F-14 D VS SU-27
Mindy
How would the F-14 D with its much improved Thrust/weight ratio do
against the Su-27 or the F-15 C.The F-14 is still a great bvr
fighter,and with the D model it should do well in a dogfight
against the SU-27,since US navy pilots are among the best in the world.I
would like to hear other comments on this.
Xander Pav
On or about Wed, 11 Mar 1998 15:05:46 -0800, Mindy <lo...@pacbell.net>
uttered these words which shall stand for all time in the annals of
Dejanews:
It depends. It always does. If the aircraft are of the same
generation, it depends on the pilot a lot. If one has a substantial
tech advantage, it depends on whether the pilot of the inferior craft
can make up for.
It all depends. I'm of the opinion that the "pure objective dogfight"
is a myth.
Xander Pav ---------------- Info Junky | Protect the Internet!
www.uh.edu/~pav - Email: pav at uh.edu | Fight the spam threat
Email address obviously header mangled | http://www.cauce.org
Gavin Bennett
Most likely, the Su-27, I'm afraid.
They would be reasonably matched, and whoever got the first shot off would
win. However, the zhuralvik could quite easily out manuever the Phoenix,
and once in amraam range, the F-14 would have no advantage.
If they still closed to dogfight, the F-14 would be toast.
Gavin
Phil
careful with your answer because I have worked ten years with the
Phoenix.
Yevgeniy Chizhikov
Phil wrote:
> What type of manuever would it take to out manuever the Phoenix? Be
> careful with your answer because I have worked ten years with the
> Phoenix.
How many kills of manuverable targets Phoenix have? As far as I recall Phoenix
only shotdown some Hind, and in general kill only drones simulating Backfire
run. By the way of you care, Su-27 can be armed with R-33.
Yevgeniy Chizhikov.
Venik
Phil wrote in message <3509EF...@aol.com>...
>What type of manuever would it take to out manuever the Phoenix? Be
>careful with your answer because I have worked ten years with the
>Phoenix.
Ejecting will work just fine. But seriously, Phoenix is likely to fail
without much "assistance" from the targeted Flanker. Since you are the one
with Phoenix experience, why don't you explain how it can be avoided?
Venik
Venik
Andrew P Pavacic
In article <6ed63d$l...@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>,
Head for the deck and turn perpendicular to it to break the Doppler lock.
(Look ma - no experience. :)
-Andrew
D. Scott Ferrin
On Fri, 13 Mar 1998 23:49:41 -0500, Yevgeniy Chizhikov
<y.chi...@popmail.csuohio.edu> wrote:
>
>
>Phil wrote:
>
>> What type of manuever would it take to out manuever the Phoenix? Be
>> careful with your answer because I have worked ten years with the
>> Phoenix.
>
>How many kills of manuverable targets Phoenix have? As far as I recall Phoenix
>only shotdown some Hind, and in general kill only drones simulating Backfire
>run. By the way of you care, Su-27 can be armed with R-33.
>
>Yevgeniy Chizhikov.
>
To my knowledge the Phoenix has never had a "combat" kill but it has
killed manuevering targets in tests. Here's your problem though. If
the Phoenix is at the end of it's run it will be coming down hill
traveling VERY fast without a smoke trail. Chances are by the time
your vaunted Flanker pilot sees the thing it will be too late. Now
if your Flanker pilot starts doing his nine G turns when (if) he hears
the Phoenix's terminal seeker kick in maybe he'd get away. Maybe.
D. Scott Ferrin
**sferrin#inquo.com*
D. Scott Ferrin
On Sat, 14 Mar 1998 00:51:42 -0500, "Venik" <ve...@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
>Phil wrote in message <3509EF...@aol.com>...
>
>>What type of manuever would it take to out manuever the Phoenix? Be
>>careful with your answer because I have worked ten years with the
>>Phoenix.
>
>Ejecting will work just fine. But seriously, Phoenix is likely to fail
>without much "assistance" from the targeted Flanker.
And of course YOU have a lot of experience and test data to draw on.
Since you are the one
>with Phoenix experience, why don't you explain how it can be avoided?
>
>Venik
>
>
D. Scott Ferrin
**sferrin#inquo.com*
Venik
D. Scott Ferrin wrote in message <350a7b1f...@news.inquo.net>...
>On Sat, 14 Mar 1998 00:51:42 -0500, "Venik" <ve...@ix.netcom.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Phil wrote in message <3509EF...@aol.com>...
>>
>>>What type of manuever would it take to out manuever the Phoenix? Be
>>>careful with your answer because I have worked ten years with the
>>>Phoenix.
>>
>>Ejecting will work just fine. But seriously, Phoenix is likely to fail
>>without much "assistance" from the targeted Flanker.
>
>And of course YOU have a lot of experience and test data to draw on.
As usual, your response to my posts is a bit too emotional. Obviously, I was
not trying to make fun of anyone, just asking for an explanation (and not
from you, BTW). The only factual information available to me suggests that
Phoenix scored absolutely no combat kills. It was determined to be of
moderate effectiveness against large targets, such as simulated Soviet
bombers, Tu-95 and Tu-26 in particular. There is no information available
about any tests of Phoenix against faster, smaller, and significantly more
manueverable targets such as Flanker. Depending on the angle of approach,
Phoenix, being a very large missile, can be effectively tracked by the
Flanker's radar, thus giving the pilot plently of warning.
Venik
________________________________________\_
Visit Venik's Military Aviation Page /
http://pw1.netcom.com/~venik/index.htm
updated weekly
________________________________________\_
/
"My fellow Americans, I am pleased to tell
you today that I've signed legislation
which outlaws Russia forever. The bombing
begins in five minutes."
Ronald Reagan
D. Scott Ferrin
On Sat, 14 Mar 1998 14:36:16 -0500, "Venik" <ve...@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
>As usual, your response to my posts is a bit too emotional. Obviously, I was
>not trying to make fun of anyone, just asking for an explanation (and not
>from you, BTW).
Gee that's too bad.
The only factual information available to me suggests that
>Phoenix scored absolutely no combat kills.
Agreed
It was determined to be of
>moderate effectiveness against large targets, such as simulated Soviet
>bombers, Tu-95 and Tu-26 in particular. There is no information available
>about any tests of Phoenix against faster, smaller, and significantly more
>manueverable targets such as Flanker.
Maybe not to you (they don't have that stuff in Popular Mechanics).
However anybody who takes the time to crack a book can find out about
kills the Phoenix got in trials. It includes taking out jamming,
hard-turning (7.5 g) targets and taking out Bomarcs.
Depending on the angle of approach,
>Phoenix, being a very large missile, can be effectively tracked by the
>Flanker's radar, thus giving the pilot plently of warning.
I think if I were in a Flanker I'd rather be busy dodging the Phoenix
rather than watching it come to kick my ass like a deer in the
headlights.
>
>Venik
>________________________________________\_
> Visit Venik's Military Aviation Page /
> http://pw1.netcom.com/~venik/index.htm
> updated weekly
>________________________________________\_
> /
>"My fellow Americans, I am pleased to tell
>you today that I've signed legislation
>which outlaws Russia forever. The bombing
>begins in five minutes."
>
>Ronald Reagan
>
>
>
D. Scott Ferrin
**sferrin#inquo.com*
Yevgeniy Chizhikov
D. Scott Ferrin wrote:
> Maybe not to you (they don't have that stuff in Popular Mechanics).
> However anybody who takes the time to crack a book can find out about
> kills the Phoenix got in trials. It includes taking out jamming,
> hard-turning (7.5 g) targets and taking out Bomarcs.
It was the max, I have read that usual drone simulating Backfire with CONSTANT
turn of 3-5 G. The important word here is constant.
> I think if I were in a Flanker I'd rather be busy dodging the Phoenix
> rather than watching it come to kick my ass like a deer in the
> headlights.
This is why you are not a pilot :) The best way close to a missile range, and
smoke sucker. If I recall F-14 is limited only to 7.5 G, plus it is very large,
and not really fast. For R-77 F-14 is a easy target.
Yevgeniy Chizhikov.
Carlo Kopp
Andrew P Pavacic wrote:
>
> In article <6ed63d$l...@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>,
> Venik <ve...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >Phil wrote in message <3509EF...@aol.com>...
> >>What type of manuever would it take to out manuever the Phoenix? Be
> >>careful with your answer because I have worked ten years with the
> >>Phoenix.
> >
> >Ejecting will work just fine. But seriously, Phoenix is likely to fail
> >with Phoenix experience, why don't you explain how it can be avoided?
> >
>
>
> (Look ma - no experience. :)
>
some very clever algorithms which can detect the rate of change of
Doppler and adjust the Doppler filters. Basically, you are dead :-)
Cheers,
Carlo
Hunter146
>>>>What type of manuever would it take to out manuever the Phoenix? Be
>>>>careful with your answer because I have worked ten years with the
>>>>Phoenix.
>>>
>>>Ejecting will work just fine. But seriously, Phoenix is likely to fail
>>>without much "assistance" from the targeted Flanker.
>>
>
>
>not trying to make fun of anyone, just asking for an explanation (and not
>Phoenix scored absolutely no combat kills. It was determined to be of
>moderate effectiveness against large targets, such as simulated Soviet
>bombers, Tu-95 and Tu-26 in particular. There is no information available
>about any tests of Phoenix against faster, smaller, and significantly more
>Phoenix, being a very large missile, can be effectively tracked by the
>Flanker's radar, thus giving the pilot plently of warning.
>
How in the hell can it score any kills when it has never been fired in combat.
During the testing of the Phoenix, the AIM-54A has about an 80% POK. One of
the misses was due to a malfunction in the test drone. It was never fired in
the Gulf because of the visual ID restraints. But if we go at it again they
have cleared the Tomcats to deliver the deadly payload.
Steven,
hunter146
Lorne D. Gilsig
Dear D. Scott Ferrin,
I think you are missing the point.
The Phoenix did very well in tests, and those tests were conducted by
who?, how many years ago?, against targets representing what generation
of aircraft?
Todays Mig-29's, Su-27 and 35's are not the Mig-21's and 23's of
yesterday.
Lorne D. Gilsig
D. Scott Ferrin
>
>
>D. Scott Ferrin wrote:
>
>> Maybe not to you (they don't have that stuff in Popular Mechanics).
>> However anybody who takes the time to crack a book can find out about
>> kills the Phoenix got in trials. It includes taking out jamming,
>> hard-turning (7.5 g) targets and taking out Bomarcs.
>
>It was the max, I have read that usual drone simulating Backfire with CONSTANT
>turn of 3-5 G. The important word here is constant.
>
>> I think if I were in a Flanker I'd rather be busy dodging the Phoenix
>> rather than watching it come to kick my ass like a deer in the
>> headlights.
>
>This is why you are not a pilot :)
Oh now you're claiming to be a pilot too? If you try to wait until
Phoenix is in visual range so you can turn then you're dead. If,
however you want to track the Phoenix on radar so you can time your
break whether you see the missile or not then that's different. Of
course that's assuming the missile is approaching from a direction
that the radar can see.
The best way close to a missile range, and
>smoke sucker. If I recall F-14 is limited only to 7.5 G, plus it is very large,
>and not really fast. For R-77 F-14 is a easy target.
>
>Yevgeniy Chizhikov.
>
D. Scott Ferrin
**sferrin#inquo.com*
D. Scott Ferrin
>Dear D. Scott Ferrin,
>
>
>I think you are missing the point.
I think you're the one missing the point. Go back and read the posts
from beginning to end and if you still can't figure it out I will
clarify it.
>
>The Phoenix did very well in tests, and those tests were conducted by
>who?, how many years ago?, against targets representing what generation
>of aircraft?
>
>Todays Mig-29's, Su-27 and 35's are not the Mig-21's and 23's of
>yesterday.
>
>
>Lorne D. Gilsig
>
>
D. Scott Ferrin
**sferrin#inquo.com*
Venik
Hunter146 wrote in message
<19980315023...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
>How in the hell can it score any kills when it has never been fired in
combat.
Exactly my point. How can anyone call Phoenix an effective weapon if it
never seen actual combat? Tests are good, however, do you know what
simulated targets was the Phoenix tested against? If I am not mistaken the
tests you ar reffering to took place quite some time ago.
Venik
Skibumdse
I have a question? just how many of youhave ever flown a f-14 or a Su-27. if I
were you I wouldent make any jugements untill you fly some for your selves.
Venik
Skibumdse wrote in message
<19980315055...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
>I have a question? just how many of youhave ever flown a f-14 or a Su-27.
if I
>were you I wouldent make any jugements untill you fly some for your selves.
If everyone would follow your advise we would end up back in the Stone Age.
Venik
PosterBoy
"Venik" <ve...@ix.netcom.com> writes: > Skibumdse wrote in message
Well....not really Venik.
More likely, enlightened. Or knowledgeable. Or experienced.
Even...dare I say it?...credible.
To put it in perspective, just think what experience might do for
Yev! <g>
Cheers.
Mark Kallio
On Sun, 15 Mar 1998 00:13:05 -0500, "Venik" <ve...@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
>Hunter146 wrote in message
><19980315023...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
>
>>How in the hell can it score any kills when it has never been fired in
>combat.
>
>Exactly my point. How can anyone call Phoenix an effective weapon if it
>never seen actual combat? Tests are good, however, do you know what
>simulated targets was the Phoenix tested against? If I am not mistaken the
>tests you ar reffering to took place quite some time ago.
>
>Venik
Using that logic - then should we also assume all the Soviet, US or
any weapons that are untested in combat are *not* effective
weapons...... That line of argument won't get you too far I'm afraid.
The effectiveness of any weapon depends upon the man firing it - or
are we also to assume that we should also take that out of the
equation as well.
Too many assumptions on your part Venik - and too many variables that
tend to lead to the true answer, you can't say with any certainty the
degree of effectiveness the Phoenix missile has - or doesn't have.
However, I would say that deployed in sufficient numbers - it would be
effective enough ;-)
Mark........
Yevgeniy Chizhikov
Mark Kallio wrote:
> Too many assumptions on your part Venik - and too many variables that
> tend to lead to the true answer, you can't say with any certainty the
> degree of effectiveness the Phoenix missile has - or doesn't have.
> However, I would say that deployed in sufficient numbers - it would be
> effective enough ;-)
The major point is that Phoenix had not been chosen to be put on other
fighters. F-18, F-15, and others that in theory can be armed with Phoenix, yet
smaller, lighter, and MORE maneuverable missiles was chosen. While Phoenix is
in service with only one interceptor and defender of the naval task force from
bombers. It show something don't you think? If Phoenix had real success in fast
turning modern combat of agile fighters it WOULD be put on almost all fighters
in Nato. F-15 could handle it with no problems. Yet, it was never put on anyone
except F-14. The same is true for R-33. It can be put on Su-27, but it was
never use. Mig-31 is the only one who running around with R-33. The only other
bird that may get R-37 or R-33 is Mig-1.42, but on the other hand Mig-1.42 must
be able to take anything in Russian inventory. So, forget Phoenix and R-33,
those missile designed for specific role and against specific targets -
Bombers.
Yevgeniy Chizhikov.
Hunter146
>those missile designed for specific role and against specific targets -
>Bombers.
>
And cruise missiles and fighter size targets emitting high levels of ECM. It
is used for Fleet defence, meaning everything from bombers to fighters to
cruise missiles like the exocet.
Steven,
hunter146
D. Scott Ferrin
>
>
>Mark Kallio wrote:
>
>> Too many assumptions on your part Venik - and too many variables that
>> tend to lead to the true answer, you can't say with any certainty the
>> degree of effectiveness the Phoenix missile has - or doesn't have.
>> However, I would say that deployed in sufficient numbers - it would be
>> effective enough ;-)
>
>The major point is that Phoenix had not been chosen to be put on other
>fighters. F-18, F-15, and others that in theory can be armed with Phoenix, yet
>smaller, lighter, and MORE maneuverable missiles was chosen.
I think the thing to note here is "smaller and lighter". It was said
once that mounting two Sparrows on the F-20 was like puttings anchors
on it. The Phoenix is twice as heavy. Also, to my knowledge, the
AWG-9 is the only system that is compatible with it. I can't imagine
trying to stuff one of those into an F-16. The put and APG-65 into an
F-16 and the nose looked like a Phantom. I was a little surprised
that the F-15 didn't carry them.. There's also another thing to
consider with Phoenix- $$$.
While Phoenix is
>in service with only one interceptor and defender of the naval task force from
>bombers. It show something don't you think?
Yes. Long range was required to hit the bombers before they released
their missiles. And with missiles the further away from the carrier
they could be engaged the greater the likelihood of success.
If Phoenix had real success in fast
>turning modern combat of agile fighters it WOULD be put on almost all fighters
>in Nato.
Weight, requirements (AWG-9), $$$
F-15 could handle it with no problems.
Yes but there's that weight thing again, $$$ etc. I guess what I'm
saying is that cost, weight, and requirements were enough that it was
only used in roles when nothing else would do. Though I would much
rather have had F-15s with Phoenix as dedicated "interceptors" than
those dinky little F-16s with Sparrow.
Yet, it was never put on anyone
>except F-14. The same is true for R-33. It can be put on Su-27, but it was
>never use. Mig-31 is the only one who running around with R-33.
I think it's because of similar reasons: cost and weight. I'll give
you this, heavyweight missiles can't turn like a lightweight missile
*but* that doesn't mean they can't turn well enough to do the job.
The only other
>bird that may get R-37 or R-33 is Mig-1.42, but on the other hand Mig-1.42 must
>be able to take anything in Russian inventory. So, forget Phoenix and R-33,
>those missile designed for specific role and against specific targets -
>Bombers.
>
D. Scott Ferrin
On Sun, 15 Mar 1998 07:28:43 GMT, PosterBoy <bra...@bigfoot.com>
wrote:
Just curious, how would we have got into space then? No one had ever
done it and if it was requirement to do something in order to talk
about it... And as for inventing ANYTHING or doing ANYTHING how does
anything get done without it being talked about first? Those actually
envolved in the things we discuss have the benefit of experience to
draw on but they would have nothing to do if it hadn't been talked
about first. Anyway that's my $0.02.
D. Scott Ferrin
**sferrin#inquo.com*
Jarmo Lindberg
D. Scott Ferrin wrote:
<snipped>
> I think the thing to note here is "smaller and lighter". It was said
> once that mounting two Sparrows on the F-20 was like puttings anchors
> on it. The Phoenix is twice as heavy. Also, to my knowledge, the
> AWG-9 is the only system that is compatible with it. I can't imagine
> trying to stuff one of those into an F-16. The put and APG-65 into an
> F-16 and the nose looked like a Phantom. I was a little surprised
> that the F-15 didn't carry them.. There's also another thing to
> consider with Phoenix- $$$.
Good points.
--
Jarmo Lindberg
Fighter Squadron 21: http://www.mil.fi/ftrsqn21/
Fighter Tactics Academy: http://www.sci.fi/~fta/welcome.htm
John Carrier
>Todays Mig-29's, Su-27 and 35's are not the Mig-21's and 23's of
>yesterday.
A/A missiles are blissfully unaware of the identity of their target. The
superior maneuverability of the more modern aircraft is still not much of a
challenge for a good weapon.
The Phoenix was primarily a multishot bomber/ASM killer. The major
advantage a fighter would have in Phoenix defense is hard maneuvering during
the terminal phase of missile intercept, particularly at longer ranges when
the missile is unpowered and in a glide. (A hard turn away could
conceivably negate the shot). The defender should be able to significantly
increase miss distance ... then again the phoenie-bomb has a pretty large
warhead.
Mid-range shots pose a more interesting issue. No maneuver will put the
target out of envelope, but a combination of maneuvering and countermeasures
might generate a significant miss.
I think all the posters in this thread have missed a major point: the
aircraft that puts the first missile in the air on the run-in has a
significant advantage. He's put the ball in the target aircraft's court.
Does he close to his best launch parameters (and if so, does he have to
maintain the missile ala Sparrow or can he leave ala Slammer) ... chicken at
20 miles/minute closure? Does he jink/break asap (and maybe lose/degrade
his radar picture or damage section integrity)? You really don't want to
enter an engagement with the bogeys in the beam because you had to evade a
shot.
The Phoenix (should ROE allow its use) can do a marvelous job of putting the
adversary on the defensive miles prior to the merge ... even were the
missile inferior, it's presence still has to be honored. (By the by, it has
a wonderful short range mode ... a Turkey crew can put an awful lot of
assorted iron in the air prior to the merge.)
The superior radar and two-man crew gives the Turkey the advantage on long
set ups. That advantage would appear to shift to the Sukoi as the range
decreases. In a knife fight the Russian aircraft is superior (IMHO) and the
off-boresight Archer is a huge advantage.
R/ John (former fighter pilot)
Mark Kallio
>The major point is that Phoenix had not been chosen to be put on other
>fighters. F-18, F-15, and others that in theory can be armed with Phoenix, yet
>smaller, lighter, and MORE maneuverable missiles was chosen. While Phoenix is
>in service with only one interceptor and defender of the naval task force from
>bombers. It show something don't you think? If Phoenix had real success in fast
>turning modern combat of agile fighters it WOULD be put on almost all fighters
>in Nato. F-15 could handle it with no problems. Yet, it was never put on anyone
>except F-14. The same is true for R-33. It can be put on Su-27, but it was
>never use. Mig-31 is the only one who running around with R-33. The only other
>bird that may get R-37 or R-33 is Mig-1.42, but on the other hand Mig-1.42 must
>be able to take anything in Russian inventory. So, forget Phoenix and R-33,
>those missile designed for specific role and against specific targets -
>Bombers.
As Steven points out in his post, the Phoenix was and is designed for
a specific role - fleet defense - something that other fighters were
never intended to do, nor should they be so equipped. Besides the
obvious weight penalty - at over a $1 million a shot the Phoenix
really isn't cost effective when the Sparrow and Sidewinder missiles
will suffice. Air superiority fighters simply do not need the extra
capability of the Phoenix, fleet defense fighters do - and it would
use these weapons against any threat, including fighters.
I'm sure you realize that the standard weapons load of an F-14
includes (4) Phoenix (4) Sparrows (2) sidewinders (1) cannon. In an
engagement with a Su-27 - it seems ludicrous to assume that the F-14
would not fire upon his adversary when he gets into weapons range.
*If* the F-14 can deploy the Phoenix - he will. As to the
effectiveness of the weapon, you have to recognize that there is more
to the equation that just the ability of the Phoenix to score a kill.
It ties up the opponent during a critical phase of the merge -
allowing the F-14 to get into the optimum position to deploy his next
weapon, while his opponent is trying to jink the Phoenix. Also, to
assume that the F-14 would deploy only one Phoenix is not logical.
Fire the first, wait 15 seconds - fire a second. Now your opponent is
outside of his weapons envelope with 3 threat priorities to deal with.
Now tell me, regardless of the kill capability of the Phoenix - is
this *not* effectively neutralizing the offensiveness of the Su-27? On
the defense, there is little room to conjecture that he will ever come
out of that posture.
I'm not attempting to belittle your argument - just saying that there
is much more at play here than just the kill capability of one weapon
system. The Phoenix isn't a wonder weapon - but it is an effective
one......... (or is that 4 ;-)
Mark..........
Mike Kopack
Yevgeniy Chizhikov wrote:
>
> Mark Kallio wrote:
>
> > Too many assumptions on your part Venik - and too many variables that
> > tend to lead to the true answer, you can't say with any certainty the
> > degree of effectiveness the Phoenix missile has - or doesn't have.
> > However, I would say that deployed in sufficient numbers - it would be
> > effective enough ;-)
>
> fighters. F-18, F-15, and others that in theory can be armed with Phoenix, yet
> smaller, lighter, and MORE maneuverable missiles was chosen. While Phoenix is
> in service with only one interceptor and defender of the naval task force from
> bombers. It show something don't you think? If Phoenix had real success in fast
> turning modern combat of agile fighters it WOULD be put on almost all fighters
> in Nato. F-15 could handle it with no problems. Yet, it was never put on anyone
> except F-14. The same is true for R-33. It can be put on Su-27, but it was
> never use. Mig-31 is the only one who running around with R-33. The only other
> bird that may get R-37 or R-33 is Mig-1.42, but on the other hand Mig-1.42 must
> be able to take anything in Russian inventory. So, forget Phoenix and R-33,
> those missile designed for specific role and against specific targets -
> Bombers.
>
But the MiG 1.42 will never fly in an operational role, so what it
carries is a moot point.
Mike
Mike Kopack
Mark Kallio wrote:
>
> On Sun, 15 Mar 1998 03:04:50 -0500, Yevgeniy Chizhikov
> <y.chi...@popmail.csuohio.edu> wrote:
>
> >fighters. F-18, F-15, and others that in theory can be armed with Phoenix, yet
> >smaller, lighter, and MORE maneuverable missiles was chosen. While Phoenix is
> >in service with only one interceptor and defender of the naval task force from
> >bombers. It show something don't you think? If Phoenix had real success in fast
> >turning modern combat of agile fighters it WOULD be put on almost all fighters
> >in Nato. F-15 could handle it with no problems. Yet, it was never put on anyone
> >except F-14. The same is true for R-33. It can be put on Su-27, but it was
> >never use. Mig-31 is the only one who running around with R-33. The only other
> >bird that may get R-37 or R-33 is Mig-1.42, but on the other hand Mig-1.42 must
> >be able to take anything in Russian inventory. So, forget Phoenix and R-33,
> >those missile designed for specific role and against specific targets -
> >Bombers.
>
I agree Mark, once the Phoenix is in the air, an enemy must put his
concentration into defeating it, instead of the Tomcat. This has to put
the F-14 at the obvious advantage of being able to manuver against the
target, while the target must manuver against the missile, effectivally
turning a 1-vs-1 into a 2/3-vs-1 engagement.
Mike Kopack
Urban Fredriksson
In article <350B8BA2...@popmail.csuohio.edu>,
Yevgeniy Chizhikov <y.chi...@popmail.csuohio.edu> wrote:
>The major point is that Phoenix had not been chosen to be put on other
>fighters. F-18, F-15, and others that in theory can be armed with Phoenix, yet
>smaller, lighter, and MORE maneuverable missiles was chosen.
Smaller, lighter, cheaper yes. More manoeuverable? Perhaps
within certain range bands, depending on motor burn
characteristics, but if nothing else the range alone
implies the Phoenix can turn better at long ranges than
most other missiles. But I don't think we know anything
which would imply the Phoenix is very bad at shorter
ranges, so I think the main reason is simply that you can
carry more of the smaller missiles, or get better aircraft
performance with the same number of missiles.
--
Urban Fredriksson Ferrets; Aviation; Railways:
gri...@canit.se http://www.canit.se/%7Egriffon/
There is always a yet unknown alternative.
em...@olypen.com
In article <6efv74$r...@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>,
"Venik" <ve...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> Skibumdse wrote in message
> <19980315055...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
> >I have a question? just how many of youhave ever flown a f-14 or a Su-27.
> if I
> >were you I wouldent make any jugements untill you fly some for your selves.
>
> If everyone would follow your advise we would end up back in the Stone Age.
>
> Venik
Don't know about that, but this ng would sure fade fast!
Miichael
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
bhunt
In article <350B8BA2...@popmail.csuohio.edu>,
y.chi...@popmail.csuohio.edu says...
>
>
>
>Mark Kallio wrote:
>
>> Too many assumptions on your part Venik - and too many variables that
>> tend to lead to the true answer, you can't say with any certainty the
>> degree of effectiveness the Phoenix missile has - or doesn't have.
>> However, I would say that deployed in sufficient numbers - it would be
>> effective enough ;-)
>
>fighters. F-18, F-15, and others that in theory can be armed with Phoenix, yet
>in service with only one interceptor and defender of the naval task force from
>bombers. It show something don't you think? If Phoenix had real success in
fast
>turning modern combat of agile fighters it WOULD be put on almost all fighters
>in Nato. F-15 could handle it with no problems. Yet, it was never put on
anyone
>except F-14. The same is true for R-33. It can be put on Su-27, but it was
>never use. Mig-31 is the only one who running around with R-33. The only other
>bird that may get R-37 or R-33 is Mig-1.42, but on the other hand Mig-1.42
must
>be able to take anything in Russian inventory. So, forget Phoenix and R-33,
>those missile designed for specific role and against specific targets -
>Bombers.
>
>
The phoenix is not on all NATO fighters because 1.) It's extreemly expensive
2.) Most importantly, it's use is restricted in most cases by rules of
engagement that require targets to be identified inside ranges of the other
AAMs, so why pay for it? 3.) It's original mission is now the providence of the
Aegis class cruisers.
-Brian
bh...@valdosta.edu
Venik
Mark Kallio wrote in message <35117d23.60935544@news>...
>Using that logic - then should we also assume all the Soviet, US or
>any weapons that are untested in combat are *not* effective
>weapons...... That line of argument won't get you too far I'm afraid.
>The effectiveness of any weapon depends upon the man firing it - or
>are we also to assume that we should also take that out of the
>equation as well.
>
>tend to lead to the true answer, you can't say with any certainty the
>degree of effectiveness the Phoenix missile has - or doesn't have.
>However, I would say that deployed in sufficient numbers - it would be
>effective enough ;-)
Making a lot of assumptions is inevitable in case with Phoenix. Otherwise I
agree with you - any weapon not tested in combat cannot be considered
effective. You can only assume it will be effective based on your idea of
the way this weapon is used and highly subjective tests. Nobody knows for a
fact if, say, nuclear ICBMs will actually be as effective as we fear they
are, or if we can actually count on the largerly unproven stealth technology
in a real fight. All we can do is make assumptions.
Venik
Andrew P Pavacic
In article <350A6680...@aus.net>,
Carlo Kopp <Carlo.Ko...@aus.net> wrote:
>>
>> (Look ma - no experience. :)
>>
>Andrew, that might beat the A-model Phoenix, but not the C-model. It has
>some very clever algorithms which can detect the rate of change of
>Doppler and adjust the Doppler filters. Basically, you are dead :-)
Those would be some clever algorithms indeed, even magical, that could
discriminate the delta-f0 return of a fighter from the same delta-f0
return of a planet. You've got Earth as a towed decoy.
"Let my armies be the rocks and the trees, and the birds in the air."
-Andrew
(P.S. Thanks for not ignoring my post, like everyone else on this thread)
CHamil2899
Just A quick question along these lines. How many Falnkers have flown *actual*
combat missions? And second, how many former Warsaw Pact pilots have flown in
*actual* combat since their flight time has allen through the floor? Any
legitimate estimations?
C.J. Hamilton
--------------
D. Scott Ferrin wrote:
>
> On Fri, 13 Mar 1998 23:49:41 -0500, Yevgeniy Chizhikov
> <y.chi...@popmail.csuohio.edu> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Phil wrote:
> >
> >> What type of manuever would it take to out manuever the Phoenix? Be
> >> Phoenix.
> >
> >only shotdown some Hind, and in general kill only drones simulating Backfire
> >run. By the way of you care, Su-27 can be armed with R-33.
> >
> >Yevgeniy Chizhikov.
> >
>
> To my knowledge the Phoenix has never had a "combat" kill but it has
> killed manuevering targets in tests. Here's your problem though. If
> the Phoenix is at the end of it's run it will be coming down hill
> traveling VERY fast without a smoke trail. Chances are by the time
> your vaunted Flanker pilot sees the thing it will be too late. Now
> if your Flanker pilot starts doing his nine G turns when (if) he hears
> the Phoenix's terminal seeker kick in maybe he'd get away. Maybe.
>
> D. Scott Ferrin
> **sferrin#inquo.com*
Well Phoenix is a great weapon, but the missile is pretty big, I think
that if an F-14 fires one the flanker pilot will have plenty of
warning.
First the F-14 will lock him up, which will sound the flankers RWR, and
I very much belive that the flankers radar will be able to detect the
missile a number of minutes before the impact and take aproprite
measures, or maybe the flanker will try to shoot it down with his own
missiles (???? That might be possible ????). The AIM-54 is not an
extremly agile missile, if the flanker is aware of it avoding it should
not be a great challenge.
Also how the F-14 now that the flanker is not armed with an R-33? (AA-9
Acrid)
BTW: This argument doesn't seem to be only flanker related, the same can
apply to F-15/F-16/F-18 vs F-14. All of those can outturn the tomcat in
a dogfight, but will have major trouble closing to a dogfight.
dennis...@dwt.csiro.au
In article <6efo6f$d...@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>,
"Venik" <ve...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> Hunter146 wrote in message
> <19980315023...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
>
> >How in the hell can it score any kills when it has never been fired in
> combat.
>
> Exactly my point. How can anyone call Phoenix an effective weapon if it
> never seen actual combat? Tests are good, however, do you know what
> simulated targets was the Phoenix tested against? If I am not mistaken the
> tests you ar reffering to took place quite some time ago.
>
> Venik
>
Jesus, Venik, you are truly amazing. You can't have your cake andd eat it as
well. You criticise a defence analyst in an aviation journal (Carlo Kopp and
Australian Aviation, and trade journals he has written for). Than you use
Popular Mechanics as a definitive source, and make some statement about
professional journalists (they aren't even specialist aviation journalists).
Then there is the Su-37 thing. You go on about the Su-37 as the greatest thing
since sliced bread. You say that it will roast the F-15. Yet, in the above you
state "How can anyone call Phoenix an effective weapon if it never seen actual
combat? Tests are good, however, do you know what simulated targets was the
Phoenix tested against?" Now substitute Su-37 for Phoenix!! Makes your
argument a little weak, doesn't it? Just how much combat has the Su-37 seen,
Venik? (Oh yes, it is a proptotype, not even in service) How does that combat
record compare to the 100+ kills obtained by the F-15 for no A-A losses?
One thing I really would have thought that you would have learned by now is
consistency. If you are going to apply certain criteria to arguments, you need
to apply those criteria across the board, not just when it conveniently suits
your argument.
Dennis
dennis...@dwt.csiro.au
In article <EpvI7...@ecf.toronto.edu>,
pav...@ecf.toronto.edu (Andrew P Pavacic) wrote:
>
> In article <350A6680...@aus.net>,
> Carlo Kopp <Carlo.Ko...@aus.net> wrote:
> >Andrew P Pavacic wrote:
> >> >Phil wrote in message <3509EF...@aol.com>...
> >>
> >> (Look ma - no experience. :)
> >>
> >Andrew, that might beat the A-model Phoenix, but not the C-model. It has
> >some very clever algorithms which can detect the rate of change of
> >Doppler and adjust the Doppler filters. Basically, you are dead :-)
>
> Those would be some clever algorithms indeed, even magical, that could
> discriminate the delta-f0 return of a fighter from the same delta-f0
> return of a planet. You've got Earth as a towed decoy.
>
> "Let my armies be the rocks and the trees, and the birds in the air."
>
> -Andrew
>
> (P.S. Thanks for not ignoring my post, like everyone else on this thread)
>
Andrew
One thing that you have to realise is that you might momentarily be able to
travel tangential to the seeker, but you won't be able to sustain it. In order
to do that, you would have to have very accurate knowledge of the position of
the sseker at all times (direction and range). For example, to continue
travelling at a tangent to the seeker, you have to be flying along the
circumference of a circle to the seeker. As the sseker gets closer, you will
need to reduce your circumference accordingly. This would be very difficult
for a computer so configured to do, never mind hand flying. Yes, you can
reduce the doppler shift, but it is not a realistic assumption to think that
you can eliminate it for any reasonable amount of time.
D. Scott Ferrin
On Sun, 15 Mar 1998 13:22:52 -0500, "Venik" <ve...@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
>Mark Kallio wrote in message <35117d23.60935544@news>...
>>Using that logic - then should we also assume all the Soviet, US or
>>any weapons that are untested in combat are *not* effective
>>weapons...... That line of argument won't get you too far I'm afraid.
>>The effectiveness of any weapon depends upon the man firing it - or
>>are we also to assume that we should also take that out of the
>>equation as well.
>>
>>Too many assumptions on your part Venik - and too many variables that
>>tend to lead to the true answer, you can't say with any certainty the
>>degree of effectiveness the Phoenix missile has - or doesn't have.
>>However, I would say that deployed in sufficient numbers - it would be
>>effective enough ;-)
>
>
>Making a lot of assumptions is inevitable in case with Phoenix. Otherwise I
>agree with you - any weapon not tested in combat cannot be considered
>effective.
They cannot be considered *ineffective* either. Do you consider
Russian ICBMs ineffective because they've never been used in combat?
How about the Russian navy? Is it also ineffective? At best tests
determine a degree of probability that a weapon will or will not be
effective. Sometimes there are big surprises both ways. Good
performance in tests, in general, indicate a high probability that a
weapon system will perform good in combat.
You can only assume it will be effective based on your idea of
>the way this weapon is used and highly subjective tests.
That goes for ANY weapon. The trick is to make tests that represent
real world scenarios.
Nobody knows for a
>fact if, say, nuclear ICBMs will actually be as effective as we fear they
>are,
However we can use testing and statistics to determine, with a good
degree of confidence, how well a weapon will perform. If a human is
involved in the equation it muddies things though.
or if we can actually count on the largerly unproven stealth
technology
>in a real fight.
It seemed to work pretty well in Iraq :)
All we can do is make assumptions.
>
>Venik
>
>
D. Scott Ferrin
**sferrin#inquo.com*
Venik
dennis...@dwt.csiro.au wrote in message
<6ehupv$jep$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>Jesus, Venik, you are truly amazing. You can't have your cake andd eat it
as
>well. You criticise a defence analyst in an aviation journal (Carlo Kopp
and
>Australian Aviation, and trade journals he has written for). Than you use
>Popular Mechanics as a definitive source, and make some statement about
>professional journalists (they aren't even specialist aviation
journalists).
Not "definitive" source but a real one. The source that anyone can check
unlike some fictional sources of certain defense analysts.
>
>Then there is the Su-37 thing. You go on about the Su-37 as the greatest
thing
>since sliced bread. You say that it will roast the F-15. Yet, in the above
you
>state "How can anyone call Phoenix an effective weapon if it never seen
actual
>combat? Tests are good, however, do you know what simulated targets was the
>Phoenix tested against?" Now substitute Su-37 for Phoenix!! Makes your
>argument a little weak, doesn't it? Just how much combat has the Su-37
seen,
>Venik? (Oh yes, it is a proptotype, not even in service) How does that
combat
>record compare to the 100+ kills obtained by the F-15 for no A-A losses?
I stated a point of view regarding the Su-37 and I didn't say that I have
"10 years" experience flying one. There is no flaw in my logic (there never
is): Su-37 is not determined to be an effective weapon, it is only assumed
to be one (by me).
>
>One thing I really would have thought that you would have learned by now is
>consistency. If you are going to apply certain criteria to arguments, you
need
>to apply those criteria across the board, not just when it conveniently
suits
>your argument.
>
When you eat bread and butter you apply butter only to the piece of bread
you are going to eat. And, by the way, I hate sliced bread.
Venik
Carlo Kopp
Andrew P Pavacic wrote:
>
> In article <350A6680...@aus.net>,
> Carlo Kopp <Carlo.Ko...@aus.net> wrote:
> >Andrew P Pavacic wrote:
> >> >Phil wrote in message <3509EF...@aol.com>...
> >> >>What type of manuever would it take to out manuever the Phoenix? Be
> >> Head for the deck and turn perpendicular to it to break the Doppler lock.
> >>
> >> (Look ma - no experience. :)
> >>
> >Andrew, that might beat the A-model Phoenix, but not the C-model. It has
> >some very clever algorithms which can detect the rate of change of
> >Doppler and adjust the Doppler filters. Basically, you are dead :-)
>
> Those would be some clever algorithms indeed, even magical, that could
> discriminate the delta-f0 return of a fighter from the same delta-f0
> return of a planet. You've got Earth as a towed decoy.
>
relation to the LOS to the inbound missile ? You can't, so your argument
fails :-)
Cheers,
Carlo
Xander Pav
On or about 15 Mar 1998 21:14:03 GMT, chami...@aol.com (CHamil2899)
uttered these words which shall stand for all time in the annals of
Dejanews:
>Just A quick question along these lines. How many Falnkers have flown *actual*
>combat missions? And second, how many former Warsaw Pact pilots have flown in
>*actual* combat since their flight time has allen through the floor? Any
>legitimate estimations?
But wait! In the all objective world of RAM, real world experience
and pilots don't count!
Find me one air force getting decent flight hours in
Russian/Ex-Soviet/Warsaw Pact aircraft and I'll show you 15 scaled
back but still extremely operational western air forces.
Xander Pav ---------------- Info Junky | Protect the Internet!
www.uh.edu/~pav - Email: pav at uh.edu | Fight the spam threat
Email address obviously header mangled | http://www.cauce.org
Andrew P Pavacic
In article <6ei2ih$n3e$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
<dennis...@dwt.csiro.au> wrote:
>In article <EpvI7...@ecf.toronto.edu>,
> pav...@ecf.toronto.edu (Andrew P Pavacic) wrote:
>> discriminate the delta-f0 return of a fighter from the same delta-f0
>> return of a planet. You've got Earth as a towed decoy.
>
>travel tangential to the seeker, but you won't be able to sustain it. In order
>to do that, you would have to have very accurate knowledge of the position of
>the sseker at all times (direction and range). For example, to continue
>travelling at a tangent to the seeker, you have to be flying along the
>circumference of a circle to the seeker. As the sseker gets closer, you will
>need to reduce your circumference accordingly. This would be very difficult
>for a computer so configured to do, never mind hand flying. Yes, you can
>reduce the doppler shift, but it is not a realistic assumption to think that
>you can eliminate it for any reasonable amount of time.
Strictly speaking, you travel tangential to the transmitter. This may
be on board the enemy aircraft or in the missile seeker itself, but in
any case it is actively radiating and can be detected on a directional RWR
set.
Secondly, you do not need range information, bearing alone is enough (and
much easier to determine accurately).
Thirdly, a long range Phoenix shot uses the more powerful Tomcat radar
for mid-course guidance as it approaches. Since the Tomcat is approaching
much more slowly than the missile, the requirement to "keep tightening your
radius" isn't a big deal. Especially when if done properly in the first
place, the missile isn't even flying straight at you for most of its flight
time anyway and will gradually be more and more off target. The idea is
not to let the missile's shorter-range active homer get in range at all.
Aiding your tactic is the order-of-minutes flight time of a Phoenix shot,
which gives you time to make your maneuvers, and the fact that a radar
lock can be readily distinguished from a radar in "search" mode by the
pulse repetition frequency (he can only "ping" you rapidly if he still knows
where you are). This means that even if the bearing of the radar transmitter
wasn't enough information, you can use your RWR to help determine whether
you've broken his lock or not, and ajust your bearing accordingly.
Finally, eliminating Doppler shift *entirely* is not necessary. If (and
perhaps only if) you're close to the ground, the enemy already has to have
an advanced look-down shoot-down radar to find you in the best of conditions;
if you're flying even *roughly* perpendicular to him, the surface of the
earth gives him significant tracking difficulties. Fluttering leaves on
trees, rustling grass, birds, cars, tennis balls, water waves, anything on the
surface that moves is going to contribute to a finite band of frequency shifts
coming from the planet, and the sheer surface area involved of all these
elements put together means even objects that are not particularly
reflective will help mask your position.
Having been trained as an engineer, I'm quite used to thinking of the world
as a dirty, fluid, fuzzy place full of acceptable tolerances, and I'm
often surprised when people tell me that something has to be *exactly
perfect* to work. Square pulses, ideal filters... these things don't
exist in the real world, and the earth is not a crystal.
One easy way to figure out if the tactic is useful or not is to get one
of the fighter pilots who frequent this group to comment on it. I'd imagine
they'd all have either learned and practiced this stuff, or would have
been taught why it wouldn't work.
In the absence of the usual "Your idea won't work but I'm not allowed to
tell you why" comments, I assume the former. :)
-Andrew
John Carrier
>First the F-14 will lock him up, which will sound the flankers RWR,
Phoenix is fired in TWS, the target is never "locked up." I doubt the
target aircraft will have a clue until the terminal phase of the missile's
flight.
and
>The AIM-54 is not an extremly agile missile, if the flanker is aware of it
avoding it should
>not be a great challenge.
Actually, it is.
F-15/F-16/F-18 vs F-14. All of those can outturn the tomcat in
>a dogfight, but will have major trouble closing to a dogfight.
The Tom is far more maneuverable than the non-aviators that frequent this NG
seem to think.
dennis...@dwt.csiro.au
In article <6ei9ue$n...@sjx-ixn7.ix.netcom.com>,
"Venik" <ve...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> dennis...@dwt.csiro.au wrote in message
> <6ehupv$jep$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>
> >Jesus, Venik, you are truly amazing. You can't have your cake andd eat it
> as
> >well. You criticise a defence analyst in an aviation journal (Carlo Kopp
> and
> >Australian Aviation, and trade journals he has written for). Than you use
> >Popular Mechanics as a definitive source, and make some statement about
> >professional journalists (they aren't even specialist aviation
> journalists).
>
> Not "definitive" source but a real one. The source that anyone can check
> unlike some fictional sources of certain defense analysts.
>
Hang on. If Popular Maechanics is a "real" source, why isn't Australian
Aviation? It is a very well respected aviation journal. The point is, you have
simply accepted Popular Mechanics as is, stating that it is a source. Why not
the same for AA? After all, AA is a source as well, by your own definition.
> >
> >Then there is the Su-37 thing. You go on about the Su-37 as the greatest
> thing
> >since sliced bread. You say that it will roast the F-15. Yet, in the above
> you
> >state "How can anyone call Phoenix an effective weapon if it never seen
> actual
> >combat? Tests are good, however, do you know what simulated targets was the
> >Phoenix tested against?" Now substitute Su-37 for Phoenix!! Makes your
> >argument a little weak, doesn't it? Just how much combat has the Su-37
> seen,
> >Venik? (Oh yes, it is a proptotype, not even in service) How does that
> combat
> >record compare to the 100+ kills obtained by the F-15 for no A-A losses?
>
> I stated a point of view regarding the Su-37 and I didn't say that I have
> "10 years" experience flying one. There is no flaw in my logic (there never
> is): Su-37 is not determined to be an effective weapon, it is only assumed
> to be one (by me).
>
This is somewhat different to what you posted! I accept that you believe that
it is an effective weapon, but you were stating unequivocally that it would
wax the F-15. You even stated that it would beat the F-22 in a dogfight. I
don't mind you stating this, I just think that you should stick to your own
standards of proof.
> >
> >One thing I really would have thought that you would have learned by now is
> >consistency. If you are going to apply certain criteria to arguments, you
> need
> >to apply those criteria across the board, not just when it conveniently
> suits
> >your argument.
> >
>
> When you eat bread and butter you apply butter only to the piece of bread
> you are going to eat. And, by the way, I hate sliced bread.
>
> Venik
>
Which is what I am getting at with your arguments. Each post (depending on
whether it is about Western or Russian stuff) has different standards of
proof, depending on your personal bias.
dennis...@dwt.csiro.au
In article <EpwB6...@ecf.toronto.edu>,
Of course you need range information. Othewise, how are you going to know the
radius of the circle that you need to fly to keep tangential to the
transmitter?
> Thirdly, a long range Phoenix shot uses the more powerful Tomcat radar
> for mid-course guidance as it approaches. Since the Tomcat is approaching
> much more slowly than the missile, the requirement to "keep tightening your
> radius" isn't a big deal. Especially when if done properly in the first
> place, the missile isn't even flying straight at you for most of its flight
> time anyway and will gradually be more and more off target. The idea is
> not to let the missile's shorter-range active homer get in range at all.
>
Having the seeker not in the same position as the transmitter makes your
problem of attempting to appear stationary a hell of a lot harder, not easier.
Think about it.
> Aiding your tactic is the order-of-minutes flight time of a Phoenix shot,
> which gives you time to make your maneuvers, and the fact that a radar
> lock can be readily distinguished from a radar in "search" mode by the
> pulse repetition frequency (he can only "ping" you rapidly if he still knows
> where you are). This means that even if the bearing of the radar
transmitter
> wasn't enough information, you can use your RWR to help determine whether
> you've broken his lock or not, and ajust your bearing accordingly.
>
> Finally, eliminating Doppler shift *entirely* is not necessary. If (and
> perhaps only if) you're close to the ground, the enemy already has to have
> an advanced look-down shoot-down radar to find you in the best of
conditions;
> if you're flying even *roughly* perpendicular to him, the surface of the
> earth gives him significant tracking difficulties. Fluttering leaves on
> trees, rustling grass, birds, cars, tennis balls, water waves, anything on
the
> surface that moves is going to contribute to a finite band of frequency
shifts
> coming from the planet, and the sheer surface area involved of all these
> elements put together means even objects that are not particularly
> reflective will help mask your position.
>
Andrew, clearly you have never worked with radar. You also clearly know a lot
about electronics. Having worked in air traffic control, I can assure you that
this situation is a lot more problematic than you seem to creadit.
Dennis
> Having been trained as an engineer, I'm quite used to thinking of the world
> as a dirty, fluid, fuzzy place full of acceptable tolerances, and I'm
> often surprised when people tell me that something has to be *exactly
> perfect* to work. Square pulses, ideal filters... these things don't
> exist in the real world, and the earth is not a crystal.
>
> One easy way to figure out if the tactic is useful or not is to get one
> of the fighter pilots who frequent this group to comment on it. I'd imagine
> they'd all have either learned and practiced this stuff, or would have
> been taught why it wouldn't work.
>
> In the absence of the usual "Your idea won't work but I'm not allowed to
> tell you why" comments, I assume the former. :)
>
> -Andrew
>
>
Venik
dennis...@dwt.csiro.au wrote in message
<6ekajm$5al$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>This is somewhat different to what you posted! I accept that you believe
that
>it is an effective weapon, but you were stating unequivocally that it would
>wax the F-15. You even stated that it would beat the F-22 in a dogfight. I
>don't mind you stating this, I just think that you should stick to your own
>standards of proof.
When I post something, it is my personal opinion, unless otherwise noted.
This is a normal conversational practice. The are things that are facts and
thre are things that may be assumed to be facts, depending on your personal
preferences. I do provide evidence for any unconventional statements I make,
however, I do not see why shoud I try to prove information of a source other
than me. There are people who believe that Popular Mechanics is not very
credible. Perhaps, but I think the same way about Australian Aviation.
Venik
Andrew P Pavacic
In article <6ekb5m$5lk$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
<dennis...@dwt.csiro.au> wrote:
>In article <EpwB6...@ecf.toronto.edu>,
> pav...@ecf.toronto.edu (Andrew P Pavacic) wrote:
>> Strictly speaking, you travel tangential to the transmitter. This may
>> be on board the enemy aircraft or in the missile seeker itself, but in
>> any case it is actively radiating and can be detected on a directional RWR
>> set.
>> Secondly, you do not need range information, bearing alone is enough (and
>> much easier to determine accurately).
>Of course you need range information. Othewise, how are you going to know the
>radius of the circle that you need to fly to keep tangential to the
>transmitter?
1. Turn left until RWR shows radiating threat at 90 degrees.
2. Level out.
3. Watch bearing of radiating threat on RWR drift above 90 degrees.
4. Apply right rudder until radiating threat is again at 90 degrees.
5. Repeat steps 2-4 until missile runs out of fuel, then lure the next
shot (the US only has enough Phoenixes for each of its Tomcats to carry
one warload)
If you have a calculator with you, you can get a pretty good estimate of
the range to the transmitter, but how would you use that information?
Pilots think of turns as degrees/minute. If you tell a pilot to make a turn
with a 40 km radius of curvature, he'll have to do the math again anyway.
Much easier to tell him "keep this target at your 3 o'clock".
>> Thirdly, a long range Phoenix shot uses the more powerful Tomcat radar
>> for mid-course guidance as it approaches. Since the Tomcat is approaching
>> much more slowly than the missile, the requirement to "keep tightening your
>> radius" isn't a big deal. Especially when if done properly in the first
>> place, the missile isn't even flying straight at you for most of its flight
>> time anyway and will gradually be more and more off target. The idea is
>> not to let the missile's shorter-range active homer get in range at all.
>
>Having the seeker not in the same position as the transmitter makes your
>problem of attempting to appear stationary a hell of a lot harder, not easier.
>Think about it.
I rather thought I had. The seeker will indeed see a different frequency-
shift return from the fighter than the Tomcat would, but then, it would
also see that same (different) frequency-shift return from the Earth.
>Andrew, clearly you have never worked with radar. You also clearly know a lot
>about electronics. Having worked in air traffic control, I can assure you that
>this situation is a lot more problematic than you seem to creadit.
Uh, thanks... I guess I did ask for that didn't I. :)
My undergraduate thesis is on radar, as are most of my course selections.
While my practical experience is admittedly limited, I'm going to go by the
assumption that what they teach me in my classes about how this stuff works
is actually true.
ATC radars, being ground-based devices, always "look up" with a certain
angular elevation off the ground, and so never have to worry about ground
clutter at all. A continuous-wave radar of this sort would indeed have
little difficulty picking out a target flying perpendicular to it. This
is why the first step of my proposed Phoenix-dodging tactic was "head
for the deck", why MiG-25s couldn't lock on to targets flying below them,
and what the innovation of "look-down shoot-down" Doppler radars was
all about. The only way a Tomcat or any other airborne radar can currently
hope to distinguish a target flying below it is by comparing Doppler returns
and filtering out stuff flying towards and away from you from the huge
return of the earth.
As your experience clearly supercedes my own, I would like to welcome
your assurance that I'm simply wrong, but as this is my chosen field
of study I must say I'd much prefer more of an explanation as to why,
before being asked to discount years of expensive training.
Best regards,
-Andrew
D. Scott Ferrin
On Mon, 16 Mar 1998 23:41:29 -0500, "Venik" <ve...@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
>When I post something, it is my personal opinion, unless otherwise noted.
>This is a normal conversational practice.
The only thing that seems to piss people off is when you (or anybody
for that matter) express their "opinon" and claim it as fact. Most
people are fairly careful to differentiate between the two.
The are things that are facts and
>thre are things that may be assumed to be facts, depending on your personal
>preferences. I do provide evidence for any unconventional statements I make,
>however, I do not see why shoud I try to prove information of a source other
>than me.
Because people generally don't take things at face value unless you
have an impeccable reputation for accuracy. Sometime they won't know
and will except things at face value but if they feel they know better
they'll want reputable sources and you better have them or your
credibility will go right out the window.
There are people who believe that Popular Mechanics is not very
>credible.
Because it really isn't. It's got some interesting stuff in it
occasionally but I've seen some really BAD blunders in it too. Most
people on these groups put it right there with the National Enquirer.
It's got it's reputation for a reason just as Jane's and AvWeek have
their's.
Perhaps, but I think the same way about Australian Aviation.
You may but most people don't seem to share that. I personally have
no opinion on the matter since I've never heard of it before it came
up on this group. However, after going to Carlo's page and reading
his posts he seems pretty informed to me. Notice I say "seems" and
not "is". Which isn't to say that he's not informed only that *to me*
he seems informed.
Andrey Shvetsov
Carlo Kopp wrote:
>
> Andrew P Pavacic wrote:
>
> ? Can you do this faster than the seeker can readjust its filters ?
Question is, how quickly can the said filter adjust? A fighter can make
an abrupt 45 grad course change within couple of seconds.
>
> Also the bearing accuracy of most RWRs (ie nearly all) is between 5-10
> degrees since they use amplitude comparison between a pair of cavity
> backed spiral antennas to measure angle. This means that you could be up
> to +/-5 degrees off the very close to normal aspect you require. Making
> of course further some optimistic assumptions about bearing accuracy and
> angular coverage of your RWR antennas out of plane :-)
I believe that accuracy of about 5 grad can be more than enough. You do
not need to achieve zero Doppler shift. Placing Doppler effect in the
area cars/trains/birds can produce will be very well enough at least to
fool the controlling radar. Relative speeds of about 200 kph and lower
will be enough IMHO.
>
> Most modern tracking radars use Kalman filters to track the target's
> estimated position since false alarm rates and scintillation of the
> target being what they are, your track will frequently fade or
> fluctuate. Now that tracking filter will keep the missile pointed at you
> as it is screaming down at Mach 3, and every time you "Repeat steps ..."
> as you propose to do, even assuming you can hide the return with zero
> Doppler well enough to blind the Doppler filters (which you can't with a
> modern seeker), the seeker will simply reacquire you when you produce a
> detectable Doppler shift. You would have to able to to maintain a zero
> Doppler shift for many seconds continuously, to ensure that the seeker
> cannot reaquire you. Do you have that much time ?
One tactics trained at least for some time by RuAF Falcrum pilots was to
make a tailslide at about 500 m (unlike Cobra, the "bell" is a manuever
that can be made without specially ajusted/turned off flight control
system and accessible even to average pilots).
At the highest point of a climb, a/c has _zero_ speed. The logic of
search radar is such that they start looking for a lost target in the
direction where it previously flew (up and ahead). As in fact MiG slides
back and down, radar can not reaquire it.
They tried same thing even with Su-24, but supposedly did not get very
far.:-)
> > I rather thought I had. The seeker will indeed see a different frequency-
> > shift return from the fighter than the Tomcat would, but then, it would
> > also see that same (different) frequency-shift return from the Earth.
>
> Well, assume that the seeker has gone active, which it may many miles
> away from you.
I assume that missile seeker does not search for a target in flight, but
is pointed to it by Tomcat's radar (power of the seeker is not high
enough for independent search, and a missile does not have IFF :-) -
leaving it to search independently provides fat chance of friendly
fire). So if you can break the lock by a guiding radar before the seeker
locks on (or while seeker is in semi-active mode), you successfully
prevent the lock-on. Bracket of a A2A missile is pretty narrow.
Best regards,
Andrey Shvetsov
Ed Rasimus
"John Carrier" <j...@netdoor.com> wrote:
>The Tom is far more maneuverable than the non-aviators that frequent this NG
>seem to think.
>
I vividly recall my first encounter with a Tom. I was attacking the
Nimitz flying out of Torrejon Spain in an F-4. Roaring in at 500 feet
and 500 KIAS we'd been swapping radar looks between the return off
several ships in the task force and the rapidly approaching
interceptors coming from high ten o'clock.
The pair of turkeys came descending with roughly 150 degrees heading
crossing angle. No way to convert or avoid a serious overshoot and
stagnate well behind us in lag.......Suddenly the wings are moving
forward and turning white with big-time condensation and the
conversion is complete with the Tom still inside my turn and saddled
up.
Next time I saw a something that impressive was my first engagement
with an Eagle when I hooked him into a huge overshoot in an AT-38. He
went in behind me, full planform, guaranteed overshoot. Only problem
is he didn't come out the other side. Saddled up again.
Ed Rasimus *** Peak Computing Magazine
Fighter Pilot (ret) *** (http://peak-computing.com)
*** Ziff-Davis Interactive
*** (http://www.zdnet.com)
Jarmo Lindberg
Andrey Shvetsov wrote:
<snipped>
> One tactics trained at least for some time by RuAF Falcrum pilots was to
> make a tailslide at about 500 m (unlike Cobra, the "bell" is a manuever
> that can be made without specially ajusted/turned off flight control
> system and accessible even to average pilots).
Really? Can you cite some sources, Andrey. I was told in 1991 by the KubinkaGuards
Regiment MiG-29 and Su-27 demo pilots that the maneuver is called
the "deathbell" (for some strange reason :-) and that only they and the
MiG/Sukhoi test pilots can perform it. But then again there may have been a lot of
training after that - on the other hand maybe not.
New Finnish Air Force Fighter Squadron 21pages:
- First F-18 arrested highway landing: http://www.mil.fi/ftrsqn21/hn-trap.htm
- BAe Hawk Air Combat Training: http://www.mil.fi/ftrsqn21/hw-ACM.htm
--
Jarmo Lindberg
Fighter Squadron 21: http://www.mil.fi/ftrsqn21/
Fighter Tactics Academy: http://www.sci.fi/~fta/welcome.htm
dennis...@dwt.csiro.au
In article <Epy20...@ecf.toronto.edu>,
pav...@ecf.toronto.edu (Andrew P Pavacic) wrote:
>
> In article <6ekb5m$5lk$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> <dennis...@dwt.csiro.au> wrote:
> >In article <EpwB6...@ecf.toronto.edu>,
> > pav...@ecf.toronto.edu (Andrew P Pavacic) wrote:
> >> Strictly speaking, you travel tangential to the transmitter. This may
> >> be on board the enemy aircraft or in the missile seeker itself, but in
> >> any case it is actively radiating and can be detected on a directional
RWR
> >> set.
> >> Secondly, you do not need range information, bearing alone is enough (and
> >> much easier to determine accurately).
> >Of course you need range information. Othewise, how are you going to know
the
> >radius of the circle that you need to fly to keep tangential to the
> >transmitter?
>
> 1. Turn left until RWR shows radiating threat at 90 degrees.
> 2. Level out.
> 3. Watch bearing of radiating threat on RWR drift above 90 degrees.
> 4. Apply right rudder until radiating threat is again at 90 degrees.
> 5. Repeat steps 2-4 until missile runs out of fuel, then lure the next
> shot (the US only has enough Phoenixes for each of its Tomcats to carry
> one warload)
>
Andrew, you are ignoring that you are still going to get a doppler shift using
this method. Remeber that Carlo mentioned that the C-model has doppler
filters, so unless you can completely remove your doppler shift, you are going
to be seen.
> If you have a calculator with you, you can get a pretty good estimate of
> the range to the transmitter, but how would you use that information?
> Pilots think of turns as degrees/minute. If you tell a pilot to make a turn
> with a 40 km radius of curvature, he'll have to do the math again anyway.
> Much easier to tell him "keep this target at your 3 o'clock".
>
Given a certain airspeed and a certain turn radius, it is easy to compute
degrees/second.
This doesn't take away from the fact that all of this takes time.
> >> Thirdly, a long range Phoenix shot uses the more powerful Tomcat radar
> >> for mid-course guidance as it approaches. Since the Tomcat is
approaching
> >> much more slowly than the missile, the requirement to "keep tightening
your
> >> radius" isn't a big deal. Especially when if done properly in the first
> >> place, the missile isn't even flying straight at you for most of its
flight
> >> time anyway and will gradually be more and more off target. The idea is
> >> not to let the missile's shorter-range active homer get in range at all.
> >
> >Having the seeker not in the same position as the transmitter makes your
> >problem of attempting to appear stationary a hell of a lot harder, not
easier.
> >Think about it.
>
> I rather thought I had. The seeker will indeed see a different frequency-
> shift return from the fighter than the Tomcat would, but then, it would
> also see that same (different) frequency-shift return from the Earth.
>
> >Andrew, clearly you have never worked with radar. You also clearly know a
lot
> >about electronics. Having worked in air traffic control, I can assure you
that
> >this situation is a lot more problematic than you seem to creadit.
>
> Uh, thanks... I guess I did ask for that didn't I. :)
>
> My undergraduate thesis is on radar, as are most of my course selections.
> While my practical experience is admittedly limited, I'm going to go by the
> assumption that what they teach me in my classes about how this stuff works
> is actually true.
>
> ATC radars, being ground-based devices, always "look up" with a certain
> angular elevation off the ground, and so never have to worry about ground
> clutter at all.
Sorry, Andrew, but you are completely wrong on this one. The angular elevation
you are talking about is approximately 0.02 degrees if you take the earth to
be flat ( our RSR ATC radar dtects an aircraft at 21000 feet at 160nm. Do the
maths). I know that at Tullamarine, the Hilton Hotel posed significant return
problems. How about control towers? Airport buildings? Trees? Seriously, ask
to speak to one of the ATC radar techs about these problems.
> A continuous-wave radar of this sort would indeed have
> little difficulty picking out a target flying perpendicular to it.
Here you are wrong as well. To remove the ground clutter that you say isn't
relevant, the radar systems use a phase comparitor to remove stationary
targets (such as ground return, rain, large vehicles etc). Quite a complex
problem, at least as complex as the situation being discussed here.
Occasionally, primary is lost from one of the aircraft flying tangential to
the radar, but this is at most for 2-3 paints.
> This
> is why the first step of my proposed Phoenix-dodging tactic was "head
> for the deck", why MiG-25s couldn't lock on to targets flying below them,
> and what the innovation of "look-down shoot-down" Doppler radars was
> all about. The only way a Tomcat or any other airborne radar can currently
> hope to distinguish a target flying below it is by comparing Doppler returns
> and filtering out stuff flying towards and away from you from the huge
> return of the earth.
>
True, and I think that we have dealt with this.
> As your experience clearly supercedes my own, I would like to welcome
> your assurance that I'm simply wrong, but as this is my chosen field
> of study I must say I'd much prefer more of an explanation as to why,
> before being asked to discount years of expensive training.
>
>
Fair enough. I hope that some of what I have stated here makes sense to you. I
have got to say that actually working with radar proved an eye opener. A
suggestion, call ATC and ask to be shown around the facility, and ask to speak
to controllers. I have been out of ARC for 12 years now, and things will have
changed a bit, but the basics will still be the same.
Dennis
John Carrier
It's nice to know there's a couple of us whose experience exceeds the latest
computer game offering.
R/ John
Andrew P Pavacic
In article <350E77F8...@aus.net>,>Andrew, there are some problems with what you propose.
>>
>> 1. Turn left until RWR shows radiating threat at 90 degrees.
>
>track, unless it is a really dumb missile. Moreover by turning your beam
>you are producing a much larger return since you have a much bigger RCS,
>ie plenty of nice long joins between wing and fuselage, with almost
>everything you fly :-) Decreasing Doppler shift with increasing
>amplitude :-) How quickly can you assume the precise aspect you require
>? Can you do this faster than the seeker can readjust its filters ?
Why does this matter?
We can "see" things because of contrast: the boundary between say,
a dark object and a light object. Camouflage is the art of effective
invisibility by looking the same as your background. An object flying
perpendicular to a Doppler radar that has to distinguish it from the
return of the ground effectively looks like one uniformly white object
on top of a uniformly white background. "Filtering" just doesn't
work in this case, because the earth's and the plane's returns are either
both in the stopband, or both in the passband.
>> 2. Level out.
>
>I presume you intend to roll out of the turn, the instant you have done
>this you will start to produce a varying Doppler shift, assuming that
>your previous attempt provided the hypothetically perfect normal
>velocity vector, ie you were following the necessary circle centred on
>the seeker of a Mach 3 missile :-)
Here we are approximating a circular path to arbitrary accuracy with
a series of small straight-line paths and small turns. It can be shown
that for any given finite accuracy required, there exists an approximation
of this type that is "close enough". Your "hypothetically perfect" model
implies infinite accuracy, i.e. that the radar set has infinite frequency
resolution, and that the earth's return has zero bandwidth.
>> 3. Watch bearing of radiating threat on RWR drift above 90 degrees.
>> 4. Apply right rudder until radiating threat is again at 90 degrees.
>> 5. Repeat steps 2-4 until missile runs out of fuel, then lure the next
>> shot (the US only has enough Phoenixes for each of its Tomcats to carry
>> one warload)
>
>Most modern tracking radars use Kalman filters to track the target's
>estimated position since false alarm rates and scintillation of the
>target being what they are, your track will frequently fade or
>fluctuate. Now that tracking filter will keep the missile pointed at you
>as it is screaming down at Mach 3, and every time you "Repeat steps ..."
>as you propose to do, even assuming you can hide the return with zero
>Doppler well enough to blind the Doppler filters (which you can't with a
>modern seeker), the seeker will simply reacquire you when you produce a
>detectable Doppler shift. You would have to able to to maintain a zero
>Doppler shift for many seconds continuously, to ensure that the seeker
>cannot reaquire you. Do you have that much time ?
>
>It is simply a little more complicated than you envisage it to be,
>Andrew.
At the ranges involved for Phoenix shots, and keeping in mind that the
pilot is allowed to make speed changes or even direction reversals (if
he uses vertical-plane Immelmans), any "estimate" of the target's position
will almost certainly result in a miss. Lock-on is a must.
I do expect the pilot to be able to keep to a course that never produces
a detectable Doppler shift. The situation may well be more complicated
than I envision, but not for reasons you have thus far suggested.
>> If you have a calculator with you, you can get a pretty good estimate of
>> the range to the transmitter, but how would you use that information?
>> Pilots think of turns as degrees/minute. If you tell a pilot to make a turn
>> with a 40 km radius of curvature, he'll have to do the math again anyway.
>> Much easier to tell him "keep this target at your 3 o'clock".
>
>Accurate range estimation is a big problem within itself and the only
>systems deployed which caan do it reliably use a combination of
>precision interferometric DF and differential Doppler or Phase Rate of
>Change techniques. Typically these systems can range accurately (within
>a few %) against surface or slow moving targets, and take several
>seconds to get an accurate measurement.
>
>What you are proposing makes some extremely optimistic assumptions about
>the capabilities of an RWR or even ELS.
What's an ELS? I didn't ascribe range-finding to the RWR, but to the
calculator. Triangulation. The point was, you don't need the range
to target anyway to keep on a tangential course.
>Well, assume that the seeker has gone active, which it may many miles
>away from you.
If the Phoenix seeker goes active close enough to you to acquire you,
you did something wrong, but in theory now you would have to beam the
missile instead of the Tomcat.
>> ATC radars, being ground-based devices, always "look up" with a certain
>> angular elevation off the ground, and so never have to worry about ground
>> clutter at all.
>
>Which ATC radars ? Other than a very long range primary radar, most
>radars used for terminal area control or approaches (or missile
>acquisition) have to deal with clutter effects and are most commonly low
>PRF MTI systems.
Any continuous-wave model...
"Other than a very long range primary radar"? Missile acquisition?
I'll admit I'm not the one to ask about this but are you sure the short-
range ATC radars are a better approximation of the AWG-9?
>> A continuous-wave radar of this sort would indeed have
>> little difficulty picking out a target flying perpendicular to it. This
>> is why the first step of my proposed Phoenix-dodging tactic was "head
>> for the deck", why MiG-25s couldn't lock on to targets flying below them,
>> and what the innovation of "look-down shoot-down" Doppler radars was
>> all about.
>
>There is no comparison between pure pulse mode radars of that generation
>and the modern pulse Doppler sets you see today.
Oh come on now. They both use electromagnetic waves, reflections, frequency
bands, directive antennas... They don't follow different laws of physics.
Doppler shift processing was the be all and end all difference.
-Andrew
Ed Rasimus
pav...@ecf.toronto.edu (Andrew P Pavacic) wrote:
>1. Turn left until RWR shows radiating threat at 90 degrees.
>2. Level out.
>3. Watch bearing of radiating threat on RWR drift above 90 degrees.
>4. Apply right rudder until radiating threat is again at 90 degrees.
>5. Repeat steps 2-4 until missile runs out of fuel, then lure the next
> shot (the US only has enough Phoenixes for each of its Tomcats to carry
> one warload)
>
---Lots of discourse snipped----
>
>My undergraduate thesis is on radar, as are most of my course selections.
>While my practical experience is admittedly limited, I'm going to go by the
>assumption that what they teach me in my classes about how this stuff works
>is actually true.
>
I've avoided this thread so far for two reasons--I'm really saturated
with the "my airplane is better than your airplane" rhetoric
particularly when it is usually predicated on a 1-v-1 dogfight; and
second because I'm not really a Phoenix/Tomcat fan.
But, seeing the discussion isn't a flame war, I thought I'd compliment
you on your Phoenix defense. You are correct that arcing the emitter
will result in a zero frequency shift and hence a blind spot and no
mid-course updates. This is precisely the tactic that was initially
proposed by the intel types as a defense against the SA-6 as well as
I-Hawk.
It would certainly take a steely-nerved killer such as all fighter
pilots profess to be to calmly place a RWR strobe on the wingtip and
calmly fly an arc.
Problems with this are issues such as whether your RWR provides a
sufficiently discrete strobe in a combat environment for you to sort
and discriminate the 40-80 mile range Tomcat. I suspect not.
RWR has improved since I last flew in a hostile environment, but I've
got to suspect that when a balloon goes up, even in a minor fracas
like an Arab/Israeli or Indi/Paki or Desert Storm kind of war that
most modern RWR equipment is still suffering from signal overload.
Throw in some chaff and a wide range of ongoing ECM and it gets really
muddy.
Then, as I always remind the PC flight simulator crowd, nobody should
be in combat single ship. While you are busily arcing the Tom you
perceive as the threat, a second Tom may be illuminating you as well.
And, a supporting set of Hornets or Vipers may be coming from another
quadrant with Slammers to complete the package.
There are no simple solutions in air combat.
Ed Rasimus
"Venik" <ve...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>When I post something, it is my personal opinion, unless otherwise noted.
>This is a normal conversational practice. The are things that are facts and
>thre are things that may be assumed to be facts, depending on your personal
>preferences. I do provide evidence for any unconventional statements I make,
>however, I do not see why shoud I try to prove information of a source other
>than me. There are people who believe that Popular Mechanics is not very
>credible. Perhaps, but I think the same way about Australian Aviation.
>
You seem to have overlooked that the essence of the criticism of your
argument in this case is the assertion that the Phoenix is not
credible because of lack of combat kills (despite nearly 30 years of
operational service and continued testing and upgrading).
While at the same time you refuse to apply the same criteria (assuming
it is valid) to your beloved SU-27 and its off-boresight IR weapons.
If you have to have combat experience to win this semantic argument
then you must establish the requirement across the board.
We have evidence so far that MiG-29s can beat Cessna 337s and F-14s
can beat Libyan MiGs.
Venik
D. Scott Ferrin wrote in message <350e7b75...@news.inquo.net>...
>Because people generally don't take things at face value unless you
>have an impeccable reputation for accuracy. Sometime they won't know
>and will except things at face value but if they feel they know better
>they'll want reputable sources and you better have them or your
>credibility will go right out the window.
The question here is not in my or your personal opinion about a given source
of information but in what type of information we are looking for. I would
love to see an article about active cancellation or anti-stealth radars
published in some respected engineering journal. I am using Pop Mechanics
and Pop Science not because I prefer them for their flashy cover graphics (I
rarely even read them), but because there aren't too many sources for the
type of information I am looking for. Sure, if I would want to discuss
advantages of modern nuclear power plant designs I would be able to find
better sources.
Venik
Carlo Kopp
Andrew P Pavacic wrote:
Andrew, there are some problems with what you propose.
>
> 1. Turn left until RWR shows radiating threat at 90 degrees.
During that turn the Doppler filters will be readjusted to maintain
track, unless it is a really dumb missile. Moreover by turning your beam
you are producing a much larger return since you have a much bigger RCS,
ie plenty of nice long joins between wing and fuselage, with almost
everything you fly :-) Decreasing Doppler shift with increasing
amplitude :-) How quickly can you assume the precise aspect you require
? Can you do this faster than the seeker can readjust its filters ?
Also the bearing accuracy of most RWRs (ie nearly all) is between 5-10
degrees since they use amplitude comparison between a pair of cavity
backed spiral antennas to measure angle. This means that you could be up
to +/-5 degrees off the very close to normal aspect you require. Making
of course further some optimistic assumptions about bearing accuracy and
angular coverage of your RWR antennas out of plane :-)
> 2. Level out.
I presume you intend to roll out of the turn, the instant you have done
this you will start to produce a varying Doppler shift, assuming that
your previous attempt provided the hypothetically perfect normal
velocity vector, ie you were following the necessary circle centred on
the seeker of a Mach 3 missile :-)
> 3. Watch bearing of radiating threat on RWR drift above 90 degrees.
> 4. Apply right rudder until radiating threat is again at 90 degrees.
> 5. Repeat steps 2-4 until missile runs out of fuel, then lure the next
> shot (the US only has enough Phoenixes for each of its Tomcats to carry
> one warload)
Most modern tracking radars use Kalman filters to track the target's
estimated position since false alarm rates and scintillation of the
target being what they are, your track will frequently fade or
fluctuate. Now that tracking filter will keep the missile pointed at you
as it is screaming down at Mach 3, and every time you "Repeat steps ..."
as you propose to do, even assuming you can hide the return with zero
Doppler well enough to blind the Doppler filters (which you can't with a
modern seeker), the seeker will simply reacquire you when you produce a
detectable Doppler shift. You would have to able to to maintain a zero
Doppler shift for many seconds continuously, to ensure that the seeker
cannot reaquire you. Do you have that much time ?
It is simply a little more complicated than you envisage it to be,
Andrew.
>
> If you have a calculator with you, you can get a pretty good estimate of
> the range to the transmitter, but how would you use that information?
> Pilots think of turns as degrees/minute. If you tell a pilot to make a turn
> with a 40 km radius of curvature, he'll have to do the math again anyway.
> Much easier to tell him "keep this target at your 3 o'clock".
Accurate range estimation is a big problem within itself and the only
systems deployed which caan do it reliably use a combination of
precision interferometric DF and differential Doppler or Phase Rate of
Change techniques. Typically these systems can range accurately (within
a few %) against surface or slow moving targets, and take several
seconds to get an accurate measurement.
What you are proposing makes some extremely optimistic assumptions about
the capabilities of an RWR or even ELS.
>
> >> Thirdly, a long range Phoenix shot uses the more powerful Tomcat radar
> >> for mid-course guidance as it approaches. Since the Tomcat is approaching
> >> much more slowly than the missile, the requirement to "keep tightening your
> >> radius" isn't a big deal. Especially when if done properly in the first
> >> place, the missile isn't even flying straight at you for most of its flight
> >> time anyway and will gradually be more and more off target. The idea is
> >> not to let the missile's shorter-range active homer get in range at all.
> >
> >Having the seeker not in the same position as the transmitter makes your
> >problem of attempting to appear stationary a hell of a lot harder, not easier.
> >Think about it.
>
> I rather thought I had. The seeker will indeed see a different frequency-
> shift return from the fighter than the Tomcat would, but then, it would
> also see that same (different) frequency-shift return from the Earth.
Well, assume that the seeker has gone active, which it may many miles
away from you.
>
> >Andrew, clearly you have never worked with radar. You also clearly know a lot
> >about electronics. Having worked in air traffic control, I can assure you that
> >this situation is a lot more problematic than you seem to creadit.
>
> Uh, thanks... I guess I did ask for that didn't I. :)
>
> My undergraduate thesis is on radar, as are most of my course selections.
> While my practical experience is admittedly limited, I'm going to go by the
> assumption that what they teach me in my classes about how this stuff works
> is actually true.
You have to be very careful in what assumptions you make about the
equipment you are trying to do this with, Andrew. Real world equipment
often has some major limitations since it is optimised one or another
way, not always to do what you intend to do if it is an esoteric
application.
>
> ATC radars, being ground-based devices, always "look up" with a certain
> angular elevation off the ground, and so never have to worry about ground
> clutter at all.
Which ATC radars ? Other than a very long range primary radar, most
radars used for terminal area control or approaches (or missile
acquisition) have to deal with clutter effects and are most commonly low
PRF MTI systems.
> A continuous-wave radar of this sort would indeed have
> little difficulty picking out a target flying perpendicular to it. This
> is why the first step of my proposed Phoenix-dodging tactic was "head
> for the deck", why MiG-25s couldn't lock on to targets flying below them,
> and what the innovation of "look-down shoot-down" Doppler radars was
> all about.
There is no comparison between pure pulse mode radars of that generation
and the modern pulse Doppler sets you see today.
> The only way a Tomcat or any other airborne radar can currently
> hope to distinguish a target flying below it is by comparing Doppler returns
> and filtering out stuff flying towards and away from you from the huge
> return of the earth.
>
> As your experience clearly supercedes my own, I would like to welcome
> your assurance that I'm simply wrong, but as this is my chosen field
> of study I must say I'd much prefer more of an explanation as to why,
> before being asked to discount years of expensive training.
>
The problem is not in your fundamental ideas, Andrew, it is in the
assumptions you are making about how accurately you can constrain the
physical world to fit the geometrical model you are using here. Look at
the problem rather from the perspective of "if I want this to work, what
accuracy do I need in range and angle measurement, and flightpath to
defeat a seeker capable of tracking a target with a Doppler shift of X
and RCS of y, at range Z".
You must be very careful with trying to fit very approximate first order
models to scenarios which are significantly more complex. You will miss
something and most likely get it wrong. Assumptions are of fundamental
importance.
Cheers,
Carlo
Carlo Kopp
Venik wrote:
>
> dennis...@dwt.csiro.au wrote in message
> <6ekajm$5al$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>
> >This is somewhat different to what you posted! I accept that you believe
> that
> >it is an effective weapon, but you were stating unequivocally that it would
> >wax the F-15. You even stated that it would beat the F-22 in a dogfight. I
> >don't mind you stating this, I just think that you should stick to your own
> >standards of proof.
>
> This is a normal conversational practice. The are things that are facts and
> thre are things that may be assumed to be facts, depending on your personal
> preferences. I do provide evidence for any unconventional statements I make,
> however, I do not see why shoud I try to prove information of a source other
> than me. There are people who believe that Popular Mechanics is not very
> credible. Perhaps, but I think the same way about Australian Aviation.
>
Aircraft which you copied last year to put on your web page, Venik. It
was good enough for you then, but now it is not good enough and you
prefer Popular Mechanics :-)
Are you having a problem with consistency here, or memory ?
C
Carlo Kopp
Andrey Shvetsov wrote:
>
> Carlo Kopp wrote:
> >
> > Andrew P Pavacic wrote:
> >
> > ? Can you do this faster than the seeker can readjust its filters ?
>
> an abrupt 45 grad course change within couple of seconds.
Hughes won't tell and why should they ? That piece of information would
be useful to an opponent tactically.
Expect that if they spent the time to do it, it probably works well
enough :-)
> >
> > Also the bearing accuracy of most RWRs (ie nearly all) is between 5-10
> > degrees since they use amplitude comparison between a pair of cavity
> > backed spiral antennas to measure angle. This means that you could be up
> > to +/-5 degrees off the very close to normal aspect you require. Making
> > of course further some optimistic assumptions about bearing accuracy and
> > angular coverage of your RWR antennas out of plane :-)
>
> I believe that accuracy of about 5 grad can be more than enough. You do
> not need to achieve zero Doppler shift. Placing Doppler effect in the
> area cars/trains/birds can produce will be very well enough at least to
> fool the controlling radar. Relative speeds of about 200 kph and lower
> will be enough IMHO.
That depends on the clutter environment, Andrey. Also don't forget that
the radar might also be range gating, so unless the target is flying
very low, it will simply ignore the clutter background. Don't forget
that the radar is already tracking the target, so you have a baseline
for filtering out returns at ranges greater than the target.
> >
> > Most modern tracking radars use Kalman filters to track the target's
> > estimated position since false alarm rates and scintillation of the
> > target being what they are, your track will frequently fade or
> > fluctuate. Now that tracking filter will keep the missile pointed at you
> > as it is screaming down at Mach 3, and every time you "Repeat steps ..."
> > as you propose to do, even assuming you can hide the return with zero
> > Doppler well enough to blind the Doppler filters (which you can't with a
> > modern seeker), the seeker will simply reacquire you when you produce a
> > detectable Doppler shift. You would have to able to to maintain a zero
> > Doppler shift for many seconds continuously, to ensure that the seeker
> > cannot reaquire you. Do you have that much time ?
>
> One tactics trained at least for some time by RuAF Falcrum pilots was to
> make a tailslide at about 500 m (unlike Cobra, the "bell" is a manuever
> that can be made without specially ajusted/turned off flight control
> system and accessible even to average pilots).
>
> At the highest point of a climb, a/c has _zero_ speed. The logic of
> search radar is such that they start looking for a lost target in the
> direction where it previously flew (up and ahead). As in fact MiG slides
> back and down, radar can not reaquire it.
The problem with doing this is that you end up out of speed at the end
of it, and the second missile will get you :-(
>
> They tried same thing even with Su-24, but supposedly did not get very
> far.:-)
Not a good idea with a low thrust/weight bomber :-(
>
> > > I rather thought I had. The seeker will indeed see a different frequency-
> > > shift return from the fighter than the Tomcat would, but then, it would
> > > also see that same (different) frequency-shift return from the Earth.
> >
> > Well, assume that the seeker has gone active, which it may many miles
> > away from you.
>
> I assume that missile seeker does not search for a target in flight, but
> is pointed to it by Tomcat's radar (power of the seeker is not high
> enough for independent search, and a missile does not have IFF :-) -
> leaving it to search independently provides fat chance of friendly
> fire). So if you can break the lock by a guiding radar before the seeker
> locks on (or while seeker is in semi-active mode), you successfully
> prevent the lock-on. Bracket of a A2A missile is pretty narrow.
>
The problem here Andrey is that under these conditions the
missile/fighter is a long way away and if it wants to reacquire, your
angular displacement from the last position is small and it will find
you again. Only in the endgame can you avoid easy reacquisition by
escaping the search pattern angular coverage while the seeker has lost
you, or not providing a detectable return while the missile flies past.
Cheers,
Carlo
Carlo Kopp
Andrey Shvetsov wrote:
>
> Carlo Kopp wrote:
> >
> > Andrew P Pavacic wrote:
> >
> > ? Can you do this faster than the seeker can readjust its filters ?
>
> an abrupt 45 grad course change within couple of seconds.
Hughes won't tell and why should they ? That piece of information would
be useful to an opponent tactically.
Expect that if they spent the time to do it, it probably works well
enough :-)
> >
> > Also the bearing accuracy of most RWRs (ie nearly all) is between 5-10
> > degrees since they use amplitude comparison between a pair of cavity
> > backed spiral antennas to measure angle. This means that you could be up
> > to +/-5 degrees off the very close to normal aspect you require. Making
> > of course further some optimistic assumptions about bearing accuracy and
> > angular coverage of your RWR antennas out of plane :-)
>
> I believe that accuracy of about 5 grad can be more than enough. You do
> not need to achieve zero Doppler shift. Placing Doppler effect in the
> area cars/trains/birds can produce will be very well enough at least to
> fool the controlling radar. Relative speeds of about 200 kph and lower
> will be enough IMHO.
That depends on the clutter environment, Andrey. Also don't forget that
the radar might also be range gating, so unless the target is flying
very low, it will simply ignore the clutter background. Don't forget
that the radar is already tracking the target, so you have a baseline
for filtering out returns at ranges greater than the target.
> >
> > Most modern tracking radars use Kalman filters to track the target's
> > estimated position since false alarm rates and scintillation of the
> > target being what they are, your track will frequently fade or
> > fluctuate. Now that tracking filter will keep the missile pointed at you
> > as it is screaming down at Mach 3, and every time you "Repeat steps ..."
> > as you propose to do, even assuming you can hide the return with zero
> > Doppler well enough to blind the Doppler filters (which you can't with a
> > modern seeker), the seeker will simply reacquire you when you produce a
> > detectable Doppler shift. You would have to able to to maintain a zero
> > Doppler shift for many seconds continuously, to ensure that the seeker
> > cannot reaquire you. Do you have that much time ?
>
> One tactics trained at least for some time by RuAF Falcrum pilots was to
> make a tailslide at about 500 m (unlike Cobra, the "bell" is a manuever
> that can be made without specially ajusted/turned off flight control
> system and accessible even to average pilots).
>
> At the highest point of a climb, a/c has _zero_ speed. The logic of
> search radar is such that they start looking for a lost target in the
> direction where it previously flew (up and ahead). As in fact MiG slides
> back and down, radar can not reaquire it.
The problem with doing this is that you end up out of speed at the end
of it, and the second missile will get you :-(
>
> They tried same thing even with Su-24, but supposedly did not get very
> far.:-)
Not a good idea with a low thrust/weight bomber :-(
>
> > > I rather thought I had. The seeker will indeed see a different frequency-
> > > shift return from the fighter than the Tomcat would, but then, it would
> > > also see that same (different) frequency-shift return from the Earth.
> >
> > Well, assume that the seeker has gone active, which it may many miles
> > away from you.
>
Skibumdse
Ok lets look at the facts between the F-14D and the Su-27.
They both are about the same size. They have almost identical thrust to weight
raotio.
the F-14 is a bit faster .the su-27 has a fixed wing. this gives it
good mauverabiluity olnly at certian speeds.
the f-14 has a automatic VG wing giveng it good manuverability at
almost all speeds. It also has a "pancake" in between its powerplants giving
the F-14 40% more lift thisalso improves manuverability.
The phonix was tested agenst manuvering targets. if the phoinx was not
effective agenst fighters also the navy would never have bought it in the first
place.
Both airframe designs are almost 30 years old but the power plants and
electronics are cosiderd by there countries as "state of the art"
The navy uses other f-14 as simulaters of su-27s and russa uses it own
su-27 to simulate tomcats
Skibumdse
Sorry I was in a hurry
Andrew P Pavacic
In article <350effd0...@news.rmi.net>,
>>3. Watch bearing of radiating threat on RWR drift above 90 degrees.
>>4. Apply right rudder until radiating threat is again at 90 degrees.
>>5. Repeat steps 2-4 until missile runs out of fuel, then lure the next
>> shot (the US only has enough Phoenixes for each of its Tomcats to carry
>> one warload)
>>
>with the "my airplane is better than your airplane" rhetoric
>particularly when it is usually predicated on a 1-v-1 dogfight; and
>second because I'm not really a Phoenix/Tomcat fan.
>
>But, seeing the discussion isn't a flame war, I thought I'd compliment
>you on your Phoenix defense. You are correct that arcing the emitter
>will result in a zero frequency shift and hence a blind spot and no
>mid-course updates. This is precisely the tactic that was initially
>proposed by the intel types as a defense against the SA-6 as well as
>I-Hawk.
Thanks, I really appreciate that you chose to contribute (sorry we
didn't change the header).
>Problems with this are issues such as whether your RWR provides a
>sufficiently discrete strobe in a combat environment for you to sort
>and discriminate the 40-80 mile range Tomcat. I suspect not.
>
>RWR has improved since I last flew in a hostile environment, but I've
>got to suspect that when a balloon goes up, even in a minor fracas
>like an Arab/Israeli or Indi/Paki or Desert Storm kind of war that
>most modern RWR equipment is still suffering from signal overload.
>Throw in some chaff and a wide range of ongoing ECM and it gets really
>muddy.
Well, I dunno... "Fog of war" affects both sides, doesn't it? I doubt
long-range Phoenix shots would be made into places where friendlies with
shorter-ranged weapons might be present... At long range a pair or more
Tomcats might be (relatively) so close together that beaming one effectively
beams the other. The rate at which the RWR flashes tells you if they have
lock-on as well, so if you've chosen the wrong target at least you'll know
about it.
But I agree, those are important practical issues... I'm always focussing
on the engineering ones.
>Then, as I always remind the PC flight simulator crowd, nobody should
>be in combat single ship. While you are busily arcing the Tom you
>perceive as the threat, a second Tom may be illuminating you as well.
>And, a supporting set of Hornets or Vipers may be coming from another
>quadrant with Slammers to complete the package.
Give me some more time to think about this one.
:)
-Andrew
Andrew P Pavacic
In article <6emvif$etr$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
<dennis...@dwt.csiro.au> wrote:
>In article <Epy20...@ecf.toronto.edu>,
> pav...@ecf.toronto.edu (Andrew P Pavacic) wrote:
>> 1. Turn left until RWR shows radiating threat at 90 degrees.
>> 2. Level out.
>> 3. Watch bearing of radiating threat on RWR drift above 90 degrees.
>> 4. Apply right rudder until radiating threat is again at 90 degrees.
>> 5. Repeat steps 2-4 until missile runs out of fuel, then lure the next
>> shot (the US only has enough Phoenixes for each of its Tomcats to carry
>> one warload)
>
>Andrew, you are ignoring that you are still going to get a doppler shift using
>this method. Remeber that Carlo mentioned that the C-model has doppler
>filters, so unless you can completely remove your doppler shift, you are going
>to be seen.
I'm not ignoring that, I'm only ignoring Carlo. There are no ideal filters,
and there will always be a finite (however small) band of frequency shifts
that will have to be ignored to avoid locking onto the surface of the Earth.
The returns do not have to be small or "perfect", they just have to fall
within this band.
>> If you have a calculator with you, you can get a pretty good estimate of
>> the range to the transmitter, but how would you use that information?
>> Pilots think of turns as degrees/minute. If you tell a pilot to make a turn
>> with a 40 km radius of curvature, he'll have to do the math again anyway.
>> Much easier to tell him "keep this target at your 3 o'clock".
>Given a certain airspeed and a certain turn radius, it is easy to compute
>degrees/second.
>
>This doesn't take away from the fact that all of this takes time.
Argh!
First you say you need bearing and range.
Then I say you don't need range, because bearing is enough, and you can
calculate range from bearing anyway, if you really needed it.
Then you say sure you need range because with it you can calculate bearing.
I mean yes, there's that "degrees per second" thing in there but that's
only to keep the bearing at 90 degrees anyway. You're creating all these
artificial calculations that can be replaced by just looking at the RWR
and turning.
>> ATC radars, being ground-based devices, always "look up" with a certain
>> angular elevation off the ground, and so never have to worry about ground
>> clutter at all.
>
>Sorry, Andrew, but you are completely wrong on this one. The angular elevation
>you are talking about is approximately 0.02 degrees if you take the earth to
>be flat ( our RSR ATC radar dtects an aircraft at 21000 feet at 160nm. Do the
>maths). I know that at Tullamarine, the Hilton Hotel posed significant return
>problems. How about control towers? Airport buildings? Trees? Seriously, ask
>to speak to one of the ATC radar techs about these problems.
>
>> A continuous-wave radar of this sort would indeed have
>> little difficulty picking out a target flying perpendicular to it.
>
>Here you are wrong as well. To remove the ground clutter that you say isn't
>relevant, the radar systems use a phase comparitor to remove stationary
>targets (such as ground return, rain, large vehicles etc). Quite a complex
>problem, at least as complex as the situation being discussed here.
>Occasionally, primary is lost from one of the aircraft flying tangential to
>the radar, but this is at most for 2-3 paints.
This is interesting... That means the ATC radars you were using weren't
continuous-wave, but Doppler?
I openly admit again that I don't have much experience with these systems,
but my faith in the theory stands. The solution of using phase comparators
likely won't translate smoothly into mobile systems like the AWG-9 which have
to face varying terrain at varying groundspeeds, and I doubt that many of
the aircraft you describe were intentionally flying circles around your
transmitter. I have an easier time imagining them being tangential only
temporarily. (How much time between paints?)
Another issue: isn't civil traffic in the habit of using transponders?
>> As your experience clearly supercedes my own, I would like to welcome
>> your assurance that I'm simply wrong, but as this is my chosen field
>> of study I must say I'd much prefer more of an explanation as to why,
>> before being asked to discount years of expensive training.
>
>Fair enough. I hope that some of what I have stated here makes sense to you. I
>have got to say that actually working with radar proved an eye opener. A
>suggestion, call ATC and ask to be shown around the facility, and ask to speak
>to controllers. I have been out of ARC for 12 years now, and things will have
>changed a bit, but the basics will still be the same.
Some of it does, thanks again. Asking to be shown around sounds tempting,
are you sure they wouldn't mind? The one time I tried to get schmoozy with
the air traffic industry I got all this security look-at-me-I'm-a-terrorist
attitude.
Kind regards,
-Andrew
Andrey Shvetsov
Jarmo Lindberg wrote:
>
> Really? Can you cite some sources, Andrey. I was told in 1991 by the KubinkaGuards
> Regiment MiG-29 and Su-27 demo pilots that the maneuver is called
> the "deathbell" (for some strange reason :-) and that only they and the
> MiG/Sukhoi test pilots can perform it. But then again there may have been a lot of
> training after that - on the other hand maybe not.
Jarmo,
I did personally witness numerous "bellings" by MiG-29 near Zvenigorod
(Kubinka training zone) in March 1995. This manuever is broadly used by
prop aerobatic pilots in displays, main problem with making it on a jet
fighter is engine stability, not airframe handling.
In 1994 pilot of one of Far Eastern MiG-29 regiments told me that he and
his comrades make "bells" as part of advanced air combat tactics
training.
"Deathbell" may be some kind of impressing spectators... fighter pilots
are good at it :-)
Regards,
Andrey Shvetsov
em...@olypen.com
In article <350effd0...@news.rmi.net>,
thu...@rmii.com (Ed Rasimus) wrote:
> Then, as I always remind the PC flight simulator crowd, nobody should
> be in combat single ship. While you are busily arcing the Tom you
> perceive as the threat, a second Tom may be illuminating you as well.
> And, a supporting set of Hornets or Vipers may be coming from another
> quadrant with Slammers to complete the package.
>
> There are no simple solutions in air combat.
>
> Ed Rasimus
Boy, ain't that the truth!
Michael
Carlo Kopp
Andrew P Pavacic wrote:
>
> In article <350E77F8...@aus.net>,
> Carlo Kopp <Carlo.Ko...@aus.net> wrote:
> >Andrew P Pavacic wrote:
> >
> >Andrew, there are some problems with what you propose.
> >>
> >> 1. Turn left until RWR shows radiating threat at 90 degrees.
> >
> >During that turn the Doppler filters will be readjusted to maintain
> >track, unless it is a really dumb missile. Moreover by turning your beam
> >you are producing a much larger return since you have a much bigger RCS,
> >ie plenty of nice long joins between wing and fuselage, with almost
> >everything you fly :-) Decreasing Doppler shift with increasing
> >amplitude :-) How quickly can you assume the precise aspect you require
> >? Can you do this faster than the seeker can readjust its filters ?
>
> Why does this matter?
Because if the radar is any good it updates the Kalman filter with a
confidence level per hit or series of hits, ie a weighting on that
entry. That is not an uncommon technique to adjust filter weights
depending on the quality of the data. Thus you give the guy a series of
stronger returns before you vanish and then reappear again as a stronger
series of returns. This hould be obvious to you.
>
> We can "see" things because of contrast: the boundary between say,
> a dark object and a light object. Camouflage is the art of effective
> invisibility by looking the same as your background. An object flying
> perpendicular to a Doppler radar that has to distinguish it from the
> return of the ground effectively looks like one uniformly white object
> on top of a uniformly white background. "Filtering" just doesn't
> work in this case, because the earth's and the plane's returns are either
> both in the stopband, or both in the passband.
You missed my point, Andrew, the tracking loop still knows your
approximate position even if your return transiently vanishes. That is
what such radars are designed to do.
>
> >> 2. Level out.
> >
> >I presume you intend to roll out of the turn, the instant you have done
> >this you will start to produce a varying Doppler shift, assuming that
> >your previous attempt provided the hypothetically perfect normal
> >velocity vector, ie you were following the necessary circle centred on
> >the seeker of a Mach 3 missile :-)
>
> Here we are approximating a circular path to arbitrary accuracy with
> a series of small straight-line paths and small turns. It can be shown
> that for any given finite accuracy required, there exists an approximation
> of this type that is "close enough". Your "hypothetically perfect" model
> implies infinite accuracy, i.e. that the radar set has infinite frequency
> resolution, and that the earth's return has zero bandwidth.
You will transiently pass through zero Doppler with any reasonably good
approximation, but for how long ? You are talking about a very narrow
window here. And your clutter window will depend on your vertical
beamwidth, won't it ? If it is narrow enough, your "window of
invisibility" will still be extremely short. If you are using the range
information to blank the return past the target, you can minimise the
clutter you will see to that associated with the lower portion of the
beam bouncing off the ground at the same range as the target. Draw
yourself a picture, and look at the slant angles.
>
> >> 3. Watch bearing of radiating threat on RWR drift above 90 degrees.
> >> 4. Apply right rudder until radiating threat is again at 90 degrees.
> >> 5. Repeat steps 2-4 until missile runs out of fuel, then lure the next
> >> shot (the US only has enough Phoenixes for each of its Tomcats to carry
> >> one warload)
> >
> >Most modern tracking radars use Kalman filters to track the target's
> >estimated position since false alarm rates and scintillation of the
> >target being what they are, your track will frequently fade or
> >fluctuate. Now that tracking filter will keep the missile pointed at you
> >as it is screaming down at Mach 3, and every time you "Repeat steps ..."
> >as you propose to do, even assuming you can hide the return with zero
> >Doppler well enough to blind the Doppler filters (which you can't with a
> >modern seeker), the seeker will simply reacquire you when you produce a
> >detectable Doppler shift. You would have to able to to maintain a zero
> >Doppler shift for many seconds continuously, to ensure that the seeker
> >cannot reaquire you. Do you have that much time ?
> >
> >It is simply a little more complicated than you envisage it to be,
> >Andrew.
>
> At the ranges involved for Phoenix shots, and keeping in mind that the
> pilot is allowed to make speed changes or even direction reversals (if
> he uses vertical-plane Immelmans), any "estimate" of the target's position
> will almost certainly result in a miss. Lock-on is a must.
If you are playing this game shortly after launch, what is the angular
error you introduce by a manoeuvre at that range ?
>
> I do expect the pilot to be able to keep to a course that never produces
> a detectable Doppler shift. The situation may well be more complicated
> than I envision, but not for reasons you have thus far suggested.
Because you didn't think them through properly.
>
> >> If you have a calculator with you, you can get a pretty good estimate of
> >> the range to the transmitter, but how would you use that information?
> >> Pilots think of turns as degrees/minute. If you tell a pilot to make a turn
> >> with a 40 km radius of curvature, he'll have to do the math again anyway.
> >> Much easier to tell him "keep this target at your 3 o'clock".
> >
> >Accurate range estimation is a big problem within itself and the only
> >systems deployed which caan do it reliably use a combination of
> >precision interferometric DF and differential Doppler or Phase Rate of
> >Change techniques. Typically these systems can range accurately (within
> >a few %) against surface or slow moving targets, and take several
> >seconds to get an accurate measurement.
> >
> >What you are proposing makes some extremely optimistic assumptions about
> >the capabilities of an RWR or even ELS.
>
> What's an ELS? I didn't ascribe range-finding to the RWR, but to the
> calculator. Triangulation. The point was, you don't need the range
> to target anyway to keep on a tangential course.
>
Emitter Locating System. You are supposed to be looking at the range to
the missile. You are trying to beat its reciever.
> >Well, assume that the seeker has gone active, which it may many miles
> >away from you.
>
> If the Phoenix seeker goes active close enough to you to acquire you,
> you did something wrong, but in theory now you would have to beam the
> missile instead of the Tomcat.
You have to play this against the missile seeker, not the fighter,
Andrew. The fighter will have a better tracking loop and will continue
to maintain an approximate track even if your return is fluctuating
badly. That is the whole idea of Kalman filters in LD/SD radars.
>
> >> ATC radars, being ground-based devices, always "look up" with a certain
> >> angular elevation off the ground, and so never have to worry about ground
> >> clutter at all.
> >
> >Which ATC radars ? Other than a very long range primary radar, most
> >radars used for terminal area control or approaches (or missile
> >acquisition) have to deal with clutter effects and are most commonly low
> >PRF MTI systems.
>
> Any continuous-wave model...
>
> "Other than a very long range primary radar"? Missile acquisition?
> I'll admit I'm not the one to ask about this but are you sure the short-
> range ATC radars are a better approximation of the AWG-9?
The AWG-9 in lookdown mode is pulse Doppler, not pure pulse mode,
Andrew. If you assume pulse mode operation look-up or co-altitude, then
you can't assume clutter.
>
> >> A continuous-wave radar of this sort would indeed have
> >> little difficulty picking out a target flying perpendicular to it. This
> >> is why the first step of my proposed Phoenix-dodging tactic was "head
> >> for the deck", why MiG-25s couldn't lock on to targets flying below them,
> >> and what the innovation of "look-down shoot-down" Doppler radars was
> >> all about.
> >
> >There is no comparison between pure pulse mode radars of that generation
> >and the modern pulse Doppler sets you see today.
>
> Oh come on now. They both use electromagnetic waves, reflections, frequency
> bands, directive antennas... They don't follow different laws of physics.
> Doppler shift processing was the be all and end all difference.
>
The techniques they use for tracking targets and for filtering (or non
filtering) are quite different. You can get significantly different
lookdown performance using the same antenna, transmitter and receiver
front end, but using different receive path Doppler signal processing
and target tracking algorithms. Please do some reading. I know certain
posters on this NG regard Skolnik poorly, but I am sure there is enough
in there for you to get a handle on this issue.
Cheers,
C
D. Scott Ferrin
On Tue, 17 Mar 1998 21:57:41 -0500, "Venik" <ve...@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
I read the same article (the one with the Rafale at the front of the
article). Even so I would never quote it as a source unless it was a
"has anyone ever heard of this" type of question. I just don't trust
the reliability of those two rags. I mentioned a perfect example of
their kind of reporting in another post. You've heard of the
"doughnuts-on-a-rope" contrails thought to be associated with
pulse-detonation engines? There've actually been photos taken of them
that I've seen in AvWeek. Anyway the Popular Mechanics writer saw a
picture of an SR-71 with "mach-diamonds" in it's exhaust and made a
big deal of it saying that the mystery had been solved. He claimed
the SR-71 had been making these trails (funny how nobody notice them
for 30 years). I guess someone should show him a picture of an X-1
with mach-diamond in *it's* exhaust or better yet an engine on a test
stand.
D. Scott Ferrin
**sferrin#inquo.com*
Venik
D. Scott Ferrin wrote in message <350fd03b...@news.inquo.net>...
>I read the same article (the one with the Rafale at the front of the
>article). Even so I would never quote it as a source unless it was a
>"has anyone ever heard of this" type of question. I just don't trust
>the reliability of those two rags. I mentioned a perfect example of
>their kind of reporting in another post. You've heard of the
>"doughnuts-on-a-rope" contrails thought to be associated with
>pulse-detonation engines? There've actually been photos taken of them
>that I've seen in AvWeek. Anyway the Popular Mechanics writer saw a
>picture of an SR-71 with "mach-diamonds" in it's exhaust and made a
>big deal of it saying that the mystery had been solved. He claimed
>the SR-71 had been making these trails (funny how nobody notice them
>for 30 years). I guess someone should show him a picture of an X-1
>with mach-diamond in *it's* exhaust or better yet an engine on a test
>stand.
I have seen the article about SR-71 being the "mystery" plane and it is
complete nonsense. I have never heard this aircraft leaving this type of
trail under any conditions. What the photo portaraits is an optical effect
produced probably by camera's lens. Again, I can use my own intelligence to
try and sort out truth from fiction or I can wait for a bunch of editors
from some respectable magazine to do it for me. Perhaps knowing who is the
author of a particular article is more important than to know where the
article was published. Bill Sweetman is hardly an amateur journalist when it
comes to aviation, so I am inclined to take his information about active
cancellation seriously. But another reason for that is scientific and
technological possibility of this method. So its not all reputation.
Venik
Jeff Crowell
Andrew P Pavacic (pav...@ecf.toronto.edu) wrote:
: Well, I dunno... "Fog of war" affects both sides, doesn't it? I doubt
: long-range Phoenix shots would be made into places where friendlies with
: shorter-ranged weapons might be present...
A valid point. US forces tend to be pretty conservative on BVR shots.
: The rate at which the RWR flashes tells you if they have
: lock-on as well, so if you've chosen the wrong target at least you'll know
: about it.
Not entirely sure what you mean, but if you're dealing with Tomcats (or
any other TWS radar system) you won't *get* a lockon indication (or any other
launch indications, for that matter). All you'll get is seeker head
lightoff/lockon approx 10 seconds prior to impact. A bit late for
beaming tactics (and that would only work if the AIM-54 seeker is Doppler-
based).
Jeff
--
"That was some of the best flying I've seen yet--right up to the point
where you got killed."
Michael Ironsides in Top Gun
Matias Sanz
Yevgeniy Chizhikov escribió:
> The major point is that Phoenix had not been chosen to be put on other
> fighters. F-18, F-15, and others that in theory can be armed with Phoenix, yet
> smaller, lighter, and MORE maneuverable missiles was chosen. While Phoenix is
> in service with only one interceptor and defender of the naval task force from
> bombers. It show something don't you think? If Phoenix had real success in fast
> turning modern combat of agile fighters it WOULD be put on almost all fighters
> in Nato. F-15 could handle it with no problems. Yet, it was never put on anyone
> except F-14. The same is true for R-33. It can be put on Su-27, but it was
> never use. Mig-31 is the only one who running around with R-33. The only other
> bird that may get R-37 or R-33 is Mig-1.42, but on the other hand Mig-1.42 must
> be able to take anything in Russian inventory. So, forget Phoenix and R-33,
> those missile designed for specific role and against specific targets -
> Bombers.
The primary mission of AIM-54C is the defense of carrier groups. The cost of these
missiles is impressive and only justifiable due the cost of the vessels they
defend. These missiles attemp to negate any weapon that could be a threat for a
carrier. Do you think Su27 is a threat for a carrier???? Su27 could be scorting the
real danger, a bomber. The real threats for carrier groups, cruisse missiles and
bombers could be effectively eliminated using AIM54, and this is the primary job of
this missile. Shooting down a Mig29 with a Phoenix is like missing the shoot, using
a Phoenix to hunt Mig29s is like using a nuclear bomb to destroy a farm, you'll
lost much more $$$ nuking that farm than the cost of the farm. F14/AIM54 form the
outer deffense ring of a carrier group, if a missile or bomber get throug that
ring, then it will face the carrier group own deffense ring and the AEGIS system.
Knowing that, AIM54, while extremely expensive, is a valuable weapon for a carrier
deffense fighter like F14, but it has no sense to arm F15 with it.
Matias Sanz
Venik
Matias Sanz wrote in message <350FEA18...@ran.es>...
>The primary mission of AIM-54C is the defense of carrier groups. The cost
of these
>missiles is impressive and only justifiable due the cost of the vessels
they
>defend. These missiles attemp to negate any weapon that could be a threat
for a
>carrier. Do you think Su27 is a threat for a carrier???? Su27 could be
scorting the
>real danger, a bomber.
Su-27 is a nuclear capable aircraft with significant ground attack
capability and remarkable range and top speed for its class of fighters.
Considering these facts, I would say that Su-27 is a serious threat even for
a carrier. An effective ground strike team may composed exclusively using
S-27 family aircraft. Su-34s for attaking ships with long-range conventional
or nuclear weapons, while Su-27K optimised for long-range missions would
provide effective protection against enemy fighters; one or two
Su-27M/Su-35s would add superior radar performance, assisting other fighters
with guidance and targeting as well as adding enchanced air-to-air
capability. Phoenix will be significantly less effective against a
Su-27-based strike force that against a one based around heavy bombers, such
as Tu-22Ms.
Venik
Jarmo Lindberg
Andrey Shvetsov wrote:
> Jarmo Lindberg wrote:
> >
> > Really? Can you cite some sources, Andrey. I was told in 1991 by the KubinkaGuards
> > Regiment MiG-29 and Su-27 demo pilots that the maneuver is called
> > the "deathbell" (for some strange reason :-) and that only they and the
> > MiG/Sukhoi test pilots can perform it. But then again there may have been a lot of
> > training after that - on the other hand maybe not.
>
> Jarmo,
>
> I did personally witness numerous "bellings" by MiG-29 near Zvenigorod
> (Kubinka training zone) in March 1995.
That may be the one of the Guards MiG-29 regiment's jets. Or the Swifths' which are part
of the regiment. I took some photos at Kubinka in August 1991:-
http://www.sci.fi/~fta/migflt-5.htm
> This manuever is broadly used by
> prop aerobatic pilots in displays, main problem with making it on a jet
> fighter is engine stability, not airframe handling.
I've done several tailslides or "bells" in the F/A-18 Hornet with the USN Patuxent River
test pilots as a part of a Departure Demo. Engines work OK, but the airframe departs on
the way down. I guess that's why they call it the Departure Demo :-)
> In 1994 pilot of one of Far Eastern MiG-29 regiments told me that he and
> his comrades make "bells" as part of advanced air combat tactics
> training.
This is interesting. Any info about the altitudes and in what kind of a situation would
the maneuver be realisticly meaningful? Forcing and overshoot or getting a pulse-doppler
radar to break lock won't do for answers - sorry.
> "Deathbell" may be some kind of impressing spectators... fighter pilots
> are good at it :-)
That's what the guys at Kubinka called it.
New pages:
- http://www.mil.fi/ftrsqn21/hn-trap.htm
- http://www.mil.fi/ftrsqn21/hw-ACM.htm
Yevgeniy Chizhikov
Venik wrote:
> Su-27 is a nuclear capable aircraft with significant ground attack
> capability and remarkable range and top speed for its class of fighters.
> Considering these facts, I would say that Su-27 is a serious threat even for
> a carrier. An effective ground strike team may composed exclusively using
> S-27 family aircraft. Su-34s for attaking ships with long-range conventional
> or nuclear weapons, while Su-27K optimised for long-range missions would
> provide effective protection against enemy fighters; one or two
> Su-27M/Su-35s would add superior radar performance, assisting other fighters
> with guidance and targeting as well as adding enchanced air-to-air
> capability. Phoenix will be significantly less effective against a
> Su-27-based strike force that against a one based around heavy bombers, such
> as Tu-22Ms.
The best thing would be a strike force of Backfires or even better Blackjacks(I
know they do not perform this missions, but they can) with Su-27/34/35 as a
cover, plus few tankers and jammers. If there is a room would be not bad idea to
take few Mig-31M, they would be handy to quickly E-2. However Su-35 may be
capable to do that with no problem.
Yevgeniy Chizhikov.
Andrew P Pavacic
In article <6eonbb$at...@hpbs1500.boi.hp.com>,
Jeff Crowell <jcrow...@boi.hp.com> wrote:
>Andrew P Pavacic (pav...@ecf.toronto.edu) wrote:
>: The rate at which the RWR flashes tells you if they have
>: lock-on as well, so if you've chosen the wrong target at least you'll know
>: about it.
>
>Not entirely sure what you mean, but if you're dealing with Tomcats (or
>any other TWS radar system) you won't *get* a lockon indication (or any other
>launch indications, for that matter). All you'll get is seeker head
>lightoff/lockon approx 10 seconds prior to impact. A bit late for
>beaming tactics (and that would only work if the AIM-54 seeker is Doppler-
>based).
Ok, at least this is arguing the issues.
John Carrier told us the Phoenix was launched in TWS mode, which paints
the target with higher frequency than scan mode. IF you know a missile's
been fired at you, you should still be able to tell by the rate at which
the RWR flashes whether you've broken his "track" or not (which until now
I've loosely referred to as a "lock").
The remaining question is whether you can tell there's a large missile
flying towards you at Mach 6 without having to go running for cover
every time he tries to track you. This is beyond my experience, but
offered no other choice I'd probably turn my radar on in hopes of seeing
it coming. Would it work?
-Andrew
Andrew P Pavacic
In article <350F8565...@aus.net>,
Carlo Kopp <Carlo.Ko...@aus.net> wrote:
>> Why does this matter?
>
>Because if the radar is any good it updates the Kalman filter with a
>confidence level per hit or series of hits, ie a weighting on that
>entry. That is not an uncommon technique to adjust filter weights
>depending on the quality of the data. Thus you give the guy a series of
>stronger returns before you vanish and then reappear again as a stronger
>series of returns. This hould be obvious to you.
>You missed my point, Andrew, the tracking loop still knows your
>approximate position even if your return transiently vanishes. That is
>what such radars are designed to do.
>You will transiently pass through zero Doppler with any reasonably good
>approximation, but for how long ? You are talking about a very narrow
>window here. And your clutter window will depend on your vertical
>beamwidth, won't it ? If it is narrow enough, your "window of
>invisibility" will still be extremely short. If you are using the range
>information to blank the return past the target, you can minimise the
>clutter you will see to that associated with the lower portion of the
>beam bouncing off the ground at the same range as the target. Draw
>yourself a picture, and look at the slant angles.
>You have to play this against the missile seeker, not the fighter,
>Andrew. The fighter will have a better tracking loop and will continue
>to maintain an approximate track even if your return is fluctuating
>badly. That is the whole idea of Kalman filters in LD/SD radars.
Look, if your argument is still grounded on "you can't possibly beam
forever" (with which I disagreed), then we're wasting our time
talking about filters.
person A - do this.
person B - ok, pretend that doesn't work. Ergo, this and this happens,
and then it doesn't work. See?
person A - Oh.
-Andrew
PosterBoy
pav...@ecf.toronto.edu (Andrew P Pavacic) writes: > In article <350F8565...@aus.net>,
> Carlo Kopp <Carlo.Ko...@aus.net> wrote:
> >> Why does this matter?
> >
> >Because if the radar is any good it updates the Kalman filter with a
\/\/\/\/\/lots of snipping\/\/\/\/\/\/
> Look, if your argument is still grounded on "you can't possibly beam
> forever" (with which I disagreed), then we're wasting our time
> talking about filters.
Yes, Carlo.....
I do believe Andrew has a point: you are cluttering up this perfectly
entertaining discussion with facts.
Tch, tch.
Cheers.
D. Scott Ferrin
On Wed, 18 Mar 1998 09:18:59 -0500, "Venik" <ve...@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
>D. Scott Ferrin wrote in message <350fd03b...@news.inquo.net>...
>>I read the same article (the one with the Rafale at the front of the
>>article). Even so I would never quote it as a source unless it was a
>>"has anyone ever heard of this" type of question. I just don't trust
>>the reliability of those two rags. I mentioned a perfect example of
>>their kind of reporting in another post. You've heard of the
>>"doughnuts-on-a-rope" contrails thought to be associated with
>>pulse-detonation engines? There've actually been photos taken of them
>>that I've seen in AvWeek. Anyway the Popular Mechanics writer saw a
>>picture of an SR-71 with "mach-diamonds" in it's exhaust and made a
>>big deal of it saying that the mystery had been solved. He claimed
>>the SR-71 had been making these trails (funny how nobody notice them
>>for 30 years). I guess someone should show him a picture of an X-1
>>with mach-diamond in *it's* exhaust or better yet an engine on a test
>>stand.
>
>
>I have seen the article about SR-71 being the "mystery" plane and it is
>complete nonsense. I have never heard this aircraft leaving this type of
>trail under any conditions. What the photo portaraits is an optical effect
>produced probably by camera's lens.
What you're thinking of are lens flares which "mach-diamonds" are not.
Mach-diamonds are caused by shockwaves in the exhaust (or so I've
heard). Lens flares are caused by imperfections in the camera lens.
Again, I can use my own intelligence to
>try and sort out truth from fiction or I can wait for a bunch of editors
>from some respectable magazine to do it for me.
Well yeah you can try (which is all any of us can do) or you can
benefit from those with more experience. I've got nothing against
people thinking for themselves I just think people should have open
minds until all the facts are in.
Perhaps knowing who is the
>author of a particular article is more important than to know where the
>article was published. Bill Sweetman is hardly an amateur journalist when it
>comes to aviation, so I am inclined to take his information about active
>cancellation seriously.
I agree. And I've heard of active cancelation in other sources as
well. Whether or not it's all it's cracked up to be has yet to be
proven as far as I know. By it's very nature (active) it is
vulnerable to detection from ESM.
But another reason for that is scientific and
>technological possibility of this method. So its not all reputation.
>
>Venik
>
>
D. Scott Ferrin
**sferrin#inquo.com*
Jeff Crowell
: Jeff Crowell <jcrow...@boi.hp.com> wrote:
: >if you're dealing with Tomcats (or
: >any other TWS radar system) you won't *get* a lockon indication (or any other
: >launch indications, for that matter). All you'll get is seeker head
: >lightoff/lockon approx 10 seconds prior to impact. A bit late for
: >beaming tactics (and that would only work if the AIM-54 seeker is Doppler-
: >based).
Andrew Pavacic wrote:
: John Carrier told us the Phoenix was launched in TWS mode, which paints
: the target with higher frequency than scan mode. IF you know a missile's
: been fired at you, you should still be able to tell by the rate at which
: the RWR flashes whether you've broken his "track" or not (which until now
: I've loosely referred to as a "lock").
I don't know if you purposely capitalized both letters of 'if' in that
second sentence (I often do because I'm a lousy typist), but it is, in fact,
a big 'if.'
You know *someone's* being tracked (well, up to 24 someones), since the
increased scan rate is seen by anyone who can detect radar emissions. Is
it you? Is it Ivan over there? Has he fired yet? Who knows?
And how will you find out, other than by seeker head turnon? If you
automatically beam anyone who tracks you via TWS, I submit you're gonna have
trouble completing your mission, whatever it is. Let's not even get into
multiple TWS emitters...
So you're in a bit of a bind as soon as you detect increased PRF.
: The remaining question is whether you can tell there's a large missile
: flying towards you at Mach 6 without having to go running for cover
: every time he tries to track you. This is beyond my experience, but
: offered no other choice I'd probably turn my radar on in hopes of seeing
: it coming. Would it work?
Depends on the radar, perhaps, but I suspect it would not. The long-range
profile of the missile is to climb steeply to 'way up there, boost up like
crazy and then coast down on its intended victim. If your radar looked right
at the Phoenix and happened to catch the radar antenna just right, I suspect
you'd get a pretty strong return (radar antennas are, after all, reflectors
of RF energy). Enough, and consistent enough, to form a track? Dunno.
OTOH, if it's me shooting at you I'll probably not be at extreme range
(though, what body parts will you bet that I'm not? ;-) ) when I shoot. So
you pick up a radar contact at 40 miles or so... is that me in my Tomcat
or the advance guard in a Hornet just itching to optest a Slammer? This
assumes we're still talking about Tomcat vs Su-27, i.e. a fighter-size target.
If you're driving a bomber trying to ruin my carrier's day, I'll be shooting
from much further out.
Jeff
--
Jeff Crowell | |
jcrow at hpbs3354.boi.hp.com | _ |
_________|__( )__|_________
BLD Materials Engineer x/ _| |( . )| |_ \x
(208) 396-6525 x |_| ---*|_| x
O x x O
The enemy invariably attacks on two occasions:
When you're ready for them.
When you're not ready for them.
Murphy's Laws of Combat
dennis...@dwt.csiro.au
In article <Epztr...@ecf.toronto.edu>,
pav...@ecf.toronto.edu (Andrew P Pavacic) wrote:
>
> In article <6emvif$etr$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> <dennis...@dwt.csiro.au> wrote:
> >In article <Epy20...@ecf.toronto.edu>,
> > pav...@ecf.toronto.edu (Andrew P Pavacic) wrote:
> >> 3. Watch bearing of radiating threat on RWR drift above 90 degrees.
> >> 4. Apply right rudder until radiating threat is again at 90 degrees.
> >> 5. Repeat steps 2-4 until missile runs out of fuel, then lure the next
> >> shot (the US only has enough Phoenixes for each of its Tomcats to
carry
> >> one warload)
> >
using
> >this method. Remeber that Carlo mentioned that the C-model has doppler
> >filters, so unless you can completely remove your doppler shift, you are
going
> >to be seen.
>
> I'm not ignoring that, I'm only ignoring Carlo. There are no ideal filters,
> and there will always be a finite (however small) band of frequency shifts
> that will have to be ignored to avoid locking onto the surface of the Earth.
> The returns do not have to be small or "perfect", they just have to fall
> within this band.
>
True, but I guess it all depends what size the band is.
> >> If you have a calculator with you, you can get a pretty good estimate of
> >> the range to the transmitter, but how would you use that information?
> >> Pilots think of turns as degrees/minute. If you tell a pilot to make a
turn
> >> with a 40 km radius of curvature, he'll have to do the math again anyway.
> >> Much easier to tell him "keep this target at your 3 o'clock".
> >Given a certain airspeed and a certain turn radius, it is easy to compute
> >degrees/second.
> >
> >This doesn't take away from the fact that all of this takes time.
>
> Argh!
>
> First you say you need bearing and range.
>
Yes, you do. But as you said, if you get two very accurate bearing fixes in a
short time interval, you can triangulate and get range. The fact that the
transmitter is moving all the time is somewhat problematic.
> Then I say you don't need range, because bearing is enough, and you can
> calculate range from bearing anyway, if you really needed it.
>
Yes, but I was not saying that the range information was not necessary. You
either need to get range information directly, or infer it from your other
data (bearing).
> Then you say sure you need range because with it you can calculate bearing.
>
> I mean yes, there's that "degrees per second" thing in there but that's
> only to keep the bearing at 90 degrees anyway. You're creating all these
> artificial calculations that can be replaced by just looking at the RWR
> and turning.
>
Except, as has been mentioned, RWR's are not THAT accurate in their bearing
info.
> >> ATC radars, being ground-based devices, always "look up" with a certain
> >> angular elevation off the ground, and so never have to worry about ground
> >> clutter at all.
> >
> >Sorry, Andrew, but you are completely wrong on this one. The angular
elevation
> >you are talking about is approximately 0.02 degrees if you take the earth
to
> >be flat ( our RSR ATC radar dtects an aircraft at 21000 feet at 160nm. Do
the
> >maths). I know that at Tullamarine, the Hilton Hotel posed significant
return
> >problems. How about control towers? Airport buildings? Trees? Seriously,
ask
> >to speak to one of the ATC radar techs about these problems.
> >
> >> A continuous-wave radar of this sort would indeed have
> >> little difficulty picking out a target flying perpendicular to it.
> >
> >Here you are wrong as well. To remove the ground clutter that you say isn't
> >relevant, the radar systems use a phase comparitor to remove stationary
> >targets (such as ground return, rain, large vehicles etc). Quite a complex
> >problem, at least as complex as the situation being discussed here.
> >Occasionally, primary is lost from one of the aircraft flying tangential to
> >the radar, but this is at most for 2-3 paints.
>
> This is interesting... That means the ATC radars you were using weren't
> continuous-wave, but Doppler?
>
No, not doppler per se. With each pulse, the waveform is stored, and this is
compared with the incoming wavetrain. If the reflected wavetrain has a
different waveform from that stored, it is taken that the target is moving,
and is painted. It may seem like semantics, but this is not a doppler radar in
the conventional meaning of the word. BTW, sometimes you can get problems with
the phase comparitor method. Occassionally we would paint King Island itself
(about 250nm from Melbourne). The outgoing beam would bounce off the upper
atmosphere, reflect from King Island and come back, at the same time that the
radar was expecting the subsequent pulse to return. The two waveforms would be
slightly different, so the island would be painted. This was known as second
time around return.
> I openly admit again that I don't have much experience with these systems,
> but my faith in the theory stands. The solution of using phase comparators
> likely won't translate smoothly into mobile systems like the AWG-9 which
have
> to face varying terrain at varying groundspeeds, and I doubt that many of
> the aircraft you describe were intentionally flying circles around your
> transmitter.
This much is certainly true.
> I have an easier time imagining them being tangential only
> temporarily. (How much time between paints?)
>
True. IIRC, there were about 2-3s between paints with the TAR (terminal
approach radar). With the RSR, the rotation rate was slower.
> Another issue: isn't civil traffic in the habit of using transponders?
>
Generally, yes, but you always have some planes that don't have transponders,
or have transponders that are on the blink.
> >> As your experience clearly supercedes my own, I would like to welcome
> >> your assurance that I'm simply wrong, but as this is my chosen field
> >> of study I must say I'd much prefer more of an explanation as to why,
> >> before being asked to discount years of expensive training.
> >
> >Fair enough. I hope that some of what I have stated here makes sense to
you. I
> >have got to say that actually working with radar proved an eye opener. A
> >suggestion, call ATC and ask to be shown around the facility, and ask to
speak
> >to controllers. I have been out of ARC for 12 years now, and things will
have
> >changed a bit, but the basics will still be the same.
>
> Some of it does, thanks again. Asking to be shown around sounds tempting,
> are you sure they wouldn't mind? The one time I tried to get schmoozy with
> the air traffic industry I got all this security look-at-me-I'm-a-terrorist
> attitude.
>
We used to have people coming through Tullamarine (Melbourne) fairly
frequently. We often had groups of student pilots or other interested groups.
I know it may be counterproductive in seeing the radar at work in a busy
environment to keep away during peak periods, but that is what I would
suggest. If you want to just observe, by all means go during the peak periods,
but if you want to talk to the controllers, go for a quieter period. This is
certainly the case in Australia, I don't know about Canada. You may even find
that the radar that you use there uses a different principle to that in
Australia (our gear is/was Thomson CSF).
Dennis
Andrew P Pavacic
In article <6epdip$ha...@hpbs1500.boi.hp.com>,
Jeff Crowell <jcrow...@boi.hp.com> wrote:
>: John Carrier told us the Phoenix was launched in TWS mode, which paints
>: the target with higher frequency than scan mode. IF you know a missile's
>: been fired at you, you should still be able to tell by the rate at which
>: the RWR flashes whether you've broken his "track" or not (which until now
>: I've loosely referred to as a "lock").
>
>I don't know if you purposely capitalized both letters of 'if' in that
>second sentence (I often do because I'm a lousy typist), but it is, in fact,
>a big 'if.'
It was intentional, I set that issue temporarily aside to be addressed in
the next paragraph (see below).
>You know *someone's* being tracked (well, up to 24 someones), since the
>increased scan rate is seen by anyone who can detect radar emissions. Is
>it you? Is it Ivan over there? Has he fired yet? Who knows?
>And how will you find out, other than by seeker head turnon? If you
>automatically beam anyone who tracks you via TWS, I submit you're gonna have
>trouble completing your mission, whatever it is. Let's not even get into
>multiple TWS emitters...
>
>So you're in a bit of a bind as soon as you detect increased PRF.
Again, I've never used one of these things, but my understanding of the
way they worked was that in scan mode, you'd have say 1000 pulses per second,
and you'd spread these out over your field of view hoping to pick up new
targets. In TWS, as targets appeared, you would dedicate say 50 pps per
target, and distribute whatever was left over to the rest of empty space
to continue to scan for new targets. This would accomodate timing
limitations in the hardware (and the time it takes to receive reflections),
allow for tracking multiple targets independently (so that losing one
track doesn't eliminate them all), and still allow for scan on the side,
so long as the number of tracked targets was below some threshold value.
If this is correct, each target should be able to tell independently
whether it itself is being tracked. I.e., your RWR antenna is not mounted
on your wingman's plane and doesn't tell you what's going on over there.
>: The remaining question is whether you can tell there's a large missile
>: flying towards you at Mach 6 without having to go running for cover
>: every time he tries to track you. This is beyond my experience, but
>: offered no other choice I'd probably turn my radar on in hopes of seeing
>: it coming. Would it work?
>
>Depends on the radar, perhaps, but I suspect it would not. The long-range
>profile of the missile is to climb steeply to 'way up there, boost up like
>crazy and then coast down on its intended victim. If your radar looked right
>at the Phoenix and happened to catch the radar antenna just right, I suspect
>you'd get a pretty strong return (radar antennas are, after all, reflectors
>of RF energy). Enough, and consistent enough, to form a track? Dunno.
Okay, but...
How high up is "'way" up? At 55 nm, a 30 000 foot difference in altitude
is about 5 degrees of elevation. A track wouldn't be necessary either,
all you'd need is one advance warning it's on its way to begin your maneuver.
I'm not saying you're wrong though, I have little idea what the RCS of
a missile would be (although there is that fourth-power range equation).
Please note also that detecting the threat wasn't presented as part of the
"a Phoenix is on the way, what do you do about it?" problem. I wasn't
claiming to possess the complete military strategy by which the Iraqis could
have beaten the forces of Bill Clinton.
As a side note, would the reflective radar antenna in the nose of an
F-22 inflict limitations on its stealthiness when seen from head-on?
>OTOH, if it's me shooting at you I'll probably not be at extreme range
>(though, what body parts will you bet that I'm not? ;-) ) when I shoot. So
>you pick up a radar contact at 40 miles or so... is that me in my Tomcat
>or the advance guard in a Hornet just itching to optest a Slammer? This
>assumes we're still talking about Tomcat vs Su-27, i.e. a fighter-size target.
(Again with changing the design specs... Non-engineers... :)
Yeah, but when this becomes a factor, so does "oh cool! I can actually
shoot back now," which is what the Phoenix was designed to prevent.
Best regards,
-Andrew
dennis...@dwt.csiro.au
In article <Eq1G0...@ecf.toronto.edu>,
I believe that you have this correct. However, if the Tom is tracking 24
targets, and you are one of them, you do not know what priority you have been
assigned. You may be number 1 on the list, with a -54 on its way, or you may
be no. 24, with no realistic probability of being intercepted by said Tom with
the priorities as they stand.
> >: The remaining question is whether you can tell there's a large missile
> >: flying towards you at Mach 6 without having to go running for cover
> >: every time he tries to track you. This is beyond my experience, but
> >: offered no other choice I'd probably turn my radar on in hopes of seeing
> >: it coming. Would it work?
> >
> >Depends on the radar, perhaps, but I suspect it would not. The long-range
> >profile of the missile is to climb steeply to 'way up there, boost up like
> >crazy and then coast down on its intended victim. If your radar looked
right
> >at the Phoenix and happened to catch the radar antenna just right, I
suspect
> >you'd get a pretty strong return (radar antennas are, after all, reflectors
> >of RF energy). Enough, and consistent enough, to form a track? Dunno.
>
> Okay, but...
> How high up is "'way" up? At 55 nm, a 30 000 foot difference in altitude
> is about 5 degrees of elevation.
Way up really is way up-over 100k for long range intercept. So your 5 degrees
is in fact looking more like 15 degrees.
Phil
All of you are missinformed on the F-14's TWS waveform. Here's how it
really works. When scanning for targets, the antenna (hence beam) moves
at X degrees per second. When a target is detected, the antenna scan
rate does not change. It remains scanning at X degrees per second. The
number of pulses you stated, 1000 pps or 50 pps, is way off. TWS is a
high PRF (HPRF) waveform, 200kHz-350kHz, or 200,000 - 350,000 pps. And
again, the PRF does not change for any detected targets. Therefore, a
RWR looking at the number of pulses or the time between flashes will not
know if a Phoenix is in the air, coming directly at him.
Carlo Kopp
Andrew P Pavacic wrote:
>
> This is interesting... That means the ATC radars you were using weren't
> continuous-wave, but Doppler?
>
SARH homing, some maritime surveillance radars, and the Russian 76N6
acquisition radar designed to catch low level cruise missiles (it cannot
heightfind).
Cheers,
Carlo
Andrey Shvetsov
Jarmo Lindberg wrote:
>
> That may be the one of the Guards MiG-29 regiment's jets. Or the Swifths' which are part
> of the regiment. I took some photos at Kubinka in August 1991:-
> http://www.sci.fi/~fta/migflt-5.htm
I assumed the Kubinka regiment too. They routinely made low altitude
joint (MiG-29, Su-27, Su-25) exercises at the time there. Noise spoiled
most of the vacation :-).
> This is interesting. Any info about the altitudes and in what kind of a situation would
> the maneuver be realisticly meaningful? Forcing and overshoot or getting a pulse-doppler
> radar to break lock won't do for answers - sorry.
Do not know about situation - did not ask. But it was to be "real low".
:-) "Can be safely made at 500 m and above".
>
Cheers,
Andrey Shvetsov
Carlo Kopp
Cheers,
Carlo
Carlo Kopp
Andrew P Pavacic wrote:
>
> In article <350F8565...@aus.net>,
> Carlo Kopp <Carlo.Ko...@aus.net> wrote:
> >> Why does this matter?
> >
> >Because if the radar is any good it updates the Kalman filter with a
> >confidence level per hit or series of hits, ie a weighting on that
> >entry. That is not an uncommon technique to adjust filter weights
> >depending on the quality of the data. Thus you give the guy a series of
> >stronger returns before you vanish and then reappear again as a stronger
> >series of returns. This hould be obvious to you.
> >You missed my point, Andrew, the tracking loop still knows your
> >approximate position even if your return transiently vanishes. That is
> >what such radars are designed to do.
> >You will transiently pass through zero Doppler with any reasonably good
> >approximation, but for how long ? You are talking about a very narrow
> >window here. And your clutter window will depend on your vertical
> >beamwidth, won't it ? If it is narrow enough, your "window of
> >invisibility" will still be extremely short. If you are using the range
> >information to blank the return past the target, you can minimise the
> >clutter you will see to that associated with the lower portion of the
> >beam bouncing off the ground at the same range as the target. Draw
> >yourself a picture, and look at the slant angles.
> >You have to play this against the missile seeker, not the fighter,
> >Andrew. The fighter will have a better tracking loop and will continue
> >to maintain an approximate track even if your return is fluctuating
> >badly. That is the whole idea of Kalman filters in LD/SD radars.
>
> forever" (with which I disagreed), then we're wasting our time
> talking about filters.
>
> person B - ok, pretend that doesn't work. Ergo, this and this happens,
> and then it doesn't work. See?
> person A - Oh.
>
missile radars are designed. Once you do that we can continue this
discussion usefully.
A note here - you cannot separate the problem from its context. You have
tried to model the interaction of several complex systems on the basis
of a first order physics model using relative motion and Doppler, making
all sorts of unrealistic and optimistic assumptions about how things
work. This is the point which I, Ed Rasimus, Jeff Crowell and Dennis
Jensen have been trying to make to you. Unless you look at the _whole_
problem you cannot reach valid and general conclusions.
Since you are an undergrad you can be forgiven for this transgression
:-)
However, please be mindful of this when you approach such problems,
there is usually more to it than superficially meets the eye.
Cheers,
Carlo
Jeff Crowell
I've tried to edit this down a bit...
: Jeff Crowell wrote:
: >So you're in a bit of a bind as soon as you detect increased PRF.
It seems to me that scan rate does not change, though I am no technical expert
on the Tomcat radar. So the above may have been a misstatement on my part.
If PRF does not change (and I don't think it does), you'll never know you're
being tracked, let alone fired upon.
Andrew P Pavacic wrote:
: >: The remaining question is whether you can tell there's a large missile
: >: flying towards you at Mach 6 ...snip...
: >: offered no other choice I'd probably turn my radar on in hopes of seeing
: >: it coming. Would it work?
Jeff Crowell wrote:
: >Depends on the radar, perhaps, but I suspect it would not.
: >If your radar looked right at the Phoenix and happened to catch the
: >(missile's) radar antenna just right, I suspect you'd get a pretty strong
: >return. Enough, and consistent enough, to form a track? Dunno.
: A track wouldn't be necessary either,
: all you'd need is one advance warning it's on its way to begin your maneuver.
Radar doesn't work that way. One return would not be presented to the operator,
the system would dump it as spurious return. Only if a series of returns are
received will the radar display a piece of video.
: Please note also that detecting the threat wasn't presented as part of the
: "a Phoenix is on the way, what do you do about it?" problem.
Ah, but it's part of "where the rubber meets the road", as well as a significant
part of the advantage of using Phoenix! That big bugger is a heavy bird, not
as maneuverable as some, but it is damn hard to detect and defeat.
It would *not* be my first choice to shoot at a fighter-sized target. But that
would not stop me from using it if I had one or two lying around as I flew
into a fight.
: I wasn't
: claiming to possess the complete military strategy by which the Iraqis could
: have beaten the forces of Bill Clinton.
I don't think anyone thought you were.
: As a side note, would the reflective radar antenna in the nose of an
: F-22 inflict limitations on its stealthiness when seen from head-on?
I would expect that it would. I have heard that it is a tactic with some
aircraft to slew the antenna to point straight down to avoid just such a
problem, though I do not know. And, of course, you can't use your radar
while it is like that. OTOH, if you are radiating you are not being
stealthy, LPI radar or not.
: >you pick up a radar contact at 40 miles or so... is that me in my Tomcat
: >or the advance guard in a Hornet just itching to optest a Slammer? This
: >assumes we're still talking about Tomcat vs Su-27, i.e. a fighter-size
: >target.
: (Again with changing the design specs... Non-engineers... :)
Oh, but I *am* an engineer! Creeping elegance is always a problem. 8-)
Trouble is, I've also spent some time driving airplanes, and spent a good deal
of time thinking about tactics and strategy of air to air combat. These
'mano a mano' airplane duel threads are fine, but they ain't realistic.
The simple truth is that you would never be able to fly a fight as if you and
the other dude are the only two people flying today... It's like the 'Rules
of a Gunfight' that sometimes pop up in my .sig: "Always assume that there is
one more, somewhere." Pilots that forget that often die.
Best regards,
Jeff
--
Jeff Crowell | |
jcrow at hpbs3354.boi.hp.com | _ |
_________|__( )__|_________
BLD Materials Engineer x/ _| |( . )| |_ \x
(208) 396-6525 x |_| ---*|_| x
O x x O
Rule number 19 of gunfights:
When the cops arrive, think fast and move slow.
George R. Gonzalez
Carlo Kopp wrote in message <3510DE9E...@aus.net>...
>> Yes, Carlo.....
>> I do believe Andrew has a point: you are cluttering up this
perfectly
>> entertaining discussion with facts.
>> Tch, tch.
>>
>Arrrgh ! Yes you are right, why confuse the situation with reality ?
>
>Cheers,
>
>Carlo
Some of us do get peeved about these pointless idealized theoretical
discussions.
You'd think a warzone was a perfectly clean white room, with one really
dumb defender, one omniscient attacker, and unlimited and free
technology.
As one university prof used to say, "Assume a massless spherical cow...".
Carlo Kopp
Jeff Crowell wrote:
>
> I've tried to edit this down a bit...
>
> : Jeff Crowell wrote:
> : >So you're in a bit of a bind as soon as you detect increased PRF.
>
> It seems to me that scan rate does not change, though I am no technical expert
> on the Tomcat radar. So the above may have been a misstatement on my part.
> If PRF does not change (and I don't think it does), you'll never know you're
> being tracked, let alone fired upon.
>
> Andrew P Pavacic wrote:
> : >: The remaining question is whether you can tell there's a large missile
> : >: flying towards you at Mach 6 ...snip...
> : >: offered no other choice I'd probably turn my radar on in hopes of seeing
> : >: it coming. Would it work?
>
> Jeff Crowell wrote:
> : >Depends on the radar, perhaps, but I suspect it would not.
> : >If your radar looked right at the Phoenix and happened to catch the
> : >(missile's) radar antenna just right, I suspect you'd get a pretty strong
> : >return. Enough, and consistent enough, to form a track? Dunno.
>
> : A track wouldn't be necessary either,
> : all you'd need is one advance warning it's on its way to begin your maneuver.
>
> Radar doesn't work that way. One return would not be presented to the operator,
> the system would dump it as spurious return. Only if a series of returns are
> received will the radar display a piece of video.
That has been pointed out to Andrew previously, Jeff, he doesn't accept
it.
>
> : Please note also that detecting the threat wasn't presented as part of the
> : "a Phoenix is on the way, what do you do about it?" problem.
>
> Ah, but it's part of "where the rubber meets the road", as well as a significant
> part of the advantage of using Phoenix! That big bugger is a heavy bird, not
> as maneuverable as some, but it is damn hard to detect and defeat.
>
> It would *not* be my first choice to shoot at a fighter-sized target. But that
> would not stop me from using it if I had one or two lying around as I flew
> into a fight.
This point has been made previously by another poster. It has also been
ignored.
>
> : I wasn't
> : claiming to possess the complete military strategy by which the Iraqis could
> : have beaten the forces of Bill Clinton.
>
> I don't think anyone thought you were.
>
> : As a side note, would the reflective radar antenna in the nose of an
> : F-22 inflict limitations on its stealthiness when seen from head-on?
>
> I would expect that it would. I have heard that it is a tactic with some
> aircraft to slew the antenna to point straight down to avoid just such a
> problem, though I do not know. And, of course, you can't use your radar
> while it is like that. OTOH, if you are radiating you are not being
> stealthy, LPI radar or not.
If you check out some photos, and there are a few out there, you will
see that the '77 array is fixed and angled slightly upward. Since it
represents in effect a flat plate, reflecting up and away from the
aircraft, the backscatter in the direction of the emitter will be
minimal, and since it will be nice and planar, you won't get much in the
way of lesser lobes in reflection. The array is wholly electronically
steered in elevation and azimuth.
>
> : >you pick up a radar contact at 40 miles or so... is that me in my Tomcat
> : >or the advance guard in a Hornet just itching to optest a Slammer? This
> : >assumes we're still talking about Tomcat vs Su-27, i.e. a fighter-size
> : >target.
>
> : (Again with changing the design specs... Non-engineers... :)
>
> Oh, but I *am* an engineer! Creeping elegance is always a problem. 8-)
>
> Trouble is, I've also spent some time driving airplanes, and spent a good deal
> of time thinking about tactics and strategy of air to air combat. These
> 'mano a mano' airplane duel threads are fine, but they ain't realistic.
> The simple truth is that you would never be able to fly a fight as if you and
> the other dude are the only two people flying today... It's like the 'Rules
> of a Gunfight' that sometimes pop up in my .sig: "Always assume that there is
> one more, somewhere." Pilots that forget that often die.
>
This point has been also made repeatedly by numerous posters, and also
continues to be ignored. For some reason a large proportion of this NG
seem fixated on this idea of reducing something as complicated as air
combat into comparing a handful of specs in an A vs B comparison,
usually lacking the _hard_ data they need to do it properly. Arrrgh !
Cheers,
Carlo
Andrew P Pavacic
In article <3510C4...@aol.com>, Phil <pado...@aol.com> wrote:
>All of you are missinformed on the F-14's TWS waveform. Here's how it
>really works. When scanning for targets, the antenna (hence beam) moves
>at X degrees per second. When a target is detected, the antenna scan
>rate does not change. It remains scanning at X degrees per second. The
>number of pulses you stated, 1000 pps or 50 pps, is way off. TWS is a
>high PRF (HPRF) waveform, 200kHz-350kHz, or 200,000 - 350,000 pps. And
>again, the PRF does not change for any detected targets. Therefore, a
>RWR looking at the number of pulses or the time between flashes will not
>know if a Phoenix is in the air, coming directly at him.
Thanks. I chose the numbers off the top of my head for illustration only,
to ask if the overall principle was correct.
I'm not sure I'm clear on this yet, though, since I didn't envision the
PRF changing either, or suggest that the RWR would betray a Phoenix.
Does a target being tracked get "pinged" by more pulses per second (not
the same as a change of PRF) than a corresponding patch of empty space
being scanned? I only thought a pilot should be able to tell if he's
being tracked or not.
-Andrew
Andrew P Pavacic
[Gratuitously re-inserted after being cut by someone who for some reason
didn't want people to see what I had written that caused the hubbub:]
----------
PosterBoy wrote:
> pav...@ecf.toronto.edu (Andrew P Pavacic) writes: > In article <350F8565.446B
> > Look, if your argument is still grounded on "you can't possibly beam
> > forever" (with which I disagreed), then we're wasting our time
> > talking about filters.
----------
In article <6erl77$8...@epx.cis.umn.edu>,
George R. Gonzalez <g...@foundsys.com> wrote:
>Carlo Kopp wrote in message <3510DE9E...@aus.net>...
>>> Yes, Carlo.....
>>> I do believe Andrew has a point: you are cluttering up this
>perfectly
>>> entertaining discussion with facts.
>>> Tch, tch.
>>>
>>Arrrgh ! Yes you are right, why confuse the situation with reality ?
>
>Some of us do get peeved about these pointless idealized theoretical
>discussions.
>You'd think a warzone was a perfectly clean white room, with one really
>dumb defender, one omniscient attacker, and unlimited and free
>technology.
>
>As one university prof used to say, "Assume a massless spherical cow...".
So you're allowed to make assumptions I don't agree with,
make no attempt to explain them to me,
take the discussion along some tangent wholly dependent on those assumptions,
and when I say hey wait up, I'm not with you, you've gotta justify this
assumption for me first... I'm suddenly living in Disneyland.
Thanks boys. Next one's on you. :)
-Andrew
Andrew P Pavacic
In article <6erb1r$ha...@hpbs1500.boi.hp.com>,
Jeff Crowell <jcrow...@boi.hp.com> wrote:
>Radar doesn't work that way. One return would not be presented to the
> operator, the system would dump it as spurious return. Only if a series
> of returns are received will the radar display a piece of video.
<wink wink, nudge nudge mode on>
Clearly you're forgetting the Kalman filters. I suggest reading some of
Carlo Kopp's works. You can't spoof a radar track simply by being invisible
or not giving any returns with today's modern equipment. Anything more than
a first-order analysis of the returns that do get through will let any
radar worth its salt put together an accurate track based on your most
recent course and speed information. You're just not considering all the
factors in the complex real world.
Mr. Gonzales will also get you a track on as little as 5% of a single
wavelength of a single pulse, as described at length in his treatise on
the Futility of Active Cancelling, March 1998. Who needs a series these
days? The world is too complex to be putting these requirements into the
picture, practicality just isn't practical in the real world so stop being
hypothetical.
</off>
Sorry, couldn't resist. When you have to debate a bunch of guys more
concerned with the fact they all disagree with what you're saying than
that they all seem to be disagreeing with each other too, you sometimes
wish you could just stick 'em all in a closet together and leave. :)
>: Please note also that detecting the threat wasn't presented as part of the
>: "a Phoenix is on the way, what do you do about it?" problem.
>Ah, but it's part of "where the rubber meets the road", as well as a
>significant part of the advantage of using Phoenix! That big bugger is a
>heavy bird, not as maneuverable as some, but it is damn hard to detect and
>defeat.
Yeah yeah yeah, but when you start bringing in "how did you detect the
Phoenix?", other fighters, Elvis in a UFO and whatever else might be out
there, then I have to say things like:
"Have NVN-type Intel listen to the enemy radio calls and tell you when
a shot is fired," which is perfectly reasonable and has been done before,
but then you'll start talking about jamming, and I'll start talking about
directional antennas, and it doesn't end no matter how many problems I can
solve, and before long we're at the point where:
>: I wasn't
>: claiming to possess the complete military strategy by which the Iraqis could
>: have beaten the forces of Bill Clinton.
>I don't think anyone thought you were.
becomes a real question. Complex tactics are built on simple ones,
and everything we ever put on radar had to make it through "clean sterile
perfect lab-type environment"s first.
>: (Again with changing the design specs... Non-engineers... :)
>Oh, but I *am* an engineer! Creeping elegance is always a problem. 8-)
Whoops... Then you must KNOW how annoying it is, you present your boss
with a brilliant design completed in the nick of time with all the specs
just *barely* met after hundreds of repeat trials and you're waiting for a
big pat on the back and to go back to the team and tell them about their
well-earned vacations and bonuses, and you get "oh cool... Can you put
a cupholder in it for me now?" You traitor!
This whole series of posts should have been made to the guy asking Yevgeniy
how he'd dodge a Phoenix (maybe with a thing about how Phoenixes never get
used nowadays anyway)... Wait, that wasn't you too, was it?
:)
Kind regards,
-Andrew
Andrew P Pavacic
In article <3511B247...@aus.net>,
Carlo Kopp <Carlo.Ko...@aus.net> wrote:
>Jeff Crowell wrote:
>> Radar doesn't work that way. One return would not be presented to the operator,
>> the system would dump it as spurious return. Only if a series of returns are
>> received will the radar display a piece of video.
>
>it.
What happened to the Kalman filters?!?
Man, you've just got a fact for every occassion, don't you.
>This point has been also made repeatedly by numerous posters, and also
>continues to be ignored. For some reason a large proportion of this NG
>seem fixated on this idea of reducing something as complicated as air
>combat into comparing a handful of specs in an A vs B comparison,
>usually lacking the _hard_ data they need to do it properly. Arrrgh !
Make that a whole round of Arrrghs for my buddy Carlo and the house
please, on me, thanks. :)
Arrrgh.
-Andrew