AAM targeting...

[Lynn in StLou]

Am I correct in saying that our aircraft do not have helmet
mounted sighting system ala the MiG-29? As I understand the
MiG system, if the pilot can see the enemy, he can launch
and be reasonably sure of a kill. AIUI, our system,
especially for I/R AAM, is more limited in off the nose
capability. Information appreciated....could not find what
I was looking for doing Google.

A discussion rages on a car board, of all things.

Thanks
--
Lynn in StLou
REMOVE anti-spam measure to reply

[Boomer]

I believe the Super Hornets are getting AIM-9X and the HMCS as we speak. I
HAVE seen pics of SH on deck with AIM-9Xs just dont know if that was still
in testing or not.

--



Curiosity killed the cat, and I'm gonna find out why!
"Lynn in StLou" > wrote in message
. ..
> Am I correct in saying that our aircraft do not have helmet
> mounted sighting system ala the MiG-29? As I understand the
> MiG system, if the pilot can see the enemy, he can launch
> and be reasonably sure of a kill. AIUI, our system,
> especially for I/R AAM, is more limited in off the nose
> capability. Information appreciated....could not find what
> I was looking for doing Google.
>
> A discussion rages on a car board, of all things.
>
> Thanks
> --
> Lynn in StLou
> REMOVE anti-spam measure to reply
>

[Ed Rasimus]

On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 18:56:02 GMT, Lynn in StLou
> wrote:

>Am I correct in saying that our aircraft do not have helmet
>mounted sighting system ala the MiG-29? As I understand the
>MiG system, if the pilot can see the enemy, he can launch
>and be reasonably sure of a kill. AIUI, our system,
>especially for I/R AAM, is more limited in off the nose
>capability. Information appreciated....could not find what
>I was looking for doing Google.

Actually, you ascribe too much capability to the helmet mounted sight
system. You might be surprised at how much a pilot can see and how far
a good one can twist around in the seat. I used to be able to see my
right wing-tip when twisted around to the left--IOW, all the way past
the vertical fin to the opposite side. There's no missile yet designed
that will make that kind of turn.

What you have is a helmet mounted cueing system which slaves the
missile seeker to where the pilot is looking, but only out to the
gimbal limits of the missiles field of view. So, now rather than
having to manuever your entire airplane to place the enemy aircraft
within the boresight, you turn your head and the missile follows to a
limited degree, left/right and up/down. It reduces the amount of
maneuvering required for target acquistion, but it's a long way from
your "if he can see the enemy, he can kill."


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Yofuri]

Check here and look for "VTAS". Those pilots sure did yell when we pounded
those nylon hardpoints into their skulls so their helmet would stay aligned
with their eyeballs!

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/f4_21.html

Rick

"Lynn in StLou" > wrote in message
. ..
> Am I correct in saying that our aircraft do not have helmet
> mounted sighting system ala the MiG-29? As I understand the
> MiG system, if the pilot can see the enemy, he can launch
> and be reasonably sure of a kill. AIUI, our system,
> especially for I/R AAM, is more limited in off the nose
> capability. Information appreciated....could not find what
> I was looking for doing Google.
>
> A discussion rages on a car board, of all things.
>
> Thanks
> --
> Lynn in StLou
> REMOVE anti-spam measure to reply
>

[Lynn in StLou]

Ed Rasimus wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 18:56:02 GMT, Lynn in StLou
> > wrote:
>
>
>>Am I correct in saying that our aircraft do not have helmet
>>mounted sighting system ala the MiG-29? As I understand the
>>MiG system, if the pilot can see the enemy, he can launch
>>and be reasonably sure of a kill. AIUI, our system,
>>especially for I/R AAM, is more limited in off the nose
>>capability. Information appreciated....could not find what
>>I was looking for doing Google.
>
>
> Actually, you ascribe too much capability to the helmet mounted sight
> system. You might be surprised at how much a pilot can see and how far
> a good one can twist around in the seat. I used to be able to see my
> right wing-tip when twisted around to the left--IOW, all the way past
> the vertical fin to the opposite side. There's no missile yet designed
> that will make that kind of turn.
>
> What you have is a helmet mounted cueing system which slaves the
> missile seeker to where the pilot is looking, but only out to the
> gimbal limits of the missiles field of view. So, now rather than
> having to manuever your entire airplane to place the enemy aircraft
> within the boresight, you turn your head and the missile follows to a
> limited degree, left/right and up/down. It reduces the amount of
> maneuvering required for target acquistion, but it's a long way from
> your "if he can see the enemy, he can kill."
>
>
> Ed Rasimus
> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
> "When Thunder Rolled"
> Smithsonian Institution Press
> ISBN #1-58834-103-8

Thanks...that kind of answers the question. So are Russian
helmet sights
and ours essentially the same? You are correct, I was
under the impression
that the Russian system allowed a launch with the target
behind the wing.

Read your book. Thanks for taking the time to reply.

--
Lynn in StLou
REMOVE anti-spam measure to reply

[John Carrier]

We had VTAS helmet systems in 1977 in the F-4. Needed to be calibrated
prior to flight. Heavy. All it had was an aiming reticle (circle and dot
IIRC) projected on the inside surface of the parabolic visor. The
sidewinder seeker head or the radar could be slaved to the aiming reticle
(as the sidewinder of the day had limited off-boresight capability, it
wouldn't dramatically improve the opportunities for a shot). With a radar
lock, you could move your head around and the reticle would indicate where
the target was.

It didn't have a lot of features that most aviators felt worth exploiting.
The extra couple pounds weren't pleasant at 6+ G. It was hard to maintain,
difficult to keep in cal, and generally fell into disfavor. The F-14 crews
in AIMEVAL used a variation of VTAS and found them very useful, particularly
when using the AGILE missile envelopes. Of course, the machines were
hand-massaged for the exercise ... difficult in the fleet environment.

With the introduction of mega-maneuverable aircraft (F-14, 15, 16, 18) and a
very capable all-aspect missile (AIM-L/M etc) the need for a helmet mounted
sight and off-boresight capability seemed less important and development of
the concept in the US stagnated. Meanwhile the Russians and Israeli's
pressed on with the development. The result was our superior turning
aircraft could be defeated by superior missiles with significant
off-boresight acquisition capability.

The F-18E/F and AIM-9X should correct this imbalance. I'm sure F-15/16 will
be retrofitted with comparable gear.

It's still a superior tactic to shoot 'em in the face and never reach a
merge. Particularly when your aircraft may be incapable of successfully
disengaging from the arena.

R / John

"Yofuri" > wrote in message
...
> Check here and look for "VTAS". Those pilots sure did yell when we
pounded
> those nylon hardpoints into their skulls so their helmet would stay
aligned
> with their eyeballs!
>
> http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/f4_21.html
>
> Rick
>
> "Lynn in StLou" > wrote in message
> . ..
> > Am I correct in saying that our aircraft do not have helmet
> > mounted sighting system ala the MiG-29? As I understand the
> > MiG system, if the pilot can see the enemy, he can launch
> > and be reasonably sure of a kill. AIUI, our system,
> > especially for I/R AAM, is more limited in off the nose
> > capability. Information appreciated....could not find what
> > I was looking for doing Google.
> >
> > A discussion rages on a car board, of all things.
> >
> > Thanks
> > --
> > Lynn in StLou
> > REMOVE anti-spam measure to reply
> >
>
>

[Guy Alcala]

Ed Rasimus wrote:

> On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 18:56:02 GMT, Lynn in StLou
> > wrote:
>
> >Am I correct in saying that our aircraft do not have helmet
> >mounted sighting system ala the MiG-29? As I understand the
> >MiG system, if the pilot can see the enemy, he can launch
> >and be reasonably sure of a kill. AIUI, our system,
> >especially for I/R AAM, is more limited in off the nose
> >capability. Information appreciated....could not find what
> >I was looking for doing Google.
>
> Actually, you ascribe too much capability to the helmet mounted sight
> system. You might be surprised at how much a pilot can see and how far
> a good one can twist around in the seat. I used to be able to see my
> right wing-tip when twisted around to the left--IOW, all the way past
> the vertical fin to the opposite side. There's no missile yet designed
> that will make that kind of turn.

<snip>

Yes there are, Ed, and several of them are in or entering service,
credited with over the shoulder launch capability. There used to be an
mpeg circulating around the web showing a P4 being fired (from an F-15),
which immediately makes a controlled half loop (guesstimating a radius of
a couple hundred feet) and heads off towards the rear of the a/c. In
addition to an HMS (or 360 degree sensors), the missile needs a
programmable autopilot that allows it to make it around the corner until
the seeker can acquire the target. High off-boresight missile seekers now
start at about 60 deg. AoB, going out to 90 degrees or potentially more
(one of the seeker competitors for the AIM-9X went out to 120 deg. AoB).

Guy

[Ed Rasimus]

On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 23:46:56 GMT, Guy Alcala
> wrote:

>Ed Rasimus wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 18:56:02 GMT, Lynn in StLou
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >Am I correct in saying that our aircraft do not have helmet
>> >mounted sighting system ala the MiG-29? As I understand the
>> >MiG system, if the pilot can see the enemy, he can launch
>> >and be reasonably sure of a kill. AIUI, our system,
>> >especially for I/R AAM, is more limited in off the nose
>> >capability. Information appreciated....could not find what
>> >I was looking for doing Google.
>>
>> Actually, you ascribe too much capability to the helmet mounted sight
>> system. You might be surprised at how much a pilot can see and how far
>> a good one can twist around in the seat. I used to be able to see my
>> right wing-tip when twisted around to the left--IOW, all the way past
>> the vertical fin to the opposite side. There's no missile yet designed
>> that will make that kind of turn.
>
><snip>
>
>Yes there are, Ed, and several of them are in or entering service,
>credited with over the shoulder launch capability. There used to be an
>mpeg circulating around the web showing a P4 being fired (from an F-15),
>which immediately makes a controlled half loop (guesstimating a radius of
>a couple hundred feet) and heads off towards the rear of the a/c. In
>addition to an HMS (or 360 degree sensors), the missile needs a
>programmable autopilot that allows it to make it around the corner until
>the seeker can acquire the target. High off-boresight missile seekers now
>start at about 60 deg. AoB, going out to 90 degrees or potentially more
>(one of the seeker competitors for the AIM-9X went out to 120 deg. AoB).
>
>Guy

You're adding a parameter here, the need to pre-program the missile.
That's a step beyond the initial proposition of "look-to-kill" linkage
between the helmet field of view and the missile's regard. I've always
been a bit cautious, nay even skeptical about marketing brochure
claims and operational capability.

The AGM-78 Standard ARM had the first generation program for launch
capability to strike targets behind the launch aircraft. I saw a lot
of them launched and have to confess, I never saw confirmation of a
SAM kill with the damn thing.

A lot has to happen in very short time and in a very dynamic scenario.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Guy Alcala]

Ed Rasimus wrote:

> On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 23:46:56 GMT, Guy Alcala
> > wrote:
>
> >Ed Rasimus wrote:

<snip>

> >> Actually, you ascribe too much capability to the helmet mounted sight
> >> system. You might be surprised at how much a pilot can see and how far
> >> a good one can twist around in the seat. I used to be able to see my
> >> right wing-tip when twisted around to the left--IOW, all the way past
> >> the vertical fin to the opposite side. There's no missile yet designed
> >> that will make that kind of turn.
> >
> ><snip>
> >
> >Yes there are, Ed, and several of them are in or entering service,
> >credited with over the shoulder launch capability. There used to be an
> >mpeg circulating around the web showing a P4 being fired (from an F-15),
> >which immediately makes a controlled half loop (guesstimating a radius of
> >a couple hundred feet) and heads off towards the rear of the a/c. In
> >addition to an HMS (or 360 degree sensors), the missile needs a
> >programmable autopilot that allows it to make it around the corner until
> >the seeker can acquire the target. High off-boresight missile seekers now
> >start at about 60 deg. AoB, going out to 90 degrees or potentially more
> >(one of the seeker competitors for the AIM-9X went out to 120 deg. AoB).
> >
> >Guy
>
> You're adding a parameter here, the need to pre-program the missile.
> That's a step beyond the initial proposition of "look-to-kill" linkage
> between the helmet field of view and the missile's regard. I've always
> been a bit cautious, nay even skeptical about marketing brochure
> claims and operational capability.

Me too, as should be apparent from recent discussions about the R.530. But
like the AIM-9L's head-on capability (no matter how rarely used in practice),
these capabilities do exist - here's an example of such a brochure, for the P5:

http://www.rafael.co.il/web/rafnew/news/news-120603.htm

and click on the brochure link. And it's not just the marketeers saying so,
but the service types as well ( of course, they've also been known to stretch a
point to get funding or keep their careers unblemished). The HMS 'look to
acquire' high off-boresight capability, and the substantial no escape zones of
4th and 5th generation (or perhaps gen. 4.5 would be more accurate) missiles,
is real. And it's not only the WVR missiles that are looking at adding such
360 degree targeting capability. From an article in the May 22nd, 2000 AvLeak,
pg. 28. I forget who's speaking, but IIRR it was an Air Force type, maybe the
program manager:

"'We are embarking on putting a high off-boresight capability into AMRAAM.'"

"Two Phase Program. Initially, only the missile software will be modified,
allowing AMRAAM to engage a target throughout the FOV of the fighter's radar,
including about 70 degrees off boresight. The current software limits the
missile to about 25 degrees off boresight. The enhancement should be available
next year .

"The second phase, still unfunded, would involve upgrading the fighter's
software and enable AMRAAM to engage targets behind the shooting a/c. Data on
the target would be provided by a second fighter through so-called 'third-party
cuing,' [through Link-16],. After launch, updates continue to be relayed
through back and sidelobes of the firer's radar. The upgrade follows the
ongoing improvement to the missile's warhead, fuse and motor."

The first phase seems to have been completed already, with the missile software
improvements to allow high off-boresight capability apparently incorporated
from the AIM-120C-5 (maybe the C-4) on; the C-7 is due to achieve IOC at any
time. I have no idea what the status of the second phase might be, although
given the amount of money being put into A/G ordnance right now I wouldn't be
surprised if phase two had been put on the back burner, especially with the
dearth of A/A combat.
[i]
> The AGM-78 Standard ARM had the first generation program for launch
> capability to strike targets behind the launch aircraft.

In the Standard's case, I've read Weasel anecdotes which suggest that making a
180 pretty much decreased the remaining energy to zero, the Standard not being
the most maneuverable missile on the planet. I've been given some info of the
kind of sustained maneuverability the P4 is capable of, and if you'd like I'll
be happy to share it with you. Suffice it to say (here), it's far better.

> I saw a lot
> of them launched and have to confess, I never saw confirmation of a
> SAM kill with the damn thing.
>
> A lot has to happen in very short time and in a very dynamic scenario.

Sure does. And computers just get faster, smaller and cheaper all the time.
We appear to be entering the era of missiles like the ones 007 had on his gyro
in "You Only Live Twice."

Guy

[José Herculano]

> Am I correct in saying that our aircraft do not have helmet
> mounted sighting system ala the MiG-29? As I understand the

No, you're not. The Boeing JHMCS is operational in some F/A-18E/F and F-15C
units, is part of the F/A-22 system, the future F-35 system, and will soon
be fully operational throughout the first two communities and start to be
used on some F-16s.

This system is a generation beyond the Russian system. Check the Boeing
website for details.
_____________
José Herculano

[Ed Rasimus]

On Sat, 20 Mar 2004 05:20:01 GMT, Guy Alcala
> wrote:

>Ed Rasimus wrote:
>>
>> You're adding a parameter here, the need to pre-program the missile.
>> That's a step beyond the initial proposition of "look-to-kill" linkage
>> between the helmet field of view and the missile's regard. I've always
>> been a bit cautious, nay even skeptical about marketing brochure
>> claims and operational capability.
>
> From an article in the May 22nd, 2000 AvLeak,
>pg. 28. I forget who's speaking, but IIRR it was an Air Force type, maybe the
>program manager:
>
>"'We are embarking on putting a high off-boresight capability into AMRAAM.'"

The keyword here, I think, is "embarking".
>
>"Two Phase Program. Initially, only the missile software will be modified,
>allowing AMRAAM to engage a target throughout the FOV of the fighter's radar,
>including about 70 degrees off boresight. The current software limits the
>missile to about 25 degrees off boresight. The enhancement should be available
>next year .

That pretty much describes the state-of-the-art I'm familiar with.
Going to 70 degrees off boresight is a lot of angular range, but it
still hasn't reached the wing line.
>
>"The second phase, still unfunded, would involve upgrading the fighter's
>software and enable AMRAAM to engage targets behind the shooting a/c. Data on
>the target would be provided by a second fighter through so-called 'third-party
>cuing,' [through Link-16],. After launch, updates continue to be relayed
>through back and sidelobes of the firer's radar. The upgrade follows the
>ongoing improvement to the missile's warhead, fuse and motor."

Here's where things begin to get interesting. First, the data fusion
aspect--integrating sensor info from multiple players to provide a
full 360 degree field of presentation. Conceptually it's been around
for 15 years or more (since my days with ATF at Northrop), but it is
elusive.

What is problematic is the ability to provide jam-proof links between
the players and the desire to keep emissions low in a stealthy
environment. Radar is the default primary sensor, but it really lights
up the emitter so while one side wants to keep increasing power and
scan limits, the other side wants to go LPI and use small, infrequent
low-power pinging for data which is then adjusted by trend sensing
software to keep the picture current. Compex to say the least.

Then, the "updates relayed through back and sidelobes of the firer's
radar" is a perfect example of the incompatibility of the two
competing concepts. Getting back and sidelobes powerful enough for
guidance is in direct conflict with minimizing or eliminating back and
sidelobes for stealth.
>[i]
>> The AGM-78 Standard ARM had the first generation program for launch
>> capability to strike targets behind the launch aircraft.
>
>In the Standard's case, I've read Weasel anecdotes which suggest that making a
>180 pretty much decreased the remaining energy to zero, the Standard not being
>the most maneuverable missile on the planet. I've been given some info of the
>kind of sustained maneuverability the P4 is capable of, and if you'd like I'll
>be happy to share it with you. Suffice it to say (here), it's far better.

The Standard usually didn't turn left or right, but took off and
turned upward. Then from high altitude it used the potential energy to
maintain manuever on the downward track to the target. That gave it
considerable range to the rear, but as I said, very little
confirmation of effectiveness other than the occasional signal kill at
an approximately correct elapsed time from launch.
>
>> A lot has to happen in very short time and in a very dynamic scenario.
>
>Sure does. And computers just get faster, smaller and cheaper all the time.
>We appear to be entering the era of missiles like the ones 007 had on his gyro
>in "You Only Live Twice."

Spot on. It is allowing amazing things to happen.



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Eric Moore]

"Boomer" > wrote in message >...
> I believe the Super Hornets are getting AIM-9X and the HMCS as we speak. I
> HAVE seen pics of SH on deck with AIM-9Xs just dont know if that was still
> in testing or not.
>
> --


Go to:

http://www.raytheon.com/products/aim9_x/

and click the "play video" link on the right side on the page to see
a video of what AIM-9X can do.