And you sound arrogant while reluctant in accepting facts.
From a radar engineer perspective-[]bPainting on radar screen is illuminating the target or getting a clear view of what the target is or bound to do.[/b] But not painting some yellow/red paint on the MFD.Also mind you,different people from different regions use different slangs,but principals/logics wont differ.
Get this straight...You are confused...!!! You may not believe this but it irrelevant what you believe: A radar scope, meaning a display, is
NOT a necessity and
NEVER has been. It is only for human consumption of information that we include display, aka 'video integration', capability into the things that we invent. If a missile has an active radar guidance system, there is no scope inside the seeker assembly. Various aspects of target information such as altitude and speed, ground or air, are represented as voltage values, digital or analog. Video integration and display of these values ranges from simple 2D graphs like the WW II era Chain Home radar system to highly sophisticated symbolized HUDs. But none are absolutely essential to basic radar detection. So when people like you carelessly uses slang words like 'painting' to explain a complex topic, one that by now we can see you know zilch about, you are misleading those who are genuinely interested but willing to admit their ignorance.
You call yourself a mil professional without knowing what a passive seeker can do.I accept that my english is not highly professional,but not subjects which I reveived a masters degree for.
I do. More than you pretend to know. Much more.
There is strictly no need for me to go search after a psuedo malicious manupulating poster. Again these are not acrymonyms used to phrase a sentence,but used to describe what you are doing for the last couple of days.
You should do the wise thing and do search. Regardless of what you may opine about my personality, so far for all those who have learned some basic facts about the complex topic of radar detection from me, your refusal to take my advice and leave this topic make you look idiotic in their eyes. What I presented in the past was informational, not instructional. For the latter, a person would have to dedicate a good part of his life to learn it. But if all the person seek is information, especially clarifying facts regarding
MANY of the fantastic claims abounds in forums like this one, then what I presented in the past will suffice.
You absolutely looked pissed when going after my slangs instead of going against the actual essence of the post/theory in general.I certainly dont think this should be the way a so called knowledgeable person with hands on experience on all sorts of mil hardware from infantry systems to naval combat management systems reply.Either you are exaggerating or pretending to be.
That is a laugh. Assumptions like that can only make you look like the first three letters of the word 'assumption'. And if you had taken my advice you would have known about the 'actual essence of the post/theory in general' because that is what I usually starts with.
In a head-on interception, all that is needed is the closing speed, which is the combined speed of both vehicles, to either destroy the targeted missile or throw it off course via aerodynamic instability.
That only works when a target has almost "0" manueverability and is dumb following a predecribed trajectory aka early BMs with basic RV or some other artillery shells inviting an interceptor.
But sadly your mate DBC often brings your posts as reference was hell bent on bringing down a brahmos with a stinger.
When the approaching missile is finally fixated on a specific target for impact, its terminal flight phase is absolutely non-maneuverable. This is applicable from free falling but GPS-guided bombs to ballistic to cruise missiles. The reason why this non-maneuverable flight phase is necessary is because the aircraft, and yes a missile or a free falling bomb is very much an aircraft, is dependent upon aerodynamic manipulations to keep itself stabilized. The mechanisms for those manipulations are fins, fixed or movable, or through reaction jets. The response speed and rate of those methods directly correspond to the duration of the terminal flight phase. The better the flight control system, the more maneuverable the aircraft and therefore if the subject is a missile, the greater the difficulty for the defense to make an effective interception. Difficulty, not impossibility. I have worked on both sides of this table in the field, from providing feedbacks to flight controls system (FLCS) engineers based upon my ability to respond to their threat missile, to how to shorten this terminal flight phase in order to provide my threat missile with the greatest possible odds of impact success against the defender, in other words, I also worked on the 'threat' side.
So is it possible for a Stinger-type missile to make a head-on interception, kinetic or proximity explosive kill, against another missile? Abso-fvcking-lutely, young man, because what I said about FLCS capability applies both sides of the table. Here is what my American compat originally said...
http://www.defence.pk/forums/783777-post13.html
It does not take a genius to figure that at nearly three times the speed of sound skin IR emissions contribute significantly to the IR signature of the missile in the MWIR(Mid-wavelength infrared) band. In this phase the Brahmos is a magnet for every heat seeking missile in your enemys arsenal this includes manpad and stingers. Modern heat seeking missiles are capable of "full-aspect engagements" the seeker is sensitive enough to acquire the target from any position and not just the hot exhaust.
What she said should not be taken litterally as 'the Stinger' weapon itself but 'heat seeker Stinger-type' missile. What she spoke of was not only about FLCS but about the combinant of sensor senstivity
AND flight controls response. Passive sensor sensitivity is independent of FLCS response capability and usually outpaces the missile's FLCS capability simply because the FLCS contains far greater mechanical subsystems and they are subjected to a different set of physical laws, such as materials and friction between different materials inside a fin actuator. The analogy here is that a person's eyes, passive sensors, have greater sensitivity and reaction to movements, like a thrown ball, within their field-of-views than his hands can move to catch said ball. That is why we humans must have constand practice in coordination between the two systems. The better ones among us become highly paid professional athletes. Likewise, the better integration produces superior weapons and we have gross disparities between weapons systems among the world's militaries. Sensor and FLCS capabilities and their integration determine the type of guidance laws...For example...
Modern Missile Guidance
Guidance laws design is considered as design of controls. The design procedure is presented in the time-domain and in the frequency-domain. The different approaches, in the time and frequency domain, generate different guidance laws that supplement each other. The proportional navigation is considered also as a control problem. A class of guidance laws is obtained based on Lyapunov approach. It is shown that this class of guidance laws improves the effectiveness of the proportional navigation law for maneuvering and nonmaneuvering targets. The analytical expressions of the guidance law are given for the generalized planar and three-dimensional engagement models for missiles with and without axial controlled acceleration. The negative effect of a computational delay in optical seekers on missile performance and an approach to improve it are considered. The problem of the integrated design of guidance and control laws is discussed.
Proportional navigation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Proportional navigation (PN) (Pro-Nav) is a guidance law used in some form or another by most homing air target missiles. It is based on the fact that two vehicles are on a collision course when their direct Line-of-Sight does not change direction. PN dictates that the missile velocity vector should rotate at a rate proportional to the rotation rate of the line of sight (Line-Of-Sight rate or LOS-rate), and in the same direction.
Note the highlighted in the above sources. Such issues are not part of any press releases nor is how the designers have to make compromises between competing demands and limitations that resulted in those gross disparities.
Your problem in this discussion so far is your refusal to admit that you are ignorant about the many other topics that have less attention in popular media news releases but are absolutely essential to the operation of a particular piece of machinery. The result is that you and people like you are nearly obsessed with acronyms and slangs and have no reservations on throwing them up.
along with falling down airframe di-electric pannels
