By: Mercurius
- 9th September 2014 at 15:51Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
No need for such a statement. 37 km is well within the capability of a boost/sustain motor.
New
Posts: 1,760
By: lukos
- 9th September 2014 at 16:58Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
DRDO claim Astra to have an active homing range of nearly 16 miles, which is 13.9 nm,
as compared to the BVR classifier of ~>5 nm
AIM-120s are currently well over 10nm in seeker range. The main issue vs Torpedo is the target size, the target speed and the thinking time.
If you were using IRST as opposed to RWR and had a very long range missile like Meteor, you could theoretically send it straight there rather than on an arc intercept from sensible ranges, however I'm not aware of this ever having been tried.
The other issue is that an active sonar ping is less directional than a radar beam, so the weapon sees on a wider angle during a slower intercept.
By: MadRat
- 9th September 2014 at 17:40Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I fail to see lukos arguments tying into the OT. We used to call his argument style thread crapping. He's all over the place, saying lies that are contrary to other posters proofs, and refusing to soak in what is being said. This thread really is done, it's time to let it go.
New
Posts: 1,760
By: lukos
- 9th September 2014 at 21:12Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I fail to see lukos arguments tying into the OT. We used to call his argument style thread crapping. He's all over the place, saying lies that are contrary to other posters proofs, and refusing to soak in what is being said. This thread really is done, it's time to let it go.
You think hitting a submarine with a torpedo is the same as hitting a fighter jet with a missile? I'm not thread crapping, I'm just stating what's completely obvious to most.
Active targeting is officially combat proven to over twice the range demonstrated by passive targeting in a test environment and unofficially 8 times the range:
3-6039 was the F-14A used to shot down an Iraqi Mirage F.1EQ on 20 February 1987 by a single AIM-54A from a range of almost 150km. The Iraqi pilot, 1st Lt. Ahlan, did not survive the hit.
By: mig-31bm
- 10th September 2014 at 04:35Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It does. The bigger the difference the better. If you only have one aircraft, wing-tip is the best you can do, with a second aircraft much further apart, more accuracy is possible.
I really doubt that you can achieve 1 degree accurate by wing tip, that may be achieved by using multiple aircraft to triangulate or flying one aircraft with significant distance to get different bearing, but with only wing tip triangulate, the difference may be a lot bigger
New
Posts: 6,983
By: obligatory
- 10th September 2014 at 04:43Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It does. The bigger the difference the better. If you only have one aircraft, wing-tip is the best you can do, with a second aircraft much further apart, more accuracy is possible.
I want to see extra t/r modules on pylons, tail fin etc for this reason
By: Hotshot
- 10th September 2014 at 10:33Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
If the missile knows where the target is, why are we triangulating? Putting an interferometric receiver on a missile is also probably pretty costly.
The original HARM had a pretty poor hit ratio. Now that the AARGM has a terminal seeker it might not be that bad but the earlier variants would have benefited from better accuracy in case the radar is turned off. The missile would have needed the capability to keep in storage the location of the radar and navigate to the target point as accurately as possible.
New
Posts: 1,760
By: lukos
- 10th September 2014 at 12:25Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The original HARM had a pretty poor hit ratio. Now that the AARGM has a terminal seeker it might not be that bad but the earlier variants would have benefited from better accuracy in case the radar is turned off. The missile would have needed the capability to keep in storage the location of the radar and navigate to the target point as accurately as possible.
Possibly, I guess it does provide an ESM back-up. Question wrt LRASM. Could it be used in a SEAD/DEAD role given the integrated ESM?
By: mig-31bm
- 10th September 2014 at 14:16Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The original HARM had a pretty poor hit ratio. Now that the AARGM has a terminal seeker it might not be that bad but the earlier variants would have benefited from better accuracy in case the radar is turned off. The missile would have needed the capability to keep in storage the location of the radar and navigate to the target point as accurately as possible.
in theory the seeker on HARM may use the azimuth /elevation method ( triangulate with the ground ) to locate enemy SAM radar
I want to see extra t/r modules on pylons, tail fin etc for this reason
triangulate need 2 point of significant distance from other ( create a triangle with target ) to be accurate
so i dont really think more antenna will help alot
By: Hotshot
- 10th September 2014 at 16:50Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Possibly, I guess it does provide an ESM back-up. Question wrt LRASM. Could it be used in a SEAD/DEAD role given the integrated ESM?
There is an upgrade program for the HARM called HSCM to give it INS/GPS guidance. I guess the 2+ aircraft would triangulate accurately and download the target coordinates to the missile.
As for LRASM, I don't know but it it optimized against ships.
They should have some sort of standard interface to integrate any sensor on any missile, with a plug-in software API for the missile manufacturer. Say for instance a JASSM-ER used in search and destroy mode with an SDB II seeker.
Concerning the HARM, its result so far have been quite poor. I am afraid in a war with WP forces it could have lead to a disaster. After a few days of operations, US planes would have run out of missiles, then the enemy radars would not have needed to shutdown and a lot of planes would have been shot down. Hopefully the ALARM would have faired better.
By: Hotshot
- 10th September 2014 at 16:51Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
in theory the seeker on HARM may use the azimuth /elevation method ( triangulate with the ground ) to locate enemy SAM radar
Doesn't seem to have worked that well in real combat.
New
Posts: 1,760
By: lukos
- 10th September 2014 at 17:53Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
There is an upgrade program for the HARM called HSCM to give it INS/GPS guidance. I guess the 2+ aircraft would triangulate accurately and download the target coordinates to the missile.
Yes, but AARGM is not the same as HSCM. From what I understand, HSCM is a more simple upgrade to the HARMs already in service. It doesn't have the terminal seeker, just a more accurate navigation system and the ability to download the GPS coordinates of the targets obtained via triangulating by the aircraft.
By: Hotshot
- 10th September 2014 at 18:35Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The two programmes are running in parallel, and both involve rebuilding existing rounds. There are no new-build HARM variants.
I summarised both schemes back in posting 250 of this thread.
The HSCM project retains the existing passive-radar seeker.
The USAF doesn't want to spend too much on those upgrade apparently. I guess they'd rather spend their cash on the next generation missile supposed to be a hybrid ARM/AAM.
The problem with AARGM is that the missile doesn't have an ability to loiter. It is very fast so I doubt it can really search and destroy unless it has relatively precise coordinates of the target.
By: djcross
- 11th September 2014 at 02:18Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
AARGM and HSCM are for two different customers, USN and USAF respectively.
The Joint Chiefs have tasked USN with sea control and USAF with power projection over A2AD areas. This defines two different target sets. Think about those two target sets and you will realize why AARGM has additional features when compared to HSCM.
Posts: 1,348
By: Mercurius - 9th September 2014 at 15:51 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
No need for such a statement. 37 km is well within the capability of a boost/sustain motor.
Posts: 1,760
By: lukos - 9th September 2014 at 16:58 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
AIM-120s are currently well over 10nm in seeker range. The main issue vs Torpedo is the target size, the target speed and the thinking time.
If you were using IRST as opposed to RWR and had a very long range missile like Meteor, you could theoretically send it straight there rather than on an arc intercept from sensible ranges, however I'm not aware of this ever having been tried.
The other issue is that an active sonar ping is less directional than a radar beam, so the weapon sees on a wider angle during a slower intercept.
Posts: 4,951
By: MadRat - 9th September 2014 at 17:40 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I fail to see lukos arguments tying into the OT. We used to call his argument style thread crapping. He's all over the place, saying lies that are contrary to other posters proofs, and refusing to soak in what is being said. This thread really is done, it's time to let it go.
Posts: 1,760
By: lukos - 9th September 2014 at 21:12 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You think hitting a submarine with a torpedo is the same as hitting a fighter jet with a missile? I'm not thread crapping, I'm just stating what's completely obvious to most.
Active targeting is officially combat proven to over twice the range demonstrated by passive targeting in a test environment and unofficially 8 times the range:
http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_212.shtml
Posts: 2,014
By: mig-31bm - 10th September 2014 at 04:35 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I really doubt that you can achieve 1 degree accurate by wing tip, that may be achieved by using multiple aircraft to triangulate or flying one aircraft with significant distance to get different bearing, but with only wing tip triangulate, the difference may be a lot bigger
Posts: 6,983
By: obligatory - 10th September 2014 at 04:43 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I want to see extra t/r modules on pylons, tail fin etc for this reason
Posts: 1,123
By: Hotshot - 10th September 2014 at 09:55 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
How about triangulating between the missile and the plane?
Posts: 1,760
By: lukos - 10th September 2014 at 10:03 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
If the missile knows where the target is, why are we triangulating? Putting an interferometric receiver on a missile is also probably pretty costly.
Posts: 1,123
By: Hotshot - 10th September 2014 at 10:33 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The original HARM had a pretty poor hit ratio. Now that the AARGM has a terminal seeker it might not be that bad but the earlier variants would have benefited from better accuracy in case the radar is turned off. The missile would have needed the capability to keep in storage the location of the radar and navigate to the target point as accurately as possible.
Posts: 1,760
By: lukos - 10th September 2014 at 12:25 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Possibly, I guess it does provide an ESM back-up. Question wrt LRASM. Could it be used in a SEAD/DEAD role given the integrated ESM?
Posts: 2,014
By: mig-31bm - 10th September 2014 at 14:16 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
in theory the seeker on HARM may use the azimuth /elevation method ( triangulate with the ground ) to locate enemy SAM radar
triangulate need 2 point of significant distance from other ( create a triangle with target ) to be accurate
so i dont really think more antenna will help alot
Posts: 1,123
By: Hotshot - 10th September 2014 at 16:50 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
There is an upgrade program for the HARM called HSCM to give it INS/GPS guidance. I guess the 2+ aircraft would triangulate accurately and download the target coordinates to the missile.
http://rpdefense.over-blog.com/tag/hcsm/
As for LRASM, I don't know but it it optimized against ships.
They should have some sort of standard interface to integrate any sensor on any missile, with a plug-in software API for the missile manufacturer. Say for instance a JASSM-ER used in search and destroy mode with an SDB II seeker.
Concerning the HARM, its result so far have been quite poor. I am afraid in a war with WP forces it could have lead to a disaster. After a few days of operations, US planes would have run out of missiles, then the enemy radars would not have needed to shutdown and a lot of planes would have been shot down. Hopefully the ALARM would have faired better.
Posts: 1,123
By: Hotshot - 10th September 2014 at 16:51 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Doesn't seem to have worked that well in real combat.
Posts: 1,760
By: lukos - 10th September 2014 at 17:53 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
AGM-88E (AARGM) already has GPS/INS.
http://dtic.mil/ndia/2009gunmissile/AARGM.pdf
Posts: 1,123
By: Hotshot - 10th September 2014 at 18:06 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yes, but AARGM is not the same as HSCM. From what I understand, HSCM is a more simple upgrade to the HARMs already in service. It doesn't have the terminal seeker, just a more accurate navigation system and the ability to download the GPS coordinates of the targets obtained via triangulating by the aircraft.
Posts: 1,348
By: Mercurius - 10th September 2014 at 18:22 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The two programmes are running in parallel, and both involve rebuilding existing rounds. There are no new-build HARM variants.
I summarised both schemes back in posting 250 of this thread.
The HSCM project retains the existing passive-radar seeker.
Posts: 1,123
By: Hotshot - 10th September 2014 at 18:35 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The USAF doesn't want to spend too much on those upgrade apparently. I guess they'd rather spend their cash on the next generation missile supposed to be a hybrid ARM/AAM.
The problem with AARGM is that the missile doesn't have an ability to loiter. It is very fast so I doubt it can really search and destroy unless it has relatively precise coordinates of the target.
Posts: 2,014
By: mig-31bm - 10th September 2014 at 19:34 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
no no i mean it could have use that in theory , but in reality HARM seeker probably only know the bearing of target
Posts: 1,760
By: lukos - 10th September 2014 at 20:38 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Ah, okay. How much more expensive/difficult would it be give them the AARGM upgrade?
Posts: 5,396
By: djcross - 11th September 2014 at 02:18 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
AARGM and HSCM are for two different customers, USN and USAF respectively.
The Joint Chiefs have tasked USN with sea control and USAF with power projection over A2AD areas. This defines two different target sets. Think about those two target sets and you will realize why AARGM has additional features when compared to HSCM.