Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 45 of 53 FirstFirst ... 35414243444546474849 ... LastLast
Results 1,321 to 1,350 of 1579

Thread: 2017 F-35 news and discussion thread

  1. #1321
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    3,051
    Assumptions are assumptions, whoever comes up with them.
    Seriously though, this is the sort of thing kids say in freshman level literature classes. "I have an opinion too, my opinion is just as valid as ____ literary great."

    The people who design missiles for a living have vastly greater resources and knowledge than you do and don't base their opinions on vague feelings. They will do detailed trade studies on cost, weight, power, space, cooling, center of gravity, etc etc, against desired performance metrics for range, speed, maneuverability, etc.

  2. #1322
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    278
    No they are not. Organizations with subject matter experts are tasked with coming up with a disciplined approach involving modeling, simulation and utilize pretty much the entire gamut of data and information on technologies involved. This before the mature a particular concept and push it through the pipeline as either an IR&D program, or a physical research and development effort sanctioned by something like an AFRL or similar agency.

    Unless you can show that you followed an equally well informed and disciplined process and had access to equal quality and quantity of information as they, why would anyone be convinced that your assumptions and beliefs would be as convincing as theirs?
    They're making educated guesses or assumptions about detection ranges and enemy capabilities and missile capabilities. Pretty much everything really. They then feed that into a simulation. We've seen similar simulations and modelling before, remember this, how accurate do we feel it is now?

    https://archive.is/hxGA

    Well that's how much credence I'm going to pay to simulations and modelling.

    I'm not interested in exploring or disproving what is possible or not. I'm interested in actual efforts underway to develop advanced munitions and missiles for 5th and 6th generation fighters and understanding the rationale behind various approaches being pursued.
    Well I hope you don't represent the mindset of defence research with that comment.

    Right.
    Simulations from defence research agencies have proven wrong before. Not just JOUST but also theories that the F-4 didn't need a gun. The one line of thinking and development that did prove consistently beneficial in combat was extending BVRAAM range and now some people are suggesting turning their back on it. Hmmmm..... forgive my scepticism.

    That is a completely different program and is being addressed under (since 2015) the Miniature Self-Defense Munition (MSDM) effort.
    Well that role would be well-suited to a Cuda-sized package.

  3. #1323
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    11,303
    Seriously though, this is the sort of thing kids say in freshman level literature classes. "I have an opinion too, my opinion is just as valid as ____ literary great."

    The people who design missiles for a living have vastly greater resources and knowledge than you do and don't base their opinions on vague feelings. They will do detailed trade studies on cost, weight, power, space, cooling, center of gravity, etc etc, against desired performance metrics for range, speed, maneuverability, etc.
    But they are all biased. They've invested a lot of time and effort in educating themselves on their trade, gathering experience and they and the services they support are invested in the success of their work. He on the other hand has no financial bias. This is a compelling reason to go to your landscaper for your health related matters. He/She has no financial bias .
    Last edited by bring_it_on; 12th May 2017 at 17:51.
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  4. #1324
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    11,303
    They're making educated guesses or assumptions about detection ranges and enemy capabilities and missile capabilities. Pretty much everything really. They then feed that into a simulation. We've seen similar simulations and modelling before, remember this, how accurate do we feel it is now?
    They are fully informed on the state of the art in electronics, low-observable technologies, missile components etc because the same broader organization that funds them or decides these things is also heavily invested in these very areas and diciplines. So yeah, please excuse myself and others that may pay slightly more attention to what they may be cooking up in their labs compared to what you may think. While no one is perfect and neither is any process I and I assume many others will prefer to see what those armed with the information, technology, and resources relevant to the capability being discussed are doing and would certainly not hold your words and beliefs at par with theirs.

    AFRL's munition directorate would be just about the most well informed organization in the US when it comes to matters concerning munition technologies, and AFRL entire focus is on investing in S&T and R&D on matters covering pretty much the entire gamut of air-combat. That is the scope of where they are coming from. What about you?

    You on the other hand are yet to prove that you have access to anything beyond what is available for free on the internet. The very fact that you can't seem to tell the difference suggests that you have no expertise in this matter unlike the folks that actually work on these things.

    Simulations from defence research agencies have proven wrong before.
    Apples and Oranges. As I have explained earlier, analysis feeds decisions which then escalate to more robust and substantial S&T and R&D efforts. This all started in the conceptual phase and then matured to something that was promising enough to invest in both by missile OEMs interested in developing capability in anticipation of an eventual need, and by the research organizations tasked with pursuing promising future technologies.

    This is what has happened here. On the flip side, we simply have a couple of pages of you thinking out loud which you insist is at par with the analysis and research work done by the likes of AFRL, RTN or LMMFC.
    Last edited by bring_it_on; 12th May 2017 at 17:58.
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  5. #1325
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    278
    They are fully informed on the state of the art in electronics, low-observable technologies, missile components etc because the same broader organization that funds them or decides these things is also heavily invested in these very areas and diciplines. So yeah, please excuse myself and others that may pay slightly more attention to what they may be cooking up in their labs compared to what you may think.

    AFRL's munition directorate would be just about the most well informed organization in the US when it comes to matters concerning munition technologies, and AFRL entire focus is on investing in S&T and R&D on matters covering pretty much the entire gamut of air-combat. That is the scope of where they are coming from. What about you?

    You on the other hand are yet to prove that you have access to anything beyond what is available for free on the internet. The very fact that you can't seem to tell the difference suggests that you have no expertise in this matter unlike the folks that actually work on these things.
    So were the people who made bad assumptions in the past.

    Apples and Oranges. As I have explained earlier, analysis feeds decisions which then escalate to more robust and substantial S&T and R&D efforts. This all started in the conceptual phase and then matured to something that was promising enough to invest in both by missile OEMs interested in developing capability in anticipation of an eventual need, and by the research organizations tasked with pursuing promising future technologies.

    This is what has happened here. On the flip side, we simply have a couple of pages of you thinking out loud which you insist is at par with the analysis and research work done by the likes of AFRL, RTN or LMMFC.
    Not apples and oranges at all. The people who made bad assumptions in the past also did all that, especially DERA with JOUST. The range of air combat kills has been increasing consistently since the start of air combat. Misses (excluding mistake launches) have predominantly been due to out of envelope firings against aircraft that had sufficient energy to evade the missile. Plenty of kills were also down to indirect hits (blast frag). Seeing and knowing all this, I'm reluctant to place much credence in what somebody fed into a computer somewhere, especially if the conclusions depart from historical trends.

    Seriously though, this is the sort of thing kids say in freshman level literature classes. "I have an opinion too, my opinion is just as valid as ____ literary great."

    The people who design missiles for a living have vastly greater resources and knowledge than you do and don't base their opinions on vague feelings. They will do detailed trade studies on cost, weight, power, space, cooling, center of gravity, etc etc, against desired performance metrics for range, speed, maneuverability, etc.
    Literary greats were once Freshmen too and a great physicist once flunked the entrance exam to Zurich.

    Where do the desired metrics for range, speed and manoeuvrability come from? To me the 'metrics' behind Cuda and co. seem to stem mainly from the dimensions of the F-35's bays rather than any thorough attempt to assess future air combat, except they're choosing a more complicated way to address the issue that may actually impede air combat success. The simple solution is to realise that non-retractable fins make a 180mm diameter missile 540mm in effective diameter and that's what's taking up the space. Realise that and you don't even need a fancy layout for 6 AAMs, you can put 2 AAMs next to each other at the top of the bay. Then realise that you're only using the bay's width, not its height, apply a rotary launcher and you can fit 4 missiles on the launcher and possibly even one on the door. Fins just aren't efficient for internal stowage, which is why folding fin missiles have been around donkeys' years in VLS and tube launch applications but until recently, aircraft have always carried AAMs externally, so nobody has bothered.
    Last edited by Ryan; 12th May 2017 at 18:14.

  6. #1326
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    11,303
    So were the people who made bad assumptions in the past.
    I initially took it as a joke but you are free to believe that your knowledge, expertise and beliefs are on the same level of organizations and folks who's job it is to define, develop, mature and test technology pertaining to matters of defense.

    I'm reluctance to place much credence in what somebody fed into a computer somewhere, especially if the conclusion depart from historical trends.
    And who is to believe that the only information they are going on is based on a computer generated simulation based on JOUST? There is literally years worth of real world S&T and R&D data on some of the technologies being talked about here plus you don't know what they've actually done on their way to deciding to pursue the capability further.
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  7. #1327
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    278
    I initially took it as a joke but you are free to believe that your knowledge, expertise and beliefs are on the same level of organizations and folks who's job it is to define, develop, mature and test technology pertaining to matters of defense.
    More expensive and heavily funded bad ideas are still bad ideas and funding does not necessarily help you predict the future in a world where lots of money is being spent to thwart your version of the future.

    And who is to believe that the only information they are going on is based on a computer generated simulation based on JOUST? There is literally years worth of real world S&T and R&D data on some of the technologies being talked about here plus you don't know what they've actually done on their way to deciding to pursue the capability further.
    It's based on a need to fit more missiles in the F-35's bays. If space wasn't a problem, Cuda wouldn't exist, but it is not the best way of solving the space problem. And even if one went the Cuda route, folding fins and a rotary launcher would still pack twice as many missiles in there.

  8. #1328
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    3,051
    So were the people who made bad assumptions in the past.
    So basically, sometimes brain surgeons make mistakes, therefor you are just as qualified at brain surgery as a brain surgeon, right?


  9. #1329
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Cataclysm
    Posts
    8,661
    Backward logic by hopsalot.. so typical.. no, but it does mean that a decision made by a brain surgeon regd. brain surgery is not automatically correct..
    Besides that, the decision for long range AAMs like Meteor instead of the Cuda vaporware, too, was made by "brain surgeons"...
    Last edited by MSphere; 12th May 2017 at 23:08.

  10. #1330
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    11,303
    Backward logic by hopsalot.. so typical.. no, but it does mean that a decision made by a brain surgeon regd. brain surgery is not automatically correct..
    Besides that, the decision for long range AAMs like Meteor instead of the Cuda vaporware, too, was made by "brain surgeons"...
    CUDA/SACM and MDSM are meant to be a 'complementary' capabilities not replacements for an MRAAM or an ER-MRAAM. Three of the main missile makers in the US have either through government funding (DARPA), or company funding developed traditional MRAAM prototypes or proposals, comparable in size and dimension to the AMRAAM/Meteor. Raytheon and Boeing with their T-3 prototypes, and Lockheed with their SSTRR concept which they funded internally.

    No one is arguing against or trading one type for another but these are programs being pursued for the 2030+ time-frame when fifth generation aircraft are available in large numbers and 6th generation aircraft will be in advanced development. The traditional MRAAM class weapon is likely a relatively shorter/earlier time-frame with movement likely in the FY18 or 19 budgets. These will likely focus on AMRAAM-D upgrades beyond F3R which for now focuses on the new signal processor for the D, and C7s and either a new missile based largely on the T3 technologies, or selectively porting those technologies on the AMRAAM program.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	SACM-T.png 
Views:	47 
Size:	524.0 KB 
ID:	253344   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	SACM_Wilcox.png 
Views:	40 
Size:	884.5 KB 
ID:	253345  
    Last edited by bring_it_on; 13th May 2017 at 00:54.
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  11. #1331
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    278
    So basically, sometimes brain surgeons make mistakes, therefor you are just as qualified at brain surgery as a brain surgeon, right?
    Perhaps if a brain surgeon went against a trend that had proved true over more than a century of brain surgery then people would question them too. I definitely see a benefit in MDSM for shooting down incoming missiles, but in terms of achieving actual kills, my money would be on missiles with more energy, especially when not all shots are frontal hemisphere.

    But the rotary launcher idea and folding fins seems like a good idea for either weapon. Draw a rectangle width-ways, now draw another larger rectangle around it. Shade in the area in between. That is what my proposed rotary launcher would look like from the side. The top rung would attach at the top of the bay, the bottom rung would be rotated by motors powered by cable embedded in the frame, with the sides of the rectangle running down the front and rear of the bay. The folding fin missiles would be 200mm in total effective diameter, including folded fins. One missile would go above the rotating rung, one below and one at either side, with possibly a 5th on the separate door mount. The same arrangement could also accommodate 10 SDBs/SPEARs or 10 folding fin MSDMs/Brimstones/JAGMs. This would allow a total internal load of 10 Meteors/T-3s or 20 SDBs/SPEARs/MSDMs/Brimstones/JAGMs or a 6+8 mixed load of the aforementioned, which would be enough to bring down an entire crapstorm on an enemy air defence.
    Last edited by Ryan; 13th May 2017 at 08:29.

  12. #1332
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    New Sarum
    Posts
    4,291
    Is there a folding fine Brimstone in the pipeline I have missed? Genuine question.

    These compact carriage weapons are the future not just for fighters like the F35 but for UCAVs, so MBDA will have a captive market in Europe at least.

  13. #1333
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    1,423
    The discussion there seems me finally of a good overall lvl, just don't exceed in defending the respective positions so not to turn it back in a fight, please.

    I'm not great on technical matters so i'll will just made some general puntualizations.

    - there is surely an issue in integrating existing weaponries, thought for external carry and so maximizing low drag over compactness on 5gen fighters weapon bays, F-35 is not the only one having that problem.
    Solution can be different, some, like foldable fins, can be made available quite fast while designing ad hoc weapons, although optimal would surely take a huge amount of time.
    Some weapon that can alleviate the problem, like the SDB already exist, and the recent exercises have found an elegant operative solution for the time being, so we can take our time.

    - about the new GaN and Photonic radars, for what I heard more than the range or the raw emitting power their main utility against 5gen lies in the increase of resolution, shifting decisively down the point where the radar's return signal get clouded by the environmental noise for a given emission power.

    -same for missiles, actually about all of them have midcourse guidance system, so if an plane or AD radar can get a sufficient precise position of an adversary, and with the above said system you bet they will, they can just guide its own ARH missile close enough for its own sensor to work.

    This obviously doesn't mean that we have to thrash stealth as a whole, just that the idea of spending lot of money and about all time to made a more compact but with limited range A2A missile with tha expectancy that future combat 5gen planes would happen at a much closer range than actual ones, seems me flawed from thee beginning.
    Last edited by Marcellogo; 13th May 2017 at 16:52.

  14. #1334
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    11,303
    They are not aiming for 10km missiles here. Likely in the 30-50 km range. They are also likely to ask for sufficient agility and HOBS capability so that they can be potent close in weapons as well and therefore complementary, high load out options to go along traditional MRAAMs especially when a post 2030 environ is likely to bring in a mix of low observable decoys, fighters, unmanned aircraft et al that will all need to be targeted. The MDSM is specificly tasked as a defensive weapon and will likely involve it being carried by fighters and no fighters platforms as a defensive kinetic option.

    http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA615258


    The 2030+ time-frame here allows them to think of what they are likely to need going forward and whether they simply want to develop new variants of existing AMRAAM/Aim-9 combination or think differently and develop technologies the enable other concepts. DARPA/AFRL sees promise in this and hence they are investing in these concepts. As mentioned earlier, they have also seen promise in advancing 'traditional' MRAAM class missile technologies that can be introduced via a new missile, or incorporated into the AMRAAM program (less likely given politics). These aren't mutually exclusive investment tracks. They are actually much further along on that front than the SACM/MDSM front and have actually tested full up missile prototypes.

    ST. LOUIS—Boeing conducted four flight tests under the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency’s (Darpa) Triple Target Terminator (T3) program, Boeing Phantom Works President Darryl Davis said here May 18. The test vehicles, about the size of an AIM-120 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile (Amraam), flew “faster and farther” than an Amraam, Davis said, but he did not provide any other details. Darpa issued T3 contracts to Boeing and Raytheon in 2010

    - about the new GaN and Photonic radars, for what I heard more than the range or the raw emitting power their main utility against 5gen lies in the increase of resolution, shifting decisively down the point where the radar's return signal get clouded by the environmental noise for a given emission power.
    One of the biggest advantage of GaN is its wideband nature and particularly the high power that can be afforded with wideband coverage. You can get 20-25W PAs that can cover 8-11 GHz with peak PAEs in the 35-40% range for X-band. This besides radars, has profound applications in Electronic Warfare.
    Last edited by bring_it_on; 13th May 2017 at 11:16.
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  15. #1335
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3,037
    their main utility against 5gen lies in the increase of resolution, shifting decisively down the point where the radar's return signal get clouded by the environmental noise for a given emission power.
    Finally one said it! therefore definitely accelerating the detection &tracking process. Note. it Also nhances power...

  16. #1336
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    3,051
    Backward logic by hopsalot.. so typical.. no, but it does mean that a decision made by a brain surgeon regd. brain surgery is not automatically correct..
    Besides that, the decision for long range AAMs like Meteor instead of the Cuda vaporware, too, was made by "brain surgeons"...
    Swing and a miss again MSphere...

    No, it doesn't mean every decision made by a brain surgeon is automatically correct... but if you have a team of brain surgeons working on something and have identified approach XYZ as the most likely to succeed, I would take their word over a random guy on the internet.

    Moving to Meteor and Cuda, those are two completely different designs optimized for completely different sets of assumptions. Meteor is a medium to long range weapon designed to offer excellent speed and end-game lethality for an aircraft that wasn't expected to be able to get close to its targets without being engaged itself. On a 4th generation fighter and in a fight against a 4th or earlier generation fighter Meteor will likely be be awfully effective.

    Cuda is looking at the problem totally differently. Cuda is a short to medium range weapon intended to offer stellar maneuverability close in, but sufficient range to reach out well into medium ranges. It would be a good match for an aircraft that expects to be able to approach relatively close to its targets and that needs a smaller weapon to maximize its internal carriage capacity. (5th generation fighters)

    The two approaches aren't actually mutually exclusive in that an aircraft like the F-35 could carry both at the same time. (Imagine two Meteors, one on each door station, and 8 Cudas, four on each air to ground station.) That would give an F-35 10 missiles, including two Meteors. You could also potentially carry three Meteors and 4 Cudas, which at 7 missiles is still a good load for an air to air mission.

  17. #1337
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    278
    Is there a folding fine Brimstone in the pipeline I have missed? Genuine question.

    These compact carriage weapons are the future not just for fighters like the F35 but for UCAVs, so MBDA will have a captive market in Europe at least.
    That's a good question. There is a BAE study for a common launcher for both Brimstone and SPEAR, so given the folding wing SPEAR, this study could naturally spawn a folding fin Brimstone too.

    http://www.baesystems.com/en/article...2-onto-typhoon

    They are not aiming for 10km missiles here. Likely in the 30-50 km range.
    But the problem is that 120km missiles have an NEZ of 40km at medium altitude. So a 30-50km missile might end up near WVR wrt NEZ.
    Last edited by Ryan; 13th May 2017 at 12:21.

  18. #1338
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Cataclysm
    Posts
    8,661
    Quote Originally Posted by hopsalot
    No, it doesn't mean every decision made by a brain surgeon is automatically correct... but if you have a team of brain surgeons working on something and have identified approach XYZ as the most likely to succeed, I would take their word over a random guy on the internet.
    There is nothing like approach XYZ as the most likely to succeed.. Cuda does not bring any new approach.. The whole purpose of the missile is to address a very specific problem of a very specific aircraft, the F-35, and that is complete lack of internally carried short-range/IR-guided missiles. Having a radar guided missile as the only weapon against future stealthy adversaries might not be the best message of the day..

    Quote Originally Posted by hopsalot
    Cuda is looking at the problem totally differently. Cuda is a short to medium range weapon intended to offer stellar maneuverability close in, but sufficient range to reach out well into medium ranges. It would be a good match for an aircraft that expects to be able to approach relatively close to its targets and that needs a smaller weapon to maximize its internal carriage capacity. (5th generation fighters)
    As said, that's nothing new.. A below-100lbs class missile has existed since mid 70s, the R-60. The limitations of such approach are well known.. Granted that the Cuda would get more advanced and all its internals more miniaturized but there is only as much as you can do with such small device, given the physical limitations in the propellant weight percentage. For any non-F-35 operator, the Cuda does not bring anything meaningful.. Probably that is why it's still on paper.. Sure you might provide a counter-argument with A-A loadout, but in times where an entire air force of a reasonably rich country like Belgium shall consist of two-three dozens of aircraft I have severe doubts you need to carry more than 4 missiles per aircraft in any scenario.
    Last edited by MSphere; 13th May 2017 at 12:35.

  19. #1339
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Cantabrigia
    Posts
    1,329
    Ryan/Lukos wrote:
    "How do you decoy dual waveband, amplitude filtering IIR seekers. Countermeasures are near useless against them."

    I am trying to imagine the hilarity which that statement would induce in an audience of EW professionals were it to be made at an EW conference. The ability of flares to counter IIR seekers was discussed on this forum about a year ago, and was addressed by at least one speaker at the Rotterdam conference last spring.



    Ryan/Lukos wrote:
    "I don't even think a test shot has been fired against a stealth target because it would be prohibitively expensive"

    Why would it be expensive? A small towed target can be rigged to provide the required level of low RCS. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt.




    Ryan/Lukos wrote:
    "And what seeker have they modelled exactly? What assumptions have they made about the enemy? Simulations are based on assumptions/opinions too....

    They're making educated guesses or assumptions about detection ranges and enemy capabilities and missile capabilities. Pretty much everything really."

    Educated guesses? No - it is a lot more scientific than that. If you know the design approach that the other side takes (and each seeker development team has an established and recognisable technological approach) then it is possible to deduce the likely configuration of their current or even next-generation seekers, then recreate this in hardware and/or software in order to assess its performance.

    As I have said before, during the Vietnam War the US maintained a facility which accurately modelled the Soviet 'Fan Song' radar to the point where it could be used to develop and assess suitable countermeasures. When the US finally laid its hands on a real 'Fan Song', it was pleased by how accurate its version turned out to have been. Similar work is currently under way for current and future threats, but this is not a subject that I want to talk about in an open forum.
    Mercurius Cantabrigiensis

  20. #1340
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    278
    Well I'd love to know how a grey-scale image of an aircraft can be mistaken for a ball of light. Sounds like the problem there is some very, very limited software behind the seeker that isn't bothering to tell the seeker to make an extremely obvious and easy discrimination. By extension of this phenomenon, maybe bunkers should deploy flares so they can cause the DSMAC system on cruise missiles to fail.

    Don't suppose you have a picture of this 0.0001m^2 RCS target vehicle with advanced ECM.

    Well that's all very well if you've actually encountered a given system being used in anger in combat, but sadly the threats being modelled here haven't even finished development.

  21. #1341
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    3,051
    Quote Originally Posted by MSphere View Post
    There is nothing like approach XYZ as the most likely to succeed.. Cuda does not bring any new approach.. The whole purpose of the missile is to address a very specific problem of a very specific aircraft, the F-35, and that is complete lack of internally carried short-range/IR-guided missiles. Having a radar guided missile as the only weapon against future stealthy adversaries might not be the best message of the day..

    As said, that's nothing new.. A below-100lbs class missile has existed since mid 70s, the R-60. The limitations of such approach are well known.. Granted that the Cuda would get more advanced and all its internals more miniaturized but there is only as much as you can do with such small device, given the physical limitations in the propellant weight percentage. For any non-F-35 operator, the Cuda does not bring anything meaningful.. Probably that is why it's still on paper.. Sure you might provide a counter-argument with A-A loadout, but in times where an entire air force of a reasonably rich country like Belgium shall consist of two-three dozens of aircraft I have severe doubts you need to carry more than 4 missiles per aircraft in any scenario.
    A missile size is not an "approach." There are a variety of missiles with masses around 100-150lbs from multiple design teams, proving the viability of a missile in that size class. The difference is that with newer technology a relatively small missile can more effectively reach longer ranges. Of course a small missile will still have limitations, as does a larger missile.

    Why is the Meteor the size it is? Why not make it 10" in diameter and 15' long? Would that not offer still greater performance? (Of course it would )

    Of course it would also pose new problems for the launch aircraft... the challenge facing missile design teams is to balance the various trade offs, and the optimal design for a Eurofighter need not match that for an F-35.
    Last edited by hopsalot; 13th May 2017 at 14:05.

  22. #1342
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Cantabrigia
    Posts
    1,329
    Ryan/Lukos wrote:

    "Well I'd love to know...."

    During that discussion circa a year ago I described at least one technique for using flares to counter an IIR seeker.

    I do not recall having specified the RCS of the targets I was tracking. But as for a photo, the Official Secrets Act required that at the end of my employment it would be an offence for me to retain any documents, drawings, plans, photographs, etc.

    As to threats that have not completed development, I refer you to the third para of my previous post and its reference to "even next generation seekers", and the phrase "and future threats" in the fourth para. The US engineers developed the SA-2 emulator well before the system had been met in combat, and updated it as new intelligence data emerged.
    Mercurius Cantabrigiensis

  23. #1343
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    278
    Larger size would be cumbersome and impossible to store even one internally on any current or developing stealth aircraft. However such a missile could be theoretically useful against an AEW. The honest answer to why the Meteor is the size it is, is probably because the AMRAAM is the same size. I think the wider question is the philosophy. I can appreciate an anti-AAM MSDM type role, but for A2A combat, a 1.8m long missile seems like a weapon designed after succumbing to failure. Failure in targeting the enemy from greater ranges, failure in developing high Pk seekers, failure to examine other options to fit more larger missiles internally. Perhaps the money is better spent on overcoming the failures rather than designing a missile around them. I.e. money spent on better detection, better seekers, more efficient ways of packing current-sized missiles. Because if your adversary is spending all the money on these things and you're spending a large segment of it on smaller missiles, then maybe your plane ends up dead before getting within the range of smaller missiles, or ends up making evasive manoeuvres, such that they're facing the wrong way.

  24. #1344
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    278
    Well I'm all ears Merc, can't wait to see these multi-spectral, holographic flares. It's a wonder these idiots are wasting their time developing DIRCM systems.

    Well 0.0001m^2 is the kind of RCS we're talking about here and the old covers-all classified excuse. A target vehicle that's more classified than front line stealth fighters and bombers.

    "If you know the design approach the other side takes." Which you don't and we're also talking about the threats themselves, not the missile seekers, e.g. RCS, ECM. Claiming to know what the other side has is one thing, claiming to know how and what they'll next develop seems more like something from Minority Report than an exact science.
    Last edited by Ryan; 13th May 2017 at 14:48.

  25. #1345
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Cantabrigia
    Posts
    1,329
    This is getting a bit silly. You might see a need for "multi-spectral, holographic flares", but I do not know if the countermeasures industry does. And it is going to be some time before every combat aircraft can be fitted with DIRCM.

    As for "A target vehicle that's more classified than front line stealth fighters and bombers", I made no such claim. Towed decoys are hardly a big secret, but the RCS level of the targets I was tracking, the frequencies I was using, and the tactical scenario were (and probably still are) classified, so I could retain no docs etc when I left that field of activity.


    "If you know the design approach the other side takes." Which you don't..."
    So how did the US manage to engineer their Fan Fong equivalent and get it largely right? A mix of humint, elint, and the knowledge of what approaches were practical in terms of the engineering technology of the day seems to have done the trick. A similar process has been used for other systems such as 'double-digit' SAMs, and is under way today.
    Mercurius Cantabrigiensis

  26. #1346
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    4,274
    Quote Originally Posted by Mercurius View Post
    This is getting a bit silly. You might see a need for "multi-spectral, holographic flares", but I do not know if the countermeasures industry does. And it is going to be some time before every combat aircraft can be fitted with DIRCM.

    As for "A target vehicle that's more classified than front line stealth fighters and bombers", I made no such claim. Towed decoys are hardly a big secret, but the RCS level of the targets I was tracking, the frequencies I was using, and the tactical scenario were (and probably still are) classified, so I could retain no docs etc when I left that field of activity.


    "If you know the design approach the other side takes." Which you don't..."
    So how did the US manage to engineer their Fan Fong equivalent and get it largely right? A mix of humint, elint, and the knowledge of what approaches were practical in terms of the engineering technology of the day seems to have done the trick. A similar process has been used for other systems such as 'double-digit' SAMs, and is under way today.
    Similar process like Fan Fong cant be replicated infact it can happen in opposite direction. Think about Soviet Union appoach of developing things with it's human resources and Russian approach and the very different people behind it.

  27. #1347
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    278
    This is getting a bit silly. You might see a need for "multi-spectral, holographic flares", but I do not know if the countermeasures industry does. And it is going to be some time before every combat aircraft can be fitted with DIRCM.
    So why are they even bothering if flares work against IIR? Although I have some experience in DSMAC and image recognition and can tell you flat out that they don't.

    As for "A target vehicle that's more classified than front line stealth fighters and bombers", I made no such claim. Towed decoys are hardly a big secret, but the RCS level of the targets I was tracking, the frequencies I was using, and the tactical scenario were (and probably still are) classified, so I could retain no docs etc when I left that field of activity.
    You said even a photo would be classified, which is not the case for stealth fighters, hence it seems like an implicit claim of something more classified than stealth aircraft.

    "If you know the design approach the other side takes." Which you don't..."
    So how did the US manage to engineer their Fan Fong equivalent and get it largely right? A mix of humint, elint, and the knowledge of what approaches were practical in terms of the engineering technology of the day seems to have done the trick. A similar process has been used for other systems such as 'double-digit' SAMs, and is under way today.
    Because they had ELINT data gained in combat and knew the approximate dimensions of said apparatus. This bore out in the reducing effectiveness of the SA-2 as the war wore one. Hardly the same as working out the RCS, ECM and detection capabilities of planes still under development.

  28. #1348
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    1,423
    In response to:
    Hopsalot and MSphere

    A2A missiles designed along those guidelines for internal carriage has been developed already and put on operational use : AIM-4 and AIM-26 Falcon deployed on F-102 and F-106.
    An utter disaster but they exemplify well the problem with internal carriage of such a category of weapons .

    Attachment 253351
    Compared with AIM-9
    Attachment 253352
    How them were carried

  29. #1349
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    278
    Your attachments are broke I think.

  30. #1350
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3,037
    According to Defense Aerospace Italians aren't satisfied at all with industrial returns...



    http://forum.keypublishing.com/showt...65#post2390265

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 8 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 8 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

- Part of the    Network -

KEY AERO AVIATION NEWS

MAGAZINES

AVIATION FORUM

SHOP

 

WEBSITES