>>63823836>How wide do you think the emissions cone of modern ARHs are?As big as they need to be.
>They are not optimized for area search, they are meant to be steered to within a few degrees of an aircraft before they go pitbull, not scan a 60 degree cone in front of them.Maybe if you're stuck in the 1980's, did you miss out on chinese PL-15 AESA arrays being shown off by the indians?
Bro it's fucking AESA and with compute being dirt cheap you can do whatever the fuck you want with that array.
You can seek at close to 180° cone with that, no problem, or focus all modules on a point in space, and you can interleave that 9001 times per second if you want to.
Hell you can do SAR with this and create an image of your mom's fat behind, but then the radar computer will run out of memory.
>With a resolution of miles you are not going to realistically be able to guide a missile to the point that the seeker head is going to be reliably pointing close enough for the head to pick it up in the main lobe of the onboard radar.You've spouted this dozens of times but it remains wrong. You're thinking along the lines of 1980's missile tech.
It's 2025 gramps.
>This is of course ignoring the fact that it is a bad idea for a longer range shot, as if the missile has already burned out the onboard rocket motor then it will be going slower and slower, which means you get less and less extra energy in reserve to make the sharp correctionsThey're not sharp, but minor corrections, since you have a constant D A T A L I N K updating the missile to the target, also only AMRAAM suffers from dogshit terminal performance, modern missiles are ramjet or dual pulse.
