I cant even understand what your saying, at least Apollo makes sense. As for Apollo can we have a source on the ‘boresight’ mode?
How is the AMRAAM going to be able to see aircraft 12+ km away?
I still think that the MML even with the AIM-9X would be more suitable. As for the range the Air Force says over 10 miles and the Navy says its classified so I cant share more.
The missile has an active radar seeker built into it. That’s how.
You and Speclist both make no sense to me anymore. Can we got more people like Apollo who add something to the argument? I understand how ARH works. You still need to lock without it unless Apollo’s ‘boresight’ is real and im mistaken.
Ok just like how for example, the MIM-72E has an IR seeker that can be thrown off by flares because it detects the first thing it sees (dont get lost here), the AIM-120 would act the same, but with a radar target. You fire it in the direction it sees a target it hits or misses. Like talking to a 5 year old at this point
why not another type 93
Yeah but get this IR and radar are different! I know its hard to understand but they are. Which means they don’t work the exact same way! Post a declassified source about bore sight and I will be convinced.
https://www.navair.navy.mil/product/AMRAAM
Once the missile closes on a target, its active radar guides it to intercept. It does not need to have a radar lock beforehand it can lock onto whatever is infront of it
Yeah that has nothing to do with missile lock. Eg. firing from SPAA. Thats how all ARH missiles work.
then explain how it would not work. how it would never see whats infront of it fired out of a trailer compared to an aircraft
It needs a radar lock to fire thats it. Unless you can provide proof that the missile can guide itself with no external radar before leaving the rail then it cant work without a trailer.
So the missile doesnt have an active radar seeker in it
It has a tracking radar not a search radar. It can home onto targets but not find new ones.
“It incorporates active radar with an inertial reference unit and micro-computer system, which makes the missile less dependent upon the fire-control system of the aircraft.”
Huh contradicts this but whatever carry on
All that means is that it has an onboard radar. Does not mean it can find new targets.
This part is true it is less dependent then SARH missiles which don’t have onboard radars.
To explain in simple terms: “mad dog” is when you fire an AMRAAM without a lock. The missile onboard radar will instantly start looking for targets, locking onto the first thing it sees. At no point is the launch platform’s radar involved. You simply fire the missile, and it does the rest.
Also, regarding the MML - Multi-Mission launcher, it doesn’t seem like it has a radar. Like the other AMRAAM SPAAs, it too would need a radar trailer, and if trailers are on the table then the AMRAAM option would be preferable due to it’s greater range. Besides, I don’t think the game is ready for AIM-9X - it would be way too lethal.
Another option could be the Stryker MSL, which is an M-SHORAD , with an advanced variant of the Avenger (AN/TWQ-1) turret that can accept the AGM-114L or AIM-9X, of the various configurations possible with the system of offensive modules, and an advanced 3D AESA (AN/RPS-42 , Multi-Mission Hemispheric Radar) radar(claimed detection out to 20~35km for the relevant target set).
Alternately the AGM-114L / -179 (including the proximity fused version(s)) could serve in a similar role as an AMRAAM equipt SAM, but with comparatively reduced performance factors.
Or the IM-SHORAD, which uses the RIwP ( Reconfigurable Integrated-weapons Platform)
Isn’t this the M-SHORAD configuration that was recently named Sgt. Stout?
Hmmm… I don’t think it’s gonna be very good for the situations we have in game. AGM-114 has a top speed of Mach 1.3 compared to AIM-120’s Mach 4. You’re not gonna threaten jets with it.
That leaves helicopters, which are difficult to kill with radar missiles. Regular radar is easily fooled by chaff, and PD radar doesn’t even see the helicopter, as the signature of the spinning rotor blades is not modeled.
The AGM-114L would be cool, and possibly effective against ground targets, but it’s not the cutting edge AA system that I feel is needed right now.
Edit: don’t get me wrong, I want the M-SHORAD in game, as an upgrade to LAV-AD. It just can’t fill the long range AA gap that the Pantsir does.
How about actually researching these things before you go into a thread and make stuff up on the fly because you don’t want the vehicle added?
“The launcher is operated by the Launcher Control Terminal (LCT). While the launcher can be fired by the crew, utilising the LCT, this is an emergency option only. Under standard operational procedures an engagement would be conducted remotely by the Fire Distribution Centre (FDC), which could be situated up to 20 kilometres distant from the HML and to which the 3D AN/MPQ-64F1 Sentinel radar and the other HML vehicles of the unit would be linked.”
It can fire without a connection to the FDC, and without a connection to the FDC, it can’t get any targeting data from the radar.
Maybe the MML has some issues but all of these are secondary sources not primary. None are .gov or .mil or are from operators manuals. Meaning they are not sufficient for War Thunder.
Example? I admit I was wrong on some things but I did not make them up. I heard them from other places.
Look… I am normally very understanding, but now I’m starting to lose my patience.
You seem very determined to not understand/believe that “mad-dog”, “bore” or “dogfight” employment of AMRAAM is a real practice. This is a basic feature of virtually all active radar homing missiles, anyone with even a cursory understanding knows that it’s possible.
If what I’ve posted so far doesn’t convince you, then I won’t waste further time digging through documents. You will probably find a new reason to reject whatever that says too.
You are welcome to find these documents yourself.