Hi guys!I just want to ask something about 高偏軸AAMs.I heard that
it can be fired at aircrafts which are not directly in front the
aircraft.How exactly does it work?Also,what are the types of
高偏軸AAM in service now?Thx

已經正式服役的高偏軸中短程AAM :
1.俄國R-73 (AA-11)射手系列AAM
2.以色列巨蟒四型AAM

即將正式服役的高偏軸中短程AAM :
1.英國ASRAAM先進短程AAM
2.法國MICA IR AAM

於近未來(2005~2010)正式服役的高偏軸中短程AAM :
1.美國AIM-9X先進響尾蛇AAM
2.歐洲六國聯合IRIST AAM
3.俄國R-74 中短程AAM
4.中國PL-11 AAM
5.日本AAM-5
6.南非U-DARTER AAM

預計於2010年之後服役的高偏軸中短程AAM :
台灣中科院紅影計畫

台灣中科院紅影計畫？？？？

聽起來比較像紅外線影像陣列的計畫吧∼∼∼∼∼∼∼∼

高偏軸是針對紅外線尋標頭的追蹤角度範圍。所謂的瞄準軸是只以飛彈的中軸為基準，現役的飛彈的涵蓋角度多在左右各30度到45度的範圍。高偏軸是指尋標頭可以更大的角度偏向兩側追蹤目標，大一點的可以到兩邊各60度，各90度，如果沒記錯ASRAAM可以到120度（好像有點問題）。

？？？？？
左右各120度？

真想看看他的機械結構

應該是左右各60度

不太可能只有單邊60度，那已經是現役的水準，未來的至少要到90度才夠。

Thanks,guys.More questions..How do these 高偏軸AAMs work?I
heard that the Russian one uses thrust-vectoring
to make it more manuverable.By the way,I heard
that the mainland has already got some of these
AAMs,do we have any missile similar to that in
our arsenal?

>do we have any missile similar to that in
our arsenal

Yes,we do have!
IR MICA for M2000.
According to DTM, it is 90 deg off-boresight!

高邊軸和向量噴嘴沒有絕對的關係，英國的尾狗也是用向量噴嘴，試射還差一點打到發射的載具。

高偏軸是針對尋標頭所能夠涵蓋的搜索角度範圍，向量噴嘴則是在消耗推進能量下達到控制面所缺乏的控制能力。

其實控制面要達到向量噴嘴所賦予的控制能力很簡單，使用向量噴嘴的用意是在大幅壓縮飛彈的最小射程限制，使得飛彈在一發射尚未達到控制面有效作用速度前就可以轉向，如此一來就能夠對高速迎面而來的目標進行追擊。

在實習的時候聽到的∼∼∼∼∼∼∼∼

大多數空射飛彈的燃氣舵作用時間只有發射後不到幾秒
在完成轉向後燃氣舵就受不了高溫被燒掉了

而如果想要撐久一點的話，燃氣舵的造價或重量就會大幅增加
這對飛彈來說並不是件好事

高邊軸和向量噴嘴沒有絕對的關係，英國的尾狗也是用向量噴嘴，試射還差一點打到發射的載具。

A:不知這是不是老英新一代短程AAM放棄採用向量推力設計的原因之一.......

高偏軸是針對尋標頭所能夠涵蓋的搜索角度範圍，向量噴嘴則是在消耗推進能量下達到控制面所缺乏的控制能力。
其實控制面要達到向量噴嘴所賦予的控制能力很簡單，使用向量噴嘴的用意是在大幅壓縮飛彈的最小射程限制，使得飛彈在一發射尚未達到控制面有效作用速度前就可以轉向，如此一來就能夠對高速迎面而來的目標進行追擊。

A:舉例:
老英宣稱其新一代短程AAM: ASRAAM光憑傑出的彈體氣動設計,便可獲得高達70G的機動性,還能以高達3.5馬赫以上(一說四馬赫左右)的高速殺敵,有效射程可達15km以上,因此無使用向量推力設計的必要.然而老德便不吃這一套,另起爐灶的和歐洲其它五國聯合研發了IRSI-T先進短程AAM,其上高升力彈體,複雜的氣動控制面與條翼與向量推力一應俱全,可說是目前世上氣動控制最為複雜的短程飛彈了;理論上其一旦服役之後,將是這世上最為靈活機動,善長極短距離格鬥與高偏軸攻擊的AAM,但其最高時速與有效射程便要比ASRAAM略遜一籌了.

其實有效射程較短也無所謂
那個先進的氣動外型（換個說法是不是不可靠？^_^)
可以將飛彈的包絡線範圍增加
可以射擊的時機也就更多了

aim-9x: Raytheon charts show virtually 90 degrees off-boresight acquisition/launch capabilities

Errr..
About infra-red seeking...
its basically heat-seeking right?
so can you fire it head-on towards an enemy
without the missile having to turn around
later to chase the heat from the engine exhaust?

this image may answer your question.
http://www.raytheon.com/press/2000/may/seeker.html

飛彈的向量推力使用燃氣舵就是打算犧牲最大有效射程，減低最短有效射程並且增強運動性能，不過現在推進藥柱的發展還可以稍微彌補一些損失的能量。

紅外線只要尋標頭夠靈敏就可以對頭射擊，但是對頭射擊的相對速度很高，加上紅外線飛彈的有效射程較低，很容易就會相對而過使得飛彈需要掉過頭去尾追或側追。

>>紅外線只要尋標頭夠靈敏就可以對頭射擊，但是對頭射擊的相對速度很高，加上紅外線飛彈的有效射程較低，很容易就會相對而過使得飛彈需要掉過頭去尾追或側追。<<

a:補充..
所以才會在飛彈內加入雷射近發引信，在允許的範圍內引爆彈頭利用高爆破片及震波擊落敵機.

雷射近發引信和全向位或是對頭射擊並沒有直接的關係。近發引信在早期的響尾蛇飛彈就已經包含在其中，而不是像AIM-4只有碰撞引信。雷射引信是去改善他的效果和引爆的準確度。

老英在幾個月前好像有篇軍武研究，探討未來空戰趨勢.........
在未來戰機間空戰中，將有兩個“NO ESCAPE ZONES”：

BVR空戰: 15~40kms間，講究先打先逃，4S兼優者得永生。

近距纏鬥：8kms之內，若雙方皆配有HMD + 光電追蹤系統 + 高離軸IIR短程AAM的話，幾乎可說是眾生平等，一架F22未必敵得過兩架殲七。

至於在8~15km間的空窗區間，便是眾路英雄好漢們各施其能，救亡圖存，反敗為勝的關鍵距離。

這8∼15公里之間
就是法國人MICA的天下

不過我認為目前還沒出現偏軸飛彈最佳化的戰機

這8∼15公里之間,就是法國人MICA的天下

老俄的改良型R73/R74也值得注意.....最大/最短有效射程30~40km/300m, 射程比起MICA IR (40~50km)而言略為遜色, 但卻是其它西方同級短程AAM 2~3倍.其配備追蹤範圍90度以上的紅外線尋標器 (IIR ??), 在使用向量推力技術下其最大機動性能號稱在70G以上, 比起MICA IR (50G)更勝一籌.

不過我認為目前還沒出現偏軸飛彈最佳化的戰機

這意思是指具有360度環視性能的相位雷達陣列/光電追蹤系統, 最大機動性能20~30G以上的匿蹤無人AI戰機嗎??

8到15km的距離，就是主動直接開尋標頭丟了，能量絕對夠，訊號也夠強，還怕什麼呢？

8到15km的距離，就是主動直接開尋標頭丟了，能量絕對夠，訊號也夠強，還怕什麼呢？

確實是有些奇怪.....但老英軍方對Meteor 中長程AAM的性能指標要求也是最大有效射程100km, 無逃脫範圍20~80km, 未包含8~15km的空窗區間.....

this article is supposed to mention by taga.
fyi (Janes May, 30)

Fighter Tactics

Bill Sweetman

New-generation aircraft such as the Gripen, Rafale, Typhoon and F-22 are in service now or under test. Most attention is naturally focused on airframe-related advances - stealth, supersonic maneuverability and so on - but it is smaller, often overlooked details that may bring about a revolution in air combat and bring about some of the most important changes since the advent of the missile-armed supersonic fighter in the 1960s.

Within 10 years, many in-service fighters will be armed with new and much more lethal air-to-air missiles (AAMs). They will be carrying more advanced radars and other technologies which make it much less difficult to declare a target as hostile well beyond visual range. They will also be operating with tactical datalinks which allow several aircraft to share tactical information in a manner which is simply impossible for most aircraft today. Individual and formation tactics will change - but the implications of new technology are such that nobody knows exactly how that will happen.

AAM technology defines the depth of the air battle. Whoever has the longest reach controls the engagement, comments fighter analyst Ben Lambeth of the Rand Corporation. Lambeth recalls flying on a mock engagement in 1996, a four-versus-four out of Eglin Air Force Base (AFB), Florida. F-15s armed with the AIM-120 Advanced Medium Range AAM (AMRAAM) took on four F-15s simulating MiG-29s armed with R-27 Alamo MRAAMs and R-73 Archer SRAAMs. I never had a tally on any of the bad guys. I rarely saw our wingman. We never put more than 3g on the airplane and we never got inverted. There were missiles and people dying everywhere.

This result reflects todays level of technology, in which the within visual range (WVR) and beyond visual range (BVR) envelopes are separate. A BAE Systems paper from 1996 - reflecting the UK thinking that led to the adoption of the BAE Systems Meteor AAM for the Typhoon - points out that a target beyond 40km range can feel free to maneuver without fear of engagement. This is echoed by Robert Shaw, former US Navy fighter pilot and author of Fighter Combat Tactics. There is virtually no missile that you cant outmaneuver at maximum range.

With todays weapons, the BAE paper notes, most MRAAM engagements will take place between 15km and 40km-range. Older short-range AAMs lack not only total energy but also missile speed and are most lethal at ranges under 8km, according to BAE. Between 8km and 15km, therefore, there is a commit zone where the target can still avoid a merge into close combat if the odds are unfavorable.

The key to the next generation of MRAAMs, such as Meteor, is greater range and (more importantly) greater energy at range. The result is a much larger no-escape zone. This zone surrounds a target and defines the maximum range at which the target cannot out-maneuver a missile shot. The missiles kill probability may be almost constant from its minimum range out to 80km. (One issue here, observes Shaw, is that it may be difficult to confirm that the missile has found its target, particularly in poor visibility: this may be one reason why Meteor has a two-way datalink.)

Boeing has joined the Meteor program with the intention of marketing the missile in the US. The situation is complicated by the fact that the F-22 needs it less than other fighters. Earlier this year, F-22 chief test pilot Paul Metz confirmed that the F-22s speed and altitude capability acts as a booster stage for the common-or-garden AMRAAM. At M1.5 and at greater altitude than the target (the F-22 has a very fast climb rate and a service ceiling well above 50,000ft), AMRAAMs range is 50% greater than is the case in a subsonic, same-altitude launch.

New SRAAMs are faster than the AIM-9 (due to larger motors or smaller wings) and have new infrared (IR) dome materials which do not blind the seeker when they are heated by air friction. With imaging infrared (IIR) seekers, they are just as effective against a non-afterburning target as against a full-reheat target. Under some circumstances, a modern SRAAM is a BVR missile, capable of being cued on to the target by aircraft sensors and locking on to it at an extreme range of 12-20km. You can expect to be engaged from about 80km inbound and enter a [MRAAM] no-escape zone shortly thereafter, notes the BAE paper. The commit decision must be made sooner and, if the target pilot commits, the target will enter an SRAAM no-escape zone.

Once the fighters merge - that is, their momentum takes them within SRAAM range of each other, so that the first fighter to attempt to escape will offer his opponent an open tail-on shot - improved SRAAMs and helmet-mounted display (HMD) technology multiply the opportunities for WVR shots. It is no longer necessary to point the aircraft towards the adversary; any target within the field of regard of the missile seeker can be engaged instantly.

According to one source, US Marine Corps F/A-18 Hornets from the Balkans theater recently engaged in mock combat with Israeli Air Force fighters. The Hornets were armed with AIM-9s, and the Israeli fighters carried Python 3 and Python 4 missiles and Elbit DASH helmet sights. IDRs source describes the results as more than ugly, the Israelis prevailing in 220 out of 240 engagements.

There are lessons to be learned from this engagement and other tests which have shown similar results. One is that modern HMDs and SRAAMs are essential. A second lesson is that WVR combat is extremely dangerous and will become more so. Well see less dogfighting once we get the ability to engage targets 90º off the nose, says Shaw. Somebodys going to get a shot, and if the missile is lethal youre going to get hit. Even the recent history of engagements suggests that the furball of fighter combat, with multiple engagements spread across miles of sky, is on its way out. We dont see a history of high-g maneuvering in recent engagements, says one industry analyst. Its fun to practice but unwise to pursue.

A third lesson is that WVR is an equalizer. An F-5 or a MiG-21 with a high-off-boresight missile and HMD is as capable in a 1-v-1 as an F-22, comments a former navy fighter pilot, now a civilian program manager. In visual combat, everybody dies at the same rate, says RANDs Lambeth. Indeed, he says that a larger fighter like the F-22 may be at a disadvantage. In the early 1980s force-on-force exercises at the navys Top Gun fighter school, F-14s were routinely seen and shot down by smaller F-5s flown by the navys Aggressor units. An F-22 which slows down to enter a WVR combat also gives up the advantage of supersonic maneuverability.

Close range confrontation
Nevertheless, the experts consulted by IDR agreed that the fighter still needs to have the ability to fight at close range - including having a gun. The current state of the debate on this highly controversial piece of equipment is that the F-22 has a gun - indeed, its M61A2 installation, complete with a neat power-actuated door over the muzzle, is one of the most complex ever seen - as does the US Air Force (USAF) version of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF). The US Navy (USN) had apparentlyy decided at one point to forgo the gun on the JSF - which is primarily intended as a deep-strike aircraft - but Boeing program managers now say that there is an ongoing debate on the subject. The marines, concerned about vertical landing weight, have settled on a missionized gun, installed in a package that replaces an internal bomb station. Both JSF competitors have selected a Boeing-developed version of the Mauser BK 27mm cannon, fitted with a linkless feed system by Western Design. The UK Royal Air Force has considered eliminating the gun from its second tranche of Typhoons, not so much to save weight as to eliminate training and support costs.

這意思是指具有360度環視性能的相位雷達陣列/光電追蹤系統, 最大機動性能20~30G以上的匿蹤無人AI戰機嗎??

這個嘛∼∼∼∼∼∼∼∼∼∼∼∼不能算是

其實應該講我還不清楚他會以什麼型態出現

那台全方位SA的UCAV的確能達到載人戰機達不到的境界
姑且不論推力會被電子設備吃掉多少
我覺得最大的問題還是如何防止敵方先開火（如何削弱對方的SA）
這問題如果不能解決，空戰就了無生趣
B-2拿來改成空中火力機的機會也變大了（幻想中）
（加入慣導可以作發射後再鎖定的大型超機動IIR導引飛彈）

環境適應光學迷彩好像還不錯
可惜完美的RAM還沒出來