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.

 

Russia demonstrates new fighter jet

page: 3
2
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 07:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Willard856
Rubbish. Earlier generations of AMRAAM might have had some guidance issues, not so with the current generation. BVR shots are validated during exercises, and I can promise you that the kill ratio for BVR is much greater than 10%.


I've heard that before.

In Gulf 1 the kill ratio was crap.


In Kosovo it was even worse IIRC.





Originally posted by Willard856
Rubbish again. The AMRAAM is never semi-active. It uses data-link updates during mid-course guidance until it enters the terminal active phase. A semi-active missile is the AIM-7, or the AA-10.


I think his point was it relies on the firing aircraft's radar to guide it initially. It is essentially semi-active, only the receiver is on the firing a/c, not the missile.



Originally posted by Willard856
Are you sure you know what an AMRAAM is? There is no beam-riding mode. Also, if you can point me in the direction of an effective passive radar homing air to air missile (or even surface to air missile), and then explain how it is effective against an AESA radar, I'd appreciate it.


Do the SM2 series not have IR seekers?

They may not be the primary guidance mode, I'm not sure.




Originally posted by Willard856
Crap. First shot enables you to drive the fight. If you are on a winning timeline, and the adversary appreciates the capabilities of your missile, they have to react. They'll try to slow down the intercept to get their own missile within range, but if you take the shot in the right zone, and with effective mutual support (and the new tactical opportunities that AIM-120D offer), the SU-35 won't win against an F-22. Things become more interesting in 4 to 4.5 gen fight though.


Possibly. Possibly.






Originally posted by Willard856
Yeah, accurate until it misses a couple of updates, at which point it flies to totally the wrong piece of sky. I know what you are talking about. It ain't as good as you make out.


Which is different from AMRAAM how?



Originally posted by Willard856
And if you think that the AA-12 is in any way comparable to the AIM-120 in anything other than the fact that they are both active air to air missiles, then you really don't know anything about air combat.



Kinematically, the AA-12 bleeds less energy than the AMRAAM in manouvering.

Lattice are better than fins in that respect.


edit: Through the high supersonic flight regime (things change dropping to transonics - but by then a missile is not gonna hit anything anyway).

[edit on 14/7/08 by kilcoo316]




posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 07:45 AM
link   

Rubbish. Earlier generations of AMRAAM might have had some guidance issues, not so with the current generation. BVR shots are validated during exercises, and I can promise you that the kill ratio for BVR is much greater than 10%.


Yeah - against drones.


Rubbish again. The AMRAAM is never semi-active. It uses data-link updates during mid-course guidance until it enters the terminal active phase. A semi-active missile is the AIM-7, or the AA-10.


That is semi-active, genius.

Actually - both are - but the terminology is a little clunky.


How long does it take to enter HOJ? How does the the Su-35 magically "slip" outside the engagement envelope? If the shot was valid kinematically, the only thing the target can do is so totally confuse the seeker head that it misses. It won't "slip" outside the "interception arc" (whatever that is!).


It can take a few seconds for the missile to figure out it's being jammed. A few seconds is all it takes.


Are you sure you know what an AMRAAM is? There is no beam-riding mode. Also, if you can point me in the direction of an effective passive radar homing air to air missile (or even surface to air missile), and then explain how it is effective against an AESA radar, I'd appreciate it.


The AMRAAM has a "beam-riding" Semi-Active mode similar to the AIM-7. And they are quite effective as jamming is harder than hell - since it's essentially a modified form of anti-radiation mode (and the host aircraft is supplying the radiation against the will of the target aircraft).


Uh-huh. In your garage?


The components to make the computer are commercially available. The most difficult components would be in the radar receiver. Those are quite a bit more temperamental.


Crap. First shot enables you to drive the fight. If you are on a winning timeline, and the adversary appreciates the capabilities of your missile, they have to react. They'll try to slow down the intercept to get their own missile within range, but if you take the shot in the right zone, and with effective mutual support (and the new tactical opportunities that AIM-120D offer), the SU-35 won't win against an F-22. Things become more interesting in 4 to 4.5 gen fight though.


Nah, it doesn't.

Assuming a reasonable scenario - AWACS will ensure the F-22 doesn't get into any nice little zones without the 35s knowing. Even still, that isn't necessary, once those 22s turn their microwaves on, the 35s have a few seconds to adjust and pop a shot or two off.



Yeah, accurate until it misses a couple of updates, at which point it flies to totally the wrong piece of sky. I know what you are talking about. It ain't as good as you make out.


Nor is the AMRAAM.


Actually, it's called proportional navigation guidance logic, and it's a trajectory. Your throwing rock analogy is more akin to lead angle guidance (or even half-rectified lead angle that some older systems use so that they don't lose target lock). And missiles don't take off behind you. Even high off-boresight missiles like AIM-9X go forward first before manouevering.


Obviously, they go forward before maneuvering.

Call it what you want. You've got a rock with fins on it that guide it - you have to lead your target to give it room to adjust for any changes in the target. It also has to compute when to detonate its warhead and get the shrapnel cone into the target.

I often try and assume that there are people reading this who have no clue what the hell a missile datalink is - let alone the dynamics of missile flight.


There isn't a single semi-active air to air missile integrated onto the F-22 (or the F-35 for that matter). Even us poor Aussies fly almost exclusively with an active/IR mix on our Hornets. And if you think that the AA-12 is in any way comparable to the AIM-120 in anything other than the fact that they are both active air to air missiles, then you really don't know anything about air combat.


LMAO

Stand by - links to follow.


Guess you've never heard of kill rules, and how they are used in exercises. They certainly aren't "you shoot - they die". And if it's ok by you, I'll trust the modelling and sim results and user briefs over your AMRAAM assessment. After the rest of your post, I'm not sure if you are talking about the right missile...


It's exaggerated on the side of "caution." You want your aircraft and pilots to come home at the end of the day regardless if their target got away because they didn't capitalize on that extra second and a half to ensure a kill when their own aircraft was in danger.

Pilots will push it to the limit anyway - so you simulate on the cautious side.

www.fas.org...

It's fully capable of SARH. It's extremely difficult to jam - and that is why it's been held on to.



posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aim64C
You have to remember that, essentially, the F-22 is 20 years old. Radars from 20 years ago are functionally similar, but the filtering capabilities are all together different.


Actually, the big part of stealth that I like to get at is its effectiveness at decreasing the range at which a usable return can be found. The largest part of this could be viewed as reducing the amount of radar waves that actually make it back to the receiver on the aggressive a/c (with geometry and RAM to absorb or redirect the waves) rather than trying to convince the enemy radar into overlooking the bogey (jamming techniques and datalink camouflage), since you correctly pointed out that the algorithms and processing power to weed out the nonsense and pluck out the target have progressed far over the times.

This is, of course, not to downplay the progress of radar power or jamming techniques. But as you've stated, filtering capabilities are altogether different, rather compromising the effects of the jamming, powerful though it may be. If the jamming is there to be detected (as large masses of static may be), there are functions like the touted "Home on Jam" that can cause problems anyway. You've also stated that the radars work on similar principles, and it occurs to me that even modern radars need a signal return to be of any real use. It would seem, then, that geometry and RAM techniques to spoil the radar return and diminish the distances at which the a/c can be detected are a little more effective than jamming techniques to disguise the return in a world where BVR missiles grow far deadlier than their shorter-range (and more stylish
) IR cousins.

I'm sorry I didn't make that clear enough in the post. I just kind of wanted to break up the discussion about the overall effectiveness of stealth by either logic or by producing another target
.



At this point, geometry of the aircraft begins to play a more significant role in the return signature than the material it is made of or the surface area exposed. Remember that a property of all moving magnetic fields (radios, radar, magnets, etc) is that they induce an electric current in all conducting materials that is 180 degrees out-of-phase with the source. That means... guess what... your plane becomes a giant antenna - so do all structures inside of it (assuming they are not shielded against EMF). That means stealth technology goes well beyond the skin of the aircraft, and goes to the internal structure, the way the internal components are shielded, etc. You could build an aircraft out of composite materials and have a larger RCS than a similar aircraft that had an aluminum or titanium-based airframe.


A couple questions based on my rudimentary knowledge of the physics behind radio waves and antennae:

-Are radio waves moving magnetic fields (The whole EM radiation thing is not quite settled in my brain yet, so I'm not sure if it could be called a field or not as it's been explained to me as a radiation wave)?
-If it can be counted as a magnetic field, I understand that it can induce an electric current a la antennae, but wouldn't the receiving structure need to be the proper length so as to match up the resonating frequency with that of the incoming wave? What is the likelihood of that?
-If the electric field is, in fact, created, would it also result in further radiation being projected from the hybrid antenna-aircraft to be detected by the original radar-projecting a/c?

If the answer to all these non-rhetorical questions is actually "yes", then I'm good with that. But, that's also a part of structure considerations for an aircraft, so keeping those factors in mind like they did when designing the LO frame of the F-22 should be a priority. At least, I should say, IIRC they considered it. Could be wrong, though, it wouldn't be a first.



The U.S. made their investment in stealth technology based on two main ideas - first, that radars would always have to filter out small radar returns, and second that control of digital processing components would be assured to contain the spread of the necessary capability for radars that could endanger stealth aircraft.


While at medium ranges, you're absolutely right, the radars would be able to detect the F-22, isn't the long-range fight the more (and I loath this word, believe me) important to consider? One main ideal across these boards is that controlling the information in the battlespace is essential to victory. At 100km or so, it would be reasonable to expect that both sides have decent fixes on enemy locations with radar and whatnot. But if you know where the enemy is prior to or at the commencement of combat, say, 50km before they know where you are (since detection at long range is already a bit tough and stealth decreases the usable return to recognize a bogey), it would seem to give an advantage.

I know this doesn't seem directly applicable to the quote just above, but I'm trying to comment on the concept of smaller returns. Within radar range, if you have even a small (but consistent) return, you can get usable information since the only things capable of doing Mach 2 are enemy jets or those crazy super-insects that humans are probably making with bioengineering and whatnot. At really long ranges when the huge distances across which BVR missiles travel, however, the faster you can detect an enemy, the better off you'll be. And if stealth can decrease the probability of a bogey finding you before you find them, it seems like a good investment into what was intended to be the supreme commander of the air.



However, it means the face of "Stealth" must change. Radar, while being an important concern, is no longer the primary concern. Modern jamming, countermeasures, and passive reduction ("Stealth") technologies essentially ensure that any two aircraft will have to close to a "merger" before being able to score a kill.


Hmm... I had thought we just finished discussing how radar recognition and processing power had progressed to the point where it became possible to pick out the details showing that an aircraft is present in the swath of garbage present in the atmosphere with or without jamming involved? Sorry if I'm misunderstanding, here, it wouldn't be surprising of me to misinterpret what you were arguing for/against.



Optical and Infra-Red reduction methods are where the future of "Stealth" is.


Optical stealth I can see since image capture and display technologies are miniaturizing quickly with new materials and concepts, but IR stealth confuses me a bit. How does one expect to disguise the massive jet plume and heat signatures caused by engines that run simply by adding warmth to air for propulsion? I can see disguising it by cooling it down with outside air, but I'm not sure how you could achieve "disappearing from the face of the Earth" style results as has been performed with radar signatures by aircraft like the B-2 Spirit (whose stealth was unparalleled upon its release into the wild)? It just seems, to me, to be a pretty tall order to try to conceal such a large signature output since the main function of parts of the aircraft necessitate creating the heat and then releasing it.

But, that's my rant for the day. Have a good one.



posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 06:09 PM
link   
Originally posted by Aim64C

Yeah - against drones.


No, I said in exercises, not missile tests. If you don't even understand basic terminology like this, you really don't have a clue what you are talking about.


That is semi-active, genius.


Wrong again. I'll even give you a little help this time. Have a read of this link's description of semi-active Link, then come back and tell where in the AMRAAM engagement profile the missile receives the radar return from the target based on the emissions of the launch aircraft. Hint: it never does. It receives a datalink update of target position based on the launch aircraft's analysis of returns. It is called mid-course updates, and is not defined as semi-active.


It can take a few seconds for the missile to figure out it's being jammed. A few seconds is all it takes.


Only if the missile was fired at Rmax beak to beak, in which case jamming is irrelevant anyway because manoeuvre alone could defeat the missile kinematically anyway. Your scenario makes no sense at all.


The AMRAAM has a "beam-riding" Semi-Active mode similar to the AIM-7. And they are quite effective as jamming is harder than hell - since it's essentially a modified form of anti-radiation mode (and the host aircraft is supplying the radiation against the will of the target aircraft).


Absolute, total and complete rubbish. Show me one credible link that describes the AMRAAM as having a "beam-riding Semi-Active mode". Look, read this AMRAAMarticle (though Wikipedia, it actually isn't too bad), because you seriously seem to not understand the basics of the missile and how it works.


Assuming a reasonable scenario - AWACS will ensure the F-22 doesn't get into any nice little zones without the 35s knowing. Even still, that isn't necessary, once those 22s turn their microwaves on, the 35s have a few seconds to adjust and pop a shot or two off.


Again, you really don't understand how an AESA works, do you? And what shots are the 35s "popping" off? Passive? If so, then again show me an effective passive air to air missile (especially against AESA). Active? Using what cueing? IR? What missile and range (and cueing)? Give us some details of your scenario, rather than assumptions.



I often try and assume that there are people reading this who have no clue what the hell a missile datalink is - let alone the dynamics of missile flight.


Well you're doing them a disservice because your understanding of the subject matter is terrible.


LMAO

Stand by - links to follow.


Laugh it up, chuckles. Seeing as you obviously didn't find any links, I'll give you one. Official F-22 site, which says:


Houses six radar-guided AIM-120C advanced medium-range air-to-air missiles (or two 1,000-lb class GBU-32 Joint Direct Attack Munitions in place of four of the AIM-120Cs) in the main weapons bay

Carries two heat-seeking AIM-9 Sidewinder short-range air-to-air missiles in side weapons bays (one in each bay)

A single M61A2 20-mm multibarrel cannon

Four external stations can carry additional stores (weapons or fuel tanks)
Gun system (Linear Linkless Ammunition Handling System) capable of feeding ammunition at rate of 100 rounds per second


AIM-120 = Active
AIM-9=IR

Wow, no semi-active missile listed. Looks like you were wrong - again...


It's exaggerated on the side of "caution." You want your aircraft and pilots to come home at the end of the day regardless if their target got away because they didn't capitalize on that extra second and a half to ensure a kill when their own aircraft was in danger.

Pilots will push it to the limit anyway - so you simulate on the cautious side.


No, you simulate on the side of reality. Kill rules are constantly finessed based on trials and modelling and simulation outcomes so that aircrew get the best understanding of their weapon system, and employ it effectively during operations. There is nothing cautious about it. And the kill rules are applicable throughout the time of flight, not just at launch.


www.fas.org...

It's fully capable of SARH. It's extremely difficult to jam - and that is why it's been held on to.


Your source is wrong, which is probably why you are wrong if this is the most exposure you've had to the missile. Here's another link, this time from the manufacturer of the missile, who you would think would know their missile and use the right terminology. Raytheon. Read the article and tell me if you find the term semi-active anywhere (or just do a word search on semi-active). Find anything? No? Wonder why?

I haven't flown against the F-22, so can't comment from personal experience as to how good it is. But I have a friend who has, and his testimony is categoric at how good it is in terms of the total system. The SU-35 had better be damn good if it wants to beat the F-22 the way you describe.


LinkThe F-22 showcased its advantages of stealth, supercruise, maneuverability, and sensor fusion during the exercise. This Red Flag was a first exposure for many participants to the Raptor’s capabilities. For those flying against the new fighter, the experience was often frustrating. "I can’t see the [expletive deleted] thing," said RAAF Squadron Leader Stephen Chappell, an exchange F-15 pilot in the 65th Aggressor Squadron at Nellis. "It won’t let me put a weapon on it, even when I can see it visually through the canopy. [Flying against the F-22] annoys the hell out of me."


EDIT: Formating

[edit on 14-7-2008 by Willard856]

[edit on 14-7-2008 by Willard856]



posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by kilcoo316


Sorry Kilcoo, lost your post in the chaff, hence my tardy response!


I've heard that before.

In Gulf 1 the kill ratio was crap.


In Kosovo it was even worse IIRC.


I'm not surprised that it was crap in Gulf War 1 seeing as the missile didn't achieve IOC until September that year! It is hard to give any open source commentary on kill ratio. Best I could find is the list of kills for AMRAAM, which is:



27 Dec 92 MiG-25 F-16 AIM-120A Iraq
17 Jan 93 MiG-23 F-16 AIM-120A Iraq
28 Feb 94 Galeb F-16 AIM-120A Bosnia
24 Mar 99 MiG-29 F-16* AIM-120B Kosovo
24 Mar 99 MiG-29 F-15 AIM-120C Kosovo
24 Mar 99 MiG-29 F-15 AIM-120C Kosovo
26 Mar 99 MiG-29 F-15 AIM-120C Kosovo
26 Mar 99 MiG-29 F-15 AIM-120C Kosovo
4 May 99 MiG-29 F-16 AIM-120A Kosovo


Source

This doesn't offer much as it doesn't give a number of shots per kill assessment. Best I can offer is that I am personally comfortable with the missile and its capabilities.



I think his point was it relies on the firing aircraft's radar to guide it initially. It is essentially semi-active, only the receiver is on the firing a/c, not the missile.


It doesn't have to. Even without datalinking it has the ability to adapt pending re-acquisition of the datalink. No current serving fighter guy I know would class the AMRAAM as semi-active (and certainly not a beam-rider!). Semi-active has specific connotations. The AIM-120 simply isn't, and has never been, classed as a semi-active missile. If he was describing it as Semi-Automatic Command guidance in the mid-course phase, that I could accept.


Do the SM2 series not have IR seekers?

They may not be the primary guidance mode, I'm not sure.


Just to re-iterate, I said "effective passive radar homing air to air missile (or even surface to air missile)". An IR seeker is not passive radar homing. I'm talking about a HARM-like missile optomised for anti-air.



Which is different from AMRAAM how?


I got the impression that he was talking about a specific missile with a specific capability, and I was addressing my comments to that. That said, the newer AMRAAM variants are optomised for EA environments. Loss of the datalink will always degrade performance, the degree to which will have to remain speculation!


Kinematically, the AA-12 bleeds less energy than the AMRAAM in manouvering.

Lattice are better than fins in that respect.


Absolutely latittice fins are good for conservation of energy vice the fins of the AMRAAM. However that is but one part of the range equation, and overall I'd still take AMRAAM over the R-77.

Hope this clears up my point of view!



posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 11:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Darkpr0
 



Actually, the big part of stealth that I like to get at is its effectiveness at decreasing the range at which a usable return can be found.


Yes, that is. And as I described earlier, the capabilities of modern radars allow them to accept such small returns as potentially valid contacts, and to analyze them.

You've seen how technology has progressed. Back in 1994, it took hours to render a Mandelbrot fractal. Now it can be rendered in under a second by the CPU, alone. Add in streaming processors like the PhysX PPU and the DirectX 10 compliant GPUs - floating-point performance goes through the roof. Your computer that you're using right now is likely more powerful than even the computers used for AEGIS II systems. The difference is how they interface with each other and programming.

I'm telling you - radars can pick up bugs at some pretty crazy ranges (but they are filtered out because the return is so low). Even returns that are too low to compute the velocity from a single pass are cached and compared over time and position. The computer technology to do that is commercially available.


I'm sorry I didn't make that clear enough in the post. I just kind of wanted to break up the discussion about the overall effectiveness of stealth by either logic or by producing another target


Well... jamming requires emission ... it's really only a last-resort ... and most missiles detect when they are being jammed - and switch to HOJ.... any jamming system that is worth anything realizes "hey.... it switched to HOJ" - and shuts itself off.... and it just becomes a rather interesting battle of the CPUs.


-Are radio waves moving magnetic fields (The whole EM radiation thing is not quite settled in my brain yet, so I'm not sure if it could be called a field or not as it's been explained to me as a radiation wave)?


Yes, they are.


-If it can be counted as a magnetic field, I understand that it can induce an electric current a la antennae, but wouldn't the receiving structure need to be the proper length so as to match up the resonating frequency with that of the incoming wave? What is the likelihood of that?


It doesn't have to be the proper length. It happens regardless. There is a lot more that goes on under the skin to reduce these effects - but it still happens, and it is the primary source of returns from LO designs. One of the major generators is the actual leading/trailing edges of a surface. This is why, on the F-23, you see that almost every leading edge has a parallel trailing edge on the opposite side - and you see that other parts of the aircraft are engineered to be parallel to one side or the other (I forget the exact angles, but it's something like 70 and 110 degrees - I stated before that it was like 30/60, but for some strange reason I was thinking of 90 degrees being the max...).

The F-22 ignored this by-enlarge - even going so far as to include a horizontal stabilizer (why, God only knows - it wasn't necessary) - which increased the surface area and the number of edges to cause problems with RCS.

That being said - the F-22 was designed for minimal frontal RCS - and left a lot of the other aspects to chance. IR was a minor consideration, which also didn't make any sense to me, since the Russians are known for their long-range IR-guided missiles and receivers on their aircraft.


While at medium ranges, you're absolutely right, the radars would be able to detect the F-22, isn't the long-range fight the more (and I loath this word, believe me) important to consider?


Long range in what aspect? Logistics? Knowing what's even in the theater?

That's all garnished from satellites and intelligence operations. Assuming we are going up against a similar power (like Russia, China, or even India) - they have enough cohesion to figure out what forces are going where. We can throw them a few curve-balls.

Now, long-range as in at AWACS ranges... that's another issue, entirely. You're looking at MUCH more powerful radars that spend more time along each degree of scan, and generates, overall, more data to be processed than a nose-mounted radar on a fighter. The only realistic way an F-22 would be able to avoid that radar is to, literally, fly right at it - since its frontal RCS is extremely low. Even an F-23 would have to use this tactic.


Hmm... I had thought we just finished discussing how radar recognition and processing power had progressed to the point where it became possible to pick out the details showing that an aircraft is present in the swath of garbage present in the atmosphere with or without jamming involved? Sorry if I'm misunderstanding, here, it wouldn't be surprising of me to misinterpret what you were arguing for/against.


Planes can detect each other. The problem is that missiles aren't quite as sophisticated. It's easier to miss with a missile than it is to get a kill. So much of it revolves around you having the best launch angle and altitude, and knowing the characteristics of your target - and knowing when/how to fire the second missile that will actually kill your target.


How does one expect to disguise the massive jet plume and heat signatures caused by engines that run simply by adding warmth to air for propulsion?


It has more to do with reducing the overall temperature and giving your countermeasures more room to work.

I also see point-defense systems being installed on aircraft in the next decade or more. Missiles the size of a marker designed to streak out and intercept a missile is the future of countermeasures - especially for bombers.



posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 12:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Willard856
 



No, I said in exercises, not missile tests. If you don't even understand basic terminology like this, you really don't have a clue what you are talking about.


Are you sure about this? I question these "exercises" of yours.


Wrong again. I'll even give you a little help this time. Have a read of this link's description of semi-active Link, then come back and tell where in the AMRAAM engagement profile the missile receives the radar return from the target based on the emissions of the launch aircraft.


I'm not stupid. I know about the standard datalink mode used by the AMRAAM. And it is a semi-active mode. The difference is that the Aircraft (with more powerful processing and radars) operates as a search radar and sends updated target coords to the missile until it switches to inertial guidance and then enters terminal active phase.

However. the datalinks can be messed with by EW systems.

Furthermore, the F-22 can go into a tracking mode and track a single aircraft while constantly illuminating it. The AMRAAM has a radar receiver capable of picking up on the host aircraft's radar. You don't abandon such a simple and accurate system. Why wasn't the Sparrow very effective? Because it wasn't designed to maneuver against a fighter - yet it was being used to target fighters, routinely.


It is called mid-course updates, and is not defined as semi-active.


Does it matter? It's the same system with some rehashes designed to try and not trigger a launch warning in the target aircraft. Got any more hairs you want to try and split?


Only if the missile was fired at Rmax beak to beak, in which case jamming is irrelevant anyway because manoeuvre alone could defeat the missile kinematically anyway. Your scenario makes no sense at all.


Well, it really does depend upon where it's fired from. But I thought the idea was to be as far away as possible and still be well inside the missile's range. You can fire it on inertial guidance before it goes terminal - but your enemy still knows you're there - and I would be rather curious as to why they would pretend to ignore me (either that, or their are blind, deaf, and dumb).


Absolute, total and complete rubbish. Show me one credible link that describes the AMRAAM as having a "beam-riding Semi-Active mode". Look, read this AMRAAMarticle (though Wikipedia, it actually isn't too bad), because you seriously seem to not understand the basics of the missile and how it works.


There are things about the Aim-9M that aren't available to the public - things it can do; modes it can operate in. Some of them are classified. Some of them aren't - but just aren't widely known or really documented.

The AMRAAM is just the same. It can home in on the return of the target aircraft from the host aircraft's radar.


Again, you really don't understand how an AESA works, do you? And what shots are the 35s "popping" off? Passive? If so, then again show me an effective passive air to air missile (especially against AESA). Active? Using what cueing? IR? What missile and range (and cueing)? Give us some details of your scenario, rather than assumptions.


The problem with details is just that - they are details.

What modes are the F-22 using? What mistakes are their pilots making? What do I have to work with? All would be things that will vary and the slightest change in either one changes what action I would take as the Su-35 pilot.

Passive homing is more effective than it's often acclaimed. Regardless - it would force the F-22 jock to react and change whatever plans he/she had. The R-77 - all of its variants - have range that is equivalent to the AMRAAM and would be able to entertain my guests.

Though a lot of it depends upon how close they are when they fire. Of course, if they are flying with their radars on - they won't get very close at all before I can concentrate my radar on that part of the sky and pick them out of the trees (or the sky - wherever they are flying).


Your source is wrong, which is probably why you are wrong if this is the most exposure you've had to the missile. Here's another link, this time from the manufacturer of the missile, who you would think would know their missile and use the right terminology. Raytheon. Read the article and tell me if you find the term semi-active anywhere (or just do a word search on semi-active). Find anything? No? Wonder why?


Those are its primary modes of operation. You don't see anything on the Aim-9M being able to data-link with your wingman and use his lock to guide the missile. You don't see anything about the R-73 being able to do that, either. But they both can. Just like the AMRAAM can operate in a beam-riding mode. It doesn't have to - but it can. And it's far more accurate than mid-course updates. However, whatever you shot at knows it's been fired on.


Well you're doing them a disservice because your understanding of the subject matter is terrible.


Yeah, pretty damned scary that I'm the dude fixing your avionics systems on the component level, huh?


AIM-120 = Active
AIM-9=IR

Wow, no semi-active missile listed. Looks like you were wrong - again...


*yawn* Right... right.


No, you simulate on the side of reality. Kill rules are constantly finessed based on trials and modelling and simulation outcomes so that aircrew get the best understanding of their weapon system, and employ it effectively during operations.


In a perfect world - that happens. In reality, kills in exercises are always overblown. This has been observed time and time again.



posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 01:59 AM
link   
So you fix the components of avionics? In all seriousness, thanks for that. Also in all seriousness, butt out of topics you don't understand (or more correctly, you think you understand, but don't). Your AIM-9M comments were the nail in the coffin. We fly with AIM-9M here in Australia, so know the system pretty well. So you've confirmed to me you really are confused with the whole air combat thing. You've made calls about these weapons you can't back up (and using the "It's classified!" line doesn't work with me because I've got both sides covered). Anyway, the membership can judge who has the better understanding. Good luck on those computer games!



posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 04:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Willard856
I'm not surprised that it was crap in Gulf War 1 seeing as the missile didn't achieve IOC until September that year! It is hard to give any open source commentary on kill ratio. Best I could find is the list of kills for AMRAAM, which is:



27 Dec 92 MiG-25 F-16 AIM-120A Iraq
17 Jan 93 MiG-23 F-16 AIM-120A Iraq
28 Feb 94 Galeb F-16 AIM-120A Bosnia
24 Mar 99 MiG-29 F-16* AIM-120B Kosovo
24 Mar 99 MiG-29 F-15 AIM-120C Kosovo
24 Mar 99 MiG-29 F-15 AIM-120C Kosovo
26 Mar 99 MiG-29 F-15 AIM-120C Kosovo
26 Mar 99 MiG-29 F-15 AIM-120C Kosovo
4 May 99 MiG-29 F-16 AIM-120A Kosovo


Source

This doesn't offer much as it doesn't give a number of shots per kill assessment. Best I can offer is that I am personally comfortable with the missile and its capabilities.


There was a piece in AFM (or similar) regarding the Serbian MiG-29s - which took reports from both sides to paint the full picture. I had previously counted out the AIM-120 launches and misses.

To say it was unimpressive would be an understatement.

I cannot remember the exact kill ratio, but I am very sure it was under 20%.






Just to re-iterate, I said "effective passive radar homing air to air missile (or even surface to air missile)". An IR seeker is not passive radar homing. I'm talking about a HARM-like missile optomised for anti-air.


OK

Apparently the PL-12 has a home-on-jam (HOJ) mode... but that is wiki so I wouldn't call it confirmed.

warfare.ru reports the R-77 as having HOJ capabilities as well... but I would like another source to confirm that.



posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 06:07 AM
link   
The AFM article rings a bell with me. I'll see if we've got a copy in our library.

HOJ is a different kettle of fish to what I was suggesting. I was talking about guiding on the normal radar emissions of the fire control radar, not jamming. I know the answer, and it is that it was (is) hard enough to do against a traditional pulse doppler radar with a single transmit/receive capability, let alone an AESA with multiple T/R elements.



posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 07:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Willard856
HOJ is a different kettle of fish to what I was suggesting. I was talking about guiding on the normal radar emissions of the fire control radar, not jamming. I know the answer, and it is that it was (is) hard enough to do against a traditional pulse doppler radar with a single transmit/receive capability, let alone an AESA with multiple T/R elements.


Sorry - yes - I'm totally off on the wrong track with HOJ.



posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 08:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Willard856
 


Does the phrase "Export model" have any meaning to you? Of course, you first have to have datalinks that can support IR systems. And the F-15s, F-16s, F-18s, etc have undergone plenty of upgrades to their avionics to support this. We sell the stock equipment to other countries - if they want more bells and whistles, they have to do their own upgrading (all of the information necessary to do so comes in the publications that come with the thing).

It's not really classified - it's just not talked about. Another thing that isn't classified is our combat awareness networks (datalinks). Now, what is classified is their exact capabilities. The Aim-9M (and X) are capable of datalink-locks. Russia has the same capabilities with their R-73 and R-77s. And, obviously, our AMRAAMs have the same capability.

I understand air combat quite well. I know what is going on under the hood of those aircraft, and I also know that our equipment is designed to counter Soviet designs from the 80s. Though their development since the collapse has been rather slow, ours has not exactly made leaps and bounds, either. I review and reenact air combat strategies and take different factors (such as different EW capabilities) into account. With Russia's improved economy and increased military vigor - it's safe to assume that they will be developing systems to counter our own. China is more than capable of developing EW systems capable of countering our own - they have a large portion of the global computer market (and even if they aren't directly responsible for design - we sell them the "tricks of the trade"). We would have a strong advantage in experience using our systems and in orchestrating aerial offensives; but China is capable of throwing us as many curve balls as Russia is, these days.

Am I saying the J-10 is going to kick the F-22's ass? No. However, what we need to remember is that the F-22 is an enhanced F-15 and is just as mortal as anything else in the sky.

If you ever get a chance to fly against a 22 - grab an airman who works on the radar systems (I level - the O level guys are trained to be box-pullers) and ask him how to get the most out of your systems - and as much as he (or she) knows about the 22s and what they may be capable of. Even a theory on how one of the systems works is better than "I dunno" - gives you something to try and exploit.

This goes two ways. First - it can go a way in improving the strategies used by your own country. Second - it can highlight flaws and exploits in the 22 that can and should be addressed before it ever faces real munitions (though knowing how things work... they will likely be deemed to not be "cost effective").

Obviously, I can't highlight the specifics of operation that could be exploited - even in theory (I'm Navy - doesn't mater what my clearance is - I don't get to review all of the data on the F-22 unless I have a reason.... and I don't have a reason) over the net. But I assure you - there is always something - especially in a brand new bird. Find it and light one of those zoomies up in an exercise. If for no other reason than to knock his ego back down a few pegs. Silly chair force thinking they are better than the Navy
.

And as for passive guidance - it would only be accurate used as a mid-course update. You would have to use a broadband receiver (with directional capability) to detect either the primary beam or the side-lobes. Obviously, you would need more computational power to sort out through various returns which one is your target (especially since the radar will be skipping through different frequencies and transmission modes that are more complex than Doppler). But it could be done. Of course - you would have to have some form of terminal guidance once you got outside of the azimuth of the radar emissions. You could use IR, or active-radar. Personally, I'd use IR as your seeker can have a wider field of view and it is less finicky. However, changes in the heading of the target aircraft can cause problems.

In all honesty, a software upgrade to the AMRAAM could allow it to do this. The later models support software upgrades and reprogramming. Which will go a long way in adapting to new threats.



posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 09:26 PM
link   
Someone already mentioned this but the SU-35 Flanker is NOT a new technology, this type of Russian aircraft have been around for years. Now the Su-47 is new in comparison to the Su-35.

Yes they do not have the stealth technology as the F-22 but then again different countries, different priorities. One is about infiltrating into "out of bounds" territory without getting caught (hence, the Blackbird and the F-22 technology, is all about the US) and the other is about being proud of really defending their country. Russia doesn't care about being stealthy, nor it will ever be of any interest to them, they don't need to spy on different countries like the US does, and why? US is scared of others having better technology and/or weapons than them. And that's the bottom line!

Those living in the US may disagree with me due to being 'patriotic'. Do a little research on all the technology countries like, Russia, France, Dutch have in all aspect of Military (ie: Navy, Air Force, etc) and you will see that the US isn't the only one with cool toys.

So, F-22 or Su-35, or Su-47....which one is the coolest? Depending on where you live and what you believe in (or should I say, who do you believe in?).

I'm done!

[edit on 15-7-2008 by TheEnlightenedOne]



posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 11:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aim64C

Does the phrase "Export model" have any meaning to you?


I'm quite familiar with export restrictions and builds. Does the phrase "Exchange Officer" have any meaning to you? Australian aircrew fly just about every type of fighter you have (including Aggressor aircraft, and the F-22). So I think I have a pretty good understanding of your weapon systems, and can honestly say I have never encountered (or heard US aircrew discuss) a datalinked AIM-9M. So you're either busting a pretty major compartment (in which case enjoy Leavenworth), or you are confused and wrong (embarrassing, but less painful than the former). As for upgrades, the Australian F/A-18A has undergone the extensive HUG program (Hornet Upgrade), including integration of the APG-73, Link 16, ALR-67v3, new targeting pod etc. Our jets are as close to the USN F/A-18C as you can get. As for datalink "locks" for AIM-9M, you can slave the seeker head to the radar, but you still need IR seeker lock prior to launch.



I understand air combat quite well. I know what is going on under the hood of those aircraft, and I also know that our equipment is designed to counter Soviet designs from the 80s.


Look, I'm really sorry, but nothing you have written indicates any level of knowledge above what the average computer game geek gets playing Lock-On or Falcon 4. And some of what you write is totally, utterly and completely off the mark. I'm sure you are very good of your specific area of expertise, but a working level knowledge of air combat is all you have.


I review and reenact air combat strategies and take different factors (such as different EW capabilities) into account.


What, professionally or out of personal interest? If professionally, let me know what forums and teams you are a part of. I'm part of a few myself...

I've bypassed a chunk of what you have written because I don't fundamentally disagree with it.


And as for passive guidance - it would only be accurate used as a mid-course update.


I only brought up passive guidance because you claimed that passive radar guidance would be effective against the F-22. My very point is that air to air ARMs of any degree of effectiveness don't exist, and probably won't.



posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 03:24 AM
link   
I would like to know more about these fora which discuss strategic/tactical scenarios.

Thanks,

DD3



posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 03:50 AM
link   
Ah. They're somewhat selective in their membership, shall we say? Anyways, I'm sure India will get some good insights during Red Flag.
I'm also cognisant of the fact that I'm kind of diluting the thread from its original purpose, so will try to remain on track!



posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 04:21 AM
link   
AIM-64C - What you know about air-to-air combat couldn't fill a thimble. You are to be congratulated, however, for being the best minsinformation disseminator in recent history. Frankly, we'd be frightened to have you working on our avionics, because you don't know what you're talking about, and can't accept point outs where you are proven wrong by multiple sources.

This thread was pointed out to us by friends as a source of good humor. In that regard, it has been.

You are wrong about almost everything in this thread, including the basic physics. For starters, let's just point out the obvious: a jammer is always more effective against a single illumination source, such as continuous illumination (SARH). Why? Because the jamming signal only needs to go one way, vs. the SARH illumination, which needs to travel to the target and back. In other words, the jammer can be considerably lower power than the transmitting radar and still get the job done. Received power declines as the fourth power of the range, which means that the reflected power from distant targets is very, very small. In other words, you need a heck of a lot of transmit power to overcome a small jamming power. And a continuous wave signal is VERY easy to jam....hence the reason SARH is fading out of use.

Remember your basic radar equations....time to pick up Simpson's and do some studying buddy. High school physics. Oh wait, you're a Navy tech, so you probably didn't finish high school.

Oh, and I just grabbed that as an example because the physics is easy, a quick Google search on "Radar Equation" will give the readers everything they need to realize you are full of stinky brown material, and it highlights your ignorance.

Suffice it to say that nearly everything you've written about the AIM-9 and AIM-120 is incorrect as well, as our astute Australian ally has already mentioned.

Thanks for the laughs, we'll post this above the urinal in the men's room for a few days worth of chuckles.

The Dicemen



posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Daedalus3
 

I seen the same program and they were actually in east germany flying Luftwaffe su 29s. I cant recall the pilots impressions though.



posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Willard856
Ah. They're somewhat selective in their membership, shall we say? Anyways, I'm sure India will get some good insights during Red Flag.
I'm also cognisant of the fact that I'm kind of diluting the thread from its original purpose, so will try to remain on track!



And my question was that.. What is the geographic cross section of the members of these select fora? I'm not looking for any more info as I quite obv do not fit the bill, but am interested to know variety of people in there. Information sharing on these areas are quite niche and from those with a service record, well lets just say I've only heard of western contributors. The other just lurk or are quite preoccupied with their daily regime.



posted on Jul, 22 2008 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Aim64C
 


Wow. I was browsing along this site and came across your rather lengthy discussion on BVR tactics and weapons systems and am very impressed with your knowledge and expertise in air-to-air combat!

Especially since just two years ago, while you were pining away waiting to go to boot camp, you were designing your own jet with FOUR radar systems located facing at 90 degree intervals around the airframe and FOUR jet intakes combining into one exhaust. A Machiavellian work of art!

Hypothetical Aircraft Design

Now, with just one year of practical experience as an Avionics Tech in the Navy, you are a complete expert on BVR tactics, foreign and domestic missile systems, avionics, and the F-22. So good, in fact, that you can actively debate people that actually have years of practical experience with those systems. Of course your assumptions and conclusions are all wrong, but whatever.

'It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought an idiot then to open it and remove all doubt' Good Quote. You should follow it.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join