What's new

27 Feb 19: PAF shot down two Indian aircrafts inside Pakistani airspace: DG ISPR

This information is pretty rare to find in civilian circles so its unlikely Kaiser Tufail would take this risk. Since he would explain all this with more detail due to the virtue of his experience.



I have been told exactly opposite by guys here at 9 Sqn.

AMRAAM doesn't self destruct. Atleast the C5/C7 variants do not.

Even NATO believes that. This is why they launched a multi million dollar search for the misfired AMRAAM which was never found. According to latest reports it is possible that the missile has gone underground due to the sheer velocity it flies with. But it certainly never exploded or else they would have found the debris within the extrapolated time.
The difference could be due to the their being no designated target in case of the NATO AIM-120 launch being accidental? Hence no reason for its proximity fuse to detonate?
 
.
A question.

Can an AMRAAM explode when the target outruns it and the missile hits lets say, a house on the ground?
Most missiles have a self destruct operation when after a certain amount of time that the missile failed to acquire or reacquire the target. Whatever happened to the debris is a different issue.
 
.
The idea of a 'valid' kill is essentially an assumption based upon some reasoning and evidences. A 'confirmed' kill is when there are eyewitnesses of the event, something that often occurred back in WW II when air combat were always within visual range. A 'valid' kill is when we declared that based upon A, B, and C, there is a greater than %X probability that the target did not survive. A 'valid' kill can be updated to 'confirmed' if later there are forensic proof that the target did not survive. These proofs can be something like debris or ops logs that said the pilot did not return.


Chaff can mislead a missile, even an AMRAAM or any claimed to be 'the best' missile out there. There are several related issues here.

When a missile is classified as 'fire and forget', it does not mean launch and leave. On the whole, we, meaning the entire military aviation community, did not have a good record of such a missile, even when we did designed and deployed such a missile. The 54 Phoenix was not only 'fire and forget' but actually 'launch and leave'. The Phoenix was not an 'integrated' weapon system precisely because of the 'launch and leave' design. Once launched, the pilot is free to leave the missile to its own devices. The missile carried its own active radar, discriminate its own target, select for home, and boresight on a target. The Phoenix's concept made the missile large, heavy, and time consuming for maintenance, especially for the electronics, which was not upgradable and
rapidly getting older as miniaturization progresses. So when the F-14 retired, the Phoenix system had to be retired as well.

So where does the phrase 'fire and forget' comes in?

Experience showed us that the longer the ranges the greater the odds of a failure to kill. The longer ranges requires the missile to have as much data as possible in order to do what the Phoenix was designed to do: active radar, discrimination, selection, home, and boresight. The more radar activities, the greater the odds of the target being aware of the missile threat, especially when the radar operation changes to boresight mode which produces intense and unique signal characteristics, which the target would confirm to itself that there is a missile threat. But if we reduce the range on when to launch the missile, we risks getting involved into a turning fight which despite the romanticism of WW II, no pilot want to get into such a fight in the first place.

The compromise is the somewhat arbitrary designation of 'mid range' which for the AIM-120 started from 50 km and now to 150 km which approaches the 190 km of the Phoenix. So much for 'mid range'.

To increase the odds of a kill, or given the range involved, at least a 'valid' kill, we have to sort of 'silence' the missile's own radar operations to the last possible moments. To do this, the AMRAAM's radar does not 'go active' until certain algorithmic solutions are satisfied, and these are secrets. Suffice to say for public discussion, that 'go active' point is generally the mid point between the launch location and the target's location.

For example, if the distance between launch and target is 100 km, the AMRAAM's radar will go active when it crosses the 40-50 km point. Less if the launch aircraft decides to continuously guide the missile instead of the missile using its own radar.

When the AMRAAM's radar is active is when the missile becomes a 'fire and forget' weapon because it is calculated that the target do not have sufficient time and distance to formulate any countermeasure, even if his radar warning receiver (RWR) alerted him to the missile threat.

This goes back to the statement that declared chaff cannot mislead the AMRAAM. Chaff can mislead the AMRAAM depends on when the missile was launched, when the parent aircraft severs its guidance, and when the AMRAAM's radar go active. The longer this distance, the greater the odds of success for chaff. If a pilot launched an AMRAAM at max or near max operational range and immediately abandons it, chaff WILL mislead this AMRAAM.

This is why modern air combat is no less mentally challenging than when pilots fought with guns at several hundred meters apart. The pilot must know his aircraft and weapons limits in order to create as ideal as possible the environment for the missile to succeed.


The AMRAAM have a proximity fusing system that detonates the warhead without the missile impacting the target. Proximity fusing increases the odds of a kill.

Many, many thanks for the very insightful and detailed explanation.

The post you quoted talks about ACMI and FDR recording the missile's trajectory. My question is, what is an ACMI pod doing on a combat mission with lives at stake? Couldn't it give away the aircraft's position to the enemy? Wouldn't the pilot want to maximize his load out of missiles, or keep everything to minimum for combat?

Is there bi-directional telemetry between AMRAAM and parent or is it only one way? Bi-directional would be needed if the aircraft is to record the trajectory.
 
.
I think it is possible Pak lost something. Whether men on the ground in Balakot (perhaps not just trees and a crow) or an aircraft (3 chutes). Otherwise there would not be so much evasion and double talk.

I fail to believe the Pak military establishment is so incompetent as to let the Indians take the cake and eat it too.
 
.
S/L Hassan is said to have guided the missile for 18 seconds which made him cross the LoC as well in some direction. When asked why did he take that risk, he simply said he wanted to make sure the missile doesn't miss the target. He also mentioned that target was well within E pole of his aircraft.

It probably means that AMRAAM was guided till the end and the Su-30 was unaware of the incoming missile until it was too late.

No dude that is totally wrong detail, S/L Hassan at no point crossed the LOC and AMRAAM is not guided by the pilot and flies independently once locked on the target.
Also not many will know that Hassan wasn't flying alone.
 
.
I think it is possible Pak lost something. Whether men on the ground in Balakot (perhaps not just trees and a crow) or an aircraft (3 chutes). Otherwise there would not be so much evasion and double talk.

I fail to believe the Pak military establishment is so incompetent as to let the Indians take the cake and eat it too.
Please provide justifications, you're too confused due to spending helluva time on this debate.
 
.
No dude that is totally wrong detail, S/L Hassan at no point crossed the LOC and AMRAAM is not guided by the pilot and flies independently once locked on the target.
Also not many will know that Hassan wasn't flying alone.

He did. This is coming directly from him. I have no reason to doubt my sources.

And AMRAAM has to capability to fly independently. Pilot can still guide it all the way to keep its own radar from switching on. Refer to gambits post for further explanation.
 
.
He did. This is coming directly from him. I have no reason to doubt my sources.

And AMRAAM has to capability to fly independently. Pilot can still guide it all the way to keep its own radar from switching on. Refer to gambits post for further explanation.
Do you know who was flying as a GIBS with Hassan.....no F-16 was near the LOC.
 
.
The post you quoted talks about ACMI and FDR recording the missile's trajectory. My question is, what is an ACMI pod doing on a combat mission with lives at stake? Couldn't it give away the aircraft's position to the enemy? Wouldn't the pilot want to maximize his load out of missiles, or keep everything to minimum for combat?
No idea why. Yes. And yes.

ACMI can be recorded or live. First gen version are recorded and sometimes augmented with ground radar. Both sets of data are later collated and formatted for analyses. Newer gen are independent by collating GPS/INS with recorded flight data without ground data. In an exercise environment, ACMI data can be 'live' by continuous transmissions to a ground station for true real-time analyses.

For a combat mission, there is no reason to have this information.

Is there bi-directional telemetry between AMRAAM and parent or is it only one way? Bi-directional would be needed if the aircraft is to record the trajectory.
Depends on the model.

http://raytheon.mediaroom.com/2015-04-09-Latest-AMRAAM-variant-achieves-key-program-milestones
The AIM-120D is the newest air-to-air weapon in the U.S. arsenal and has significant capability improvements, including increased range, GPS-aided navigation, two-way data link and improved weapons effectiveness.
This does not mean the pilot somehow became a remote pilot for the missile.

Back in WW II, we used tracer rounds. After every X number of rounds, one round is a tracer. This is to provide the pilot with some information as to how he is shooting. The two-way data link is like an improved version of the tracer round. Real time flight states such as fuel and time-to-target. The pilot can -- before a certain threshold -- redirect the missile, or launch an additional missile to ensure a kill, or refocus to another target.

In using the aircraft's radar, the odds of missing a kill is reduced. Chaff cannot affect the aircraft's radar to the extent that it can to the missile's radar. Situational awareness by the pilot from his aircraft's radar will dismiss any countermeasures and will allow the missile to continue to its target. So when the pilot finally 'release' the missile from its data link 'leash', in a manner of speaking, the missile would have more secured target information from its own radar to make a kill. One-way data link already make the AMRAAM difficult to evade. Two-way data link practically assured a kill, assuming the pilot is trained in how to use the missile appropriately.
 
.
No idea why. Yes. And yes.

ACMI can be recorded or live. First gen version are recorded and sometimes augmented with ground radar. Both sets of data are later collated and formatted for analyses. Newer gen are independent by collating GPS/INS with recorded flight data without ground data. In an exercise environment, ACMI data can be 'live' by continuous transmissions to a ground station for true real-time analyses.

For a combat mission, there is no reason to have this information.


Depends on the model.

http://raytheon.mediaroom.com/2015-04-09-Latest-AMRAAM-variant-achieves-key-program-milestones

This does not mean the pilot somehow became a remote pilot for the missile.

Back in WW II, we used tracer rounds. After every X number of rounds, one round is a tracer. This is to provide the pilot with some information as to how he is shooting. The two-way data link is like an improved version of the tracer round. Real time flight states such as fuel and time-to-target. The pilot can -- before a certain threshold -- redirect the missile, or launch an additional missile to ensure a kill, or refocus to another target.

In using the aircraft's radar, the odds of missing a kill is reduced. Chaff cannot affect the aircraft's radar to the extent that it can to the missile's radar. Situational awareness by the pilot from his aircraft's radar will dismiss any countermeasures and will allow the missile to continue to its target. So when the pilot finally 'release' the missile from its data link 'leash', in a manner of speaking, the missile would have more secured target information from its own radar to make a kill. One-way data link already make the AMRAAM difficult to evade. Two-way data link practically assured a kill, assuming the pilot is trained in how to use the missile appropriately.

Thanks again. So there is no way PAF could have recorded the missile's trajectory for later analysis, given they only have C-7 version?
 
.
Since there was some talk about proving a kill, here is probably the most unusual confirmation of an air combat kill.

This happened in Desert Storm...

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/03/the-last-ace/307291/
OVER CESAR RODRIGUEZ’S desk hangs a macabre souvenir of his decades as a fighter pilot. It is a large framed picture, a panoramic cockpit view of open sky and desert. A small F‑15 Eagle is visible in the distance, but larger and more immediate, filling the center of the shot, staring right at the viewer, is an incoming missile.
To sum up the article, in a head-on situation, an F-15 launched an AIM-7 against an Iraqi MIG-29. The MIG crashed. A US special operations team found the MIG remains and recovered the jet's HUD data.
...of the items salvaged, the last millisecond of incoming data from the doomed Iraqi pilot’s HUD, or head-up display.
Here is the recovered HUD image...

dZADSsH.jpg


Essentially, the MIG recorded its own death.
 
.
^^ yar please koi iss banday Gambit ko kahay k ziada posts kiya karay yahan pe. Iski posts se bahut kuch seekhnay ko mil jata hay. magar yeh USA section se bahir nikalta hi nai hay.
 
.
^^ yar please koi iss banday Gambit ko kahay k ziada posts kiya karay yahan pe. Iski posts se bahut kuch seekhnay ko mil jata hay. magar yeh USA section se bahir nikalta hi nai hay.

@gambit you have fan mail. This extremely shy wall flower whose post I am quoting is saying in Urdu:

"Man someone should tell this guy gambit to post more frequently around here. We get to learn a lot from his posts. But he doesn't get out of the USA section."
 
.
^^ yar please koi iss banday Gambit ko kahay k ziada posts kiya karay yahan pe. Iski posts se bahut kuch seekhnay ko mil jata hay. magar yeh USA section se bahir nikalta hi nai hay.

You might want to use a language he understands mate.
 
.
Do you know who was flying as a GIBS with Hassan.....no F-16 was near the LOC.

No I don't. I can find out though.

However I do know there were only two F-16As in the package. One piloted by Wg Cmdr Nauman and one by Wg Cmdr Tariq Waheed who is currently known with the title of Sher Afghan (Top CCS Graduate).
 
.

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom