It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


help with air to air missiles

page: 1

log in


posted on May, 22 2006 @ 10:13 AM
hey guys,

could some help me find links to what algorithms are used in air to air missiles, to track the moving target.

please suggest books if possible.
thank U

posted on May, 22 2006 @ 11:05 AM
Well I do not know what programming they use but I do know that the missiles use a number of systems in Air to Air like like Radar, GPS, Laser and heat sensing.

With radar the plane tracks it's target with it's onboard radar and that missile homes in on the blip from the airplane which relays the information to the missile from the fighters onboard radar.

posted on May, 22 2006 @ 03:35 PM
Yes but the missile never flies directly towards the target unless it's a strictly head on or tail chase engagement. It flies to a point in space where the target is predicted to be based on its speed and bearing relative to the speed and bearing of the missile - this requires the use of ballistic tracking algorithms. Air to air gun sights require the same thing - I remember reading that the Russians were particularly proud of the algorithms used in the gun tracking software used by the MiG-29, it's that good.

It is for this reason that very fast moving targets can find it relatively easy to wreck a firing solution simply by making small course changes.

During practice engagements performed by F-15s on a SR-71 flying at high altitude and Mach 3, the Eagle drivers reported that their fire control systems had no trouble computing a firing solution for a Sparrow AAM launch when the Blackbird was travelling in a straight line. However, when the Blackbird pilot shifted course just a couple of degrees (done verrrrry slowly at Mach 3), the Eagles could not compute a firing solution.

Fire control algorithms are some interesting stuff, I don't even know what language is typically used - doubtless plain Machine Code for the earliest versions. Good question though.

posted on May, 22 2006 @ 03:58 PM

Try 'proportional lead guidance' under a Google search.

All missiles generate a deliberate steering error in compensation for a digital or analogue perceived 'drift rate' in target angular momentum. CG missiles supplement this with an external range measurement (usually from a separate radar or radar which can interleave reception with a sideband beacon on the missile) to provide rate (closure) incrementation as to how far to moderate that angular momentum through a direct command guidance uplink. SARH missiles operate in a similar fashion but derive range rate data from a tethered comparison with the target return for doppler, like stretching a bungy cord and then slowly letting it compress.

Missiles with full 'strap down' inertial measure units can derive their own positional/acceleration data and use that to compare and separate the direct information from a seeker with a preprogrammed set of 4D volumetrics to both reject decoys and seeker nulls while modifying approach behaviors to enable optimum fuzing and terminal energy. Most missiles these days in fact using both seeker rate drive through the gimbal limits and fan-shaped laser interferometry through the PF to derive precision wardet linking.

What it basically comes down to is you HAVE TO maintain enough lead that the fighter cannot roll into you and defeat your G state ability to maintain a pure curvilinear pursuit. At the same time, you have to narrow the margin of that excess with terminal approach so that he cannot roll out of plane (the world famous 'pilot bleep') at the last moment to jinx the fuzing with a false (scintillant radar or plume/glint warp) range rate data.

Most missiles cannot be physically defeated in the NEZ but most pilots know a trick or two which messes with the seeker logic in handicapping it's own terminal performance. Like Judo or Aikdo, you generate a motion or deflection which is deceptive for rate and axis and the opponent flows through where you expect him to go. This on the assumption that the best countermeasure is headmounted. They're usually 'dead wrong' of course, but it's a nice thought.


[edit on 22-5-2006 by ch1466]

new topics

top topics

log in