J6P wrote:Large long range AtA and SAM's are easy to dodge as their maneuverability sucks wind. The smaller the missile the higher its thrust to weight ratio is.
That is partially correct. It depends on how the missile reaches its target.
A good example of the worst kind of maneuverability during final attack phase is the AIM-54 Phoenix, which is effectively a ballistic projectile after its launch acceleration.
That´s not the only type around however.
J6P wrote:I suppose this is where I break out my Aeronautical engineering degree and tell you you don't know shit.
If you had one you could maybe do that yes. But so far all you´ve shown off points to that you don´t have anything like that.
J6P wrote:You utterly missed the thread of my 1st post. With modern sensors on a platform that does not care about Aerodynamics, not how it is done where on today's fighters where Aerodynamics rule and they do not have effective spherical sensor capability, obtaining a lock in 360 is obscenely easy.
No i didn´t. Problem is more in regards to how you seem to have missed that someone already tried your idea.
There´s a Su-27 derivative prototype that has 360 by 360 sensors and full integration. It was nastier than a regular one but no, that didn´t mean it suddenly became all-powerful, even using modified Vympel R-73 missiles that could be fired at targets 360 by 360.
It´s funny though how you seem to not know about the primary problem with trying to fire missiles in any direction.
Or that other nations, nations plural, have done both that and done it together with similar 360 sensor coverage as the above Russian test(i use them as benchmark since they´re still playing with it and went the furtherest).
Including my own nation.
J6P wrote:By all means keep talking about 1980's tech taken off of military.com and Wikipedia. It is freely available to armchair tacticians. My posts had nothing to do with old tech, but rather where already available in-use technology is going to push airspace dominance.
It´s a pity you don´t know quite as much as you think you do. In fact, the more you write, the less you seem to know.
J6P wrote:Before this, counter missiles viable for an aircraft would have to be effectively the same size as their offensive missiles requiring a dedicated volume about 10 inches in diameter and about a foot long. No one has this capability besides the USA currently for miniature INS. When someone else figures out how to make a decent accelerometer out of solid state silicon, then they will be able to do this feat as well. Only a matter of time. When this happens, the counter missile race will be on.
"noone has this capability", right. Not that it matters since that´s not the current main avenue of interest.
You´re aware that the idea of countermissiles on aircraft has been repeatedly rejected? And not for any inability to design or produce such.
J6P wrote:The smaller the missile the higher its thrust to weight ratio is.
That
normally depends on its weight compared to thrust(and limited by structural strength of course). That is, it depends on how large portion of the missile you decide to use for propulsion.
Smaller missiles tend to be of the shortranged variety, and since in such a situation you need high level agility, those tend to be geared the hardest towards high trust to weight. That does not mean that larger missiles are by default less able to maneuver.
That´s a severe logic fail in regards to identifying cause and effect.
J6P wrote:With this invention, Counter missiles now become doable. Or more likely is a 'fat' form of RPG.
Riiight. You realise how, lets be nice and call it "limited usefulness" such a counter missile would be against, for example a Vympel R-77?
J6P wrote:"ECM" is nothing but a fancy word for BLIND. There is no such thing as countermeasures. As it is singular. Countermeasure. As in blind via radar. With advent of IRST/RADAR combo sensors, such blinding is useless. Flares are also useless against multi pixel IR sensors. Only ECM one can undertake in this scenario is to KILL the senors via the use of a LASER.
Yeah, that´s the reason why everyone spends more and more on trying to make ever more funny counter measures and get ECM programming just one notch higher in quality.
FYI, i know someone that programs ECM for aircraft.
Your statement is complete nonsense. Not even the ECM=blinding is correct. ECM means you either mess directly with hostile sensors, communications, or indirectly by interfeering with them less obviously in such a way that it messes with their guidance packages to correctly execute instructions.
There are also some countermeasure weapons that you might call ECM(various ways of trying to hit hostile missiles or guiding sensor with active emissions of sufficient strength to damage or spoof it), but just like the laser stuff, noone has made it work reliably or realistically yet.
J6P wrote:To make a laser useful against a competent missile, it must have a ton of juice behind it with the ability to literally MELT through the lens before attacking the sensors in modern warfare. You might have noticed, but not even the VERY large version being tested by the US NAVY can accomplish this feat. The fact you are unaware of this fact speaks volumes about the competency of this discussion.
I´m not silly enough to claim something as idiotic that only playing laser tag will work against sensors. I wasn´t even including that as a realistic ECM, because it´s not even ECM at all anyway.
J6P wrote:By all means keep talking about 1980's tech taken off of military.com and Wikipedia.
Oh, there´s a site called military.com? Didn´t know about that one.
And 1980s tech? Uh, right...
1980s tech that didn´t exist until a few years ago, yeah that sounds great...
, I would not bring up the ability to use the AIM-7 on the 16 as an example. Effectively switching out already existing missile racks and connectors is hardly something to beat your chest about...
