| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| toga |
Posted - 07/24/2014 : 09:16:32
tadc
剛剛入門
28 Posts
Posted - 07/24/2014 : 02:29:12 會員資料 Email Poster 修改回覆 Send tadc a Private Message 引言回覆 View user's IP address 刪除回覆
查資料喵到這篇 http://www.xys.org/forum/db/10/155/184.html 不知各位前輩認不認同?
如果最終韓國kfx是沒有內建彈艙 那假設台灣有下一代自製戰機 設計是要以哪方面優先 匿蹤vs氣動
似乎 即便能買到f414 韓國 台灣 應該都是走雙發 較超級蟲更匿蹤 小一號機身為設計方向吧? 還是有其他更適合的方向?
一萌二PAK三聯閃，四代歐風五國潘，十全側衛百戰鷹，成千蟲隼萬國繁。 |
| 25 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| MikeH |
Posted - 09/23/2014 : 12:04:47
冤枉 我今夏奉令留守 真的沒回去啊
===
地下軍火庫
http://guns-mikeh.blogspot.com/ |
| 冗丙 |
Posted - 09/21/2014 : 14:01:44
哈~
國安局怎模沒把你給扣下來??
難怪這次回台你都不敢曝光!!下次用比壘球還大的獅字頭K你~
忠義衛飯筒~剽悍吃燒肉~~
|
| MikeH |
Posted - 09/21/2014 : 08:26:38
開玩笑
SCR-584 是最高機密
研發人員連家人都不能提起工作內容
===
地下軍火庫
http://guns-mikeh.blogspot.com/ |
| cwchang2100 |
Posted - 09/20/2014 : 16:23:55
quote:
Originally posted by dasha
那些號稱預測的搞法,讓小弟找舊雜誌時很痛苦,因為可以發現有些雜誌比較AIM-7與AIM-120時的句子,有些居然直接抄AIM-7A與AIM-7C/D/E的差別,因為都是強調新的導航系統具有比較好的預測能力......最後只好去看人家電路設計.
AMRAAM在1980年代前半期的發展,其實有不少質疑,所以當時出版品總有些人會要直接間接強調AMRAAM採主動設計有那些優點,讓高複雜度的系統能發展下去,不要有了AIM-7M就不要AIM-120A.
是中文雜誌還是英文? 中文雜誌就可以不用理他了,
那時對這類系統的認知和今日不可同日而語.
電路設計? 方便說來聽聽嗎?
單單射後不理這一項,AIM-120就完敗AIM-7.質疑終究會變歷史.
預測的演算法,名氣最大的當屬Kalman filter.
但是演算太過複雜,只有到近代的數位電腦有這種能力.
像F-22和F-35的電腦,都有內建硬體的Kalman filter晶片.
指令集直接就可以下Kalman filter,應該是用FPGA做出來的.
另一個有名的Wiener filtere也是二戰發展出來的.
只是當時發展的是類比版本,都是用積分和微分.
二戰之前就有開發人工光學追蹤器,但是已經有加入預測功能.
是用機械計算機達成的.
標準演算法就是取目標位置微分,再乘以砲彈飛行時間.
因為機械或電氣微分器和乘法器,都已經在類比電路上可實現.
A History of Control Engineering, 1930-1955, by Stuart Bennett, Page 181.
(書上還有電路圖,和數學公式)
SCR-584所用的演算法,Bell實驗室又加入memory point system of prediction,
其實就是把算過的座標微分記下來,和目前的座標微分平均.
就造就了著名的SCR-584.第一次登場就是安齊奧登陸.
SCR-584加上VT信管,完全封殺德國空軍.後來又用到V1飛彈的攔截上.
因為太成功了,以至於變成控制論應用的經典範例.
回歸主題,這可以看出,預測方式很早就被用在空防.
早期飛彈用上用預測電路,再自然也不過.
所謂比例導引的原理,在二戰前就有了.電路也是沒有問題.
了解這些歷史,也許能對了解AAM的導引方式有更進一層的認識.
PS: 這些在二戰時,應該算國防技術機密. :P
|
| dasha |
Posted - 09/20/2014 : 10:22:00
那些號稱預測的搞法,讓小弟找舊雜誌時很痛苦,因為可以發現有些雜誌比較AIM-7與AIM-120時的句子,有些居然直接抄AIM-7A與AIM-7C/D/E的差別,因為都是強調新的導航系統具有比較好的預測能力......最後只好去看人家電路設計.
AMRAAM在1980年代前半期的發展,其實有不少質疑,所以當時出版品總有些人會要直接間接強調AMRAAM採主動設計有那些優點,讓高複雜度的系統能發展下去,不要有了AIM-7M就不要AIM-120A. |
| cwchang2100 |
Posted - 09/18/2014 : 17:44:40
如果氣動力面不易控制的話,那對高空目標就很難變成尾追,會直接miss.
因為只要不是對目標尾部發射,那行徑路線夾角會是90度,甚至更多.
如果,對目標的方向調整都不夠力,那意味著,接下來變成尾追的角度更大!
那就更不可能調得過來,一定就是miss.
類似比例導航的計算,在二戰後期和SCR-584搭配的M9 Director,
就可以預測目標"未來"的方向.Bomarc也是利用相同的原理.
這在控制論的教科書中是蠻出名的,很多英文的教科書,第一張圖就是SCR-584的架構圖.
量高度基本上就是個氣壓計,對回饋控制演算法,它就是多一項輸入的變數.
V1飛彈裏就有裝,炮兵的計算機也會考慮這一項.
這種計算,二戰後期,美帝就發展得很好,畢竟那時武器實驗室裏,
單單輻射實驗室一家,就有五百位博士.當時全台的博士,一隻手可以算得完.
隨便去喝杯咖啡,路上就會碰到一堆諾貝爾獎得主,水準大大不同.
對於主動和被動的差別,如果原因是電子電路的代差,那就真的是有差.
不過這也不必特別強調主動彈,只要是不同代,都是會有差距的.
|
| dasha |
Posted - 09/18/2014 : 10:01:00
對高空高速目標幾乎都變成尾追的最主要問題,是在氣動力上,因為你幾乎都是仰射,加上飛彈設計大部分是針對大概0.1大氣壓以上環境去設想制動力,當飛彈進入低於0.1大氣壓環境中,而且火箭可能在燒完或即將燒完只能滑翔的情況下,效率會明顯降低,老式電路很難設計第二種以上的控制率去針對高空環境,除了SA-5之類只打高空,甚至是某些反彈道飛彈那種,控制系統反而只考慮高空到真空環境的設計,其他飛彈顧慮大部分會對付的中低空目標需求,高空的控制就不會好看,更何況你的飛彈已經沒動力了,控制效率只會越來越差.
當然導向也是有影響,小弟認為書中採訪的人所指的主動飛彈,不是AIM-7B或Bomarc這種技術上與半主動的AIM-7C/D/E差不多的傢伙,而是已經數位化的AIM-54/AMRAAM,與他們使用中的類比電路AIM-7E/F的比較,基本上這有點像是拿PC與算盤比較了......可是從使用者立場來說,他們是直接用PC取代算盤,這樣比也沒錯.
理想的比例導航在早期是要地面導航系統或飛行員自己去判斷,飛彈的電路在當時是做不到的(即使現代小弟也懷疑在特殊狀況以外做到的可能性),即使半主動導向可以靠後向參考訊號與目標回波比對,做出比自動乘波導引(對應的是"手動乘波導引")要更接近比例導航的飛行軌跡,但即使是在攔截筆直飛行的靶機時,麻雀也不是那種很漂亮的筆直比例導航撞擊路徑,雖然比早期AIM-4那個轉好幾個彎的烟跡要漂亮.
對於中低空氣動力面可以有效發揮控制權的目標攔截時,目標如果是直線飛行,沒有雜波影響,半主動飛彈不是尾射確實不容易陷入尾追,會很接近比例導航的狀況,但對氣動力面效率大減的高空,這就無效了. |
| cwchang2100 |
Posted - 09/18/2014 : 07:51:53
quote:
Originally posted by dasha
早期的自動電路與AIM-54/120時代進行目標撞擊點預測的計算,導航方式不同,基本上都是針對偵測到的目標歷史位置去修正航向,而不是預測的未來位置,這是一種Delay,對於那種超過2萬公尺飛的傢伙來說,不要說飛彈,連飛機的氣動力面都沒甚效果,會放大這種導向上的Delay,各種方向朝目標飛過去的飛彈給這些延遲一累積,最後幾乎都會變成尾追--如果沒有燃料先燒光掉下去或自爆的話.
前一段時間小弟在研究的是乘波與半主動的歷史位置差異,甚至乘波與半主動本身,也會因為採用的電路處理方式不同,有些延遲上的差距,現在的數位電路都不提這個了,以前類比電路蠻多這些東西,但相關的東西在現代的武器中其實還是有.
至於控制面的氣動力效率,那與數位電路及程式不同,到達飛行包絡線極限時,要有調整外觀上比較容易發現.
如果是對比早期的電路和現在的電路,或是說是氣動控制的不靈敏.
那都是比較能夠令人理解.
但是現在的問題並不是問這些.
問題是:
同樣是早期的飛彈,為什麼主動雷達導引會比被動雷達導引的反應要快.
理論上,除了雷達發射機所在位置上不ㄧ樣,接收及導引電路,會有怎樣的差異,
導致一個比較快,一個比較慢? 這才是不解的地方.
如果照您的解釋,以上的問題,其實還是沒回答到.
現代的計算電路會比舊式的快,那是當然的.
但是,影響是可以用更複雜的演算法.
一般縱使是老式電路,還是會保持在一定的反應速率才對.
畢竟是電子電路,不做複雜的計算,要快不是問題.
|
| 蒼天任行 |
Posted - 09/18/2014 : 01:24:10
quote:
Originally posted by dasha
早期的自動電路與AIM-54/120時代進行目標撞擊點預測的計算,導航方式不同,基本上都是針對偵測到的目標歷史位置去修正航向,而不是預測的未來位置,這是一種Delay,對於那種超過2萬公尺飛的傢伙來說,不要說飛彈,連飛機的氣動力面都沒甚效果,會放大這種導向上的Delay,各種方向朝目標飛過去的飛彈給這些延遲一累積,最後幾乎都會變成尾追--如果沒有燃料先燒光掉下去或自爆的話.
前一段時間小弟在研究的是乘波與半主動的歷史位置差異,甚至乘波與半主動本身,也會因為採用的電路處理方式不同,有些延遲上的差距,現在的數位電路都不提這個了,以前類比電路蠻多這些東西,但相關的東西在現代的武器中其實還是有.
至於控制面的氣動力效率,那與數位電路及程式不同,到達飛行包絡線極限時,要有調整外觀上比較容易發現.
我覺得你這樣的說法就跟比例導引相衝突到了耶？
比例導引就是採前置追擊航線，假設目標不改變航向，以當時雙方的速度與航向求出預期撞擊點，並於發射到命中這段時間不斷計算自身與目標速度航向並調整航向直指新的撞擊點，這種導引方式除非目標直接轉超過90度或是在碰撞前幾秒瞬間加到三倍速，不然要變成尾追還真不容易；即使是舊式的電路導致的計算延遲，也可以簡單的對計算結果加成得到解決，哪有幾乎都會變成尾追的道理？
但如果是採純追擊導引(飛彈從發射到命中過程完全直接指向目標)那幾乎只要飛彈與目標的偏角不是180或0度，就勢必會變成尾追狀態。 |
| zfss |
Posted - 09/17/2014 : 17:23:42
quote:
Originally posted by dasha
quote:
Originally posted by Ironhead
前面不管怎麼講，就是甩脫不了MiG-25跟AIM-120
接下來想要回到正題，可能要花點工夫了
其實這也是一個正題,雖然不是這帖的,之前有人認為台灣應該要MiG-31......討論一下這些高速空戰的問題,或多或少可以處理對這些高速傢伙的迷思.
等MIG31加速完，恐怕都飞到江西上空了吧 |
| dasha |
Posted - 09/17/2014 : 12:04:55
quote:
Originally posted by Ironhead
前面不管怎麼講，就是甩脫不了MiG-25跟AIM-120
接下來想要回到正題，可能要花點工夫了
其實這也是一個正題,雖然不是這帖的,之前有人認為台灣應該要MiG-31......討論一下這些高速空戰的問題,或多或少可以處理對這些高速傢伙的迷思. |
| dasha |
Posted - 09/17/2014 : 12:01:13
quote:
Originally posted by allenhsy
還有MIG-25根本沒有下視下射能力，飛超高度只會在空戰時讓自己眼睛瞎掉而已（雖然蘇聯防空體系基本是靠地面導引，上面的雷達倒不如說射控測距用）
其實不是沒有,是有限,對於離地高度(不是海拔高度)不到800m的東西,會因為地面雜波而難以處理,美國海軍與海陸早期的攔截機,包括比較早版本的F-4,就是用第二個人專門處理這個問題.這要到都普勒濾波迴路比較優良時,才逐漸克服. |
| dasha |
Posted - 09/17/2014 : 11:50:01
quote:
Originally posted by cwchang2100
quote:
Originally posted by cobrachen
貝崙科在他的書中提到蘇聯過去以MiG-25攔截的時候，以一架在前方，一架在後下方的方式攔截，可是，他不認為即使真的發射飛彈，MiG-25有機會打下SR-71。他提出的原因當中有：
如果是在對頭接近狀態，兩架飛機的相對速率太高，蘇聯當時的射控系統無法應付這種高速下需要修正的導引指令。
當時MiG-25使用的飛彈，在7萬英呎以上沒有甚麼效果。尾追的情況會更加惡化飛彈擊中目標的機率。
Belenko駕駛的是MiG-25P,拜他所賜,蘇聯將Smerch-A換Saphir-25,變成MiG-25PD.
所指的射控系統,不知道是否指的是繁瑣的操作?
雷達部分雖然是low PRF加用真空管,但畢竟是電子信號控制,再慢也不會慢成這樣.
7萬英呎也太剛好了吧?! XB-70規格就是77,350英呎.
是要量身打造成這樣嗎?
那個其實是稍微高估一點MiG-25後設定的數據,所以SR-71照自己的性能一調整到8萬呎......
quote:
Originally posted by cwchang2100
quote:
Originally posted by cobrachen
前SR-71飛行員Richard Graham對於空對空飛彈對於高速高空飛行的目標的攔截效果的意見是，多數的空對空飛彈的控制面是針對50000英尺以下做出最佳化，80000英呎高度會因為空氣密度的關係，影響到飛彈的迴轉能力。他也提到，以F-15C過去使用半主動導引飛彈攔截高空高速目標，會因為飛機和飛彈的射控系統間的反應時間差，導致攔截困難，他覺得主動空對空導引的飛彈在這方面會有幫助。
??? 這點有點不是很明白. 除非是有中段導引更新,要不然怎麼會有時間差?
差距不就是發射端,一個是戰機,一個是飛彈. 對飛彈本身的尋標器來說,只是接收反射波.
早期的自動電路與AIM-54/120時代進行目標撞擊點預測的計算,導航方式不同,基本上都是針對偵測到的目標歷史位置去修正航向,而不是預測的未來位置,這是一種Delay,對於那種超過2萬公尺飛的傢伙來說,不要說飛彈,連飛機的氣動力面都沒甚效果,會放大這種導向上的Delay,各種方向朝目標飛過去的飛彈給這些延遲一累積,最後幾乎都會變成尾追--如果沒有燃料先燒光掉下去或自爆的話.
前一段時間小弟在研究的是乘波與半主動的歷史位置差異,甚至乘波與半主動本身,也會因為採用的電路處理方式不同,有些延遲上的差距,現在的數位電路都不提這個了,以前類比電路蠻多這些東西,但相關的東西在現代的武器中其實還是有.
至於控制面的氣動力效率,那與數位電路及程式不同,到達飛行包絡線極限時,要有調整外觀上比較容易發現. |
| dasha |
Posted - 09/17/2014 : 11:29:51
quote:
Originally posted by Ironhead
quote:
Originally posted by 匿蹤鱸鰻
你們可以拉進來算啊? 2.5馬赫下的beam要多久時間完成? 你確定beam完敵機還在你前方嗎?
是我沒有說清楚，我是說你的回應方式並沒有在beam，所以不愧是鱸鰻哥 
2.5馬赫我也不知道要怎麼beam，我只會打電動，沒有飛到2.5過
MiG-25的話也不用考慮這個,因為這飛機雖然比較耐熱,可以持續2.4Mach以上飛比較久,但燃料有限,做這一個動作,要不是速度高度掉下來被打掉,就是做完以後油不夠...... |
| 蒼天任行 |
Posted - 09/16/2014 : 00:08:39
技術源自正確的觀念與操作技巧，沒有這兩個根本，討論的出啥鬼？
場景都幫你們訂好了，速度多0.1馬赫我也就認了，對結果誤差在一浬内，滿意了嗎？
所以現在咱可否就"技術層面"來好好研討一下？ |
| 匿蹤鱸鰻 |
Posted - 09/15/2014 : 11:35:35
quote:
Originally posted by 蒼天任行
那我想先請問一下你對現代空戰的觀念是如何？如果無法釐清你我之間的觀念差異，那確實只會不斷的繼續雞同鴨講下去...
請以假設的陸地上兩國相爭，一方為俄系空軍、另一方為美系空軍，詳述一下你的“空軍戰略與戰術觀念”為何？
"超音速與次音速戰機飛彈PK技術分析"轉場到"空軍戰略與戰術觀念"，小弟不若兄台您見多識廣，實在答不上話，地鐵下站也要下車了，兩位有興趣可以繼續發揮。
|
| 匿蹤鱸鰻 |
Posted - 09/15/2014 : 11:23:55
quote:
Originally posted by Ironhead
1.鱸鰻說看不懂，我當他是在裝傻；你說看不懂，我相信
非故意裝傻，我是真的看不懂明顯與事實相反的描述內容，不知如何回應(攤手
quote:
2.看不懂可以存檔先，慢慢看。自願跳下來攪和，還說自己很忙，弱！真的很忙的人，不會像我這麼無聊回應你
對兩位留言的回應都是在機場候機或地鐵上無聊時打的，並不佔用正事時間，無需太擔心。
quote:
3.講不贏就用罵的，罵不死就叫對方閉嘴，還一副指導者模樣要求管理員直接封討論。你說你沒權威，卻好大的官威
那你倒是講講看你們兩位講贏了什麽？ 還是講講鬧了什麽笑話比較容易？
|
| Ironhead |
Posted - 09/15/2014 : 10:09:03
quote:
Originally posted by HOTARU
護航的語無倫次,如果你也搞不清楚他到底說了什麼,還執意護航不過是浪費別人時間...
請板主停掉這個討論串吧,有他倆來攪和什麼都會爛尾.以後開新串建議註明不歡迎加入人士好了,也不是沒有前例.想活在虛擬世界的就自己開題自己玩.我們在現實世界還有很多事要忙.
1.鱸鰻說看不懂，我當他是在裝傻；你說看不懂，我相信
2.看不懂可以存檔先，慢慢看。自願跳下來攪和，還說自己很忙，弱！真的很忙的人，不會像我這麼無聊回應你
3.講不贏就用罵的，罵不死就叫對方閉嘴，還一副指導者模樣要求管理員直接封討論。你說你沒權威，卻好大的官威 |
| HOTARU |
Posted - 09/14/2014 : 20:42:08
quote:
Originally posted by Ironhead
我都一頁一頁看了，你覺得我會不知道蒼天他寫的什麼嗎？
把速度一路加上去的可不是他，推到最高紀錄的那個人不就是你嗎？
蒼天照你們給的數據算給你們看，現在你說他不切實際？
這不是什麼好的討論方式啦...
而且，前面蒼天覺得其他人的推論不夠精細，應該要有場景
你不是噹他應該要自己計算嗎?
現在你覺得蒼天的場景不夠精細，為什麼還是蒼天算?
我壓根兒就覺得這把應該你自己負責任一點提出來
而不是隨意把ROE往蒼天身上加
護航的語無倫次,如果你也搞不清楚他到底說了什麼,還執意護航不過是浪費別人時間...
請板主停掉這個討論串吧,有他倆來攪和什麼都會爛尾.以後開新串建議註明不歡迎加入人士好了,也不是沒有前例.想活在虛擬世界的就自己開題自己玩.我們在現實世界還有很多事要忙.
|
| 蒼天任行 |
Posted - 09/14/2014 : 20:40:07
quote:
Originally posted by MACOS8
Okay, first at all, I have to say the "radar illumination" here means the lock signal. It does not mean that the radar could not work, but could not preform to lock (at least for a certain period of time). That is what 184 for.
你怎麼知道人家有沒有鎖定F-16？RWR符號看到了嗎？聲音聽到了嗎？
因為飛行員表現的好像沒被鎖定，就認定人家沒被鎖定，然後推論出都是184的功勞，這不是腦補是啥？
quote:
Originally posted by MACOS8
If we looked the big picture during this event, F-16D was never the first target of the MiG. The MiG were aiming to the F-15s, and then turned before heading to the F-16 (which is vectored to the MiG after F-15s gave up).
STOP BULL-SHITTING!!請看清楚原文！
"American officials said the incident began at 10:20 am, local time when two Iraqi planes flew south of the 32nd parallel, which marks the northern boundry of the air exclusion zone. Two American F-15C planes approached and asked the Iraqi's to identify themselves, and the Iraqi planes turned around and flew north. Twenty minutes later, another pair of MiG's flew south of the 32nd parallel. An American official said those two planes were believed to have taken off from the Iraqi Airfield at Al Kut, just north of the 32nd parallel. This time, the Iraqi planes were approached by a pair of American F-16's, which warned them by radio to leave the area."
人家講得很清楚明明就是兩對不同的伊拉克飛機分別對上一對F-15與一對F-16的兩個不同的接戰場景，怎麼到你這邊就變成同一對MiG-25挑戰2+2的接戰場景啦？！
quote:
Originally posted by MACOS8
At the end the MiG did try to escape when he was super close to F-16, and then was shot down by the AIM-120. This is very similar to the other cases during the Gulf War in 1991, when two MiG were shot down by AIM-7 in WVR range (after they escaped from the AIM-9's hunting)
從雷達顯示幕上看不出來對方有意圖逃跑的樣子啊，航向變換實在太少了... |
| MACOS8 |
Posted - 09/14/2014 : 19:19:10
quote:
Originally posted by cwchang2100
I totally agree with you that the pilot must make some mistakes.
But this whole event may not be as simple as we see/read from the
existing information/data.
Okay, first at all, I have to say the "radar illumination" here means the lock signal. It does not mean that the radar could not work, but could not preform to lock (at least for a certain period of time). That is what 184 for.
If we looked the big picture during this event, F-16D was never the first target of the MiG. The MiG were aiming to the F-15s, and then turned before heading to the F-16 (which is vectored to the MiG after F-15s gave up).
At the end the MiG did try to escape when he was super close to F-16, and then was shot down by the AIM-120. This is very similar to the other cases during the Gulf War in 1991, when two MiG were shot down by AIM-7 in WVR range (after they escaped from the AIM-9's hunting)
|
| cwchang2100 |
Posted - 09/14/2014 : 17:42:01
quote:
Originally posted by 蒼天任行
別忘了俄系航電很倚重地面雷達引導，也許MiG-25是在地面引導下對向F-16，至於為何它既沒發動攻擊又沒調頭走人...who knows?可能只是沒有SA吧~(攤
如果地面管制人員可以call MiG-25對向F-16,然後就失聯了. (假設被ECM干擾)
一般飛行員最可能就是掉頭回基地吧?! 就算想蠻幹,也會開雷達.
很難想像,飛行員不管SA地,呆呆向前衝.
(如果是真的,那真的是腦殘沒藥醫....)
但是,如果一直都是被地面管制.
那這位地面管制人員,之後會被送軍法吧....
|
| 蒼天任行 |
Posted - 09/14/2014 : 17:21:35
quote:
Originally posted by cwchang2100
quote:
Originally posted by MACOS8
Indeed, there are something has been removed from the video (e.g., after the fire clearance, it mutes for several seconds), but I think the overall process of the interception is all there. If MiG-25 tried to fire AAM to F-16, then this would be a very important evidence that can't be removed.
Well, what I will guess is this clip only shows a small part of a bigger battle.
This clip is too short to record a complete interception process.
確實不完整，沒有一開始的Picture Call，不過大概有人根本不知道Picture Call是啥吧...
quote:
Originally posted by cwchang2100
quote:
Originally posted by MACOS8
The output power is just one of the parameters to penetrate ECM, but don't forget the distance were so close, that even if you can penetrate the protection, its now become to late to engage with F-16 in such the short distance.
Yes. You are right. The output power of the radar is not the only factor to be considered.
However, there is a small detail which shows some contradiction.
In the beginning, MiG-25s seem to be aware of the existence of F-16s
and be able to locate them.
How?! A reasonable explanation will be to use their own radars.
If these MiG-25s tried to attack the F-16s and the pilots found their radars
were not working, what would be their possible response?
Even an experienced pilot would be a little panic under this situation.
What I would do is try to fly away from the F-16s and prevent myself from
being tracked by the F-16s. Well, I may not be a good pilot :P
別忘了俄系航電很倚重地面雷達引導，也許MiG-25是在地面引導下對向F-16，至於為何它既沒發動攻擊又沒調頭走人...who knows?可能只是沒有SA吧~(攤
quote:
Originally posted by cwchang2100
quote:
Originally posted by MACOS8
my personally opinion is that the MiG might try to engage at the beginning when it haeding to F-16, and found the radar could not work. (The other option is that MiG did not know F-16 was vectored to there when he turned, and then opps..) Then he tried to escape, but the distance and his azimuth is not optimized to ran away from F-16. That's the reason that we did not see any sign of radar illumination, or even lock from MiG-25.
We may need to pay a little bit attention on our terminology, before we continue
this discussion. I think what you mean "radar illumination" is actually
"fire control radar illumination". Anyway, it is not very important.
OK, let's move on...
Unless the MiG-25s kept radio silence during the entire process,
F-16s definitely would pick up some radar signal from MiG-25s.
As we know, ECM must work at the frequency range used by the enemy radars.
If there was no radar signature, ECM became unnecessary, even for their default
jamming frequency range.
IMHO, F-16s did get the radar signature.
Either these information are removed from the video clip or
they are shown on some other instruments.
可能有人不知道F-16的RWR是啥，或是不知道RWR顯示在哪裡吧？XD
提示：音效~
quote:
Originally posted by cwchang2100
quote:
Originally posted by MACOS8
The pilot's error kills.
In the other two NFZ event, the pilots were much smart. They may get in the the AIM-7's range, but soon made the 180 turn and ran away (possibly after firing R-40s)
I totally agree with you that the pilot must make some mistakes.
But this whole event may not be as simple as we see/read from the
existing information/data.
所以啊，隨便給個片段資訊就能得出飛行員操作錯誤導致被擊落的結論，真是太了不起了~空軍訓練完下來歸詢超過十分鐘的都是白癡XD |
| cwchang2100 |
Posted - 09/14/2014 : 16:03:07
quote:
Originally posted by MACOS8
Indeed, there are something has been removed from the video (e.g., after the fire clearance, it mutes for several seconds), but I think the overall process of the interception is all there. If MiG-25 tried to fire AAM to F-16, then this would be a very important evidence that can't be removed.
Well, what I will guess is this clip only shows a small part of a bigger battle.
This clip is too short to record a complete interception process.
quote:
The output power is just one of the parameters to penetrate ECM, but don't forget the distance were so close, that even if you can penetrate the protection, its now become to late to engage with F-16 in such the short distance.
Yes. You are right. The output power of the radar is not the only factor to be considered.
However, there is a small detail which shows some contradiction.
In the beginning, MiG-25s seem to be aware of the existence of F-16s
and be able to locate them.
How?! A reasonable explanation will be to use their own radars.
If these MiG-25s tried to attack the F-16s and the pilots found their radars
were not working, what would be their possible response?
Even an experienced pilot would be a little panic under this situation.
What I would do is try to fly away from the F-16s and prevent myself from
being tracked by the F-16s. Well, I may not be a good pilot :P
quote:
my personally opinion is that the MiG might try to engage at the beginning when it haeding to F-16, and found the radar could not work. (The other option is that MiG did not know F-16 was vectored to there when he turned, and then opps..) Then he tried to escape, but the distance and his azimuth is not optimized to ran away from F-16. That's the reason that we did not see any sign of radar illumination, or even lock from MiG-25.
We may need to pay a little bit attention on our terminology, before we continue
this discussion. I think what you mean "radar illumination" is actually
"fire control radar illumination". Anyway, it is not very important.
OK, let's move on...
Unless the MiG-25s kept radio silence during the entire process,
F-16s definitely would pick up some radar signal from MiG-25s.
As we know, ECM must work at the frequency range used by the enemy radars.
If there was no radar signature, ECM became unnecessary, even for their default
jamming frequency range.
IMHO, F-16s did get the radar signature.
Either these information are removed from the video clip or
they are shown on some other instruments.
quote:
The pilot's error kills.
In the other two NFZ event, the pilots were much smart. They may get in the the AIM-7's range, but soon made the 180 turn and ran away (possibly after firing R-40s)
I totally agree with you that the pilot must make some mistakes.
But this whole event may not be as simple as we see/read from the
existing information/data.
|
| 蒼天任行 |
Posted - 09/14/2014 : 15:02:55
quote:
Originally posted by 匿蹤鱸鰻
quote:
Originally posted by 蒼天任行
quote:
Originally posted by 匿蹤鱸鰻
其實可以燒幾秒並沒有你想像那麼機密, 像AIM-120與流星與AIM-54都有人PO過, 用心點找應該找得到, 至於平均速度用四馬赫算也是簡化, 真要講究, 高度不同極速應該也不同, 但運動能力如前所述又是另一回事.
真要講究模擬就是要算工程數學, 從一開始看到你們兩個在這裡出沒開始, 你們兩個的毛病就是活在那個簡化的世界裡, 熱切討論個半天還是脫離現實, 你若去看雷松公司在做模擬的系統程式原始碼, 其實就真的是在算工程數學...或是去看洛馬艦載機降落的過程模擬程式,也是在算工程數學,不是要擬真嗎? 很抱歉, 就是工程數學.
對考古戰例私以為最好放尊重點, 因為那是真實發生的情況, 不是簡化過的推演.
好，給我詳細資料，我來算工程數學...
quote:
Originally posted by 匿蹤鱸鰻
找得到的東西當然不一定是對的，但總有參考價值，例如維基，現在又不是進行學術論文攻防，如果對資料的設定要嚴謹到那程度，那也不用討論了，蒼天兄飛彈不考慮加速段用平均速度四馬赫作計算就卡住了
喂！哪有這樣一下子要人家算工數一下子又說不需要的啦~~~(滾滾滾
被你這麼一搞，我發現我自己都快變成數據魔人了...但實際上我從頭到尾只是想強調觀念啊~觀念！
BVR戰術操作、飛彈作用方式、場景與戰術的決定等等~觀念不正確，數據再多也是瞎子摸象；我當然尊重戰例，所以我不會在沒有完整資訊的情況下任意揣測當時飛行員的想法與戰術決策乃至於裝備性能，但是我在這邊看不到啥正確的觀念，只會用數據比1v1、2v2(真的會嗎？)的倒是一堆...
是啊, 就是觀念啊, 就是你們觀念跟現實脫節, 上面才一堆提醒要考慮甚麼因素不是?
你的問題是在推演的"模型"很多變數沒考慮到, 這需要數學, 而不是推演的"輸入", 輸入可以找網路上的參考資料, 可以找雷神看看願不願意提供測試數據(這不大容易), 可以自己設定, 你設定平均四馬赫飛彈速度我也沒啥意見不是?
那我想先請問一下你對現代空戰的觀念是如何？如果無法釐清你我之間的觀念差異，那確實只會不斷的繼續雞同鴨講下去...
請以假設的陸地上兩國相爭，一方為俄系空軍、另一方為美系空軍，詳述一下你的“空軍戰略與戰術觀念”為何？ |
|
|
