Scenario 1 Details:
Launch Aircraft: Mach 0.9 @ 5,000 ft
Target Aircraft: Mach 0.9 @ 500 ft
Expected max range: 9.1 kmScenario 2 Details:
Launch aircraft: Mach 0.8 @ 25,000 ft
Target Aircraft: Mach1.4 @ 30,000 ft
Expected max range: 15.5 km
These are the two rear aspect shots we have data for.
Important to note those are maximum range shots though, whereas the slide appears to be more concerned with the no escape zone.
there aren’t any flares listed on the DA2, so what do you think the chances are that they add it this December but add flares like they did with the F5C
DA2 doesn’t have the flare dispensers actually fit, only the bump. As well is its BOL pods only ever had the blank in the back to fill the hole, I doubt they were ever wired up as well.
Is the rear aspect range not essentially the “no escape zone”?
If it is, we can assume those numbers are optimal for a base and we can multiply by those given from meteor documentation / claims?
Good point I suppose it depends on your definition of no escape zone, it seems to be one of those terms no one completely agrees on the meaning of. In the front aspect the most common definition seems to be the range at which the missile can still hit the target if the target does a 180° turn at 7-9g (different sources seem to give different values) and runs away from you as soon as the missile is launched.
So I guess you could argue that rear aspect NEZ would just be the aircraft running away from you in a straight line. Or alternatively I guess you could define it to mean the target aircraft does some sort of high g manoeuvre to try and defeat the missile.
wouldn’t the name imply that it’s the Zone where the target has no chance whatsoever to escape the missile no matter what it does?
No reason for DA2 to be added in the first place.
Well, current NEZ of modern ARH missiles in WT is like 4,5 km then depending on readiness of the target, because jets like Gripen with good manouverability can enter notch pretty much instantly and chaff the missile.
no its the range where you cannot kinematically defeat the missile. if you can decoy it that can still be within the NEZ.
but within the NEZ you cant out-turn or out-run the missile
Could also be a MICA, since its MBDA
y’all got some info on this?
AFAIK/could find SDS’ status is currently unknown, it certainly hasn’t been publicly integrated though it seems it is meant to be a replacement/evolution of the BOP dispensers, though there’s no details on how it actually improves on BOP.
Well Eurofighters dont carry BOP pods so thats why i’m confused. so this is either an attempt to integrate these into Eurofighter or maybe add them in a podded version?
I honestly haven’t got a clue, SAAB are needlessly confusing when it comes to just showing what each thing is and seem to refuse to differentiate between which system is on which aircraft.
Gripen however is listed as using BOP/B/C and those are the internal ~90 CM’s, so therefore, perhaps the two 16 count dispensers in the aileron roots? AFAIK noone ever found out the name for them, but perhaps they are a BOP derivative? (Unless cobham make the dispenser as well as the decoy?) IDRK
(These ones)
they’re not BOP pods, they’re 55mm round cobham pods
https://web.archive.org/web/20130618171341/http://www.cobham.com/about-cobham/mission-systems/about-us/mission-equipment/auxiliary-mission-equipment/products-and-services/military-aircraft-countermeasures.aspx
Cobham actually manufacture the dispenser also? Fair enough I had assumed they just manufactured the decoys.
There goes that theory.
So yeah, not a clue and nothing I can find on the internet. Unfortunate.
the decoy is a leonardo product afaik
