If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 14:19:38 -0500, "John Carrier"
wrote: SNIP Head-on @ ten miles? Not with these eyes when they were 20/15 and on a good day. Of course, the T-38 (and to a very slightly lesser degree, the F-5) were more difficult still. We were doing a low level escorted attack on Red Rio range in the Holloman complex in which I was leading a four-ship of AT-38 "bombers" onto the tac range with a pair of F-15A's flying outrigger escort for me. The defenders were a pair of F-5E Aggressors deployed from Nellis. I visually acquired the pair of F-5s and called them out for the offensive force at "5 miles"---GCI confirmed the visual, but corrected my range to 13 miles. With a radar contact for cueing on the visual search quadrant, visuals at 10 miles on MiG-21 sized targets are not out of thequestion. Optimum contrast, maybe a bit of target aspect? Possible. But having watched a padlocked T-38 disappear into the background at a mile, not likely. And, I'll confess to having exactly the same experience. Four years doing Fighter Lead-In at Holloman gives a lot of opportunity to be embarrassed. Was a bit of 1-v-1 over the New Mexico desert and I was doing all aspect engagements against a "lizard" paint job--dusty tan, brown camo. I watched him come in at high angle from 10 o'clock and simply disappear as I watched the airplane at a mile. Sometimes you get the bear and sometimes the bear gets you. Ed Rasimus Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret) "When Thunder Rolled" www.thunderchief.org www.thundertales.blogspot.com |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Ed Rasimus wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 20:31:46 -0500, "John Carrier" wrote: snip Maybe some Tom-drivers in this forum will comment, but I've got to think that in a head-to-head pass with a system lock at ten miles there is no possible way that the AIM-54 could function. It's well inside Vmin for a AIM-7E-2 and wouldn't be a viable shot for an AIM-9J, P, or M. I think your memory is cloudy. 10NM is nicely within the AIM-7 envelope. It's also in the heart of the AIM-54 ACM Active mode envelope IIRC. 10NM is just great for a low aspect shot, but head-on is a distinctly different situation. As pointed out in my other post, 10nm is closer to Rmax had-on for an AIM-7E-2 at moderate altitudes and ca. M0.9, not Rmin, which is more like 2nm. I used to have a videotape off CNN of the F-14/MiG-23 engagement over the Gulf of Sidra in the mid-80s or so ("I can't get a ****ing tone!"), which I transcribed. Presumably using the longer ranged AIM-7F or -7M (anyone know which?) instead of what would have presumably been an AIM-7E-4*, Sparrow shots were taken head-on at 13 and 10nm, firer at Angels 5 snapping up, target at Angels 9, both firer and target at about 450 kts; presumably the heart of the envelope or close to it. *According to Friedman differing from the 7E-2 in protection from the AWG-9's much greater 'spillover' radiation, compared to the F-4's radar. Guy |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Missile defense | Mike | Military Aviation | 0 | August 28th 04 02:13 AM |
What is missile defense? An expensive fraud Bush needs Poland as a future nuclear battlefield | Paul J. Adam | Military Aviation | 1 | August 9th 04 08:29 PM |
V-4 Missile Possibilities | robert arndt | Military Aviation | 42 | January 23rd 04 05:40 AM |
Australia to participate in US missile defence program | David Bromage | Military Aviation | 40 | December 13th 03 01:52 PM |
AIM-54 Phoenix missile | Sujay Vijayendra | Military Aviation | 89 | November 3rd 03 09:47 PM |