dark light

F-18Growler

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 730 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: JHMCS (Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing System) II #2274966
    F-18Growler
    Participant

    Maa1A is official. Maa1b no idea, probably not, although officially interest has been shown and slated to be produced this year.

    I find it interesting they went for the pirhanna / jhmcs combo. Must be pretty unique.

    😉

    in reply to: JHMCS (Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing System) II #2274972
    F-18Growler
    Participant

    Thanks wilhelm and f18 for answering my question ! 🙂

    Paf has maa1a, may receive the b and is definitely in line for the adarter. Adarters for the jf17 possibly with Archer hmds, kind of similar to the jhmcs. The f16s are rumored to have the pirhanas but no official confirmation or pics.

    Yes they might consider the proposal for MAA-1B’s. Well they might have had the MAA-1’s on their wing station. I think it’s classified to show their new MAA-1 missile. So they do have MAA-1 but it might be a secret.

    in reply to: F-35 Debate thread (2) #2275035
    F-18Growler
    Participant

    I guess my comment was another angle on the question of whether a Super Hornet-esque development path would’ve been preferable, with F-35 ‘Block I’ delivering the engine and airframe with SH Block II innards, and ‘Block II’ delivering EODAS and all the other fancy stuff ~5 years and a few hundred (B-model?) airframes later.

    Not sure about the EODAS on a Super Hornet. However, it would bring such significant abilities in A2A, like tracking the range at ~50km in WVR. And bring a full ~360° view in a situation in a close combat fight. But it’s all 5th gen systems and the SH won’t really integrate those 5th gen systems. But with EODAS, the SH might benefit SA.

    But EODAS would bring a effective affordable and affordable technology. IMHO the SH could better off due the DAS capabilites, but putting that technology would bring such affective cost.
    The SH has a choice to integrate the new IRST pod to track the fighter at long ranges for BVR and WVR. Those advantages can exploit many aircraft with IRST. But we’d better of go with the DAS and IRST pod to integrate to the SH.

    in reply to: JHMCS (Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing System) II #2275136
    F-18Growler
    Participant

    Interesting. The JHMCS at least the earlier version if not II is on the PAF F-16s. Recently there was a rumor that PAF was using MAA-1 Pirhanas with the JHMCS. Does anyone know if that is possible? If not, it would be a good way to eliminate that rumour and the reliability of the source…

    I think that’s possible, the MAA-1 has a big off bore sight camera on the front of the missile. So it’s guided or must be used with JHMCS when wanted. But i think they should get JHMCS if they don’t integrate it on the PAF aircraft. I wanted to ask if your AF has the MAA-1B with the enhanced manuverablility,range. It’s parts are 80% Brasilian for the MAA-1. It’s a 4th gen missile from Mectron. The full production for the MAA-1B is expected to begin in 2013.

    in reply to: Eurofighter Typhoon News and Updates #2275275
    F-18Growler
    Participant

    Well, you are forgetting the wing issues of F/A-18E/F : wingdrop (and later wing patches to reduce it), need of wingfences for the electronic version (Growler), etc. The Super Hornet programme is far from a good example. There are many articles, texts and official documents from USA citing the Super Hornet problems.
    Some links :
    http://capitolwords.org/date/2000/02/07/S367_the-navy-super-hornet-program/
    http://www.dnipogo.org/fcs/comments/c341.htm

    OMG another Super Hornet critic. Really? Those links are from an idiot responding(mabye a critic that has no experiance whatsoever or must be a Tomcat fanboy). Really it isn’t a super faliure it’s a great aircraft. Complete BS you had just posted 🙁 Turning, climbing and maneuvering is its key aspect in a WVR engagment. Now move on you delusional critic. Those were from many years ago. Jesus, this is getting ridiculous on every critic i’ve heard on a forum or news sponsoring. 😡

    If you want any questions on the Super Bug….. Ask me 😉

    in reply to: Eurofighter Typhoon News and Updates #2275534
    F-18Growler
    Participant

    JF-17? FC-1?
    perhaps this video come to life?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acMkjGv2hYg

    Look at the like and dislike bar 😉

    in reply to: Your Favorite Hornet/Super Hornet pics. #2275536
    F-18Growler
    Participant

    Nobody denies it is an adv1nced aircraft. One only disussed the term most advanced… And no the F35C isnt the most advanced navy plane until it cand land on a deck…

    It isn’t the most advanced Navy fighter of all time. Sure it has DAS and EODAS, but it’s entering carrier service around 2019 hardly. But as of now we have the most advanced Navy Fighter which is the Super Hornet. We’ll still have it until 2030-2040 approximately.

    Arresting Hook System had significant issues with respect to how the CV variant’s AHS interoperates with aircraft carrier based MK -7 arresting gear. Roll-in arrestment testing at NAWC-AD, Lakehurst, resulted in no successful MK-7 engagements (0 successes in 8 attempts). Root cause analysis identified three key AHS design issues: (1) the aircraft geometry has a relatively short distance between the aircraft’s main landing gear tires and tailhook point (when lowered), (2) tailhook point design was overemphasized for cable shredding features versus ability to scoop low positioned cables, and (3) tailhook hold-down damper performance is ineffective to support damping of small bounces relative to runway/deck surface profiles. the F-35 couldn’t land on carriers beacuse the geometry tail hook distance was 7.8.

    But red was the NGC proposed hook and the Base line was blue. 1.4375 MK7 was the cable. The baseline was .74m and the cable was .19m. But i think they fixed the geomatry cable now.

    http://theaviationist.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/1.jpg

    The distance between the main landing gear and the tailhook on the F-35C is the shortest of any naval aviation carrier airplane that we’ve had. Because we have to hide the hook — because if you had a hook exposed you wouldn’t be as stealthy airplane, that distance is tighter than any other. So it means when you roll over the wire when you land on the deck, the wire goes flush to the deck, and then you have to pick that wire up as it’s generally on the deck. So what we’ve had to do is re-design the hook shank.

    CF-3 performed a total of 18 successful roll-in arrestments MK-7 6 with risers and 4 with no risers and E-28 8 arrestments at Lakehurst from 80 to 100 knots ground speed. The F/A-18E/F’s geometry places the distance of its main landing gear to tailhook point at 18.2 feet a much longer distance than the F-35C.

    Quick fact that this was from 2011

    in reply to: The 'JUST A NICE PIC…' thread #2275810
    F-18Growler
    Participant

    From one aussie bird to another with a hot rear end :highly_amused::highly_amused::highly_amused:
    http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/images/stories/large/2010/10/20/96342240_1.jpg

    Geoff.:D

    :highly_amused:

    in reply to: Possible F-35 UK sighting #2275813
    F-18Growler
    Participant

    Mabye their testing the UK F-35’s

    in reply to: Raytheon Aim-9X Block III #1789776
    F-18Growler
    Participant

    The seeker has been improved, TVC integrated and data links added…A new motor would complete the program from where i see it….The main difference between the two weapons is the cost i guess, with the aim-9x being around 280-350k depending upon reports (fly-away)

    So if TVC is added to AIM-9x would the 90° angle of the missiles go to 180°? I see the seeker has been improved so it maybe willing to go farther when fired and go fast on low and high altidtude depending on how it’s fired. As I said earlier 9x will have a insensitive munitions warhead, which is more stable and less likely to detonate by accident, making it safer for ground crews which is why it has an insensitive warhead. Also the km of the 9x missile might go up to the 60-75km range. It will have the same km range class as the R-77 and AIM-120B.

    The FY 2013 DoD AIM-9 Program, Continues full rate production and product improvements. FY12 will purchase 314 AIM-9X Block II missiles at a cost of $168.3 million. FY12 also provides $29.3 million in RDT&E funding and $10.0 million for spare parts. The AIM-9x Price/Unit Cost is $471,000 for the AIM-9x.

    in reply to: Cold war prototypes that didn't make it #2275921
    F-18Growler
    Participant

    Nice

    in reply to: Raytheon Aim-9X Block III #1789791
    F-18Growler
    Participant

    So how was the block III 9x born?

    So in September 2012, Raytheon was ordered to continue developing the Sidewinder into a possible Block III variant, The new missile will have a longer range, and have a insensitive munitions warhead, which is more stable and less likely to detonate by accident, making it safer for ground crews. While in 2013 the USN pressed for this upgrade in response to a threat which analysts have speculated to be due to the difficulty of targeting upcoming Chinese Fifth-generation jet fighters with the radar guided AMRAAM. It’s increasing to 12.7cm inches up to 15.2 cm inches to have the fuze and seeker work properly on the 9x. Range will likely increase up to 10% if that’s correct.

    Also some facts about the ASRAAM and AIM-9x.

    The early operational assessment of the British ASRAAM foreign comparative test focused on the risk areas of the ASRAAM focal plane array effectiveness, seeker signal processing, warhead effectiveness, rocket motor testing, and kinematic/guidance ability to support the lethality requirements of the AIM-9X. The resulting assessment was that the ASRAAM cannot meet the AIM-9X operational requirements in high off-boresight angle performance, infrared counter-countermeasures robustness, lethality, and interoperability.

    I wonder how it’s going to be diffrent with the HOBS sight and the JHMCS. At least the Super Hornet needs the IRST for the extended range AMRAAM for an extended range. It’s possibly not going to integrate the extended AMRAAM beacuse the 9x is going to out range the AMRAAM.

    in reply to: RAF Waddington Airshow 2013 Sunday (Image Heavy) #471731
    F-18Growler
    Participant

    Beutiful Pictures 10/10 Photographing

    Steven

    in reply to: Waddingron Air Show Saturday 06-7-2013 #471733
    F-18Growler
    Participant

    Beutiful Shots!

    F-18Growler
    Participant

    Wow nice paint scheme. Got to give them credit for the paint job. It’s to fashiony for the Iranian Mirage F1’s 😉

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 730 total)