It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ant-Radiation Missile question.

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 06:26 PM
link   
Well, I just have a question regarding HARM missiles and the AGM-88 Anti-Radiation Missile. Currently the AGM-88 is designed to target and destroy ground based radar system, in this configuration it is launched from the air at stand-off distances (max 80nm). Now my question is can the AGM-88 be made an A2A missile so that it can target fighter aircraft radar systems? If this is possible then it would be a true BVR fire and forget missile since the launch aircraft does not need to illuminate the target, all that is required is the targets radar system. Also, if the target turns the radar off then he will be flying blind making it that much easier for our fighters to perform their mission.

Another idea is to modify the AGM-88 so that it has an active homing radar as well, this way if the aircraft switches the radar off the missile can fly via inertial/GPS navigation to the last known position and turn on its active radar to locate the target. So, what do you all think?

[edit on 2-4-2006 by WestPoint23]




posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 06:41 PM
link   
i hear its coming out in 2008 on the growler,prowler, and superhornet not sure of the others though www.atk.com...

this should help in fighting double digit sams



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 06:48 PM
link   
I know about the AARGM but its still an air to ground missile, I want a Anti-Radiation Missile for air to air combat.

[edit on 2-4-2006 by WestPoint23]



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 06:52 PM
link   
It will be harder for fighters because they only scan an area in front of them whereas ground radar and AWACS scan 360 degrees.

There is a Russian missile just like this which is designed for targetting AWACS, it had something like 300km range. Forgot what its called, damn...


edit: Oh yea it's KS-172, still in intial design stages. Ok there's a Chinese anti-AWACS SAM, FT-2000, but it's ground launched.

[edit on 2-4-2006 by Taishyou]



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 06:55 PM
link   

It will be harder for fighters because they only scan an area in front of them whereas ground radar and AWACS scan 360 degrees.


Most fighter aircraft scan only 120 degrees, however if launched head on from another fighter in BVR then it should lock on.



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 07:07 PM
link   
The AGM-88 IS the HARM. It's not nearly manuverable enough to hit a fighter that's trying to avoid it. It was designed for shooting at nonmoving ground targets. It's big and not very manuverable so that it can have longer range and carry more fuel. Not only that, but it's a fixed antenna.


Antiradiation missiles have an unparalleled ability to home in on enemy emitters and disrupt or destroy the elements of an integrated air defense system (IADS). However, they are not classic precision-guided weapons, such as laser-guided munitions. On the contrary, ARMs cannot be steered and under certain conditions may not guide on the target that they were originally fired. Also, they do not have the ability to discern friend from foe. Therefore, the precision detection capability of the launching platform and its human operator in the loop are key elements ensuring weapon effectiveness and the prevention of fratricide. The translation of what the launching aircraft sees to what the ARM sees is paramount.

Several unique factors effect ARM employment. Most significant are the ambiguities in the radar frequency spectrum which cause friendly, enemy, and neutral radar emissions to appear similar. Ambiguities make accurate platform targeting and missile guidance difficult. These ambiguities will continue to worsen as the frequency spectrum becomes more dense and overcrowded. A limited amount of frequencies is suitable for radar operations, and as newer systems evolve, more emitters will overlap. In some instances, high target area activity in a dense emitter environment may cause cockpit task saturation and decrease targeting efficiency. Now previously defined enemy emitters from the Soviet era cannot be exclusively classified as such. Potential partners in multinational combined operations may employ such systems, causing use of the same weapon system on both sides of a conflict. For example, in Desert Storm, coalition forces and Iraq both used the SA-6 and Hawk weapon systems. As systems intermingle during changing world political conditions, it will become increasingly difficult to detect friendly, enemy, and neutral radar emitters

www.fas.org...

[edit on 4/2/2006 by Zaphod58]



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 07:36 PM
link   
It might work, if the initial guidance is all passive and the terminal guidance is IR, and if the pilot doesn't realise it the whole way and keeps flying straight, head-on course into the missile like nothing happened. But if he turns, then the missile might be out of his scan azumith and it would get lost, and of course the HARM is also very unmanoeuvrable. You just have to hope he doesn't turn for one reason or another.

Also, I don't know about other air forces but most Russian fighters are datalinked to their AWACS so they usually don't have to turn their radar on.



There IS something similar to this. Some modern missiles have home on jam (HOJ) which switches the missile guidance to passive when it detects jamming activity from its target. When a plane is jamming it emits radar in all directions to confuse missiles that use active homing and that's when you can use passive homing. But otherwise, the scan cone for fighter radars gets very small and covers a much smaller area when your missile gets closer to it so it gets very hard to guide.

[edit on 2-4-2006 by Taishyou]



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 09:11 PM
link   

The AGM-88 IS the HARM. It's not nearly manuverable enough to hit a fighter that's trying to avoid it. It was designed for shooting at nonmoving ground targets. It's big and not very manuverable so that it can have longer range and carry more fuel. Not only that, but it's a fixed antenna.


It doesn't have to be the AGM-88 per se, I’m just wondering why the USAF has not made an A2A anti-radiation missile.


There IS something similar to this. Some modern missiles have home on jam (HOJ) which switches the missile guidance to passive when it detects jamming activity from its target.


Yes, the latest versions of the Aim-120 have a Home on Jam feature that allows them to target the enemy plane that's throwing ECM at the missile.


Also, I don't know about other air forces but most Russian fighters are datalinked to their AWACS so they usually don't have to turn their radar on.


Yeah your right, this could be another reason why it might not be affective against modern fighters, USAF fighters can be updated via AWACS if necessary. Also the F-22 has a two way data link with all other Raptors so one fighter can provide radar data for several others. However having said that such a missile would still be effective against AWACS.



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 09:18 PM
link   
Because ARMs are very limited in their capabilities. There are no ARMs out there that could track an aircraft and keep up with the manuvers they can pull to evade them.



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 09:31 PM
link   

There are no ARMs out there that could track an aircraft and keep up with the manuvers they can pull to evade them.


That doesn't mean one cant be created with that capability, also have you seen how many G’s an AWACS can pull?



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 09:34 PM
link   
It doesn't HAVE to pull a lot of Gs. All it has to do is move off the track of the seeker. ARMs use fixed seekers and if you get far enough off angle to them they're blind. That's why they have the ability to home on the last known position of the radar.



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 09:49 PM
link   
Zap, I'm not getting you here bud, you’re going to have to explain to me how a AWACS which scans 360 degrees is going to move out the track of the seeker. Also, wouldn’t the missile maneuver to make sure the seeker stays inline with its target?



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 10:42 PM
link   
Ok, try to keep up here. Most ARMs have a FIXED SEEKER. That means that it can ONLY see in a limited cone a head of the missile. Let's say for the sake of argument a 120 degree cone directly in front of the missile. SO WHAT if an AWACS transmits radar in a 360 degree circle. If it's beyond that 120 degree arc the ARM CAN'T SEE IT. It's that simple. If the AWACS is 135 degrees off the ARM then it might as well not even exist as far as the missile is concerned. It doesn't HAVE to be able to pull a lot of Gs, just get far enough off bore of the missile so that it's out of the seeker cone. Turn off the radar, get out of that cone, turn your radar back on, and you've just evaded an A2A ARM.



posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 01:10 AM
link   
my obvious observation here is that ground gased radars are either totally stationary or - at best move at



posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 03:35 PM
link   
Yes true ARMS right now arent good for A2A but one thing i like about the ewset ARMS for the USA and I think Italy is how once the enemy radar shuts off its uses GPS co ordiantes and an active seeker to get past that countermeasure.



posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 04:56 PM
link   
Here's the anti-air seeker cone challenge. If you want your missile to intercept the enemy aircraft as efficiently as possible, it's going to need to lead the target. If it does not, then it will drive itself into a tail chase, which severly limits it's engagement ability. (Imagine cutting the closure rate from 600-700 Kts to 100-300 kts, and eliminating any glide capability to the target) Now if the AWACS is not moving directly towards the firing aircraft, moving perpendicular to the threat area for example, then your anti-radiation missile will need to lead by 45 degrees or more to arrive in the same predicted point in space. which means the seeker head would have to have a 90 degree or better feild of view, (45 degrees either way), and you'd need the software onboard to know how to lead the target in the first place. As neither of these are neccicary for blowing up earthbond targets, they are simply not present on HARMs.

It's not that such a missile couldn't be built, rather it's simply that this missile isn't built to do that.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join