Questions and Ideas

GarryB wrote:The only advantage of wire guidance is that it is a secure way of guiding a missile without emitting a guidance signal that could be intercepted or jammed.

Laser beam riding guidance is rather superior in every way and allows for faster missiles.

flamming_python wrote:

victor1985 wrote:

flamming_python wrote:

victor1985 wrote:Yes but a supersonic missile has problems to steer. A subsonic one will easilly correct his flightpath so can easilly intercept the supersonic missile. That means a subsonic wired missile has some chances against a faster enemy rocket. Thinking that the steer of wired one is made by wire so thus faster would have a better trajectory and so a better intercept rate. Also if no EW can be against wired one means only a wrong calculation when the missile was maked can be. But that is hard to believe. So the probabillity of interception of such a missile is high. And what you do whit a f22 for example if none of missile lauched hit the target? Well nothing.....

It's very unlikely that a slower missile would be able to intercept a faster missile, if the faster one has any capability to manuever at all.

Depends on the difference between the two speeds and the maneuvrability. Lets say the supersonic missile is very fast but low steering and the subsonic one has great steering ...the subsonic will simply steer early in flight to correct the path and go to the interception trajectory. There is a point in subsonic missile flight where the ration speed/steering matters. That point show from what to what ratio of Supersonic missile the subsonic one can intercept. There is a perfect speed/steering point of subsonic missile where a larger group of supersonic missiles whit different own ratios can be intercepted. Ofcourse all matters if the subsonic missile see early the supersonic one. That means IR and others.

Doesn't work like that

A smaller course correction by a faster missile could amount to a far larger distance difference between its original and new destination within a certain period of time; than a larger course correction but by a slower missile.

It's like the difference between a person walking and a person driving a car.
The person walking could walk for ten seconds, and then turn around the corner and walk for another 10 seconds in a different direction.
The car could ride along at 60 mph for 10 seconds, then go around only a slight bend and keep going at the same speed in its new bearing.

In 20 seconds time you'll find that the car is a lot further from where it would have been had it not turned into the slight bend, than the person walking is far from where he would have been had he not turned the corner and instead carried on straight ahead.

The fact is that a slower missile would not be able to compensate for even the slightest change in course/manuever of a faster missile; unless it truly has a lot of time to spare - however in that case a manuever by the faster missile closer to the interception point would definately make the slower missile's task impossible; it just won't be able to get to the new interception point in time.

A slower missile can only really intercept a faster one - if the faster one's flight path and speed are completely predictable and thus the interception point can be accurately calculated ahead of time without needing any sudden course changes during flight.
A ballistic trajectory is an example of such a predictable flight path and speed; if the ballistic missile's profile is known, and what speeds it will attain at which stages of its flight; as well as its destination - then that's enough information to be able to calculate an interception point for your missile; even a slower one.

Of course, modern ballistic missiles are not as predictable as that; unknown factors likely include variance in terms of when their various stages are engaged, the behaviour of their manueverable re-entry vehicles and some like the Iskander, are not entirely ballistic and do have some capacity for manuevers too.

Radar beam-riding is, of course, all-weather.

You mean SARH?

It is all weather, but also active and something the target would detect.

But the wire guidance doesn't need to be optical.

The only wire guided weapons that don't use optical tracking of the missile launched is in torpedos, ...

Actually the wire-guided missile supposedly used by Osa is guided very similarly with the other command guided missiles used by Osa, i.e., radar guidance with the secondary option of using optical guidance. The only difference is using a wired link vs a radio link; just the communication method is different.

GarryB wrote:

Laser beam-riding doesn't provide for all-weather performance.

Extreme weather conditions could effect performance, but no different from wire guided... if the missile can't detect the laser beam through the weather at hand then I would suggest a wire guided system would not detect the flare in the tail of the missile and therefore the guidance system would fail as it could not see the missile in relation to the target and generate course corrections for the missile.

The notion of a wire-guided Osa is absurd and quite frankly stupid.

Once again I would love to see an ounce of proof it exists.

Sounds a little strange to me too, but there have been plenty of documented cases where wire guided ATGMs have been used against helicopters hovering or on the ground quite successfully... so I don't see an issue in terms of it being effective.

To a certain extent I have to disagree with GarryB on the merits of Laser beam riding primarily because  laser beam riding is generally limited to a short-range both for surface to air missiles as well as anti tank missiles.

10km range for the HE variant of Kornet-EM for use against aerial and ground unarmoured targets, Vikhr-M for use against targets 16km away, 10km for SOSNA-R... ranges of 8km for Krisantema using laser beam riding or radio command guidance and radar target and missile tracking.

Wouldn't call any of these short ranged.

Note the SALH Hellfire uses a laser that travels up to 16km... ie from helo to target and back to 8km range... which can greatly be effected by the surface of the target.

Compared to a wire guided weapon the main advantage is not only much better range but also significant speed... Wire draggers move at between 120mps and about 200mps, while the slowest LBR is Kornet-EM at 320mps, with Vikhr-M moving at 610 mps and SOSNA-R moving at about 1100mps. Smoke popped from a tank that lands 30m in front of the vehicle wont effect the missile till it has entered the smoke cloud so it wont even begin to effect the missile till it has nearly hit the target... with a Hellfire the laser spot will move from the surface of the tank to the cloud of smoke and will likely move with the moving shape of the cloud leading to an offset aim point and therefore even if the target tank moves behind its cloak of smoke the LBR will likely get some sort of hit with its very high speed, while the SALH will likely be misdirected and miss.

Apart from that and more importantly countermeasures to Laser beam riding missiles are widely available. I cannot insert a link because I am new but I have a number of URLs that showcases the countermeasures against Laser beam riding missiles.

As mentioned popping smoke is not that effective, and most DIRCMs try to attack the missile... which works with SALH, but with the LBR looking back at the launch vehicle, and the beam being so low power the target may not know they are under attack till impact, they are not so efficient either.  If you could mention any other methods I would be interested to hear them.

Not that LBR is perfect, but it doesn't get much recognition in the west because it is not widely used except for the Starstreak... A British missile.

It is very simple for the operator as most Russian systems have an autotracker to keep the crosshairs on the target once locked so in a way they consider it fire and forget.

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:

Radar beam-riding is, of course, all-weather.

You mean SARH?

SARH stands for semiactive radar homing.

In SARH, a beam illuminates the target that is tracked by radar and the seeker in the missile tracks the target via the reflected signal.


The relationship between radar beam-riding and SARH is like the relationship between laser beam-riding and semiactive laser guidance.

It is all weather, but also active and something the target would detect.

By far the most important reason for the existence of radars is their all-weather capability. The implications of this is tactical, operational, and strategic. If you have the best optically guided air defense but no radars, your enemy will rest during good weather and bomb you only during bad weather.

victor1985 wrote:Well there is a problem here. The enemy would have same problems as you if bomb in bad weather. Thus all will depend on sistems others than radar that work on bad weather.

victor1985 wrote:What mean cyber atack?

jhelb wrote:

victor1985 wrote:What mean cyber atack?

The vulnerability which is currently embedded in the Autonomic Logistics Information System (ALIS) system of the F-35, disallows the human pilot to take-over the control of the F-35 Fighter Jet.Once the hackers are able to infect the ALIS system, they will be able to ground the F-35 Fighter Jet.

Here is the detailed explanation

http://defensetech.org/2014/02/25/let-humans-override-f-35-alis-computer/

I am concerned if Russian military aircraft suffer from any such vulnerabilities?

victor1985 wrote:How russia stay whit this
Lock in amplifier
Can someone explain in simple terms what is noise and lock in amplifier? Few formulas would be well wellcomed

victor1985 wrote:Ok thanks you very much.
What i didnt understand: multiply whit a sinusoidal? what that means? How asignal can be multiply?

Wait i think i got it. You have 4 frecvencyes that come A yours A of enemy B and C. To find wich A is yours you amplify signal that all A to be seen. Is that corect?

And trigonometric identities also i didnt understanded.

victor1985 wrote:Well i readed again. Amplify whit a sinusoid. Mean exacly what? You make frecvency or carrier frecvency bigger to the AM from your example?