When the changes are live, anybody want to try em out?
probably tomorrow
Maneuverability buff?
Yes
1 Like
80% ish Fin AoA buff
Aaaand, reverted back?
all changes were reverted, something broke and they panicked
Almost, the sensors were not changed back.
You are assuming missile booster or drag is performing constant acceleration, but that assumption is not true.
Also 32, 40 and 80m/s^2 are estimated acceleraton due to drag force before rocket motor ignites, they are not the thrust of rocket motor.
If the change in Fins AoA goes through, will this primarily influence the low speed turning ability and not so much high speeds? Does fins AoA mean how much the fins deflect from the missile or how much AoA they can pull on the air?
Small question, could AIM-54 be launched at long range without range/velocity data?
There was a test where AIM-54 was launched against a BQM-34E using noise jammer from 110 nm. There is no way AWG-9 achieve sufficient S/N ratio from such distance to burn through jamming, but it is such an extreme distance that I don’t get why it possible to launch without knowing target speed and range
Why would it need to burn though the jamming? Both the AWG-9 and AIM-54 have HOJ capabilities and it is still potentially within range of auxiliary sensors(IRSTS, TCS IRST).
Yes, I do know that AWG-9 have ability to track the angular direction of the jammer (JAT) and AIM-54 can home on the jamming source. But if I recall correctly, isn’t both JAT and HOJ only give angular direction and no information about distance to target or velocity of target?. And it is also the same case for the TCS and IRST. That what confuse me, I thought extremely long range shot required you to know distance and target speed, otherwise it can’t be done.
But on the otherhand, if very long range shot can be done without knowing distance to target and target speed. Then wouldn’t something like F-16CJ with ASQ-239 be a very good counter against any stealth fighter?
Given the insane detection range of F-14 irst, it also make me wonder if they ever pit it against F-22 in exercise. 102 nm detection range against supersonic fighter would be more than AIM-120D max kinematic range, it also impossible to jam
Noooo, we were so close to have good phoenixes. I’m sad
edit: better fins aoa should provide more G?
Depends on the type of Jamming, if a more advanced energy conscious type that reacts to the detected frequencies can be gamed to reveal their doppler, which provides closure rate(since outgoing, and incoming frequency is known the difference in the frequency plot can be determined, thus doppler shift found),
With how the ionosphere interacts and bends returns based on frequency, if the fighter is lower than the Jamming source (so there is sufficient look up angle), there is only one possible solution that satisfies the returns spectrum, detected Jamming angle & received power, which reveals the range in some situations.
Further with a backup non radar based sensor to take over angle tracking, much simpler, and reliable waveforms (since it isn’t responsible for angle tracking, seduction and deception techniques don’t work so tracks are much harder to break, and thus weapons employment is near impossible to defeat, without jamming the seeker itself which is much, much harder to to do though possible with a proper understanding of how it works) can be employed to recover range and closure rate to provide a proper weapons grade track, suitable for full weapons deployment.
There are methods to passively estimate the range to targets via triangulation of multiple sensor(s); The F-14A was was the first fighter with a proper datalink (Link 4C) after all, as well as a variety of Temporal / Spatial methods that take multiple angular readings (look up Synthetic Aperture Radar for a similar application) be it HoJ or IRST, and since wingmen are comon a combat spread is often more than enough to get a suitable reading.
Of course you wouldn’t get full performance out of the system, but for Active Radar missiles you only need to ensure the midcourse guidance is good enough to ensure that when the radar on board the missile goes active it detects the target, so the required accuracy, and rate of guidance commands updates are very much relaxed vs a SARH missile, and further the projected intercept point can be refined over the missile’s flight downrange.
Stealth is very much useful for avoiding getting detected, but once that happens (and it will, be it either by a long wave radar, AWACS / ship that can either utilize massive computational power / passive radar techniques or abuse Aspect angle, IRST or sheer dumb luck, aural detection, spotters or intercepted communications, or properly planned BARCAP etc. ) it is leveraged to reduce the opponent’s engagement range, beyond that it doesn’t really do much.
But otherwise yes, a dual band IIR IRST would be very effective against Stealth airframes, apart from hyperspecialized airframes like the F-117 that trade of performance for very low IR signatures (and even then there are limits to what they can do to deal with skin heating, which constrains performance)
Which is exactly why there is a resurgence of IRST’s like the TALON HATE (Legion IRST) pod among others with recent Teen series developments if they are not being integrated wholesale.
I don’t think so, but for a given G loading drag should be reduced since maximum pull is retained.
1 Like
it also should help getting max G load with less air speed
At least it proves that they are looking at the Phoenix again so other things might change, I have a feeling that the AMRAAM update might be this patch not the next at this point so we might see revised capability and some number of outstanding reports be actioned.
2 Likes