marcos Posted February 14, 2013 Posted February 14, 2013 Now go check the price difference between meteor and 120c Now go check the cost of the aircraft it's going to shoot down.
marcos Posted February 14, 2013 Posted February 14, 2013 Yes, far away F-22 (or GOlden Eagle, or Awacs) feeds data-linked targets to the F-22's, they keep their radars quiet so they don't show up on those super-cool-raptor-killing-new-RWR's, and since they are stealth they can attack head-on from relatively close range where maneuvering will prevent you from escaping from the missile with only maneuvers. If you still escape, the F-22's still have the advantage because you are now confused and trying to figure out what happened. No you won't, because the gigantic thermal spike of a missile launch will be picked up on EO/IRST and consequently, so will the aircraft. Even at multiple frequencies, with enough processing power, you can still locate a radar source and using an AWACS against gen 4.5 aircraft is just stupid.
LordWolf Posted February 14, 2013 Posted February 14, 2013 Now go check the cost of the aircraft it's going to shoot down. I know, i'm just saying that the pricier missile gets better stuff
marcos Posted February 14, 2013 Posted February 14, 2013 I know, i'm just saying that the pricier missile gets better stuff It's not actually appreciably more expensive than an AIM-120D anyway: AMRAAM D - $1.47m http://www.bga-aeroweb.com/Defense/AMRAAM.html Meteor - £1m http://www.armedforces-int.com/news/mbda-meteor-missiles-for-french-rafales.html At an exchange rate fluctuating around $1.5 to £1 that's virtually indistinguishable.
LordWolf Posted February 14, 2013 Posted February 14, 2013 It's not actually appreciably more expensive than an AIM-120D anyway: AMRAAM D - $1.47m http://www.bga-aeroweb.com/Defense/AMRAAM.html Meteor - £1m http://www.armedforces-int.com/news/mbda-meteor-missiles-for-french-rafales.html At an exchange rate fluctuating around $1.5 to £1 that's virtually indistinguishable. We're talking about C model here...
GGTharos Posted February 14, 2013 Posted February 14, 2013 F-35's have already demonstrated jamming F-22's. By extension, a lot of modern aircraft will be able to detect and jam LPI radars. Only halfway wrong this time. F22s use AESA radar (apg 77) which can put multiple frequencies including broadband into the area at different points and because it uses electronic prf, it can switch frequency on any pulse. For dummies that means that it's radar is REALLY REALLY hard to detect / distinguish from the background noise. And by really hard i mean nearly impossible. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
GGTharos Posted February 14, 2013 Posted February 14, 2013 While that is possible, I wouldn't make such an assumption. The same assumption was made for R-27ET datalink and it was wrong. They advertise it as a feature on the Meteor in the marketing glossy (http://www.mbda-systems.com/mediagallery/files/Meteor_ds.pdf), so I'd assume its been in the 120 for a while! [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
GGTharos Posted February 14, 2013 Posted February 14, 2013 It isn't going to be picked up by anything in time to accomplish anything useful. Get over it. No you won't, because the gigantic thermal spike of a missile launch will be picked up on EO/IRST and consequently, so will the aircraft. Even at multiple frequencies, with enough processing power, you can still locate a radar source and using an AWACS against gen 4.5 aircraft is just stupid. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
marcos Posted February 14, 2013 Posted February 14, 2013 (edited) We're talking about C model here... Ah well that isn't even in the same league at all performance wise. Edited February 14, 2013 by marcos
Kula66 Posted February 14, 2013 Posted February 14, 2013 While that is possible, I wouldn't make such an assumption. The same assumption was made for R-27ET datalink and it was wrong. Maybe ... I'd love to know what is meant on P4 of http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a355385.pdf by "The missile is capable of sorting ... ". Does this mean a group of missiles in flight communicate with each other?
GGTharos Posted February 14, 2013 Posted February 14, 2013 No, that is not the case. Read the rest of page 4 and you will understand. The same thing is described in the F-15C -34 ... the M-Link is used to sort aircraft for the missiles. In other words, if you're launching on a bunch of targets and you don't want your missiles to be picking targets nilly-willy, don't cheapshot. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
Kula66 Posted February 15, 2013 Posted February 15, 2013 No, that is not the case. Read the rest of page 4 and you will understand. The same thing is described in the F-15C -34 ... the M-Link is used to sort aircraft for the missiles. In other words, if you're launching on a bunch of targets and you don't want your missiles to be picking targets nilly-willy, don't cheapshot. Perhaps you should re-read the part I referred to: The MISSILE is capable of SORTING multiple targets and picking individual targets for each missile launched against and UNRESOLVED group of targets. This states that its the missile that has the intelligence even when the launch a/c has yet to resolve the target ... this implies that you can just 'spam' a bunch of missiles and they will sort out which missile goes after which target ;)
GGTharos Posted February 15, 2013 Posted February 15, 2013 No, you can't do that. Read the whole thing again. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
Kula66 Posted February 15, 2013 Posted February 15, 2013 (edited) No, you can't do that. Read the whole thing again. What sort of reply is that, if I read it 5 times, it won't change the words on the page ... it says what it says. If there is a section that contradicts that sentence, please tell me what it is. Edited February 15, 2013 by Kula66
GGTharos Posted February 15, 2013 Posted February 15, 2013 You are seeing what you want to see. Page 4 and I believe part of 5, as well as the F-15's -34, make it very clear that target sorting is a fuction of the aircraft-to-missile M-Link. So I tell you, get rid of the notion that you have that the missiles talk to each other or do anything smart beyond knowing their assigned target parameters, and read the whole thing again :) What sort of reply is that, if I read it 5 times, it won't change the words on the page ... it says what it says. If there is a section that contradicts that sentence, please tell me what it is. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
Kula66 Posted February 15, 2013 Posted February 15, 2013 (edited) You are seeing what you want to see. Page 4 and I believe part of 5, as well as the F-15's -34, make it very clear that target sorting is a fuction of the aircraft-to-missile M-Link. So I tell you, get rid of the notion that you have that the missiles talk to each other or do anything smart beyond knowing their assigned target parameters, and read the whole thing again :) Its not a "notion" its whats written on the page ... just saying "read the document again" over and over again gets us nowhere. Personally I don't care what the thing does ... the Russians systems have their strengths (look at the Archer, way ahead of the AIM-9 in many ways) and so do the US (money, electronics and miniaturization). Like ECM and radar, the DCS implementation of missile systems will never give us all the modes in the real systems on either side. I don't even want it to be fair, the US invested billions, while the Russians didn't have money to invest .... this should be reflected. As long as its believable. So please don't tell me that I see what I want to see! Back on subject, so what is the difference between "Multiple Target Attack" (which I believe is what you are referring to) and "Clustered target assignment" aka SPAM Mode? Launch a bunch of missiles and they will sort out which missile gets assigned to which target? Edited February 15, 2013 by Kula66
GGTharos Posted February 15, 2013 Posted February 15, 2013 (edited) Its not a "notion" its whats written on the page ... just saying "read the document again" over and over again gets us nowhere. It will, when you actually read it. Read the rest of the page. "The requirement of the missile to be selective ... forces the missile to follow instructions from the host aircraft very carefully". Taking once sentence out and making assumptions upon it like you did is exactly what is meant by taking things out of context. This is what you did, and I am trying to point it out to you. We get a lot of out-of-context stuff to deal with. Personally I don't care what the thing does ... the Russians systems have their strengths (look at the Archer, way ahead of the AIM-9 in many ways) They implemented TVC with HMS. The USAF/N tried that out, and decided not to (although actually they did have it for some F-4's for a short time, IIRC). It is widely considered to be an oversight by the USAF/N. So please don't tell me that I see what I want to see!See what I wrote at the top of this post. Back on subject, so what is the difference between "Multiple Target Attack" (which I believe is what you are referring to) and "Clustered target assignment" aka SPAM Mode? Launch a bunch of missiles and they will sort out which missile gets assigned to which target?My assumption is that clustered targets are targets that may be too difficult to break-out for the pilot. This requires aircraft avionics to work with the missile; but clustered target assignments aren't that hard to do autonomously ... a given missiles only needs to know what it has been launched at a cluster. From there on it may pick a target in the cluster based on some algorithm that assigns a target based on something as simple as 'which number pylon did I launch from'. No need to talk to other missiles. More likely though, it means the same thing that the -34 describes: The missiles will use the M-Link to figure out which target they need to go after in a cluster where they can see multiple targets. The M-Link is aircraft-to-missile (For the D and Meteor, you also get Missile-to-Aircraft). Multiple attack refers to targets that may well be spaced apart enough so that missiles won't even see multiple targets in their FoV. Edited February 15, 2013 by GGTharos [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
FanBoy2006.01 Posted February 17, 2013 Posted February 17, 2013 (edited) Jumping in extremely late here. But in regard to amraam effectiveness: Remember square rule for g. If your missile pull the same g as the target at twice the speed, then its turning circle is four times the size. By flying at night (I assume for all the evasions.) you can more easily spot the launch. If those Serbian pilots saw those missiles coming from say half the distance they did in reality, what would have happened? Increased Pk. Regardless... No matter if amraam's Pk was 30% or 60% (Or whatever.) back in 1999, what do you think will the Pk of the latest versions be now? Do you think an AIM 7M is only as good as an AIM 7E? I hope there have been a dramatic increase in fighter protection systems in this time frame as well! In my mind, the only system that was shown to be inadequate was the RWRs on the MiG 29. When it worked it was overwhelmed (According to some of the posts in this thread.). My hat off to those Serbian pilots that flew under those circumstances. They have BIG BRASS B@#$$! Edited February 17, 2013 by FanBoy2006.01
Recommended Posts