nscode Posted August 14, 2007 Posted August 14, 2007 it doesn't nead ins for what I wrote... read it again :) Never forget that World War III was not Cold for most of us.
Pilotasso Posted August 14, 2007 Posted August 14, 2007 Pilotasso - we were talking about simultaneous engagement of two targets with SARH missiles :) . In this connection the problem is not with "stacking" multiple targets for engagement in TWS nor to separate datalink transmissions to inflight missiles - the problem is how to support the missiles' SARH seekers at terminal stage. For mechanically scanned radars this involves physically turning the antenna in order to move the beam between targets - which needless to say would decrease the frequency of reflected energy(required for the SARH seekers) from each target as opposed to keeping only one target "illuminated" throughout. I KNOW THAT But your not listening. I described a different method of engagement swiching from TWS/datalink to STT and then auto target re-aquisition for STT the second target. Its mostly speculation though I think theoreticaly it could be donne. If this is what some press describes as "ripling missiles between targets" I dont know, I could be mistakened on how I theorized it. All I can tell you is that I found some sort of analogy between Flanker derivatives (even with a similar radar) and between Vanila block 15 F-16 and the OCU ADF variant. They are told appart by different Comms kit and Gyro, etc but I know the differences dont end there. ;) Here's how it could go: First missile goes from link to homing. Antenna is then fixed to its target. Second one is fired and is updated via link with the calculated (at this point your radar doesn't know the second target's actual whereabouts, but can plot (guess) it using data gathered during TWS) position of second target. First missile hits before second even finishes datalink stage, the radar reacquires second target, and is free to guide it rest of the way. No jittery antenna movements required :) Again, this would only be of any use at very long ranges, against non-maneuvering targets. .
Dudikoff Posted August 14, 2007 Posted August 14, 2007 it doesn't nead ins for what I wrote... read it again :) I'm reading it again and it still doesn't make sense. The radar cannot send info on two targets, only the one currently tracked in STT mode. So, the second missile would guide to the first target as well. i386DX40@42 MHz w/i387 CP, 4 MB RAM (8*512 kB), Trident 8900C 1 MB w/16-bit RAMDAC ISA, Quantum 340 MB UDMA33, SB 16, DOS 6.22 w/QEMM + Win3.11CE, Quickshot 1btn 2axis, Numpad as hat. 2 FPH on a good day, 1 FPH avg. DISCLAIMER: My posts are still absolutely useless. Just finding excuses not to learn the F-14 (HB's Swansong?). Annoyed by my posts? Please consider donating. Once the target sum is reached, I'll be off to somewhere nice I promise not to post from. I'd buy that for a dollar!
nscode Posted August 14, 2007 Posted August 14, 2007 There's no reason why it couldn't other than its processor. Datalink can happily be received well outside the main radar "beam". Never forget that World War III was not Cold for most of us.
A.S Posted August 14, 2007 Posted August 14, 2007 If 2 targets have enuf Impact-Time seperation...you are able to lock..init...switch lock..init 2nd launch...switch lock ..and guide 1st and then 2nd missile to targets after impact first ...YES it works....but very less situations where this will happen usually. works for "command" missiles [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
otester Posted August 14, 2007 Author Posted August 14, 2007 If 2 targets have enuf Impact-Time seperation...you are able to lock..init...switch lock..init 2nd launch...switch lock ..and guide 1st and then 2nd missile to targets after impact first ...YES it works....but very less situations where this will happen usually. works for "command" missiles There are no command missiles?
Recommended Posts