Programmable AIM-120B/C?

[RagnarDa]

Guidance sections on AIM-120B and AIM-120C missiles contain Electronic Erasable Programmable Read Only Memory which allow reprogramming of the missile software.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/aim-120.htm

 

This indicates to me that each individual missile of the B's and C's could have different intercepting patterns, for example not lead the target, or different lofting trajectories. Thats quite a big deal considering that whoever is on the receiving end will never really know how the missile is going to behave and certain tactics like beaming the missile might be useless. As I understand it, the fighters carrying it can select individual missiles (inboard left, outboard right and so on) and to me it might be possible they would carry missiles with different guiding patterns and select whatever missile that is suitable for the situation. What do you think? And if this is a possibility, should this be implemented in DCS - different versions of the same missile only different guiding patterns?

[Frostie]

Where do you read intercepting patterns and lofting trajectories?

I'm sure that loft trajectory is computed at launch dependent on range and altitude of the bandit, and that the missile is smart enough to lead a target it wishes to chase, anything else and it's wasting energy.

I'm not following what you mean about 'certain tactics like beaming might be useless' what else could a missile do against a notching target, fly sideways? :D

 

I should imagine missiles need reprogramming to upgrade the firmware etc.

[RagnarDa]

Well, for example, if the target is zigzagging it would be more efficent to not lead the target - and a human fighter pilot might expect a human target to do something like that. Notching is not the only way to beat a missile, and all of the energy-draining tactics all depend on the missile to fly in a known way (information that a intelligence service could get a hold of). There could also be different 'missile-tactics' to beat a notching target, for example putting itself in a overshooting-lead and turning into the target from the front. My point is basically: its the 2000's.

[Frostie]

The main tactic for engaging BVR is cranking, any missile travelling with anything other than lead is going to have to chase the target so less energy when it gets to the target. To defeat a missile at the last would require either notching, orthagonal roll etc. which largely requires the missile to be low on energy to be successful, so your handing that to them as well as giving the opponent a range advantage over you.

A lead is not an overshoot it's an interception course. Why would you want to make some of your missiles less effective in range, time to target and interception, giving your opponent all the aces.

[ZaltysZ]

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/aim-120.htm

 

This indicates to me that each individual missile of the B's and C's could have different intercepting patterns, for example not lead the target, or different lofting trajectories. Thats quite a big deal considering that whoever is on the receiving end will never really know how the missile is going to behave and certain tactics like beaming the missile might be useless. As I understand it, the fighters carrying it can select individual missiles (inboard left, outboard right and so on) and to me it might be possible they would carry missiles with different guiding patterns and select whatever missile that is suitable for the situation. What do you think? And if this is a possibility, should this be implemented in DCS - different versions of the same missile only different guiding patterns?

 

I think you read too much between the lines. :) Article speaks about B/C not requiring hardware changes for simple software updates, and how it is possible to update software just by reprogramming missiles inside containers via cable.

Edited January 28, 2013 by ZaltysZ

[Kenan]

I don't know..since this is not modelled in FC3, I don't think it exists IRL.

 

 

:D

[GGTharos]

Many modern missiles are quite capable of shaping their terminal trajectory to avoid being notched or spoofed.

 

A missile can avoid the notch by diving to keep the bandit on or just below the horizon (helps with those low-flying bandits :D ) after it has completed the range-extending part of its trajectory shaping.

 

Missiles can use TTG measures to de-sensitize to target maneuvers, thus avoiding major speed-bleed at range by attempting to track their targets at max G ... there are kalman filters that will deal with barrel rolls, split-s' or other maneuvers to some degree as well.

 

Being spoofed by chaff (in this case since we're talking about radar-guided missiles) by a beaming aircraft can be avoided by utlizing angle and LOS gating of the target. While probably not fool-proof, you're gambling that the missile will pass juuust that little bit behind you .. so don't forget that ortho-roll, speaking of which, that too shouldn't be a 100% cure ... but for that we need better guidance and fuzing code.

[Kenan]

^^Was that a Google translation or you simply switched to greek?

 

:D

[GGTharos]

Google was not involved in this, other than for finding and providing several papers on missile guidance algorithms :D

[RagnarDa]

The main tactic for engaging BVR is cranking, any missile travelling with anything other than lead is going to have to chase the target so less energy when it gets to the target. To defeat a missile at the last would require either notching, orthagonal roll etc. which largely requires the missile to be low on energy to be successful, so your handing that to them as well as giving the opponent a range advantage over you.

A lead is not an overshoot it's an interception course. Why would you want to make some of your missiles less effective in range, time to target and interception, giving your opponent all the aces.

 

Im sorry, maybe I haven't been clear enough, so I try explaining it this way: people on both sides of the conflict spend every work day, 9-5 for years developing tactics to beat and outsmart the other guy. If pilot A knows how pilot B's missile is going to maneuver it gives pilot A the opportunity to train missile-evasive tactics until he makes sure he can evade 100% of the missiles of that particular type. If pilot B on the other hand makes minor adjustment to the missile behavior of his own missile, it will make some of that training negative. I had the example of zig-zagging, where a defensive fighter makes, say 9 g turns left and right. Because the missile want to go in lead pursuit it will make, I don't know, 18 g turns which would potentially bleed off a lot of its energy. Turning off the lead-pursuit behavior in the approach-phase of the missiles flight would make this zig-zagging tactic ineffective. Still another example would be if you know the parameters of the target you could get a more accurate estimation of where the target will be in a given time-frame. For example if you know the targets max acceleration the missile could position itself so it would hit the target both if the target stayed the same speed and if it decides to pull full afterburner. Hope this makes it more clear :)

[RagnarDa]

Many modern missiles are quite capable of shaping their terminal trajectory to avoid being notched or spoofed.

 

A missile can avoid the notch by diving to keep the bandit on or just below the horizon (helps with those low-flying bandits :D ) after it has completed the range-extending part of its trajectory shaping.

 

Missiles can use TTG measures to de-sensitize to target maneuvers, thus avoiding major speed-bleed at range by attempting to track their targets at max G ... there are kalman filters that will deal with barrel rolls, split-s' or other maneuvers to some degree as well.

 

Being spoofed by chaff (in this case since we're talking about radar-guided missiles) by a beaming aircraft can be avoided by utlizing angle and LOS gating of the target. While probably not fool-proof, you're gambling that the missile will pass juuust that little bit behind you .. so don't forget that ortho-roll, speaking of which, that too shouldn't be a 100% cure ... but for that we need better guidance and fuzing code.

 

Ah! I type too slow. Thanks for the info!