Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

What probabilities there are to hit an incoming AAM whit another AAM used as defense weapon ?

F-16.net Sponsor

Elite 1K Joined: Aug 19, 2004 - 09:19 AM Posts: 1092

Not good at all under combat conditions. I'm sure you could rig up an ideal test scenario where one AAM intercepts another, but the conditions would have to be VERY ideal. Even then it might not be possible. Also, it's unclear as to whether an AAM can be tracked adequately by the shooter aircraft or by another AAM's terminal seeker head.

Forum Veteran Joined: Dec 15, 2006 - 12:28 AM Posts: 760

I think it depends on a lot of things. I don't think it's very practical. However I think the most likely scenario would be of a large long-range missile like an anti-AWACS being shot down with a midrange or short-range missile like a AIM-120 or AIM-9.

It would be entertaining if $100,000 missile could shoot down a $1,000,000 missile; thereby protecting a multimillion dollar aircraft and a large crew.

Not that I am really disagreeing with Raptor_One. Wink

Elite 1K Joined: Aug 19, 2004 - 09:19 AM Posts: 1092

It would probably be easier to shoot down ballistic missiles (and perhaps even their warheads upon re-entry) than to have an aircraft protect itself against another aircraft's long or medium range A-A missiles. I think the main issue is the whole detection/reaction/guidance issue. I'd be surprised if the technology to do all that stuff effectively exists on current combat aircraft. Then there's the issue of whether the A-A missiles designed to shoot down aircraft are capable of intercepting other A-A missiles under realistic conditions. They may not be maneuverable enough or fast enough.

I'm talking about an head to head scenario, so the defending missile no need any particular speed performance and even not that range (15 - 20 km would be enough), note that enemy AAM's aren't maneuvering to avoid impact, they're just flying right (or slight turning) to their target so even maneuverability is not a problem..
What's really need could be a powerful radar (AESA), a side looking radar (cause you're also flying away from your threat) and a data link to correct your defending missile (it's on-board radar would be insufficient to direct it on enemy's weapon).

Forum Veteran Joined: Dec 15, 2006 - 12:28 AM Posts: 760

I think radar power might be an issue, sweep rates, and reaction rates, and the speed and distance the proximity fuse blows. It might be like the Patriot verses SCUD; sometimes the fuses didn’t detonate until after they passed. The closure rate is so high it might aggravate a lot of these problems.

I think that it is definitely possible. Technically, an AAM is no different from any other target in the sky apart from its size and its speed. We know that using AAMs to down cruise missiles or even supersonic AShMs in the Mach 2~2.5 class is a something that is either established or seriously attempted.

There are several issues which I think matters:-

(1) AAMs are small and hard to track -- the RCS of an AAM is rather small. I estimate the frontal RCS to be in the 0.01 sq-m class. Off bore sight they may be higher, but the target is going to be looking at it pretty much close to the bore sight axis. This is consistent with a 10cm (3.9") square, it is also consistent with a radar capable of picking up an F-16 at say 100km being able to pick up the incoming AAM at ~25km. This sounds about right. This is a problem because a radar guided AAM's seeker designed to acquire a typical fighter at say 30km will only be able to find an AAM target at ~7.5 km. This however doesn't make intercepts impossible, in fact it may be easier to acquire an incoming AMRAAM that say an F-35 or F-22 which has an RCS in the 0.0005~0.0015 class. This small size and RCS may also affect fusing reliability since the fuses may be tuned to expect an aircraft sized target.

(2) AAMs are fast -- typically they go between Mach 2~Mach 5. Mach 3.5~4 being common burnout velocities. And if you are trying to shoot one down in self-defense or in defence of an AWACs, it is pretty much going to be a head on shot with a closing speed of up to Mach 8~9. The typical radar or laser proximity fuse may be too "slow" or tuned incorrectly since the maximum closing speed during their anti-aircraft duties are at best ~Mach 6~7 (Mach 4~4.5 missile + Mach 2~2.5 aircraft). Again, an area where problems can arise but not insurmountable.

(3) Attempting fracticide may bot be the smartest thing the defending aircraft can do. If self-preservation is the key, it may be wiser to turn tail and burn hoping you'll outrun the missile kinematically. Attempting fracticide may require the launching aircraft to stay pointed at the general direction of the incoming missile(s) in order to track it (them) with its radar so as to update the AAMs it fired to close enough an intercept course that the seekers will have a chance of finding the target(s). This may or may not be the thing the pilot wants to do. Also, sometimes when fighters launch Active missiles at each other, tactics may requie that they break before the practical range at which the AAMs may be picked up.

I do believe that active interception of AAMs has a potential future in aircraft systems. However, I do not believe that standard AAMs will be used for the task. Instead, I think that very small, very short ranged missiles will be used. These may not even have a seeker but are rather fired as self-pitching rockets down a vector determined by 360degree IR or RF sensory system such as the F-35's DAS. They may be detonated by proximity or even simply timed fusing. The defending aircraft may already be running away from the AAMs and may be maneuvering. The shots may be taken at very short ranges (0.1~2km) with the specific object to distrupt or damage the incoming missile during the endgame causing it to fail or miss.

someones being watching firefox Wink

Would be nice - may have to ditch some internal fuel to stick the rockets in.

I would have thought a Laser would be the best thing - have read many claims about development of such a thing - would need to be very small and able to destroy the seeker head of a distant future stealth missile.
Thats assuming lasers work well at altitude and cant be shielded against (more of a star wars approach to the firefox one above ) Beer

Elite 1K Joined: Aug 19, 2004 - 09:19 AM Posts: 1092

Nobody said it wouldn't be possible in the future to shoot down A-A missiles with specially designed defensive missiles and defensive sensors. If we're talking about what will be possible in the future, then I'd say Warp Speed will also be possible. Very Happy

I've heard proposals to make AESA radars into EW weapons (because of the ability to focus the beam), especially the F-22 if it gets cheek-mounted units. How about that as an anti-missile system? (using the Radar to cook the missile's electronics)

I dont think it's be too hard, all it'd basically have to do is focus on the seeker head (which is already pinging the fighter).

I think that has the most likelyhood... Of course it'd only work in the frontal arc.

Forum Veteran Joined: Dec 15, 2006 - 12:28 AM Posts: 760

Neotopia wrote:

I've heard proposals to make AESA radars into EW weapons (because of the ability to focus the beam), especially the F-22 if it gets cheek-mounted units. How about that as an anti-missile system? (using the Radar to cook the missile's electronics)

It can work both ways. It would be a gamble to do something like that. Some advanced radar ATA missiles home in on radar (home on jam), so if you fail to cook the electronics you are likely help the missile home in on you.

I think it is possible with our current technology to take out ATA missiles with ATA missiles, however at this point I don't think it is practical, I think it would also require some adjustments prior to the engagement that would be specifically geared toward that type of mission, that might reduce the effectiveness against other aircraft.

As our software and electronics gets more advanced it'll probably become more easier to do such a thing.

However I suspect lasers would be better in most cases. There is less lag time with a laser and unspoofable.

I don't want to speculate or say much more, for security reasons.

flighthawk wrote:

Thats assuming lasers work well at altitude

Lasers just like guns work better at higher altitude due to thinner atmosphere and less weather.

In Korea there was an old-timer that started to criticize a rookie wingman about gunning at an enemy that was out of textbook range, when he got a kill. Evidently the rookie knew about that the atmosphere being thinner allows bullets to retain their speed better, flatter trajectory and have greater range. (or was dumb newbie luck)

ATFS_Crash wrote:

I think radar power might be an issue, sweep rates, and reaction rates, and the speed and distance the proximity fuse blows. It might be like the Patriot verses SCUD; sometimes the fuses didn’t detonate until after they passed. The closure rate is so high it might aggravate a lot of these problems.

Something is still moving in a similar direction:
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2007/05/ncade-an-abm-amraam/index.php

Forum Veteran Joined: Dec 15, 2006 - 12:28 AM Posts: 760

Neno wrote:

Something is still moving in a similar direction:
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2007/05/ncade-an-abm-amraam/index.php

Great link. Thanks

You are aware that all those extra smokers coming out of the aircraft are in fact muntions don't you? Laughing

meaning extra weight for those appliances...in the form of wiring, containering to where they are flight safe... stealth.... meet basic weapons clearance and release issues under various flight profiles.

Problem is JSF has no growth room like that for shooting-smoking things coming out and going after an incoming threat. It might make good for the people that do the cover art for Popular Mechanics which always have dreamy aerospace unfact in their artwork.

Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

AAM Vs AAM