This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
"This seeker was a powerful system of its own, with no effective maximum range and the resolution to be able to lock onto a..."
How exactly does that work? Of course it has a maximum range. All radars do. Do you mean that the range of the radar is as long or greater than the physical range of the missile body itself? Then perhaps it should say so. AnnaGoFast ( talk) 21:52, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Since this would be beyond the range of effective semi-active radar homing, a new active-radar terminal seeker was added to the missile.
Where did the idea that this missile was ARH capable come from? No source for the claim is provided, and I can't find anything that matches that. Everything I can find says it was SARH, with a canceled version that included terminal IR guidance. Larcrivereagle ( talk) 17:40, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
"This seeker was a powerful system of its own, with no effective maximum range and the resolution to be able to lock onto a..."
How exactly does that work? Of course it has a maximum range. All radars do. Do you mean that the range of the radar is as long or greater than the physical range of the missile body itself? Then perhaps it should say so. AnnaGoFast ( talk) 21:52, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Since this would be beyond the range of effective semi-active radar homing, a new active-radar terminal seeker was added to the missile.
Where did the idea that this missile was ARH capable come from? No source for the claim is provided, and I can't find anything that matches that. Everything I can find says it was SARH, with a canceled version that included terminal IR guidance. Larcrivereagle ( talk) 17:40, 20 February 2024 (UTC)