Print Page | Close Window

Missile Guidance

Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: General History
Forum Name: Modern Warfare
Forum Discription: Military history and miltary science from the ''Cold War'' era onward.
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=11278
Printed Date: 20-Jan-2022 at 21:21
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Missile Guidance
Posted By: Genghis
Subject: Missile Guidance
Date Posted: 27-Apr-2006 at 21:25

I was just reading a very cool book called The Fundamentals of Aircraft Combat and Survivability Analysis and Design from my university library.  Apparently there are four main ways of directing a missile on a collision course with a target aircraft.

1. Pursuit - The missile tries to turn and point itself at the target for the duration of it's flight.  This usually ends up putting the missile behind the aircraft.  There are some big problems with this system.  First, the missile must execute extremely hard turns in the terminal phase of it's flight when it might be just meters away from the target aircraft.  Second, it must be considerably faster than the target aircraft if it is chasing the aircraft.  This usually occurs when the missile is cruising and has neither great speed, and little ability to turn.

2. Lead Angle Computation - The missile computes what angle between it's line-of-sight and the aircraft is needed to collide with the aircraft, and for maneuvering targets, this angle is computed and adjusted as fast as possible.

3. Three Point Guidance - The missile's course and maneuvers are based on trying to force it to rest on the line between the target and the launch aircraft.  This is computed on board the launch aircraft and relayed by wire or radio.  Beam-riding missiles work this way, to the best of my knowledge.

4. Proportional navigation - Based on the fact that if two moving objects maintain a constant line-of-sight angle between them, they are on a collision course.  Essentially the missile tries to keep a constant angle between it's longitudinal axis and the line between itself and the target.  This is the most common system.



-------------
Member of IAEA



Replies:
Posted By: Genghis
Date Posted: 29-Apr-2006 at 22:00
I take it no one finds missile guidance as interesting as I do? 

-------------
Member of IAEA


Posted By: babyblue
Date Posted: 30-Apr-2006 at 03:42
i find the missiles itself more interesting...from the V-1s and V-2s that i'm now building in Hearts of Irons 2 for use against the poms...to the scuds the iraqi's throw at israel, which wasn't much more accurate than the primative V-2s...

-------------


Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 30-Apr-2006 at 09:45
i find it interesting genghis, but i dont know enough to actaully add to it.

 but thanks for the post.


Posted By: Erdene
Date Posted: 30-Apr-2006 at 11:15
I've seen Behind Enemy Lines....I think that was the name of the film...anywho....when the bad guys fired a Russian made SAM at the F-15(????) as the missile got closer it fired from the tip first, seemd like a cannon in the tip of the missile....the shot damaged the tail section of the fighter...the missile then blew up the jet.  I can't remember but it was something like that.....so I am just wondering whether these SAMs have 1 or 2 or 3 or even 4 cannon shots in tip of the missile which fires first when the target is in range just to damage it or slow it the target first......Am I making sense???? 

-------------


Posted By: Genghis
Date Posted: 30-Apr-2006 at 13:12

Originally posted by Erdene

I've seen Behind Enemy Lines....I think that was the name of the film...anywho....when the bad guys fired a Russian made SAM at the F-15(????) as the missile got closer it fired from the tip first, seemd like a cannon in the tip of the missile....the shot damaged the tail section of the fighter...the missile then blew up the jet.  I can't remember but it was something like that.....so I am just wondering whether these SAMs have 1 or 2 or 3 or even 4 cannon shots in tip of the missile which fires first when the target is in range just to damage it or slow it the target first......Am I making sense???? 

I'm pretty sure they don't have bullets in the tip, but most would have fragmentation of some sort coupled with a proximity fuze to make those near misses kills.



-------------
Member of IAEA


Posted By: Bulgarian Soldja
Date Posted: 30-Apr-2006 at 21:27

Originally posted by Genghis

I take it no one finds missile guidance as interesting as I do? 

I find it very interesting mate .... i always wondered how in da f**k do they guide em ... and i never actually got down to doing some research on it .... but now u've explained, thx



Posted By: Bulgarian Soldja
Date Posted: 30-Apr-2006 at 21:29

Originally posted by Erdene

I've seen Behind Enemy Lines....I think that was the name of the film...anywho....when the bad guys fired a Russian made SAM at the F-15(????)

Those bad Russian guys were actually Serbian.



Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 01-May-2006 at 07:09
actaually does sensor fusing which im hearing about quite allot  out of the USA change the way it gets guided? is there a strict rule between the sensor used and the guidance methodolgy?


Posted By: Lord Ranulf
Date Posted: 01-May-2006 at 14:49
for regular updates on US systems.research etc..see: http://www.mda.mil/mdalink/html/mdalink.html - http://www.mda.mil/mdalink/html/mdalink.html

-------------


Posted By: Genghis
Date Posted: 02-May-2006 at 00:28

Originally posted by Leonidas

actaually does sensor fusing which im hearing about quite allot  out of the USA change the way it gets guided? is there a strict rule between the sensor used and the guidance methodolgy?

The fuze is just what detonates the warhead when it hits or comes close to the traget, and is to a large extent an autonomous subsystem of the missile, which although similar to is not the same as the guidance system.  The guidance system gets the missile to within lethal range of the target, the fuze then detonates it when it comes within lethal range.

The early Sidewinders used optical fuzes, and others used infrared fuzes to detect distance to target.  Sparrows used radio frequency fuzes.  The Soviet R-60/AA-8 Aphid AAM had infrared guidance with a radar proximity fuze.  Most missiles also have a back up contact fuze. 

 



-------------
Member of IAEA


Posted By: Erdene
Date Posted: 02-May-2006 at 14:05
So the missile doesn't actually hit its target...it explodes in a proximity to the target??? The force from the explosion damages and downs the target????

-------------


Posted By: Genghis
Date Posted: 02-May-2006 at 19:20

Originally posted by Erdene

So the missile doesn't actually hit its target...it explodes in a proximity to the target??? The force from the explosion damages and downs the target????

Correct.  Counting on a direct hit is too risky when you have two objects moving above or close to the speed of sound.  Often the missile will hit the aircraft, but a proximity fuze increases your chances so much more of killing the target.



-------------
Member of IAEA


Posted By: Erdene
Date Posted: 02-May-2006 at 19:54
Btw, I am downloading Behind Enemy Lines I am pretty sure that the missile fired something and whatever it was it had a shot gun effect on the tail section.  

-------------


Posted By: Erdene
Date Posted: 03-May-2006 at 20:48
Which system does stinger and other small shoulder-held missiles use???

-------------


Posted By: Genghis
Date Posted: 03-May-2006 at 21:20

Originally posted by Erdene

Which system does stinger and other small shoulder-held missiles use???

The FIM-92 Stinger uses passive, all aspect infrared guidance, with an impact fuze.  I believe it doesn't have a proximity fuze due to size and weight limitations.  The Soviet SA-16 Gimlet uses a similar method.  Other systems like the Javelin and Starstreak system use electro-optical guidance.  I like IR guidance more, it's a fire and forget system.

Interestingly, a Swedish missile called the RBS 70 uses a laser beam riding system, with a laser proximity fuze.  Apparently it's missile control is based on what is called the "Linear Quadratic Method" based on the Kalman theory.  This system requires the user to keep the laser on the target till impact, I think that's a great disadvantage.



-------------
Member of IAEA


Posted By: bigtoothbrush
Date Posted: 06-May-2006 at 11:47
all passive guidance ones are fire forget, but too easy to be fool unless fit with imaging array or cooperated by other guidance model. while it's impossible to jam semi-active tracked missiles such as RBS 70.


Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 07-May-2006 at 03:49
Both the stinger's and RBs70 are good mssiles, having different strengths and weaknesses.

Aussies use the RB and a updated deriv called the Bolide. The range and warhead on these things are quite large for its class.


Posted By: bigtoothbrush
Date Posted: 07-May-2006 at 21:35

IR guidance missiles are easy to operate due to their fire forget function. but you can't launch several  IR missiles to deal with several targets at the same time. coz all these missiles will just go for the target with most obvious IR signals.

current most advanced shoulder-held missiles such as chinese QW-4, all use IR imaging seeker. it can't be fool since it's terminal informations are targets imagines. one can simulate signals power and frequency, but can't simulate targets imagines.



Posted By: Serge L
Date Posted: 10-May-2006 at 16:33
Sory, Genghis, could you better specify he diference between system nunber 2 and number 4, since they both are based upon calculation of the angle between missile and target respective trajectories?


Posted By: bigtoothbrush
Date Posted: 10-May-2006 at 19:54

Lead Angle Computation is by to compute the angle between missile's line of sight and target's moving direction. While Proportional navigation's is about the angle between missile's line of sight and the line between missile and target.  



Posted By: bigtoothbrush
Date Posted: 14-May-2006 at 16:48

chinese HQ-9(FT-2000) is one the most advanced long-range, all-altitude, all-weather surface-to-air missile in the world. its terminal guidance is active radar track, thus it doesn't need any illuminator for fire control. but it still keep semi-active radar track function, to increase its anti-jam capability. it also could work under passive mode, as an anti-radiation to destroy AWACS or even ground-based radars. there are both ground verion and navy version are in service right now. the future version may add IR imaging focal plane array for reinforce terminal guidance. 

just need one Active Phase Array Radar, it could finish all the information supporting and guidance jobs. while most countries' air defence missiles need 6~8 different radars to do these jobs.

land version  

navy version

 



Posted By: Russian
Date Posted: 20-May-2006 at 12:10




Originally posted by bigtoothbrush

chinese HQ-9(FT-2000) is one the most advanced long-range, all-altitude, all-weather surface-to-air missile in the world. its terminal guidance is active radar track, thus it doesn't need any illuminator for fire control. but it still keep semi-active radar track function, to increase its anti-jam capability. it also could work under passive mode, as an anti-radiation to destroy AWACS or even ground-based radars. there are both ground verion and navy version are in service right now. the future version may add IR imaging focal plane array for reinforce terminal guidance. 


just need one Active Phase Array Radar, it could finish all the information supporting and guidance jobs. while most countries' air defence missiles need 6~8 different radars to do these jobs.


land version  




navy version




 


    

that's funny post, lol, Russian S-400 is MOST advanced land to air missile, Russia is ahead of other countries in air defence my friend, much more ahead.
    

S-400 can shoot everything your HQ-9 can shoot and it also can shoot down SCUD and any other short range ballistic missile pr even medium range missiles, can you system do that?

What is the range of your system? 200 km, twice less that S-400, buddy, it is not nearly as good, it is merely a copy of S-300, lol, it uses S-300 launchers and probalby copies of russian missiles, it is NOT the most advanced.

Russia has S-300PMU-2, S-300V, S-400, US has PAC-3, it is also more advanced, although not as long range.

Here, read please:

"The HQ-9 was initially developed to replace the PLA’s bulk of obsolete HQ-2 (Chinese copy of the Soviet/Russian SA-2 Guideline), but the slow progress in the development forced the PLA to purchase the S-300PMU missile from Russia. By the time the HQ-9 was ready for operational deployment in the late 1990s, the missile was already behind foreign air-defence missiles such as U.S. PAC3 and Russian S-300PMU2 in terms of technology and performance. Only a small number of the HQ-9A are being deployed by the PLA for operational trial and evaluations. The naval variant of the HQ-9A is deployed onboard the Type 052C destroyer which was commissioned in 2004."

reference:

http://www.sinodefence.com/army/surfacetoairmissile/hq9.asp
    
    


Posted By: DukeC
Date Posted: 21-May-2006 at 15:03
Originally posted by Erdene

Btw, I am downloading Behind Enemy Lines I am pretty sure that the missile fired something and whatever it was it had a shot gun effect on the tail section.  
 
Some SAMs and AAMs are fused so the blast from the warhead can be directed at the target. I'm not sure of the technical details on this.


-------------


Posted By: Russian
Date Posted: 22-May-2006 at 21:44



Originally posted by DukeC

Originally posted by Erdene

Btw, I am downloading Behind Enemy Lines I am pretty sure that the missile fired something and whatever it was it had a shot gun effect on the tail section.  

 

Some SAMs and AAMs are fused so the blast from the warhead can be directed at the target. I'm not sure of the technical details on this.



the longer the range, the longer the missile, look at S-400, the missile is 3-4 tons, so that it can fly farther, when it comes close to enemy aircraft, it explodes, and some missiles have shotgun effect, when a lot of little particles damage an aircraft, I dunno how they direct it either, some are calculated so that the wave of explosion damages aircraft and some systems, like Patriot PAC3 are hit-to-kill systems, but this reduces range dramatically, when you actually hit the aircraft with a rocket and then it explodes.
    
    
    



Print Page | Close Window

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz - http://www.webwizguide.com