By: mig-31bm
- 7th September 2014 at 06:45Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The Kh-31P uses one of three alternative seekers designated L-111, L-112, L-113. There are reported to allow attacks against the Nike Hercules, HAWK, Patriot, and Aegis. The follow-on K-31PM uses the new multiband L-130, developed by the Avtomatika CKBA.
.
wait whatttt , wasnt the Aegis system use AESA radar and Patriot use AESA radar as well ?
New
Posts: 1,760
By: lukos
- 7th September 2014 at 10:08Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
why the early ARM aim at the side lobe but not the main lobe or the back lobe ? if the radar rotating wasnt it still the same because you still got radiating signal from the radar all the time ? why cant the missiles just home on it ?
Conventional ARMs home primarily upon the mainlobe and horizontal sidelobe and backlobe emissions of the target, attacking the target in a shallow dive trajectory. Modern radars with very low sidelobe antennas will thus present a "blinking" target to an approaching ARM, which must estimate the real position of the target from the intervals of active emission, when the antenna is radiating in the direction of the inbound missile. In the terminal phase of the ARM's flight, a slowly rotating antenna on the target may be pointing away from the missile, which will therefore have to follow an inertially steered trajectory based upon previous measurements of the radar's position. As a result the missile will more than often not hit the target directly, but pass within several metres of the target, using its proximity fuse to set off the warhead. This imposes the need for a larger warhead to achieve acceptable lethality.
The vertical attack ALARM is designed from the outset to home in on the vertical sidelobes of the threat emitter. Since most air defence radars are designed for high bearing accuracy, they tend to have good horizontal but poor vertical sidelobe antenna performance. The ALARM exploits this, as no matter what direction the main beam is pointing in, the ALARM sees a steady albeit fluctuating microwave emission leaking upward from the target's antenna. This allows the ALARM to home in precisely, indeed the missile is designed to select an aimpoint about 1 metre away from the target antenna/electronics enclosure. The intelligent seeker knows what type of radar it is attacking, and therefore also knows what the elevation of the antenna is above the ground. This information is then used to select the most suitable altitude for warhead firing, typically when the missile is directly abeam the antenna or electronics enclosure. This scheme was specifically designed to defeat mast mounted antennas, which have become a very popular means of improving the low altitude coverage of ground based air defence radars. Needless to say a smaller warhead can achieve similar or greater lethality if fired very close to the target, compared to a larger warhead set off at a greater distance.
btw how about find the elevation of enemy aircraft by IRST and find their altitude that way ? (you now the angle between your aircraft and enemy by IRST , you know your own altitude => know their altitude by triangulation )
IRST doesn't give range very accurately either, and without range altitude can't be determined, only bearing (azimuth and elevation angle). The only way you accurate get range and hence altitude is radar or laser.
By: halloweene
- 7th September 2014 at 10:26Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You don't know the altitude of an aircraft and you don't know range.
you sure about that?
New
Posts: 1,760
By: lukos
- 7th September 2014 at 12:48Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
you sure about that?
Yes. Only laser and radar can measure this accurately, although you could theoretically do it using triangulation between two aircraft but I can only find limited testing results using passive targeting, the first involving a shot at 7.8nm and a second involving a shot that used laser for ranging at 10nm and two aircraft. So far it's only been demonstrated at very close ranges in testing.
By: MadRat
- 7th September 2014 at 15:11Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Laser gyro and GPS give you your current position, azimuth and elevation are known, the ground is already mapped so if you have direction you know maximum distance, and going by known parameters you have a pretty good guesstimate for distance. Add in you know the limits of your sensory, references of your target between snapshots, perhaps secondary detectors off board, a towed sensor in some cases...
New
Posts: 1,760
By: lukos
- 7th September 2014 at 16:01Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
For ground targets that is certainly true, air targets not so much.
By: MadRat
- 7th September 2014 at 16:22Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
About twenty five years ago when the Pentagon think tanks started pushing for rapid cohesion of battle space data, that may not have been. Its much different now.
New
Posts: 1,760
By: lukos
- 7th September 2014 at 17:36Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It's certainly possible to triangulate when you introduce third parties but the most common use of third parties for detection is AWACS and ground radar, so we may see these used in a targeting capacity at some point. Until then it's likely that one aircraft will go active whilst the others remain passive, a technique that been successfully demonstrated already, relying on combat proven active targeting for air targets and passive targeting for ground targets plus terminal homing.
By: mig-31bm
- 8th September 2014 at 04:09Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
IRST doesn't give range very accurately either, and without range altitude can't be determined, only bearing (azimuth and elevation angle). The only way you accurate get range and hence altitude is radar or laser.
oh i think i understand now , with target on ground you can you use sin cos tan equation to calculate range to target because you know your aircraft altitude and the bearing of target (like 1 angle and 1 edge of the triangle ) but again enemy fighter you cant do that because all you know is bearing ( only know the angle in the triangle )
By: halloweene
- 8th September 2014 at 08:40Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yes. Only laser and radar can measure this accurately, although you could theoretically do it using triangulation between two aircraft but I can only find limited testing results using passive targeting, the first involving a shot at 7.8nm and a second involving a shot that used laser for ranging at 10nm and two aircraft. So far it's only been demonstrated at very close ranges in testing.
You are tiresome... I told you on another (indian) forum that i had asked to pilot the distance of the first shoot you mention, even copy/pasted a Facebook dialog i had with him, and you keep denying... A shot mentioned in an article, and a photo illustrating this article do not imply that the shot was done at the exact same moment the photo was taken. When directly involved pilots or industrial engineers are kindly reported to you by forumers, it maybe time for you to realize that facts can contradict your Faith no?
Anw about the above mentioned shot, a picture will be released as soon as pilot got Dassault, french AdA and DGA clearance.
By: mig-31bm
- 8th September 2014 at 09:36Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You are tiresome... I told you on another (indian) forum that i had asked to pilot the distance of the first shoot you mention, even copy/pasted a Facebook dialog i had with him, and you keep denying... A shot mentioned in an article, and a photo illustrating this article do not imply that the shot was done at the exact same moment the photo was taken. When directly involved pilots or industrial engineers are kindly reported to you by forumers, it maybe time for you to realize that facts can contradict your Faith no?
Anw about the above mentioned shot, a picture will be released as soon as pilot got Dassault, french AdA and DGA clearance.
can you posted it here? I have no idea what u 2 talking about
By: halloweene
- 8th September 2014 at 10:05Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
In a defesanet article, a brazilian pilot claimed a rearwards passive shot over a Mirage 2000 C (apparently becuase of the code on screenshots "India", aka RDI radar).
Here is the photo we're discussing about. (on left side mid screen, btw interesting feature is the little red "rocket like" symbol, meaning highest degree of alert from spectra, lil gift info)
[ATTACH=CONFIG]231570[/ATTACH]
So yes, the range was 7.8 NM at the moment the photo was taken.
I know the pilot, talked to him while i was writing about DDM-NG etc. He did confirm me that the effective range of shot was 20NM.
I posted a copy paste of dialog on FB on IDF, still Lukos denied it with arguments like "even pilots tend ro say porkies" "if you trust FB" etc. Complete denial...
It would be tideous for me to search for it again, but you can find it on MMRCA thread on Indian Defence Forum (or typhoon vs Rafale or Typhoon, can't remember)
By: Mercurius
- 8th September 2014 at 11:59Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Lukos in never short of 'reasons' why facts contrary to his own opinions should be rejected. Looking back on his recent postings regarding the operating frequency of AESA arrays, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that he is already preparing 'get-out clauses' for not accepting what the company in question may say.
Needless to say, the onus is always on the person who challenges his opinion to produce evidence to back up what they are saying, while he in turn need offer no hard evidence for his own beliefs. To my mind, Wikipedia, websites of unknown provenance, and claims such as "It is widely known" do not qualify as evidence. Hard evidence for technical facts takes the form of articles by suitably qualified journalists or contributors in the technical press; papers published in the journals of learned societies; statements or material released by defence manufacturers, governments or armed services; manufacturers' literature and specification sheets; presentations made at respected technical symposiums; and information drawn from recently-published textbooks.
Academic articles are only reliable if written by an author with a good track record in the relevant field. I am currently re-reading R V Jones' 'Most Secret War". It is a good illustration of how intelligence work (whether open or close-source) is done, and shows repeated instances of how academics can draw wrong conclusions from limited evidence. A more recent example of the latter is Professor Theodore Postol's repeated claims that Israel's Iron Dome missile system does not work - a claim rather nicely placed into perspective by Bill Sweetman (see MrMalaya's posting "Iron Dome criticism analysis" in the missiles section of our forum.)
By: mig-31bm
- 8th September 2014 at 12:17Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
In a defesanet article, a brazilian pilot claimed a rearwards passive shot over a Mirage 2000 C (apparently becuase of the code on screenshots "India", aka RDI radar).
Here is the photo we're discussing about. (on left side mid screen, btw interesting feature is the little red "rocket like" symbol, meaning highest degree of alert from spectra, lil gift info)
[ATTACH=CONFIG]231570[/ATTACH]
So yes, the range was 7.8 NM at the moment the photo was taken.
I know the pilot, talked to him while i was writing about DDM-NG etc. He did confirm me that the effective range of shot was 20NM.
I posted a copy paste of dialog on FB on IDF, still Lukos denied it with arguments like "even pilots tend ro say porkies" "if you trust FB" etc. Complete denial...
It would be tideous for me to search for it again, but you can find it on MMRCA thread on Indian Defence Forum (or typhoon vs Rafale or Typhoon, can't remember)
you mean this one ???? http://indiandefence.com/threads/eurofighter-typhoon-v-s-dassault-rafale-analysis.22158/page-949
but they say it 10 nm not 20 nm , also passive sensor here could mean the rafale FSO or DDG-ng rather than spectrA , also the range is too short so may be possible to attack target without knowing exact range because missiles dont have to fly a ballistic course ,just like when pilot using helmet mounter system to lock target and launch aim-9X https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpBpzuDRt0A ( btw Picard isnot a pilot , he lying if he said so )
It allows the locking onto of a target by integrating the data fusion, which includes the radar. Data fusion includes information from all sensors active and passive on your plane and friendly fighters. It doesn't specifically say that it can passively lock a target using just the RWR alone.
CAN YOU POSTED A PICTURE OF the conversation between you and the pilot on FB here ? ( screen shot )
By: mig-31bm
- 8th September 2014 at 12:35Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Lukos in never short of 'reasons' why facts contrary to his own opinions should be rejected. Looking back on his recent postings regarding the operating frequency of AESA arrays, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that he is already preparing 'get-out clauses' for not accepting what the company in question may say.
Needless to say, the onus is always on the person who challenges his opinion to produce evidence to back up what they are saying, while he in turn need offer no hard evidence for his own beliefs. To my mind, Wikipedia, websites of unknown provenance, and claims such as "It is widely known" do not qualify as evidence. Hard evidence for technical facts takes the form of articles by suitably qualified journalists or contributors in the technical press; papers published in the journals of learned societies; statements or material released by defence manufacturers, governments or armed services; manufacturers' literature and specification sheets; presentations made at respected technical symposiums; and information drawn from recently-published textbooks.
Academic articles are only reliable if written by an author with a good track record in the relevant field. I am currently re-reading R V Jones' 'Most Secret War". It is a good illustration of how intelligence work (whether open or close-source) is done, and shows repeated instances of how academics can draw wrong conclusions from limited evidence. A more recent example of the latter is Professor Theodore Postol's repeated claims that Israel's Iron Dome missile system does not work - a claim rather nicely placed into perspective by Bill Sweetman (see MrMalaya's posting "Iron Dome criticism analysis" in the missiles section of our forum.)
Mercurius as a person involve in the field do you think it possible for an ESM system ( RWR ) on an aircraft to determine range and speed of an enemy aircraft ? (allow it to attack enemy passively without using radar ) assume enemy fighter using modern radar too ( AESA or PESA )
New
Posts: 6,983
By: obligatory
- 8th September 2014 at 12:47Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You can shoot at any parameters, the better the parameters, the better the Pk,
a rear shot over 10 nm away the missile range is a limiting factor, depending if the target counter or not.
this missile start out with a negative speed that it will spend all its fuel to rectify before it can do any actual intercept
By: Mercurius
- 8th September 2014 at 12:49Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Submarines can measure target range and speed using passive sonar, so I seek no reason why the same could not be done using a sufficiently accurate ESM system. But right now I do not have the time to search for evidence that ESM systems are being used in this manner, or if the results would be good enough to target a LOAL missile. With the preliminary report on the loss of MH17 due for release about 20 hours from now, I anticipate being rather busy this week.
New
Posts: 6,983
By: obligatory
- 8th September 2014 at 13:07Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Wonder if there is two AF around the world that uses the same minimum criteria for a valid shot ?
Posts: 2,014
By: mig-31bm - 7th September 2014 at 06:45 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
wait whatttt , wasnt the Aegis system use AESA radar and Patriot use AESA radar as well ?
Posts: 1,760
By: lukos - 7th September 2014 at 10:08 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
This basically covers it:
http://ausairpower.net/alarm-armat.html
Explained 5-8.8:
http://www.phys.hawaii.edu/~anita/new/papers/militaryHandbook/sig-sort.pdf
IRST doesn't give range very accurately either, and without range altitude can't be determined, only bearing (azimuth and elevation angle). The only way you accurate get range and hence altitude is radar or laser.
Posts: 4,168
By: halloweene - 7th September 2014 at 10:26 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
you sure about that?
Posts: 1,760
By: lukos - 7th September 2014 at 12:48 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yes. Only laser and radar can measure this accurately, although you could theoretically do it using triangulation between two aircraft but I can only find limited testing results using passive targeting, the first involving a shot at 7.8nm and a second involving a shot that used laser for ranging at 10nm and two aircraft. So far it's only been demonstrated at very close ranges in testing.
Posts: 4,951
By: MadRat - 7th September 2014 at 15:11 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Laser gyro and GPS give you your current position, azimuth and elevation are known, the ground is already mapped so if you have direction you know maximum distance, and going by known parameters you have a pretty good guesstimate for distance. Add in you know the limits of your sensory, references of your target between snapshots, perhaps secondary detectors off board, a towed sensor in some cases...
Posts: 1,760
By: lukos - 7th September 2014 at 16:01 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
For ground targets that is certainly true, air targets not so much.
Posts: 4,951
By: MadRat - 7th September 2014 at 16:22 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
About twenty five years ago when the Pentagon think tanks started pushing for rapid cohesion of battle space data, that may not have been. Its much different now.
Posts: 1,760
By: lukos - 7th September 2014 at 17:36 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It's certainly possible to triangulate when you introduce third parties but the most common use of third parties for detection is AWACS and ground radar, so we may see these used in a targeting capacity at some point. Until then it's likely that one aircraft will go active whilst the others remain passive, a technique that been successfully demonstrated already, relying on combat proven active targeting for air targets and passive targeting for ground targets plus terminal homing.
Posts: 2,014
By: mig-31bm - 8th September 2014 at 04:09 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
oh i think i understand now , with target on ground you can you use sin cos tan equation to calculate range to target because you know your aircraft altitude and the bearing of target (like 1 angle and 1 edge of the triangle ) but again enemy fighter you cant do that because all you know is bearing ( only know the angle in the triangle )
Posts: 2,014
By: mig-31bm - 8th September 2014 at 04:13 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
so it seem that despite having better computing power , RWR system on ground actually have really bad disadvantages compared to RWR system on air
Posts: 4,168
By: halloweene - 8th September 2014 at 08:40 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You are tiresome... I told you on another (indian) forum that i had asked to pilot the distance of the first shoot you mention, even copy/pasted a Facebook dialog i had with him, and you keep denying... A shot mentioned in an article, and a photo illustrating this article do not imply that the shot was done at the exact same moment the photo was taken. When directly involved pilots or industrial engineers are kindly reported to you by forumers, it maybe time for you to realize that facts can contradict your Faith no?
Anw about the above mentioned shot, a picture will be released as soon as pilot got Dassault, french AdA and DGA clearance.
Posts: 2,014
By: mig-31bm - 8th September 2014 at 09:36 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
can you posted it here? I have no idea what u 2 talking about
Posts: 4,168
By: halloweene - 8th September 2014 at 10:05 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
In a defesanet article, a brazilian pilot claimed a rearwards passive shot over a Mirage 2000 C (apparently becuase of the code on screenshots "India", aka RDI radar).
Here is the photo we're discussing about. (on left side mid screen, btw interesting feature is the little red "rocket like" symbol, meaning highest degree of alert from spectra, lil gift info)
[ATTACH=CONFIG]231570[/ATTACH]
So yes, the range was 7.8 NM at the moment the photo was taken.
I know the pilot, talked to him while i was writing about DDM-NG etc. He did confirm me that the effective range of shot was 20NM.
I posted a copy paste of dialog on FB on IDF, still Lukos denied it with arguments like "even pilots tend ro say porkies" "if you trust FB" etc. Complete denial...
It would be tideous for me to search for it again, but you can find it on MMRCA thread on Indian Defence Forum (or typhoon vs Rafale or Typhoon, can't remember)
Posts: 1,348
By: Mercurius - 8th September 2014 at 11:59 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Lukos in never short of 'reasons' why facts contrary to his own opinions should be rejected. Looking back on his recent postings regarding the operating frequency of AESA arrays, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that he is already preparing 'get-out clauses' for not accepting what the company in question may say.
Needless to say, the onus is always on the person who challenges his opinion to produce evidence to back up what they are saying, while he in turn need offer no hard evidence for his own beliefs. To my mind, Wikipedia, websites of unknown provenance, and claims such as "It is widely known" do not qualify as evidence. Hard evidence for technical facts takes the form of articles by suitably qualified journalists or contributors in the technical press; papers published in the journals of learned societies; statements or material released by defence manufacturers, governments or armed services; manufacturers' literature and specification sheets; presentations made at respected technical symposiums; and information drawn from recently-published textbooks.
Academic articles are only reliable if written by an author with a good track record in the relevant field. I am currently re-reading R V Jones' 'Most Secret War". It is a good illustration of how intelligence work (whether open or close-source) is done, and shows repeated instances of how academics can draw wrong conclusions from limited evidence. A more recent example of the latter is Professor Theodore Postol's repeated claims that Israel's Iron Dome missile system does not work - a claim rather nicely placed into perspective by Bill Sweetman (see MrMalaya's posting "Iron Dome criticism analysis" in the missiles section of our forum.)
Posts: 2,014
By: mig-31bm - 8th September 2014 at 12:17 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
you mean this one ????
http://indiandefence.com/threads/eurofighter-typhoon-v-s-dassault-rafale-analysis.22158/page-949
but they say it 10 nm not 20 nm , also passive sensor here could mean the rafale FSO or DDG-ng rather than spectrA , also the range is too short so may be possible to attack target without knowing exact range because missiles dont have to fly a ballistic course ,just like when pilot using helmet mounter system to lock target and launch aim-9X https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpBpzuDRt0A ( btw Picard isnot a pilot , he lying if he said so )
CAN YOU POSTED A PICTURE OF the conversation between you and the pilot on FB here ? ( screen shot )
Posts: 2,014
By: mig-31bm - 8th September 2014 at 12:35 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Mercurius as a person involve in the field do you think it possible for an ESM system ( RWR ) on an aircraft to determine range and speed of an enemy aircraft ? (allow it to attack enemy passively without using radar ) assume enemy fighter using modern radar too ( AESA or PESA )
Posts: 6,983
By: obligatory - 8th September 2014 at 12:47 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You can shoot at any parameters, the better the parameters, the better the Pk,
a rear shot over 10 nm away the missile range is a limiting factor, depending if the target counter or not.
this missile start out with a negative speed that it will spend all its fuel to rectify before it can do any actual intercept
Posts: 1,348
By: Mercurius - 8th September 2014 at 12:49 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Submarines can measure target range and speed using passive sonar, so I seek no reason why the same could not be done using a sufficiently accurate ESM system. But right now I do not have the time to search for evidence that ESM systems are being used in this manner, or if the results would be good enough to target a LOAL missile. With the preliminary report on the loss of MH17 due for release about 20 hours from now, I anticipate being rather busy this week.
Posts: 6,983
By: obligatory - 8th September 2014 at 13:07 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Wonder if there is two AF around the world that uses the same minimum criteria for a valid shot ?
Posts: 2,163
By: Amiga500 - 8th September 2014 at 13:12 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Not to forget; in particular fields, public domain (which academia is) state-of-art lags years behind industrial state-of-art.