whiteladder

This is also a real life hazard. I grew up near RAF Holbeach in Lincolnshire, a bombing and gunnery range. At least 2 Harriers had managed to shoot themselves down from a ricochet on the range, the Pilot managing to eject from one the other being killed.

Not sure this is correct the 2 replica fw-190 that were built by Flug Werk GmbH were built from scratch.

There are a number of systems that were design with a Anti missile capability as either its primary or secondary purpose. I know mostly about British naval systems, Sea wolf and Sea dart. Both were designed to cope with Russian systems, and have varying degrees of success in tests and combat. Sea Dart was design to hit high flying bombers and missiles, it had known short coming with low level targets due to sidelode interference. These were displayed during the Falkland conflict. It underwent a major upgrade after the war replacing the electronic systems with solid state electronics and a new digital autopilot. This effectively double the range and gave it a capability similar to the SM-2. It then went onto shoot down an Iraqi silkworm missile during the first Gulf war, the first time this had happened under actual combat. The upgrade also provided better performance from saturation attacks. Sea wolf was design from the outset to hit low level targets, specifically Anti ship missiles. In tests it hit missiles and even a 114mm shell. In combat again a number of shortcommings were experienced. It was designed as a self defence system, and struggled with crossing targets. it also had a tendency to break lock when targets were close together. It was also design to fire autonomously if a track met certain criteria, because to the short warning from most sea skimming attacks. Again an update program rectified this after the war. The major problem with Sea wolf is it cannot cope with saturation attacks, something that Sea ceptor will resolve. As GGTharos has said the technicalities of actually hits a small targets have largely been addressed (Iron Dome is probably the best example currently being used.), but its really the Combat information system sat behind the weapon that has the biggest part to play in successfully intercepting multiple targets.

I have a kinda of related question, last week after re-flying a mission as soon as I start the flight I have retrim the left wing down each time, the aircraft has a pronounced right roll. It does this now on any mission I start. How do I reset the trim to neutral?

цель:music_whistling:

Okay, When I worked at Spadadam the Italians were one of the most frequent visitors, mostly AMX`s using the electronic warfare ranges.

They could be Spanish or Italian, or USMC. Do you live near RAF Spadadam?

Interesting story about this, I`m at work at the moment, but I have a book at home called "strike from beneath the sea" which is about submarine borne aircraft. There is a section about this stuka, I think there were about 3 prototype made and after the Graf Zepplin was cancelled they were put into storage. Someone came up with a plan to disassemble they and put them into special constructed cylinders, then transported to the Caribbean by sub. Once there they would be assembled on the beach of a suitable remote island and used to attack the locks of the Panama canal (much the same as a similar Japanese plan) I will post again when I get home with the exact details.

There is some hard lobbying going on with this at the moment. Like most things is down to cost, and Boeing are discounting the price strongly. Even if they go with the E`s it will need to be modified, the radios will be incompatible with British systems

Someone has already mentioned the British Alarm, missile and its loiter capability. What I think most people don`t realise it that Alarm was designed to only use the side lobes for guidance. Even in its direct attack mode the missile would fly a high profile to a point above the emitter and then dive straight down vertically, it could not use the main beam for terminal guidance. There were a number of reasons for this, firstly the British wanted the weapon to used by strike aircraft as part of their normal war load, much the same way as they carried Sidewinder for self defence (it wasn`t eventually used in this manner) . This meant the weapon had to be light enough to be carried on a modified Sidewinder launch rail. The main constraint on the weight of the weapon was the size of the warhead, to keep this small the average miss distance of the weapon had to be reduced. They achieved this by homing on the side lobes, this ensure that the Blinking effect caused by the rotation/scanning of the target aerial was eliminated meaning the weapon was able to guide closer to the target. Also the rate of angle change as it approached closer is reduced. It also made the fusing much simpler, Alarm used a database of emitters and what the height of the aerial was above ground level. The fuse was then activated when this height was reached. The other advantage was that naturally most radar systems are design to reject sidelobe returns, so once the missile was above the target there would be no further indication that it was being attacked. Regarding the sidelobe strength it should be remembered that normally a radar signal needs to travel twice the distance of the detected Aircraft. So for example to detect an aircraft at 40 miles the signal has to travel 40 mile to the target and then bouncy back another 40 miles. This means that an aircraft at 80 miles listening passively is getting the same signal strength as the emmiter. In much the same way, although the side lobe strength is usually(although not always) lower than the main beam it only has to be detected on its outward journey and therefore the lower signal strength it not so much of a constraint. Edit: I should point that the main beam was used to triangulate the position of the emitter, Alarm then flew via Inertial Guidance to the attack position. it could be pre programmed with the emitter location before take off and used directly in Loiter mode. It could also be programme to fly through a number of preset way points, effectively visiting know emitters in turn looking for active ones. As an interesting aside the Argentine navy home on British Sidelobe emissions very successfully during the Falklands war, none of their Neptune aircraft were ever detected because of this.

This would probably work quite well and you tend to find more of them at sea

There is almost an exact same Tornado story, a sergeant who was just about to retire from the RAF was taken on a checkflight, he initiated a accidental dual ejection and the aircraft was lost.

Also in the F14 as well as there being a short delay between the ejection of each seat, the rocket nozzles on each one are canted in different directions, so that one seat goes to the left and the other to the right.

It depends on the aircraft, for example on the Phantom there was 3 ejection sequences, Dual from the front seat, and from the rear seat Dual or Single (i.e. only the rear seat) which was selectable via a valve. In the dual mode the rear seat was ejected 1.39 seconds before the front seat. The f14 had a similar system in both cases not matter what the pilot did it always performs a dual ejection.

Some more footage a colleague took

They did another session in the afternoon,unfortunately the spit didn't land this time and went back to Duxford.

We had a these at work today, doing a photo shoot:

I don`t know what happened to the rest of the airframes, but we have one of them at the place were I work.

Also I think Bill Sweetman did an article discribing how 2 Typhoon can use Pirate in conjuction with link 16 to determine a targets range passively without relying on target movement to do determine range. It was called double vision. Pretty cool video on youtube

This aviation week article would suggest otherwise http://m.aviationweek.com/awin/us-navy-follows-uk-lead-infrared-systems "The performance of the Typhoon's Pirate IRST has increased due to better processing and software since it entered service in 2007, says aEurofighter*engineer. The service-entry standard was “pretty raw.” Better processing exploits the fact that the IRST is extremely agile, capable of performing complex tailored scans, because its steering mirror is much lighter than a radar dish. It can scan faster than an AESA, in some cases, because it does not transmit. “The angular and thermal accuracy provides the processor with enough data to analyze the core and the edges” of objects in the field of view, the engineer says. “It's like a fingerprint.” This is key to IRST performance, because as a passive system it provides no time-based range data, and has been historically susceptible to false alarms from stars, cloud reflections and ground targets. Better processing and fbriast scanning also make it possible to use geometrical techniques for range measurement. The updated Pirate is believed to have shown its ability to detect the*F-22*at significant ranges in 2010, when four of the stealth fighters were deployed to Lakenheath AFB in the U.K., according to European industry sources. Selex leads the EuroFirst consortium that produces Pirate, and its Skyward-G for theSaab*JAS 39E*Gripen*uses similar technology.

That's correct all the Raf Typhoon tranche 1 were upgrade to Block 5 standard by August 2007, via the R1 and R2 upgrades fitted Pirate.. The first production Block 5 FGR4 was delivered on the 6th of August 2007

Well I never knew that, that`s very interesting. Thanks

Is that modelled in the game?

My point is this the defence of the Falklands has always been based on the ability to rapidly re-enforce the islands with assets that could provide a credible defence and until recently this included significant anti shipping capability and we don`t have currently have any asset with a capability that is better than a typhoon armed with LGBs. I don`t think we spend billions I know we have, current expenditure for defence of the islands is £70 million per year(although in years when a major deployment has taken place this has risen to £360 million.) and was significantly higher in the first decade. We have been paying this since 1982. Mount Pleasant cost £640 million to construct, what does a Typhoon cost these days £50 million( or £125 million including development cost)? The RN haven`t had a permanent SSN stationed the South Atlantic since before the numbers were reduce to 7 subs, as with refits and training commitments they haven`t had more than 3 available for deployment world wide. And the ship that is deployed is on the Southern Ocean station, so could be anywhere from the ascension island to South Africa. When HMS Dauntless was deploy in 2012 it had no AShM fitted at all, the type 45`s only getting Harpoon as and when they become available from decommisioned type 23 frigates. The RAF slept walked into losing this capability, when Sea Eagle was retired we still had Harpoon deployed on Nimrod. When MRA4 was cancelled the RAF lost any Anti shipping capability. The chief of the Defence Staff(at the time in 2010 an RAF Air Vice Marshal) was asked in front of the defence select commitee about the loss of capability. His response was that the RAF still had this with Storm shadow, which was either a deliberate lie on his part or more worryingly a lack of understanding of his own weapons systems. Storm Shadow is currently only able to attack ships at anchor in port. Clearly we are not going to agree on this, so I will let these good people get on with their discussion, apologies to them for the direction this thread has taken.

and yet we invest Billions defending the Falkland Island from Argentina with 4 Typhoons that currently couldn`t stop the Rio Gallegos ferry docking at Port Stanley, let alone their Navy. The BRIC nations have a growing and improving blue water naval capability, and actual since the Falkland every conflict that the UK has been involved in has been expeditionary in nature, it actually makes more sense to have a broad range of capabilities. When we have concentrated on a narrow focus as in the 70`s when our naval strategy was completely centered on defending the GIUK gap against Soviet Subs, we came unstuck when we asked our servicemen to launch a amphibious assault 8000 mile from the UK. Had we not retired the Ark Royal with it`s Anti shipping capability the Falklands war would never of happened.