Striking Behind Yourself

[localhost127]

Nose mounted radars have rear aspect detection and guidance capability so most a/c don't need a rear radar to achieve "all aspect".

could you elaborate on this?

 

[NICO]

Sorry, I am a new user so I wasn't allowed to post links.

I guess if you use JHMCS or something similar, you could take an over the shoulder shot with AIM9X,R73 or IRIS-T. French with MICA have done some very close to over the shoulder shots if I recall correctly. I think helmet sights are pretty much obligatory to take OTSS.

As far as I can find, Australia F18 with ASRAMM have done it, March 2009:


I don't know if it is all that it's cracked up to be, if you are in a close dogfight, you are in serious trouble, not sure if over the shoulder shot helps you all that much. You are in a very unfavorable/dangerous position, it is really a shot of desperation. I would like to hear from combat pilots what they think. It could help for mud movers like A10, Jaguar etc, I could see it being useful for them.

Also I did find some comments posted about difficulty on airframe/rocket of the missile, it seems it's not that good for it , loss of range/maneuverability maybe.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

There are three types of aft shoot engagement types here.

There is a ‘tailgun’ type aft shoot used by aircraft maintaining a course and speed who have someone on their tail and want to clear them off without having to change their vector. This has been proposed for several bombers, strike and attack craft. Apparently this capability is installed on the Su-34 with the R-73 missile.

The second type of aft engagement is for BVR missiles so a fighter can shoot turn 180 degrees and still maintain separation and the aft facing radar provides track upgrades (active missiles), terminal illumination (ICWI) or semi active guidance. The US Navy was looking at this as part of its A3M Phoenix replacement project.

The final type is an extreme high angle off boresight (HOBS) shoot for WVR dogfighting. This increases the engagement zone in a dogfight and is very transformational. It’s not about shooting down someone on your tail but shooting at someone who is manoeuvring to get you and may be behind, above, below or to your sides. The F-35 takes this to a new level with EODAS and will be able to engage in dogfights without the need to manoeuvre so retain high energy and basically be unbeatable.

 

[Feanor]

That same or similar capability is claimed on the PAK-FA with the combination of its rear-facing radar and OLS. I was wondering how credible this claim could be.

 

[Cailet]

That same or similar capability is claimed on the PAK-FA with the combination of its rear-facing radar and OLS. I was wondering how credible this claim could be.

It's certainly technically feasible. Russians are no less intelligent than anyone else and they have put considerable thought into the matter. Really it comes down to your estimation of their industrial, technical and financial base whether you believe it will happen with PAK-FA or not.

For myself I am hardly an expert but I believe Russia and India will be doing their level best to include such capabilities in PAK-FA and while their abilities with VLO technology may be questionable there is much less doubt about their ability to produce electronic systems, an equivalent (in function if not quality) to JHMCS and the datalink technology in the F-35 are within their reach in theory at least.

 

[Feanor]

Well of the capability was introduced on the Su-34, as they claim, then it's probably been developed on and expanded on the PAK-FA. The Su-34 and Su-35 serve as stepping stones to the PAK-FA, technologically.

While we're on the subject, there's also claims of an optical-electronic jamming device on the PAK-FA. I'll see what I can gather to substantiate what exactly this is supposed to be. Does anyone have thoughts on this?

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Well of the capability was introduced on the Su-34, as they claim, then it's probably been developed on and expanded on the PAK-FA. The Su-34 and Su-35 serve as stepping stones to the PAK-FA, technologically.

There is a big difference between rear hemisphere cueing for an IR homing missile and the kind of system that the F-35 has with EODAS and LOAL missile guidance. For example the B-70A designed in the early 1960s would have had the same kind of missile guidance that the Su-34 claims to have 50 years later.

The all aspect engagement capability of the F-35 combines over 50 years of development in missile launch detectors (MLD) that the Soviets didn’t even have in the 1980s (witness the Stinger massacre in Afghanistan), highly secure, compact and discrete data links and advanced software to manage the whole thing. The missile seeker and off axis cueing doesn’t even come into it.

Sure it’s not unique to the west in theory but there is a huge amount of work and technology development behind it that is needed to make it work. The Soviet Union was decades behind the west in these areas and Russia on starvation rations has not been able to make it up since then.

While we're on the subject, there's also claims of an optical-electronic jamming device on the PAK-FA. I'll see what I can gather to substantiate what exactly this is supposed to be. Does anyone have thoughts on this?

There are plenty of such systems in service in western aircraft. Basically shoot a laser beam into the seeker head of an IR missile and it creates all sorts of havoc.

 

[Feanor]

As you might've noticed I'm a bit out of my depth here, so your substantiation is very helpful. So realistically, if we are looking at the next step to the Su-34s capability, what could we be realistically talking about?

You're right that this couldn't have been developed entirely indigenously, but a lot of tech has been imported. Perhaps not on the level of the F-35, but on some level. What would be a realistic guesstimate?

For the optical-electronic jamming system, the claim was of some uniqueness on the part of the device. I'll try to find more concrete info right now.

EDIT: So perhaps I should rename this into supposed PAK-FA innovations...

Another one I wanted to get a reality check on is the possibility of using the L-band radar to generate some sort of jamming or interference for Link-16 and other systems working in the L-band.

http://vlasti.net/news/77775

 

[SpudmanWP]

Some clarification for you.

The Link-16 band is broken up into 3 bands:
960 – 1017.5 MHz (14 sub-bands of 3 MHz each)
1042.5 – 1077.5 MHz ( 5 sub-bands of 3 MHz each)
1102.5 – 1215 MHz (32 sub-bands of 3 MHz each)

L-band radar is in the 1000 to 2000 MHz range.

So conceivably L-band can jam 2/3 of the Link-16 channels, but the Link-16 system will just switch to the lower 14 channels that are not affected. Btw, the F-22 and F-35 datalinks are K-band and would nto be affected.

The flipside, however, is that by broadcasting a L-band jamming signal, you are inviting an AAM from one of many modern fighters that can launch an AAM based on RwR alone.

 

[Feanor]

Does anything else operate in L-band, in terms of communications system.

 

[Humming Drone]

I don't see much utility in fitting rear-firing missiles on a fighter. The only situation it will be useful is when the enemy is behind and fairly close meaning you already put yourself in a disadvantageous position. It makes more sense to fire ahead and get out if things aren't going your way. Controlling the engagement will defeat the fancy technology.

I can see how such a technology might be useful in certain situations, but my reservation is that it will be useful very rarely and under very narrow circumstances. Does it justify investing time and money that can be used to pursue more promising developments?

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Mid-course guidance may allow AWACs assisted targeting so it will progress from just early warning.

In high density air combat, it may be difficult to prevent enemy fighters from getting on your six.

Rafale's also claiming 360 deg coverage.
http://www.thalesgroup.com/assets/0/249/250/ed2e91d7-156d-4456-9dfc-01cbadc52faf.pdf?LangType=2057

I don't think it will take a lot of $ to develop rear facing radar pods even for older fighters or pods to allow rear firing missiles if there is any utility for it. I tot they proposed that for the F-35 as well...podded radars isn't exactly very new.

 

[SpudmanWP]

The Raf has 360 coverage for it's jammer, not it's radar.

Read that again.

Full integration of the AESA RBE2 positions the Rafale as the only combat aircraft of its category equipped with active arrays for both its radar and electronic warfare suite. This outstanding system that allows a 360-degree smart antenna array coverage, is a real technological breakthrough on-board the aircraft.

 

[Feanor]

I don't see much utility in fitting rear-firing missiles on a fighter. The only situation it will be useful is when the enemy is behind and fairly close meaning you already put yourself in a disadvantageous position. It makes more sense to fire ahead and get out if things aren't going your way. Controlling the engagement will defeat the fancy technology.

I can see how such a technology might be useful in certain situations, but my reservation is that it will be useful very rarely and under very narrow circumstances. Does it justify investing time and money that can be used to pursue more promising developments?

Well rear strikes are imo the extreme end. The capability being claimed is 360 degree coverage (or something close to it) via rear-facing radar, OLS, and regular radar. I'm not sure if the additional L-band radars on the wings play into that.

 

[Awang se]

I guess if you use JHMCS or something similar, you could take an over the shoulder shot with AIM9X,R73 or IRIS-T. French with MICA have done some very close to over the shoulder shots if I recall correctly. I think helmet sights are pretty much obligatory to take OTSS.

Missile like R-73 and IRIS-T have have a high boresight angle. R-73 for example, have 60 degrees off-boresight angle from missile centreline. In HMTD mode, the missile seeker is slaved to the pilot's head. Where the pilot look, the missile seeker will look that way, but only to the extent of 60 degrees either ways. once the pilot put the target in his helmet target designator, the pilot then will initiate missile seeker lock on to the target and the missile is launch. in this scenario, the missile have a confirm lock on target before they launch. But rear firing. it's a tad bit complicated. The missile aren't lock on to the target before launch. it'll got cue from other sensor like the JHMCS or the OLS or the rear facing radar. now once launch, the missile turn backward and start scanning the vicinity of the area provided by the said sensors. the problem? first, if the target maneuver away, there's a good chance the missile will miss, or worse, a friendly aircraft may unknowingly enter the designated targeting zone and the missile will go after it instead. second, when the missile launch, the enemy pilots have several seconds before the missile turn his way. he may used that few seconds to pump out several decoys. once the missile complete the turn, instead of one target, it may have to choose from several different heat source in the close proximity of the target area. it'll have more chance of chasing decoy rather then real target.

 

[SpudmanWP]

Another way is to take the launch cues from a datalinked source. The Australians recently demonstrated this.

One thing that can lessen the chance of loosing a LOAL target is a datalink to the missile. The 9x Blk2 & MICA have them, the R-73 & ASRAAM do not, and I am not sure about IRIS-T.