Why can't A2A missiles have both?

"Such missiles are obsolete. Examples for such missiles are the Soviet P-6D Progress and P-5 cruise missiles. They used a datalink/INS for mid-course guidance and radar-seeker for terminal guidance."

grow some balls and admit you're wrong. And then grow some more balls and admit you're a TOTAL retard.

vincelee if you still think that moskit-style command-guidance is cutting-edge, and INS uses a datalink, then either your computer clock is 15 years behind, or your cranium is hollow. Only you can find out. Anyway, a third party has to find out because since your cranium is hollow, you wont be able to do so anyway.

"Such missiles are obsolete. Examples for such missiles are the Soviet P-6D Progress and P-5 cruise missiles. They used a datalink/INS for mid-course guidance and radar-seeker for terminal guidance."

Click to expand...

OK I did not construct my sentence properly at that time, but I have amply made my idea clear in later posts.
I have already discussed how future Brahmos will use a UAV/LEO datalink to be guided to its target, some time back. So that proves I know about third-party datalink to a missile in cruise.

Ok this is it. Vincelee/yue, We have given you a so many changes that I have to grow extra fingers to count them. ...Do you think its funny to read afterwards, that you preiciate our quater as much as wolf does preiciate the mercy plee of dying deer. It makes us mods look like kind hearted idiots. But not any longer! :nono: :nono:

I'm afraid that is debatable. Launch-platform guidance (like AMRAAM) is not 'command' guidance. The target is NOT changed mid-way or the missile's direction changed abruptly. Command guidance can do all that. It is a system in which a personnel who guides the missile to the target, till the missile is close enough to seek its own target by using its own seeker (IR or radar) i.e. by active guidance.

Click to expand...

I have to agree with the rest of the people here that you don't really know much about missiles. Command guidance is not necessarily personnel guiding the missile to the target; many SAMs use command guidance, and these commands are generated by computer.

INS/datalink is essentially command guidance in principle. Command guidance is essentially being able to flight path changes and that broadly fits the description for the INS/datalink system used on the AMRAAM, R-77, or even a number of SARH missiles both AA and SAM, the S-300, Patriots, Standards included.

And no, the Moskit does not necessarily use a man in the loop system either. Once flown over the target area, the seeker will hunt for targets, and autonomously choose the biggest one unless counter commanded by the
system to take another target.

Understand some definitions will you?

tphuang said:

guys, just keep it on the low a little bit. There is really no need to be so harsh on IndianFighter. We are just having a discussion here.

Since the main problem with ARH missile is that they can be picked up by RWR or MAW, what if some future seeker for ARH missile has LPI property? I know, it would be one expensive missile, but some AF like USAF might be willing to put up with the additional cost.

Click to expand...

LPI is not desirable for an ARH missile which uses CWI or Continious Wave Illumination. The concept of Continious Illumination and Low Probability of Intercept are oxymorons because you cannot have continious illumination if you use short illumination bursts and continiously vary the frequency for that.

crobato said:

Understand some definitions will you?

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

This website means SARH guidance when it mentions 'command guidance'. As I said, the term is debatable. The examples your site gives are SA-1, SA-3, SA-15 and Nike Ajax and Hercules missiles, all of which are from the class of 1950.

On the same site, there are links to MCLOS and SACLOS command guidance.

MCLOS (short for Manual Command to Line of Sight) : With an MCLOS missile, the operator must track the missile and the target simultaneously and guide the missile to the target. Typically the missile is steered with a joystick. MCLOS requires considerable training and practice to master, and today has mostly been replaced by the easier-to-use SACLOS.

Examples : Blowpipe, AT-3 Stagger

SACLOS (short for Semi-Automatic Command to Line-Of-Sight) is a second-generation method of missile guidance. In SACLOS, the operator has to continually point a sighting device at the target while the missile is in flight. Electronics in the sighting device and/or the missile then guide it to the target.

Examples : ASM-N2-Bat, SA-8 Gecko
Source:
As given by crobato.

Members must stop assuming that I dont know what mid-course guidance means. I have discussed it extensively in the Indian Army & Navy News thread.

Another example of operator datalink to a missile is the latest Tactical Tomahawk. It can loiter over targets and can dynamically be assigned targets by the commander at the launching station by a secure datalink.

Now such a weapon is useful only against targets in Iraq and Afghanistan. If used against heavily SAMmed targets in Russia, China or India, it can be shot down by quick-reaction SAMs.

Even the Arrow BMD, where a soldier steers the missile, before it turns on its active seeker, is infeasible. Suppose there is a salvo of ballistic missiles over a city. In that case, many operators are needed and there can be confusion.
The US is already developing fire-and-forget BMDs and Hypersonic cruise missiles.

Nonono, you got it all wrong. Command guidance CAN mean guided by personnel, but that's REALLY old. Command guidance in the modern sense means guided by COMPUTER, now that computers have been invented that is actually possible to do . This is how it works, the fighter detects the target by radar, launches a missile. The missile will then relay information about its current coordinates to the fighter, based on its INS, while the fighter keeps track of the target's coordinates using its own INS and radar target information. Then, judging by the target's coordinates and the missile's coordinates, the fighter's computer calculates how the missile should manoeuvre to reach the target and sends these commands to the missile. It's 100% done by computer, the pilot doesn't have to do anything!!

This website means SARH guidance when it mentions 'command guidance'. As I said, the term is debatable. The examples your site gives are SA-1, SA-3, SA-15 and Nike Ajax and Hercules missiles, all of which are from the class of 1950.

Click to expand...

If you've read through the article, you would find they mentioned that SARH was used for TERMINAL guidance, while command guidance is used for midcourse guidance. Command guidance is inaccurate for terminal guidance but it is adequate for midcourse guidance. No modern missile uses command guidance for terminal, but many use it for midcourse.

I disagree. A warning will be recieved, because the target has to be illuminated by the source-aircraft or AWACs anyway.

Click to expand...

All missiles need the parent aircraft to use radar on the target, BUT! Command guidance do not require you to lock on the target, just designate. When you just designate a target in scan mode instead of locking on to a target, the target's RWR just beeps normally, he knows you're there but he can't know if you've launched a missile. If you lock on, his RWR goes off and he knows you've locked on and is launching a missile. After the missile enters terminal phase, the missile can switch to IR which gives no warning at all.

Some midcourse SARH also does not require you to designate target, but the downside for SARH is you must install a radar seeker on the missile, no place to put IR. Terminal homing SARH necessarily requires you to lock on to the target, which makes its RWR go off. And, if the missile switches from SARH to ARH during terminal like the AMRAAM does, the target's RWR also goes off like mad and the pilot will get warning.

Another thing, some modern missiles employ lofting, which means they zoom to a higher altitude to cruise better to target. SARH missiles track their target by detecting radar bounced off the target from YOUR plane, so if a SARH missile does lofting, the target may get out of its gimbal limits while climbing. That's where command guidance comes in. COMPUTER COMMAND GUIDANCE!!!!

Indianfighter said:

The picture is not a schematic of both the versions. It shows the radar as well as IIR seeker in one picture; else they would have to draw 2 near-identical pictures to show slight changes.

Click to expand...

I am attaching "both" the pictures one with IIR seeker(the naval version) the other without it (land attack version)to show to everyone that what a liar you are.Both the pictures are next to each other but you decided not to see the other. Just to prove your point you would twist anything or close your eyes.
link:


The ground version(AGM-109H) no- IIR


Naval version (AGM-109L)with IIR /TERCOM/DSMAC

No. As mentioned by your own site, the anti-ship version uses IR seeker(for terminal guidance) and the terrain version uses DSMAC for terminal guidance and radar altimeter for TERCOM. The anti-ship version does not use TERCOM because it has to cruise over the sea and hence does not use a radar altimeter either.

Click to expand...

Again, in the very first post i had not talked about seekers. You brought it in . But then i showed you even then you are wrong.
What is a seeker by the way??
DSMAC uses it's optical corelator to identify it's target. How does it differ from another technology that would use a radio signal emmiting form the source or Infrared emission to identify it's target in philosphy.

It means that the Optical correlator is DSMAC II (version), the EO seeker is FLIR/IIR and the datalink is Walleye.

Click to expand...

EO SEEKER and how can you forget the TERCOM here which uses radio altimeter.

I am attaching another image for every one to see that IndianFighter is lying again.

DSMAC is not a seeker; at least not in the sense of IR or radar seeker. It is another technology altogether just like GPS/INS guidance or guidance from accessing waypoints from memory (go 5 kms north at x kms/hour etc.).

Click to expand...

Cofused with TERCOM there. DSMAC is used when missile is in terminal phase to identify target. TERCOM does the contour terrain matching using it's radio altimeter.

Indianfighter said:

DSMAC is not a seeker; at least not in the sense of IR or radar seeker. It is another technology altogether just like GPS/INS guidance or guidance from accessing waypoints from memory (go 5 kms north at x kms/hour etc.).

GPS/INS, DSMAC, wire-guidance (for anti-tank missiles) are not seeker technologies, but different technologies altogether, because they involve comparisons from a pre-recorded memory. In case of GPS, the waypoints have to be calculated and stored before launch, in DSMAC the image of the target must be known and stored prior to launch, and wire-guidance for anti-tank missiles is not a seeker technology.

Click to expand...

SO what is this then:
"The Brimstone missile is similar in appearance to US-made AGM-114 Hellfire. It is 1.8 m long, with a diameter of 178 mm, and it weighs about 50 kg. The Brimstone is powered by a solid-fuel rocket motor that enables it to reach supersonic speed (around Mach 1.3-1.5). The missile's seeker employs active millimeter-wave radar (around 94 GHz) and has high resolution and accuracy. It generates an image, which is then compared with a library of target images stored in an onboard computer. The library consists of appearance data of specific types of targets (for example, a T-72 rather than just a "typical tank"). After the target is positively recognized, the missile locks-on and carries out the attack. "



Your assertion that seekers don't use onboard database comparison is WRONG!

Gollevainen said:

Ok this is it. Vincelee/yue, We have given you a so many changes that I have to grow extra fingers to count them. ...Do you think its funny to read afterwards, that you preiciate our quater as much as wolf does preiciate the mercy plee of dying deer. It makes us mods look like kind hearted idiots. But not any longer! :nono: :nono:

Click to expand...

Look at IndianFighters post just above yours. Nothing short of personal attack calling him a Child.

I like this board very much. But IndianFighter is going to degarde it enough for me to leave (which i will hate to). Any decent brain will be insulted the way IndianFighter is conducting his argument without even using google and in some cases resorting to plain lying and denial.

1) TERCOM. According to the distinguished IndianFighter, TERCOM is just a "simple radio altimeter". Well, I would like to know how singular data can be used to distinguish 3-D data. TERCOM is a downward looking SAR, and just for your information, since you seem to lack quite a bit of it, the R stands for RADAR.

---"No. As mentioned by your own site, the anti-ship version uses IR seeker(for terminal guidance) and the terrain version uses DSMAC for terminal guidance and radar altimeter for TERCOM. The anti-ship version does not use TERCOM because it has to cruise over the sea and hence does not use a radar altimeter either."---

customary IndianFighter bullshit! What the hell are you going to use to get altitude information? An Indian midget with a ruler?


From Global Security
Guidance System: Sea-skimming cruise with mid-course guidance monitored by radar altimeter, active seeker radar terminal homing

can you read? Because I get the impression that you can't, since this was posted by me 24 hours ago.

---"As I said, the term is debatable. The examples your site gives are SA-1, SA-3, SA-15 and Nike Ajax and Hercules missiles, all of which are from the class of 1950."---

SA-15 from the 50's? I didn't know curry had such a side effect. Command Guidance is NOT debatable. C.G ONLY states that guidance corrections are passed to the missile in flight. It says NOTHING about an actual human having to be present to make such changes. SA-17 rings a bell? Is that also 50's technology?

---"Members must stop assuming that I dont know what mid-course guidance means. I have discussed it extensively in the Indian Army & Navy News thread."---

It's more like you've demonstrated your intellectual dishonesty AGAIN and AGAIN in that thread. You want evidence? Go there.

---"SACLOS (short for Semi-Automatic Command to Line-Of-Sight) is a second-generation method of missile guidance. In SACLOS, the operator has to continually point a sighting device at the target while the missile is in flight. Electronics in the sighting device and/or the missile then guide it to the target."---



please point out to me where the hell on that page does it say that a HUMAN OPERATOR has to keep painting the target? Crotale uses SACLOS guidance, you think a human paints that? The Operator in this case is the Thompson Fire Control Radar. You think SA-8 has a human operator sitting in the APC looking at the sky?

Hey, guess what, Barak uses CLOS. I suppose, according to your "logic", all the Dehli class destroyers are going to the bottom of the Indian Ocean pretty soon.


---"Another example of operator datalink to a missile is the latest Tactical Tomahawk. It can loiter over targets and can dynamically be assigned targets by the commander at the launching station by a secure datalink

Now such a weapon is useful only against targets in Iraq and Afghanistan. If used against heavily SAMmed targets in Russia, China or India, it can be shot down by quick-reaction SAMs"---

key word there, CAN. Tact Tomahawk has TERCOM and INS. The dynamic target reassessment capability was given for tactical flexibilty, not FOR YOU TO TWIST IT TO YOUR ADVANTAGE.

---"Even the Arrow BMD, where a soldier steers the missile, before it turns on its active seeker, is infeasible. Suppose there is a salvo of ballistic missiles over a city. In that case, many operators are needed and there can be confusion.
The US is already developing fire-and-forget BMDs and Hypersonic cruise missiles."---

Fire and Forget BMD? This tops the IndianFighter bullshit.

I really want to know where you pulled out the "soldier guiding Arrow" stuff. From your ass I presume. Damn your internal cavity has a lot of capacity for bullshit.

this is Arrow's engagment method

"The ABM system is meant to intercept medium- and short-range ballistic missiles and was designed with an eye towards the advanced missile programs of Iraq and Iran. The system is built around the Arrow missiles, the "Yellow Citron" control system and the IAI EL/M-2080 "Green Pine" radar target tracking system. In actual use, the system would be aided by American satellites that can detect and report the flare as missiles are launched. The first operational system was deployed in central Israel, at the Palmachim Airbase on the Mediterranean coast, on March 14, 2000. The latest missile is known as the Arrow II and is still being evaluated for improvement.

Unlike the automated Patriot system, the Arrow system is controlled by an officer who can evaluate the trajectory and decide if one of the advanced Arrow missiles should be launched. There are 6 missile tubes in each launcher and each can be launched to a separate target. Confirmation of this and other abilities was demonstrated in a recent test—the 10th for the Arrow interceptor and the 5th for the complete system—as 4 of 6 missiles were launched at virtual targets during joint U.S.-Israeli exercises. The system is designed to handle up to 14 simultaneous intercepts."

he's not painting the ballistic missile with his mystic eye beam, he's selecting the correct engagement profile. Do you understand that? Or is it necessary to beat it into your thick skull with a club.