M Y SU BRE D D I T S

COMMENTS

FRO N T - A L L - RA N D O M | M I L D L Y I N T E RE ST I N G - FI T N E SS - G A D G E T S - H I ST O RY - N O T T H E O N I O N - D A MORE
T A I SBE
A

RELATED

WANT TO JOIN? SIGN IN OR CREATE AN ACCOUNT IN SECONDS | ENGLISH

For more open-ended questions, try /r/AskScienceDiscussion |

Sign up to be a panelist!

101

This post was submitted on 24 Jun 2011

on

submitted

was

post

How does missile lock work?

this

Engine e ring

search

self.askscience

101

subm itte d 3 ye ars ago by ne urohe ro

Often, in movies, you see a pilot stressing out that the

bad guy has "missile lock" on him. How does missile
lock work, and how does the pilot know that his
adversary has missile lock on him?
60 comments

(92% upvoted)
http://redd.it/i7zie
username

share

password

re m e m be r m e

re se t password

login

ASK A SCIENCE QUESTION

All 60 Comments
sorted by: best

AskScience
askscience

[] [deleted] 89 points 3 ye ars ago

combat flight sim buff here:

There are two types of lock, radar and heatseeking. Heat seekers use infra-red to follow the
target's hot exhaust, radar uses, well, radar. Usually
(well on an f-16 anyway) the flight computer keeps
track of strong heat or radar signals (depending on
the mode selected) and the pilot can cycle through
targets to choose which one to lock onto. Heatseekers have a shorter range.
The heat seeker emits a tone indicating the
strength of the signal and a voiced 'lock lock', as
well as a gauge indicating effective range. The
radar blip changes shape when a target is locked,
as well as the range indicator.
One interesting difference here is that heat seekers
are 'passive' (all the energy is given out by the
target) but radar-seekers are 'active' (the attacking
plane must send out a radar signal to get an echo.)
I think it's only with a radar lock that the victim can
tell they've been locked onto. The Radar Warning
Receiver can use the signal emitted from the
attacking aircraft to estimate the identity and range
of the threat.
These wiki pages would be a good start:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radar_warning_receiver
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air-to-air_missile
permalink
[] neurohero [S] 9 points 3 ye ars ago

Aaaah, thanks! It makes sense that, with

Unsubscribe

4,394,434 readers (2,111 here)

Please read our guidelines and FAQ

before posting
Answer questions with
accurate, in-depth explanations,
including peer-reviewed
sources where possible
Upvote on-topic answers
supported by reputable sources
and scientific research
Downvote anecdotes,
speculation, and jokes
Report comments that do not
meet our guidelines, including
medical advice
Be civil: Remember the human
and follow Reddiquette

Features
Mods' Choice: Outstanding
posts recognized by the mod
team
Weekly Features: Archives of
AskAnything Wednesday, FAQ
Fridays, and more!
FAQ: In-depth answers to many
popular questions
New and gilded posts
/r/AskScienceDiscussion: For
open-ended and hypothetical

Radar, when a plane has a lock then it sends

out more pings (well, what ever the light
equivalent of sonar pings is).
permalink

questions

Filter by Field

parent

[] Guysmiley777 39 points 3 ye ars ago

There are different types of radar guided

missiles.
Semi-active radar homing (SARH) missiles
have a radar RECEIVER in them, but no
transmitter. They rely on the launching
aircraft to "paint" the target with their
radar so the missile can home in on the
radar reflections from the target.
Active radar homing (ARH) missiles
contain their own onboard full radar set.
It can transmit and receive radar signals
on its own and does not need support
from the launching aircraft. These types
of radars are much weaker than the ones
carried by fighter aircraft, so what
usually happens is right as the missile is
fired it's told the target's relative location
and velocity. The missile guidance system
then flies it using inertial guidance until it
deems itself close enough to go active
and turn on its own radar. Some active
radar guided missiles can also receive
updated target location info from a
datalink (so the launching aircraft CAN if
it wants keep the still quiet missile
updated on the target position and
velocity).
Couple of things. Radar frequency in
aircraft is very much dictated by antenna
size. The smaller the antenna, the higher
frequency that has to be used. Also,
there are various "modes" that radars
operate in. Modern radars can track
multiple targets while also looking for new
targets by moving the antenna in certain
patterns as well as varying the
transmitted pulse rate (and AESA radars
can basically do black fucking magic).
Here's the point I'm slowly trudging to: to
guide a SARH missile like the AIM-7
Sparrow, the launching radar has to go
into a certain transmit mode (called CW
for continuous wave). This basically
screams "I AM SHOOTING AT YOU NOW!"
to a radar warning receiver. That's how a
pilot knows "he's got a lock on me".
With active radar missiles like the AIM120 AMRAAM, the onboard radar is in a
distinct band and also loudly and
repeatedly informs the target aircraft
that it's tracking and you're in deep shit.
Active radar homing has the advantages
of letting the launching aircraft get the
hell out of dodge immediately after launch
as well as giving the target less warning
time, as the missile doesn't go loud until
it's relatively close.
This is a REALLY good intro site to radar

Calendar
Date Description
Ask Anything Wednesday 21
Engineering, Mathematics,
Jan
Computer science
23
FAQ Friday
Jan

Related subreddits
/r/AskAcademia
/r/AskEngineers
/r/AskHistorians
/r/AskStatistics
/r/HomeworkHelp
/r/Biology
Click here for more!
Looking for flair? Sign up to be a
panelist!
Header Information
Switch to dark theme
We make our world significant by the courage
of our questions and by the depth of our
answers. -C arl Sagan, Cosmos
a com m unity for 6 ye ars

technology.
permalink

parent

[] [deleted] 4 points 3 ye ars ago

Have there been any uses of radars

that attempt to simulate a lock
without actually launching (or
perhaps even without acquiring a
lock) to deceive an enemy craft into
thinking they are in a worse position
than they are? For example,
convincing someone on your tail
that they need to evade a missile
that doesn't exist?
permalink

parent

[] Guysmiley777 7 points 3 ye ars

ago

Well, not for convincing

someone on your tail per se, as
you'd need to be within the
radar's azimuth and elevation
limits, but yes in training
exercises sneaky pilots have
been known to intentionally
change radar modes to bluff
that they've launched a missile
to try and get the other side
to turn away and avoid what
they think is an incoming
missile. If both sides are using
SARH missiles it becomes a
game of rocket powered
chicken.
And like I said, AESA radars are
FNM (fucking near magic) with
what they can do. Not having
to bother with a mechanically
slewed antenna opens up a ton
of possibilities, including as
functioning as highly versatile
jammers. If you're used to a
radar being something that
sweeps across the sky, check
out this video of early F-35
radar testing, notice how the
radar seems to conjure up
multiple independent beams
basically at will.
permalink

parent

[] [deleted] 2 points 3 ye ars ago

It sounds like all the radar ones are

easily susceptible to jamming. And if
there is a data link, then
theoretically you could redirect the
missile (well prolly not, cus the link
is encrypted.. but still)
permalink

parent

[] Guysmiley777 16 points 3 ye ars

ago*

Electronic countermeasures are

discuss this ad on reddit

MESSAGE THE MODERATORS

MODERATORS
TheWalruss
MockDeath
iorgfeflkd
shavera
Jobediah
HonestAbeRinkin
foretopsail
mobilehypo
BrainSturgeon
...and 389 more

a really gnarly topic, made

worse by the understandable
level of secrecy on both sides.
The battle between ECM and
ECCM (yes, that's a term,
'electronic countercountermeasures) is never
ending.
Couple of things to start with.
#1: You have to know and be
able to transmit on the same
frequency as the threat. #2: If
you do so by sheer transmitter
power, you are broadcasting a
gigantic "I AM HERE" beacon.
Many modern radar guided
missiles have a Home on Jam
mode where they can decide
to merrily guide themselves to
a jamming transmitter.
It gets to be layers on layers
on layers of attack versus
defence. Take something like
the AN/ALE-50 and ALE-55
towed decoys, which are
expendable devices towed
behind the aircraft that will retransmit a "faked" radar return
to an approaching missile
which appears to be more
attractive than the real radar
return.
permalink

parent

[] neurohero [S] 2 points 3 ye ars ago

That's great, thanks. This is exactly

what I was looking for!
permalink

parent

[] tsk05 -1 points 3 ye ars ago*

This is explained in equal or more

detail (mostly more) in the manual
for the game Falcon 4 AF. Lower,
Guysmiley777 mentions ECM and
ECCM, this is again explained in fair
detail in the Falcon 4 AF manual
(which is like a thousand pages
long). Suggest picking the game up
if you want to learn more.
permalink

parent

load more comments (1 re ply)

[] MyNewA lias 1 point 3 ye ars ago

It's called a pulse.

permalink

parent

[] bitwaba 0 points 3 ye ars ago

I'd imagine a ping is still a ping, no

matter the medium nor source form
(sound through water, light through

air).
They work the same way. Send a
PING, get a PONG.
permalink

parent

[] Neato 1 point 3 ye ars ago

It's very variable depending on what kind

of missle you have. You can have passive
(listens only), active (emits and listens to
track), semi-active (active part of the
time) and some variations of those. It
also matters if it was launched from the
surface to air (SAM) or Air to ground, or
air to air.
Many planes can tell the difference
between different radar types. From ones
that simply spot things in the air, to one
thats try to measure the exact distance,
height and angle, to ones that provide
direct high-frequency guidance to the
missiles after launch. Knowing which you
are being tracked for determines how a
pilot reacts.
permalink

parent

[] PhilxBefore 0 points 3 ye ars ago

Radar, not sonar.

Sonar (soundwaves through a medium)
are useless at supersonic speeds.
permalink

parent

[] neurohero [S] 2 points 3 ye ars ago

Yeah, that's why I referred to the

light (Radar) equivalent of sonar
pings.
permalink

parent

[] ytwang -4 points 3 ye ars ago

Radar uses radio waves. The

light equivalent would be Lidar.
permalink

parent

[] bitwaba 3 points 3 ye ars

ago

Radio waves are light. I

think the Laser equivalent
would be Lidar.
permalink

parent

[] ytwang 2 points 3
ye ars ago

No, radio waves are

EM, but not light.
Light is the portion
of the EM spectrum
from NIR to UV. On
the other hand, the
first letter of LASER
stands for "light".
permalink

parent

[] neurohero [S] 1 point 3

ye ars ago*

I'm sorry if my ignorance

is showing, but I was
given to believe that
radio waves WERE light,
just not of the visible
spectrum.
edit: Never mind, I see
that you've explained it
below. Thanks!
permalink

parent

[] tootom -1 points 3 ye ars

ago

...Well, radio waves are a

form of light. It's just that
coherent laser light and
incoherent light used in
radar have such different
properties from an
engineering view
permalink

parent

[] JJEE
Ele ctrical Engine e ring |
Applie d
Ele ctrom agne tics
6 points 3 ye ars ago

You have this

backwards.
permalink

parent

[] ytwang 2 points 3
ye ars ago

No, radio waves are

EM, but not light.
Light is the portion
of the EM spectrum
from NIR to UV.
permalink

parent

load more comments (1 re ply)

[] voracioush 8 points 3 ye ars ago

Lots of planes have infrared detectors

mounted throughout the plane with stored
signatures built into the software that detect
and compare to known missle plume
signatures. So once a rocket is within some
arbitrary range a missle detection warning
would probably go off and also automatically
launch flares (IR missle) or chaff (radar
missle). Or perhaps both.
I had a sensors class in college and a grad
student did a presentation on IR sensors
mounted on command staff planes and how
they could detect ground based launches
(Surface to Air or RPGs). I would imagine air to
air rockets work on the same principles.

permalink

parent

[] [deleted] 5 points 3 ye ars ago

This is a question for another thread, but

I'm intrigued as to how chaff works.
permalink

parent

[] LongUsername 7 points 3 ye ars ago

It basically just provides a large

radar reflection.
You have a plane radar signature
that the missile is following, then it
splits in two. Missile can only follow
one target, and which one it
chooses would be based on how the
missile was programmed.
permalink

parent

[] voracioush 2 points 3 ye ars ago

From wikipedia: A radar

countermeasure in which aircraft or
other targets spread a cloud of
small, thin pieces of aluminium,
metalized glass fiber or plastic,
which either appears as a cluster of
secondary targets on radar screens
or swamps the screen with multiple
returns.
Wiki Link
permalink

parent

[] Neato 2 points 3 ye ars ago

Chaff is made to reflect radar

signals. It is cut to specific lengths
depending on the type of signal
tracking it. This chaff is essentially
thrown up like a ninja throws up a
smoke cloud, confusing the seeker
and giving it massive reflections.
Flares are for IR sensors and work a
similar way except they emit very
bright IR signals to try to overpower
or lead off the seeker from the
exhaust and compression heat (from
wing edges, etc).
permalink

parent

[] afrofuturist 5 points 3 ye ars ago

Put "Combat Flight Sim Buff" after this man's

name. He deserves it.
permalink

parent

[] geosmin 2 points 3 ye ars ago

What would you say is the best combat flight

simulator?
permalink

parent

[] obsCUR 9 points 3 ye ars ago

best as in most realistic: dcs : a10, but

only with 1 plane, the a10

best as in overall realistic and with 6
planes: lock on :flaming cliffs.
permalink

parent

[] A ero_ 3 points 3 ye ars ago

Best non-modern flight simulator:

Rise of Flight
I've heard good things about
DCS:Black Shark, too.
permalink

parent

[] Incursus 3 points 3 ye ars ago

I just would like to add that

IL2-1946 and Falcon 4.0 are
also still relevant.
permalink

parent

[] A ero_ 2 points 3 ye ars

ago

Definitely. Though IL2 has

a lot of "UFO" russian
aircraft with questionable
performance capabilities.
Not a problem in
singleplayer, but slightly
annoying online.
permalink

parent

[] Jerkmaan 1 point 3 ye ars ago

do/can you get in dogfights online in

those sims?
will I feel left out while playing if I
don't invest in one of those cool
flight control board and joystick
combo?
permalink

parent

[] obsCUR 2 points 3 ye ars ago

lock on can be played online

thru hyperlobby. also il2 '46.
one needs some sort of
joystick, nothing fancy though,
something like 4 axis, 8 button
+ hat. don't worry about
force-feedback, though some
will debate. those fancy flight
stick with lights and openclose latches and all that bull
that borders on silly, well, no...
permalink

parent

[] geosmin 1 point 3 ye ars ago

What about a good introduction to

the genre?
permalink

parent

[] obsCUR 1 point 3 ye ars ago*

we begin by assuming we're

not talking about arcade flight

combat games: H.A.W.X,
blazing angels, ace
combat,etc.. ( i actually
worked on both hawx 1 and
hawx 2, proud me, what can i
say.. ).
many have started with
novalogic's f22 lightning series,
but they're kind of old. Cute
games, really trying to blend
sim features and broad
accessibility in a product that
would run on a 486.
lock on has detailed
documentation and tutorials.
il2 '46 has, as introductory
features, tutorials, easy mode
controls and flight model. i still
play il2 '46 a lot. you can really
start to get a feel for the
game, and the genre for that
matter, if you just start the
quick mission editor, choose a
plane and the game just
spawns you mid air, no fuss.
After that, you can start
changing payloads, adding
ground targets, enemy
airplanes, start missions at
night, tweak realism settings,
etc, just from the quick editor.
this is how i play the game
mostly, endless fun that is, but
than again, maybe it's just
me..
permalink

parent

[] lotti_talia 1 point 3 ye ars ago

Seems to be more of an engineer type

question, I've always wondered this though.
pertinent .
permalink

parent

load more comments (1 re ply)

[] Tobyirl 6 points 3 ye ars ago

Originally a Kalman Filter was the technique used as

the tracking method for missiles but I imagine now
that things have advanced and perhaps a particle
filter is used instead.
permalink
[] 20bees 5 points 3 ye ars ago

Kalman filters never go out of style.

Regular accelerometers don't compensate for
gravity so you don't get a perfect reading of
the displacement of the object as you move it
- you also have the force of gravity mixed in.
So it's not as good on its own.

With a Kalman filter, you can use the an

accelerometer to provide a reference point and
edit out drift in your gyro as well as increase
it's accuracy.
an example:
http://diydrones.com/profiles/blog/show?
id=705844%3ABlogPost%3A23188
permalink

parent

[] melb_ev 2 points 3 ye ars ago

A standard Kalman filter is not really that

good for such a situation, its very noisy
and has jitter issues. That one was a
good first try but was dropped and they
switch to a complementary filter taken
from another project called DCM which
performs well.
When dealing with nonlinear sensors a
serious Extended Kalman Filter is needed
for very good attitude estimation, for
example as shown in this PDF in real
math:
http://wiki.openpilot.org/download/attachments/950387/INSGPSAlg.pdf
permalink

parent

[] shavera
Strong Force | Q uark -Gluon Plasm a | Particle Je ts
points 3 ye ars ago

As a funny sidenote, we are very fond of

Kalman Filters in particle physics. We do a lot
of our tracking of particles through our
detectors using Kalman Fittings.
permalink

parent

[] freedryk
Fluid Dynam ics | Atm osphe ric Scie nce | C lim ate
Mode ls
2 points 3 ye ars ago

Weather prediction and historical climate

reanalysis also use the Kalman filter to
incorporate observations into the
computer models.
permalink

parent

[] typon 1 point 3 ye ars ago

I write this as I work on Verilog code for

an advanced PLL (most common Kalman
Filter).
permalink

parent

[] [deleted] 8 points 3 ye ars ago

Here's a cool video of the seeker head on a German

air to air missile.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fcx8Xke9It4
permalink
[] [deleted] 8 points 3 ye ars ago

that looks very expensive to just blow up.

permalink

parent

[] LongUsername 16 points 3 ye ars ago

It could be very expensive to NOT blow

up the target.
permalink

parent

[] Neato 10 points 3 ye ars ago

It might be a 100-500k USD missile, but

that bomber or fighter it takes down
could be worth hundreds of millions and
that plane's target could be the lives of a
lot of your people.
permalink

parent

[] [deleted] 2 points 3 ye ars ago

Unit cost is 400,000 Euro

permalink

parent

[] thecrikster 3 points 3 ye ars ago

That's kind of creepy no? Looks too much like

a real eyeball.
permalink

parent

[] A ero_ 1 point 3 ye ars ago

The missile knows where it is at all times. It knows

this because it knows where it isn't. By subtracting
where it is from where it isn't, or where it isn't from
where it is (whichever is greater), it obtains a
difference, or deviation. The guidance subsystem
uses deviations to generate corrective commands
to drive the missile from a position where it is to a
position where it isn't, and arriving at a position
where it wasn't, it now is. Consequently, the
position where it is, is now the position that it
wasn't, and it follows that the position that it was,
is now the position that it isn't. In the event that
the position that it is in is not the position that it
wasn't, the system has acquired a variation, the
variation being the difference between where the
missile is, and where it wasn't. If variation is
considered to be a significant factor, it too may be
corrected by the GEA. However, the missile must
also know where it was.
The missile guidance computer scenario works as
follows. Because a variation has modified some of
the information the missile has obtained, it is not
sure just where it is. However, it is sure where it
isn't, within reason, and it knows where it was. It
now subtracts where it should be from where it
wasn't, or vice-versa, and by differentiating this
from the algebraic sum of where it shouldn't be, and
where it was, it is able to obtain the deviation and
its variation, which is called error.
JOKE:
http://asuwlink.uwyo.edu/~jimkirk/guidance.wav
permalink
[] garblesnarky 11 points 3 ye ars ago

That reads kind of like Douglas Adams

permalink

parent

[] neurohero [S] 2 points 3 ye ars ago

Thanks for your reply. I was wondering more

about how the missile guidance system knows
where to go, not how it knows where it is.
ppod answered that quite eloquently.
permalink

parent

[] A ero_ 6 points 3 ye ars ago

My response was intended to be

humorous. Its a transcript of the .wav I
linked to (which was widely circulated in
engineering/military circles several years
ago). It's engineer humor in that the
description technically makes sense, it
just doesn't offer any real insight into
how the system works.
permalink

parent

[] Enphuego 2 points 3 ye ars ago

Like the engineer and the hot air

balloon joke?
permalink

parent

[] A ero_ 4 points 3 ye ars ago

Precisely.
The Balloonist
A man in a hot air balloon
realized he was lost. He
reduced altitude and spotted a
man below. He descended a bit
more and shouted, "Excuse me,
can you help me? I promised a
friend I would meet him half an
hour ago, but I don't know
where I am."
The man below replied, "You
are in a hot air balloon
hovering approximately 30 feet
about the ground. You are
between 42 and 44 degrees
north latitude and between 83
and 85 degrees west
longitude."
"You must be an engineer,"
said the balloonist. "I am,"
replied the man, "but how did
you know?"
"Well," answered the balloonist,
"everything you told me is
technically correct, but I have
no idea what to make of your
information, and the fact is I
am still lost."
The man below responded,
"You must be a manager." "I
am," replied the balloonist,
"how did you know?"
"Well," said the man, "you don't
know where you are or where

you are going. You made a

promise which you have no
idea how to keep, and you
expect me to solve your
problem. The fact is you are
exactly in the same position
you were in before we met,
but now, somehow, it's my
fault."
permalink

parent

[] Xmonty 1 point 3 ye ars ago

OH MY GOD I almost lost it reading this.

Garblesnarky thinks this reads like Douglas
Adams, and I don't totally disagree, but this
definitely reads like the godawful technical
reference pubs the Navy puts out.
stabs out own eyes
permalink

parent

[] purpsicle27 -4 points 3 ye ars ago

Seems to be more of an engineer type question,

I've always wondered this though.
permalink
[] Neato 1 point 3 ye ars ago

A lot of it is simple reflection. Getting your

emitted signal back means there's something
out there. There are measures to prevent
ground reflection, but that can also be a
problem for a plane. IDing your target
(anything you can resolve with radar) is
complex. A lot of it is due to knowing who is
supposed to be there, any friend-foe systems,
and if you get a good enough signal, resolving
what that reflection looks like. If you get
lucky, that target also emitting a signal for it's
own tracking and it's specifics can give you a
lot of info about what instruments it is using
and for what purpose. And that can tell you a
LOT about what it is.
permalink

parent

[] aazav 0 points 3 ye ars ago

You do know that you are talking about movies, not

reality, right?
permalink
[] neurohero [S] 2 points 3 ye ars ago

Often, in movies...
Yup, I got that. But judging by the responses,
it's very real technology.
permalink

parent

About

Help

Tools

<3

blog
about
team
source code
advertise
jobs

wiki
FAQ
reddiquette
rules
contact us

mobile
firefox extension
chrome extension
buttons
widget

reddit gold
store
redditgifts
reddit AMA app
reddit.tv
radio reddit

Use of this site constitute s acce ptance of our Use r Agre e m e nt (update d) and Privacy Policy (update d). 2015 re ddit inc. All rights
re se rve d.
R EDDIT and the ALIEN Logo are re giste re d trade m ark s of re ddit inc.