|
|
|
Subject:
The Truth about ...(2nd part)
Bluewings12
1/29/2008 3:36:26 PM
|
Sorry Gents , but it takes time to load the original thread , so I switch here . I believe I can as it was MY thread :-)
I would like to start by quoting and good post from Leroy with a carefull answer from Herald :
"""Common missiles with IR or RH seekers make no sense if you don't
maximize ALL possible engineered options Leroy. Not providing a radar
guided telemetry lob update function in the Mica IR missile while doing
such in the RH version is STUPID, period."
I disagree. They are reusing a good chunk of the original missile and there is no real reason not to. I am not familiar with what the longer term plans are for the missile. It is possible a later version will include a datalink but that doesn't stop the missile from working today in shorter range shots. It is not that different from the IR versions of the AA-10. Sure they aren't optimal but they were cheap and easy to develop because they reused so much from the radar guided version.
That is very French in attitude, practical in the WRONG sense of the word. In making that rational decision that way they tried to obtain the cheapest economic and engineering development path, not the most cost effective either from the technical design or the mission application aspect of the problem.
"Its
not a question of size or mass; its a question of maximizing the
potential energy, that is the work, you can squeeze out of the common
rocket by giving it the most efficient predict lead lob trajectory
possible so that its IR seeker can steer the killbody chase with MORE
available potential energy at the PPI.than if it were to sternchase
throughout its flight."
Of course, but at the present time the missile is obviously not intended for use in BVR shots. I don't know if that is something MBDA is even pursuing. The fanboys insist that is the case of course but I don't recall ever seeing anything rock solid about that.
I would look at this with a jaundiced eye. MICA originally was supposed to be the French breakthrough technology A2A missile to compete and supplant Sparrow. To make it a Magic replacement might make sense; but only if you maximized it's potential. A Magic III with an extended burn propellant case and a new IR seeker could easily compete with Sidewinder up to the M series with no trouble at all. Magic is a very good rocket. To obtain that kind of overleap that MICA was supposed to achieve over the SARH missiles she was designed to replace in an IR rocket you had to try something INNOVATIVE. Otherwise you just build a rather larger and somewhat clumsy tailchaser with which you can take a six o'clock heat shot that might be a little long for a Sidewinder. What's the advantage here? Marginal. CREF above.
As a replacement for the Magic-II it is a good step up in capability. It is a less elegant solution than it might be without a doubt, but it has more than enough energy to get where it needs to go in the types of shots it is intended for today.(That is to say WVR and slightly beyond) In a lot of ways it sounds like how the Russians would approach things.. why make it more complex when you could simply make it a little bigger while keeping it simplistic? Western engineers tend to hate that reasoning but it makes a lot of sense in some cases.
I wouldn't be surprised if the Russians tried to install updating in the ARCHER and found it beyond their means to pack it into such a small roicket. No matter how much I despise Thales and MBDA, it is NOT beyond the French technical base to have attempted proper antenna design and a GCU that could combine telemetry update override with the IR seeker. They have it builtr into MICA RH so that the update can override the RH in a target of opportunity situation. Its really NOT that difficult to adapt to a large IR seeker equipped rocket. You know the Russians actually did it for their R-40 Acrid IR version. They just didn't do it very well.
"Yes, the MBDA engineers are that stupid, if they had that radar telemetry option and didn't design incorporate it into the GCU."
I don't know that they had the option. I suspect there must be pretty significant differences in the missile's guidance and control systems. It has a completely different seeker doing a different type of homing. The mechanicals are supposed to be identical but I don't know about the rest. Honestly I somewhat doubt there is a whole lot in common from an electronics standpoint.
Signal processing is signal processing, but you have the point. The MICA IR GCU would be very different-both sofdtware and hardware wise.
The missile is brand new right now. I am willing to wait and see where they go with it.
I don't know. The AdA is already discussing a two tier missile solution with a Meteor purchase for the first tier and hanging on to MICA for its legacy A2A rocket inventory. Seems to me to be a French solution. You can't afford caviar all week, but you can have it for special occasions like Sundays and holidays. In the meantime you will settle for hamburger on Tuesdays and Thursdays and boiled cabbage the rest of the meals.
You know, that in my personal opinion, that MICA is a mediocre missile based on what I can find out about its published test failures, and what I can find out about its actual design from my friends in the rocket business. To be honest I'm more up to speed on the radar seeker version than the infrared one. That was why I was surprised to discover it the had no update feature. Witness my question to Phaid. To say I was astonished at his answer, is putting it mildly.
As you know we are now working on a datalink for the AIM-9x that should enable some nice capabilities in a few scenarios. These systems never seem to arrive fully developed.
True, oh so true.
Herald""
************************
So , Mica was made to supplant Sparrow ???
F**k that !
Mica was made to supplant the Matra Super 530 D who was a much better missile (rocket as Herald like to call them) than the Sparrow . It was also made to perform better than Magic 2 in close dogfight and IT DOES with excellence and panache .
Mica is the best medium range missile Worldwide : It is a better missile than AMRAAM launch from 60km (more energy , better acceleration , better G-turns , better ECCMs , better end-game).
In short range shot , it is as good as any WVR missile but with a longer range .
Whatever Herald believes , Mica has performed FLAWLESSLY with French driven Jets and during testing (as ASTER did) . I am not going to blame AMRAAM if some silly Dutch fire it outside the parameters .
Some of you did more or less look down on the latest trick from Rafale/Link-16/Mica .
(h*tp://www.cesa.air.defense.gouv.fr/article.php3?id_article=309
Basically , one Rafale was tracking the C-22 target and passed on the coordinates to another Rafale who fired a MICA EM behind him (180deg turn !) into the dropbasket , then MICA went active , found the target and destroyed it . The target was around 30km behind the firing Rafale .)
Obviously , it can only be a set-up . I has to be from the American posters POV ! It simply cannot be ! How France and her little Rafale with a crap radar , crap missiles , etc , can do such a trick ??? "It has to be a set-up !"
It 's now easy for you to see where I 'm going , you 're biased .
What is of the utmost annoyance is that some clever posters are falling into the "hate the French Tech" trap .
As an exemple , Herald (with all his knowledge) has absolutly no proof whatsoever that Mica is a piece of crap but he keeps firing at the missile all guns blazing while the missile KEEPS showing outstanding capabilities .
Do you believe the beliefs of an engineerer OR the facts ?
Herald IS good but he doesn 't know everything and he 's wrong on Mica by a long way . France did not field a crap missile , surely not .
About Meteor , the IR seeker work is only gossips for now . I do not have anything solid .
Herald :
""When you see the AdA plead desperately in the Chamber of Deputies for Meteor and for a Rafale RBE2 AESA upgrade and for a companion IR specialist A2A missile, then you KNOW that MICA is no good and neither is the RBE2 PESA.
Now then........""
Herald , do you want me to reming you of the USAF pleading desesperatly to the Congress for more F-22s and so on ? Same business here ... (hehe)
Leroy :
""You need to use your head bluewings. That shot was a carefully scripted test/publicity stunt and is not representative of what you would see in combat today. ""
Sorry , I don 't bite . I stand with what we archived and with what I said . That kind of shot is probably routine BY NOW . Just try to prove me than it cannot be done in combat today , ok ?
Keep in mind the facts that : (1)the firing Rafale was not giving anything away , (2)the Mica is really hard to jam , (3)RBE2 is LPI , (4)the missile 's own energy and turn capability DOES allow such a shot , (5)the missile seeker found its target in the dropbasket 30km away after a 180 degree turn ,(6)It was easy business .
Of course , feel free to bash Mica at will ...
Herald , the Mica IR can be updated/overrided like the RH version . I told you earlier , why do you keep digging on it ?
*******************************
Now , I want to learn some more . Could someone tell me more about the ECMs and ECCMs fielded on US Aircrafts ?
What systems are available and operationals , what can they do , how much room they take onboard a fighter (Pods , internal ?) , etc .
Stuff like :
""techniques used in advanced RWRs like Falcon Edge, ALR-67, ALR-94""
Just use some good and short Copy/Paste with your own point of view .
Could you do that ?
Cheers . |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Latest
News |
Most
Read |
Hot
Topics |
|
|
|
