Even with a radar beamwidth of 1 degree, the beam's diameter at a distance of 1 km is still approximately 17 meters. As a result, it would not be possible to view the aircraft if a chaff cloud obstructs the line of sight between the missile and its target.
Sure it would because some of the beam energy is still hitting the aircraft and the seeker knew not only where the aircraft was but also it's direction and velocity prior to the clutter, the ECCM algorithms will figure is out. More beam energy is returned when part of the beam is over the aircraft and the chaffs than just over the chaff. Less beam energy is returned when that part is smaller than when larger. As the beam scans an energy centroid is formed. Radar reurns also have shape as well as intensity - not all energy gets back at the same time. A good ECCM algorithm will pick out the shape. It is also likely that the energy return and signature of various chaff clouds has been modelled and can be subtracted.
Of course progress continues in the form of higher radar frequencies (like MMW) and multi-band AESA for smaller and/or variable beamwidths.
At the start of video, you can see AIM-9X have no problem hitting the F-4 that continuously releasing flares.
And for IIR sensor, flares appear more or less like a point target rather than a massive glare, you will need to deploy a huge quantity of flares to make a screen to hide your aircraft and even that only work momentarily in only very specific direction like a tail chase View attachment 760837
I think the main investment in jamming and expendable decoys is largely driven by the continued effectiveness of radar as the best long range tracking tool, because not only it has long range, it also provide essential information like speed, heading. All long and medium range air defensive system use radar for fire control. If their ground vehicle use radar as fire control system then it make sense that their surface to air missile will use either TVM or SARH or ARH as primary guidance method.
I agree that most M/LAAMs currently use ARH, but that likelu have to do with the fact that radar dome is more aerodynamic than infrared dome and ARH seeker generally can detect target from greater range, which is useful for interception that has very high closure rate. So logically, ARH seeker will pretty much always be primary choice for long range AAM and SAM. But there are some long range missile with IR seeker as secondary sensor such as
SM-2 block IIIB View attachment 760841
Heavier SAMs can likely afford the weight penalty and it would make sense in an ABM capacity but for a weight-sensitive AAM you not only have the extra seeker weight, you also have the extra PSU weight.
I don’t understand the obsession with missile being super maneuverable at terminal stage. They achieve extremely long range against enemy assets by being lobbed at ballistic trajectory anyway. Being able to predict where the enemy asset is when death drops from above is probably more important than doing flips at turns.
The U.S. Air Force has confirmed that a recently released rendering of the AIM-260A does indeed reflect the actual design of what is also known as the Joint Advanced Tactical Missile (JATM).
Something else I thought of concerning those clipped rear fins - that should greatly ease internal carriage. I still am little surprised that there is no other mechanism for maneuvering, but perhaps the far forward CG (assuming a 50% motor length)/relaxed stability compensates for small surface area.
Interestingly, based on my quick measurement, the actuation section behind the rocket motor is a lot beefier (longer) than the one on AMRAAM. About 14 in vs 10 in on AIM-120 +/- 1 in
Sure it would because some of the beam energy is still hitting the aircraft and the seeker knew not only where the aircraft was but also it's direction and velocity prior to the clutter, the ECCM algorithms will figure is out. More beam energy is returned when part of the beam is over the aircraft and the chaffs than just over the chaff. Less beam energy is returned when that part is smaller than when larger. As the beam scans an energy centroid is formed. Radar reurns also have shape as well as intensity - not all energy gets back at the same time. A good ECCM algorithm will pick out the shape. It is also likely that the energy return and signature of various chaff clouds has been modelled and can be subtracted.Of course progress continues in the form of higher radar frequencies (like MMW) and multi-band AESA for smaller and/or variable beamwidths.
That not how radar seeker operate. It does not rely on the amplitude of the reflection to reject chaff. Because a big chaff cloud can easily have much bigger reflection than a small aircraft. Radar seeker reject chaff using the Doppler gate because chaff slow down quickly. And that is also why chaff deployment is often done along with beaming maneuver.
There is physical limitation on minimum beam width even if you used AESA radar, and that limitation is affected by frequency and aperture area.
MMW seeker such as the one on Brimstone of Hellfire is not currently used on air to air missile because they have very limited range compared to X-band or Ku band seeker.
Now, I'm confused. I was talking about IIR seeker on modern missile. If you don't talk about IIR seeker, I assume you talk about IR seeker with a single infrared detector? like a reticle sensor?. What the point?
Besides, non IIR seeker does not see the shape of target
Heavier SAMs can likely afford the weight penalty and it would make sense in an ABM capacity but for a weight-sensitive AAM you not only have the extra seeker weight, you also have the extra PSU weight.
A laser proximity fuse look different, beside, you can put seeker on the side of the missile if you want the main radar seeker to have wider FoV and biggest aperture possible. It also make sense because long range AAM tend to dive on target on terminal stage. PL-17 is not the first missile with side IIR seeker though
Literature available on IVA on the open web is really weird. The illustration GS used and is reused on other pictorial extracts tell us it's a fully internal system with the IR and RF seeker mounted back to back but JHL depicts a circular side mounted gimbaled assembly?
I don’t understand the obsession with missile being super maneuverable at terminal stage. They achieve extremely long range against enemy assets by being lobbed at ballistic trajectory anyway. Being able to predict where the enemy asset is when death drops from above is probably more important than doing flips at turns.
Literature available on IVA on the open web is really weird. The illustration GS used and is reused on other pictorial extracts tell us it's a fully internal system with the IR and RF seeker mounted back to back but JHL depicts a circular side mounted gimbaled assembly?
I think SM-2 block IVA is pretty much block IIIB with the booster, so the location of the IIR seeker remain the same.
There are also some image of the dome being tested and it look like it will be at the side of the missile fuselage.
But having better agility in terminal stage also mean it can deal better with high altitude target.
I think SM-2 block IVA is pretty much block IIIB with the booster, so the location of the IIR seeker remain the same.
There are also some image of the dome being tested and it look like it will be at the side of the missile fuselage. View attachment 760901
I mean for example comparing AIM-174B and PL-17. Because AIM-174 has bigger lifting surface in the form of strake.. So at high altitude, where air is very thin, if target change direction then AIM-174 has higher capability to keep up with that. Just think of how F-15 can turn better than F-16 at high altitude. Besides, when target change direction, in mid course, the missile also have to alter its direction. With bigger lifting surface, your missile need less AoA to turn and therefore will lose less energy.
With that said, at low and medium altitude, I would expect missiles with smaller fin to turn better because the air is likely thick enough that even a small fin is enough to turn missile, at the same time the small fin will also lead to lower drag. Just think of how F-16 turn better than F-15 at low altitude.
That not how radar seeker operate. It does not rely on the amplitude of the reflection to reject chaff. Because a big chaff cloud can easily have much bigger reflection than a small aircraft. Radar seeker reject chaff using the Doppler gate because chaff slow down quickly. And that is also why chaff deployment is often done along with beaming maneuver.
It can reject it both ways. The doppler gate principle goes back to my previous point as regards knowing the speed and direction of the target pre-chaff-deployment.
There is physical limitation on minimum beam width even if you used AESA radar, and that limitation is affected by frequency and aperture area.
MMW seeker such as the one on Brimstone of Hellfire is not currently used on air to air missile because they have very limited range compared to X-band or Ku band seeker.
The range you need gets smaller as you near the target and range increases with reduced air density (high altitude). David's Sling uses MMW, several use Ka.
Now, I'm confused. I was talking about IIR seeker on modern missile. If you don't talk about IIR seeker, I assume you talk about IR seeker with a single infrared detector? like a reticle sensor?. What the point?
Besides, non IIR seeker does not see the shape of target View attachment 760900
Stunner was originally a 2-stage SAM (see previous remark), so they probably saw an opportunity to use the second stage as an AAM. I think it's 225mm wide from memory.
A laser proximity fuse look different, beside, you can put seeker on the side of the missile if you want the main radar seeker to have wider FoV and biggest aperture possible. It also make sense because long range AAM tend to dive on target on terminal stage. PL-17 is not the first missile with side IIR seeker though View attachment 760893 View attachment 760894 View attachment 760896
Putting this here because the version of the image other people here have been using is like 10 pixels and hurts my eyes. Source for the presentation is here.View attachment 760650
Btw what might the segment marked by the dark grey band in between the brown-marked rocket motor and the yellow-marked warhead be…? AMRAAM does not seem to have a section like this…
It can reject it both ways. The doppler gate principle goes back to my previous point as regards knowing the speed and direction of the target pre-chaff-deployment.
Pretty much all air to air missile use Doppler gate to reject chaff, I don't know any of them rely on strength of reflection to reject chaff because chaff cloud actually have higher RCS than the aircraft itself in most case. Never the less, in the same niche situation that your flares can block the FoV of IIR seeker, your chaff cloud will also block the FoV of radar seeker. Both of which are quite niche and momentarily
The range you need gets smaller as you near the target and range increases with reduced air density (high altitude). David's Sling uses MMW, several use Ka.
Air to air missile are not only used at high altitude, and besides, the longer the seeker detection range, the quicker you can start your defensive maneuver. That the whole reason why ARH missiles replaced SARH.
I can see why David's sling may use a MMW sensor since it supposed to be an anti ballistic missile system and the fixed radar station on ground can't move anyway. But for fighter, the ability to go defensive is very important.
My point is that, there is only a very niche case where you can hide behind a flare screen, which is a tail chase situation. But even then, on IIR seeker, flares are pretty much point target so you need to deploy a lot of them to have the screen effect.
There is a very good reason why big military transport aircraft and modern gunship are equipped with DIRCM system. Because flares is not a reliable way to counter modern IR threat, even against two color reticle seeker, let alone IIR seeker.
Stunner was originally a 2-stage SAM (see previous remark), so they probably saw an opportunity to use the second stage as an AAM. I think it's 225mm wide from memory.
SAAM seeker is literally located at the side of the missile body.
Nevertheless, if you argue that SM-2 seeker is diagonal then the same can also be said about PL-17 IIR seeker, it located near the nose, which is perfectly fine if we consider that PL-17 will dive on target
Btw what might the segment marked by the dark grey band in between the brown-marked rocket motor and the yellow-marked warhead be…? AMRAAM does not seem to have a section like this…
Pretty much all air to air missile use Doppler gate to reject chaff, I don't know any of them rely on strength of reflection to reject chaff because chaff cloud actually have higher RCS than the aircraft itself in most case. Never the less, in the same niche situation that your flares can block the FoV of IIR seeker, your chaff cloud will also block the FoV of radar seeker. Both of which are quite niche and momentarily
But you've just said yourself that Doppler gate can be used to reject chaff, whereas there's no way of rejecting a big bright flare completely blocking the aircraft from the seeker, or the sun blinding the seeker, whereas some radar energy always passes between the chaff elements. You also have rain cloud issues with IIR.
Air to air missile are not only used at high altitude, and besides, the longer the seeker detection range, the quicker you can start your defensive maneuver. That the whole reason why ARH missiles replaced SARH.
I can see why David's sling may use a MMW sensor since it supposed to be an anti ballistic missile system and the fixed radar station on ground can't move anyway. But for fighter, the ability to go defensive is very important.
Seeker tends to only take over ~10nm out anyway, so high frequency is that not that much of a factor, which is probably why there are several Ka and few MMW (W band) SAMs/AAMs but all (AFAIK) fighter radar are X band.
My point is that, there is only a very niche case where you can hide behind a flare screen, which is a tail chase situation. But even then, on IIR seeker, flares are pretty much point target so you need to deploy a lot of them to have the screen effect.
There is a very good reason why big military transport aircraft and modern gunship are equipped with DIRCM system. Because flares is not a reliable way to counter modern IR threat, even against two color reticle seeker, let alone IIR seeker.
The way to do it is to climb while dropping flares, come over the top and dive down behind them further away from the seeker. A C-130/C-17 or attack helo would clearly have obvious problems with that.
Nevertheless, if you argue that SM-2 seeker is diagonal then the same can also be said about PL-17 IIR seeker, it located near the nose, which is perfectly fine if we consider that PL-17 will dive on target View attachment 760948
But you've just said yourself that Doppler gate can be used to reject chaff, whereas there's no way of rejecting a big bright flare completely blocking the aircraft from the seeker, or the sun blinding the seeker, whereas some radar energy always passes between the chaff elements. You also have rain cloud issues with IIR.
Doppler gate help reject chaff when the radar seeker can view both the aircraft and the chaff cloud. In other words, the chaff cloud does not block the line of sight between the missile and its target. In that case the Doppler gate can reject the chaff because chaff decelerate quickly. A beaming maneuver can help the aircraft blend in better with the chaff cloud
But in similar situation when the IIR seeker see both the aircraft and the group of flares , it will immediately reject the flare "cloud" because aircraft has completely different shape. Ever since we have two color seeker, IR missiles already stopped locking in the sun.
Furthermore, a radar seeker will need time to scan its field of regard, whereas IIR seeker will see the whole field instantly.
True but most AAMs are used at high altitude.
Seeker tends to only take over ~10nm out anyway, so high frequency is that not that much of a factor, which is probably why there are several Ka and few MMW (W band) SAMs/AAMs but all (AFAIK) fighter radar are X band.
There is literally no AAM in production with MMW (W band) seeker because the range is simply too short, AGM-114 seeker range is something like 3-4 km at most, and the very small beamwidth of MMW seeker also mean very long scanning time. Which is probably fine if you are trying to find a stationary target like a tank, or target with predictable trajectory like a ballistic missile. But that would be horrible against targets that can change course quickly
The lock on range of IR seeker on AAM can be between 30 km to even as high as 100 km depend on target aspect. An IIR seeker likely do even better
As a matter of fact, There was a time when the IIR apart of Rafale OFS station were removed, it used the MICA seeker as IRST sensor
Normal active radar homing seeker operating in X band on AAM can lock on target from 16 - 40 km.
The way to do it is to climb while dropping flares, come over the top and dive down behind them further away from the seeker. A C-130/C-17 or attack helo would clearly have obvious problems with that.
I don't think you can out climb or out accelerate a missile. But assuming you pre flares to make a flare screen then go behind that, a transport aircraft or a helicopter can do pretty much the same thing. If anything, a transport aircraft can pump out a massive amount of flares that can actually act as a screen
I don't think you can out climb or out accelerate a missile. But assuming you pre flares to make a flare screen then go behind that, a transport aircraft or a helicopter can do pretty much the same thing. If anything, a transport aircraft can pump out a massive amount of flares that can actually act as a screen
need to be point out that those are Photo Ops firings.
They basically dumping them all at once for a pretty picture.
Actual no shit combat use has FAR less flares being fired off in addition to maneuvering to break missile lock. Even for cargo planes on approach they will firewall the engines and turn like hell dropping flares to hopeful break a missile lock. Ditto for Copters, thye will drop a few flares and do crazy dropping maneuvers to dodge incoming.
You will very rarely see more then a dozen flares get drop in combat since they don't know when they may need more.
And You can out turn and climb a missile, theres enough cockpit videos of that online showing it so. That one F16 in Iraqi comes to mind.
need to be point out that those are Photo Ops firings.
They basically dumping them all at once for a pretty picture.
Actual no shit combat use has FAR less flares being fired off in addition to maneuvering to break missile lock. Even for cargo planes on approach they will firewall the engines and turn like hell dropping flares to hopeful break a missile lock. Ditto for Copters, thye will drop a few flares and do crazy dropping maneuvers to dodge incoming. You will very rarely see more then a dozen flares get drop in combat since they don't know when they may need more.
Yes, you probably right, but I'm merely trying to point out that a transport aircraft are a lot more likely to carry enough flares to make a flare screen that can block the FoV of IIR missiles. While for a small fighters, that is a lot less likely
I don't think you can out climb or out accelerate a missile. But assuming you pre flares to make a flare screen then go behind that, a transport aircraft or a helicopter can do pretty much the same thing. If anything, a transport aircraft can pump out a massive amount of flares that can actually act as a screen
Based on available image of missile, both as mock up and when loaded on aircraft, nose section both shorter and thinner than AMRAAM View attachment 760995
Doppler gate help reject chaff when the radar seeker can view both the aircraft and the chaff cloud. In other words, the chaff cloud does not block the line of sight between the missile and its target. In that case the Doppler gate can reject the chaff because chaff decelerate quickly. A beaming maneuver can help the aircraft blend in better with the chaff cloud
But in similar situation when the IIR seeker see both the aircraft and the group of flares , it will immediately reject the flare "cloud" because aircraft has completely different shape. Ever since we have two color seeker, IR missiles already stopped locking in the sun.
Furthermore, a radar seeker will need time to scan its field of regard, whereas IIR seeker will see the whole field instantly.
Chaff clouds have holes, they are not walls. The return from the aircraft will also come back at a different time to the chaff cloud return, so when you combine the return time, the sigature and doppler gate you can eliminate chaff return fairly well. Certainly flare types 'flare-up' pretty good on seekers, such that a single one can block quite a wide area behind it.
There is literally no AAM in production with MMW (W band) seeker because the range is simply too short, AGM-114 seeker range is something like 3-4 km at most, and the very small beamwidth of MMW seeker also mean very long scanning time. Which is probably fine if you are trying to find a stationary target like a tank, or target with predictable trajectory like a ballistic missile. But that would be horrible against targets that can change course quickly
The lock on range of IR seeker on AAM can be between 30 km to even as high as 100 km depend on target aspect. An IIR seeker likely do even better View attachment 760991
If the range is suitable for a Mach 7.5 SAM, them it's suitable for an AAM. AAMs also have smaller diameter radars relative to an aircraft so they actually benefit in resolution by using higher frequencies.
What distance can IIR see through a big rain storm, like in Europe? Plus, again, it doesn't need to see beyond 10nm/18km. If you need to go defensive, use a swashplate radar, or side apertures.
As a matter of fact, There was a time when the IIR apart of Rafale OFS station were removed, it used the MICA seeker as IRST sensor View attachment 760992
Normal active radar homing seeker operating in X band on AAM can lock on target from 16 - 40 km. View attachment 760990
But your flares is not a physical wall, even if you managed to momentarily block the view of IIR seeker with these flares, then the missile will just fly pass these flares eventually. So what the point? It is not like IIR will home on the flares either.
Flares are useful against the previous generation of IR guided missiles because the missile will actually home on the flare instead of chasing the aircraft. But IIR guided missiles does not chase the flare, so even if you can somehow blocked the view momentarily, the missile will just keep moving forward thanks to its INS guidance. After it passed through the flares screen then what?. Another big issue is that this tactic you proposed only work in tail chase situation. So if you attempt it in a BVR duel, you basically put yourself in the situation where you can do nothing but defend. You can't fire back and you can't guided your own missile.
I honestly don't see how it is fatter. They both fit on the wing tip rack and besides, even if Stunner is fatter, the total missile length without booster is quite a bit shorter than AIM-120
Virtually all air-to-air missiles are equipped with a proximity fuse at that location. Whether radio or optical, proximity fuses are designed to provide full coverage around the missile's body, ensuring detonation regardless of which side is closest to the target aircraft. There is no technical advantage to designing an optical fuse that so large that covers half of the missile's nose, nor is there any benefit in making it so large that it only monitors a single side of the missile. It doesn't make sense and it has never been done on any air to air missile
By contrast, there are plenty of missiles with IIR seeker on one side of the body, it make sense because it give bigger aperture for the main antenna array, and it can also be used while missile is diving from high altitude to target
Chaff clouds have holes, they are not walls. The return from the aircraft will also come back at a different time to the chaff cloud return, so when you combine the return time, the sigature and doppler gate you can eliminate chaff return fairly well.
Chaff cloud have hole between individual strip, however the beamwidth of your radar is not thin enough to pass through it. Effectively make it behave like a wall to the radar seeker. Just look at the microwave for example: there is hole on the metal screen to let you see the food inside but the microwave does not burn your face, because the wavelength is too big compared to the hole, so it also behave like a wall.
Surface ship for example actually use chaff screen to hide from anti ship missile and confuse them
Honestly, most seeker have pretty good gain control. Even if assuming a flare can flare up well, flares decelerate quite quickly, so I'm not sure how it can be a reliable way for your aircraft to block the view of IIR guided missile.
Pretty much all IIR sensor view I have seen shown flares as point targets.
An anti ballistic missile system and an air to air missile has different requirement
1- For an air to air missile, longer seeker lock on range is very beneficial because you can go defensive earlier. A SAM system on ground can’t move quickly from original position like an aircraft can
2- Stunner doesn’t just use MMW seeker alone, it also has an IIR seeker, and a re entry ballistic missile generate significant amount of heat signature that can be detected from long distance
3- David sling ( and pretty much all SAM) use massive ground based radar. Bigger radar aperture lead to more accurate radar. Smaller resolution cell mean missile have to scan less to find target.
Most cloud are below 24kft, thunder storm can reach 40-49kft but they aren’t that popular, you can’t expect there is a rain storm everytime you fight.
Besides, I’m not propolsing fully replace radar seeker with IIR seeker, but instead having a dual mode radar/IIR seeker to deal with countermeasure.
The longer the seeker range, the more advantage you have in a BVR duel, and 18 km range is still much better than MMW seeker range which is often something like 2-3 km
Swash plate is not suitable for stealth aircraft like F-22, F-35, su-57, J-20 ..etc.
Side apertures can be useful but the only fighter currently have it is the Su-57. But even on su-57, the side array is pretty small (half the size of F-16 radar)
But your flares is not a physical wall, even if you managed to momentarily block the view of IIR seeker with these flares, then the missile will just fly pass these flares eventually. So what the point? It is not like IIR will home on the flares either.
Flares are useful against the previous generation of IR guided missiles because the missile will actually home on the flare instead of chasing the aircraft. But IIR guided missiles does not chase the flare, so even if you can somehow blocked the view momentarily, the missile will just keep moving forward thanks to its INS guidance. After it passed through the flares screen then what?. Another big issue is that this tactic you proposed only work in tail chase situation. So if you attempt it in a BVR duel, you basically put yourself in the situation where you can do nothing but defend. You can't fire back and you can't guided your own missile.
I honestly don't see how it is fatter. They both fit on the wing tip rack and besides, even if Stunner is fatter, the total missile length without booster is quite a bit shorter than AIM-120.
Virtually all air-to-air missiles are equipped with a proximity fuse at that location. Whether radio or optical, proximity fuses are designed to provide full coverage around the missile's body, ensuring detonation regardless of which side is closest to the target aircraft. There is no technical advantage to designing an optical fuse that so large that covers half of the missile's nose, nor is there any benefit in making it so large that it only monitors a single side of the missile. It doesn't make sense and it has never been done on any air to air missile
By contrast, there are plenty of missiles with IIR seeker on one side of the body, it make sense because it give bigger aperture for the main antenna array, and it can also be used while missile is diving from high altitude to target View attachment 761038
Nor is there any benefit to mounting a seeker facing more or less directly upwards at that point. On a faster missile it could be beneficial to mount a fuse closer to the tip.
Chaff cloud have hole between individual strip, however the beamwidth of your radar is not thin enough to pass through it. Effectively make it behave like a wall to the radar seeker. Just look at the microwave for example: there is hole on the metal screen to let you see the food inside but the microwave does not burn your face, because the wavelength is too big compared to the hole, so it also behave like a wall.
Surface ship for example actually use chaff screen to hide from anti ship missile and confuse them View attachment 761039
So if I shine a torch at a hedge the light will not pass through the hedge in winter because the beamwidth is too wide compared to the gaps between the branches and my brain is unable to process the presence of any person it illuminates because beamwidth meakes them indiscernable from the hedge.
Honestly, most seeker have pretty good gain control. Even if assuming a flare can flare up well, flares decelerate quite quickly, so I'm not sure how it can be a reliable way for your aircraft to block the view of IIR guided missile.
Pretty much all IIR sensor view I have seen shown flares as point targets. View attachment 761040 View attachment 761041
An anti ballistic missile system and an air to air missile has different requirement
1- For an air to air missile, longer seeker lock on range is very beneficial because you can go defensive earlier. A SAM system on ground can’t move quickly from original position like an aircraft can
2- Stunner doesn’t just use MMW seeker alone, it also has an IIR seeker, and a re entry ballistic missile generate significant amount of heat signature that can be detected from long distance
3- David sling ( and pretty much all SAM) use massive ground based radar. Bigger radar aperture lead to more accurate radar. Smaller resolution cell mean missile have to scan less to find target.
Most cloud are below 24kft, thunder storm can reach 40-49kft but they aren’t that popular, you can’t expect there is a rain storm everytime you fight.
Besides, I’m not propolsing fully replace radar seeker with IIR seeker, but instead having a dual mode radar/IIR seeker to deal with countermeasure.
Which means you sacrifice range. You can have a dual mode radar without adding weight/sacrificing range.
When you're firing over 200km in range you can't make broad statements about weather, or target altitude, or the altitude range covered by the missile.
The longer the seeker range, the more advantage you have in a BVR duel, and 18 km range is still much better than MMW seeker range which is often something like 2-3 km
Side apertures can be useful but the only fighter currently have it is the Su-57. But even on su-57, the side array is pretty small (half the size of F-16 radar)
IMO unlikely since they circle the entire missile.
My assumption is that some are for the Target Detection Device (TDD)/Proximity fuze, but not all of them. And what the others do is a really good question!
I honestly can't visual how you think it will work.
So once you detect enemy missiles, you have to turn to run away, then flares only once you finished the 180 degrees turn. Then loop back 180 degree again to attack enemy?
At 45kft, the best sustain turn rate of a clean F-16 is about 3.5 degree/second. To make 180 degrees turn, it will take 51 seconds.
Assuming you detect the missile from 20 km, with Mach 5 speed, missile like PL-17 only give you around 11 seconds from detection till impact. I don't think you have enough time to turn away.
Sure, you can argue that you just dive to much lower altitude but that mean your own missile will have significantly shorter range. Now not only you have to be in full defensive position because you have turned your tail toward your enemy. Your missile also have much shorter range and speed. Someone previously done simulation on AIM-120C, altitude is the biggest factor that impact missile range.
The speed of light is effectively instantaneous, making the placement of a proximity fuse just a few centimeters ahead rather pointless in terms of reaction time.
Even on extremely fast missiles like the 9M82, which has a burnout speed of Mach 8.81 and is designed to intercept ballistic missiles re-entering at speeds of Mach 10-15, the proximity fuse is not positioned at the missile’s tip. While the PL-17 is a high-speed missile, its velocity and closing rate are comparatively lower than those of most anti-ballistic missile systems—yet none of these systems place the proximity fuse at the nose of the missile.
So if I shine a torch at a hedge the light will not pass through the hedge in winter because the beamwidth is too wide compared to the gaps between the branches and my brain is unable to process the presence of any person it illuminates because beamwidth meakes them indiscernable from the hedge.
And here the issue. The resolution of your eye is about 576 megapixels, which is much much smaller than the beamwidth of your torch. By contrast, the resolution of a radar is its beamwidth, that why the space created by your beamwidth and pulse width called the resolution cell.
It is likely the case of ASRAAM having inferior seeker compared to AIM-9X
ASRAAM use 128×128 pixel FPA IIR seeker whereas AIM-9X use 256×256 pixel FPA IIR seeker.
I assumed you were talking about this from ASRAAM test?. Even with that flares, you still need to deploy quite a big quantity to block the whole FoV. Besides, you still haven't explain how the aircraft supposed to use that to dodge missile?. IIR missile does not chase flare, once it passed through the flare screen then what happened?
However, that an intentionally blurred version of the seeker video, because the actual video taken by ASRAAM seeker look something like this, you can literally see the shape of the QF-4
MMW seeker on Stunner can give sufficient range because it doesn't work alone, it also have the IIR seeker as the long range cue against re entry target
Ka Band is around 26-40 GHz with wavelength between 7-11 mm
Whereas MMW seeker that can give you the beamwidth small enough to go between the chaff need to use something like W band at least (94 Ghz) similar to Brimstone seeker.
I don't see how that supposed to work. If you use a dual mode AESA seeker aka seeker operating at different frequency, then you will need separate T/R modules group for them. So either each group are smaller or the seeker part is heavier. Same case when you used dual mode IIR/ radar seeker.
Never the less, the range reduction if there any, is negligible compared to the technique you proposed earlier on how to evade enemy IIR missile using flares screen, turning away then diving down
When you're firing over 200km in range you can't make broad statements about weather, or target altitude, or the altitude range covered by the missile.
The majority of time that long range AAM fly, it will cruise at high altitude. That how long range missile achieve their range. It only affected by weather at terminal phase.
Storm cloud that can reach 40-50kft are pretty rare, you can’t just bet on always having them around if you ever in a BVR duel. Most cloud are 23kft and lower. Sure you can dive to lower altitude where the majority of cloud are. But in that case, your missile will have significantly less range and less average speed compared to your adversary. Something like 1/3 the range.
On the other hand, while you can’t control weather, your opponent can make a decision on whether they bring decoys and jammer or not
and yet current F-22 does not have it, so Su-57 remain the only one.
swash plate is not suitable for stealth aircraft like F-22, F-35, su-57, J-20 because they need edge treatment on their radar to prevent edge diffraction.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
