Case - US GPS????
For???
For strike role
Case - US GPS????
For???
I mean how Al-Tariq is even related to JDAM in Tejas?Case - US GPS
For strike role
Some things wrong hereThe Cobra manoeuvre, where an aircraft rapidly pitches its nose up and then recovers, It can help a pilot quickly change direction only when your enemy is right behind your ass(like literally) and has only guns remaining.
Usually when the fighter gets into dogfight and some one is at your tail there is no way with today’s fragmented rounds you will be alive to do cobra.
In today’s training it’s advised to pilots never to engage enemy in dogfights. If someone is somehow gets into dogfight try to disengage and fire IR missiles from distance.
BVR has low probability to hit as radar lock can be tracked and decoys or afterburners can be engage
IR missiles give no fckin warning no matter how advanced your MWRs are. Thr is no lock which your fighter can warn you off unless you see it with ur eyes and deployed flares after flares.
That is what happened on 27th Feb, BVR locked onto Mig21 and WVR locked onto F-16, Indian pilot got ample warning and time to eject, paki pilot never knew when IR hit his ass.
Both are same type of PGM.I mean how Al-Tariq is even related to JDAM in Tejas?
I would say that IR missiles are way better off at closer range to my knowledge. This might have changed in very very recent times - I say this because of several reasons:Some things wrong here
Cobra is not even useful in all cases when enemy is on your six with only guns. The only use of the cobra is if your enemy at your six, is flying too fast and not managing the closure rate (i.e. the rate at which he is approaching your plane). If they are managing closure well, then you become a stationary target for either guns or missile.
IR missiles are used mostly in dogfights only. Even in visual rage, if not in a dogfight regular radar guided missiles are preferred due to more robust lock and better kinetic performance. However, you are correct that pilots are told not to go into dogfights unless in extreme cases, since a dogfight means that only one of the two planes remains alive at the end. Due to very high cost of planes and pilots, most air forces will prefer to let enemy escape than to risk losing their pilot.
IR missiles actually do give a warning, though it is less reliable than RWR (Radar warning receiver). You can use MAWS to track any incoming missile.
Rest general idea is fine.
Why only GPS version of Al-Tariq ??So?
What is the context?
Why only GPS version of Al-Tariq ??
What about EO/laser version ??
IIR
Al-Tariq iir seeker capable of seeing targets around 100km ??
Might be, might not be. As per brochure it can see. But it don't even need to see it at that range in all practical purpose.Al-Tariq iir seeker capable of seeing targets around 100km ??
WOW...
not a fair comparison, Tejas has better thrust to weight and delta wing better overall design and engine.
time to compare!
UAE’s Al Tariq signs MoU with India's Bharat Dynamics - old newsWOW...
HAL has to take Tejas to Dubai to showcase Al-Tariq integration in it to IAF. Salute to the intelligence of the journalist.
How make a fair comparison b/w jf17 and lca mk1 ??not a fair comparison, Tejas has better thrust to weight and delta wing better overall design and engine.
I am just wondering how much of a beast Tejas MK2 will be with 414 engine with canards![]()
Tejas MK2 vs Gripen E/F that will be comparison of equals… but I bet on MK2 newer designHow make a fair comparison b/w jf17 and lca mk1 ??
To understand lca f414, consider jas39 e/f.
Your edit was my point exactlyI would say that IR missiles are way better off at closer range to my knowledge. This might have changed in very very recent times - I say this because of several reasons:
- Radar guided missiles, while they may have a capability to pull high amount of Gs, their sensors don't have a big gimbal limit. For targets with high angular motion(that is, at close range), they may fail simply because by the time they can guide onto the target, the target itself has gone out of the missile seeker head
- Radar guided missiles don't work autonomously during launch. There has to be an initial "download" of target position and velocity information from the plane's computer to the missile's computer before the missile can release and fly to the last known position, hence there is a short delay while launching the missile
- Infrared missiles can be launched right away. They see the target, give audio feedback to the pilot, and then they are launched. They don't leave any sort of warning(unless if you have a MAWS, but even then I doubt it is accurate 100% of the time) because modern heat seeking missiles are smokeless.
- Infrared missiles have a very very high seeker head gimbal limit, upwards of 90° in most modern missiles - they can literally look 90° in a direction away from the direction of motion - which makes it very reliable, combined with a very very high maneuverabillity(ability to pull 50Gs+)
EDIT: I was talking about below 3nm to 5nm distances, otherwise using radar guided missiles is better. More lethal and kinetically able
Thread starter | Similar threads | Forum | Replies | Date |
---|---|---|---|---|
![]() |
LCA Tejas: Photos & Footages (no text other than headings) | Military Multimedia | 87 | |
![]() |
LCA TEJAS and what makes it stand out | Knowledge Repository | 8 | |
W | Rise of LCA Tejas Multi Role Fighter Aircraft | Indian Air Force | 23 | |
C | LRUs or parts of LCA Tejas Made and designed in India | Indian Air Force | 16 |