In theory in kinetic terms this maybe true. In real life the IR AAM is limited in frontal engagement by the sensor detection and lock on range. Lock on is much more difficult in the front than it is in the back.
New J-10 thread II
- Thread starter wlchang
- Start date
- Status
In theory in kinetic terms this maybe true. In real life the IR AAM is limited in frontal engagement by the sensor detection and lock on range. Lock on is much more difficult in the front than it is in the back.
Going a little off topic here. How good a modern IIR missile seekers in LOAL when mid course guided by a launching / third party platform?
I'm aware that weather conditions play an important role. But would the method generally be usefull?
I remember having read about an article about Python 5 testing were it downed a drone in LOAL mode. What about Mica IR with the OSF?
I'm aware that weather conditions play an important role. But would the method generally be usefull?
I remember having read about an article about Python 5 testing were it downed a drone in LOAL mode. What about Mica IR with the OSF?
Python 5 is actually using an optical seeker.
Its possible of the thing you said, so long as the missile can broadcast the image back to the launching platform, where the target image can be visually verified and authorized for lock.
The problem is that something has to que the seeker to the direction of the target. The seeker is like an eyeball, something has to tell the seeker to look here, or there. Conventional mid phase guidance is only for sending a missile on its way to a desired location. The seeker there have has to have a wide FOV, display this FOV back to the launching platform, where anything in the screen can be seen and identified. Once the target is verified, the instructions are sent back to the missile so the seeker can zoom in and lock on the target.
Its not something I would want for a dogfight, but it sounds like something that can be used against radar stealthy targets.
Its possible of the thing you said, so long as the missile can broadcast the image back to the launching platform, where the target image can be visually verified and authorized for lock.
The problem is that something has to que the seeker to the direction of the target. The seeker is like an eyeball, something has to tell the seeker to look here, or there. Conventional mid phase guidance is only for sending a missile on its way to a desired location. The seeker there have has to have a wide FOV, display this FOV back to the launching platform, where anything in the screen can be seen and identified. Once the target is verified, the instructions are sent back to the missile so the seeker can zoom in and lock on the target.
Its not something I would want for a dogfight, but it sounds like something that can be used against radar stealthy targets.
The intercept that you refer to was not a test. It was an operational intercept of an Iranian-supplied UAV by an Israeli F-16. The Python 5 had to use its lock-after-launch feature because it was an over-the-shoulder shot. The intercept was made at night, and the pilot had to get close enought to confirm the identity of the target before releasing the missile. The Python 5literally made a 160-degree turn to make that kill.
Footage of the intercept was taken with an infrared imaging system from another fighter. It's hard to make out the UAV in the video until it explodes - it's IR signature is just so much smaller than everything else in the background. An incredible shot, however.
Semi-Lobster
Junior Member
I know this may sound like a silly question but when did NATO reporting names stop being used for Chinese fighter aircraft? The J-8 was the Finback and the JH-7 was the Flounder but why doesn't the J-10 have one or J-11 have a 'Flanker' variant? Afterall, the Su-30MKI is designated the 'Flanker-H' and they were a very recent addition to the Indian Air Force.
Semi-Lobster
Junior Member
I assume it was with warming relations with China after repairs in international relations after 1989 but a lot of analysts say Russia no longer provides as much threat anymore but they're stil giving NATO reporting names fo Russian aircaft, like 'Fulcrum-F' for the MiG-35, and 'Firkin' for the Su-47 tech demonstrator yet it seems Chinese fighters no longer recieve NATO designations, so can anybody explain this. Its just one of those questions that keeps bugging me
Semi-Lobster
Junior Member
With such a seemingly hawkish lobby in Washington that has, as reported a couple of weeks ago, even advocating war against China by some, less-cooler heads, I'm surprised a ASCC hasn't been leaked yet then. Then again there was still speculation going on over the 'Flounder' only a few years ago
Engineer
Major
It is fake. J-10's with DSI inlet and conformal fuel tanks can only be found in fan boys' artworks.
SteelBird
Colonel
What a CG it is! Look at its weapon load, even the wing tips are occupied. But if this ever become true, how would it be?
- Status