Air Force Question Thread

[shehbazi2001]

---

---

I have heard of kills using the sidewinder on the sabres and starfighters.



I guess it was the infrared version.
the radar version came out in 1979. Only the BVR version is radar guided, ie the super 530F and 530D. the only IR version is the R-530.

R-530 entered service with French Air Force in 1963 and it had two interchangeable seekers IR and semi-active radar guided.

It was the Super 530F which came out in 1979 with Super 530D coming in 1988.

R530 series has THREE distinct missiles....

First R530 in two versions IR and Radar guided

Second Super 530F (semi-active radar)

Third Super 530D (semi-active radar)

There were two seekers for the first R-530, one IR called AD3501 and other AD26 semi-active radar.

R.530/Super 530F/Super 530D - Archived 12/2003

[CanadianPad]

The four aircraft that came in are of what version?... block 52 ???

[Muradk]

I have heard of kills using the sidewinder on the sabres and starfighters.



I guess it was the infrared version.
the radar version came out in 1979. Only the BVR version is radar guided, ie the super 530F and 530D. the only IR version is the R-530.

I will answer couple of question over here instead looking for members and answer them.



First

In 1971 we did use Sidewinders but they were not IR , The Sidewinders we used at that time a 12 year old can make those, it had a total of 3 degree of angle which comes out to be 1.5gs, so if you fired it at the enemy and he did a hard turn or jinks the Missile would miss the target.
The sidewinders we had used to tract elector-Magnatic , how it work we will use a Graph, when a missile is fire the missile on the graph keeps going up if it misses the target the graph drops down and it exploded.

Second

IAF has BVR and PAF does not so is PAF in trouble ? NO

BVR Beyond Visual Range fire and forget, A fighter fires its missile from a 100 miles away for example. It is locked on to one target only. It fired on a F7PG now we have the tech to tell if the plane is being painted / targeted, Now he had a lot of option the simplest is Flares which are 3 times hotter than the engine he fires 10 flares the BVR suddenly has 11 targets and them we have Jamming pods as well by the time the missile is close to the fighter it will be so pissed off and confused it might just go back and hit its own operator and will miss its target but before it does than the warhead will explode because it will know it missed the target and wants to take out what ever it can. So there is a 50 50 chance it will hit. Yes if the pilot is unaware than yes he is history but he will still know have time to Eject because when the missile enters his range the plane if start cursing at the pilot to do something.

Anti-aircraft ('Surface to Air' or SAM) missiles come in many different shapes and sizes. However, they are most likely to use small sized portable SAMs, known in the trade as 'Manpads' (MAn Portable Air Defense Systems).
These portable Manpads have a very small rocket in a launching tube. The user simply aims the rocket at the target and then pulls the launching trigger (they are very simple to operate). The rocket has a heat seeking nose that senses the heat from the target, which steers itself to the target. When the rocket physically hits the target, its explosive charge is detonated.
Because the missile flies directly into the hottest thing that it can see in the sky, it will typically lock onto engine exhausts - these are the hottest parts of most planes. For this reason, most missiles have to be fired from behind the plane, to make it easier for the missile to 'see' the exhaust coming out of the jet (or propeller) engines.
The US Stinger missile and the Soviet style SA-7 SAMs are the best known varieties of these Manpads. They typically have a range of 3 - 5 miles, and can attack targets up to about a maximum height of 10,000-12,000 ft.
It can take a soldier as few as five seconds to ready a Stinger, aim it, and fire it. One guy could fire five rockets in a single minute. And it typically takes only 15 seconds for the missile to reach its target - it all happens incredibly quickly, with very little time for any defensive measures.
The missiles don't have an infinite life. Their batteries eventually fail, but they are definitely reliable for at least five years, and potentially for ten years or longer.


How Likely is it that a Missile would Hit an Undefended Plane

Assuming that the plane has no countermeasures (see below) then the probability of it being hit by a missile is anything up to about 90% in a 'perfect' scenario.

If the missile is in poor condition, and if it is not correctly sighted and fired, or if the plane isn't in a good position relative to the missile launch, then of course this probability greatly reduces, and it seems that typical 'success' rates for missiles being fired in real world conditions against undefended planes are in the 50% range. In addition is another unknown - the number of times that would-be attackers don't launch missiles due to being unable to get a good firing solution.

How the Israeli 757-300 Avoided Two Missiles

This is an intriguing mystery. Officially, the Israeli plane was not carrying any countermeasures, but somehow two missiles both missed the plane. There are several possible explanations - maybe the missiles were old and faulty, and maybe they were incorrectly fired.
Some insiders guess this plane did indeed have countermeasures. It is generally believed that all El Al planes have missile countermeasures. This was a charter plane, not an El Al plane, but it may also have been the charter plane that the Israeli Prime Minister had been using just several weeks earlier - and you just absolutely know, for sure, that anything the Israeli Prime Minister flies on would have lots of protection.
There have also been some puzzling descriptions about noises coming from the rear of the plane while the missiles were approaching. That suggests, to me, the sound of flare dispensers firing out their flares. And so, although the Israelis officially deny this, it is likely the plane was equipped with counter measures, and the counter measures were probably the main factor enabling the plane to escape from the two missiles. Defenseless planes are unlikely to be as lucky.

What Damage Would Occur

Strangely, a civilian airplane is much harder to destroy than a military jet. A heat seeking missile is probably going to hit and explode either right inside an engine or else very close to it.In the case of a military jet, its engines are tightly integrated inside the main fuselage of the plane, and an explosion in an engine will probably damage a lot more than the engine alone. But a regular passenger plane has engines suspended on pylons from the wings. An explosion inside one of those engines may cause less damage. Sure, the engine will probably be destroyed, but all jets can safely fly on one less engine.The unknown is whether the explosion will then cause pieces of metal to fly into the wing and possibly damage hydraulic lines, control surfaces, or fuel tanks, and what the implications of this additional damage might be.
Manpads don't have very large warheads. Typically they have perhaps 2-4 pounds of high explosive. This is enough to destroy an engine or to cause localised damage to part of a wing, but it may not be enough to cause the wing to fall off, and it may or may not cause critical damage that prevents the plane from limping back to an airport.Of the five Boeing 727s and 737s hit by Manpads, three were destroyed (and remember that the 727 is more vulnerable than the 737 due to having its engines close to the fuselage).











How to Defend Against SAMs

There are five main types of countermeasures against an IR SAM attack. The first is evasive maneuvering of the plane to avoid the missile. However, that is close to impossible for a passenger plane in the few minutes immediately after take-off or before landing.The second is to release small flares - little matchbox sized objects that burn very intensely and hotly for a short while. In theory the missile sees the flare and ignores the airplane. A potential problem is that flares, if ejected at low altitude, may land on the ground (or on people or cars or buildings) while still burning, causing damage and potentially starting fires.The third is to use an IR 'jammer' - devices on the plane that send out special IR radiation that confuses the missile and causes it to fly off course. The fourth is a new capability of using a high power laser to burn out the seeker head on the missile so that it is 'blinded' and flies harmlessly off course. I don't know much about this, but it seems to me that a laser powerful enough to burn out the seeker head could burn out a lot of other things, too, that came in its path.A fifth possibility is to have military fighters escorting all passenger planes in and out of the highest risk areas around airports. Although this has been suggested, the costs of this would be exorbitant, air traffic control issues would be a nightmare, and it is not a practical solution. Worst of all, the mere presence of a fighter plane doesn't mean that it will be able to defend a civilian airliner against missile attack. What would it do? Sacrifice itself? Try and shoot the missile down?
Even the most sophisticated combination of defensive strategies are unlikely to provide 100% protection against the latest generation of SAMs. For example, the Russian SA-18 Igla missile has a dual band IR seeker to prevent it being confused by flares or IR jammers. There are thousands of SA-18s in military inventories around the world. But again we do have the capabilities to counter them , I can't and will not got into details.

IMRAN : Beta your question how can a bird damage a plane

Simple if you throw a rock at a standing cars windshild it might not break the glass but if the car is moving at 25 MPH and you throw the rock it will break the glass. There are different force working on the wind shield.
First the weight of your rock the speed of your rock the weight of the car and the speed of the car if you combine all of these factors and then think of a fighter flying at between 120mph to mach 2.5 what will happen to the plane if is object hits it will only 2 or 3 mile per hour. KABOOM

[asaad-ul-islam]

The BVR scenario I think has been quite abused lately. Just because you get a lock-on doesn't mean at all you have a kill. besides even the AIM-120C has a wide failure rate.

PAF has been training in anti-BVR tactics anyway for twenty years. we know how to use BVR weapons very well thanks to some friendly countries. and as Blain mentioned before, the PAF, only on paper, does not have BVR.

[IceCold]

The four aircraft that came in are of what version?... block 52 ???

No not block 52. Block 52 is yet to come i think by 2009. These are the jets for which Pakistan payed in the 90s but did not get them due to sanctions. Now they have been realized and with MLU.

[WebMaster]

Sir what are the height ceilings of the MANPADs Anza I, II, and III?

[fatman17]

The four aircraft that came in are of what version?... block 52 ???

Blk-15 OCU

[fatman17]

Sir what are the height ceilings of the MANPADs Anza I, II, and III?

upto 2-2.5 miles.

[shehbazi2001]

Mountain or Ridge Crossing at Low Level

While playing a simulation, I came across an interesting method to cross a ridge or mountain while maintaining the low-level profile.

If we stick close to the ground (remain low) on one side of the mountain/hill/ridge, the aircraft shall go to unacceptable high altitude on the other side of the hill.

If we want to remain low on the other side of the hill, we shall have to fly a bit high at start and expose ourselves......

So what can be a solution to remain at low-level all the time while crossing a hill????? (I know it already, its just for discussion)

ok lets do it..........the question is clear.....Normally the choice is to fly between the mountains ie in valleys or ravines and avoid climbing over the mountains.....but if for some reason one has to cross a mountain while maintaining a low-level profile......then its not possible to do so while maintaining a straight level flight.......

The best and quickest way to go down from height is to roll the wings inverted and pull back on the stick instead of just pushing the stick forward......this is perhaps due to the fact that an aircraft can pull more positive gs as compared to negative gs. (typically +9g and -3g)

The same fact is used for crossing a ridge/hill.........stay low over the ground, go a bit high as u climb up the hill........once on the top......roll inverted and pull back on the stick to nose down and then roll straight and go back to low level.

The trick was to become inverted at the top of the hill so that one can quickly go down.........with aircraft straight, trying to go down will be difficult.....and height shall increase dangerously.........

[Muradk]

Try doing that with a delta wing, with the same speed.

[blain2]

No not block 52. Block 52 is yet to come i think by 2009. These are the jets for which Pakistan payed in the 90s but did not get them due to sanctions. Now they have been realized and with MLU.

These are not MLU'd Vipers. For MLU, they will go back to the US. They are actually refurbished and have some other minor mods to the structure and systems but do not have the MLU capability as of yet.

[Muradk]

These are the same block we already have. There is nothing new about them they were used extensively in Red Flags.

[Interceptor]

Waste of money, F16 have been a pain in the rear end since the day Pakistan bought them, when sanctions come the jets get in all sorts of mechanical difficulties, with over priced parts and labour the F16 has been a hustle to maintain, we have very little knowledge on how to reproduce any of its parts, it would have been wiser to move towards French jets with complete ToT or Chinese Jets with complete ToT.

I think its 3 or 4 F16 that have been grounded due to mechanical failure they are now used as spares.

[WebMaster]

Interceptor,

Mirage-2000 was to replace the F-16. Ask Zardari he should know about it.

[muse]

---

---

"Waste of money, F16 have been a pain in the rear end since the day Pakistan bought them"


Get used to it - anything Pakistan may purchase or get from US is always going to be a pain in the rear end - it's not because the equipment is not anything but excellent, rather it's because the kind of relationship US has and in the forseeable future, will continue to have with Pakistan - it's shocking to me how few see what the US has planned for Pakistan - all to be delivered b the so called "democratic" government and her so called politicians.

Pakistan's orientation, it's one true ally, is to be shown harm - isolating Pakistan from her true ally, so Pakistani politicians can collect crumbs from the table of the "civilized world" - How long will the guardians of Pakistan sit and watch this without acting??