no escape zone

[MICA]

The No-Escape Zone is the zone within which there is a high (defined) kill probability against a target even if it has been alerted. This zone is defined as a conical shape with the tip at the missile launch. The cone's length and width are determined by the missile and seeker performance. A missile's speed, range and seeker sensitivity will mostly determine the length of this imaginary cone, while its agility (turn rate) and seeker complexity (speed of detection and ability to detect off axis targets) will determine the width of the cone.

nowadays the enhanced performance of next-generation beyond visual range air-to-air missiles (BVRAAMs) in particular will significantly expand the 'no-escape zone' and increase the range over which air-to-air engagements in future can be fought, enabling pilots to exploit the capabilities of their new aircraft to the full.

The Eurofighter Typhoon, for instance, is ultimately destined to have the Meteor - a state-of-the-art BVRAAM from European manufacturer MBDA - as its principal air-to-air weapon system. Said to offer world-beating air superiority, Meteor is a fast and agile missile, with what is claimed to be the largest 'no-escape zone' of any air-to-air weapon. Equipped with both proximity and impact fuses, it can engage targets ranging from fast-jets to UAVs or cruise missiles, autonomously in all weathers, during day or night, in full electronic countermeasure environments. It also highlights two other key developments in AAM design - improved kinematic performance and a high degree of network-centric readiness.

Guidance Integrated Fuzing (GIF) will provide improved target detection information to support advanced warhead concepts. Hybrid AeroFin / Reaction Jet Control (RJC) technology will improve missile airframe agility, allowing rear hemisphere intercepts, and increasing the adversary's "no escape zone." Advanced Propulsion technology will focus on improved energy management, increasing missile range for both air and ground engagements.

The integration of the Advanced Propulsion and Guidance and Control System technologies will expand the missile's operational envelope, enabling full-spherical, minimum-time intercept capability against extremely agile air targets both within and beyond visual range. These combined technologies will provide the warfighter with the capability to rapidly destroy or neutralize air targets and ground-based air defenses at greater distances from the launch aircraft, enhancing survival and mission effectiveness.

Some of the Claimed NEZ of air to air missiles :

◘ R77 = 20 km.
◘ AIM-120C7 = 30 km.
◘ AIM-120D = 45 km.
◘ MICA = 40 ~ 50 km.
◘ Meteor = 75 km (MBDA claiming it's NEZ 3 times bigger than the AIM-120B)
◘ Derby = 40 km.
◘ PL-12 = 40 km.
◘ R-27EA = 35 km.

however this is some of the claimed Actual ranges of the following missiles

the end of this thread briefly, even there is claimed nez of air to air missiles but on real life some of the pilots managed to escape and dump these missiles in it's nez , by extreme maneuvers or by extensive jamming and still most of the kills recorded by the BVR missiles was actually in the WVR zone

 

[MICA]

@Taygibay @Frogman @Horus @Gabriel92 @Saif al-Arab i would like to hear from you

 

[Mitro]

Chart is so funny
Indian missile even Indian don't know their range 80-110 omg and is not operational
And when Chinese SD10A is operation but nothing mention nada

 

[MICA]

Chart is so funny
Indian missile even Indian don't know their range 80-110 omg and is not operational
And when Chinese SD10A is operation but nothing mention nada

i don't get it ?

 

[Mitro]

Where is Chinese BVR missile sd10A info

i don't get it ?

 

[MICA]

i didn't mention all the missiles info , why you are asking about this specific missile anyway , i can put some info about it later from the few available in the internet

 

[Taygibay]

Zooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooom . . . . . . . .

 

[gambit]

Try this...

F-16 Block 52 vs Mirage 2000-5 Mk2 | Page 5

 

[MICA]

Try this...

F-16 Block 52 vs Mirage 2000-5 Mk2 | Page 5

2- The assumption is that as long as the sensor continues to provide the missile with credible target discrimination

the "sensor" here you mean the missile seeker or the plane radar providing info link to the missile ?

 

[gambit]

2- The assumption is that as long as the sensor continues to provide the missile with credible target discrimination

the "sensor" here you mean the missile seeker or the plane radar providing info link to the missile ?

Either or both. The best is both since the missile can use the parent's radar source to correlate against its own, making more secure its NEZ.

 

[MICA]

correct me if i am wrong but isn't the bvr missiles and the aim-120 for example at certain range it starts to be guided by the missile seeker alone to be "fire and forget" ?

 

[gambit]

correct me if i am wrong but isn't the bvr missiles and the aim-120 for example at certain range it starts to be guided by the missile seeker alone to be "fire and forget" ?

You are correct. But the calculus is that if the parent launch persists in supporting the missile, then the parent aircraft is at risk for attacks. Hence, the development of 'fire and forget' technology. Nevertheless, it does not take away from the technical reality that the missile have a smaller radar sensor, which means a smaller radar view, and if the target somehow managed to exit that view, the missile loses the engagement.

 

[Taygibay]

I'll first assume ( fingers crossed ) that people reading me will have read gambit's
valid primer given above or something similar from the outside.

Then I'll use a missile I know a little more about and is French, for me fair to critic.
Values are taken from MICA's tables.

Range of the MICA is 60km.
That would the distance it can reach with any chance of reaching its target efficiently.
Outside max range starts the Universe-shaped zone where probabilities become so
low ( no more fuel or not enough for maneuverability and eventual fall to the ground )
that it can be averaged as zero, the EAZ if you will. [ Escape All Zone ].

It is a cone of sorts but a try-dimensionally evolving one. If your missile performed a
high off-boresight maneuver upon separating form the aircraft for example, it has con-
sumed an important amount of its potential energy for directional changes compared
to one fired straight out. That makes the remaining range and NEZ figures smaller.
It also means that the trajectory of the missile won't fit itself into a cone figure which
is hence only proper anew from the moment it has acquired straight line of detection
to its target. In short, the cone thing is a mathematical representation akin to a table
in excel and not representative of real 3-D performance in action.

There is a space volume below the range max but above the NEZ comprising mean
possibilities of declining values towards max range. In that volume, the target's own
evasive maneuvers can wrestle out enough energy from the missile to empty it out.

NEZ of MICA is of 40 - 50 km.
I like that there is a range, since has just said, the profile of flight of the missile since
leaving its carrying vector varies and influences the values of fuel fraction and so on
but it makes little sense. The higher figure is simple enough. It is the maximal one :
missile fired straight, target moving straight, speed of missile higher than that of target.
Actions of the target are supposed minimal too with very late detection of incoming.

If two MICAs leave a Rafale at the same time towards equidistant targets on identical
angles left and right of the AC and one target detects the missile launch and starts
evasive maneuvers while the other only spots the MICA once within visual range of
its pilot, the former immediately begins using up fuel ( /energy ) in higher quantity shor-
tening its NEZ in pure distance. It could have a 40km NEZ already with the latter's
staying at a nominal 50.
The reason why I say it makes more or less sense is two fold. The MICA also has its
own lower limit : 500m! That's the bubble around its departure point where it can out-
maneuver a target. Obviously range does not come into play, only agility. That lower
limit is not a true range nor a true NEZ limit. But somewhere around it, say 1 or 2 km,
should be the real NEZ floor up to 40-50 km. It would make no sense that the missile
which can down its target at that distance could not do so at a shorter one.
So yes to a NEZ being given as a range but then a much wider one.

This is the physical part of a NEZ but the second reason to doubt a value like 40-50km
is that it depends on the values of the maker and user. Do they use 100% really or 98%
over characteristics measured to what level of precision and so on. If the performance
does not fit expectations for whatever reason, the escape zone is not at 100% anymore.
In reverse, if measurements were tight but expectations relaxed, a missile's NEZ may be
understated for it has been assessed below its actual capacities.
Amongst that line of evaluations, one is particularly important : pre-defined performance
parameters of the theoretical target! Against which simulated aircraft was your NEZ
tested? All? Or a few or one because that skews results a lot. What defensive systems
were they allowed to use in your simulation? Etc.

And to those variables so far offered in terms and measurements, one should add things
like sensors sensitivity. Suppose an old design with simpler sensors, from afar it will walk
a straighter line than a more sensitive one as long as within maneuverability possibilities.
One could see cases where that sensitivity and reactivity while heightening possible kill &
decrease NEZ distance wise. That target's survivability decreases nonetheless.

Considering all of the above, people on Internet then move on to select what they find more
convenient ending in many numbers being bandied around. Assumptions based on unknown
initial margins in unpublished testings conditions. When a report surfaces, all its elements
having been declassified, you can safely assume one thing :
that the values for current capacities are higher than those reported.

NEZ values are useful if you formed your opinion after research on quoted numbers and cross-
checking of official documents and then only as an approximation of what is to be expected
from that Missile's performance :
100% of kills if all goes well … out of how many chances of that happening?

Good day K my friend and all, Tay.

 

[MICA]

well this article transferred to air to air pure science

i need to read this several times to understand all of it , but from what i read till now nez is still not 100% proven till this day

 

[Taygibay]

Exactly!

Tay.