OT: F/A-22 news

[Guest IguanaKing]

Jamming is generally an omnidirectional transmission, radar emissions are not...at least not in the sense of their origin. ;)

 

RWRs know bearing and signal strength, they only estimate distance based on the type of radar and its current signal strength...they are FAR from accurate enough for guiding a weapon when both the launch platform and the target are moving.

 

BTW...accurate 3 dimensional, positional triangulation requires no less than four passive receivers. It can be done...but again...you have just sent 4 aircraft to find one, and many of them will probably die.

[D-Scythe]

Was someone implying above that passive guidance of a missile onto a radar source was only possible for A2G missiles? If deception jamming is essentially mimicking radar output, then can someone explain in what way is an AIM120 HOJ shot not an example of existing A2A anti-radiation (radar) missile technology?

 

Not sure about this, but radar should be far harder to home in on as it floods a much smaller space with radio waves.

 

Also - if a RWR can tell you what type & where a radar is then surely a seeker can be fitted to missiles to chose between radar types - similarly to the logic of the phantasmagoria pod & have the NAV logic for PN etc.

I’ve read somewhere that the F-22 automatically reduces its radar strength as it approaches a target to deny any range information from signal strength, but it will still be an emitter & if you have two planes flying some distance apart receiving the same (TWS) signal then triangulation for range becomes a simple procedure (have the two planes separated vertically and you have altitude too).

Admittedly if the F-22 flies around with its radar off, then targeting it will be very difficult, but with it’s radar on TWS – even jamming – it’s just another noisy broadcaster.

 

Again, it does not work like that. The F/A-22 doesn't "flood" the target with radio energy - it tracks targets with very fine radar beams, courtesy of its AESA radar. Thus, it can lock onto a single target without its wingman seeing anything on radar.

 

Theoretically, an F/A-22 can probably attack six different targets BVR with AMRAAMs without showing up on more than one RWR at a time, simply by alternating pencil beams. Or, it can send out six at once ;)

 

Furthermore, the F/A-22 can also guide AMRAAMs with its RWR/sensor fusion alone, without ever turning its radar on. Thus, if an enemy bandit just happens to leave its radar on for even a little amount of time while in AMRAAM range, it can set itself up for a completely silent AIM-120 shot.

 

And this is only the tip of the iceberg. The Raptor is still very much a black project.

[GGTharos]

I think the whole 'pencil beam' thing has been blown outo f proportion. IIRC it's simply not POSSIBLE to make'em that thin, let alone maintain their width ;)

 

The real advantage of these 'beams' is that a single radar can direct multiple beams to different search sectors simulataneously, thus reducing scan time, and at the same time it is capable of tracking several targets very accurately without having to worry about scan zone limits in the traditional manner.

 

Insofar as A2A anti-radiation missiles go: All I've heard is that they suck. My guess would be that their trajectory is very inefficient, which reduces their range. And no, you can't really make them like the phantasmagoria pod since you can't load that much electronics into them, so radar types become an issue.

 

In addition an airpborne radar in search mode will not be directing all it's energy in one direction at all times, which further cause sprobalems for an anti-radiation missile against a moving target.

[Guest IguanaKing]

Sure its possible to make them that thin...the problem is...they bounce all over the friggin' place, so everybody sees them. They see them, so they know they're there, but its very unlikely anybody will know where they came from.

[Weta43]

IguanaKing - take the index finger of your right hand & the index finger of your left hand & point them at the top right hand corner of your monitor - do those two lines define any other point in space ? No.

You have just succesfully triangulated a three dimentional point with two vectors :-)

You have to define the vectors in more than one plane, but that's not so hard...

Also - if there are multiple emitters using different frequencies, the two of you can define there locations all at roughly the same time (depending on processing power) so two properly equiped planes could find a number of opponents by their radar - Yes, 2 for 1, but 2 for 2 or 2 for 6, but then maybe the prudent thing to do would be leave..

 

Anyway -I don't think posters can have it both ways - D-Scythe would have it that the F22 can guide on it's RWR without firing up it's search radar.. What's good for the goose is good for the gander...

 

GG - no I wasn't suggesting putting the whole phantasmagoria into the missile, you carry the gear internaly or in a pod to identify/range threats accurately, and to identify to you which source to send the missile after.

Because of the sweeping being done by the search radar you would probably want some mid course correction from the launcher as it gets new bearings to keep it going in generaly the right direction, & then have an ARH or IR or multi frequency optical guidance system at the end (once again, not unlike an AIM120 on HOJ) /remember that thread about IR vs UV vs visible light :-)/

 

D-Scythe - No the radar doesn't flood (unless in flood mode I guess), but just as TWS uses logic to predict intercept paths between scans, a detector can remember between the times it's actualy being painted from what direction the beam came & use repeated time separated triangulations by the 2 planes to get path, speed etc.

GG again - Passive radar isn't something that has had a big need for advanced pursuit trajectories in the past, but the logic isn't realy any different from tracking to intercept a target identified by any other means (ESP in TWS - intermittent updates), so I guess if the need for it were seen it would appear.

[GGTharos]

Last I heard the angular width of the beam was a function of antenna size and a couple other parameters - in other words, you can only narrow the beam down so much - it'll still spread significantly at range, and there are always sidelobes to deal with.

[Weta43]

There must be some way to make a coherent beam equivalent of laser that wouldn't spread so much if you focused it well, but I guess you'd have to mount it in a 747.. and there'd still be sidelobes to deal with..

[GGTharos]

 

Anyway -I don't think posters can have it both ways - D-Scythe would have it that the F22 can guide on it's RWR without firing up it's search radar.. What's good for the goose is good for the gander...

 

No, it couldn't - or at the very least, it would be a poor shot ... no range data. It will more likely guide on datalink, which is much much better ;) (Although STT actually beats it for accuracy, but not stealthiness)

 

GG - no I wasn't suggesting putting the whole phantasmagoria into the missile, you carry the gear internaly or in a pod to identify/range threats accurately, and to identify to you which source to send the missile after.

 

The problem is that the missile too requires a way to discriminate its target also. Radar tracking weapons become complex animals when you ask them to track more than one type of radar signature. HoJ is easy because the jammer pretend to be the launcher's (or missile's) radar.

 

Because of the sweeping being done by the search radar you would probably want some mid course correction from the launcher as it gets new bearings to keep it going in generaly the right direction, & then have an ARH or IR or multi frequency optical guidance system at the end (once again, not unlike an AIM120 on HOJ) /remember that thread about IR vs UV vs visible light :-)/

 

Again this would be a poor shot due to lack of range info. I suppose you could do that with triangulation, but that requires some funky datalink feature (which may or may not exist!) integrated with RWRs. Even then you will get a poor maneuver solution and in general yoru missile Pk is low.

The other problem is that the guy who's painting you already has birds in the air with better accuracy than yourself (since you're obviously not using radar)

 

D-Scythe - No the radar doesn't flood (unless in flood mode I guess), but just as TWS uses logic to predict intercept paths between scans, a detector can remember between the times it's actualy being painted from what direction the beam came & use repeated time separated triangulations by the 2 planes to get path, speed etc.

GG again - Passive radar isn't something that has had a big need for advanced pursuit trajectories in the past, but the logic isn't realy any different from tracking to intercept a target identified by any other means (ESP in TWS - intermittent updates), so I guess if the need for it were seen it would appear.

 

It's not like that. The logic is fine, but the quality of the data it gets isn't. Also PN guidance has resolution issues, so doing it your way increases miss distance a lot. If you're using any sort of weapon, you need a good trajectory to get reasonable range in long range shots. At shorter ranges, it's just pointless to use an ARM when you'll get a more accurate shot with an ARH or SARH or IRH missile.

The trajectory makes or breaks a long range shot, there's no way around it - LOMAC doesn't represent this too well right now, but it will with the WAFM I home :)

[D-Scythe]

Last I heard the angular width of the beam was a function of antenna size and a couple other parameters - in other words, you can only narrow the beam down so much - it'll still spread significantly at range, and there are always sidelobes to deal with.

 

Maybe SK can clarify, but I don't think phased array radars obey the same beamwidth ~ antenna size relationship exactly. I don't know much about ESA radars, but the active ESA radars like the APG-77 probably has an advantage in that it provides a very low reciever to noise figure. This could allow for better beam sharpening, and also sending out beams at different frequencies simultaneously.

 

Plus the AESA can double as both an RWR and an extremely powerful jammer.

 

Maybe pencil beams are blown out of proportion, but AESA radars aren't.

 

No, it couldn't - or at the very least, it would be a poor shot ... no range data. It will more likely guide on datalink, which is much much better (Although STT actually beats it for accuracy, but not stealthiness)

 

Who said that the F/A-22's RWR can't provide range data? Even if we assume that its EWR suite isn't revolutionary (which it is from what I've read - it's extremely classified), with datalink, a group of Raptors can instantly triangulate the position of various targets with pretty good precision.

[Guest IguanaKing]

Weta, as I said before, it takes no less than 4 passive sensors to accurately triangulate a position in three dimensions. I like your fingers analogy, but it really doesn't apply to passive sensors since my brain always knows exactly where my two fingers are...afterall, it is the thing controlling them. ;) My 4 sensors rule comes from a well-known system that I am very familiar with, and am often tasked to repair the receivers of...the GPS system. :D Actually...the GPS system is the reverse of this concept, with a single, passive receiver and four emitters, but the basic concept is still the same. ;)

[GGTharos]

There must be some way to make a coherent beam equivalent of laser that wouldn't spread so much if you focused it well, but I guess you'd have to mount it in a 747.. and there'd still be sidelobes to deal with..

 

Correct, aperture size is an issue. Even lasers have beam width differences - why do you think blue lasers have been pursued so hard? :) They let you etch electronics at a smaller scale, and put more data on a disk, all because the frequency restricts the beam spread.

 

For radars, the requency is much much lower than lasers so you get bigger spread.

 

The F-15 which has a fairly big antenna has a beam width of 2.5 deg or so IIRC. 1 deg at 1km is about 17m. You can do the math ;)

[Weta43]

IguanaKIng - you need the 4 sensors, but I can have one for vertical & one for horzontal on this plane & the same on the other & I have my four sensors - on only 2 planes.

As long as I now the relative positions of the 2 planes, I can get a relative position for the object I'm tracking (maybe turn the EOS on each other?). Absolute positions are un-necessary.

GG - my assumption was that there are 2 of you triangulating so you have range data, & if you're homing on his radar you should be able to get a launch before he does (assuming your missile has the legs) as the strength of the signal will be stronger when it gets to you than by the time it gets all the way back to him..

Getting the seeker to discriminate between radar types may not be trivial, but plenty of people seem to have done it. The Phantasmagoria pod lets you identify a type of radar & an instance of that, then you let the seeker know which type it's looking for & where to look. All those PRH missiles seekers do the job already, but maybe it's not an issue anyway, cause maybe you just use a datalink to guide to co-ordinates calculated by the two triangulating planes & use a traditional seeker (with extended FOV ?) ARH or IR for the terminal phase. PK may not be very high - then again maybe it would - depending on how accurate your triangulation was & how good the seekers used for terminal guidance were, but it would be completely passive (except terminal guidance if radar used or if the datalink could be intercepted) and should allow launches at greater range than traditional guidance (for the reason I gave above.)

[GGTharos]

GG - my assumption was that there are 2 of you triangulating so you have range data, & if you're homing on his radar you should be able to get a launch before he does (assuming your missile has the legs) as the strength of the signal will be stronger when it gets to you than by the time it gets all the way back to him..

 

Nah-uh. You're not getting the same shot you would with a radar track, wether you like it or not, for a number of reasons which I already mentioned. Your opponent shoots first - what's worse, if he's datalinked there's a guy ahead of him shooting at you that you can't trig...

 

Getting the seeker to discriminate between radar types may not be trivial, but plenty of people seem to have done it. The Phantasmagoria pod lets you identify a type of radar & an instance of that, then you let the seeker know which type it's looking for & where to look. All those PRH missiles seekers do the job already, but maybe it's not an issue anyway, cause maybe you just use a datalink to guide to co-ordinates calculated by the two triangulating planes & use a traditional seeker (with extended FOV ?) ARH or IR for the terminal phase.

 

You can try, but like I said - the triangulated info is not anywhere near as good as even a TWS track. Your data is bad - however you're no longer using an ARM, so, ok, -if- those missile seekers manage to get into position to pick up a stealth aircraft, you may have something there ... but you're still taking a pretty poor shot. If he survives it, it's the end.

 

PK may not be very high - then again maybe it would - depending on how accurate your triangulation was & how good the seekers used for terminal guidance were,

 

No, Pk would be low, Already proven with data-link-less ARHs used by the british IIRC. Trig is only a small step up from this - the 'basket' becomes very small due to the stealth of the target, while trig data does not give you any sort of instantaneous update (TMA takes time) which enables the target to easily skirt the basket - he doesn't even need to know it's coming, he just needs to take preventive measures.

 

What's worse, when using an LPI radar it's likely that your two triangulating aircraft won't be able to sync up the updates very well.

 

but it would be completely passive (except terminal guidance if radar used or if the datalink could be intercepted) and should allow launches at greater range than traditional guidance (for the reason I gave above.)

 

No, it wouldn't. Missiles have kinematic limitations and need to be put on a proper intercept track - a stealth aicraft with an LPI radar might not even need to maneuver to avoid them.

 

Things are just not that simple. There are serious limitations to what you can do in terms of tracking - no one uses trig to hit moving aircraft AFAIK, save or something that's flying perfectly straight for a long time and you know where it is already, more or less.

[Guest IguanaKing]

IguanaKIng - you need the 4 sensors, but I can have one for vertical & one for horzontal on this plane & the same on the other & I have my four sensors - on only 2 planes.

As long as I now the relative positions of the 2 planes, I can get a relative position for the object I'm tracking (maybe turn the EOS on each other?). Absolute positions are un-necessary.

 

How are you getting the vertical, with only passive sensors? :confused: BTW...if you're close enough to use EOS to obtain this info...well...you're already dead. ;)

[Weta43]

No IguanaKing. - the eos was to get each other's position - friendly to friendly - for the baseline.

How would you get the vertical - the same way you would the horizontal, but at 90 degrees to it.

Or..

I think I remember reading that (&GG alluded to it above) radars can be set up to receive the signals of other emitters (also remember that discussion about picking up noise jamming with the radar in standby). If the RWR or some other system gave cues to the aircraft’s main radar as to what signal to look for, the accuracy of the vector given by the searching radar would be the same as the angular error of the radar itself when scanning.

As far as I can tell from this forum jamming (for the most part) denies range information, but not direction - both vertical & horizontal, which is why a lock in HOJ provides that indication of where the radar is pointing - it knows exactly where the return is as a vector, just not how far.

So here we’re using the same idea, but with a pod or other gear to select the target that is emitting the radar type you're looking for & pass this info to the main radar to just listen for those signals - get the vector, find where it meets that of your buddy, the bogey is THERE !, wait till next sweep - now he's THERE, so he's going that fast along this path...

The errors come in:

1/where the time between my ping & my buddies are far enough apart that the bogey has moved an appreciable distance between our ”pings”, but if we're both not too widely separated & at the same altitude we should get swept in fairly rapid succession - how long does it take the F15 to sweep across 1 or 5 km at 100km. At 1 km would the beam even have left the first plane when it hit the second i.e. how wide is the beam at 100km - if you're that far apart you can both look at the same time.

2/ where the target changes course between his last sweep and the one I’m about to get. This is exactly the same scale of error you get in TWS, because the time intervals between my triangulations of his radar are exactly the same as between his returns from me.

GG: the error of the triangulation would probably be quite low. It’s not hard to accurately determine each of the vectors away from the planes, I’d imagine that either GPS & EOS could give the relative positions of the two planes to a fair degree of accuracy (which the cannon sight demands doesn’t it?) and the launcher would use their own vector for the actual target direction. 5% error on 100km would give you +/- 2.5km on the range along a line you know quite precisely.

You said for reasons given above the F22 would have the first launch – I went back & couldn’t find them, could you outline them again?

My reasoning for a better launch distance for the person triangulating is (again):

For me to triangulate your position I only need to be able to just make out your search radar, for you to find me the radar has to get to me & the feeble signal bounced back has to be strong enough for you to pick it up ( if I’m a long way away in the dark & you’re searching for me with a torch, it’s still easier for me to se you than it is for you to see me even if I’m wearing reflective clothing.)

The limiting factor is the legs on the missile, and the seeker used at the end – be that active radar turning on when within range or IR seekers hunting all the way - not how far away I can get a lock.

Yes the course will be sub-optimal if the targeted plane changes course between my triangulations, but the error here is analogous to that of any missile launched TWS

I agree that an actual lock would be preferable to triangulation & no-one does triangulation as their primary mode of determining range (though aren’t there posts in the F15 wish-list asking for the set up to allow manual triangulation for HOJ?), but no-one is flying against the F22 & triangulation is better than waiting for him to get close enough to appear on your radar. Low PK – perhaps, but all passive till the missile goes active, & all outside the lock and even detection range of the F22, so he possibly will be flying straight & level

[GGTharos]

No IguanaKing. - the eos was to get each other's position - friendly to friendly - for the baseline.

 

You don't need that, you have a datalink (which has some built in degree of error)

 

I think I remember reading that (&GG alluded to it above) radars can be set up to receive the signals of other emitters (also remember that discussion about picking up noise jamming with the radar in standby). If the RWR or some other system gave cues to the aircraft’s main radar as to what signal to look for, the accuracy of the vector given by the searching radar would be the same as the angular error of the radar itself when scanning.

 

Yes, but datalink error time compounds twice for this computation - it may potentially be insignificant, but can't be sure about that - and it isn't th eonly source of error, either. In addition like I said, the datalinks would need to be equipped for this. Also, like IK pointed out, you've now dedicated 2 aircraft to look for one and NOTHING ELSE. You can see how this is a problem (unless you're using an AESA radar I suppose)

 

As far as I can tell from this forum jamming (for the most part) denies range information, but not direction - both vertical & horizontal, which is why a lock in HOJ provides that indication of where the radar is pointing - it knows exactly where the return is as a vector, just not how far.

 

No, that's just the type of jamming that's provided in LOMAC. Jamming can do many many things - it can deny angle tracking, so your line is now horisontal instead of vertical, it can jam the sidelobes and acts as a 'romulan cloaking device' and literally hide everything from you until burn-through (according to SK, this is the main type of jamming that burn through exists against, and it shouldn't really exist against the range jammers that we see in LOMAC) so you never know what's there, it can 'walk' the target return off the aircraft itself, and so on and so forth (but the last one has been proven to be pretty impractical apparently). You can bounce the jammer signal off the ground and have missiles target the ground instead of you - there's a WHOLE SLEW of stuff you can do.

 

So here we’re using the same idea, but with a pod or other gear to select the target that is emitting the radar type you're looking for & pass this info to the main radar to just listen for those signals - get the vector, find where it meets that of your buddy, the bogey is THERE !, wait till next sweep - now he's THERE, so he's going that fast along this path...

The errors come in:

 

No, that sort of TMA has pretty large errors as far as 'tracking' goes, and can be readily and easily confused just by applying the correct pattern. This WILL completely ruin long-ranged shots unless the target is flying straight and level. Keep in mind that HoJ shots are lower Pk shots compared to normal guided shots also, and you're essentially taking the equivalent of an interruptible HoJ shot.

 

1/where the time between my ping & my buddies are far enough apart that the bogey has moved an appreciable distance between our ”pings”, but if we're both not too widely separated & at the same altitude we should get swept in fairly rapid succession - how long does it take the F15 to sweep across 1 or 5 km at 100km. At 1 km would the beam even have left the first plane when it hit the second i.e. how wide is the beam at 100km - if you're that far apart you can both look at the same time.

 

1700 meters. The problem is that he'll see you at 140km on radar as is, so what's the point?

 

2/ where the target changes course between his last sweep and the one I’m about to get. This is exactly the same scale of error you get in TWS, because the time intervals between my triangulations of his radar are exactly the same as between his returns from me.

 

No, you'll get much much larger error. Try doing some TMA ;) Your radar gives the target's vector and other information very, very quickly - a single sweep even. To get this from tringulation takes more time, adds up more errors, and any deviation in target motion will instantly confuse the TMA.

 

GG: the error of the triangulation would probably be quite low. It’s not hard to accurately determine each of the vectors away from the planes, I’d imagine that either GPS & EOS could give the relative positions of the two planes to a fair degree of accuracy (which the cannon sight demands doesn’t it?) and the launcher would use their own vector for the actual target direction. 5% error on 100km would give you +/- 2.5km on the range along a line you know quite precisely.

 

No, the error will be quite large - and are we talking about someone with access to GPS then? Because that doesn't make much sense if you're fighting a stealth fighter. The US could just turn off civillian GPS (which the enemy would have to use, since the US military uses the military GPS) - that gets you stuck with INS errors.

While you might get a 5km 'basket' along a bearing line, you don't have a reliable vector. This is *HUGE* for long ranged shots. Further more, again, you're essentially dedicating all the sensors onboard two aircraft to tracking one enemy aircraft who already sees you on radar.

 

You said for reasons given above the F22 would have the first launch – I went back & couldn’t find them, could you outline them again?

 

It quite simply gets a firing solution before you get one, or at the very least it gets a better firing solution.

 

My reasoning for a better launch distance for the person triangulating is (again):

For me to triangulate your position I only need to be able to just make out your search radar, for you to find me the radar has to get to me & the feeble signal bounced back has to be strong enough for you to pick it up ( if I’m a long way away in the dark & you’re searching for me with a torch, it’s still easier for me to se you than it is for you to see me even if I’m wearing reflective clothing.)

 

Yes, but if my torch can light you up at 10km, I'm well beyond any useful range that any rifle you may have could reach. I can now turn off my torch, aproach, and turn it on and scan for you again when I'm half the distance to you. I'll see you, and you'll still be out of range. I'll move around, come from a different angle, and give you a scan at 2km, then at 1km when I'm 'in range' ... I instantly have an accurate firing solution, and you don't. I shoot and turn off my torch, and you're still stuck there not able to see me. You can try shooting at the torch, but you'll likely miss, and by the time you're done shouting to your partner your LOS angle and computing the range, one or both of you are dead.

 

The limiting factor is the legs on the missile, and the seeker used at the end – be that active radar turning on when within range or IR seekers hunting all the way - not how far away I can get a lock.

 

Only the new generation of seekers (FPAs) are capable of hunting with -any- success whatsoever ... older seekers would need a datalink, and if you noticed, the number of examples of such missiles is pretty small.

The missile's legs are FAR shorter than your shot. If you attempt shooting that far your missile won't get there. In essence, one F-22 could be 30km from you (perfect shooting distance) with radar off, and another could be trailing behind with its radar on, datalinking it's missile guidance ... the one closest to you fires. Whose missile hits first?

 

In other words, EVEN if your trick wroked, it would work once.

 

Yes the course will be sub-optimal if the targeted plane changes course between my triangulations, but the error here is analogous to that of any missile launched TWS

 

No, it's much larger. TWS gives you a far more accurate target vector. This is HUGE issue against a target that you need to shoot a missile very accurately at in order to get the seeker to pick it up. HUGE.

 

I agree that an actual lock would be preferable to triangulation & no-one does triangulation as their primary mode of determining range (though aren’t there posts in the F15 wish-list asking for the set up to allow manual triangulation for HOJ?), but no-one is flying against the F22 & triangulation is better than waiting for him to get close enough to appear on your radar. Low PK – perhaps, but all passive till the missile goes active, & all outside the lock and even detection range of the F22, so he possibly will be flying straight & level

 

Yes, but the triangulation in the F-15 (and actually all the Russian birds, too) takes 10-12 seconds and requires a specific light pattern. This will get you a range estimate (Error unknown) and may allow you to loft the missile. However you need to do at least one more 10-12 second maneuver to get a vector, which may in fact be completely wrong and send your missile to the wrong place!

These triangulations/TMA's are PER AIRCRAFT. Never (AFAIK) have they been datalinked, and I'm not sure they ever will be.

 

If you're going to trig against an aircraft who'll show up on your radar at 120km, and shoot a missile that far without radar lock, your Pk is ZERO. Zip, zilch, squat, nada ;) The missile won't even get there, and if it does it'll be so low energy that the enemy aicraft might not even have to maneuver to avoid the intercept.

 

The F-22 could probably detect and track a Su-27 200km away (just throwing out a number here based on what I heard for look-down against MiG-29's for F-15's) ... and with trig so inaccurate, you're simply -not- taking that shot.

 

The F-22 would scan intermittently, more often as it neared, but it could give you such larger vector errors by using a simple flight technique that any shot would have ultra-low Pk, even closer up.

 

It's a nice theory, but it doesn't work.

[Weta43]

GG - Nice bald statement, but I don't agree.

I thought I’d explained what I meant well enough, but your replies show I obviously haven’t.

I think you get the general idea – that

1/from outside of detection range you

2/use triangulation to get a course for the scanning radar & then

3/launch using mid course correction over data link to get within the range of

4/ an actively searching seeker, which is then turned on.

 

The premise here rests on those 4 points and your objections seem to be:

 

1/ Radars have better range than missiles.

True, radar has considerably better range than the AA missiles in use at the moment, so I suggest no-one try this with an R77 (or an R73).

There are however a number of missiles that DO have ranges longer than the range at which a radar can detect a target. The MIM-104 from a patriot battery has a weight of only 700kg and an advertised range of 160km. From the mission editor – admittedly a dodgy source, the SU27 can carry at least 3,300kg & the Su25T can carry 4,000kg. This means there’s plenty of room for more booster & still carry a few to increase your chances. You could probably strap a couple of boosters from a SA-10E underneath – these presently have a range when launched from the ground of 200km – I guess more if you could launch at altitude.

 

2/a.Triangulation takes too long, b.requires GPS and c.ties up multiple planes for each target.

a.Triangulation by a single plane would take too long because you have to fly to both points on the bottom leg of the triangle yourself. Automated triangulation by two planes using data-link, separated by 3.4 km and 280km from the source would essentially be instantaneous as both would be in the same radar beam at the same time (if your figures of 1700m @ 140km are right).

The accuracy of the range you get is limited by your ability to define the base-line and the angular resolution of the radar receiver you’re using, which if it’s the main dish on your plane will probably be very high. The vector to the plane is again – as accurate as the resolution on the receiver – your radar.

b.No GPS is needed for defining the baseline as long as the 2 planes doing the triangulation know their positions relative to each other. I don’t care if we’re in Africa or Swindon as long as I know you’re 1.2km away, 5 degrees to my left & 1.5 degrees above me. EOS is highly accurate needs to be for the gun-sight predictions to work) & capable of instantly providing enough data to provide spatial references for the calculations needed

c.Under normal circumstances a plane’s radar receives, but filters out all the other radio signals that fall within the frequency limits it was designed to receive. So an SU27 with its radar on standby receives the signal from an F15’s radar but filters it out. If there were 2 F15 it would filter them both out, etc. What I’m suggesting is that rather than filter them out completely, while using the radar in this mode, feed those other signals through some logic similar to that of the Phantasmagoria pod and then display the results of that logic on the display. When (at least in game so I suppose IRL also) the display shows and identifies one source, it doesn’t stop displaying the others. Multiple sources can be identified by one pod. Multiple radars could be identified and triangulated as long as the sweeps by the different were separated by enough time to allow the separate triangulations to take place ( 1/1000th of a second? Computers are much faster than people). Because it’s passive even if I allocate my missile to one source, that doesn’t stop me receiving & processing the other signals, sending them to my buddy & letting him target another.

 

3/Mid course corrections would adversely affect flight paths.

If you are guiding TWS on me your missile can only get an update on my course at the rate your radar paints me & recalculates that course. If I’m homing on your TWS radar I get a mid-course correction on your course for my missile every time your radar sweeps me – the situations are exactly analogous. The actual distance we can change between sweeps are the same – and at that distance they are esp. early in the flight, relatively small angles anyway. At the business end they may be quite big, but that’s where you need the actively searching seeker.

 

4/ You need an actively hunting seeker to allow for the inbuilt errors.

GG – you say ”Only the new generation of seekers (FPAs) are capable of hunting with -any- success whatsoever” Only the new generation of seekers (FPAs) are capable of hunting with -any- success whatsoever” but you could rephrase this as: ”the new generation of seeker are capable of doing this with some level of success” couldn’t you ?

 

So to sum up:

I’m not suggesting it’s possible with the technology in game.

I am suggesting that it would be possible using existing technology to create a system capable of this with a PK higher than 0.00

I am suggesting that this is probably a higher PK than trying to fly in and take out an F22 using your own radar & an R-27ER

I would write more about defeating the tactics you outlined but I've got to go...

[GGTharos]

1/ Radars have better range than missiles.

True, radar has considerably better range than the AA missiles in use at the moment, so I suggest no-one try this with an R77 (or an R73).

There are however a number of missiles that DO have ranges longer than the range at which a radar can detect a target. The MIM-104 from a patriot battery has a weight of only 700kg and an advertised range of 160km. From the mission editor – admittedly a dodgy source, the SU27 can carry at least 3,300kg & the Su25T can carry 4,000kg. This means there’s plenty of room for more booster & still carry a few to increase your chances. You could probably strap a couple of boosters from a SA-10E underneath – these presently have a range when launched from the ground of 200km – I guess more if you could launch at altitude.

 

AFAIK that range for MIM-104 is against TBM's ... even so, they don't get launched at those ranges from what I hear.

As for strapping SAMs to your aircraft ... hehe. I suppose the Iranians did it once or twice, but it sounds pretty unlikely to me. There are a couple of missiles that can do this - air launched missiles that is - but they're meant for high-value assets, not low Pk shots against stealth fighters ;)

 

2/a.Triangulation takes too long, b.requires GPS and c.ties up multiple planes for each target.

a.Triangulation by a single plane would take too long because you have to fly to both points on the bottom leg of the triangle yourself. Automated triangulation by two planes using data-link, separated by 3.4 km and 280km from the source would essentially be instantaneous as both would be in the same radar beam at the same time (if your figures of 1700m @ 140km are right).

The accuracy of the range you get is limited by your ability to define the base-line and the angular resolution of the radar receiver you’re using, which if it’s the main dish on your plane will probably be very high. The vector to the plane is again – as accurate as the resolution on the receiver – your radar.

 

The trig will still take time -and- again the way you're describing it ... you just tied up two fighters for one ... who's probably flying with a buddy.

 

b.No GPS is needed for defining the baseline as long as the 2 planes doing the triangulation know their positions relative to each other. I don’t care if we’re in Africa or Swindon as long as I know you’re 1.2km away, 5 degrees to my left & 1.5 degrees above me. EOS is highly accurate needs to be for the gun-sight predictions to work) & capable of instantly providing enough data to provide spatial references for the calculations needed

 

I don't see what the gunshight has to do with this. Gunshights require stabilization and are by no means perfect instruments themselves. They're not capable of giving you a good solution against a fighter that's maneuvering in anything but a smooth and steady in-plane motion.

EOS is also angle-limited, and I don't really see the point of tying up that sensor when a datalink is available.

 

c.Under normal circumstances a plane’s radar receives, but filters out all the other radio signals that fall within the frequency limits it was designed to receive. So an SU27 with its radar on standby receives the signal from an F15’s radar but filters it out. If there were 2 F15 it would filter them both out, etc. What I’m suggesting is that rather than filter them out completely, while using the radar in this mode, feed those other signals through some logic similar to that of the Phantasmagoria pod and then display the results of that logic on the display. When (at least in game so I suppose IRL also) the display shows and identifies one source, it doesn’t stop displaying the others. Multiple sources can be identified by one pod. Multiple radars could be identified and triangulated as long as the sweeps by the different were separated by enough time to allow the separate triangulations to take place ( 1/1000th of a second? Computers are much faster than people). Because it’s passive even if I allocate my missile to one source, that doesn’t stop me receiving & processing the other signals, sending them to my buddy & letting him target another.

 

How are you going to get an accurate vector then? Just by NOT pointing your antenna at the target you have /instantly/ introduced a huge source of error. Unless you're saying the dish keeps sweeping, which is fine, but then you're doing TMA in nearly the worst way you possibly could.

 

3/Mid course corrections would adversely affect flight paths.

If you are guiding TWS on me your missile can only get an update on my course at the rate your radar paints me & recalculates that course. If I’m homing on your TWS radar I get a mid-course correction on your course for my missile every time your radar sweeps me – the situations are exactly analogous. The actual distance we can change between sweeps are the same – and at that distance they are esp. early in the flight, relatively small angles anyway. At the business end they may be quite big, but that’s where you need the actively searching seeker.

 

Um, TWS will have a target's vector with one scan over the target. Your method requires multiple scans to build up the target's vector and can be easily confused - thus lowering your PK.

As for the business end - yes, you can have an actively searching seeker. The point is that this seeker is quite badly disadvantaged against a stealth aircraft, and at that point the missile is likely in a sad state in terms of go go juice and maneuvering needs to be minimal - again, all of this lower Pk.

 

4/ You need an actively hunting seeker to allow for the inbuilt errors.

GG – you say ”Only the new generation of seekers (FPAs) are capable of hunting with -any- success whatsoever” Only the new generation of seekers (FPAs) are capable of hunting with -any- success whatsoever” but you could rephrase this as: ”the new generation of seeker are capable of doing this with some level of success” couldn’t you ?

 

No, I would say your missile might pick up something once in a blue moon. As in, fat chance, as in, no, I wouldn't phrase it in any positive manner. I would call it an act of desperation.

 

You have so many factors going against you it's just not funny.

 

So to sum up:

I’m not suggesting it’s possible with the technology in game.

 

It isn't ;)

 

I am suggesting that it would be possible using existing technology to create a system capable of this with a PK higher than 0.00

I am suggesting that this is probably a higher PK than trying to fly in and take out an F22 using your own radar & an R-27ER

 

Act of desperation :) Sure, you hit one of out of 20 F-22's this way ... then they'll know what happened and you'll never repeat your success as they'll take some very easy countermeasures against them.

 

I would write more about defeating the tactics you outlined but I've got to go...

 

To be blunt, anti-radiation missiles have been considered against aircraft and not employed. That should tell you something.

Your method isn't much better.

 

Think about it ... the ARM is homing on that radar all the way, getting more accurate as it closes, yet it is NOT accurate enough to allow a good enough Pk for these to become mainstream.

 

Your method has an even LARGER error.