D-Scythe

Sorry for just jumping into this now, but the F-22's F119 has been uprated (to an estimated 39 000lb) since the YF-22's F119. General Electric's F120 produced more engine power than the F119 when they both powered the YF-22 and YF-23, but one of the reasons why Pratt and Whitney's engine won out was because P&W argued they could uprate the F119 later on (which it seems they did). The result is that the F-22A cruises faster than the YF-22 (Mach 1.7 vs. M1.5), but the extra thrust in AB doesn't contribute to a higher top speed because F-22A airframe actually overheats sooner than the YF-22's, to about Mach 1.8 from Mach 2.

How's the S400 gonna detect, track and guide a missile within range of its IR seeker if it cannot detect, track and guide the missile with radar? You might as well maddog all your SAMs just to see if they can by chance pick an F-22 up.

I think he was mainly referring to air-to-air missiles, like the R-27ET. I mean, most people would know that IR SAMs usually don't have the reach to engage a Mach 1.5 target at angels 50.

Um, what? The F-22 wouldn't be that "hot" - there is less friction up there as the air density is a lot less than at lower altitudes. Factor in the IR stealth and you don't get a very hot target to work with. That being said, the only reason why the F-22 might be more vulnerable in such a profile to IR systems is that it's a look up situation. And when I say vulnerable, I'm speaking relative to the F-22.

A small step for the Raptor perhaps, but a giant leap forward in terms of possible implications on future offensive USAF operations. I personally can't wait till they test the SDB and AIM-120D on the F-22 for real. If an unpowered JDAM, wingless can reach 24 miles, imagine how much range the Raptor would squeeze off with these new babies.

The production F-22, the ones USAF fighter pilots are actually flying, supercruises at Mach 1.7-1.8. Pratt&Whitney beefed up the F119 some between the YF-22/23 competition until now. Nothing comes close, barring some Russian Raptor-equivalent.

Hmm, I was under the impression the R-27ET used an older seeker. Such a feature would be implemented through the Advanced Sensor/Seeker Model, not WAFM.

I think IR missiles are modelled quite well actually. Besides the fact that the R-27ET should have a worse seeker than the R-73, everything is pretty much what I'd expect out of heat-seekers.

Anybody that thinks 6 Su-30/35s can surround and attack 1 F-22 from multiple directions is smoking some seriously good stuff. Or HOJ an F-22. Seriously good stuff.

I do. But apparently, the AMRAAM is classified in many, many ways. But apparently you found away around that. So I'm genuinely interested about your "research". Or your "make belief" facts right? Same thing to you.

Right...Still waiting for those specs/algos on the AIM-120 BTW.

That thing is still alive, genius. Dead animals usually don't have their head up and looking around.

Shaw wrote his book before AMRAAM was finished testing. Mil is Russian. Why would they know anything about the missile? Actually, I think you're being too narrow minded in your conclusion. Yes, your sources were published in 2003 (it could be published in 2006 and it wouldn't change a thing). Unless it specifically states in the text that it applies to modern radar missiles. Contemporary MISSILES, not contemporary sources. Guess you missed that being wrapped up in your own brilliance and all. The sources can be referring to older missiles with conventional guidance algorithms yes? I bet you that your same sources state that there are guidance algorithms that exists that can reduce the effectiveness of the barrel roll maneuver, if not defeat it completely. Bottom line: Tell me how you know these counter guidance algorithms are not in the AIM-120B/C. I didn't miss the point about dogfighting. You can't use dogfighting as an example, because dogfighting is a "series" of tactics itself and there are a series of tactics to initiate this series of tactics. In turn, each of these tactics can be initiated by a series of triggers, and end with a series of events. Barrel rolling is just one tactic, initiated by a single trigger - an incoming missile at a particular target aspect - and ends with a three possible events (damaged, destroyed, miss). Um, that was the general impression. Ok, it may be on the first page, but the first page of papers usually contain the abstracts, which are supposed to give a general impression. Stop trying to make others sound stupid, you're just making an ass of yourself. Tell me, how would you have put it? Um, no you don't. Tell me, what is the fragmentation pattern of the AIM-120C's WDU-41/B warhead? And how much would an AIM-120 have to miss to either not trip its fuze or extend the target out of this frag zone? You know what? I'm done with you. You turn out to be all talk anyway, and have provided zero evidence that one, the AIM-120B/C, or MICA, or R-77, are not programmed with counter-guidance algos that can combat barrel rolling (yes, we ALL know those exist), or any hard data on any contemporary missile. Yeah, we know, you have "contemporary" 1990s-2003 sources which are probably referring to the "uncontemporary" 1980s-era AIM-7F, but hey, twist it so that applies to the 2003 AIM-120 too. Oh, thanks for pointing out sources that tell me what I already know: that barrel rolling works but there are counter-algos to defeat it. One big circle that leads us...right back to where we started. So unless you can prove that the AIM-120 is not programmed with these counter-algos, you should take some of your own advice: "if you don't know anything, then sit down and shut up."

The general impression that I got from some of your (and mine) sources on why barrel rolling would work, (and my opinion of the maneuver in general) was that the maneuver causes a greater miss distance, but there are guidance algorithms that can be programmed into the missile to make it more effective against the maneuver. Totally inconclusive. We do not know if the greater miss distances would be sufficient for the target to evade the missile's warhead (it may or may not be), and we don't know what guidance algorithms current missiles use (they may or may not be programmed). So in terms of evading AMRAAM, MICA, R-77, etc. with barrel rolling...your sources prove (I'm assuming this, since you haven't elaborated much) that barrel rolling may work, and why it may work. But, doesn't the success of the maneuver depend on how the incoming missile is programmed (i.e. guidance algos) and the specific characteristics of the missile's seeker and warhead? My impression on the matter has always been that there are many "ifs" and "buts", and it should never be simply "hit" or "miss" because there are a plethora of factors to be considered. Sure, barrel rolling probably works to an extent, and is a good last ditch maneuver, but IMO it shouldn't work 100% as it does in LOMAC because: The maneuver has been around for over 20 years, and has remained stagnant. There's not a big difference between a MIG-21 doing a barrel roll and a MiG-29 doing a barrel roll. In fact, a MiG-21 may be even more problematic to hit, since its frontal profile is so much smaller. On the other hand, missiles have had plenty of time to evolve in those 20+ years. 20 years is plenty of time to incorporate programming to defeat barrel rolling, especially when it is already public knowledge that such counter-guidance algorithms against such a target exists. If the public knows about it, chances are the military knew about it a decade ago, and they've had two decades to incorporate such guidance algorithms. The AMRAAM has recieved more software updates than all other missiles combined. Something has to be updated right? Inconclusive = more (classified) data on missile needed, although IMO a 100% success rate against the AIM-120C is highly unlikely. Again, nothing against you personally. If I'm wrong, then by all means, you're welcome to school me on the matter. My first post was to Gunja, stating that IRL barrel rolling is probably not going to be 100% effective, and LOMAC has got it wrong. In my opinion of course. You decided to drag me into this with your reply to my post, #55 of this thread. Thank you, your words, and the beautiful mental image they paint, are really necessary. I'll learn next time, I promise :rolleyes: And again, I hate to say this, but you started it. I had no intention of getting in between you and GG, but I just happened to agree with GG that barrel rolling should not be 100% effective as it is in LOMAC. Nothing wrong with agreeing with another person.

Man, there's no point in having a meaningful conversation with you. I openly admitted that, no, I do not have the data to justify my position, simply my conclusions. I even openly stated that I do not have even a single source to justify my position. Then, you accuse me of "crapping out data" (when I admitted I have none), and also accuse me of proclaiming myself to be correct, when I explicitly stated "I do not know." Quote me where I said you were wrong, or any where I appear to be throwing a hissy fit. I merely pointed out that although you may be right, you don't have the hard data either to support your position, as your sources are a bit dated when considering missiles like the AIM-120B/C whose specs are mostly classified anyway. I also stated that, if I'm wrong about your sources, I'd like you to elaborate a bit more on how your sources describe how barrel rolling would work against a modern incoming radar missile. Instead of proving that, you get all dramatic and accusatory instead of trying to have a meaningful discussion. See what I mean about drama? I asked for you to elaborate on your sources, and you give me this spiel that has nothing to do with the already off-topic topic.

Yes, I admit, I really don't know the specs on the AMRAAM. I doubt you do either, or Mr. Shaw, or Mil, or any public source. No offense to anyone, but that's just a fact. All this speculation by public sources are also based on estimates. Tell me, do they ever mention the AMRAAM (or a contemporary missile) specifically? I don't mean to be rude or show disrespect, I'm just genuinely interested. I'm not questioning whether you have material or not. I'm questioning whether your sources state that the barrel roll maneuver is an effective defense in a situation involving modern radar guided missiles. Since I don't have any sources (AMRAAM data is hard to come by), I'm interested in yours. Well, better to admit that I don't know things than pretend that you know more than everyone else and yourself the guru of the subject. I doubt you know more than the next guy either, frankly. Again, no disrespect intended, but hard data on missiles are hard to come by, especially when they are still in service. More like a change in strategic approach, IMO. The Persians maneuvered behind the Greeks and attacked them in two directions. Dogfighting is completely irrelevent to the topic. It is far more complex and can be initiated in many more different ways than the maneuver we are talking about. Fine, yeah, I don't know if barrel rolling around an AMRAAM would work or not IRL. My position is just that it probably will not. If Raytheon could make the Patriot engage a barrel rolling SCUD at Mach 3 (or try to at least), I'm sure Raytheon has already done something through its software updates in the AMRAAM to make it at least a credible threat to any target who attempts to barrel roll around it. A barrel rolling fighter at Mach 0.7-1.0 is a much easier target than a SCUD at Mach 3, and Patriots have been hitting some of those SCUDs, in OIF at least. Material that nobody can prove whether it applies to modern radar guided missiles or not, for the simple fact that it is public and the information needed to settle this is classified. So no, IRL, I don't know, but I wouldn't bet my life on it. If that AMRAAM hits you, you're dead - either because of the G's after it detonates close by and throws your fighter to the ground, or from a direct hit in the face. Cut the drama and stop pretending you know more than everyone else. You actually don't in the matter, and that's not an insult to you. This stuff is classified. And yes, there is some good material that states barrel rolling works against older radar missiles...and apparently you have it. More power to you.

In LOMAC. We have no idea what the seeker limits are for an AMRAAM IRL, or any other modern radar missile, so there is no telling if the barrel roll will STILL be effective against the newer generation of radar missiles. You have yet to produce anything either in terms of the performance of modern radar missiles against a barrel rolling target. Your book, Fighter Combat: Tactics and Maneuvering, is 20 years old - before AMRAAM, Patriot, R-77, etc. You may have noticed that the avionics on military equipment have increased exponentially in capability since then, you know, due to advances in computer technology and stuff, computer revolution and all. Going OT here, but no, no tactics were changed in Thermopylae. The Spartans were betrayed, but last time I checked, the Persians still fought them in a narrow mountain pass hand-to-hand. The discovery of an alternate route that led them around and behind the Spartans was the key to their victory, not a change in tactics. An unsimulated, not practiced, not studied tactic can possibly be effective, but it's more likely not to be. Especially considering that such a tactic has already been concieved 20 years ago. In any case, barrel rolling has a greater chance of defeating a modern radar missile kinematically than defeating the seeker itself.

Correction: it teaches you why it is effective in LOMAC. Not IRL.

IIRC, 10 kills - 8 by the USAF in Desert Storm, 1 post-Desert Storm in a friendly fire accident and 1 by the IAF over a Syrian MiG-29. Ideally, you shouldn't need the AIM-9; in fact, I'm sure the F-22 would bug out once it goes winchester on AMRAAMs, but there's something to be said about preparing for every possible contingency ;) Not more effective, no. In fact, in terms of absolute decoy rejection rate, I think the AIM-120 and R-77 in LOMAC are the most resilient of all missiles. It's just that the target has more time to release more chaff decoys in a typical radar missile engagement (i.e. ranges involved are much greater) compared to an engagement with heat-seeking missiles.

Hmm, most sources credit the AIM-120 as a Mach 4 missile. The speed given by the RAF is actually the lowest speed I've seen quoted for the AMRAAM, but to be fair, Mach 2.5+ can mean anything from Mach 2.5 to Mach 5.

Um, you're seriously misinformed on the ASRAAM. Yes, high approach speed does do all that, except the point is moot because the AMRAAM is faster than the ASRAAM.

One thing to note about your "greater agility = less strain on seeker" theory. The R-73's greater agility is only really a factor (to the seeker) only in the initial phases of the missile's fly out, because after a few seconds the missile will lose it's TVC after its rocket motor burns out. I don't remember how long the rocket motor burns for the R-73 in LOMAC, but depending on target aspect chances are that TVC would not be available to the R-73 in the terminal phase of its intercept for a large portion of its employment envelope.

FF, your signature is hi-larious! :megalol:

All missiles are prone to "snaking", because they use LOS algorithms to home in and kill their target. The snaking is caused by limitations to LOS tracking. Swingkid or GG can probably explain it better, but the impression I get is that due to errors in tracking that causes continuous LOS errors, the missile has to adjust its flight path back onto the target. This adjustment slows down the missile enough that the "new" intercept geometry is obsolete, which in turn requires another course correction to the flight profile. And this cycle of constant course corrections by the missile repeats itself continuously until impact.

Been going over the AIM-120D photo again, and (I think) I've noticed something interesting. First, take a look at the AIM-120C's rocket exhaust. Note it's shape is basically a circle? Now compare this to the AIM-120D's exhaust. Note how it's NOT circular (can easily do this by comparing the shape to the blue lines painted on the missile's body, which SHOULD be parallel to each other like in the AIM-120C's). Probably would need a better photo to compare, but it looks that way from this one.