So what happens when our missles can ignore flares and chaff?

>"When"
This is the AMRAAM.

>>31981834
Is that because it relies on a link with the airplane's radar updates?

>>31981834
This

>>31981846
No, that was the AIM-7 way the fuck back in Vietnam. The AIM-120 is fire and forget just like the big bomber-killer AIM-54C Phoenix missiles the Tomcat used to use. It does its own onboard processing.

>>31981883
Not him, but what part of that enables it to ignore the scrambling effect of chaff?

>>31981897
AESA radar and not being retarded. Frankly, radar image looks nothing like the aircraft you're targeting due to yuge difference in speed and size.

Infrared missiles now have image recognition software, which works very similarly to how the AMRAAM works, but in IR instead of X-band radar. Hence why they want to be able to shoot down missiles and burn off seekers soon.

>>31981759
Most already can; flares and chaff just degrade the performance of missile seekers. Electronic warfare and DIRCM are the things that are best against missiles.

>>31981846
>>31981897
Chaff slows down immediately and dramatically when deployed, pulse-doppler radars (ie every modern combat radar) can see the change in velocity, filter it out, and target onto the thing that's still continuing to move at jet-like speeds.

Like I said above, the chaff will degrade the performance of the radar, because its some of its radar energy is being "intercepted" by the chaff and not bouncing off the enemy (ie, so it could make a stealthy aircraft temporarily stealthier against a radar-guided missile), but chaff doesn't create an opaque wall and there's generally sufficient energy getting through for a return.

>>31981759
APS on planes

>>31981759
They speak to the girl without looking like a jackass... Get her number and follow up with a call. Make sure to have a great date planned and reservations at a good restaurant.

Oh... and wear a condom... Don't want her to sporting a new model in her launch bay.

And obligatory ......................

Triggered?

>>31982503
Da fuq?

>>31981759
>radar
Towed decoys, a la ALE-50
>staring-plane IR
laser jammers
>long-run, as seekers defeat those options
laser cannons

>>31981759
Missiles cant ignore the ROE which is ultimately what kills their effectiveness.

>"you are not allowed to fire until you personally identify the pilot and plane and have dinner with his family, those are the rules"

>>31984162
ROE even in Vietnam only required a positive identification; they were doing that successfully for a while with Combat Tree in Vietnam, but then the NV found ways to mess with the system (it was pretty simplistic) and that forced visual identification. Today's systems use electronic non-cooperative target identification to get that positive identification.

>>31981759
When airplanes get ERA

>>31984178
Operation Allied Force, radar IFF wasnt enough to shoot according to ROE, that was less than 20 years ago.

>>31984235
Touche', but that was a humanitarian intervention / feel-good mission. In Desert Storm the ROE allowed BVR positive identification when performed by an AWACs. I'm not sure what the ROE was in 2003, but there weren't any real air-to-air kills anyway.

>>31984405
In areas where allied/nuetral/enemy countries all fly the same aircraft, actual visual ID of said aircraft is required. I.e. MiG-29's of multiple countries that could be supposedly occupying the same airspace.

When Iran bought F-14's the US had to keep a constant update with Israel on where and when US F-14's were operating so no confusion was made. If the US or IAF had actually engaged Iran in the late 80's or early 90's visual ID of said F-14's would have had to have been made, most likely before any engagements could be authorized.

Now we're at a point where Su-30s' have been exported. So hypothetical wars near India or wherever would have strict ROE's too

>>31984725
>Now we're at a point where Su-30s' have been exported. So hypothetical wars near India or wherever would have strict ROE's too
Not necessarily; NCTR has advanced a lot in the past decade or so; an F-16C or F/A-18C has less than a dozen features it can use to identify a threat with, with a lot of those being very generic things like target airspeed and altitude. An F-22 can identify a threat with over 200 parameters, an F-35 can identify a thread with over 300 parameters.

Take the Su-30MKI for example; even if we assume that India didn't tie its command & control system in with the regional US or NATO system, the Su-30MKI would still be distinguishable from other Sukhois; for one thing, the -30MKI has canards, altering its RCS in a sufficiently distinctive way; a 5th gen or high-end ELINT / ISR platform would be able to discern that. The only other operational flankers with canards are the Su-30MKM used by Malaysia, an ally of the west, Su-33 used by Russia, which has a considerably different (older) radar, and J-15 used by China, which also has a considerably different (domestic) radar. All other Su-30 variants lack canards and/or use different avionics.

>>31984822
*Don't know why I said 300, but the F-35 parameter figure should be "over 600".

>>31984825
They won't pay you for fucking up their propaganda, next time be more watchful.

>>31984822
Everyrthing you said is wrong. Why you do this?.

Why???
Wwwwhhhyyyyyyyyy?

>>31985072
Lockeed shill trying its grimy claws on planes he is not paid to shill

That's why