 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: not familiar with AOA acronym & posted by Mart on June 26, 2000 at 20:48:39:
Hi Mart,
the AA are anti-aircraft missiles, i think the Harm9 are the all aspect ones that are so deadly.
***the AA are anti-aircraft missiles,Air-to-Air. When you say anti-aircraft, you usually mean the Surface-to-Air, or SAM, or if used with the numerical designation: SA-2, SA-13, whatever. AA's are carried on aircraft.
***i think the Harm9 are the all aspect ones that are so deadly.
No, Harm is the anti-radiation missile, used by an aircraft to suppress the enemy radar. It is VERY good.
I was specifically referring to the fact that traditionally the Western AA missles had very limited aspect ratio - they could only be launched at a target straight ahead, plus/minus some angle. So the pilot would have to aim the whole aircraft at the target - sometimes not too easy a task. The Russians had that all-aspect model that was guided from the helmet sight and could be launched against the target at any angle - sideways, or even behind. The pilot would look at the target and the plan system would know the position of his head and send the missle in that general direction, then the seeker would acquire the target and complete the attack.
The Russian system, while traditionally-Russian bulky and heavy, worked well enough to prompt the West to start working on our own. The Israelis have developed a very good one, and the Sidewinder was upgraded, I believe. There was a talk about using the Israely system on US planes.
I need to refresh my information - I have neglected it for some time now.
I worked on that missile at Texas Instruments. Our biggest problem (during Gulf War) was people turning off their radar dishes. Caused us to have to re-think our alternate target strategies: What to do when all 5 of your alternates are off-line too?I didn't get the chance to work on the phased-array radar, sadly. That was one hot ticket. I haven't followed it to see how it's doing.
That sounds like another interesting topic. I am sure we would get plenty of VERY interesting entries.So you worked on HARM? Interesting. Electronics?
I worked on some projects that I knew only by their code names. The ones I know for sure were the SA-3 (low altitude), and the SA-7 shoulder launched one. On that last one we (our design leader) figured out the way to counter the flares. For a while, anyway.
The SA-3 was all analogue tube computers. Tube op-amps, that sort of things. I presume it was later redesigned to be all solid state.
The latest AIM9x Sidewinder will finally get all aspect.Thomas
.
I'd like some of that Russian look-down shoot-down radar capability too.Speaking of which, do you know anything about the ground hugging Russian cargo/troop carrier. The wings compressed the air to the ground much like a hydroplane. I don't even recall what it was called. But if we can remove the tail by incorporating western fly by wire technology, it'll be a bitch to track. I think it can obtain a peek altitude of 100'. That's primarily for turning which B-2 mechanisms can be used instead.
Did you hear any more about augmenting our aircraft with diminished function capability? I remember testing being done on a F-15 Eagle to be able to fly home with any one wing shot off. The computers were supposed to diagnose the situation & compensate the flight controls to return the pilot safely home (NOT to continue dog-fighting).
***I'd like some of that Russian look-down shoot-down radar capability too.I am not radar expert, but I believe we have it, and a far better kind than what they do. When it comes to things that require huge amount of processing (synthetic apperture radars, intersept-and-jam-proof communications, agile jamming, etc) the Russians are decades behind.
Generally speaking, the US technology is always ahead (well, in 98% of cases perhaps), but the deployment of particular systems is usually a political decision, not technical, so sometimes our systems are not deployed yet, while they already have it flying. That creates the impression of being behind in technology.
Having seen the inside of the Soviet military machine I know just how obsolete it is.
***Speaking of which, do you know anything about the ground hugging Russian cargo/troop carrier. The wings compressed the air to the ground much like a hydroplane. I don't even recall what it was called. But if we can remove the tail by incorporating western fly by wire technology, it'll be a bitch to track. I think it can obtain a peek altitude of 100'.
I believe you are talking about what is called "ekranoplan". It is designed to operate over water or very flat terrain, and uses the proximity to ground for additional lift. It is extremely efficient as a long haul transport. They have built several and flown them as large troops carriers. The US intelligence used to call them the Caspian Monsters. They are huge.
But again, they need very flat terrain. They would be useful perhaps for trans-Atlantic cargo service.
***That's primarily for turning which B-2 mechanisms can be used instead.As far as I know low observability was not their design objective. Nowdays flying low doesn't guarantee your success with all those down-looking space radars. Unless you are flying a small plane to Red Square.
***Did you hear any more about augmenting our aircraft with diminished function capability? I remember testing being done on a F-15 Eagle to be able to fly home with any one wing shot off. The computers were supposed to diagnose the situation & compensate the flight controls to return the pilot safely home (NOT to continue dog-fighting).
I know we have various augmentation systems, but can not comment on their effectiveness - don't know.
Hi,
somewhere in the Net; there is a picture of a US plane (F15 i think)
with most of a wing gone. The pilot lost the wing, and was able to RTB, and land without serious incident. Engineers have supposedly said that was not possible. Good plane.
there it is!
I can only speculate they implemented the technology to keep the plane stable & balanced enough to land the platform.
...plane doesn't need wings to fly. There are many versions of F-15, but I believe they all have much more than 1:1 thrust-to-weight ratio. They will typically accelerate straight up.But many other planes will not do that.
Most performance jets don't fly anyway. Not in the classic sense of aerodynamics anyway. I think the only remaining ones are swing wings & there's an ongoing effort to kill the concept.
but AOA I didn't, thanks.
Hi Mart,
sometime download a few flight sim demos. Jane's USAF demo has great graphics, if you have a strong computer. Janes WW2 fighter demo is probably the best demo of all time. I played it a few dozen times before getting the rest of the game. Falcon 4 was originally a $60 game. It routinely goes for $20 now, i found my copy on sale for $10.
One thing about F4, it is a hardcore sim. Which is to say, it has about a 300 page manual (which truthfully i haven't read); and if you want to do more than Instant Action, you have to read it. Someday i will get around to that, really, i wouldn't kid you, i wouldn't let it collect dust
while playing some mindless shooter. maybe tomorrow ;)
I usually get the light or medium sims; more fun, a lot less studying. Wish i had the ambition for the hard core ones. SU27: Flanker is so authentic you need to know a bit of Russian; and Flanker2 appears to be
the best sim made to date.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
