I really should change my personal text
- Oct 25, 2013
- Reaction score
The likes of the SA-14 are very old hat re: MANPADS; the last few generations of MANPADS (for example the SA-18 & SA-25) have far more sophisticated speakers than that for the SA-14 (e.g. the SA-25 with Multi spectral optical/imaging seekers) that are not drawn to specific hot spots but at an identified IR image of the target (massively reduces by the effectiveness of IR jammers and flares). It is the same seeker advancements seen in the latest generation of IR AAMs.Jeb said:Not to mention the overall speed and energy maneuver advantages that fixed wings convey.AeroFranz said:My guess is there are larger vulnerable areas in helos and tiltrotors than in fixed wing aircraft (long transmissions, tail rotors, cross-shafts, etc.). The former are more likely to be twin-engined though...Triton said:Are helicopters and tiltrotor aircraft less vulnerable to the current generation of MANPADS than fixed-wing light attack aircraft?
I mean, if you get caught with your pants down by a SA-14 at too-close range, you're going to be in trouble, but some of that depends on where the SAM sees your heat. That's why Harriers turned out to be particularly vulnerable to IR seekers...they tended to hit at midbody where the hot exhaust nozzles were. That's also why the turboprop light attack candidates are going to have a tougher row to hoe...their turbine exhausts sit right between the propeller disc and the cockpit, and that's the last place you want a warhead to pop off. Broncos at least exhaust outboard of the engine nacelles.
The near total inability to spoof such advance seekers drives the need to stay outside their missiles effective combat ranges as one of the few effective counter measures.