The F14 vs what we are doing now

Fred J. McCall wrote:

AESA is a force multiplier if you wind up going air-to-air. If you
really want a real decisive force multiplier, get stand-off precision
strike weapons (since the A+ allows you to use them). Then you can
just stay away from the other guy to start with.




assuming you are fighting on his ground.

"B" wrote in message ...
Fred J. McCall wrote:
"Andrew Chaplin" wrote:

:"Harry Andreas" wrote in message
...
:
: Damn right.
:
: SLAMRAAM is a box launched AIM-120.
: As such, it has less range and a smaller engagement envelope than
: the airborne version, but still a bugger to go up against.
:
:Why the loss of performance?

Because you're not starting with a 600+ knot velocity when you light
the motor like you are when you launch from an aircraft and because
what you're shooting at is 'up' from where you're shooting from.

Ye kenna violate the laws o' physics, Captain! :-)


Altitude is probably more important.

I doubt that. Altitude alone yields increased range only in a look
down/shoot down scenario (yeah, decreased drag alone due to increased
altitude will have some effect regardless of the aspect of engagement, but
it will not be significant); OTOH, adding that 600 knots to the missile at
launch is imparting a heck of a lot of energy--you know, that whole
vee-squared part of the kinetic energy equation?

Brooks

Kevin Brooks wrote:
"B" wrote in message ...
Fred J. McCall wrote:
"Andrew Chaplin" wrote:

:"Harry Andreas" wrote in message
...
:
: Damn right.
:
: SLAMRAAM is a box launched AIM-120.
: As such, it has less range and a smaller engagement envelope than
: the airborne version, but still a bugger to go up against.
:
:Why the loss of performance?

Because you're not starting with a 600+ knot velocity when you light
the motor like you are when you launch from an aircraft and because
what you're shooting at is 'up' from where you're shooting from.

Ye kenna violate the laws o' physics, Captain! :-)

Altitude is probably more important.

I doubt that. Altitude alone yields increased range only in a look
down/shoot down scenario (yeah, decreased drag alone due to increased
altitude will have some effect regardless of the aspect of engagement, but
it will not be significant); OTOH, adding that 600 knots to the missile at
launch is imparting a heck of a lot of energy--you know, that whole
vee-squared part of the kinetic energy equation?

Brooks



Wait until you see this (check my figures please).

AIM-120 (150kg) at 10,000m
Ug=150kg x 10km x g
=150,0000 x 10,000 x 9.8
=14.7x10^9 J

AIM-120 at 600knots (300m/s)
=150,000 x 300^2
=13x10^9 J

Much closer than I thought. Of course it's a complex problem but the raw
figures are interesting.

hey, good to see guys are still chatting away - i'm currently flying
with 416 squadron in cold lake- no flying for me but we did do a 4 v
unk DCA mission in
our new sim - i think it ended up being 4 v 12 mig 29 which was pretty
cool. the sim is great for bvr work and the idea is eventually to
network outside of the
existing 4 ship capability to sims on other bases in Canada and the US
for lfe type stuff. Our Hornet is basically upgraded between an A+ and
a C, in that
we had no need for the EPE engine in that we didn't incorporate the
airframe weight additions that the C model did. All I can say is that I
can't imagine ever
fighting in the legacy model - we kept some for NORAD work and the
capability difference is huge. your comments about getting into the
booth are pretty
true - guys tend to view a mission as a failure of red air gets inside
of decision range or abort range for sure (bogeys excepted of course).

Part 1 of the upgrade is complete for about 1.5 years. it consists of
OFP 19C, APG-73 radar, AN/APX-111 combined IFF interrogator/txpdr
(awesome
piece of kit) , GPS, AIM-120C5 (nice!). the jets are just starting to
go away now for part 2 which is colour DDIs/ digital moving map, JDAM,
Link-16 (huge
jump in capability there) and JHMCS. We are also picking up new flir
pods ( I heard today most likely litening 2 and most definitely not
ATFLIR, which
according to our marine exchange pilot, sucks. We were also on track to
get ASRAAM as our high off boresite missile but I think that is on the
back burner
for now.

Peter Skelton wrote:
On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 20:29:07 -0500, "Andrew Chaplin"
wrote:

"Yeff" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 18:49:43 -0500, Andrew Chaplin wrote:

Why the loss of performance?

It doesn't start off with the speed of a launching aircraft.

That's what I thought it would be. So one needs something like a boost
stage if one is to have anything like the same envelope?

Yes, but it's energy, not speed, that matters. Altitude, as well
as speed, is important

Yes, a missile launched higher should have better range... a plane
launching an AMRAAM at an altitude of 30,000 feet at a target at 30,000
feet or less should have more range than a ground launch at a target up
at 30,000 feet....

Also there is the ability to use look down radar in a plane, maybe
longer detection range? Depending on terrain and so on I guess....

Peter Skelton

On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 00:04:51 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:


"B" wrote in message ...
Fred J. McCall wrote:
"Andrew Chaplin" wrote:

:"Harry Andreas" wrote in message
...
:
: Damn right.
:
: SLAMRAAM is a box launched AIM-120.
: As such, it has less range and a smaller engagement envelope than
: the airborne version, but still a bugger to go up against.
:
:Why the loss of performance?

Because you're not starting with a 600+ knot velocity when you light
the motor like you are when you launch from an aircraft and because
what you're shooting at is 'up' from where you're shooting from.

Ye kenna violate the laws o' physics, Captain! :-)


Altitude is probably more important.

I doubt that. Altitude alone yields increased range only in a look
down/shoot down scenario (yeah, decreased drag alone due to increased
altitude will have some effect regardless of the aspect of engagement, but
it will not be significant); OTOH, adding that 600 knots to the missile at
launch is imparting a heck of a lot of energy--you know, that whole
vee-squared part of the kinetic energy equation?

600 mph is about 880 fps 880 squared is 774,400

30,000 feet x 30 = 900,000

They're about equal on the back of my envelope

Peter Skelton

In message , Andrew Chaplin
writes
"Yeff" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 18:49:43 -0500, Andrew Chaplin wrote:
Why the loss of performance?

It doesn't start off with the speed of a launching aircraft.

That's what I thought it would be. So one needs something like a boost
stage if one is to have anything like the same envelope?

Very much so - you get a big difference in energy between lighting the
motor off at co-altitude and 450kt initial airspeed, compared to stopped
and on the ground. Also, with ground launch you're doing all your
accelerating in dense air, which means more drag and so you get less
velocity for your efforts, compared to launching from 20kft (and you
certainly have a better chance of having an altitude advantage, at least
since the Buccaneers retired )

As an example, in open source figures for a good-case target (fast
inbound head-on) you tend to see twenty-odd miles listed as AIM-7
Sparrow range, but maybe eight for RIM-7 Sea Sparrow.


--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

"B" wrote in message ...
Kevin Brooks wrote:
"B" wrote in message ...
Fred J. McCall wrote:
"Andrew Chaplin" wrote:

:"Harry Andreas" wrote in message
...
:
: Damn right.
:
: SLAMRAAM is a box launched AIM-120.
: As such, it has less range and a smaller engagement envelope than
: the airborne version, but still a bugger to go up against.
:
:Why the loss of performance?

Because you're not starting with a 600+ knot velocity when you light
the motor like you are when you launch from an aircraft and because
what you're shooting at is 'up' from where you're shooting from.

Ye kenna violate the laws o' physics, Captain! :-)

Altitude is probably more important.

I doubt that. Altitude alone yields increased range only in a look
down/shoot down scenario (yeah, decreased drag alone due to increased
altitude will have some effect regardless of the aspect of engagement,
but it will not be significant); OTOH, adding that 600 knots to the
missile at launch is imparting a heck of a lot of energy--you know, that
whole vee-squared part of the kinetic energy equation?

Brooks



Wait until you see this (check my figures please).

AIM-120 (150kg) at 10,000m
Ug=150kg x 10km x g
=150,0000 x 10,000 x 9.8
=14.7x10^9 J

AIM-120 at 600knots (300m/s)
=150,000 x 300^2
=13x10^9 J

Much closer than I thought. Of course it's a complex problem but the raw
figures are interesting.

A bigger difference than I would have thought, but a key factor to
consider--the land based system is not intended to be going after high
flyers; that would probably remain the territory for the Patriots (which do
habitually see a number of batteries get sent forwards into the
division-level sectors, they don't all remain back at corps and theater
level). As described, this is supposed to be an anti-helo, anti-UAV, and
anti-cruise missile system, so again, the altitude issue is probably not as
great as one would think. And shouldn't that KE equation use *one-half the
mass* times velocity squared? Which would make the result half of what you
calculated?

Brooks

----------
In article , Fred J. McCall
wrote:

:I imagine that this question could be answered by whether or not they ever
:trained for it in the 1970s and 1980s. My suspicion is that they never
:trained for carrying more than six AIM-54s.

Well, I'd hope so, since the airplane couldn't carry more than 6
AIM-54s, which WAS a full load.

My glitch. I meant four, not six.


I doubt they'd train for 6 going off a boat, since they'd have to
jettison two of them to get back onto the boat (and NAVAIR probably
would get a bit hacked at folks throwing million dollar missiles in
the drink for TRAINING).

Yeah, but there's ways to train without taking the full load of missiles,
right? They run an op that assumes that there are six. Did anybody train
for that?



D

"DDAY" wrote:

:In article , Fred J. McCall
wrote:
:
: I doubt they'd train for 6 going off a boat, since they'd have to
: jettison two of them to get back onto the boat (and NAVAIR probably
: would get a bit hacked at folks throwing million dollar missiles in
: the drink for TRAINING).
:
:Yeah, but there's ways to train without taking the full load of missiles,
:right? They run an op that assumes that there are six. Did anybody train
:for that?

How would that be different than any other training?

--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw