why do you think gaijin would ever give the U.S a fire and forget missile?
Uhhhh, if you are trying to defeat stingers with flares you are really doing it wrong my guy.
You can easily defeat a stinger kinematicly without much effort at all, you don’t even need to flare.
Its a glorified AIM-9B, if you are having issues jinking a 9B but with a better seeker and more delta V, you need to really get good, and no, 28 of them against someone with half a brain will not kill them.
Found more, I’ll have to remake the ALQ-211 report as appears to be refered to simply as the “Advanced Threat Radar Warning Receiver” (ATRWR) module.
“SIRFC consists of two required sub-systems: the Advanced Threat Radar Jammer (ATRJ) and the Advanced Threat Radar Warning Receiver (ATRWR). The Advanced Airborne Radio Frequency Expendables package and the Escort Stand-Off variant are two system optional components that are currently unfunded. The system provides warning (situational awareness), active jamming (self-protection) and, when necessary, expendable countermeasures to defeat threat radar guided weapon systems. Future integration of SIRFC with the Suite of Integrated Infrared Counter Measures (SIIRCM) on aircraft, which may be equipped with both systems, is a program objective that optimizes multispectral threat countermeasures. From this point on, when the name SIRFC is used, it will refer specifically to ATRJ and ATRWR, which are major sub-systems under this program’s development.”
I’ll get on producing a revised report , Report is live:
relevant excerpt came from PDF pages 129 & 130 of
As an aside thanks to @Bruce18703 for mentioning that the AH-64D trialed the ALQ-211, that’s what got me to change the keywords which turned up the above document.
I’ll look at the later reports in the series to see if its cancelation or progress is mentioned.
The FY2002 report mentions;
The lead aircraft for SIRFC integration and test and evaluation was the AH-64D Longbow Apache; however, the Army has decided that SIRFC is no longer required on that platform. Prior to this
decision, a test installation on the Longbow Apache was developed and tested.
So it was planed, trialed and not procured for the AH-64D, longbow.
Also the FY2002, report does mention two variants of the Longbow radar being investigated, one was an ESA, the other (which was produced) being a M-scan
Comanche Radar. Design of the Comanche radar antenna in the past two years appears to be maturing, but challenges remain to achieve stationary target detection requirements. At Milestone II, the Comanche radar used an electronically steered array antenna that failed to meet performance requirements. Since Milestone II, the contractor has completed design, assembly, and laboratory testing of a mechanical scanning antenna that employs azimuth and elevation mono-pulse radar waveforms. Laboratory test results suggest that the new design may improve performance as expected.
Which leaves the door open for The future Tech Tree variant to have a radar (“sort of”).
4 Likes
Do you have problems reading, or did you just ignore the part where i said make the plane waste all its flares? Where did i say i had any issues dodging stingers?
You don’t use flares to dodge stingers, thats what I said.
It is an AIM-9B with a seeker that can almost not be flared WHY ARE YOU USING FLARES AGAINST A AIM-9B THAT HAS A NEARLY FLARE PROOF SEEKER.
If you are wasting flares against a FIM-92 you deserve to die because you are doing it totally wrong.
If you are fighting a Comanche with either 4 ATAS missiles or 28, you should never have to pop a single flare. It having 28 will change nothing against anyone with half a brain because the ATAS is beyond hot garbage to begin with.