It has always surprised me that they did not simply install an IR and RF seeker in the same missile. They even had prototypes of such a thing but made it hilariously ugly. They could literally make two cones on the front if they really wanted to - it would not be the most aerodynamic solution but I’d imagine that the pK would be insane.
Fair enough, i did some more digging into it, I had mistakenly assumed the main radar of an aircraft could/was used for radar altitude as well, and as such theoretically the radar seeker could do so as well in theory, but aircrafts also have dedicated radar altimeters it seems.
Also, the drawing was a poor representation, but the general thought was “if the radar seeker starts to pickup a significant amount of clutter in its sidelobes, with the estimated intercept point being in said clutter, a more LOS intercept path would be attempted” Hence the “limited terrain avoidance capability” and not outright “radar altitude”
m scan and pesa radars can only do one thing at a time so you have to choose…
some systems do track or at least know about the ground. an example of this would be the mim-104 patriot. it knows where the ground is or tracked it before to not waste precious radar power on those areas but also to avoid having the interceptor follow or lead a target into the ground. however it can only do this because it tracks where the interceptor is…
SM-2 has received an IR seeker on the block IIIB but it is supposedly dropped on the IIIC
i guess they decided that it is not necessary
the IR seeker on the sm-2 was installed for BMD
i’d say the US is very confident in the radar seeker tech
Why are missiles able to lock the wrong target stepan? Atleast for amraam’s case it should check the datlink info is the same as the target it has tracked and only reject datalink when it has confirmed the correct target is locked.
It’s probably a combination of battery life, drag, size limitations, and just general effectiveness. Why waste money trying to come up with ways to solve the first three when just creating a better RF or IR seeker already gives you a solution for the last problem.
Look at how IIR systems and AESA seekers pretty much mean it’s not those points that are going to cause failures.
Forcing an enemy to evade you kinematically whilst also utilizing two forms of countermeasures is quite an effective upgrade. Even the current modern missiles have a pK only in the ~90% within the MAR. Bringing that up to 99 or 100% is the difference between wasting 1 or 2 missiles per target in a closer range engagement and that’s huge.
Not really when you consider the odds of engaging more than 2 targets in a single flight.
It might make more of a comeback as a way to deal with stealth threats, but not until individual seeker performance falls below a point that solving the first 3 problems becomes easier/cheaper.
It never went away, they’ve been trying to solve how to implement dual seekers in missiles for a while. I do not know what the hang up is, but I suspect it has something to do with maintenance or reliability more than anything else. Cost has been a non-factor for America for quite some time.
Thank you for the response and confirmation. So indeed ARH missiles currently will lose DL capabilities after TRK.
I find this interesting as once we see AESA fighters, they won’t have much advantage with ARH (outside of other QoL benefits to AESA). The missile’s own radar will override the launching aircraft’s DL information and go into TRK even when the launching aircraft has a perfect lock the whole way through.
I sure hope not, using combined TRK and DL is one of the main features the AAM-4/4B with J/ARG-1 have to offer, it would be a shame to not represent it in game at some point.
Though I wouldn’t mind them holding back on the implementation just a bit longer so they can finally add the F-2…
1 Like
It’s just natural at this point. After all, they added AAM-3 without BTT and dual channel seeker so, it’s just to be expected for balance.
But yes, if it helps add the F-2 earlier, I’m all for it.
1 Like
Small correction, PESA radars can do two things at a time such as you mentioned simultaneous terrain following/avoidance and air to air functions.
From Rafale’s PESA:
Spoiler
no.
this is a technicality thing. PESA has one Tx and/or RX module thus it can only do one thing at a time. HOWEVER, the speed at which it can switch between a2a/a2g is much much higher which is what that picture you posted states.
“fast radar mode switches”
it’s not technically simulatneously but functionally simultaneously.
AESA on the other hand can have different sections of the radar produce their own radar waves so you can actually have the top half do air to air and the bottom half air to ground for example. this is what’s required for “true” simultaneous operations.
PESAs can just be made fast enough so that there’s no significant negative impact on performance.
4 Likes
I sometimes wonder if more hybrid designs were ever suggested, such as the use of a dual pulse rocket with a ramjet as a sustainer. This could be rather interesting.
Finally found the topic i was looking for,
I was wondering why give usa and russia missiles 100% to 80% max theoric range and french or other nations barely 15/20%. It has gone on bug report since august i think, micas explode themselfs at 40km, when theoric tange should be 60 to 80km for exemple.
Can you cite a single example in-game where this is true?
2 Likes
Likely because the MICA would be busted OP if it was both the best short range missile ingame by a country mile and ALSO the best long range missile ingame?
Gaijin doesnt like to admit to nerfing stuff for balance, but they do do it, and regardless of what french mains pretend, a MICA that crushes everything in WVR while also matching the AIM-120 in BVR would be broken OP. Its unlikely the MICA gets fixed until stuff like AIM-120C5 and R-77-1 are added.
Not like the MICA is the only nerfed missile either, the AIM-120 is still missing range iirc, and its had its maneuvrability nerfed substantially, to the point of being the worst fox 3 in close range by a substantial margin (barring the AIM-54), but that doesnt fit ppl’s narrative so they dont mwntion it much.
I would say this is hyperbole in some way. MICA was demonstrated to be missing some range in a report, but I would not say it is only 15-20% of the range that it should be. It seems like correcting some of the TVC mechanic might have allowed the MICA to get a bit of its range back since this last patch.
Ignoring Russia, atleast from the British documents, it does seem like it doesn’t lack any range.
According to developers, the R-77-1 does not add much range compared to the R-77 in-game, so maybe not even then. It may be probable that R-77-1 arrives before AIM-120C-5 if this is the case.
In my opinion it could arrive with Su-30SM in March or June this year.
I think this very much would be the case in order to provide Russia with a proper 14.0 aircraft, or perhaps 14.3 if it gets moved up along with Eurofighter/Rafale and possibly F-15E.
1 Like