KA50 can shoot down aircraft in ArmA why?

[ShrubMiK 0]

Well, I don't know much about deployement of infra-red based missile warning systems, as I said I'm a bit out of touch nowadays. But I do know *personally* that missile warning radar systems were being actively deployed around 20 years ago. And were also a key component of new aircraft undergoing development at that time. Things may have changed since those days.

Tipsi, of course shooting from BVR is preferable if you can, but if you think that preference means that dogfighting missiles are unimportant, you are IMO very very much mistaken. For a start, smaller, shorter ranged missiles tend to be more agile than the larger longer ranged ones. Longer ranged missiles tend to have longer *minimum* engagement envelopes too. Historically there has been more chance of jamming radar guidance than sophisticated IR guidance. And if your mission is to engage and shoot down enemy aircraft, you won't necessarily be running away just because you have expended all your BVR missiles - on the contrary, even if the enemy still has BVR misiles and you don't, depending on the precise tactical situation you might still be best served by coming in closer to even things up rather than trying to run away and still risk getting shot down without chance of reply.

Also remember that something like a Harrier is intended for close air support right at the front line in major combat zones - so short ranged IR SAMs are more of a threat than for an aircraft expected to make deep penetrations and attack targets well behind enemy lines - where they are arguably more likely to encounter fewer but individually longer ranged and more powerful SAMs.

"2. I wouldnt understand how it could distinguish between friendly IR missles being fired from behind you and enemy missles being fired from behind... Therefore giving false warnings."

Yes false warnings are a risk - but it is possible to observe the trajectory of an object that you have detected and predict whether it is on an interception course with your aircraft. Not foolproof of course. But *any* IR missile approach close to your aircraft, especially behind, must be considered a risk, careless launches have been known to bring down friendly aircraft - it's hard to give the missile enough intelligence to distinguish between a friendly and enemy heat signature, and to do that in a way that can't be spoofed.

"Wouldnt it be better to find out incoming missles as soon as they are launched? This will give you extra priceless seconds to deal with the incoming missles."

Yes...sure it is better to detect threats further out...but conversely that's why I consider the detection of close threats to be more *critical*, precisely because you have less time to deal with them by all sorts of means, including more opportunity to manoeuvre. It's also harder to be sure a distant launch is targetted at you and not somebody miles away, in which case you personally don't have to worry about it.

"Countermeasures such as chaffs and flares are not magic missle spoofing technology."

Neither is any other form of countermeasure. But still, if a missile is 5 seconds from going up my jetpipe, I would choose to drop flares if I had them. Even a 1% chance of them confusing the missile is better than nothing. And there are, as has been mentioned, other forms of countermeasures that are increasingly coming into use against IR homers, none of which can be used if you don't know the missile is there.

(Oh - I should add - we always used to joke that the chance of the flares doing anything useful was minimal so the missile warning should just be wired directly to the ejector seat instead )

"If you want a radar to give 360degree coverage of the aircraft to detect an approaching missle (which, like you said, is very very small). Then your going to need an even more powerful radar and a bigger one to give you the 360degree coverage range arent you?: Very very pricey and unpractical."

True in one way, not true in another. Detecting a small target at long range with a wide beam requires more radar power. Detecting targets at very short ranges requires a lot less power. Narrowing the search beam concentrates the radar power so also reduces the total power required to detect a target of a given size. But that last point does make it harder to achieve 360 degree coverage. But there may still be value in a small rearward pointing radar that detects IR missiles at very close range behind - precisely where the main aircraft radar can the pilot has the least visibility, and also the area in which IR missiles are the greatest threat.

"Well whether a manpad is firing or not, if your conducting dangerous bombing runs where you are as close to the enemy for them to be able to launch MANPADS, it is standard procedure to drop chaff and flares."

Yes - but you can only carry limited amounts of these in a small aircraft. An AC130 can chuck them out all day long. Something like a Harrier might carry 20 flares and 20 chaff pods.

[Tipsi 0]

"of course shooting from BVR is preferable if you can, but if you think that preference means that dogfighting missiles are unimportant, you are IMO very very much mistaken. For a start, smaller, shorter ranged missiles tend to be more agile than the larger longer ranged ones. Longer ranged missiles tend to have longer *minimum* engagement envelopes too."

I never said dogfighting missiles are unimportant. I know that ALL fighter jets ALWAYS carry some form of A2A protection, and they always seem to go for the IR missles, i.e AIM-9M/X But yes, I completely agree.

"Historically there has been more chance of jamming radar guidance than sophisticated IR guidance."

Well not these days. The general US airforce BVR missles (AIM-120B,C) have the ability to "Home On Jam". The Russians also have a BVR missle with this technology called the R-77 Adder. Therefore rendering jammers useless for BVR combat with modern weapon systems.

"If your mission is to engage and shoot down enemy aircraft, you won't necessarily be running away just because you have expended all your BVR missiles"

I would!! But ->

"On the contrary, even if the enemy still has BVR misiles and you don't, depending on the precise tactical situation you might still be best served by coming in closer to even things up rather than trying to run away and still risk getting shot down without chance of reply."

Indeed. It totally depends on the current situation. If I'm within 20nm from the enemy, theres no chance I'm going to be outrunning any Radar missles at this close range and running away would only get myself killed. So engaging in risky missle dodging manuvers and a dogfight may be the only option. I'm sure though, if a pilot was out of BVR missles, and knew that the enemy did have BVR missles and there was a high chance of running away to friendly SAM sites, he would do it. Better to kill 1 and live than to kill 4 and die no? Theres all sorts of determining factors such as numbers of enemies, how many friendly wing man etc etc.

"Also remember that something like a Harrier is intended for close air support right at the front line in major combat zones - so short ranged IR SAMs are more of a threat than for an aircraft expected to make deep penetrations and attack targets well behind enemy lines - where they are arguably more likely to encounter fewer but individually longer ranged and more powerful SAMs."

Completely agree with you there. CAS dedicated aircraft would definately benefit a proper incoming missle. Its all about coming up with the technology which is: not too heavy, doesnt effect aerodynamics too much and not too expensive. As for deep strike missions, having a radar which detected missles would work against you (since your a lightbulb on enemy radars). Of course if it was impleneted, you would be able to turn it off.

"It's also harder to be sure a distant launch is targetted at you and not somebody miles away, in which case you personally don't have to worry about it."

I agree but, in BVR combat you NEED to lock onto a target before firing, so someone locking you up (RWR going mental) would be a decent indication that you've got a missle on you. But yeh, doesnt mean that they are actually firing... just locking.

"Neither is any other form of countermeasure. But still, if a missile is 5 seconds from going up my jetpipe, I would choose to drop flares if I had them. Even a 1% chance of them confusing the missile is better than nothing. And there are, as has been mentioned, other forms of countermeasures that are increasingly coming into use against IR homers, none of which can be used if you don't know the missile is there."

Indeed.

"Detecting a small target at long range with a wide beam requires more radar power. Detecting targets at very short ranges requires a lot less power. Narrowing the search beam concentrates the radar power so also reduces the total power required to detect a target of a given size. But that last point does make it harder to achieve 360 degree coverage. But there may still be value in a small rearward pointing radar that detects IR missiles at very close range behind - precisely where the main aircraft radar can the pilot has the least visibility, and also the area in which IR missiles are the greatest threat."

Well if researchers manage to come up with technology for this then fair enough. At the moment I imagine they are struggling to do so. But yeh, rearward radar would be great.

"Yes - but you can only carry limited amounts of these in a small aircraft. An AC130 can chuck them out all day long. Something like a Harrier might carry 20 flares and 20 chaff pods."

Well I'm not saying you dispence ALL of your chaff and flares, I meant you drop one or two. Since in these times incoming IR missle detection is not available, it would be safer to drop a few flares during and after CAS bombing strikes than to chance it and drop none.

All in all, I agree with what you have said.

[subs17 9]

I wouldn't count too much on automated missile detection systems as it still ain't 100% perfect. Another thing to consider is you cannot expect developers to waste time in modelling such a system without accurate data otherwise it would make a sim more like an arcade game. I'd prefer if such systems functioned realistically with both the positive and negative aspects modeled. eg false launch warnings etc Thats why I'd prefer it not modeled unless done properly.

[subs17 9]

And if your mission is to engage and shoot down enemy aircraft, you won't necessarily be running away just because you have expended all your BVR missiles - on the contrary, even if the enemy still has BVR misiles and you don't, depending on the precise tactical situation you might still be best served by coming in closer to even things up rather than trying to run away and still risk getting shot down without chance of reply.

(Oh - I should add - we always used to joke that the chance of the flares doing anything useful was minimal so the missile warning should just be wired directly to the ejector seat instead )

If CAP aircraft have run out of missiles there is no way that they would waste 50$ millon aircraft to merge with a bandit that has missiles. Highly unlikely unless its something like an F22 which can pick the location for the merge and aspect on the tgt giving him all the aces. For non-stealth highly unlikely they would just rotate the package with the next CAP flight. Best ways to dodge missiles is to combine a break turn with chaff/flares to exceed the missiles limits so it will break lock.

[ricnunes 0]

ricnunes only because you insist your private assumptions here on "Hellfire should be balanced with Vikhr characteristics" doesn't make it better. Some Hellfires were produced on an experimental basis as air to air missiles but these variants are very rare and not in use. USMC Cobra's are still armed with AIM-9 Sidewinder air-to-air missiles

Well I proved behond any doubt that the Hellfire capability against air targets are not assumptions but REAL FACTS!

Secondly if you cared to read the sources that I posted you'll also see that NO "air-to-air" Hellfire was ever produced even for experimental basis. All testings against air targets were done using "normal" ("air-to-ground versions") versions of the Hellfire. There were considerations about making dedicated air-to-air versions of the Hellfire but those ideas never came out from the paper.

And besides the US Navy web page that I provided clearly states in the begining that fact file is for the AGM-114B, AGM-114K and AGM-114M versions of the Hellfire, all regular versions of the Hellfire.

Quote[/b] ]Workarounds and suggestions have been written but you reject them. Seem to me that you like endless discussions about your own personal balancing preferences. If you really don't like balanced gameplay and stuff - sorry.

(he, evil russians they have developed and use such missiles and this ejection seat...must be the dark side )

I didn't reject those suggestions. I just reject the idea that the Vikhr has an air-to-air ability in ArmA while the Hellfire don't, specially when the Hellfire is also able to engage air targets in real life and also when the Hellfire locks and engage air targets the same way the Vikhr does (with the use of optical targeting systems). Due to those proven facts, if the Vikhr has an air-to-air ability the Hellfire should also have. Or else for a balance sake between air-to-air dedicated weapons (such as the Sidewinder) and air-to-ground ones just remove the Vikhr's air-to-air ability and maintain the Hellfire as it is now.

And what I'm discussing here are REAL FACTS not personal preferences. The only one discussing about personal preferences is you since it's you that don't accept that a missile should have the same capabilities in ArmA that the REAL MISSILE has in REAL LIFE.

So you are argumentating what you think the missile should be and NOT what the missile IS or IS CAPABLE OF in real life!

Regarding the idea of "balancing" that you mentioned so much about by including versions of the Cobra armed with Sidewinder missiles, I'm not against it as long as:

1- The Vikhr air-to-air capability is removed (in case the this capability isn't added as well for the Hellfire).

2- Versions of the Ka-50 armed with R-73 or IGLA-V are included as well.

So, as you see I also "like balanced gameplay and stuff", but above all I like REALISM!

Oh, and of course the Vikhr's air-to-air precision must be drastically reduced as well!

[Jex =TE= 0]

Perhaps if we could see some actual Air-Air statistics (i.e. Real facts) then this argument would cease. So far (and correct me if I'm wrong) we've seen one website and one pamphlet say that the Hellfire can take on A-A targets.

Actually get some facts and this argument then becomes dead, does it not?

[Jex =TE= 0]

I decided to take a quick Google search and found the following - bear in mind it's date - early 90's

Quote[/b] ]

In the early 1990s, the Hellfire missile was even evaluated for use against low-speed aerial targets (i.e. helicopters) in both surface-to-air and air-to-air applications. However, these studies did not result in operational anti-helicopter Hellfire missiles.

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/hellfire.htm - however this info could be wrong but the author does provide sources though no direct source for this quote.

Other than that the search will need to continue if only to just finally have an answer to this. I have had a look for Vikhrs data but found nothing of any use as of yet and I'm not prepared to take quotes from what people say unless they can back up their claims with actual data.

Remember, Bruce Lee can do flying Kicks but that doesn't mean he has an air-to-air capability

[ShrubMiK 0]

Both the parallel arguments here are starting to blur chronological considerations. Just because a certain technology or technique is appropriate today, or was appropriate 50 years ago, doesn't mean it should apply in ArmA, which IMO hasn't noticeably moved the timescale on from OFP.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Harrier.gr7a.zd431.arp.jpg

Care to speculate on the purpose of the thing at the extreme rear that looks remarkably like a radome?

Tipsi, "home on jam" has been around for many many years. It's not a magic bullet. And there are also multiple forms of jamming - drowning out legitimate signals with noise is the brute-force, simplistic one, but there are also electronic techniques that try to do similar things to what chaff/flares do with their physical presence - encourage the missile to home on a false target rather than a real one.

[max power 21]

Both the parallel arguments here are starting to blur chronological considerations. Just because a certain technology or technique is appropriate today, or was appropriate 50 years ago, doesn't mean it should apply in ArmA, which IMO hasn't noticeably moved the timescale on from OFP.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Harrier.gr7a.zd431.arp.jpg

Care to speculate on the purpose of the thing at the extreme rear that looks remarkably like a radome?

That would be ports for the puffer jets that allow the harrier to manoeuvre when there is no airflow over its control surfaces, as in a vertical landing, I believe.

[subs17 9]

Yeah the RCS vents on the tail boom certaily not an IR missile detector. Only missile launch detector on a Harrier is the mk1 eyeball.

[subs17 9]

simplistic one, but there are also electronic techniques that try to do similar things to what chaff/flares do with their physical presence - encourage the missile to home on a false target rather than a real one.

You mean gate stealers that can be countered by either burn through or ECCM submodes on the A/A radar.

[ShrubMiK 0]

Perhaps the famous Mark 1 eyeball could be called into service with a bit more care and attention

What is the thing at the *extreme* rear that looks remarkably like a radome?

i.e. behind the puffer jets.

>You mean gate stealers that can be countered by either burn through or ECCM submodes on the A/A radar.

Yes. Range/velocity gate pulloff. Deception jamming. etc. etc. Call it what you will. Agreed such techniques are not infallible But generally it is a lot easier to fool a self-guided missile than an aircraft or ground radar...less power available, narrower field of view, less room for advanced electronics, and no human brain avaialble on the spot to help it out if it gets confused.

[ShrubMiK 0]

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/The+evolution+of+airborne+electronic+warfare+systems.-a08362889

"Plessey Avionics EW equipment includes the Missile Approach Warner (MAW) for the Harrier GR5/7, which is based on a pulse-Doppler radar. A modified version has been developed for the Tornado."

And not the only example ever, either, it seems.

http://www.baesystems.com/ProductsServices/bae_prod_eis_156.html

http://www.globalsecurity.org/militar....156.htm

[ricnunes 0]

I decided to take a quick Google search and found the following - bear in mind it's date - early 90's

Quote[/b] ]

In the early 1990s, the Hellfire missile was even evaluated for use against low-speed aerial targets (i.e. helicopters) in both surface-to-air and air-to-air applications. However, these studies did not result in operational anti-helicopter Hellfire missiles.

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/hellfire.htm - however this info could be wrong but the author does provide sources though no direct source for this quote.

Jex,

Actually that information that you quoted is confirmed by this Jane's Information Group site:

http://www.janes.com/defence/air_forces/news/jalw/jalw001013_1_n.shtml

Where's it says:

"trial firings were made in 1990 against aircraft targets, to prove Hellfire in the air-to-air role"

[max power 21]

Perhaps the famous Mark 1 eyeball could be called into service with a bit more care and attention

What is the thing at the *extreme* rear that looks remarkably like a radome?

i.e. behind the puffer jets.

>You mean gate stealers that can be countered by either burn through or ECCM submodes on the A/A radar.

Yes. Range/velocity gate pulloff. Deception jamming. etc. etc. Call it what you will. Agreed such techniques are not infallible But generally it is a lot easier to fool a self-guided missile than an aircraft or ground radar...less power available, narrower field of view, less room for advanced electronics, and no human brain avaialble on the spot to help it out if it gets confused.

That would just be a cap to make that cylinder aerodynamic, I think.

Quote[/b] ]

During OAF the ATO SPINs required all TACAIR assets to carry an electronic countermeasure capability against certain radar-guided surface-to-air missile threats. Aircraft without this capability were not authorized to participate "feet dry" over land. The AV-8B met this requirement with the ALQ-164 defensive Electronic Countermeasure (ECM) pod. However, this pod must be upgraded to meet emerging threats to include a self-protection countermeasure capability, and a capability against modern threats that we see delivered around the world today. The lack of an upgrade to the AV-8B ECM system can potentially limit its use in future combat, or jeopardize its survivability if committed in the scenarios we are likely to face in the next century.

Statement of Brigadier General Flanagan, FAS.

http://www.fas.org/man/congress/1999/99-10-26flanagan.htm

This ten year old statement seems to imply that the av-8b is quite helpless without its ecm pod. Sources say the aircraft has been tested with the AN/ALR-67(V)3 Advanced Special Receiver, but say that as of 2002 there was no funding to impliment it, so who knows. It doesn't look like this thing would fit into a tail cone like that anyways.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/equip/an-alr-67.htm

http://www.navy.mil/navydata/policy/vision/vis02/vpp02-ch3p.html

[ShrubMiK 0]

A cap that looks/is coloured remarkably like a radome...Maybe they just ran out of the proper Harrier coloured paint?

I'm getting the feeling that the main problem here seems to be a certain amount of US-centredness.

Re. your links:

1) That's the AV8B he's talking about. I'm talking about the GR5 onwards, the UK equivalent. (Check the roundels on the picture.) With (obviously) much more impressive electronics.

2) That's an RWR. Relevance?

3) New stuff, passive not active. Relevance?

[max power 21]

A cap that looks/is coloured remarkably like a radome...Maybe they just ran out of the proper Harrier coloured paint?

I'm getting the feeling that the main problem here seems to be a certain amount of US-centredness.

Re. your links:

1) That's the AV8B he's talking about. I'm talking about the GR5 onwards, the UK equivalent. (Check the roundels on the picture.) With (obviously) much more impressive electronics.

2) That's an RWR. Relevance?

3) New stuff, passive not active. Relevance?

Part of this problem was that I was under the impression that a radome housed a radar transmitter and receiver.  Radome simply means a dome that protects a radar antenna.  I've found what the tailcone is, I think, off of a modeling websight.  The cone on the tail houses the radar antenna for a radar warning receiver.  Since it is a radar antenna, and it is a dome, I guess you could call it a radome.  It is not an active radar, though, and is used to listen for enemy radar scans and locks on the harrier.  So, it's there to tell you if the aircraft is being detected, and what mode the radar is that's detecting you, but it can't tell you much about the position of the threat.

Since I've just done a bunch of work for you, I am open to thanks and cash only donations.

[subs17 9]

A cap that looks/is coloured remarkably like a radome...Maybe they just ran out of the proper Harrier coloured paint?

I'm getting the feeling that the main problem here seems to be a certain amount of US-centredness.

Re. your links:

1) That's the AV8B he's talking about. I'm talking about the GR5 onwards, the UK equivalent. (Check the roundels on the picture.) With (obviously) much more impressive electronics.

2) That's an RWR. Relevance?

3) New stuff, passive not active. Relevance?

Actually the RWR has alot of relevance since it will light up if a Tungaska(or other SAM) is painting you. It will also give you warning if you've crossed into an area likely to be protected by SAMs. As well as that the latest aircraft such as the F-16 and AV8B probably also has a HSD which will show threat circles from search radars and likely SAM batterys including SAM locations from JSTARs/F22 and other intellegence sources. Not all IR missiles use just passive lock some also use radar to help lock the tgt as well as search radar networks to help them point in the right direction to intercept the tgt. BTW if Arma were to feature the AV8B fully modeled then I would not expect it to be modeled the same as a UK version Harrier GR7/9 as AV8B is whats modeled and thats whats relevant. Aside the RWR I don't see any mention of any other missile warning system in the AV8B. BTW I think the US version is more better type of Harrier considering they also have a data link and JHCMs. Of all the aircraft in Arma it has quite a good A/A capability although the SU34 would be a handful with the R77.

[ShrubMiK 0]

SUBS17, I'm not disputing the usefulness of an RWR. The GR5+ has one too...only it's part of an integrated EW system called "Zeus". You'll find that mentioned in various places.

I agree it is the AV8B in ArmA, nowhere did I say this capability should be in game. I was responding to an initial statement that it is "impossible" to detect an incoming IR missile because it uses passive guidance. And then to claims that missile warning systesm (as opposed to RWRs) are in development but not deployed yet; and that an active radar verison of such a system does not exist, and would be impossible/highly impractical.

"BTW I think the US version is more better type of Harrier considering they also have a data link and JHCMs."

If we are going to argue who had the best model of Harrier on the basis of carefully choosing the strengths and ignoring the weaknesses, I nominate the UK Sea Harrier over the AV8B, complete with an advanced long range air search radar and AMRAAMs Sadly retired now. Of course you can then throw in the AV8B+ to the discussion...but the bottom line is that different models have different capabilities because they are intended for different missions.

Plaintiff, can't you just accept you are wrong?

Information in the public domain clearly states that a missile warning system using active radar exists, and has been fitted to various aircraft from the Harrier GR5 on. It may be obsolete technology and soon to be totally superceded by passive missile warning systems, time will tell.

So if it is true that it exists on the Harrier, where is it located?

There's a radome at the back, clearly visible. That's unlikely to be for an RWR:

a) Purely receiving antennae don't really need a radome, usually there will be some sort of directional dish or (more applicable to ground and ship platforms! rotating antenna hidden there. The radome exists to shield the mechanisms from the elements, make it more aero dynamic, and also make it harder for an observer to deduce its capabilities. A radome is hard to hide because if it is made of (or painted with)inappropriate material it interferes with the signal.

You'll see a number of presumably receiving-only antennae on the Harrier if you look closely. e.g. the sharkfin on top of the fuselage and the prongs sticking out either side of the front fuselage (not visible in that pic I posted, but just visible in this one if you know what you are looking for: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:HarrierGR7A.jpg)

b) Limiting incoming IR missile detection capability to the rear was not an unreasonable compromise 20 years ago, because the threat was *much* greater from that direction with the IR seeker technology of the time. Limiting an RWR to rear-only capability would be flat out crazy. There's no radome on the front.

Incidentally, the Eurofighter utilises similar technology but extends the missile warning coverage to front as well.

http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk/Eurofighter/defences.html

[Guest RKSL-Rock]

A cap that looks/is coloured remarkably like a radome...Maybe they just ran out of the proper Harrier coloured paint?

I'm getting the feeling that the main problem here seems to be a certain amount of US-centredness.

Re. your links:

1) That's the AV8B he's talking about. I'm talking about the GR5 onwards, the UK equivalent. (Check the roundels on the picture.) With (obviously) much more impressive electronics.

2) That's an RWR. Relevance?

3) New stuff, passive not active. Relevance?

Part of this problem was that I was under the impression that a radome housed a radar transmitter and receiver.  Radome simply means a dome that protects a radar antenna.  I've found what the tailcone is, I think, off of a modeling websight.  The cone on the tail houses the radar antenna for a radar warning receiver.  Since it is a radar antenna, and it is a dome, I guess you could call it a radome.  It is not an active radar, though, and is used to listen for enemy radar scans and locks on the harrier.  So, it's there to tell you if the aircraft is being detected, and what mode the radar is that's detecting you, but it can't tell you much about the position of the threat.

Since I've just done a bunch of work for you, I am open to thanks and cash only donations.

This thread should be immortalised.  It’s getting to be truly priceless now, to use a quote from a colleague this morning “Dear god blind leading the blind.† I’ve passed this link around the office this morning and the lads here are pissing themselves laughing.  It’s pretty obvious no one in this thread really knows much about RWR and MAW technology and especially Harriers.

Here’s a little help for you then.  The Harrier is fitted with ACTIVE and PASSIVE systems the details of which you are very unlikely to find described in detail on the internet.  The Primary RWR sensor is located: on the trailing edge of lower ventral fin under tail  Together with the Radar Altimeter, IFF and various other odd and sods.  It’s usually either grey or yellow since this is more often than not the natural colour of the Di-electrical material used to cover it.  (You don’t often paint over sensors in “Harrier coloured paintâ€)

Two other RWR/MAW sensors are located on the wing tips of the aircraft.  You can see them in the pic below.  They are the bulbous black lumps:

http://data.primeportal.net/hangar....017.jpg

The “radome†as you’ve christened it is normally described as the tail cone and houses another passive sensor (on those aircraft to carry them as not all GR7’s have them although most GR9 do now).  This is made of fibre glass or some other EM transparent material and is not usually painted either.

So the RWR system is passive in nature.  It detects radar directed at it and if in a predefined frequency range it then gives the pilot the appropriate warning. IE either AAA, SAM, search Radar etc.  

The later versions of Harrier (GR5 onwards) also include a passive IR system to detect MANPAD launches.  The principle is very simple, the array is made up of a series of sensors all set to give the aircraft a 360 degree coverage. Each looking in a very specific arc…

For the purposes of this simplified discussion imagine they are passive infrared sensors just like your burglar alarm at home.  The PIR (Passive Infra Red) Sensor is triggered by your body heat or  until you walk into its field of view. It doesn’t see anything but when it does see you the little red light comes on.

… let’s say have a 30 degree field of view. Normally it would require 12 sensors to cover the full 360 degree arc of the aircraft but since that would create blind spots at close range we’re going to use 18.  So to take the Harrier as an example:  There would be 6 in the tail and 6 on each wing tip.  

PLEASE NOTE:  This is an explantion of the simplified principle not of the actual system.

Each of the sensors is capable of sensing an IR source strong enough to be a missile motor and knowing which sensor detects it and that’s sensor’s position on the airframe gives the computer the directional information which it then give to the pilot on the MFD.  Obviously there are checks in place to ensure that false readings etc are minimized but false positives do occur.  It’s a short coming with Passive technology but given how important aircraft are these days I can promise you they do work. Millions has been poured into development of passive sensors.

Anyway the sensors do exist, they are fitted to the majority of modern aircraft and have been for about 15 years.  But just because you can’t see them doesn’t mean they aren’t there.  Many are embedded behind dielectric panels for aerodynamic purposes.  And just to prove the point… refer to ShrubMiK’s link and to the Eurofighter webpage  It clearly illustrates the sensors.  Now go look at a picture of a Eurofighter and see if the sensors are obvious…

As for Hellfire being A-A capable…

…any missile can be made to shoot down aircraft if adapted.  Ask the Chechens; they modified RPGs so that they would airburst after firing. And the RPG7 is not a SAM.  But to have a standard Hellfire shoot down anything but an almost stationary target is virtually impossible.  It simply does not have the motor capable of sustaining it.  Nor does it have the maneuverability required to make a high speed intercept.

… If anyone here is an actual serving officer in a NATO military there is a nicely little red(? It used to be anyway is probably on CDROM now)  book you should have access too.  It details the “authorised†use and limitations of NATO airborne weapons systems.  It’s updated twice yearly and should be available from your appropriate base library.  It goes into some detail about the use and limits of The Hellfire and nowhere does it state a declared A-A capability.

So we have already established that the VIKhR can and is designed to function in an Air to Air role.  Apart from vague reference to some tests conducted a long time ago and no further evidence to support it…lets agree that the Hellfire is NOT A-A capable.

If we are going to argue who had the best model of Harrier on the basis of carefully choosing the strengths and ignoring the weaknesses, I nominate the UK Sea Harrier over the AV8B, complete with an advanced long range air search radar and AMRAAMs Sadly retired now. Of course you can then throw in the AV8B+ to the discussion...but the bottom line is that different models have different capabilities because they are intended for different missions.

Actually the only thing the RAF GR7 and 9 Harriers lack that the USMC AV8B has is a radar.  In every other respect the GR9 upgrade now far out strips the USMC spec of aircraft in every department.  Performance, Defensive aids suite and weapons capability. It is even fully Link-16 capable now where are the AV8B is not and is not likely to receive that capability anytime soon if at all.

Plaintiff, can't you just accept you are wrong?

In my experience he can't.  He just likes to pedantically debate until you give up and do something more interesting with your life.

[ShrubMiK 0]

And your office is...?

>The later versions of Harrier (GR5 onwards) also include a passive IR system

You also say such sensors have been around and deployed for the last 15 years. Which doesn't sound unreasonable to me - I've already said my knowledge is from around 20 years ago and I am out of touch since. Were they then retrofitted to GR5s? Even the GR7 was deployed longer ago than your 15 year timeframe. Aircraft kit is normally finalised long before it is actually deployed. I would have expected a major systems enhancement like that to come as part of a major upgrade - although GR9 seems too late and GR7a doesn't sound like a standalone upgrade.

[max power 21]

Didn't I admit that I was wrong in my previous post? And now apparently the tail cone doesn't house a RWR or a radar after all. Shrub, why don't you now admit that you are wrong and we can all cuddle.

[Guest RKSL-Rock]

And your office is...?

>The later versions of Harrier (GR5 onwards) also include a passive IR system

You also say such sensors have been around and deployed for the last 15 years. Which doesn't sound unreasonable to me - I've already said my knowledge is from around 20 years ago and I am out of touch since. Were they then retrofitted to GR5s? Even the GR7 was deployed longer ago than your 15 year timeframe. Aircraft kit is normally finalised long before it is actually deployed. I would have expected a major systems enhancement like that to come as part of a major upgrade - although GR9 seems too late and GR7a doesn't sound like a standalone upgrade.

One of the lads I share a cube with worked on the GR5 upgrades when he was at BAe.  The basic passive defensive sensor suites were fitted to some GR.5s prior to the GR7 updates for evaluation.  How many and for what period I don't know any specifics but they provided the baseline spec for the GR7 system.  As with most MoD funded systems there was a delay in full roll out until the 92/93 and then all the aircraft were standardised as part of the rolling upgrade and capability update programmes. If you look at the GR9 programme, you'll see exactly the same phased conversion programme.  With the GR9 receiving various capability upgrades along the way which is why you see GR7, GR7A, GR9 and GR9A all flying today waiting for their turn to get upgraded.  It's really not unusual for a fleet upgrade to take up to 2-4 years before anything get standardised.

...And now apparently the tail cone doesn't house a RWR or a radar after all...

Well in ShrubMiK's defense it used to on the older Harriers.  The GR3, FRS1, FA2 all did have the RWR mounted in the Tail Cone.  Just not the GR5, 7 or now the 9.

Edits for my atrocious typing skills.

[ShrubMiK 0]

Hmmm. Interesting.

>worked on the GR5 upgrades when he was at BAe

When? Where was he based?

[Jex =TE= 0]

After 17 pages it looks as though we have a winner