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 |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 01:13:20 -0700, Scott Ferrin wrote:
Kinda gives you an appreciation of the AIM-47. A long ranged missile fired at Mach 3+ and 80,000ft+ I still think that the YF-12 was one of the best "might have beens". Didn't it take ages to fuel the thing, making it incapable of scrambling quickly? -- "It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia (Email: , but first subtract 275 and reverse the last two letters). |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Scott Ferrin
wrote: On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 13:38:28 -0600, "John Carrier" wrote: It depends upon the target speed and its aspect, doesn't it? A low altitude stream raid (multiple sea skimmers, perhaps submarine launched) head on at .9IMN required careful management of the launch parameters (first shot relatively high, subsequent shots lower), the radar scan volume, and (eventually) removal of radar support for the first shot(s) to insure successful engagement of all the targets. Low altitude severely limits range. Sidewinder envelopes can get below 1/2 mile with a fast, opening target at low altitude. Rear quarter shots are limited by motor burn time (in this regard, AMRAAM is pretty nice, assuming it doesn't have any speed gate issues ala Sparrow ... wouldn't know, never carried one). The target is effected by speed limitations (An F-14 can easily do 1.8 ... around 1200 KTAS ... at higher altitudes, 800KIAS low), but its engines sustain the speed. Kinda gives you an appreciation of the AIM-47. A long ranged missile fired at Mach 3+ and 80,000ft+ I still think that the YF-12 was one of the best "might have beens". Interesting aircraft and great at it's design purpose, but too operationally limited as a fighter or interceptor. -- Harry Andreas Engineering raconteur |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
A number of targets in column, at low altitude and at a high subsonic speed.
Generally engaged from head-on. R/ John "phil hunt" wrote in message . .. On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 13:38:28 -0600, John Carrier wrote: Not as much as you'd think. Increased air density shrinks missile envelopes. But the increased air density also reduces the speed of the target; wouldn't these effects roughly cancel out? Not as much as you'd think. It depends upon the target speed and its aspect, doesn't it? A low altitude stream raid (multiple sea skimmers, perhaps submarine launched) head on at .9IMN What's this? -- "It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia (Email: , but first subtract 275 and reverse the last two letters). |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
"John Carrier" writes: A number of targets in column, at low altitude and at a high subsonic speed. Generally engaged from head-on. And spread out enough in time that you can't engage several at once, and there won't be time to finish the current engagement and get the next whatever (airplane/missile) coming inbound. Manual systems, that rely on human observers to watch teh scopes and vector the interceptors or assign SAM targets are particularly vulnerable to this method of attacking. (Each controller can really only handle one or two targets at a time) R/ John "phil hunt" wrote in message . .. On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 13:38:28 -0600, John Carrier wrote: Not as much as you'd think. Increased air density shrinks missile envelopes. But the increased air density also reduces the speed of the target; wouldn't these effects roughly cancel out? Not as much as you'd think. It depends upon the target speed and its aspect, doesn't it? A low altitude stream raid (multiple sea skimmers, perhaps submarine launched) head on at .9IMN What's this? -- "It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia (Email: , but first subtract 275 and reverse the last two letters). -- Pete Stickney A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many bad measures. -- Daniel Webster |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
|
#86
|
|||
|
|||
"Harry Andreas" wrote in message ... In article , Scott Ferrin wrote: On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 13:38:28 -0600, "John Carrier" wrote: It depends upon the target speed and its aspect, doesn't it? A low altitude stream raid (multiple sea skimmers, perhaps submarine launched) head on at .9IMN required careful management of the launch parameters (first shot relatively high, subsequent shots lower), the radar scan volume, and (eventually) removal of radar support for the first shot(s) to insure successful engagement of all the targets. Low altitude severely limits range. Sidewinder envelopes can get below 1/2 mile with a fast, opening target at low altitude. Rear quarter shots are limited by motor burn time (in this regard, AMRAAM is pretty nice, assuming it doesn't have any speed gate issues ala Sparrow ... wouldn't know, never carried one). The target is effected by speed limitations (An F-14 can easily do 1.8 ... around 1200 KTAS ... at higher altitudes, 800KIAS low), but its engines sustain the speed. Kinda gives you an appreciation of the AIM-47. A long ranged missile fired at Mach 3+ and 80,000ft+ I still think that the YF-12 was one of the best "might have beens". Interesting aircraft and great at it's design purpose, but too operationally limited as a fighter or interceptor. I'm not sure I understand. At the time the USAF was procuring the replacement for the F106 in the late seventies, I saw the results of cost and effectiveness evaluations of several alternatives: F12/AIM-47, BF-1/AIM-54(lots of them), F14, F15/Sparrow and....F16/Sparrow. Against the cannonical Backfire threat in the North Atlantic basin, the F12 performed hugely well. On a cost/benefits trade, the results for most threats was pretty much in the order shown above. Of course, the USAF selected the F16/Sparrow which showed up worst in every scenario I saw. That spoke volumes on how seriously the USAF took the late seventies bomber threat. The BF-1A was interesting: huge aperature for the AWG-9 set and IRRC, 24 AIM-54s. The increased antenna gain raised the various RADAR ranges by about 50%. |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
In message , Peter Stickney
writes In article , "John Carrier" writes: A number of targets in column, at low altitude and at a high subsonic speed. Generally engaged from head-on. And spread out enough in time that you can't engage several at once, and there won't be time to finish the current engagement and get the next whatever (airplane/missile) coming inbound. That's the goal of the attackers, but how reliably can they achieve it? Pause and think how hard it is to do a comms-out multi-axis attack that achieves anything like a simultaneous time-on-target, against an alert, wary and aggressive enemy. Manual systems, that rely on human observers to watch teh scopes and vector the interceptors or assign SAM targets are particularly vulnerable to this method of attacking. (Each controller can really only handle one or two targets at a time) Attacking has the same problem. Easy to co-ordinate a handful of aircraft, but how to achieve a wide arc of simultaneous attacks with a common TOT? -- When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite. W S Churchill Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 2 Nov 2003 16:19:57 -0500, Peter Stickney wrote:
In article , ess (phil hunt) writes: On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 01:13:20 -0700, Scott Ferrin wrote: Kinda gives you an appreciation of the AIM-47. A long ranged missile fired at Mach 3+ and 80,000ft+ I still think that the YF-12 was one of the best "might have beens". Didn't it take ages to fuel the thing, making it incapable of scrambling quickly? With the Blackbirds, it's not so much fuel as it is the ancilliary stuff, for example the Tri-Ethyl Borane needed to get the fuel burning (And is Nasty Evil Stuff, handled more carefully (and much more dangerous) than Nuclear Waste, Did it ever dissolve the pilot, like the Me 163's fuel did? -- "It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia (Email: , but first subtract 275 and reverse the last two letters). |
#89
|
|||
|
|||
A number of targets in column, at low altitude and at a high subsonic
speed. Generally engaged from head-on. And spread out enough in time that you can't engage several at once, and there won't be time to finish the current engagement and get the next whatever (airplane/missile) coming inbound. Manual systems, that rely on human observers to watch teh scopes and vector the interceptors or assign SAM targets are particularly vulnerable to this method of attacking. (Each controller can really only handle one or two targets at a time) With a good system, and a skilled crew, its doable. And a challenge none the less. OTOH, shooting a Mach 3 bogey at 70K+ was interesting as well. R / John |
#90
|
|||
|
|||
In article , "Paul F Austin"
wrote: Kinda gives you an appreciation of the AIM-47. A long ranged missile fired at Mach 3+ and 80,000ft+ I still think that the YF-12 was one of the best "might have beens". Interesting aircraft and great at it's design purpose, but too operationally limited as a fighter or interceptor. I'm not sure I understand. At the time the USAF was procuring the replacement for the F106 in the late seventies, I saw the results of cost and effectiveness evaluations of several alternatives: F12/AIM-47, BF-1/AIM-54(lots of them), F14, F15/Sparrow and....F16/Sparrow. Against the cannonical Backfire threat in the North Atlantic basin, the F12 performed hugely well. On a cost/benefits trade, the results for most threats was pretty much in the order shown above. Of course, the USAF selected the F16/Sparrow which showed up worst in every scenario I saw. That spoke volumes on how seriously the USAF took the late seventies bomber threat. The BF-1A was interesting: huge aperature for the AWG-9 set and IRRC, 24 AIM-54s. The increased antenna gain raised the various RADAR ranges by about 50%. First of all, I have no axe to grind, just so you know. My company had the radar and weapons system for all but the F-16/Sparrow, and the weapons for first 3 too. I was focusing on some of the same issues that Pete pointed out, about basing, launch, re-fueling, etc. all practical matters that (IIRC) were pretty much ignored in the initial study. People sometimes think the Blackbird was a super-aircraft because it flew so fast, but try to do a 3 minute scramble in one. And that was the mission they were being considered for. Also, what about re-engagements, or alternate targeting? What was it's turning radius again? It takes how long to get back on target? Once you point this thing at a target, it's awfully tough to re-direct. BTW, I agree wholeheartedly with your assessment of the F-16 in the ADF role. It was nonsense of the first order. It's probably still nonsense today even if the F-16 is carrying AMRAAM. Aircraft range too short, engagement time too limited, weapons envelope (IIRC) non-existent. If your GCI is not perfect, you miss. -- Harry Andreas Engineering raconteur |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Poland: French Missile Report Was Wrong | Michael Petukhov | Military Aviation | 8 | October 7th 03 10:54 PM |
How did the Iranians get the Phoenix to work? | Ragnar | Military Aviation | 22 | October 2nd 03 02:49 AM |
IPC in a Simulator? Phoenix area.. | Anonymous | Instrument Flight Rules | 5 | August 28th 03 11:31 PM |
Surface to Air Missile threat | PlanetJ | Instrument Flight Rules | 1 | August 14th 03 02:13 PM |
Rafael's AIM-AIR IR Missile Countermeasure | JT | Military Aviation | 8 | July 13th 03 03:41 AM |