Of the 550+ F-15’s how many are F-15 C’s and E’s???

I’m breathless with anticipation as to where this little titbit is going to turn up now. 😀

Daniel

I’m afraid you are rather missing the point sferrin!. :rolleyes:

Garry responded and the red mist descended.

Sferrin mate its a modelling exercise, they want to know how effective a certain sized charge is on a tunnel complex.

“We have several very large penetrators we’re developing,” he told defense reporters.

“We also have — are you ready for this – a 700-tonne explosively formed charge that we’re going to be putting in a tunnel in Nevada,” he said.

“And that represents to us the largest single explosive that we could imagine doing conventionally to solve that problem,” he said.

The aim is to measure the effect of the blast on hard granite structures, he said.

“If you want to model these weapons, you want to know from a modeling point of view what is the ideal best condition you could ever set up in a conventional weapon — what’s the best you can do.

“And this gets at the best point you could get on a curve. So it allows us to predict how effective these kinds of weapons … would be,” he said.

I’d suggest that either they are only talking about conventional weapons to avoid admitting that its do do with the sub kiloton nukes program or perhaps that want to show speciffically how big a conventional charge is required to do the job so they can then say “this is why we need nukes”.

Daniel

Sure it was. But you wrote “… and used to knock down missiles” (emphasis by me). Probably just an inadvertent typing mistake, but I thought I should clarify it in case some “newbie” reader isn’t familiar with the ASAT acronym.

Really? Seems quite a lot for an experimental program. Anyway, I don’t know what happened to any remaining ASM-135 missiles after the end of the program.

Well coming up to 20 years since manufacture I’d suspect that any leftovers would probably experienceing the same sort of propellant issues that afflicted the Pheonix towards the end of its career. Still the seekers etc would probably be salvagable although one would be surprised if we couldn’t do better by now.

Daniel

PLA soldiers use wireless PDA instead of voice device to designate ground target by directly clicking the attacked position on electronic map in PDA. This picture may imply that PLA already equipped air-ground integrated data link???

Or possibly the they just get a GPS position from the program which is then passed on in traditional manner.

Daniel

Ok, just to the sake of debate. What does Iran have that would be a serious threat to USN Super Hornets??? :rolleyes:

And thats not even the right question, rather we should ask what does Iran have that can stand against the USAF and USN as a whole. No one will be sending off the Super Bugs to sink or swim on thier own. Operate as a part of the over all machine. Some folks like to get off by claiming “you’s Ammi’s are all doomed because my wunderplane is better than your Eagle/Falcon/Hornet etc”. Well bully for you, there is a reason assets like AEW&C, EW and tankers are known as force MULTIPLIERS.

Daniel

Latest from Janes Missiles and Rockets April 2006

US considers conventional warhead strategic missiles
David C Isby
The long-standing US policy goal of developing a conventional capability for intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) has been given new impetus, writes David C Isby. The current Fiscal Year 2007 (FY07) budget request includes funding to develop a near-term capability, while a request for information (RFI) to industry is intended to identify technologies and capabilities that would contribute to an objective capability around 2020.

This increased interest in a global quick-reaction capability, able to function given little or no warning, reflects the support given to the concept by the Combatant Commander of the US Strategic Command (STRATCOM), Marine General James Cartwright, as well as language in the FY06 defence authorisation bill conference report and the 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR).

What is being termed the Prompt Global Strike (PGS) programme includes both a near-term and objective capability. The former will be provided by the US Navy (USN), using modified SLBMs. In the longer term, the US Air Force could use modified Minuteman III ICBMs, or have a conventional-warhead capability designed into the proposed next-generation ICBM being considered for eventual replacement of the land-based strategic missile force.

According to press reports, the USN has planned and budgeted in the Future Years Defense Plan (FYDP) over FY07-11 to develop and then implement a plan to put up to four conventional warheads on up to 24 of its 336 Trident D-5 SLBMs. This would allow two conventional missiles to be carried by each of 12 submarines. Initial funding of USD500 million has been included in the most recent FY07 budget request.

The QDR calls for this conventional-warhead capability to become operational in two years. The short timeframe for development suggests the use of off-the-shelf re-entry vehicle designs, which would make integration with GPS guidance potentially problematic.

Conventional versions of the D-5 have proven controversial in the past. The US Congress expressed its concerns in FY03 and FY04 legislation that included studies on conventional SLBMs, citing issues in areas of arms control, regional balance destabilisation and strategic warning.

US Air Force Space Command issued a RFI notice to industry on 27 January 2006 to identify sources of possible concepts and technologies applicable to an objective capability around 2020. This information will be fed into a forthcoming Analysis of Alternatives, scheduled for later this year. Because of the longer period involved and the potential for integration with a new missile design, it is thought that technological approaches that have been discussed in recent years, such as hypervelocity GPS/INS-guided winged penetrator payloads, are more likely be exploited by this project rather than in the USN plan for a near-term D-5 modification.

Thats now two newer reports from Janes since the original in JDW that indicates 4 warheads per missile x 24 missiles. Might be time to concede Sferrin.

Daniel

….

I assume most folks know the excellent China Defence Forums. These have, most unfortunately, been offline for the last week but hopefully will return soon. ….

Daniel

I know, poor form quoting oneself, just wanted to let people know that CDF is back online. China Defence Forums

Just been looking through some of the South Korean threads over there and it brought home how much of the excellent stuff that Level posted here on SK services has now been lost. How long does google hold stuff?

Daniel

The Iranians need for a usable AD system first and most important surveillance. That is as first choice ground based radar systems, preferraby movable. Then SAMs and fighters.

The F-14 is expensive, very costly in maintenance and training. They could afford 2 to 3 F-5 for the job. I don’t think the F-14 brings in that big advantage.

Yep in the abscence of that fully intergrated air defence (and you’d better add AEW&C and EW support to the ground systems) then the Iranians are just as well off with many upgraded F-5s than a more limited number of F-14 types. Something like the IAI upgrade done on Chile’s Tigre’s (EL/M2035 and Derby BVRAAM). Capability similar to the Chinese FC-1 which is pretty good for the cost involved.

Daniel