SOCI’ve got the XBox 360 version. While it did appear a bit shorter, playing the game on Veteran difficulty does draw it out a lot longer in places. The game itself is pretty slick, and the graphics this time around are just sick. The Pripyat levels are some of the best I’ve seen in any game.
SOCI’ve got the XBox 360 version. While it did appear a bit shorter, playing the game on Veteran difficulty does draw it out a lot longer in places. The game itself is pretty slick, and the graphics this time around are just sick. The Pripyat levels are some of the best I’ve seen in any game.
SOCBullets tend to have better penetration against smoke. And are cheaper. And don’t require a hideously large power source.
Bullets also tend to be destructive; one of the goals here is to come up with a weapon that is useful in a lethal and a non-lethal capacity. That’d cut down on collateral damage A LOT and allow the system to be employed in an urban environment. I myself prefer the precision nature of carpet bombing, but I can at least see what they’re “aiming for” with this idea.
But heck yeah, let’s waste billions on a cool layzur weapin.
Right now its a proof-of-concept demonstrator, not an actual procurement program.
And let’s fit it to a Herk, so it will only be useful against low-tech enemies in a completely controlled airspace. Glad it’s not my tax money.
The Herk is the demonstrator for the project. As for low-tech enemies…well, let’s be honest, that includes everyone we’re likely to get into a shooting war with. Russia and China aren’t likely to be on the business end of one of these things unless they do it to each other, as getting into it with them would be asinine and eventually have to involve weapons far more powerful than lasers.
Financially speaking, I’d much rather my tax money went for something like this kind of research then for asinine programs like socialist medicine and support for illegal immigrants.
SOCIf by the time B-52s come along, Iran still has an AF, a MiG-21 will be quite enough to counter that threat. Or a S-75 for that matter.
Iran has the HQ-2, not the S-75 (and I’m pretty sure they have no MiG-21s as they employ the J-7). But either way, nobody in their right mind should count on either system being truly effective against American ECM gear, especially given the time and attention paid to system exploitation and ELINT by the USAF.
they didn’t do all that well against the Iraqi airforce during the border conflict
That depends on whose research you choose to believe…
SOCHow about decoy radars? Something like the following scenario:
– ARM launch is detected
– Switch off your main radar(s)
– Switch on your cheap and/or obsolete decoy radar
– ARM will head towards decoyNow, if you also switch off your decoy radar after a short emitting time you might even be able to save your decoy for re-use later.
Decoying an ARM in that fashion isn’t plausible anymore. When you turn off the main radar a decent ARM will go into AGM mode and guide in on the last known position of the radar. Since they aren’t currently programmed to deal with moving targets, if your decoy radar pops up somewhere else that is not the location of the original signal, then a HARM will ignore it and keep heading towards the original emitter.
SOCThe accuracy of the coordinates really depends as much about how the target is being used and what is around it. If the target search radar for example is only on for very short periods then the accuracy of the coordinates the ARM has for the target will be less accurate.
Not necessarily true anymore. Block VI AGM-88s have GPS to track the target’s location. The AGM-88E AARGM uses a millimeter-wave active radar homing head in cooperation with GPS for terminal homing. Emitting false signals won’t do you any good in that case.
SOCWhat about speed then? Why all newer Flankers including latest Su-35 have lower top speed then old Su-27.
Could have to do with messing with the intake trunk and the compressor face to reduce the RCS.
SOCWhat if they added an LPI radar to the SAM system and used that for volume search and track.
An LPI might not give you good enough range and resolution to be used for effective long-range EW (100-300 kilometers).
Then only switch on the engagement radar once a target is within missile range and only for the duration of the engagement?
Now you’re on to something. A modern SAM can often work like this: engagement radar is used in a quasi-search capacity to keep an accurate track of the target to provide mid-course update signals to the missile, before actually emitting high-intensity (and RHAW/RWR activating) termina-homing guidance signals for the endgame phase. That is essentially how the S-300V operates according to the Nevskiy Bastion publication I mentioned earlier. In that example, the guidance commands are transmitted by the TELAR after being sent from the 9S19. The TELAR also features the terminal homing illumination antenna as well.
If the SAM system ‘shoot and scoot’ a lot, then it could be a decent counter to even modern ARMs.
You don’t have to move the TELs as long as they are not TELARs.
Also, if a SAM system uses active guided missiles, then maybe they can even do away with the engagement radar altogether as they would only need to guide the missile to a very large area from which point the missile’s own radar can take over.
You still need what will be termed an engagement radar to provide mid-course update signals to ensure the missile is in range of the target before going active.
Although the SAM site will not have the mobility of a fighter, so LPI might not work as effectively.
That’s why it probably won’t work. Modern ARMs, like the latest HARMs, not only track the emitted signals, but also track the position of the source, giving good odds of a hit even if the radar is deactivated.
This is a pretty interesting discussion, one of the more interesting ones we’ve had around here for a while in my opinion!
SOCStealth aircraft like the B2, F22 and F35 are claimed to be able to use their AESA radars to search and lock onto targets without the enemy knowing about it. Could the same technique not be used by the AESA radars of many modern SAMs to defeat ARHs?
That’s the LPI radar. Less powerful beams pointed at targets for a fraction of normal duratio means that RWR/RHAW gear probably won’t notice the signal. The problem is whether or not that signal is still powerful enough, and accurate enough, to guide a modern SAM.
Conversely, if new gen ARH seekers can counter this on ground based SAM radars, can’t the same be applied to find and even target F22s?
You probably can’t do that given the nature of the Raptor’s LPI system; hard for an ARM to find something that it can’t “see”.
A chaff cloud can be fired by a decoy system and radar waves beamed into that chaff cloud will be a large emitter of the same frequency the incoming ARM is homing in on.
Won’t work against a modern ARM that is also configured to target both a radar emitter source as well as a set of coordinates in case the radar goes dead.
SOC[color=red]Okay, any argument devolving into unproven 9/11 or Iraq conspiracy theories has to be the 21st Century iteration of Godwin’s law. Thread canned![/color]
SOCSo that little dish on an S-300V TEL can do search and track functions? :confused:
The S-300V is a little different in terms of physical hardware but the overall system still functions the way I described in my argument. In the S-300V, the “EW” assets are the 9S15 and 9S19 radars. The battery-level engagement radar is the 9S32. Each EW pair is going to control up to four batteries, and each battery has a 9S32 and up to six TELARs. Take out the 9S15 or 9S19 and the system can still blow up your aircraft (taking out the 9S19 does you no good at all from a SEAD context really, as it is designed to seek out ballistic targets normally engaged by the S-300V2/9M82). That little dish on the TELAR is the CW illuminator for the SARH terminal homing; since it won’t be active until the terminal homing phase of the engagement, your ARM is going to want to eradicate the 9S32.
If you want a lot of overly detailed open source info on the S-300 systems, there’s a Nevskiy Bastion title from 1997 called S-300 Air Defence Missile System that has a lot of really interesting stuff. Nothing earth-shattering on the Antey-2500, S-300PM-2, or S-400, but the detail is pretty in-depth regarding components, functions, relationships, and whatnot.
SOCSpeaking of MiG-31BMs, are they still planning on equipping them with the R-37?
And for the sake of clarity, the Zaslon-AM is a Zaslon-A modernized with Zaslon-M technolgy. Not as capable as the Zaslon-M probably, but should be substantially improved over the Zaslon-A.
SOCA stealthy, ground hugging, air-breathing ARM though. . .that would be a puzzle.
Something similar was tried before, TACIT RAINBOW, but I think that was supposed to be a medium altitude loitering system if I remember right.
Also ARMs are smart enough (I’d think anyway) to go after the big search/tracking radars since without those the illuminators are useless.
Thoroughly untrue. Your average modern SAM system has advanced enough engagement radars to perform independant target search if there is no input from the EW system (think S-300P’s 5N63S operating independent from 36D6 or 64N6 track inputs). A decent ARM is going to go after the engagement radars, because if you take them out, the system is dead in the water because it can’t give guidance commands to the missiles. Knock out an EW or search radar and all you’ve done is forced a decent SAM system to exert a little more electronic effort and expend a few more milliseconds working out the engagement. Remember, the only real purpose for the EW radars are to point the engagement radar in the right direction to locate and set up a track on the target. Remove the EW radar from the equation and you simply have to use a search function of the engagement radar to locate the target and set up the track. And as most EW radars are located a good bit away from the engagement radars and launchers, hitting one won’t necessarily do anything to damage the critical components of the SAM system anyway. Knowing where the EW radar is might not even be enough to help you locate the SAM battery regardless.
The best way to defend against ARMs is to either employ some sort of close-in defense system for your longer-range SAM batteries (think Tors defending S-300Ps), or to practice very good emission control. Passive detection systems are a good idea, like optical trackers and the like. The problem is that most modern, long-range SAM systems are going to shoot at you outside your ARMs range, and they are advanced enough that you may as well go ahead and eject (S-300PM-1, S-300V, I’m looking in your direction here).
For a decent intro to modern SEAD tactics, check this out:
http://aupress.maxwell.af.mil/Books/Brungess/Brungess.pdf
Suffice it to say that if you want to figure out how to make a SAM survivable, you need a good working knowledge of the internal electronic functions of the system, as well as a thorough understanding of how ECM and ECCM work and interact. Put all that together, and you’ll be able to understand how complex the SEAD mission actually is.
I could continue the discussion and really blow your minds, but then we’d all get picked up in black helicopters 😀
SOCChavez bought the Su-30MK2V, a Venezuelan Su-30MKK2 variant pretty much analogous to the PLANAF’s Su-30MK2. He might not have sought out that specific variant with just air superiority in mind, so if there is a perceived shortfall in capability in the minds of armchair analysts when compared to an F-5BR or Mirage 2000, it might not really be that big a concern to the Venezuelan pilots. While the F-5BR pilots are tooling around looking for the huge radar target offered up by the Venezuelan FLANKER, Chavez’s pilots are probably well offshore thanks to the jet’s long range obliterating your surface fleet and interdicting your merchant traffic thanks to the added surface warfare capability in the MKK2 variant.
IAF’s Su-30MKI, although different from these MKVs of AMV, had a very good results with American F-15C on Cope India 2004(I don’t wanna say wiped as a lot of journals had reported then), you really think that Su-30MKVs could be handled by F-5BR
The MKI and the MK2V share a similar shape and not much else. The MKI has a markedly more advanced avionics suite headed up by the Bars radar set, while the MK2V has to rely on an older, upgraded version of the now-aged N001. The MKI also enjoys better agility across the board due to the advantage of TVC, although that advantage over another FLANKER-series aircraft isn’t probably as drastic as it might sound, the general planform was pretty much dead-on perfect from the get-go (provided you can maintain temporary ignorance of the original T-10 design, that is-possibly the biggest design foul-up since the Douglas X-3). End result, while I’d rather be the guy driving the FLANKER, an F-5BR will have a better time of it facing an Su30MK2V than an Su-30MKI.
Ever made up your mind, why the USA has limited the buy of the F-22?!
Because Congress realized that the Cold War was over before the USAF did? 😀
SOCI never cared for the bland and boring lines of the Strat-style guitars myself. A bolt-on does absolutely nothing for me either, nor do the Gibson/Epiphone set necks. Give me a good ESP or Jackson any day, with a BC Rich as a backup. If you want another iconic guitar styling that I myself would identify with far more than the Strat style, what about the original Randy Rhoads Jackson offset V?
Sign In
