Forum: Technology

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

If all you cool folks in the "Biz" can't talk about anything in this thread, you have nothing to contribute. Enough said. And if this borders on vault material... so what? I don't have access to any "vault" of classified weapons operation manuals. I'm guessing none of the people actually participating in this thread (and not trying to censor it) have a similar lack of access to classified material. So once again... OPSEC Nazis... get lost.

F-16.net Sponsor

avon1944 wrote:

Because the AIM-120C has clipped wings and fins, does the "120C" give up any maneuvering ability compared to the AIM-120B? Are the clipped wings and fins increased in other dimensions to give the missile the same total area for these control wings and fins?

Adrian

How did we go from clipped wings to OPSEC? WTF

Another energizer bunny thread. Bang Head

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

Ohhh... I got a lot of my information from the old (but still good) Falcon 4.0 Realism Patch v5.0 user's manual. It can be found here:

http://www.freebirdswing.org/libraries/ ... &ID=4#view

Just click on the appropriate link on that page (Realism Patch v5.0 Manual) and download the file at the bottom. Is this manual bordering on vault material too? I bet the entire Falcon 4.0 combat simulation borders on vault material according to some of you extremists. Go through official channels and stop whining on these forums if you truly have concerns.

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

ACMIguy wrote:

avon1944 wrote:

Because the AIM-120C has clipped wings and fins, does the "120C" give up any maneuvering ability compared to the AIM-120B? Are the clipped wings and fins increased in other dimensions to give the missile the same total area for these control wings and fins?

Adrian

How did we go from clipped wings to OPSEC? WTF

Another energizer bunny thread. Bang Head

Because the OPSEC Nazi crowd decided to get involved. They didn't feel like they were doing enough to save the world in their real jobs recently. So they took up their second calling... policing this forum as though they had some sort of jurisdiction.

Forum Veteran Joined: Jul 01, 2007 - 07:22 PM Posts: 605

R1, you have completely missed the point of my posts. Go back an re-read the entire discussion again. I FLEW a Viper last night... what did you do with your time. I'm done with you. Salute

Wow R1, you really know how to come off as an a$$. All you have is a simulator, while SnakeHandler is out there flying the real deal. You get on here and treat people with experience like crap, and people wonder why real pilots don't come around here. Oh and to call them "OPSEC Nazis," way to Godwin the thread. I am done with this thread, may it die in peace, have fun with Falcon 4.0 while the rest of us take up our second job and continue to comb these forums with a fine tooth comb to pick on peons, like your self, 'cause we can not handle our real jobs.

Peace
Donk Out

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

SnakeHandler wrote:

R1, you have completely missed the point of my posts. Go back an re-read the entire discussion again. I FLEW a Viper last night... what did you do with your time. I'm done with you. Salute

What makes you think I'm going to bow at your feet because you fly F-16s? You fly F-16s, know way more about the AIM-120s real opperational capabilities and limitations, ECM, and so on. Thus, you really can't participate in this thread with us speculators. Warning us that we're straying into "vault" (yes, I knwo what the vault is) territory probably isn't a good idea though, don't you think? I wouldn't have known that had you and others not said so. Inadvertent confirmation? Gosh... I hope not.

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

Double post.

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

donk14N wrote:

Wow R1, you really know how to come off as an a$$. All you have is a simulator, while SnakeHandler is out there flying the real deal. You get on here and treat people with experience like crap, and people wonder why real pilots don't come around here. Oh and to call them "OPSEC Nazis," way to Godwin the thread. I am done with this thread, may it die in peace, have fun with Falcon 4.0 while the rest of us take up our second job and continue to comb these forums with a fine tooth comb to pick on peons, like your self, 'cause we can not handle our real jobs.

Peace
Donk Out

I can give you a bunch of different publications and even government agency-run report servers that touch on "vault" material according to your and others' definition of the term. That's the problem on these forums. Military types (even F-16 pilots) don't know what's public domain information and what's not. Some public domain information is difficult to find and will not simply pop up by doing a search on Google. Often you have to pay for access to these hard-to-find military information resources. Sometimes you'd just have to go to a good public library's Science/Engineering branch.

There would be much less friction on this board if military people would just accept the fact that some information which they consider somewhat sensitive is actually publically available through certain (sometimes obscure) channels. The Realism Patch 5 manual which I posted a link to would probably be thrown in the base vault if it were up to some people on this forum. If you read through some of the more "sensitive" parts of that document relating to attack radar, missile guidance, ECM, etc., you'll come across a statement about how the information presented therin is not classified. You'll also find references to at least some of the author's information sources. Again... you guys might want to go after companes like Jane's and your own government for the following website:

http://stinet.dtic.mil/

You can find full text technical papers on that website discussing anything from ECM and ECCM to air combat tactics. Don't believe me? Do a search. That's really just the tip of the iceberg. Don't shoot the messenger.

_Viper_ wrote:

Thanks for you answer. Actually I managed to find this thread using the search.

snypa777 wrote:

Modern RWR and defensive suites can give you range/bearing and speed if we believe the advertising brochures. Check out the systems on the Gripen for example which are publicly quoted as being capable of such....

Although I couldn't find any mention about that but I believe you. It just feels quite a high tech and very classified system too.

After some searching I actually managed to find a brochure about Gripen's RWR system. It is called a "BOW"
"This was the first system with real-time pulse deinterleaving and library-based emitter identification, and represented a significant step forward compared to earlier systems." If I'm right (please correct if I'm not) this really means that the system can give real time bearings, speeds and even a specific range etc. about the incoming missile. When the Swedes "invented" this in the 1980s I would be really surprised if no other country hasn't developed this particular system.

http://products.saab.se/PDBWebNew/ShowP ... eInfo=true

The Gripen RWR is the latest BOW-21. SAAB claim a 100% POI, which is a big claim. If you have enough antenae that can pick up most radar bands, covering a large enough area, you should be able to process the data and get range bearing and speed.

The Rafale RWR is said to be able to get you an accuracy in bearing down to below 1 degree.

Something wrong,monopulse is only a track-correct technology,but the AIM120'S guidence radar is the pulse-doppler radar,The PRF is key to the pulse-doppler radar.if not,how the AIM120 could against the chaffs?it must to use pulse-doppler radar to identifys the chaffs or aircrafts,because the doppler frequency reflect from the chaff and aircraft are different.