I already demolished you on the IR cooler where you were wrong. Now you compound the error. .

ROTFL. I mean, I demonstrated you didn't even know what type cooler the IR MICA used and you call your show of ignorance a demolishing? I know that according to Napoleon a good offense is the best defense but you're just being delusional here.

  No you didn't. You made a claim of what I said and not what I said

You misquoted me and then didn't even know it was built as a too small a chiller for the heat burden expected? I don't think much of you for that.

The MICA antenna  is body shadow occluded by its fins and strakes, plus the antenna is the wrong length to cover aspect presentation distortion.

Wrong on the first part, you obviously still haven't checked a picture of MICA tail. Or maybe you just don't know what an antenna looks like, after all you stated in another thread that the MICA data link antenna was located in the missile mid-body... Can't really get more wrong than that.

 You refer to this.  Midbody means buried and occluded and not in a open fairing.

You were and are deceptive. Its masked by the strakes and fins and buried exactly as I said.

The second part is interesting as we're talking >10GHz links with a half wavelength <15mm (that's roughly half an inch for the metrically impaired). So you're either trolling or you don't even have a basic clue about electromagnetism. Given your record on this thread, I'll go for the second option. Well, it's also possible you're an ignorant troll...

The antenna is not limited to the crest trough of a single wavelength (QM) and you know this, or else its you that doesn't know electromagnetism. The antenna was designed wrong.

Not exactly correct. The aerial has to have a travel length friend.  

Not the same (CREF below). 

It is exactly the same equation, term for term. It's now obvious you've never designed a regulation system or even followed a basic course on the matter. You try to hide your ignorance of the matter with buzzwords but you simply can't "talk the talk".

No its not the same term for term.

 Source.

For one thing, the robot arm is a static mount limited to gimbal and reach; whereas in the three body moving problem all of the objects move independent of each other.   

GOLIS versus GOT logics also apply here.  You keep confusing endgame with trajectory control!

The robot arm  reaches out and grabs a moving object; but it is joint fixed in its space, so it knows its path limits and it knows where the object it grabs or reaches should be exactly. These are sharply defined terms that do not require a fuzzy logic or even much of an APN solution. A missile however only knows these things: the signal it receives at which is steers, the direction it must point, and time in its trajectory. Go to  target has more variables than go to location in space. The equations that regulate signal feedback drift for GOLIS have far more variables than GOT even th0ough the algebra is similar. They have to.

BW:

With its radar of , it is as blind as a bat ! Of course its poor ECM suite might warn it that it has been detected and tracked by a mecanical radar (F-22 doesn 't have any interferometry whatsoever so AESA radars will not be detected and tracked) .

How do you know the F-22 EW/ECM suite is poor? That's exactly the kind of stupid statement that makes you lose all credibility.

All public info show it to be avery potent suite, likely muc better than the Rafale SPECTRA in raw performance. The Rafale advantage is that it's based on a more future-proof design (i.e. AESA transmitters vs classic miniature TWT) so that when GaN modules are mature the Rafale can be upgraded while the F-22 will need a complete overall.

Incorrect on your points because youj confuse the discussed terms, Blue Apple. Regulated control systems do not behave the same way as a class, as signal feedback depends on the type of sensor. and mechanical CONTROL setup For example shadow body control uses a two axes dimensional guidance that tries to turn the moving object into the signal it receives and uses a body shadow to determine the direction to drive.

Beam steering tries to point the object with a signal path that a four.antenna array uses to steer and point.

Proportional navigation uses a forward looking sensor that has a drift bias built into it to correct the angle bias between proprogator reflector and target.

Navigation update uses a predicted path and time of motion to steer the moving object to meet a location.

Not all of these controls use Riccardi equations or other proportional navigation solutions to offset bias.

That you don't know this indicates that you are somewhat IGNORANT on topic. You confuse algebra for specific solution, and the wrong solution for radar missiles as being applicable to all missiles.

But to explain to you and OTHERS..

proportional navigation.

As a rough rule of thumb, the trajectory path in an pro-nav solution is a curve that can be imagined as cut up into constantly changing sized triangles per moving object: the side A is the actual distance the missile moves and the target object moves as of NOW, Angle 1 is the lead bias angle built into the pro nav guidance solution for the missile to point at the future expected position of the target as both triangles are computed, and the hypotenuse of those triangles becomes the side A for the new pair of triangles. Each segment solution is proportioned off the previous solution and compared to each other-hence the term proportional navigation. as missile tries to match target motion.

That is simple for a constant speed missile like a naval torpedo. For an AMRAAM or the defective MICA, the solution must incorporate a decay function variable factored for potential energy lost due to drag and fall.

The angle 1, or bias should over time actually increase in inverse proportion as a direct 1 to 1 correspondence to the loss of momentum.

Hence a well trained fighter pilot doesn't have to out-turn a missile, he just has to know when to jerk out of the final offset bias when the missile closes to strike. The jerk advantage as needs only be 1aircraft/3 missile ratio and the missile usually misses.

Did you understand what I just said? And why the terms for an industrial robot and a MISSILE are NOT the same?

Or why the proportional navigation solution is NOT predict lead which is a ballistic lob trajectory solution to a location (go to location) in space [drop basket] as opposed to a go to target solution which is the pro-nav and strictly an ENDGAMER??

One more thing, don't confuse logics with the mechanical means I describe to employ the types of logics..

Herald

Sheesh, I'm dealing with an ?expert?