over GYes yes , i got i bit confused because i was looking from other side 😀
Now, since i can see it better 🙂 , lets consider the interception point is the standar location, for both models (target and miswsile) just try to put a bit closer both points (in the Y axis , no?), and you will find the missile cant catch the plane…the no return point
over GOver G look at the picture I posted, ok?
The picture is wrong and a bit biased, what you should do, is starting from the same line, one point of the target, another for the missile, and start to calculate, position, time, speed, and turn of the both curves, specially the “no return” distance
For the “target” in the picture you are asuming some of it turn will be in the “negative” plane, wrong
over GNO, GET A CLUE
he said they have the same effective lateral translation
let me translate for you, the AMRAAM can move in any direction JUST AS FAST as the flanker
IT DOESN’T MATTER WHAT THE FLANKER DOES, the AMRAAM can match it
if the flanker goes one way and suddenly goes the other, the AMRAAM can match it
man, just align the flanker with the missile, the flanker curve will be inside the missile curve, then ther is a distance of turning, the margin can be calculated, get it..i understand what u did there , but then there is a distance of “no return” for the AMRAAM, the curves can be intercepted , but not in time
over GLM, again, align the target to the missile trayectory, and then turn in the right moment, there is a “not return” point to the missile, and that is increased again , if the plane do some turns from one to other side
over GNO, GET A CLUE
he said they have the same effective lateral translation
let me translate for you, the AMRAAM can move in any direction JUST AS FAST as the flanker
IT DOESN’T MATTER WHAT THE FLANKER DOES, the AMRAAM can match it
if the flanker goes one way and suddenly goes the other, the AMRAAM can match it
man, just align the flanker with the missile, the flanker curve will be inside the missile curve, then there is a distance of “no return” turning for the AMRAAM, at that distance the target should start to turn, and wont be intercepted
The effect can actually be increased if the plane is turning and suddently change the direction of turning
over GFunny..the “koppo equation”…poor newton 😀
Lmraptor, everybody knows that, is ok, nothing new has been said, the only thing is again that you need a crystall ball to know if the “flanker ” will be dumb enough to meet the missile in the interception point, which wont happen, as your own diagram show
Also that graphic is a bit biased, since for a more practical and real comparation ,both curves should start from the same source, then you can see the “flanker” circle is inside the AMRAAN one, so your graphic is not a good comparation
The flanker can align to the AMRAAM direction and then start turning when the missile has reached a the limit for turning for the interceprion point,thus evading the missile
over G“you can even turn on only when you are painted by other plane radars.” 😀
Can you be a little be more specific, when it comes to the AIM-120, modern radars and datalink?!
Are you just doing your usual high tech babbling or just stating an argument?:confused:
What im saying is that there is no need for the rear radar to be working all the time, and just to be switched on when there is a inminent risk, you know..the AMRAAM seeker (with a 10 km range) does’nt tell the target position to the launching plane..
over GI love the way the USAF continued to ‘merchandise’ the B-2s LPI radar after the 21 planes were payed for and delivered. As they obviously had an agenda to sell the jet to say…. um.
B-2’s are meant to fly over russia after the initial nuke strike, that is their mission, not the fantastic “nobody saw them” “nobody detected them” preemtive strike, they are big black buzzards waiting for the great mess
over GThat only works against non-LPI radar modes. A tail radar gives a missile something to home in on, for a passive attack. The less active emitting the better.
Indeed, is the same tale of “stealthy mode” turn on/off…LPI is a tale, radar is energy, energy can be measured, in concept the only LPI radar mode should be a very very very very low frequency radar, because the very low energy quanta levels…the other LPI stuff is just merchandising rubbish
The less active emitting the better.
Nice myth, everything has their limits , everything has it balance, going to total pasive tactics you will lose initiative, and who gets initiative is attacking
over GA radar is an active system. :diablo:
It can give you a warning and be an excellent target at the same time. 😀
So what?, i dont get where is the fear of the tail radars, you can even turn on only when you are painted by other plane radars…i dont get where is the big fuss about it
Someone has to think twice, when a known “solution” is limited to a single user. How many are fitted after the test-period?!
I dont know, India and Russia re using it?,another radar means more weight, most of the other airframes are lighter than the su-27 and does not afford more room specially for such improvement
over GThe question will always be, how much warning does a pilot have, and was the missile launched well within its NEZ? Obviously the more warning, the better the likelihood of survival.
Again that is the reason for the tail radar, and even when you have being painted by the enemy radar you can do maneuvres to denie good hit probability of the long range missile
over GFirst, you are talking about a direct hit which is wrong because the missile just needs to get within the lethal blast radius, it does not need to hit the target at all. Second, you assume that the pilot is able to calculate the exact dodge maneuver. I can assure you he can’t. With a Python or AIM-9X on his tail, every average fighhter jock would be pi$$in in his pants of fear rather than play cold-blooded Bond. 3. Third, the missile does not follow the exact path of the aircraft, this has already been explained to death here.
Say what you want, I stick to pilot’s opinions here.
1-Lethal radius is not so huge to dimish the effech of the distance difference at these speeds
2-I agree that on close combat would be hard, but on BVR sems not so difficult, remember the article is about BVR combat, seems is not so focused on dogfights, either way, the tail radar is a important factor here
3-I does not follow the exact path, but close
over GI suppose Russian missiles don’t suffer from these limitations though.:rolleyes:
And then where im suggesting is not the same for the russian ones? all this is about the BVR superiority tale, that everybody love to believe, thinking about just the missiles and forgetting about the platforms, thinking that maneuverability is obsolete, just because their beloved aircraft are just not ahead in that field
High agility planes are still a priority for air combat, the dirty close combat has not “gone since the 90’s” -unless you have numbers, a lot, or your foes dont use decent RWR or radars- , dumb over-optimistic and simpleton statement
over GKopp certainly has a rather “unique” perspective and while he does have at least some good points and analysis his obvious F-22 bias and this series by Col. Medved sinks him and APA down to CDI/Sprey/Ricconi levels. Someone should really give some pointers to Col. Medved on writing an analysis piece as…..
The rule of thumb is that a missile needs to be able to pull 5 times the G the target does. Obviously this being a rule of thumb it has many caveats and conditionals. The AMRAAM is considered good for 40-50 G while the R-77 would need theoretically about 60 G to hit a 12 G target…….
BDF
Ok…lets dont start with the “riccioni hate my craptor” thing, that guy was one of the responsble to create the most successful plane in the USAF (the f-16)
Dont increse the g limit of the AMRAAM, that missile can hold only 25 gs, i dont know about new versions , maybe 30 gs on them…the Mica is the missile that can hold 50 gs
Speed aproaching is important, you can reduce the incoming velocity to say M2.5 instead M3.5 and increase the probablitity against a very maneuverable aircraft
he’s a freaking moron
This says nothing about his technical analysis which I’m a little dubious on in several areas that has been pointed out above.
This is one of the funniest threads I’ve ever read – it is so full of ignornant one dimensional analysis that it’s laughable; and sad at the same time as it scares away the decent posters.
while i’m still right and you all are still wrong , i think there is one thing we can all agree on:
Of course , to repeat the same sh!t that is said in the fan books give you a respectable position, when ppl talk about physics, is obvious that you are falling in a low level discussion..call that guy whatever you want, freaking moron, ignorant, etc.., but he is supported by physics, instead all you guys are supported by your merchandising…
Not only that but people seem to forget that in order to know when to manuever (even if it’s just a desperation turn at the last second) you have to actually know where the missile is. And trying to see an itty-bitty object coming in at roughly a mile every second or two with a burned out or smokeless motor? Good luck.
That is why the russians have not left the tail radar concept, with that you can actually increase the probability of evation even further
All that is limited to a non typical “tail-chase” in the the days of all aspect AAMs.
Over optimistic BS, but great for a salesman..:D
over GI think i made a thread about this long time ago -the concept, not the link-..but was my mistake to interpret it as linear funtion….so yes the link is right.
Again the “predictive” path is not like ppl thinks, is based in intervals, the interval cant never be 1, or 2…many are needed for good accuracy, you can chose low intervals, but risking it for uncertainly
One thing, you guys must understand that at 10000 mts normal fighters can only do 2-3 gs sustained ,with TVC for sure is higher, wonder if “5gs” value is the 35 turn at 10km.. (althought 5gs at 10km is normal, dont remember well, right now)
Sign In
