dark light

MadRat

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 3,376 through 3,390 (of 4,651 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Difference between Agility and Maneuverability? #2432525
    MadRat
    Participant

    I don’t know, those IR seekers might have to be rethought with the new laser-based blinders called TADIRCM, or “Agile Eye”. Very fitting name considering this topic.

    in reply to: Navies news from around the world -II #2007460
    MadRat
    Participant

    Thank you for the insights!

    in reply to: UK bombs and Paveway's #1806104
    MadRat
    Participant

    It would be nice to connect the dots between MERs and TERs to the pylons, load limits of a hardpoint, and their related interfaces. Ever since the universal bus design weapons integration deals more with these factors and real world performance than anything else. Some of the lighter bombs actually pose a hazard to aircraft even if it would allow for a bigger spread. Some adapters physically connect but there is no serial lockout for the bus to control weapons functions. And so on, and so on…

    in reply to: The PAK-FA Saga Episode 11.0 #2432627
    MadRat
    Participant

    Chemical injection causes a spectrum shift. Its not the visible light that typical gets you – at least in broad daylight – its those invisible infrared spectrums that light up the IR seekers in the IRSTs and AAM’s.

    in reply to: Phantom Upgrades #2432628
    MadRat
    Participant

    Cumulatively speaking we’re at an outward appearance resembling this:
    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7d/F-4_shoulder_canards.jpg
    …but with an elongated and fatter nose.

    **** dimensions ****
    Wingspan 38 feet 5 inches, wing area 530 square feet
    length 62 feet 11 inches, height 16 feet 6 inches

    **** internal fuel ****

    1142-gallons (post-block 40; 1260-gallons in early models cramped internal space)
    630-gallons in the wings

    **** external fuel/mounts ****
    fixed inflight refuelling probe; plumbed externally into boom refuelling receptacle (Kurnass)
    one fuselage centerline bomb rack and four pylon bomb racks
    1x 2,345L Sargent Fletcher centerline ext. fuel tank; mounted on Aero-27A ejector rack
    1x 4,230L conformal fuel tank under the fuselage (instead of 2,345L centerline tank) with integral AN/ALE-40 chaff/flare dispenser and pair of mounts for AMRAAM/2x Mk82
    2x 1,420L underwing McDonnell tank ext. fuel tank(s); mounted on MAU-12 outboard underwing pylons
    2x 4,800L conformal tanks on the sides of the fuselage spine (F-4X)
    centerline hard point with Aero-27A ejector rack and MER parent attachment (6 child attachments; 1000-pounds per child)
    inboard hardpoint with LAU-17/A pylon and BRU-41 MER parent attachment (6 child attachments; 1000-pounds per child)
    (NOTE: underwing BRU-41 MER limited to 5 bombs – 3 in front and 2 aft – due to clearance issues)
    outboard hardpoint with MAU-12 pylon and BRU-42 TER parent attachment (replaces ext. fuel tank; 3 child attachments; 1000-pounds per child)

    **** cockpit caveats ****
    one-piece wrap-around windscreen
    Martin Baker MK GH-7(A3) Ejection Seat
    color multi function cockpit screens
    Have Quick V/UHF and long range HF radios
    Kaiser/El Op holographic HUD
    PACT fly-by-wire (YF-4E demonstrator)
    hands-on-throttle-and-stick control system
    Twin-stick controls

    **** mechanicals ****
    2x Pratt & Whitney PW1120 (two engines were on one ‘Kurnass 2000’ F-4E demonstrator in 1987) = TF30 equivalent thrust
    F-4S wings (F-4J’s big wing with extra control surfaces)
    AN/ASW-21 data link digital communications system for automatic carrier landings
    canard winglets (YF-4E demonstrator)
    F-4F nose
    telescoping front undercarriage leg (British FG.1)
    F-4E stream-lined gun fairing attachment for MIDAS 4 gun gas diffuser
    leading edge manuevering slat-equipped main wings with flow fences
    slotted leading edge stabilizers
    retractable cockpit access ladder

    **** Sensors/Designators ****
    Norden AN/APG-76 Multi-Mission Radar System (SAR, GMTI, rbGM, DBS; Kurnass test prototype)
    Elbit ACE-3 mission computer (mated to AN/APG-76)
    Texas Instruments AN/APQ-172 J-band monopulse radar for terrain avoidance/following (replaces internal cannon; RF-4C)
    Westinghouse AN/ASQ-153 Pave Spike; mounted left forward missile bay when in use (guides LGB’s)
    Northrop AN/ASX-1 Target Identification Set Electro-Optical (TISEO); on left leading-edge of wing (USAF F-4E)
    ELOP Condor 2 Reconnaissance Pod (replaces G-139 pod with CAI KS-127F LOROP); attached direct to centerline station (IAF)
    LN100GT GPS/INS navigation system (TuAF)
    KB-35 Strike Recording Camera
    Rafael AN/AAQ-28 Litening II targeting pod (HAF/TuAF)
    AN/AVQ-9 laser target designator; slaved to TISEO
    AJB-7 low-altitude bombing system system equipment; nuclear weapons capability

    **** ECM ****

    Elta FG-3 Flight Guard IMI-RSD self-protection system (uses AN/ALE-47 dispenser)
    Raytheon AN/ALR-50 L-Band rwr
    Litton AN/ALR-69 1-16GHz ECM programmable reciever (works with ALQ-119 sets to acquire and jam signals)
    Litton AN/ALR-74 threat warning reciever; mounted instead of cannon or a forward missile bay when in use
    Litton AN/ALR-91(V) ECM C/D-band DF and IFM/SHR threat warning reciever
    Elisra Group SPS-1000V-5 radar warning system; internal (replaces Litton ALR-46/69)
    Elta EL/L-8233 internal ECM (Kurnass test) vs. Mikes AN/ALQ-178V3 passive embedded SPEWS
    General Electric AN/ALQ-71 1-8GHz 2-channel noise jammer ECM pod; installed in AIM-7 Sparrow bays, or three-cannister pod mounted on an inner pylon
    General Electric ALQ-87 1-8GHz FM, barrage jammer ECM pod; installed in AIM-7 Sparrow bays
    ALQ-101 ECM pod; under LAU-17/A twin launcher
    Westinghouse AN/ALQ-115(V)-15
    ALQ-119(V-10) ECM pod; installed in AIM-7 Sparrow bays (works with AN/ALR-69; F-4G)
    ALQ-131(V-14) ECM pod; installed in AIM-7 Sparrow bays (F-4G)
    Mikes AN/ALQ-178V3 passive embedded SPEWS
    Raytheon AN/ALQ-184(V)1
    Elta EL/L-8222 active ECM pod (TuAF) vs. ALQ-87 vs ALQ-119
    Agile Eye TAD-IRCM missile-seeker blinder (QF-4 test drone)

    **** Weapons ****
    4x AIM-120B AMRAAM (German F-4F ICE); installed in AIM-7 Sparrow bays with Frazer-Nash ejectors (ICE)
    (NOTE: front bays typically support an accompanying pod underneath; i.e. ALQ-87, ALQ-119, or ALQ-131 ECM pods)
    4x AIM-9M (HAF), Python-3 (IAF), Type 90 AAM-3 (Japan), or IRIS-T (german test F-4); 2x AAM on each u/w twin-rack LAU-17/A launcher
    (NOTE: LAU-17/A twin launchers typically support an accompanying pod or TER underneath, i.e. ALQ-101 ECM pods)
    (NOTE: inboard LAU-17/A can support 2x AIM-9 or 1x AIM-9/120)
    (NOTE: Up to 4x AIM-4B were carried by early model F-4E for strictly bomber-intercept missions)
    Matra rocket pods with 18 × SNEB 68 mm rockets each; attached direct to MER or TER
    LAU-3/A 19-round 70mm (2.75-inch) Rockets launcher; attached direct to MER or TER
    LAU-10/A 4-round 127mm (5-inch) Rockets launcher; attached direct to MER or TER
    LAU-130/A 19-round 70mm (2.75-inch) Rockets launcher; attached direct to MER or TER
    LAU-131/A 7-round 70mm (2.75-inch) infrared-marker Rockets launcher; attached direct to MER or TER
    AFDS gliding submunition dispensing weapon (Autonomous Flight Dispenser System; HAF)
    AGM-12B/C Bullpup; attached direct to pylon
    AGM-45 Shrike; attached direct to LAU-34A launcher
    AGM-62 Walleye; attached direct to MER or TER
    AGM-65B/D/G Maverick; attached direct to LAU-117/A single-rail or LAU-88/A triple-rail launcher
    AGM-78 Standard ARM; attached direct to inboard pylon(s) using LAU-80 or LAU-77/A launcher
    AGM-88 HARM; attached direct to LAU-118/A HARM launcher
    AGM-142 Popeye/Have Nap (Kurnass 2000); attached direct to pylon
    SUU-16/A external pod (ram air-powered M61A1 20 mm cannon; 1,200 rounds); attached direct to hardpoint/replaces pylon
    SUU-23/A external pod (self-powered M61A1 20 mm cannon; 1,200 rounds); attached direct to hardpoint/replaces pylon
    SUU-30H/B dispenser (650 BLU-63/B or 650 BLU-63A/B submunitions); attached direct to pylon
    Mk82 500-lb GP/LDGP bomb; maximum of 15; attached direct to MER or TER
    BSU-49 500-lb Baloot bomb; maximum of 15; attached direct to MER or TER
    Mk83 1000-lb bomb; attached direct to pylon, MER or TER
    Mk84 2000-lb bomb; attached direct to pylon
    M117 750-lb GP bomb; attached direct to pylon, MER or TER
    M118 3000-lb LDGP bomb; attached direct to pylon
    Mk15 Snakeye; attached direct to MER or TER
    Mk20 Rockeye; maximum of 12; attached direct to pylon, MER or TER
    BLU-1/B firebomb
    CBU-52 785-lb cluster bomb; maximum of 15; attached direct to pylon, MER or TER
    CBU-87 1000-lb cluster bomb; maximum of 15; attached direct to pylon, MER or TER
    GBU-1B
    GBU-2/2A/B
    GBU-3
    GBU-5B
    GBU-8/8B 2000-lb HOBoS Electro-Optical TV-Guided Bomb; attached direct to pylon
    GBU-10/10A/C/E/F/G/H/J Paveway II 2000-lb bomb; attached direct to pylon
    GBU-11
    GBU-12 Paveway II 500-lb bomb; maximum of 15; attached direct to MER or TER
    GBU-15 2000-lb modular guided glide bomb; attached direct to pylon
    GBU-16 Paveway II 1000-lb bomb; attached direct to pylon, MER or TER
    Mitsubishi Type 80 ASM-1 antiship missile; attached direct to pylon
    (Mitsubishi Type 93 ASM-2 antiship missile; attached direct to pylon?)
    “Turkish JDAM” (TuAF); attached direct to pylon
    TAAS-Israel Industries Deliliah/STAR-1 turboject UAV

    in reply to: Difference between Agility and Maneuverability? #2432703
    MadRat
    Participant

    There are two types of changing locations, distance and displacement. If you move from point A to point B the distance is the displacement. If you move from point A to point B to point C there may be significant distance without a displacement if point A and point C are identical.

    in reply to: 36 rafale for Brazil #2 #2432771
    MadRat
    Participant

    All the poor sports should be sanctioned by the WTO… wait, these players are the senior WTO members…

    MadRat
    Participant

    Drones don’t act predictable in heavy jamming environments. It would matter how strong the enemy is at EW before you assert hardware like that close to the action. If a ground commander had a direct link without the 6-8 seconds of delays to control it then you could do some amazing work with it.

    in reply to: UK bombs and Paveway's #1806175
    MadRat
    Participant

    For the marginal differences I’m surprised they’d move to such high weights. The 100-, 200-, 400-, and 800-kilogram weights would suffice. Seriously, why carry the extra 25% when it makes no real world difference in effect?

    in reply to: UK bombs and Paveway's #1806178
    MadRat
    Participant

    I would have thought they would standardize NATO bombs around kilograms, rather than U.S. Standard Weights. There’s plenty of room for 100-, 200-, 400-, and 800-kilogram versions. Not a lot of difference between a 440-pounder and a 500-pounder, just as the difference between an 880-pounder and a 1000-pounder would be moot. You can obliterate buildings with a 100-kilogram bomb with today’s precision packages, making the smaller size worthwhile. No reason you would need more than an 800-kilogram/1760-pounder, in which case you would want to move to a specialty weapon. The less fuel burnt carrying them would be a real operational savings.

    in reply to: 36 rafale for Brazil #2 #2432858
    MadRat
    Participant

    France locks you into their equipment, the supply chain, and their service. Saab washes their hands of you slower when you deviate from their feeding hand.

    MadRat
    Participant

    No, just more precise rocket strikes. Means you could theoretically carry a rocket pod to replace a rack of bombs. What kind of cost comparison is it to gps-guided Mk82’s?

    in reply to: Difference between Agility and Maneuverability? #2432861
    MadRat
    Participant

    Displacement versus direction.

    in reply to: Phantom Upgrades #2432862
    MadRat
    Participant

    What does radar have to do with an anti-radar missile? Wouldn’t that be more of an issue of the self defense gear onboard? For example, the F-4G had the AN/APQ-120 radar of the F-4E, but I believe its AN/APR-38 (later -47) RHAW gear was the primary instrument in its use of the AGM-78 and AGM-88.

    Only certain fire control interfaces fit certain radar packages. While the AGM-88 didn’t slave off the AN/APQ-120, it did require that interface for the missile compatibility, interface compatibility that is shared with more recent radars. I don’t know if that compatibility is deleted with the AN/APG-76 or not as those missiles are largely obsolete now.

    You’re probably right on the radars, was going off short-term memory. Was thinking that the AN/APG-76 was demonstrated but not deployed. Seems like for other than reconn its a little overkill for a country that doesn’t operate JSTARS-equivalent and run a complete battlespace management program. SAR radars (with some trouble) can be all linking their information together for increasing the granular picture of battlespace.

    in reply to: Russian Navy News & Discussion, Part III #2007642
    MadRat
    Participant

    Tankers are known to be tough.

    Exactly, and crude is positive buoyant. Not to mention tanks were topped off with inert fluid to keep airspace to a minimum. And that most missile strikes on shipping were not Exocets, but rather missiles designed to attack land vehicles namely TOW and Maverick.

Viewing 15 posts - 3,376 through 3,390 (of 4,651 total)