That's not an issue, it's a design feature.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
wm
By the way, has the AF resolved the F-22 comms issues yet?
A sensible one at that; Link 16 is too easily intercepted and that's been known for a while. The F-35 (US Version only) will close that loop...
I don't want to get into the weeds, but...
Starstreak's guidance system is technically a semi-automatic command line of sight (SACLOS) system. The operator has to illuminated the target with the laser, which the individual munitions home in on. This is fundamentally different, and far superior, to beam-rider guidance. Although there is not counter to this weapon currently (beyond tactics like terrain masking, obscurants, ect.), the fact that it relies on a homing sensor and logic means that a countermeasure for it can probably be developed. Regardless, this system is manufactured by a friendly state and is not in the hands of potential enemies, so, for now at least, the point it moot.
As for UAV's, I think I've lost your point somewhere along the way.
He said semi-automatic, not semi active.
Whatever semi active means...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fuchs
Starstreak is not semi-active laser-guided.
It IS a laser beam rider.
True and the operator has to keep that laser beam on the target, thus the Semi-Automatic Command to Line Of Sight (SACLOS) guidance system that Starstreak uses.
Quote:
Repeat: Starstreak = LASER BEAM RIDER
True, you just left out out the SACLOS.
Quote:
And it's cheaper than Stinger, btw.
Does that measure the effectiveness? :D
After further research...
...I think Fuch's is correct on this starstreak tangent. Course corrections are not calculated in the launcher and sent to the warheads, so it cannot be a command system. From Jane's:
Quote:
At a safe distance from the gunner, the main second-stage rocket motor cuts in to accelerate the missile to an end-of-boost velocity which is in the region of M3 to M4. As the motor burns out, the attenuation in thrust triggers the automatic payload separation of the three darts which, upon clearing the missile body, are independently guided in a fixed formation by their individual onboard guidance systems using the launcher's laser guidance beam.
The darts ride the laser beam projected by the aiming unit which incorporates two laser diodes, one of which is scanned horizontally and the other vertically to produce the required 2-D information field. Each dart then uses its onboard guidance package to control a set of steerable fins so as to hold its flight formation within this information field. Separation of the darts also initiates arming of the warheads.
All the operator has to do after the launch is to continue to track the target and maintain the sight aiming mark on it. Maximum effective range is around 7 km which is the maximum distance at which the darts can retain sufficient manoeuvrability and energy to catch and penetrate a modern 9 g manoeuvring target.
I'm quite amazed, actually, at the amount of misleading and outright wrong information on this system on the internet (wrong information on the internet! Shocking, I know! :D ).
It's a beam rider and the beam has to be kept on the
target; gunner or system derived it's still command directed and line of sight.
Semantics, admittedly -- really immaterial, too as he acknowledged that the Gunner being blinded would negate the missile as would any significant distraction that caused the Gunner to lose the lock. One wonders at a UAV with a dazzle laser to blind gunners... :D
On another irrelevant topic, the US Army does have weapons -- a lot of them -- that are extremely effective against any size air vehicle (other than perhaps an A-10 or SU 25 but to include a 5kg UAV) at 500m. They're all over the place, too...