Vault

I've been busy with RL so excuse the late reply nscode. I understand enough about TCP and UDP to get by, IIRC UDP is utilised when data reliability and handshaking isn't an issue, I would of thought the use of UDP was far to unreliable for a critical network. I was under the impression that the TDMA transmission slots that TDMA utilises are filled with data that is transmitted bit by bit, is this incorrect? or are TDMA's slots filled with packets of TCP or UDP data?.

Apologies for resurrecting this thread, I finally got around to watching the full interview of Col. Zoltan Dani the Serbian battery commander who was credited with the kill on Vega1. Col. Zoltan Dani specifically and cleary states in his interview "we used optical guidance to shoot down the American stealth fighter", the modified VHF band NNIIRT P-18 Spoon Rest acquisition radar was used only for tracking and observing the F-117's only, I believe but cannot prove that Col. Zoltan Dani's home brew modification to the S-125M system was an unconvetional interface that allowed the P-18 to communicate with the S-125M. After the war Serbia sold the NNIIRT upgrade to the Chinese, the largest operator of the P-18.

nscode after reading up on link-16 it appears it's not an issue for link-16 LOS network communications. Link-16 utilises time division multiplexing that continually transmits data in time division slots link-16 does not transmit data in packets. 1. By gagged I meant the F-22's IFDL is limited to receive data from link-16 only. 2. Do any aircraft that utilise SATCOM datalink networks use anything other than directional antennas?.

The F-22 is gagged from tansmitting data on link-16, making it a passive network fighter, Passive listeners on any data network are suseptible to packet data error/loss/corruption. I highly doubt that the F-22 will use SATCOM for communication because SATCOM and link-16 operate within the same frequencies on NATO band C making SATCOM as suseptible to ELINT/EW as link-16.

The link I posted above in #63 is down, the whole domain is also down, when that link is back up, read that link I posted with caution, IIRC Grishna, a Serbian commander, explains the tactics deployed that led to the destruction of the F-117.

Hi nscode. A salvo of missiles is a bit dramatic for two SA-3's. I came across this dubious link http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-230408-1.html it's worth a read but it's best taken with a very large pinch of salt. Grishna's English is almost comical. Janes radar and electronic warfare systems book confirms that the Yugoslavian/Serbian Army was operating the Low Blow SNR-125 which confirms Grishna's statement in regard to the use of the SNR-125, it does not say anything about the SNR-125M, I have the 2002-2003 edition so this could of been updated. The Low Blow's FC and tracking radar was using an I band (8-10GHZ) SHF radar, The classification of the I band is actually a NATO designation but if you convert the NATO I band classification to IEEE/US standards the I band is classified as the X band (8.2-12.4 GHz), The X band has a very short wave length and not a long wave length making the SNR-125 "Low Blow" vulnerable to NATO CJ's armed with ARM's.

I agree with you GGT, I can't find no evidence of any IR sensor on the SA-3, the SA-3 must be guided by optical tracking.

Groove I wish I could rep you some more, once again, what a great find. There is a possibility that the F-117 was shot down using passive guidance which would explain the "not operating in its normal, radar-guided mode" statement there is also specualtion that the SA-3 uses IR terminal guidance which is also plausible but unconfirmed.

With respect GGT the SA-3 uses command guidance and does not beam ride for guidance, guidance is directly from the Low Blow GOT COLOS system hence why the Low Blow has a dedicated guidance frequency, the SA-3 also has a guidance reciever located on the tail. I did not know the optical targetting system is for guiding the RF beam. Can anyone define the "not operating in its normal, radar-guided mode?". This statement confuses me.

Very intresting post Groove. It's like a goddamn Lion's den in here. Hajduk LO technology is effective, LO increases PK by the dictum of first see, first shot, first kill theory. The USAF's failure to locate and eliminate the SAM batteries combined with the failure of the presence of the CJ's became the ultimate downfall for the F-117. I agree with the USAF's statement that these two factors combined with a lucky combination of low-technology tactics, rapid learning, and astute improvisation had converged in one fleeting instant to enable an SA-3 to of been succesfull. Hajduk with respect the F-117 kill was the proverbial "one in a million". I find the statement "not operating in its normal, radar-guided mode" interesting and confusing because the Low Blow's guidance operates on one frequency, D band, FC and tracking is operated on the I band, what do they mean by "not operating in its normal, radar-guided mode?" was it switching or operating on different frequencies than expected?, was the Low Blow's radar active? It's worth noting that the Low Blow is also able to guide the SA-3 with optics at distances up to 25KM in heavy ECM enviroments, were these optics deployed in this event?. I can find no reference to the optical TV system having infrared capabilities, there is also unconfirmed speculation that the SA-3 has IR terminal guidance. Can anyone define the statement of "not operating in its normal, radar-guided mode?".

OK. Experience at making assumptions?. I have read Fleeman's book, now lets get back on topic.

That's assumption not logic. You assumed that because the R-27 had datalink the T version would too That's not the truth of the matter, logic dictates that you'll need all accurate data for an all accurate result. If you're missing thousands of varibles you will get a result that is a thousand times wrong. Now lets get back on topic.

Yes you most definitley will, how can you simulate a missile if you don't have the data, and I'm talking about thousands of variables. If you don't have something that is accurate to the tee then it's not an accurate simulation is it?. If you use inaccurate or missing data and alot of it at that, then you will get a very inaccurate result. Logic really isn't it. I'm being respectable, it was a proverb that you've taken out of context and it was in no way meant to be disrespectful.

Yes you do, you'll need the parameters of dynamic lift, control surface area, control surface defelection, oblique shock, exact amount of energy the propellant contains, drag and AoA at various mach....There are literally thousands of variables that you would need to know before you could make a realistic simulation, and there all classified. There is a proverb in my country that says "you can take a horse to the water but you can't make it drink".

It was you not me, who was trying to use classified information to simulate the flight of the 132 using Fleeman's simulated missile flight. A huge % of the data you'd need to perform a reliable simulation is classified. I agree this discussion has come to an end. It was a good a good debate GGT, and I'm sure you'll look at the 132 with alot more respect from now on. ;)

Really? almost everyone knows it was because of political decisions and budget constraints. There not numbers by me there official numbers by MBDA which is unlike the unofficial G numbers you keep using on the 9X. I'd love to see your math theory considering that most of the information on the 132 is classified. Fleeman's math is spot on but remeber you can only do the math if you have the figures, and there classified.

Do you have a link for that information please?

2012 it will be. Yes Raytheon did take a page out of the ASRAAM's book considering the block 2 9X will also have a diameter trade off, I think they will also finally scrap the 70's tech mk36 motor that has always been the achilles heel of the 9L/M/X. The fact that the 9X has 50% less WEZ than the 132 makes the 132 far superiour to the 9X hence why RAAF choose the 132. The AMRAAM wont help you in a rear hemisphere shot either, this means there is a tactical gap in the 9X/120 combo that the 132 alone fulfills. :)

Mod 2 is not in service, and it seems they took a page out of the 132's book. The 9X in service has 90 degree off bore capability.

GGT With respect everyone is entitled to their opinion but posting false information needs to be nipped in the bud. The 132's minimum range is 300 metres with a LOAL 180 degree off bore capability and 50 g off the rail with mach 3+, the 9X only gives 90 degrees off bore capability anything past your wing you can't hit with the 9X. Anything you can see with the 132 you can engage, so what would you prefer a 360 degree WEZ or a 180 degree WEZ? In the PDF link below it states "you can NEARLY engage targets over your shoulder". http://web.mac.com/topcover/topcover/the_vault_files/LCKill-CA04.pdf http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/RAAF-Kills-Over-the-Shoulder-with-ASRAAM-05323/

Fleeman backs up what Kopp says about the ASRAAM with the information of the aerodynamics and control surfaces of the ASRAAM in his book.

I was not the one who stated "the poor thing with its little control surfaces will start getting itself into a stall", considering AoA and stall parameters are classified information, I'd like to know how you got your hands on this information considering its classified, I'd really like to see you back up this claim of stall for the 132, but lets be honest you can't. The 132 relies mainly on velocity to intercept its target and not G making your stall theory redundant. The control fins on the 9X are only slightly bigger than the 132 considering both fins are trapezoid shaped which give superiour control, I doubt the 9X is able to pull more than 60 G sustained and 70-80G instantaneously with TVC off the rail. The official figure I got for the MK36 is a 4 second burn time. I think there's is a reason the 9X is often quoted as a 10:20 missile, Albeit most experts agree the 132 has alot more velocity and range than the X9. With respect you're contradicting yourself in the same sentence. OK but the 132 is superiour to the 9L in every specification. 50G of the rail combined with an extra mach of velocity over the 9X will get the 132 to its target much quicker than the 9X. The extra mach of velocity the 132 is sporting will always give "first shot" capabilities at ranges over 300m as many experts agree, The slower 9X 2.56 mach motor is to slow to keep up with the 132 even in high off bore shots. Sure TVC gets the 9X pointing in the right direction quicker but the 9X doesn't have the velocity the 132 has. The 9L has completley different control surfaces compared to the 9X you cannot take figures for the 9L and use them on the 9X, Infact the only thing the 9X shares with the 9L is body, motor and possibly the main warhead. The high G that most people and not the company boast are incompatible with the size of the control surfaces on the 9X considering the fins on the 9X are only slightly larger than the 132's which has a maximum 50G capability off the rail, the only time the 9X can possibly pull the unconfirmed 80G figures people so commonly state without evidence is off the rail using TVC. That the 9X is incapable of pulling the huge G that you think it does sustained. The control fins on the 9X would have to be at least 50% bigger than the fins on the 132 to pull 80G in the terminal phase without TVC, an 80G turn would also bleed alot of energy off of a missile with a maximum mach of 2.56. I also think the 132 would boast a much longer sustained turning capability over any given distance compared to the 9X which is important for high off bore long distance shots against a maneuvering target travelling at high mach speeds. In a high off bore shot the 132 will also always have a firing solution with a greater NEZ than the 9X. Velocity is what closes distance, not TVC. TVC gives you a quick draw ability but TTI will be dictated by velocity and aerodynamics. The diameter trade off has to be for a bigger engine and more propellant, it's the only logical answer for a high velocity missile. I was talking about the AIM-9X's small fins. I know tail fins are more efficient, trapzoid tail fins are more efficient for control and deltas for drag. You're taking figures from the 9L and applying the same figures to the 9X missile, I'll leave it at that. It has a minimum range of 300 meters with 50G and mach 3+ off the rail that's superiour to most SRM's including the 9L, albeit the 9X will pull more G off the rail but less mach, this is not to be scoffed at I think that warrants the 132 as an SRM. Lets be realistic here. The 132 has bigger motor with more propellant mass combined with a higher velocity, the 9L wouldn't out range the 132, hence why the ASRAAM engineers didn't use a similar diameter body to the 9L. And we both know what happens to higher mass when it starts losing energy, it loses energy alot quicker which has a direct effect on range.

Will it hit? I don't know, I'd rather not take the chance would you? With a smokeless propellant and high mach velocity you'll be lucky if you see it coming let alone manouvure. A stall at high mach with dynamic lift from a wingless design? NO WAY. Remeber those little poor control surfaces are roughly the same size as the AIM-9X's poor little control surfaces, remember the other four control surfaces are just stabalising fins on the AIM-9X and add to the drag factor. I'm not assuming, I'm 100% it has and so is most of the worlds avation experts. The MK36 was the biggest design mistake on the AIM-9X and to a certain extent so is TVC. TVC on a 4 second motor has very limited tactical advantages when you take the complete envelope into consideration. The AIM-9X would of been alot more efficient with a bigger motor and a longer burn time. Please don't take this conversation down to offensive remarks, please treat me with the same respect I'm showing you. Definatley. The ASRAAM has a standoff capability the AIM-9X can only dream about. Since when was less energy a good idea for a missile? Lets stay off the 9L, The ASRAAM is far superiour in every single way. We started with a WVR AIM-9X v's ASRAAM debate, after this WVR discussion, I'm all ears regarding BVR missiles. 50G which is probably about the same as the AIM-9X after burn time, but unlike the AIM-9X the ASRAAM will have an energy advantage. Yes for a whole instantaneous 4 (official) seconds of the AIM-9X's flight envelope, as I've already stated the G the AIM-9X loses after the MK36 burns out TVC and most of the AIM-9X's high G capabilities diminish to roughly the same G as the ASRAAM. Do you really think the AIM-9X can produce the high G figures it boasts sustained? Superiour tactical deployement comes with the stand off ability and the first shot capability of the ASRAAM, but in a close quater dogfight and as long as the AIM-9X hits the target within the 4 second burn time of the MK36 the AIM-9X is superiour in G and only G, after 4 seconds both missiles are probably about even in turning capabilities. Either way shooting at target within a 4 second window puts you into most WVR missiles NEZ which is risky. Again please be respectful, Yes the diameter trade off is a sign that the missile has more propellant, why would the ASRAAM have a wider diameter and bigger motor? If there was the same amount of propellant in the ASRAAM as the AIM-9X then it would be sporting the same size motor as the AIM-9X. What you're stating in a nutshell is that the engineers of the ASRAAM have made a diameter trade off for nothing. Think R-77. Those control vanes are driven by a servo that contains a high speed motor with cobalt bearings, a gear box, spindle and the casing. There's also the weight of the control vanes and gimbal to consider, This will of course would require a larger battery to drive the servos there isn't a hope in hell they would weigh less than the control surfaces. The extra battery weight alone would probably weigh more than the titanium control surfaces. See above. I'm not trying to sell you a magic missile, but I'm not buying the unrealistic figures of the higher G that you keep stating the AIM-9X has for more than 4 seconds. I agree that in very close range the AIM-9X's TVC is superiour, but dont forget that for 90+% of the missile envelope TVC is a burden on the AIM-9X. Either way putting yourself that close to an enemy is very risky buisness indeed. Yes perfect parameters don't exsist IRL. The ASRAAM will surpass that figure given the exact same parameters because of the more efficient aerodynamics. Of course there will be less drag. For a whole four seconds. After those four seconds TVC becomes a negative factor.

I forgot to add TVC on the AIM-9X is also tactically inferiour because of the MK36 motor on the AIM-9X has a 4 second burn time which means to use TVC in an engagement puts you in just about every other variant of WVR missiles NEZ/WEZ. For probably 90+% of the missiles flight envelope TVC is a dead weight which will hinder the AIM-9X in the end game if the AIM-9X fails to hit its target with the 4 second burn time this factor alone dicatates that the AIM-9X is optomised for a maximm four second engagement, also the amount of G the AIM-9X can produce will reduce after four seconds to not far off what the ASRAAM can pull considering only four of the eight control surfaces on the AIM-9X deflect.

Swingkid, the bloke was a missile design engineer for 35 years. I'm positivley sure he knows what he's talking about, he's probably forgotten more than we as a collective know about missiles.