Comments by "LRRPFco52" (@LRRPFco52) on "DW News" channel.

  1. 3
  2. 3
  3. 3
  4. 2
  5. 2
  6. 2
  7. 2
  8. 2
  9. 2
  10. 2
  11. 2
  12. 2
  13. 2
  14. 2
  15. 2
  16. 2
  17. 2
  18. 2
  19. 2
  20. 2
  21. 2
  22. 2
  23. 2
  24. 2
  25. 2
  26. 2
  27. 2
  28. 2
  29. 2
  30. 2
  31. 2
  32. 2
  33. 2
  34. 2
  35. 2
  36. 2
  37. 2
  38. 2
  39. 2
  40.  @dexterplameras3249  The 2020 AIM-120D3 when fired at optimum kinematic state from an F-15C+ exceeded the range of the 1990s AIM-54C fired from optimum kinematic state from the F-14A. Had the AIM-54 series remained in inventory along with the F-14, it would have undergone the same types of upgrades in propellant and guidance resulting in incremental improvements to WEZ and NEZ parameters. AIM-120C5 can't reach AIM-54C effective range, for example. AIM-120D3 fired from a Hornet or Super Hornet will never achieve what it can from the F-15C+, Typhoon, or Raptor. This gets more complex as you get into the missile model and series, plus the separation aircraft altitude and speed. We were working on AIM-120 integration on the Block 30 & 40 F-16C/D back in the late 1980s, so I'm coming from a place of intimacy with the subject. A huge factor in BVR is IFF against Non-Cooperative Targets. You have to have PID, otherwise you could be blasting an airliner out of the sky like the Russians have done multiple times, and USN did in the Persian Gulf in 1988. Precious few fighters/interceptors have the Radar detection, tracking, and PID range to employ the latest AIM-120D3 to its maximum WEZ potential. R-33 & R-37 series have the propellant mass capacity for more burn time, which results in significant WEZ/NEZ parameters. When used in conjunction with the huge Zaslon or Irbis-E PESA Radars on MiG-31BM and Su-35S, there is a long-look/long-reach problem for smaller fighters that isn't solved merely by giving them a longer WEZ AAM.
    2
  41.  @dexterplameras3249  There are IFF features introduced with solid state electronics Radars already in the 1970s that work strictly in the RF spectrum. They really showed up first on the F-15A with its APG-63, and it was significantly upgraded starting in 1978 with a Digital Signals Processor that was standard on the F-15C/D models, then back-filled into the A/Bs even as we pushed them into AFRES and ANG units. F-16A benefitted greatly from the F-15's Radar developments, but it has a much smaller antenna and less volume for back-end amplifiers, waveform generators, filters, and analog-to-digital converters. F-16C Block 25 got a new APG-68 Radar that has been upgraded until (V)9 through the late Block F-16s (40, 42, 50, 52), which are now being replaced by AESAs with the PoBIT program. F/A-18 benefitted from a lot of the lessons and improvements on the F-15 and has also undergone a series of Radar and avionics upgrades throughout its service life. It had multiple upgrades to the APG-65, then got the APG-73 and now APG-79 AESA. The F/A-18C had at least 2 NCTR parameter capabilities the F-14A/B didn't have, which allowed them to face-shoot MiGs in Desert Storm. The US teen series have mostly been limited to RF spectrum detection, tracking, and PID without relying on IRST like we had on F-101B, F-102A, F-106A, F-8G, F-4B/C/D/J, and some F-14s with TCS. What you'll notice is those Electro-Optical sensors were primarily used on interceptors who commonly encountered strategic bombers that had very powerful jammers to render their Radars useless. IRST is totally passive, so they could use them to maintain sensor tracks for firing solutions for IR-guided missiles. For fighters vs fighters, the US and NATO shifted into aircraft with very user-friendly multi-mode Radars, working in conjunction with AWACS. The F-15s in particular would operate in 4 ships in tactical spread abreast of each other, covering large sectors of airspace getting first-look, first-shoot. If they closed into visual range after multiple AIM-7M shots failed to kill the threat fighters, they would still face-shoot with the AIM-9L/M, which had all-aspect capability. F-22A and F-35s play a different game. So I mentioned the F/A-18C had at least 2 NCTR parameters in 1991. F-35 had 638 in 2016, covering multiple bands in RF spectrum, LW IR, Mid IR, short IR spectrums, with a huge threat library where each target has a multi-spectral profile set. Focal Plane Array seekers don't care about flares because they are locked onto the specific image of their target and its constant location/presentation. Chaff is designed to confuse and distract Radars and Radar missiles from their targets. Without going into details, you can imagine that there are counter-countermeasures for chaff and notching. AESA Radars operate much differently than legacy Mechanically-Steered Array Radars. 2 Fighters with AESAs and Line of Sight LPI data links can maintain track on fighters trying to use common 4th Gen tactics of Radar evasion (notching in clutter while dispensing chaff). 1 Fighter with an AESA and IRST can also maintain track if a threat fighter is close enough, even if it notches against surface clutter. Threat fighter emissions also compromise their location, especially with MSA and PESA Radars vs AESA-equipped fighters.
    2
  42. 2
  43. 2
  44. 2
  45. 2
  46. 1
  47. 1
  48. 1
  49. 1
  50. 1