Chris Trott wrote:Actually, those kinds of maneuvers do give most missiles fits. Remember, they can only maneuver at a certain "G" load and are often flying multiple times the speed of sound and (by the time they get close to the target) are coasting, not under powered thrust. By making abrupt changes in speed or direction, you force the computer in the seeker to make very rapid changes to the lead computing, causing the missile to either bleed too much energy trying to change its direction (and thus not making it to you), or it can't corner at high enough G to follow and misses.
Now, does this work 100%? Certainly not, but it does increase your chances of evading the current generation of missiles more than without it.
Remember also they they use proximity fuses...They don't need to actually hit the target...Just a close pass is sufficient
I would think that this kind of extreme maneuvering would be more useful in getting a bead on an opponent more quickly, getting your missile seekers lined up rather than simply trying to avoid being hit. one advantage though once you get that hot tail to swap ends, is a much reduced thermal target. I read somewhere about Harriers having something of an advantage there by viffing and pitching up, masking the thermal source under the wing.
It came to me this morning from NZ and here is the text that accompanied it (not my text):-
....... When the airplane is engulfed in smoke, it means the airplane is almost stopped in mid-air...............
Which means energy state is near zero and in ACM energy is king. At that point, assuming a reasonable trail distance
an old fashioned "GUNS! GUNS!" shot
becomes quite easy as the target has no energy and is gonna sit right there as you put the pipper on it and bang off a whole load of 20mm airframe dismantlers.
"Speed building both sides.....passing one hundred knots.....V1..rotate...oh sh*t..."
NigelC,
You are quoting out of context...I said this:-
"Exactly!...It is only an old fashioned "GUNS! GUNS!" shot that might be difficult to sight while he is using vectored thrust, but any missile wouldn't have too much of a problem."
My sentence assumes "Vectored thrust" to be used by the prospective target in a circling dogfight. To bring the guns to bear the attacker MUST produce a higher rate of turn than the target to bring his aim ahead of the target to gain the necessary "Deflection". If the target uses vectored thrust then he will prevent the attacker behind him from being able to obtain this necessary deflection to obtain a Guns hit. The Harriers used this capability to great effect in a dogfight.
To bring the guns to bear the attacker MUST produce a higher rate of turn than the target to bring his aim ahead of the target to gain the necessary "Deflection".
i think i would say "point inside the turn" is more accurate in the su-30 example for a shot
you may not be out turning the bad guy but if you can point inside the turn and hose him anyway..well that Su-30 can anyway
it would create a firing opportunity.... without having a higher turn rate initially
