondary role as an air dominance fightẻ
2- S-300/400 can be neutralise by HARM , JSOW , MALD-J , EA-18G , low level attacker ….etc

It’s all hype. Laser energy dissipates the longer the distance. So that means the longer the laser will have to be trained on the target in order to burn through. They’re tricking you so you can go wow in that video seeing the laser and the target in action in the same picture. All that says is it’s works in short range and in the most ideal conditions. Short range enough to be easily shot down.

according to producer , it take about 5-6 sec to destroy missile at 500 km 😀

I cannot answer your question Moon_Light. But from talking to Boeing, I received the impression that the team was looking for a minimal-change upgrade that would give the aircraft a secondary capability that might improve its chances of survival both in terms of the US defence budget and in the face of enemy fighters. Without some self-defence capability, it would have required protection by friendly fighters when operating in or near enemy airspace.

But as a former aerospace engineer, I’d question your assertion that “it [is] not very hard to strap on a radar”.

i mean they could put radar on the YAL-1 like this :p the disk radar is not that big



or may be a phase radar ?