![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Ed Rasimus wrote:
On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 23:46:56 GMT, Guy Alcala wrote: Ed Rasimus wrote: snip Actually, you ascribe too much capability to the helmet mounted sight system. You might be surprised at how much a pilot can see and how far a good one can twist around in the seat. I used to be able to see my right wing-tip when twisted around to the left--IOW, all the way past the vertical fin to the opposite side. There's no missile yet designed that will make that kind of turn. snip Yes there are, Ed, and several of them are in or entering service, credited with over the shoulder launch capability. There used to be an mpeg circulating around the web showing a P4 being fired (from an F-15), which immediately makes a controlled half loop (guesstimating a radius of a couple hundred feet) and heads off towards the rear of the a/c. In addition to an HMS (or 360 degree sensors), the missile needs a programmable autopilot that allows it to make it around the corner until the seeker can acquire the target. High off-boresight missile seekers now start at about 60 deg. AoB, going out to 90 degrees or potentially more (one of the seeker competitors for the AIM-9X went out to 120 deg. AoB). Guy You're adding a parameter here, the need to pre-program the missile. That's a step beyond the initial proposition of "look-to-kill" linkage between the helmet field of view and the missile's regard. I've always been a bit cautious, nay even skeptical about marketing brochure claims and operational capability. Me too, as should be apparent from recent discussions about the R.530. But like the AIM-9L's head-on capability (no matter how rarely used in practice), these capabilities do exist - here's an example of such a brochure, for the P5: http://www.rafael.co.il/web/rafnew/news/news-120603.htm and click on the brochure link. And it's not just the marketeers saying so, but the service types as well ( of course, they've also been known to stretch a point to get funding or keep their careers unblemished). The HMS 'look to acquire' high off-boresight capability, and the substantial no escape zones of 4th and 5th generation (or perhaps gen. 4.5 would be more accurate) missiles, is real. And it's not only the WVR missiles that are looking at adding such 360 degree targeting capability. From an article in the May 22nd, 2000 AvLeak, pg. 28. I forget who's speaking, but IIRR it was an Air Force type, maybe the program manager: "'We are embarking on putting a high off-boresight capability into AMRAAM.'" "Two Phase Program. Initially, only the missile software will be modified, allowing AMRAAM to engage a target throughout the FOV of the fighter's radar, including about 70 degrees off boresight. The current software limits the missile to about 25 degrees off boresight. The enhancement should be available next year [i.e. 2001]. "The second phase, still unfunded, would involve upgrading the fighter's software and enable AMRAAM to engage targets behind the shooting a/c. Data on the target would be provided by a second fighter through so-called 'third-party cuing,' [through Link-16],. After launch, updates continue to be relayed through back and sidelobes of the firer's radar. The upgrade follows the ongoing improvement to the missile's warhead, fuse and motor." The first phase seems to have been completed already, with the missile software improvements to allow high off-boresight capability apparently incorporated from the AIM-120C-5 (maybe the C-4) on; the C-7 is due to achieve IOC at any time. I have no idea what the status of the second phase might be, although given the amount of money being put into A/G ordnance right now I wouldn't be surprised if phase two had been put on the back burner, especially with the dearth of A/A combat. The AGM-78 Standard ARM had the first generation program for launch capability to strike targets behind the launch aircraft. In the Standard's case, I've read Weasel anecdotes which suggest that making a 180 pretty much decreased the remaining energy to zero, the Standard not being the most maneuverable missile on the planet. I've been given some info of the kind of sustained maneuverability the P4 is capable of, and if you'd like I'll be happy to share it with you. Suffice it to say (here), it's far better. I saw a lot of them launched and have to confess, I never saw confirmation of a SAM kill with the damn thing. A lot has to happen in very short time and in a very dynamic scenario. Sure does. And computers just get faster, smaller and cheaper all the time. We appear to be entering the era of missiles like the ones 007 had on his gyro in "You Only Live Twice." Guy |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Is replacing Maverick with JCM a good idea? | Scott Ferrin | Military Aviation | 12 | June 16th 04 10:07 PM |
asymetric warfare | phil hunt | Military Aviation | 505 | January 23rd 04 12:31 AM |
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools | RT | Military Aviation | 104 | September 25th 03 03:17 PM |