The F14 vs what we are doing now

In article ,
wrote:

Shmaryahu b. Chanoch wrote:

:On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 07:32:34 GMT, Fred J. McCall
wrote:
:|:
:|:Are you referring to the AIM-120?
:|
:|Yep.
:|
:|:BTW how does that relate to the Army's
:|:SLAMRAAM program?
:|
:|What do you mean, "how does that relate"?
:
:From what I saw on the Global Security web site, it looks like the Army's
:SLANRAAM is based on the AIM-120

If that was the question, then yes, it's the same missile. Oh, just
by the way, it's not "the Army's SLAMRAAM", since SLAMRAAM is a
trademark of the Raytheon Company.

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.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

"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?
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

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.

--

-Jeff B.
zoomie at fastmail dot fm

"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?
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

"Andrew Chaplin" wrote in message
...
"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?

Why bother? The Army is looking for a lightweight SHORAD system here, not a
near-competitor against the Patriot. I'd guess that the range envelope
unboosted is plenty big enough to take advantage of the available radar
track, which being groundbound like the missile launcher will in most cases
not have the advantage of tremendous line-of-sight ranges like what an
airborne platform has, especially when opposing the threats that the system
is supposed to be focusing on (UAV's, helos, cruise missiles). Note that
this is not the first AIM-120 based SAM system; Norway already bought
NASAMS, and the USMC is well on the way to fielding CLAWS, IIRC. And
somebody has already been operating one of the above here in the US--there
were photos in the media last year showing what looked like CLAWS or NASAMS
sitting near one of the high value targets around Washington, DC, which the
DoD folks were rather tight-lipped about when asked.

Brooks

--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

Fred J. McCall wrote:
Shmaryahu b. Chanoch wrote:

:On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 07:32:34 GMT, Fred J. McCall wrote:
:|:
:|:Are you referring to the AIM-120?
:|
:|Yep.
:|
:|:BTW how does that relate to the Army's
:|:SLAMRAAM program?
:|
:|What do you mean, "how does that relate"?
:
:From what I saw on the Global Security web site, it looks like the Army's
:SLANRAAM is based on the AIM-120

If that was the question, then yes, it's the same missile. Oh, just
by the way, it's not "the Army's SLAMRAAM", since SLAMRAAM is a
trademark of the Raytheon Company.


Raytheon are just going lend them to the army then?

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

Peter Skelton

(Harry Andreas) wrote:

:In article .com,
wrote:
:
: neither - YMJ - I'm a Canadian hornet driver.
:
o everything in your power to get AESA radars on your F/A-18's.
:They are a true force multiplier.
:
:And yes, I know it's only currently offered on the E/F aircraft, but that
:will change soon.

Canada tends to be funding limited (their government won't give them
enough money). They're just now (slowly) getting A+ upgrades, I
think.

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.

--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney

"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! :-)

--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney

Another dumb**** heard from ... and then not heard from....

B wrote:

:Fred J. McCall wrote:
: Shmaryahu b. Chanoch wrote:
:
: :On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 07:32:34 GMT, Fred J. McCall wrote:
: :|:
: :|:Are you referring to the AIM-120?
: :|
: :|Yep.
: :|
: :|:BTW how does that relate to the Army's
: :|:SLAMRAAM program?
: :|
: :|What do you mean, "how does that relate"?
: :
: :From what I saw on the Global Security web site, it looks like the Army's
: :SLANRAAM is based on the AIM-120
:
: If that was the question, then yes, it's the same missile. Oh, just
: by the way, it's not "the Army's SLAMRAAM", since SLAMRAAM is a
: trademark of the Raytheon Company.
:
:
:Raytheon are just going lend them to the army then?
: