Jump to content

Blaze1

Members
  • Content Count

    397
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Blaze1

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

4316 profile views
  1. Hi Talon Karde I'd have to disagree with the bolded part of your statement. While specific ECM techniques and the performance of said techniques when a applied to individual platforms is classified, there is plenty of information available about how "classic" ECM works.
  2. The F-14 equivalent to the AFTTP is probably the tactical manual/s and while the F-14 did get NATIP manuals very late, I think it was a little too late for the Air NTTP (ANTTP) which is the navy/marine equivalent to the AFTTP. Regarding the TACMAN, it's possible that even the earliest versions (with AIM-54C technical data) are still classified. An FOIA request could be useful though, but it's likely Heatblur may have already tried or need a reference.
  3. My understanding is that the difference between the SWIP and SWIP Block I aircraft, was that the former had the original metal wings, whereas the latter had composite wings. The SWIP Block IA was fitted with updated navigations systems and a new HUD, but it never entered service.
  4. I see. If the issue was just about discovering (from official sources) whether the AIM-54C used command inertial guidance, then that's easy, the info is out there. If finding out unequivocally whether the AWG-9 triggers the Phoenix's active radar, whether the missile does this autonomously or whether either could be the case depending on circumstance, is the unknown.
  5. I think Naquaii said it was a no-go from the SMEs, otherwise I assume they'd have implemented it. Also what type of official documentation are we talking about and in what detail. If for example a NAVAIR website mentions the -54C using command inertial guidance in some brief description of the weapon, would that be acceptable or are Heatblur looking for detailed technical reports specifically?
  6. I guess that's fair enough Naquaii. I do understand your position. Just to be clear, are you saying that you have no evidence of the -54C using command-inertial guidance or that you know it does, but don't really know what that means, that's to say, although it sounds the same, the basic guidance method could be very different from the AIM-120s?
  7. I completely understand yours/Heatblur's reluctance to simulate the -54C without hard data, however you could look at it both ways. Considering you have no hard data, creating a -54C with slightly better chaff resistance, may be just as inaccurate as modelling a -54C based on the -120s guidance methodology. So in a manner of speaking, this gives you a some freedom.
  8. The user manuals are technical manuals and can describe functions and systems useful to an adversary, e.g operating frequencies, ECCM methods, sensitivity, fusing characteristics, seeker FoV etc.
  9. No problem Grater, thanks for the link. I thought it would be a government entity, but the NAVAIR numbers could still be useful.
  10. I watch that documentary a week or two ago and I don't remember that part. I'll have to check it again.
  11. Where did you find that little gem Iron_physik?
  12. Grater, if you can post the name and location of the documents, that could help with an FOIA request.
  13. ED are currently going with the 4 HARM loadout because it's stated in the -1-2 manual, which is also relevant in terms of its date, so their reasoning is completely understandable. I'm of the opinion that HARMs are only authorized (for launch) on stations 3 & 7, but this is only based of comments from individuals here, that appear have worked around the jets and or have done solid research on the matter, as well as information from an old foreign -34 that may not even be applicable here. I'm sure in time, even if material evidence isn't available, if there are enough SMEs to confirm HARM
×
×
  • Create New...